Page images
PDF
EPUB

"church of God." Irenicum. To the judgment of Stilling fleet may be added that of Professor Raignolds, Bishop Morton, and and other eminent Episcopal writers, who frankly acknowledge that Aerius coincided in opinion on this subject with Jerome, and other distinguished fathers, who undeniably taught the same doctrine, without being stigmatized as heretics.

Another witness on whose testimony much stress is laid by Episcopalians, is Eusebius. They tell us that this historian, who lived early in the fourth century, frequently speaks of bishops as superior to common presbyters; that he gives catalogues of the bishops who presided over several of the most eminent churches ; that he mentions their names in the order of succession, from the apostolic age down to his own time; and that all succeeding ecclesiastical writers speak the same language. But what does all this prove? Nothing more than we have before granted. No one disputes that before the time of Constantine, in whose reign Eusebius lived, a kind of prelacy prevailed, which was more fully organized and established by that emperor. But does Eusebius inform us what kind of difference there was between the bishops and presbyters of his day? Does he say that the former were a different order from the latter? Does he declare that there was a superiority of order vested in bishops by divine appointment? Does he assert that bishops in the days of the Apostles, and for a century afterwards, were the same kind of officers with those who were called by the same title in the fourth century? Does he tell us that this superior order of clergy were the only ecclesiastical officers who were allowed, in his day, to ordain and confirm ? I have never met with a syllable of all this in Eusebius. All that can be gathered from him is, that there were persons called bishops in the days of the apostles; that there had been a succession of bishops in the church from the apostles to the fourth century, when he lived; and that in his day, there was a distinction between bishops and other presbyters. But does any one deny this? To assert that, because Eusebius speaks of particular persons in the first and second centuries as bishops of particular churches; therefore they were so in the prelatical sense of the word, is really playing on the credulity of unwary readers; since Episcopalians themselves grant that the term bishop was applied, in the apostolic age, and for some time afterwards, differently from what it was in the age of Eusebius.

We agree that there were bishops in the first century, and have proved from Scripture and the early fathers, that this title was then applied to the ordinary pastors of single congregations. We agree, also, that there was a succession of bishops in the second and third centuries. And finally, we agree that in the time of Constantine, prelacy was established in the church. All this is perfectly consistent with our doctrine, viz. that diocesan episcopacy, or bishops, as an order superior to presbyters, were unknown in the primitive church. I have never heard of a sentence in Eusebius that touches this point; and I need not repeat that it is the grand point in dispute. On the other hand, we have seen that Jerome, who lived and wrote a little after Eusebius, not only touches this point, but formally discusses it, and unequivocally decides, that the bishops of Ephesus, Philippi, and Crete, in the days of Paul, were a very different kind of church officers from those bishops who lived in the fourth century.

But this is not all. When Eusebius gives us formal catalogues of bishops in succession, from the apostles' time until his own, het himself warns us against laying too much stress on his information; frankly confessing, "that he was obliged to rely much on "tradition, and that he could trace no footsteps of other historians "going before him only in a few narratives." This confession of Eusebius, I shall present in the words of the great Milton. "Eusebius, the ancientest writer of church history extant, confesses "in the 4th chapter of his 3d book, that it was no easy matter "to tell who were those that were left bishops of the churches by "the apostles, more than what a man might gather from the Acts "of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, in which number he "reckons Timothy for bishop of Ephesus. So as may plainly "appear, that this tradition of bishopping Timothy over Ephesus, "was but taken for granted out of that place in St. Paul, which "was only an entreating him to tarry at Ephesus, to do something " left him in charge. Now if Eusebius, a famous writer, thought "it so difficult to tell who were appointed bishops by the apostles, "much more may we think it difficult to Leontius, an obscure "bishop, speaking beyond his own diocese; and certainly much "more hard was it for either of them to determine what kind of "bishops these were, if they had so little means to know who they "were; and much less reason have we to stand to their definitive "sentence, seeing they have been so rash as to raise up such lofty

R

"bishops and bishopricks, out of places of scripture merely "misunderstood. Thus while we leave the Bible to gad after these "traditons of the ancients, we hear the ancients themselves "confessing, that what knowledge they had in this point was such as they had gathered from the Bible." Milton against Prelatical "Episcopacy, p. 3.

[ocr errors]

Besides the quotations above presented, which abundantly prove that the primitive bishop was the pastor of a single congregation, there are some facts, incidentally stated, by early writers, which serve remarkably to confirm the same truth.

The first fact is, the great number of bishops which ecclesiastical historians inform us, were found in early periods of the church, within small districts of country. Eusebius tells us, that about the year 260, when Gallienus was emperor, Paul, bishop of Antioch, began to oppose the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. A council was immediately called at Antioch, to consider and judge of Paul's heresy. Dionysius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, was invited, but did not attend; and the historian, after mentioning six conspicuous names, adds, "It would be nowise difficult to enume"rate six hundred other bishops, who all flowed together to that "place." At a conference which Augustin, and the bishops of his province, in Africa, had with the Donatists, about the year 410, there were present between five and six hundred bishops. Victor Uticensis in his work De Persecutione Vandalica, informs us, that from the part of Africa in which this persecution took place, six hundred and sixty bishops fled, besides the great number that were murdered and imprisoned, and many more who were tolerated. Here, then, we find five or six hundred bishops residing in districts of country not more extensive than some of our larger states. Can any reasonable man imagine, for a moment, that these were diocesans, each having many churches, with their pastors, under his care? It is impossible. No one who is acquainted with the state of the church in those early times, and especially with the difficulty and infrequency of long journeys, at that period, will believe that these bishops were any other than the pastors of single congregations. To suppose that they were diocesans, in the modern sense of the word, would be an absurdity. In the state of New York there is but one Episcopal bishop; and

over all the ten thousand parish churches in England, there are only twenty-seven of this order. In proportion as the church, among other corruptions, receded from the scriptural doctrine of ministerial parity, in the same proportion those who were called bishops became less and less numerous; insomuch, that at the great council of Trent there were only about forty bishops convened.

A second fact, the counterpart of the preceding, is equally decisive. It is the small number of souls committed to the care of some of the early bishops. We are informed that Gregory Thaumaturgus, when he was made bishop of Neo-cæsarea, in Pontus, about A. D. 250, had but seventeen professing christians in his parish. And in many of the early writers we read of bishops being located in small obscure villages, within three or four miles of each other. This is surely descriptive of parochial, and not of diocesan Episcopacy. It would, manifestly, be the height of absurdity to suppose that pastors who could not possibly have more than a few hundred souls under their care, were any other than overseers of single congregations.

A third fact, which goes far towards proving that bishops, in early times, were the ordinary pastors of single congregations, is that it was then customary for the flock of which the bishop was to have the charge, to meet together for the purpose of electing him; and he was always ordained in their presence. Cyprian, in a passage quoted in a preceding page, expressly tells us, that these were standing rules in choosing and ordaining bishops; and Eusebius, (lib. 6. cap. 28, p. 229.) in giving an account of the election of Fabianus to the office of bishop, in Rome, confirms the statement of Cyprian. He tells us, that upon the death of Bishop Anterus, "All the people met together in the church to choose a "successor, proposing several illustrious and eminent personages "as fit for that office, whilst no one so much as thought upon "Fabianus, then present, till a dove miraculously came and sat C6 upon his head, in the same manner as the Holy Ghost formerly "descended on our Saviour; and then all the people, guided as it “ were with one divine spirit, cried out with one mind and soul, "that Fabianus was worthy of the bishoprick and so straightway

Gregor. Nyss. Oper. Vol. II. p. 979.

"taking him, they placed him on the Episcopal throne." The very existence of these rules in early times shows that bishops were then nothing more than the pastors of single churches; for in no other case is the application of such rules possible. And accordingly afterwards, when diocesan Episcopacy crept into the church, this mode of choosing and ordaining bishops became impracticable, and was gradually laid aside.

A fourth fact, which shows that the primitive bishop was the pastor of a single church or congregation, is that in the first three centuries, the bishop's charge was commonly called magoria, a parish, signifying those who resided in the immediate vicinity of each other. But, in process of time, when the bishop's power was enlarged, and his territorial limits extended, his charge began to be called dionois, a diocese, a word notoriously taken from the secular language of the Roman empire, and expressive of a larger jurisdiction. This change of diction, evidently contemporary with the change of fact, is too significant to be overlooked.

A fifth fact, which shows that primitive Episcopacy was parochial and not diocesan, is, that for a considerable time after the days of the apostles, all the elders who were connected with a bishop, are represented as belonging to the same congregation with him, and sitting with him when the congregation was convened for public worship. Indeed, some of the early writers go so far as to inform us in what manner they were seated, viz. that the bishop sat in the middle of a semi-circular bench; that the elders, took their places on the same bench, on each side of their president or moderator; and that the deacons remained in a standing posture in the front of this seat, and in a lower place, ready to perform the services required of them. This representation perfectly accords with our doctrine of primitive episcopacy, in which every congregation was furnished with a bishop, elders, and deacons; but cannot possibly be reconciled with the diocesan form.

A sixth fact, which shows that the primitive bishop was only the pastor of a single congregation, is, that the early writers represent the bishop as living in the same house with his presbyters or elders; a house near the place of worship to which they resorted, and capable of accommodating them all. They tell us, also, that the bishop, together with his elders, were, supported by the same oblations that these oblations were offered on one altar,

« EelmineJätka »