over the rest, and that the whole care of the church should be committed to him, and the seeds of schism taken away. "Should any one think that this is only my own private opinion, and not the doctrine of the Scriptures, let him read the words of the apostle in his epistle to the Philippians: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons," &c. Philippi, is a single city of Macedonia; and certainly in one city there could not be several bishops as they are now styled; but as they, at that time, called the very same persons bishops whom they called presbyters, the apostle has spoken without distinction of bishops as presbyters. After "Should this matter yet appear doubtful to any one, unless it be proved by an additional testimony, it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when Paul had come to Miletum, he sent to Ephesus and called the presbyters of that church, and among other things said to them, Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops." Take particular notice, that calling the PRESBYTERS of the single city of Ephesus, he afterwards names the same persons BISHOPS.' further quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and from Peter, he proceeds: 'Our intention in these remarks is to show, that, among the ancients, presbyters and bishops were THE VERY SAME. But that BY LITTLE AND LITTLE, that the plants of dissension might be plucked up, the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. As the presbyters, therefore, KNOW that they are subjected, BY THE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, to him who is set over them, so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters, MORE BY CUSTOM THAN BY ANY REAL APPOINTMENT CHRIST.' 134 Mason's Works, Vol. III, pp. 225-228. OF Again with the ancients, bishops and presbyters may have been one and the same, because the one denotes dignity in office, the other, superiority in age.135 "Here is an account of the origin and progress of Episcopacy by a father whom the Episcopalians themselves admit to have been the most able and learned man of his age; and how contradictory it is to their own account the reader will be at no loss to perceive, when he shall have followed us through an analysis of its several parts. "1. JEROME expressly denies the superiority of bishops. to presbyters, by divine right. To prove his assertion on. this head, he goes directly to the Scriptures; and argues, as the advocates of parity do, from the interchangeable titles of bishop and presbyter; from the directions given to them without the least intimation of difference in their authority; and from the powers of presbyters, undisputed in his day. "2. JEROME states it as a historical fact, that this government of the churches by presbyters alone, continued until, for the avoiding of scandalous quarrels and schisms, it was thought expedient to alter it. "3. JEROME states it as a historical fact, that this change in the government of the church, this creation of a superior order of ministers, took place, not at once, but by degrees,'Paulatim,' says he, by little and little.' "4. JEROME states, as historical facts, that the elevation: of one presbyter over the others was a human contrivance ; was not imposed by authority, but crept in by custom; and that the presbyters of his day knew this very well. "5. JEROME states it as a historical fact, that the first bishops were made by the presbyters themselves, and consequently they could neither have, nor communicate any authority above that of presbyters. 'Afterwards,' says he, 135 Apud veteres iidem episcopi et presbuteri fuerint; quia illud nomen dignitatis, est; hoc, aetatis.-Ep. ad Oceanum, Tom. 4, p. 648 'to prevent schism, one was elected to preside over the rest.' Elected and commissioned by whom? By the presbyters; for he immediately gives you a broad fact which it is impossible to explain away. At Alexandria,' he tells you, 'from the evangelist Mark to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius,' i. e., till about the middle of the third century, 'the presbyters always chose one of their number, placed him in a superior station, and gave him the title of bishop.' "It is inconceivable, how JEROME should tell the bishops to their faces that Christ never gave them any superiority over the presbyters; that custom was their only title; and that the presbyters were perfectly aware of this, unless he was supported by facts which they were unable to contradict. Their silence under his challenges is more than a presumption that they found it wise to let him alone." 136 The testimony of Jerome affords an authentic record of the change that was introduced into the government of the church, and the causes that led on to this change, by which the original constitution was wholly subverted. It was in his day a known and acknowledged fact, that prelacy had no authority from Christ or his apostles,-no divine right to its high pretensions. "The presbyters know that they are subject to their bishops," not by divine. right or apostolical succession, but "by the custom of the church." And to the same effect, is the admission of his contemporary, Augustin, the renowned bishop of Hippo, which we give in the words of a distinguished prelate of the church of England, as quoted by Aynton.137 "The office of a bishop is above the office of a priest [presbyter], not by the authority of Scripture, but after the names of honor, which through the custom of the church have now obtained." 138 Episcopacy, according to this eminent and 136 Mason's Works, Vol. III, pp. 233-251. 137 Jewel, Defence of his Apology, pp. 122, 123. 138 Quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major sit; tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est.-Ep. ad Hier., 19, alias 83, § 33, Op., Tom 2, col. 153. ancient prelate, is the result of custom, without any scriptural warrant whatever. This is in accordance, also, with the authority of Hilary, which has been given above. What a note of triumphant exultation would prelacy raise, did all antiquity offer half as much in defence of her lofty claims as these fathers allege against them. The most distinguished of the Greek fathers, again, concur with those of the Latin church, in their views of the identity of bishops and presbyters. Chrysostom, A. D. 407, in commenting upon the apostles' salutation of the bishops of Philippi, exclaims, "How is this? Were there many bishops in one city? By no means; but he calls the presbyters by this name; for at that time both were so called. The bishop was also called diúzovos, servant, minister; for, writing to Timothy, who was bishop, he says, ' make full proof of thy diazovlav, ministry.' He also instructs him to lay hands, as a bishop, suddenly on no man. And again: 'which was given thee by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.' But presbyters [as such] did not lay hands on the bishop. Again, writing to Titus, he says, 'for this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain presbyters in every city as I had commanded thee.' 'If any one be blameless, the husband of one wife.' This he says of a bishop; for he immediately proceeds to add: 'a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, not self-willed.' Wherefore, as I said, presbyters were anciently called bishops and stewards of Christ, and bishops were called presbyters. For this reason, even now, many bishops speak of their fellow-presbyter and fellow-minister; and finally, the name of bishop and presbyter is given to each indiscriminately." 139 Again: with reference to Paul, in 139 Συν επισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις, τί τοῦτο; μιᾶς πόλεως πολλοὶ ἐπίσκοποι ἦσαν; Οὐδαμῶς· ἀλλὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους οὕτως ἐκάλεσε· τότε γὰρ τέως ἐκοινώνουν τοῖς ὀνόμασι, καὶ 1 Tim. 3: S, Chrysostom says, that after discoursing of bishops, and showing what they should possess, and from what they ought to abstain, he proceeds immediately to speak of deacons, passing by the order of presbyters. Why so? Because there is not much distinction between them and bishops. For they also are set for the instruction and government of the church. What he had said of bishops was also applicable to presbyters; they have the superiority merely in the imposition of hands, and in this respect alone take precedence of the presbyters.140 This was said in relation to the time then present. Even at this late period this eminent prelate recognizes only a trifling distinction between bishop and presbyter. διάκονος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἐλέγετο. Διὰ τοῦτο γράφων καὶ Τιμοθέῳ ἔλεγε· τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον, ἐπισκόπῳ ὄντι. ὅτι γὰρ ἐπίσκοπος ἦν, φησὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει· καὶ πάλιν· ὃ ἐδόθη σοι μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίον· οὐκ ἂν δὲ πρεσβύτεροι ἐπίσκοπον ἐχειροτό νησαν. Καὶ πάλιν πρὸς Τίτον γράφων φησὶ· τούτου χάριν κατέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα καταστήσης κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέ ρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην· εἴ τις ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ· ἃ περὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου φησί. Καὶ εἰπὼν ταῦτα εὐθέως ἐπήγαγε δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι, ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθαδη. Οπερ οὖν ἔφην, καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκαλοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι, ὅθεν καὶ νῦν πολλοὶ συμπρεσβυτέρω ἐπίσκοποι γράφουσι, καὶ συνδιακόνῳ, λοιπὸν δὲ τὸ ἰδιάζον ἑκάστῳ ἀπονενέμηται ὄνομα, ὁ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος. Chrysostom, Ep. ad Phil., Tom. 11, p. 194. Καὶ 140 Διαλεγόμενος περὶ ἐπισκόπον καὶ χαρακτηρίσας αὐτοὺς, καὶ εἰπὼν τίνα μὲν ἔχειν, τίνων δὲ ἀπέχεσθαι χρὴ, καὶ τὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τάγμα ἀφεὶς, εἰς τοὺς διακόνους μετεπήδησε. Τι δήποτε; ὅτι οὐ πολὺ μέσον αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπισκόπων. γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ διδασκαλίαν εἰσὶν ἀναδεδεγμένοι καὶ προστασίαν τῆς ἐκκλησίας· καὶ ἃ περὶ ἐπισκοπων εἶπε, ταῦτα καὶ πρεσβυτέροις ἁρμόττει· τῇ γὰρ χειροτονία μόνῃ ὑπερβεβήκασι καὶ τούτῳ μόνον δοκοῦσι πλεονεκτεῖν τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους. Ibid., Ep. ad Tim. 1, Tom. 11, p. 604. |