the word ETLσкожηя, 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 understoood his original; and that he made a proper distinction between the language of the primitive and the hierarchal church.' 1 This testimony, from the Syriac version, is remarkably confirmed by existing facts. Speaking of the Nestorians, Dr. Grant says, "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 langnage 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. CHAPTER III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIMITIVE FATHERS, IN FAVOR OF THE § 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, 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_of 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 роεστwя, pro-estos, or president, by whom, as is allowed, we are to understand, bishop. In these chapters, says Mr. Powell, 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 πроεστшs of Justin, the probati seniores of Tertullian, the majores natu, in Cyprian's works, (Ep. seventy-five,) and the πроεσтшτея πрЄσBUTEρOL, 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.' 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 TроEσTws, 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 which 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.* 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. Jameson's Fund. of the Hier. p. 224. In reading Justin's description of divine worship, we might well imagine he was describing the services of a presbyterian assembly.1 On the whole, therefore, we may conclude, with Dr. Wilson, that 'having now passed the middle of the second century, and found one kind only of elders, and these the only ministers of the word, we may infer that such is the fair construction of the New Testament, on the ordinary officers of the church. The innovations which we are soon to witness in their gradual progress, were unauthorized, and, consequently, mere nullities. Though every denomination has on some point, erred, and the original names of the officers have been often changed, the providence of God has, in every age, preserved the two orders, and a legitimate administration.' § 2. The testimony of Irenaeus. The next writer, from whom we are able to produce any thing bearing upon this controversy, is Irenæus, who was bishop of Lyons, in France, A. D. 178, and the scholar and admirer of Polycarp. After Irenæus, according to Blondel, had been bishop for nine years, as successor to Pothinus, he is expressly denominated the presbyter of that church, in the letter addressed by the martyrs to Eleutherius, bishop of Rome. They here inform Eleutherius, that if righteousness could give a due place and rank, they should commend to him Irenæus among the first, as a presbyter of the church, which degree he had obtained." Bishop Stillingfleet" justly observes, that Blondel's argument does not lie here, that because they call him the presbyter of the church, therefore, he was no bishop; but he freely acknowledges him to have succeeded Pothinus there in his bishopric. But, because, after the difference arose elsewhere, between bishops and presbyters, yet they called him by the name of presbyter, it seems very improbable, that when they were commending one to the bishop of another church, they should make use of the lowest name of honor then appropriated to subjectpresbyters, which, instead of commending, were a great debas 1) Apol. i. pp. 95-7. 2) Prim. Govt. of the Ch. p. 24. See on the testimony of Justin Martyr, Dr. Miller on the Min. pp. 101, 102. Powell on Apost. Succ. pp. 52, 53. King's Prim. Christ. part ii. ch. i. Plea for Presbytery, p. 260. Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. of the Ch. pp. 16-20. Pierce's Vind. of Dissent. part iii. ch. i. pp. 68-72. 3) Wake's Apost. Fathers, p. 149. Eng. ed. 4) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 4. Stillingfleet Iren. pp. 311, 312. Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. p. 27. 5) Euseb. Hist. 1. v. c. 4. 6) Iren. pp. 311, 312. ing of him, if they had looked on a superior order above those presbyters, as of divine institution, and thought there had been so great a distance between a bishop and subject-presbyter, as we are made to believe there was. Which is, as if the master of a college, in one university, should be sent by the fellows of the society to the heads of the other, and should, in his commendatory letters to them, be styled a senior fellow of that house. This was the case of Irenæus; he is supposed to be bishop of Lyons; he is sent by the church of Lyons, on a message to the bishop of Rome; when, notwithstanding his being bishop, they call him presbyter of that church, when there were other presbyters, who were not bishops. What could any one imagine by the reading of it, but that the bishop was nothing else but the senior-presbyter, or one that had a primacy of order among them, but no divine right to a power of jurisdiction, over his fellow presbyters. In order that the important testimony of this writer may be justly weighed, we will bring together what bears upon this matter. Speaking of some heretics, he says,' 'when, again, we challenge them by appealing to that tradition, which is from the apostles, which is preserved in the churches by the successions of presbyters; they oppose tradition, and say that they, being wiser not only than the presbyters, but than the apostles, have found out the uncorrupted truth, &c. All, therefore, who would see the truth,2 may observe in every church the tradition of the apostles manifested in all the world; and we can reckon up those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles, and who were their successors to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such thing as these men dream of. For had the apostles known any hidden mysteries, which they had a mind to deliver to such as were perfect, privately, and apart from the rest, they would have chiefly delivered them to those to whom they committed the churches themselves. For they would have them to be very perfect and unblamable in all things, whom they left as successors, delivering to them their own place, of being teachers, (or, as some render it, their own place of authority.) But, because it is long in such a volume as this, to reckon up the succession of all churches; by pointing out the tradition and declared faith of that greatest, and most ancient and noted church, founded at Rome, by two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, which she has from the 2) Ibid, lib. iii. c. 3. 1) Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 2. |