Images de page
PDF
ePub

over every church, and so called from their duty to oversee sacred affairs, called also presbyters or elders, from their age and gravity; shepherds, from their office of feeding the flock; teachers and ministers of the word, from their office of teaching; and chiefs and rulers, from their prerogative of governing.'

Du Pin allows no distinction between bishops and presbyters in the first century. He supposes a distinction to have arisen in the second century, under Ignatius. Even then, however, he only pleads for some distinction; so far as to imply, that the bishops 'presided over the church and presbyters.'1

Milman, in his recent History of Christianity, while he advocates the episcopal form of the early church, yet candidly acknowledges the extreme difficulty of deciding the matter. The primitive constitution of these churches is a subject which it is impossible to decline; though few points in christian history rest on more dubious and imperfect, in general on inferential evidence, yet few have been contested with greater pertinacity. The whole of christianity, when it emerges out of the obscurity (that is, the evident presbyterian parity) of the first century, appears uniformly governed by certain superiors of each community called bishops. But the origin and extent of this superiority, and the manner in which the bishop assumes a distinct authority from the inferior presbyters, is among those difficult questions of christian history which, since the reformation, has been more and more darkened, by those fatal enemies to candid and dispassionate inquiry, prejudice, and interest. The earliest Christian communities appear to have been ruled and represented, in the absence of the apostle, who was their first founder, by their elders, who are likewise called bishops, or overseers of the churches. These PRESBYTER BISHOPS and deacons are the only two orders which we discover at first in the church of Ephesus, at Philippi, and perhaps in Crete. On the other hand, at a very early period, one religious functionary, superior to the rest, appears to have been almost universally recognised; at least, it is difficult to understand how, in so short a time, among communities, though not entirely disconnected, yet scattered over the whole Roman world, a scheme of government popular, or rather aristocratical, should become, even in form, monarchical.'2

1) Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 42.

2) The Hist. of Christ. vol. ii. pp. 63, 64. Eng. ed. B. ii. ch. iv.

2

'All presbyters,' says the Rev. Mr. Riddle,1as left in the churches by the apostles, were equal; but soon after the apostles' times, precedence and authority were granted to certain presbyters, in the several churches, as an expedient for good order. So also, in another place, he says, 'in the earliest times, when no formal distinction between σZOTOL and geourego had taken place, the presbyters, especially the 790801OTES, (1 Tim. 5: 17,) discharged those episcopal functions, which afterwards, when a careful distinction of ecclesiastical officers had been made, they were not permitted to discharge, otherwise than as substitutes or vicars of a bishop.'3

The able author of Letters on the Fathers, who is a member of the church of England, thus speaks. As to bishops, distinct from presbyters, we have no evidence, except that of Ignatius, for the two first centuries. Clement and Polycarp most clearly recognise but two orders. Barnabas and Hermas having nothing very distinct on the subject. Justin mentions only two officers in the church in his time, whom he calls president, (700EσTos,) and deacon, (Suazovos.) Irenæus uses the terms bishop and presbyter indiscriminately. Thus we see the weight of evidence during the two first centuries, is against the three orders, which may naturally create a suspicion, that those passages in Ignatius, which refer to them, are interpolations; for he stands alone in what he states, for the first two centuries, and not only alone but opposed by the strongest authorities during that period.'

Dr. Hawkins, in his recent discourse, says,5 There is no limit, indeed, to the universal reception of the orders of presbyter and deacon; it is coeval with the first planting of the churches of Christ; and, if we cannot assert, as I think we cannot, that, at the close of the first century, every considerable church had its bishop, as well as its presbyters and deacons, still there is, at least, abundant evidence, that it was the general practice.'

These testimonies are very strongly confirmed by the Peshito Syriac version of the New Testament, made according to bishop Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, bishop Lowth, Dr. Kennicott, and Michaelis, in the first century, or in the earlier part of the second century, uniformly renders, the Tosauregous, as it occurs in Acts, 20: 17, 28; in Peter, 5: 1, 2, 'elder;' and

p. 10.

1) Christian Antiquities, p. 186.
2) Ibid, p. 233.

3) See also his Eccl. Chronology,

4) P. 67.

5) On the Apostolical Succession.

Lond. 1842. p. 5. See also his Bampton Lect. p. 174.

6) Horne's Introd. vol. ii. p. 221, who thinks this the most probable opinion.'

6

the word лozorns, in 1 Tim. 3: 1, &c., the office of an elder.' On this fact, the learned John David Michaelis, in Introduction to the New Testament, thus remarks, We know that the distinction between bishops and elders was introduced into the Christian church in a very early age; yet the distinction was unknown to the Syrian translator.' In reference to this statement, Dr. Herbert Marsh, afterwards bishop of Peterborough, and a zealous high churchman, in his Notes' on Michealis's work, makes the following observation: This proves, that the Syriac translator understood his original; and that he made a proper distinction between the language of the primitive and the hierarchal church.'

[ocr errors]

6

This testimony, from the Syriac version, is remarkably confirmed by existing facts. Speaking of the Nestorians, Dr. Grant says,1 Their form of church government is essentially episcopal; but, with a single exception in the Jelu tribe, there is not a bishop among the independent Nestorians, where their religious forms have been preserved, the most exempt from any foreign influence. It was a singular fact, to which my attention was first called by the testimony of Dr. Buchanan, that there is not a word in the Syriac language, expressive of the office of bishop. The Nestorians, in common with the other Syrians, have borrowed the Greek term, episcopos. This is the more remarkable, considering the fact, that the Syriac language was extensively used in Palestine, in the days of our Saviour, and was spoken by our Lord himself; and considering, also, the very early date of the Syriac version of the scriptures, as early as the beginning of the second century. In every case where the term bishop occurs in our version, in theirs it is rendered presbyter or priest. I make these statements with the single remark, that, while this form of church government may be the best for the Nestorians, in their circumstances, there is enough in the facts I have mentioned, to caution us about too hasty an inference concerning the apostolic origin of episcopacy, on the ground, that it exists in a church, which was founded by the apostles.'

Thus, it appears, that the earliest writers, the best evidence that can be given, and the first links on which the whole chain must be suspended, are all against prelacy, and in favor of presbytery.

1) The Nestorians the Lost Tribes, pp. 105, 106. See Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 32, 553.

СНАРТЕR III.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIMITIVE FATHERS, IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMS OF PRESBYTERS TO THE TRUE MINIS

TERIAL SUCCESSION.

§ 1.

The testimony of Papias, and Justin Martyr.

Of the primitive fathers, the first of whom we have any record is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in Asia, A. D. 116. Of his exposition of the oracles of God only a few fragments remain. And of these, the only passage bearing on the question before us, is perhaps the one preserved by Eusebius,1 and which is as follows: 'I shall not think it grievous to set down in writing, with my interpretations, the things which I have learned of the presbyters, and remember as yet very well, being fully certified of their truth. If I met any where with one who had conversed with the presbyters, I inquired after the sayings of the presbyters; what Andrew, what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas, or James had said; what John, or Matthew, or any other disciples of the Lord were wont to say; and what Ariston, or John the presbyter, said: for I am of the mind that I could not profit so much by reading books, as by attending to those who spake with the living voice.' It is very evident from this extract, that, in the estimation of this primitive father, the presbyterate was the highest order in the ministry, and the true succession of the apostles, in their ordinary ministry, since he speaks only of presbyters, and expressly calls the apostles themselves, presbyters.2

Of Justin Martyr, who lived A. D. 140,3 we have numerous and very celebrated writings. That which relates to this

1) Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 39. 2) Ibid, lib. iii. c. 29. See in Dr. Miller, on the Min. p. 97. Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. of the Ch. pp. 13-15.

3) I adopt the arrangement o Clarke, in his Succ. of Sacred Literat. vol. i. p. 95.

subject, will be found contained in his Apology, from chapter eighty-five to eighty-eight. The moderator of the christian assembly, he denominates 90εστws, pro-estos, or president, by whom, as is allowed, we are to understand, bishop. In these chapters, says Mr. Powell,1 this term, and this only, as designating the minister, occurs six times; neither the term bishop nor presbyter is used at all. The word simply means a president. Reeves, the translator of Justin, a churchman, and who loses no opportunity of opposing sectarians, allows, in his notes on the passage, that the προεστώς of Justin, the probati seniores of Tertullian, the majores natu, in Cyprian's works, (Ep. seventy-five,) and the gooTWTES TOEσBUTEgo, or presiding presbyters, of St. Paul, (1 Tim. 4: 17,) were all one and the same. Now Tertullian, Cyprian, (or rather Firmilian, the celebrated bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia,) and St. Paul, all mean presbyters. Their language cannot be otherwise interpreted without violence. Presbyter,' says bishop Jewel, is expounded in latin, by natu major!

2

[ocr errors]

According to Justin Martyr, therefore, the bishop, who was the pastor of a single congregation, and therefore, by no possibility, a prelate, was also a presbyter. As such he offered up prayers, and gave thanks, in the church; administered the Lord's supper; delivered discourses; and generally conducted the worship of the congregation; in all which duties we have described to us the office of a pastor, but not that of a prelate. Justin, it will be observed, employs the very term, so commonly applied to presbyters throughout the New Testament, and calls his bishop the rooσTOS, the presbyter who presided, the moderator or, primus inter pares. This is admitted by Dr. Heylin himself, who, like Balaam blessing Israel, when he would fain have cursed them, establishes a presbyterian parity of pastors, while he is most desirous to destroy it, by making the bishop, in Justin Martyr's time, all one with the ordinary preacher of God's word, and celebrator of the eucharist.3 Neither is there any colorable pretext for the supposition that the bread, of whose distribution, he informs us, was sent by the deacons to other congregations, and not to the absent members. This evasion, only shows that any improbabilities will be cheerfully adopted, rather than yield to the force of evidence, when it is subversive of prelatic claims.4

1) Powell on Apost. Succ. pp.

52, 53.

2) See our Lect. on.

3) Hist. of Episcop. part ii. p. 39.

4) On this objection, see Boyse's Anct. Episcop. pp. 115, 116. Jame son's Fund. of the Hier. p. 224.

« PrécédentContinuer »