history records the succession of bishops through many ages; and even
during the first three centuries, before Christianity was incorporated
with the state, every city, where the multitude of Christians required a
number of pastors to perform the stated offices, presents to us, as far
as we can gather from contemporary writers, an appearance very much the
same with that of the church of Jerusalem in the days of the Apostles.
The Apostle James seems to have resided in that city. But there is also
mention of the elders of the church, who, according to the Scripture
representation of elders, must have discharged the ministerial office,
but over whom the Apostle James presided. So, in Carthage, where Cyprian
was bishop, and in every other Christian city of which we have
particular accounts, there was a college of presbyters; and there was
one person who had not only presidency, but jurisdiction and authority,
over the rest. They were his council in matters relating to the church,
and they were qualified to preach, to baptize, and to administer the
Lord’s Supper; but they could do nothing without his permission and
authority. It is a principle in Christian antiquity, εἶς ἐπίσκοπος, μία
ἐκκλησία, “one bishop, and one church.” The one bishop had the care of
all the Christians, who, although they met in separate congregations,
constituted one church; and he had the inspection of the pastors, who,
having received ordination from the bishop, officiated in the separate
congregations, performed the several parts of duty which he prescribed
to them, and were accountable to him for their conduct. In continuation
of this primitive institution, we find episcopacy in all corners of the
church of Christ. Until the time of the reformation, there were, in
every Christian state, persons with the name, the rank, and the
authority of bishops; and the existence of such persons was not
considered as an innovation, but as an establishment, which, by means of
catalogues preserved in ecclesiastical writers, may be traced back to
the days of the Apostles.
4. Upon the principles which have now been stated, it is understood,
according to the episcopal form of government, that there is in the
church a superior order of office-bearers, the successors of the
Apostles, who possess in their own persons the right of ordination and
jurisdiction, and who are called ἐπισκόποι, as being the overseers not
only of the people, but also of the clergy; and an inferior order of
ministers, called presbyters, the literal translation of the word
ϖρεσϐυτέροι, which is rendered in our English Bibles _elders_, persons
who receive, from the ordination of the bishop, power to preach and to
administer the sacraments, who are set over the people, but are
themselves under the government of the bishop, and have no right to
convey to others the sacred office, which he gives them authority to
exercise under him. According to a phrase used by Charles I, who was by
no means an unlearned defender of that form of government to which he
was a martyr, the presbyters are _episcopi gregis_; [bishops of the
flock;] but the bishops are _episcopi gregis et pastorum_, [bishops of
the flock and of the pastors.]
5. The liberal writers on that side, however, do not contend that this
form of government is made so binding in the church as not to be
departed from, and varied according to circumstances. It cannot be
proved, says Dr. Paley, that any form of church government was laid down
in the Christian, as it had been in the Jewish, Scriptures, with a view
of fixing a constitution for succeeding ages. The truth seems to have
been, that such offices were at first erected in the Christian church as
the good order, the instruction, and the exigencies of the society at
that time required; without any intention, at least without any declared
design, of regulating the appointment, authority, or the distinction, of
Christian ministers under future circumstances. To the same effect,
also, Bishop Tomline says, “It is not contended that the bishops,
priests, and deacons of England are at present precisely the same that
bishops, presbyters, and deacons were in Asia Minor, seventeen hundred
years ago. We only maintain that there have always been bishops,
priests, and deacons, in the Christian church, since the days of the
Apostles, with different powers and functions, it is allowed, in
different countries and at different periods; but the general principles
and duties which have respectively characterized these clerical orders
have been essentially the same at all times, and in all places; and the
variations which they have undergone have only been such as have ever
belonged to all persons in public situations, whether civil or
ecclesiastical, and which are indeed inseparable from every thing in
which mankind are concerned in this transitory and fluctuating world. I
have thought it right to take this general view of the ministerial
office, and to make these observations upon the clerical orders
subsisting in this kingdom, for the purpose of pointing out the
foundation and principles of church authority, and of showing that our
ecclesiastical establishment is as nearly conformable, as change of
circumstances will permit, to the practice of the primitive church. But,
though I flatter myself that I have proved episcopacy to be an
Apostolical institution, yet I readily acknowledge that there is no
precept in the New Testament which commands that every church should be
governed by bishops. No church can exist without some government; but
though there must be rules and orders for the proper discharge of the
offices of public worship, though there must be fixed regulations
concerning the appointment of ministers, and though a subordination
among them is expedient in the highest degree, yet it does not follow
that all these things must be precisely the same in every Christian
country; they may vary with the other varying circumstances of human
society, with the extent of a country, the manners of its inhabitants,
the nature of its civil government, and many other peculiarities which
might be specified. As it has not pleased our almighty Father to
prescribe any particular form of civil government for the security of
temporal comforts to his rational creatures, so neither has he
prescribed any particular form of ecclesiastical polity as absolutely
necessary to the attainment of eternal happiness. But he has, in the
most explicit terms, enjoined obedience to all governors, whether civil
or ecclesiastical, and whatever may be their denomination, as essential
to the character of a true Christian. Thus the Gospel only lays down
general principles, and leaves the application of them to men as free
agents.” Bishop Tomline, however, and the high Episcopalians of the
church of England, contend for an original distinction in the office and
order of bishops and presbyters; which notion is controverted by the
Presbyterians, and is, indeed, contradicted by one who may be truly
called the founder of the church of England, Archbishop Cranmer, who
says, “The bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two
things; but both one office in the beginning of Christ’s religion.” The
more rigid Episcopalians admit of no ordination as valid in the church
but by the hands of bishops, and those derived in a right line from the
Apostles. See PRESBYTERIANS.
6. The churches of Rome and of England are the principal Episcopalian
churches in the west of Europe; and those of the Greeks and Arminians in
the east; but, beside these, there are Episcopalians in Scotland, and in
other countries, where, Presbyterianism being the establishment, they
are, of course, Dissenters. Thus a Presbyterian is a Dissenter in
England, and an Episcopalian a Dissenter in Scotland. There is also an
Episcopalian church in the United States of America; but there being no
established religion, there are, of course, no Dissenters. The Episcopal
church in America is organized very differently from that in England.
The following particulars are from the best authorities:--The general
convention was formed in 1789, by a delegation from the different
states, and meets triennially. They have eleven dioceses, two of which
are without bishops, and are at liberty to form more in other states.
The above convention consists of an upper and lower house; the former
consisting of bishops, in which the senior bishop presides: they have no
archbishop: and the lower, of the other clergy, and laymen mingled with
them. There are also diocesan conventions annually, in which the bishop
presides. The bishops have no salaries as such, but are allowed to hold
parishes as other ministers; but it has lately been found more
convenient in many states to raise a fund for the support of the bishop,
that his time may be more at liberty for visiting the clergy. They have
neither patronage nor palaces, and some of their incomes are extremely
small. The English Common Prayer Book is adopted, with the omission of
the Athanasian Creed, and some other slight alterations. Subscription to
the articles is not required by candidates for holy orders. The
Methodists in America, also, form an episcopal church; but founded upon
the primitive principle that bishops and presbyters are of the same
_order_, although the _oversight_ of presbyters may be committed to
those who are, by virtue of their office, also called _bishops_.
[The Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in December, 1784. The
fundamental principle on which the episcopacy of this church rests, is
here correctly stated. It is proper to add to Mr. Watson’s enumeration,
that the Roman and Moravian churches in the United States are also
episcopal; and that the statement that the bishops of the Protestant
Episcopal Church receive no salaries as bishops, is not at present
(1832) without exception. Their incomes, too, though doubtless extremely
small compared with those of the bishops of the establishment in
England, are not so, compared with those of other ministers generally in
the United States.
EPISTLES, which occur under the same Hebrew word with books, namely,
ספר, are mentioned the more rarely, the farther we go back into
antiquity. An epistle is first mentioned, 2 Sam. xi, 14, &c. Afterward,
there is more frequent mention of them; and sometimes an epistle is
meant, when literally a messenger is spoken of, as in Ezra iv, 15–17. In
the east, letters are commonly sent unsealed. In case, however, they are
sent to persons of distinction, they are placed in a valuable purse,
which is tied, closed over with wax or clay, and then stamped with a
signet, Isaiah xxix, 11; Job xxxviii, 14. The most ancient epistles
begin and end without either salutation or farewell; but under the
Persian monarchy the salutation was very prolix. It is given in an
abridged form in Ezra iv, 7–10; v, 7. The Apostles, in their epistles,
used the salutation customary among the Greeks; but they omitted the
usual farewell at the close, namely, χαίρειν, and adopted a benediction
more conformable to the spirit of the Christian religion. St. Paul, when
he dictated his letters, wrote the benediction at the close with his own
hand, 2 Thess. iii, 17. He was more accustomed to dictate his letters
than to write them himself.
The name _Epistles_ is given, by way of eminence, to the letters written
by the Apostles, or first preachers of Christianity, to particular
churches or persons, on particular occasions or subjects. Of these the
Apostle Paul wrote fourteen. St. James wrote one general epistle; St.
Peter two; St. John three; and St. Jude one.
An epistle has its Hebrew name from its being rolled or folded together.
The modern Arabs roll up their letters, and then flatten them to the
breadth of an inch, and paste up the end of them, instead of sealing
them. The Persians make up their letters in a roll about six inches
long, and a bit of paper is fastened round it with gum, and sealed with
an impression of ink, which resembles our printers’ ink, but is not so
thick. Letters, as stated above, were generally sent to persons of
distinction in a bag or purse; but to inferiors, or those who were held
in contempt, they were sent open, that is, unenclosed. Lady M. W.
Montagu says, the _bassa_ of Belgrade’s answer to the English ambassador
going to Constantinople was brought to him in a purse of scarlet satin.
But, in the case of Nehemiah, an insult was designed to be offered to
him by Sanballat, in refusing him the mark of respect usually paid to
persons of his station, and treating him contemptuously, by sending the
letter open, that is, without the customary appendages when presented to
persons of respectability. “Futty Sihng,” says Mr. Forbes, “sent a
_chopdar_ to me at Dhuboy, with a letter of invitation to the wedding,
then celebrating at Brodera at a great expense, and of long continuance.
The letter, as usual, from oriental princes, was written on silver
paper, flowered with gold, with an additional sprinkling of saffron,
enclosed under a cover of gold brocade. The letter was accompanied with
a bag of crimson and gold _keem-caub_, filled with sweet-scented seeds,
as a mark of favour and good omen.”
EPOCH, a term in chronology signifying a fixed point of time, from which
the succeeding years are numbered. Scaliger says it means “a stop,”
because “in epochs stop and terminate the measures of times.” It now
usually denotes a remarkable date; as, the epoch of the destruction of
Troy, B. C. 1183, &c. The first epoch is the creation of the world,
which, according to the Vulgate Bible, Archbishop Usher fixes in the
year 710 of the Julian period, and 4004 years before Jesus Christ. The
second is the deluge, which, according to the Hebrew text, happened in
the year of the world 1656. Six other epochs are commonly reckoned in
sacred history: the building of the tower of Babel, which was, according
to Dr. Hales, B. C. 2554; the calling of Abraham, B. C. 2153; the
departure of the Israelites out of Egypt, B. C. 1648; the dedication of
the temple, B. C. 1027; the end of the Babylonish captivity, B. C. 536;
and the birth of Jesus Christ, A. D. 1. In profane history are reckoned
five epochs: the founding of the Assyrian empire, B. C. 1267; the era of
Nabonassar, or death of Sardanapalus, B. C. 747; the reign of Cyrus at
Babylon, B. C. 556; the reign of Alexander the Great over the Persians,
B. C. 330; and the beginning of the reign of Augustus, in which our
Saviour was born, B. C. 44.
ERA. The term _era_ (not _æra_, as incorrectly written) is Spanish,
signifying time, as in the phrase, _de era en era_, “from time to time.”
It was first used in the _Era Hispanica_, instituted B. C. 38, in honour
of Augustus, when Spain was allotted to him in the distribution of the
provinces among the second triumvirate, Augustus, Anthony, and Lepidus.
It now usually denotes an indefinite series of years, beginning from
some known epoch; and so differs from a period which is a definite
series: as the era of the foundation of Rome, the era of the Olympiads,
the era of Nabonassar, &c. See EPOCH.
ESAR-HADDON, son of Sennacherib, and his successor in the kingdom of
Assyria: called Sargon, or Saragon, Isa. xx, 1. He reigned twenty-nine
years. He made war with the Philistines, and took Azoth, by Tartan, his
general: he attacked Egypt, Cush, and Edom, Isa. xx, xxxiv; designing,
probably, to avenge the affront Sennacherib his father had received from
Tirhakah, king of Cush, and the king of Egypt, who had been Hezekiah’s
confederates. He sent priests to the Cuthæans, whom Salmaneser, king of
Assyria, had planted in Samaria, instead of the Israelites: he took
Jerusalem, and carried King Manasseh to Babylon, of which he had become
master, perhaps, because there was no heir to Belesis, king of Bayblon.
He is said to have reigned twenty-nine or thirty years at Nineveh, and
thirteen years at Babylon; in all forty-two years. He died A. M. 3336.
ESAU, son of Isaac and Rebekah, born A. M. 2168, B. C. 1836. When the
time of Rebekah’s delivery came, she had twins, Gen. xxv, 24–26: the
first-born was hairy, therefore called Esau; that is, a man full grown
or of perfect age; but some derive Esau from the Arabic _gescha_ or
_gencheva_, which signifies a hair cloth. Esau delighted in hunting, and
his father Isaac had a particular affection for him. On one occasion,
Esau, returning from the fields greatly fatigued, desired Jacob to give
him some red pottage, which he was then preparing. Jacob consented,
provided Esau would sell him his birthright. Esau complied, and by oath
resigned it to him, Gen. xxv, 29–34. Esau, when aged forty, married two
Canaanitish women, Judith, daughter of Beeri, the Hittite; and
Bashemath, daughter of Elon, Gen. xxvi, 34. These marriages were very
displeasing to Isaac and Rebekah, because they intermingled the blood of
Abraham with that of Canaanite aliens. Isaac being old, and his sight
decayed, directed Esau to procure him delicate venison by hunting, that
he might give him his chief blessing, Gen. xxvii. The artifice of his
mother, however, counteracted his purpose; and she contrived to impose
upon Isaac, and to obtain the father’s principal blessing for her son
Jacob. Esau was indignant on account of this treachery and determined to
kill Jacob as soon as their father should die. Rebekah again interposed,
and sent Jacob away to her brother Laban, with whom he might be secure.
During the period of separation, which lasted several years, Esau
married a wife of the family of Ishmael; and, removing to Mount Seir,
acquired great power and wealth. When Jacob returned, after long
absence, to his father’s country, with a numerous family, and large
flocks and herds, he dreaded his brother’s displeasure; but they had an
amicable and affectionate interview. After their father’s death, they
lived in peace and amity; but, as their possessions enlarged, and there
was not sufficient room for them in the land in which they were
strangers, Esau returned to Mount Seir, where his posterity multiplied
under the denomination of Edomites. (See EDOM.) The time of his death is
not mentioned; but Bishop Cumberland thinks it probable that he died
about the same time with his brother Jacob, at the age of about one
hundred and forty-seven years, Gen. xxv-xxxvi.
2. On the most important part of this history, the selling of the
birthright, we may observe, (1.) That although it was always the design
of God that the blessing connected with primogeniture in the family of
Abraham should be enjoyed by Jacob, and to exercise his sovereignty in
changing the succession in which the promises of the Abrahamic covenant
might descend; yet the conduct of Rebekah and Jacob was reprehensible in
endeavouring to bring about the divine design by the unworthy means of
contrivance and deceit; and they were punished for their presumption by
their sufferings. (2.) That the conduct of Esau in selling his
birthright was both wanton and profane. It was wanton, because he,
though faint, could be in no danger of not obtaining a supply of food in
his father’s house; and was therefore wholly influenced by his appetite,
excited by the delicacy of Jacob’s pottage. It was profane, because the
blessings of the birthright were spiritual as well as civil. The church
of God was to be established in the line of the first-born; and in that
line the Messiah was to appear. These high privileges were despised by
Esau, who is therefore made by St. Paul a type of all apostates from
Christ, who, like him, profanely despise their birthright as the sons of
God. See BIRTHRIGHT.
ESDRAELON, PLAIN OF, in the tribe of Issachar, extends east and west
from Scythopolis to Mount Carmel; called, likewise, the Great Plain, the
Valley of Jezreel, the Plain of Esdrela. Dr. E. D. Clarke observes, it
is by far the largest plain in the Holy Land; extending quite across the
country from Mount Carmel and the Mediterranean Sea to the southern
extremity of the Sea of Galilee; about thirty miles in length, and
twenty in breadth. It is also a very fertile district, abounding in
pasture; on which account it has been selected for the purposes of
encampment by almost every army that has traversed the Holy Land. Here
Barak, descending with his ten thousand men from Mount Tabor, which
rises like a cone in the centre of the plain, defeated Sisera, with his
“nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him,
gathered from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon; and
pursued after the chariots and after the host unto Harosheth of the
Gentiles; and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword;
and there was not a man left,” Judges iv. Here Josiah, king of Judah,
fell, fighting against Necho, king of Egypt, 2 Kings xxiii, 29. And here
the Midianites and the Amalekites, who were “like grasshoppers for
multitude, and their camels without number as the sand of the sea,”
encamped, when they were defeated by Gideon, Judges vi. This plain has
likewise been used for the same purpose by the armies of every conqueror
or invader, from Nabuchodonosor, king of Assyria, to his imitator,
Napoleon Buonaparte, who, in the spring of 1799, with a small body of
French, defeated an army of several thousand Turks and Mamelukes. Jews,
Gentiles, Saracens, Christians, crusaders, and antichristian Frenchmen,
Egyptians, Persians, Druses, Turks, and Arabs, warriors out of every
nation which is under heaven, have pitched their tents in the Plain of
Esdraelon; and have beheld the various banners of their nations wet with
the dews of Tabor and of Hermon. And it is to this day generally found
to be the place of encampment of large parties of Arabs.
ESDRAS, the name of two apocryphal books which were always excluded the
Jewish canon, and are too absurd to be admitted as canonical by the
Papists themselves. They are supposed to have been originally written in
Greek by some Hellenistical Jews; though some imagine that they were
first written in Chaldee, and afterward translated into Greek. It is
uncertain when they were composed, though it is generally agreed that
the author wrote before Josephus.
ESHBAAL, or ISHBOSHETH, the fourth son of Saul. The Hebrews, to avoid
pronouncing the word _baal_, “lord,” used _bosheth_, “confusion.”
Instead of Mephi-baal, they said Mephi-bosheth; and, instead of
Esh-baal, they said Ish-bosheth, 2 Sam. ii, 8.
ESHCOL, one of Abraham’s allies, who dwelt with him in the valley of
Mamre, and accompanied him in the pursuit of Chedorlaomer, and the other
confederated kings, who pillaged Sodom and Gomorrah, and carried away
Lot, Abraham’s nephew, Gen. xiv, 24. Also the valley or brook of Eshcol
was that in which the Hebrew messengers, who went to spy the land of
Canaan, cut a bunch of grapes so large that it was as much as two men
could carry. It was situated in the south part of Judah, Num. xiii, 24;
xxxii, 9.