3

it follows, as Blondel argues, that the power of ordination was regarded, even then, as inherently belonging to presbyters.1 Synesius was bishop of Ptolemais, in Pentapolis, A. D. 410. 'He distributes the officers of the church into the Levite, the presbyter, and the bishop, the latter of whom he denominates the priest of a city, his office a priesthood, and speaks of the election of a bishop, and of the imposition of the hand, whereby the party is manifested a presbyter. Pelagius flourished A. D. 405, and thereabouts. In his Commentary on 1 Tim. 3, he says, 'Why did the apostle make no mention of presbyters, but comprehend them under the name of bishops? because they are the second, yea, almost one and the same degree with bishops, as the apostle writes, in the epistle to the Philippians; to the bishops and deacons; when yet in one city there cannot be more bishops than one. And in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul having, in his way to Jerusalem, called the elders of Ephesus, among other things, said, 'take heed unto the flock, in which the Holy Ghost has ordained you bishops.' Besides, on 1 Cor. 1, 'He declares all priests to be the successors of the apostles.'

Severus, of the Sulpician family, was presbyter of Argen, and died A. D. 420. 'Speaking of the military guard,' says Dr. Wilson, directed by the emperor Hadrian to be constantly kept at Jerusalem, he observes, that until that period, 'the church had no priest at Jerusalem, except of the circumcision, and that their first Mark, of Gentile extraction, was made their bishop.' Priests, Levites, altars, sacrifices, and other words proper to Jewish and Pagan worship, were not introduced till after the days of the apostles, into the christian church; and sacerdos, here promiscuously used with episcopus, at its first introduction, designated only the presbyter, which the occasional insertion summus, by this writer, to distinguish the bishop, still viewed as the primus presbyter, plainly evinces. In the history of his own times, he mentions the fact, that Priscilianus made a layman bishop of Abila. Priscilianus etiam laicum episcopum in Labinensi, (Abilensi apud Hieron,) oppido constituit.'

1) Cassianus Collatione, 4, c. 1. See in Natali Alexandro. p. 142. 2) In Dr. Wilson, p. 185.

3) See given in Ayton's Orig.

Constit. of the Chr. Ch. p. 571, and
Jameson's Fund. p. 176.

4) Prim. Govt. pp. 185, 186.

§ 12. The testimony of Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, the Paulicians, and others.

Theodoret flourished A. D. 423. In his Commentary on 1 Tim. 3, he says, "The apostles call a presbyter a bishop, as we showed when we expounded the epistle to the Philippians, and which may be also learned from this place, for after the precepts proper to bishops, he describes the things which belong to deacons. But, as I said, of old they called the same men both bishops and presbyters.' Primasius was contemporary with Theodoret, and reputed to be the disciple of Augustine. In explaining 1 Tim. 3, he asks," 'why the apostle leaps from the duties of bishops to the duties of deacons, without any mention of presbyters?' and answers, 'because bishops and presbyters are the same degree.' Sedulius, also, who lived in the same age, on Titus 1, expressly asserts the identity of bishop and presbyter. He declares, not only that the titles are interchangeably applied to the same men, but also that the office is the same; many of them being found in the primitive church, in one city, which could not be true of diocesan bishops. Again, in the second council of Carthage, A. D. 428, canon 5, it was1 observed, that until that time some dioceses had been without any bishop at all, when it was determined that these should have none for the future.

The council of Arausicana was held A. D. 441. In the thirtieth canon it is decreed, 'that if any bishop, on account of any infirmity or debility, should lose his powers, or the ability to speak, those things which, ordinarily, are conducted by bishops, he shall permit the presbyters to do, non sub praesentia sua,' from which it is plain that all exclusive prelatical assumptions are based only upon ecclesiastical custom.

The fourth council of Carthage was held A. D. 436. In canon 35th it is decreed, that a bishop should not be exercised in the affairs of his household, but wholly give himself to reading, praying, and preaching the word. This council, says Ayton, was held about the year 436. And what is mentioned from it, is an evident discovery that the dignity of the

1) Opera. tom. iv. p. 652. Halæ, 771. Also in Dr. Miller, p. 126. 2) Dr. Miller on Min. p. 126. 3) In Dr. Miller, p. 126.

4) Carauz. Sum. Concil. Carth. 2, canto 5. In Ayton, p. 533.

5) Blondel, in Nat. Alex. p. 143. Binii Concil. tom. ii. p. 692, &c.

6) Binii Concil. tom. i. pp. 726, 729. See in Jameson's Cyp. Isot. pp. 441-443, where may be seen Chamier and Salmasius, on it.

7) P. 547.

episcopal office was then reckoned to consist in teaching and preaching, and not in secular power. The same council says, in their third canon, when a presbyter is ordained, the bishop blessing him, and holding his hand on his head, all the presbyters present are also to hold their hands on his head, together with the bishop. Again, in the twenty-third canon, it is expressly determined, that a bishop ought not to hear any cause but in the presence of the clergy. And to give a further view of the remaining equality, that at this time was preserved between bishops and presbyters, it is enacted in the thirty-fourth canon, that if a bishop shall be sitting in any place, the presbyter is not to be allowed to stand. And in the thirty-fifth, let the bishop in the church, in the assembly of the presbyters, have the highest seat; yet, in his house, he must know that the presbyters are his colleagues. Thus, then, presbyters and bishops being colleagues, this must, at once, discover their original equality. "The council of Aquisgrave,1 canon 8, decided, that the ordination and consecration of ministers is now reserved to the chief ministry, solum propter auctoritatem, only for authority sake, lest that the discipline of the church, being challenged by many, should break the peace of the church.'

It is unnecessary to continue these testimonies. Numerous others have been already adduced, under former heads, and by Blondel, and others.2 But these are enough, and more than enough, to secure our purpose, which is to demonstrate, that, even during the progress of the hierarchy, the original presbyterianism of the church's polity was not forgotten; that traces of it still continued to exist; that many openly avowed their belief in it, while satisfied with existing arrangements; and that, even when prelatical dignity had been fully established, it was not pretended that it was based upon any certain and positive divine right. It may, however, be important, further to show that these views were not confined to individuals, but extended to large bodies of christians, to adduce the testimony of the Paulicians. About the year A. D. 600, there lived in Samosata, not far from the borders of Armenia and Syria, a man named Constantine. Becoming possessed of a Greek New Testament, he was led, by its careful examination, to reject, among others errors, the dogma of three orders.

1) Willet's Syn. Pap. p. 277.

2) See Blondeli Apol. and in Nat. Alex. pp. 124, 137, 139, 144, 151. See the testimonies of the fathers, generally, given in Cochet's Remains, p. 110, &c. and 108, &c.

Owen's Wks. vol. xx. p. 153, &c. and 132. Pierce's Vind. of Dissenters, part iii. c. 1, p. 63, &c. Henderson's Rev. and Cons'd, p. 364. Plea for Presb. p. 240, &c. Elliot on Rom. vol. i. p. 468, &c.

of the clergy, and to believe that all religious teachers were 'equal in rank,' and to be 'distinguished from laymen by no rights, prerogatives, or insignia.' In short, he repudiated the whole hierarchical system then established, with all its pernicious and unscriptural doctrines. He, accordingly, began to preach 'primitive christianity,' in the regions of Pontus and Cappadocia, where he found numerous persons ready, with him, to contend, earnestly, for the faith, simplicity, order, and liberty of the gospel. This new sect, which, out of respect for their favorite apostle, were called Paulicians, spread rapidly over Asia Minor. The fiery sword of persecution was unsheathed against them, but out of the blood and ashes of their martyrs, new teachers and converts arose. After enduring a century and a half of persecution, they enjoyed a short respite, in A. D. 802-811, only to suffer a more severe and terrible extermination. Flying from destruction, they carried with them, as on the wings of the wind, the seed of immortal truth, which, taking root every where, diffused, as in apostolic days, the truth, as it is in Jesus. Under Michael III, one hundred thousand Paulicians were barbarously slain, to attest the sincerity of his christian decree, that they should be either exterminated by fire and sword, or brought back to the Greek church.

In the tenth century, the European Paulicians were recruited by emigrations from their native regions, and by new proselytes. Their villages and castles extended from Thrace, through Macedonia and Epirus, towards the Adriatic. In the eleventh century they were numerous in Lombardy and Isubria, and especially in Milan, and were found, also, in France, Germany, Italy, and other countries, where they were known as the Paterini, Cathari, Puritans, and Albigenses. By the gloomy light of inquisitorial fires, and Romish calumny, false witness, and abuse, we may trace these suffering witnesses for truth and order, even to the period of the reformation, when their light was merged in that full blaze, which burst upon an emancipated church. The testimony of other bodies, such as the Culdees, the Alexandrian church, the Goths, the Irish, and British christians, will be adduced when we come to speak of the Antiquity of Presbyterianism.2

1) See Mosheim, B. iii. Cent. ix. part ii. c. 5.

2) See a full exposure of the most guilty and felonious calumnies of their torturers, the Romanists, in Faber's able work in the Vallenses and Albigenses, B. ii. c. 1, &c. See also an interesting sketch in Punch

ard's Hist. of Congreg. c. iv. p. 79, &c., to which we are indebted. Vaughan's Life of Wickliffe, vol. i. pp. 114-127. Blair's Hist. of the Waldenses, vol. i. 176-180. Clarke's Hist. of Intolerance, vol. ii. pp. 273289. The Churchman's Monthly Review for 1843, p. 45, 291, &c.

CHAPTER V.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCHOOLMEN, OR FATHERS OF THE LATER AND MIDDLE AGES, TO THE CLAIMS OF PRESBYTERY.

3

MR. PALMER, after showing that many of the fathers assert the identity of bishops and presbyters, adds, "To these may be added the great body of the schoolmen, Hugo Victor, Peter Lombard, Alexander Alensis, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinus, Scotus, Abulensis, Turrecremata, Cajetan, &c. Many teach that the episcopate is only an extension of the sacerdotal order, such as Durandus, Paludanus, Dominic Soto, &c.' Mr. Sinclair asknowledges the same thing, and that quite in a rage." Bishop Davenant and archbishop Usher, Dr. Bowden, and archdeacon Mason, testify to the same effect." At a private consultation of confidential advisers, held by the French Cardinal during the sessions of the Council of Trent, it was agreed by the majority that the new canons respecting the divine right of prelates and the pope could not be adopted, because, among other reasons, they 'would be condemned by an infinite number of theologians and canonists." Morrison, also, in his learned work on Ordination, substantiates his opinion at some length.

8

5

"The canons,' says Lombard," 'determine that two orders only ought, by way of excellency, to be termed sacred, namely, that of the diaconate, and that of the presbyterate, because we read that the primitive church had only these two, and of these alone we have the command of the apostles.'

Isidore Hispalensis, A. D. 596, Etymol. vii. c. 12, copies with approbation the passage already given from Jerome's epistle to Oceanum. Dionysius, A. D. 556, on Phil. 1: 1,10 gives the following exposition. 'As Haymo saith, by bishops, presbyters are understood; for many bishops did not preside in one city;

1) Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 376.

2) Vind. of the Episc. or Apost. Succ. p. 81. Lond. 1839.

3) Judgment of the archbishop of Armagh, pp. 130-134.

4) Wks. on Episc. vol. ii. p. 173. 5) Def. of the Min. of the Ref. Ch. in Bernard's Usher, as above.

6) Determinationes Quæst. 42, in Comm. on Col. vol. i. p. 53.

7) Mendhan's Hist. of the Council of Trent, p. 254.

8) De Sacr. Eccl. Ordin. Paris, iii. Exercet. iii. cap. ii.

9) Lib. 4, dist. 24, in Jameson's Sum. of the Episc. Cont. p. 239.

10) Jameson's Sum, pp. 240, 241.