Where do we get the terms "laity" and "clergy" from?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
Where do we get the terms "laity" and "clergy" from?

They seem foreign to the new testament and antithetical to my Baptist instinct. Having been looking at the perspicuity of scripture as a reformed doctrine...
 
The first use of "laity" appears to come from the 15th century and has an origin in the pre-reformation roman catholic church
 
Where do we get the terms "laity" and "clergy" from?
The term laity comes from the NT Greek word λαός, which simply means "people" in general.

The word clergy has Latin roots and is found frequently in the literature of the early church, a few examples being the following...

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Many times have the clergy erred; the bishop has wavered in his opinion; the rich men have adhered in their judgment to the earthly princes of the world; meanwhile the people alone preserved the faith entire. John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856), p. 197.
Latin text: Plerumque clerus erravit, Sacerdos mutavit sententiam, divites cum saeculi istius terreno rege senserunt; populus fidem propriam reservavit. In Psalmum David CXVIII Expositio, Sermo 17, §17, PL 15:1446. Cf. also Commentarius in Cantica Canticorum, Caput Septimum, §4, PL 15:1947C-D, Plerumque clerus erravit, sacerdos mutavit sententiam, divites cum saeculi istius terreno rege senserunt, populus fidem propriam reservavit.

Jerome (347-420): Liberius was ordained the 34th bishop of the Roman church, and when he was driven into exile for the faith, all the clergy took an oath that they would not recognize any other bishop. But when Felix was put in his place by the Arians, a great many foreswore themselves; but at the end of the year they were banished, and Felix too; for Liberius, giving in to the irksomeness of exile and subscribing to the heretical and false doctrine, made a triumphal entry into Rome. E. Giles, ed., Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454 (Westport: Hyperion Press, reprinted 1982), p. 151.
Latin text: LIBERIUS XXXIV Romanae Ecclesiae ordinatur episcopus, quo in exsilium ob fidem truso, omnes clerici juraverunt, ut nullum alium susciperent. Verum cum Felix ab Arianis fuisset in sacerdotium substitutus, plurimi pejeraverunt, et post annum cum Felice ejecti sunt: quia Liberius taedio victus exsilii, et in haereticam pravitatem subscribens, Romam quasi victor intraverat. S. Hieronymi Chronicon, Ad Ann. 352, PL 27:684-685.

I'm sure there are earlier examples, but these two were at hand (as it were) in my mind.
 
to what extent has the distinction lessened post-reformation?
They haven't in my opinion. I do not object to the terms as properly understood, being the distinction between duly appointed church leaders (elders) and other members of the body of Christ, of which we are all a part. I do not believe the distinction to have originated with the Roman communion, which is not catholic by any stretch of the imagination.
 
An additional note from Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon . . .

The Greek word ὁ κληρικός (cleric) means one who receives a lot or portion, hence one who holds official position in Church, member of clerical order, cleric. See G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 756.

One of the examples Lampe offers is from Athanasius who distinguishes between the clergy and laity (people): τοὺς τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας κληρικοὺς, καὶ λαοὺς . . . See Apologia Contra Arianos, §33, PG 25:304A.
Translation: “the clergy of the catholic church with the people,” See Defence Against the Arians, §33, NPNF2, Vol. IV.

These terms did not originate in the 15th century; they were the parlance/vernacular of the early church.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what the controversy is, to be honest.

The New Testament vary clearly shows that there are those who hold office in the church and those who do not. "Clergy" and "Laity" are just names for those two groups.
 
Although the Roman Catholic Church did not prohibit uneducated parishoners from reading Scripture, it's leaders discouraged such reading by teaching that the clergy were the sole authorative interpreters of Scripture. Protestants on the other hand, affirmed that even the most uneducated believers could understand Scripture. The practical result of this approach was the translation of the Bible into the common language of the people, the printing and distribution for the laity, and the promotion of Scripture reading and study by all.
 
I think it is the juxtaposition that strikes me.

( The juxtaposition of two contrasting objects, images, or ideas is the fact that they are put together, so that the differences between them are emphasized.)
 
The perspecuity of Scripture was a key issue debated by Protestants and Roman Catholics during the sixteenth-century Reformation. The question they wrestled with was: Is Scripture so difficult to understand that it can only be interpreted by the educated clergy, or is Scripture essentially clear, that is, perspicuous and hence understood by untrained laity?
 
@Eoghan,

The distinction between clergy and laity, as with many things, need not be understood according to Roman Catholic definitions. That Rome has dug a gulf between the two does not in fact diminish the truth that a distinction between clergy and laity is biblical, even if the terms themselves are not found in Scripture.

We do not teach, as Rome does, that the clergy (and especially the magisterium) is the only body capable of interpreting Scripture. You are quite right to point out that we hold to the doctrine of perspecuity of Scripture. And yet we believe that there are certain duties of the clergyman that lie out of bounds for a layman. Preaching is part of the rôle of the pastor (or shepherd) and ought not to be permitted to a layman (except in rare circumstances). Administration of the sacraments is likewise the domain of one who is ordained.

For his glory and our good, God has ordained an order for the church. The terms "clergy" and "laity" are how we describe that order.
 
Tom Hart "Administration of the sacraments is likewise the domain of one who is ordained."

I remember at the end of a fortnight mission we had communion together. This caused unease amongst some because there were no ordained clergy to officiate at the communion.

Is there any New Testament Scripture which states that communion must be administered by clergy? (I would not consider Old Testament texts dealing with the ceremonial law relevant)
 
The London Confession, Chapter 30, paragraph 3 quotes 1Corinthians 11 v23-26 as a proof text. This text records the institution of Lord's Supper and does not distinguish clergy from laity.
 
Westminster Confession of Faith:
There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

The rationale for this restriction of the administration of the sacraments is clear enough, I think. If the Word and the Sacrament belong together, then it makes sense that the minister of the Word needs to be there for the Lord's Supper and baptism. This is especially the case if you distinguish sharply between "preaching" (done by someone ordained) and "exhorting" (a word of encouragement by someone not ordained to that office, such as a seminary student.

Second, the sacraments are closely associated with church discipline. Whether paedo or credo baptist, churches believe that some may and others may not be baptized and receive the Lord's Supper. If anyone may lawfully baptize, how is that authority exercised? And if people may be excommunicated, that assumes some control over who communicates.

Third, proper order is necessary for these sacred things. If anyone may celebrate the Lord's Supper, the youth group Bible Study may end up sharing coke and pizza and calling it the Lord's Supper.

Two personal anecdotes may illustrate this. When I was in seminary one of my wife's co-workers asked if I could come over and baptize their child. She was a lapsed Roman Catholic, married to a Muslim who was out of the country for a visit. She feared that her child would go to hell otherwise. I declined to baptize the child, though we did continue to share the gospel with her.

Earlier, before I was in seminary, I was a missionary in Africa for two years. While there, I occasionally preached in local churches and on one occasion visited a church that was without a pastor (the missionaries generally provided the preaching, but it had been founded by Anglicans). On arrival they asked me if I would baptize child. Knowing that the other missionaries were all credo-baptist, I met with the family and found their profession of faith credible. Since the leaders of the church were in favor, and the baptism was part of a proper service with the word preached, I agreed (not yet having really thought through the issues). I knew it was irregular, but I thought deferring baptism of a covenant child indefinitely even more irregular.

With hindsight (and having written a paper on it for a seminary class), in the long-term absence of a pastor I would have encouraged the local leaders (= elders) to perform the baptism rather than someone like myself with no ecclesial standing. This solution is not exactly in accord with WCF 20, so I take an exception to this section and prefer "neither of which may ordinarily be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word." But I do so, fully affirming the intent of the Confession to safeguard the joining of Word and Sacrament, the authority of the church to include and exclude people from the sacraments and the necessity of proper order in these high and holy things. I have not since been in a situation where ministers of the Word are in short supply. But there are parts of the world where such things happen, and I don't see Biblical reason why in such a situation an elder might not administer the sacraments, along with the ministry of the Word.
 
being the distinction between duly appointed church leaders (elders) and other members of the body of Christ,

Not quite, in historic Reformed and Presbyterian polity (realizing modifications to this have occurred in some quarters).

The distinction described above would apply to that between those who hold the general office of believer and those who hold the special offices of ruling elder and minister.

However, in the traditional schema, the ruling elder is not part of the clergy, but part of the laity, meaning that, though he is a leader among the people (as elders always have been regarded), he is not one called to minister Word and sacrament.

Thus the distinction between clergy and laity, then, is not merely that of general and special office, but between those called to serve as ministers (or teaching elders) and all the rest of the congregation, which would include the other special officer-bearers (ruling elders and deacons).

Peace,
Alan
 
Protestants on the other hand, affirmed that even the most uneducated believers could understand Scripture.

This was not quite the claim of the magisterial Reformers, as captured in WCF 1.7: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Note that it begins by asserting that all things are not plain nor clear in Scripture. What is plain and clear, however, is that which must be known, believed, and observed for salvation, something to which even the unlearned may attain, not without a due use of the means, however (including preaching and teaching by those appointed to do so) and not a thorough or mature understanding but a sufficient one.

It was not the genius of the Reformation in any way to diminish the importance of the teaching office and to affirm that the unlearned didn't need such to help to attain a sufficient understanding of what pertains to salvation.

Just as put above--"even the most uneducated believers could understand Scriptures"--without further qualifications (as WCF 1.7 has), is not the doctrine of the magisterial Reformation but closer to that of the Radical Reformation. Some of the Anabaptists took a view that stressed the ability of all to understand Scripture, without the sort of qualifications that WCF 1.7 makes and that, from the perspective of all the Reformers, was quite important to make.

Peace,
Alan
 
Yes quite.
DTK

The meaning of this alludes me. Sorry!

If you mean by this that both the RE and the TE is a member of the clergy, this was not the case in the 16th or 17th centuries and remains not the case, for instance, in either the PCA or the OPC, where the clerical distinction remains, insofar as the RE is not a minister of Word and sacrament. The one who is such is the clergyman. The rest of the congregation, including the RE's, are the laity.

I am arguing here descriptively, not prescriptively (though I do not differ from this historical belief and practice). I've friends who would argue that all elders should be considered clerics and make a biblical case for such. That notwithstanding, they were not historically regarded that way and I believe that we got that right in history. It is the practice reflected in both of our books of church order (PCA and OPC).

Peace,
Alan
 
The meaning of this alludes me. Sorry!
I was speaking in general terms, and intended to keep things general. That's why I mentioned "elder" not deacon. It was not my intention to split hairs, and I think you're protesting too much. It was my distinct intention to leave aside modern day Presbyterian distinctions. But as soon as someone perceives one hasn't parse something perfectly with the right nuance, we are all about correcting them.
 
But as soon as someone perceives one hasn't parse something perfectly with the right nuance, we are about correcting them.

I hardly think, David, that what I am doing here is splitting hairs. The clergy/lay distinction is one between ministers of Word and sacrament and the people to whom they bring such ministry.

That is its historic and fundamental meaning and is the current view in both the OPC and PCA. Even for those who might say that the PCA has a two-office view, it is the case that the PCA requires an RE to be ordained as a TE (meaning that they see a clear distinction), and the RE also does not administer the sacraments (additionally, he doesn't ordinarily preach, unless licensed).

My intent here is not to correct you, as you put it, but to set the record straight about the historic Reformed and Presbyterian distinction between the clergy and the laity. You seem to imply that I should not do so, but why escapes me.

This is a conversation here and any may come on it and add qualifications, caveats, and the like. I certainly neither intended nor expressed any ill-will toward you in this, though I can't say that you've reciprocated that to me, which I find, frankly, puzzling.

Peace,
Alan
 
Why did the Reformers reject the traditional view that the deacon is a member of the clergy?
 
I was speaking in general terms, and intended to keep things general. That's why I mentioned "elder" not deacon. It was not my intention to split hairs, and I think you're protesting too much. It was my distinct intention to leave aside modern day Presbyterian distinctions. But as soon as someone perceives one hasn't parse something perfectly with the right nuance, we are all about correcting them.
I think you've taken offense where their was no need to. And maligned the other members of the board by insinuating we're all a bunch of hair-splitters. Nothing Alan said warranted that kind of response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top