.

of becoming acquainted with early opinions on this subject as any man then living.

2. That a departure from the primitive model of church government had taken place in Jerome's day; that this departure consisted in making a distinction of order between Bishops and Presbyters; and that this distinction was neither warranted by Scripture, nor conformable to the apostolic model; but owed its origin to the decay of religion, and especially to the ambition of ministers. It commenced "when every one began to think that those whom he baptized were rather his than Christ's."

3. It is expressly asserted by Jerome, that this change in the constitution of the Christian ministry came in (paulatim ) by little and little. He says, sindeed, in one of the passages above quoted, that it was agreed "all over the world," as a remedy against schism, to choose one of the Presbyters, and make him President or Moderator of the body; and some commentators on this passage have represented it as saying that the change was made all at once. Fortunately, however, we have Jerome's express declaration in another place, that the practice came in gradually. But whether half a century or two centuries elapsed before the "whole world" came to an agreement on this subject, he does not say.

4. Jerome further informs us, that the first pre-eminence of Bishops was only such as the body of the Presbyters were able to confer. They were only standing Presidents or Moderators; and all the ordination they received, on being thus chosen,

h

was performed by the Presbyters themselves*. This he tells us was the only Episcopacy that existed in the church of Alexandria, one of the most conspicuous then in the world, until after the middle of the third century.

5. It is finally manifest, from these quotations, that while Jerome maintains the parity of all ministers of the Gospel in the primitive church, he entirely excludes Deacons from being an order of clergy at all. “ Who can endure it, that a minis“ ter of tables and of widows should proudly 'exalt “ himself above those at whose prayers the body

and blood of Christ is made ?"

Some zealous Episcopal writers have endeavored to destroy the force of these express declarations of Jerome, by quoting other passages, in which he

* To this some Episcopal writers reply, that Jerome does not expressly assert that the Presbyters ordained the Bishop, "but only that they chose him, placed him in a higher seat, and called him Bishop. And hence they take the liberty of infer. ring that the election was by the Presbyters, but the ordination by other diocesan Bishops. To suppose this, is to make Ferome reason most inconclusively, and adduce an instance which was not only nothing to the purpose, but directly hostile to his whole argument. If the Presbyters did not do all that was done, the case had nothing to do with his reasoning. Besides, Eutychius, the patriarch of Alexandria, in his Ori. gines Ecclesiæ Alexandrinæ, published by the learned Selden, expressly declares, “ that the twelve Presbyters constituted “ by Mark, upon the vacancy of the See, did choose out of “ their number one to be head over the rest, and the other “ eleven did lay their hands upon him, and blessed him, and " made him Patriarch."

a

speaks of Bishops and Presbyters in the current language of his time. For instance, in one place, speaking of that pre-eminence which Bishops had then attained, he asks,“ What can a Bishop do " that a Presbyter may not also do, excepting ordi“ nation?” But it is evident that Jerome, in this passage, refers, not to the primitive right of Bishops, but to a prerogative which they had gradually acquired, and which was generally yielded to them in his day. His position is, that even then, there was no right which they arrogated to themselves above Presbyters, excepting that of ordination. In like manner, in another place, he makes a kind of loose comparison between the officers of the Christian church, and the Jewish Priesthood. These passages, however, and others of a similar kind, furnish nothing in support of the Episcopal cause*, Jerome, when writing on ordinary occasions, -spoke of Episcopacy as it then stood. But when he undertook - explicitly to deliver an opinion respecting primitive Episcopacy,' he expressed himself in the

words we have seen ; words as absolutely decisive as any friend of Presbyterian-(parity could wish. To attempt to set vague allusions, and phrases of dubious import, in opposition to such express and unequivocal passa

G

Accordingly Bishop Stilling fleet declares, “ Among all " the fifteen testimonies produced by a learned writer out of

Ferome, for the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, I " cannot find one that does found it upon Divine right; but * only on the convenience of such an order, for the peace and

uinity of the church." "Irénicum,

ges; passages in which the writer professedly and formally lays down a doctrine, reasons at great length in its support, and deliberately deduces his conclusion, is as absurd as it is uncandid. ye. rome, therefore, notwithstanding all the arts which have been employed to set aside his testimony, remains a firm and decisive witness in support of our principle, that the doctrine of ministerial parity was the doctrine of the priinitive church. Accordingly Bishop Jewel, Professor Raignolds, Bishop Stilling fleet, and other learned divines of the church of England, interpret this Father, on the subject of Episcopacy, precisely as I have done, and consider him as expressly declaring that Bishop and Presbyter were the same in the apostolic age.

Hilary, who wrote about the year 376, in his Commentary on Ephesians iv. 2. has the following passage. “ After that churches were planted in all

places, and officers ordained, matters were set

tled otherwise than they were in the beginning. " And hence it is, that the Apostles' writings da “ not in all things agree to the present constitution of 15 the church: because they were written under the “ first rise of the church; for he calls Timothy, who

was created a Presbyter by him, a Bishop, for so at “ first the Presbyters were called ; among whom this “ was the course of governing churches, that as

withdrew another took his place; and in Egypt, even at this day, the Presbyters ordain “ in the Bishop's absence. But because the follow

ing Presbyters began to be found unworthy to ho hold the first place, the method was changed, the

one

"Council providing that not order, but merit should create a Bishop."

In this passage, we have not only an express declaration that the Christian church, in the days of Hilary, had deviated from its primitive pattern; but also that this deviation had a particular respect to the name and office of Bishop, which, in the beginning, was the same with Presbyter. He also declares, that, notwithstanding this change, Presbyters, even then, sometimes ordained; and that the reason of their not continuing to exercise this power was, that many of them being unfit to be trusted with such a power, it was taken out of their hands, as a prudential measure, by the authority of the church.

The testimony of Chrysostom, who wrote about the year 398, is also in our favor. "The Apos “tles,” says he, "having discoursed concerning "the Bishops, and described them, declaring what "they ought to be, and from what they ought to "abstain, omitting the order of Presbyters, de"scends to the Deacons; and why so, but because "between Bishop and Presbyter there is scarcely

any difference; and to them is committed both "the instruction and the Presidency of the church; "and whatever he said of Bishops agrees also to "Presbyters. In ordination alone they have gone beyond the Presbyters*." In 1 Epist. ad Tim. "Hom. 11.

This perfectly agrees with the representation of Jerome, (with whom Chrysostom was nearly contemporary) who says,