Footnote 286:
_See Quest._ clviii. clix.
Footnote 287:
συμπρεσβυτερας.
Footnote 288:
επισκοπουντες.
Footnote 289:
_Legatus._
Footnote 290:
_See Calderwood Altar. Damsc. Jameson’s fundamentals of the hierarchy
examined; Forrester’s hierarchical bishop’s claim, &c. and Clarkson’s
no evidence for diocesan churches; and his diocesan churches not yet
discovered, &c._
Footnote 291:
_See Clarkson’s primitive episcopacy, chap. 7. in which he observes,
that it was decreed, by some councils, that they should continue in
this state of probation, at least, two or three years; and that
Augustin continued so long a Catechumen, as appears from the account
that Father gives of his age, when converted to Christianity, and
afterwards received into the church by Ambrose._
Footnote 292:
_See Primitive Episcopacy, Page 189-197._
Footnote 293:
_See Clarkson’s Primitive Episcopacy, chap. 8. in which he refers to
several places, in the writings of that excellent Father, to the same
purpose._
Footnote 294:
_See Stillingfleet Iren. Page 276._
Footnote 295:
“More than _fourteen hundred years ago_ the superiority of the
Prelates to Presbyters was attacked, in the most direct and open
manner, as having no authority from our Lord Jesus Christ. The banner
of opposition was raised not by a mean and obscure declaimer; but by a
most consummate Theologian. ‘By one who, in the judgment of Erasmus,
was, without controversy by far the most learned and most eloquent of
all the Christians; and the prince of Christian Divines.’[296]—By the
illustrious Jerome.[297]
Thus he lays down both _doctrine_ and _fact_ relative to the
government of the church, in his commentary on Titus i. 5.
_That thou shouldest ordain Presbyters in every city, as I had
appointed thee._[298]—What sort of Presbyters ought to be ordained he
shows afterwards,—_If any be blameless, the husband of one wife_, &c.
and then adds, _for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God_,
&c. A _Presbyter_, therefore, is the _same_ as a _Bishop_: and before
there were, _by the instigation of the devil_, parties in religion;
and it was said among different people, _I am of Paul, and I of
Apollos, and I of Cephas_, the churches were governed by _the joint
counsel of the Presbyters_. But _afterwards_, when every one accounted
those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, it
was _decreed throughout the whole world_, that one, chosen from among
the Presbyters, should be put over the rest, and that the whole care
of the church should be committed to him, and the seeds of schisms
taken away.
“Should any one think that this is my private opinion, and not the
doctrine of the scriptures, let him read the words of the apostles 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.
“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.” After 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
dissensions 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 of CHRIST.”
He pursues the same argument, with great point, in his famous Epistle
to Evagrius, asserting and proving from the Scriptures, that in the
beginning and during the Apostles’ days, a Bishop and a Presbyter were
the same thing. He then goes on: “As to the fact, that AFTERWARDS, one
was ELECTED to preside over the rest, this was done as a remedy
against schism; lest every one drawing his proselytes to himself,
should rend the church of Christ. For even at Alexandria, from the
Evangelist Mark to the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters
always chose one of their number, placed him in a superior station,
and gave him the title of Bishop: in the same manner as if an army
should MAKE an emperor; or the deacons should choose from among
themselves, one whom they knew to be particularly active, and should
call him ARCH-DEACON. For, excepting ordination, what is done by a
Bishop, which may not be done by a Presbyter? Nor is it to be
supposed, that the church should be one thing at Rome, and another in
all the world besides. Both France and Britain, and Africa, and
Persia, and the East, and India, and all the barbarous nations worship
one Christ, observe one rule of truth. If you demand authority, the
globe is greater than a city. Wherever a Bishop shall be found,
whether a Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or
Alexandria, or Tanis, he has the same pretensions, the same
priesthood.”[299]
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 Presbyters; 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 an _historical fact_, that, in the original
constitution of the church, before the devil had as much influence as
he acquired afterwards, _the churches were governed by the joint
counsels of the Presbyters_.
3. JEROME states it as an _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. “_Afterwards_,” says he, “when every one accounted those
whom he baptized as belonging to himself, and not to Christ, it was
_decreed throughout the whole world_, that one, chosen from among the
Presbyters, should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of
the church should be committed to him.”
4. JEROME states it as an _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.” The precise date on which this
innovation upon primitive order _commenced_, he does not mention; but
he says positively, that it did not take place till the factious
spirit of the Corinthians had spread itself in different countries, to
an alarming extent. “_In populis_,” is his expression. Assuredly, this
was not the work of a day. It had not been accomplished when the
apostolic epistles were written, because Jerome appeals to these for
proof that the churches were then governed by the joint counsels of
Presbyters; and it is incredible that such ruinous dissensions, had
they existed, should not have been noticed in letters to others beside
the Corinthians. The disease indeed, was of a nature to spread
rapidly; but still it must have time to travel. With all the zeal of
Satan himself, and of a parcel of wicked or foolish clergymen to help
him, it could not march from people to people, and clime to clime, but
in a course of years. If Episcopacy was the _apostolic_ cure for
schism, the contagion must have smitten the nations like a flash of
lightning. This would have been quite as extraordinary as an
instantaneous change of government:—No: the progress of the mischief
was gradual, and so, according to Jerome, was the progress of the
_remedy_ which the wisdom of the times devised.[300] We agree with
them, who think that the experiment introduced more evil than it
banished.
5. 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. _As, therefore_, says
he, _the Presbyters_ KNOW _that they are subjected to their superior
by_ CUSTOM, _so let the bishops know that they are above the
Presbyters, rather by the_ CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, _than by the Lord’s
appointment_.
6. JEROME states it as an _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, “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_.“