only Episcopacy that existed in the church of Alexandria, one of 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 minister 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 endeavoured to destroy the force of these express declarations of Jerome, by quoting other passages, in which he 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, except"ing ordination ?" But it is evident that Jerome, in this passage, refers, not to the primitive right of bishops, but to prerogative which they had gradually acquired, and which 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;

nothing to do with his reasoning. Besides, Eutychius the patriarch of Alexandria, in his Origines Ecclesiæ Alexandrinæ, published by the learned Selden, expressly declares, "that the twelve presbyters consti

tuted 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."

* Accordingly bishop Stilling fleet declares, “Among all the fifteen "testimonies produced by a learned writer out of Jerome, for the supe"riority 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 unity of the church." Irenicum. Part II. chapter 6th.

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 passages; 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. Jerome, 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 primitive church. Accordingly bishop Jewel, professor Raignolds, bishop Stilling fleet, and other learned divines of the church of England, as I shall afterwards show, 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.

But what strongly confirms our interpretation of Jerome is, that several fathers contemporary, or nearly so, with him, when called to speak specifically on the same subject, make, in substance, the same statement. In other parts of their writings, they speak, as Jerome did, in the current language of their time: But when they had occasion to express a precise opinion on the point now under consideration, they do it in a way not to be mistaken. Two or three examples of this will be sufficient.

Augustine, bishop of Hippo, in writing to Jerome, who was a presbyter, expresses himself thus: "I entreat you to correct me "faithfully when you see I need it; for although, according to the

names of honour which the custom of the church has Now brought "into use, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter, "nevertheless, in many respects, Augustine is inferior to Jerome." Epist. 19. ad hierom. It is worthy of notice that bishop Jewel in the "Defence of his Apology for the Church of England," produces this passage for the express purpose of showing the original identity of bishop and presbyter, and translates it thus: "The "office of bishop is above the office of priest, not by authority of "the scriptures, but after the names of honour which the custom "of the church hath now obtained." Defence, 122, 123.

If there is meaning in words, Augustine represents the superiority of bishops to presbyters as introduced by the custom of the church, rather than divine appointment.

Hilary, (sometimes called Ambrose) 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 settled otherwise than they were "in the beginning. And hence it is, that the apostles' writings "do not in all things agree to the present constitution of 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 one withdrew "another took his place; and in Egypt, even at this day, the presbyters ordain (or consecrate, consignant) in the bishop's "absence. But because the following presbyters began to be found "unworthy to hold the first place, the method was changed, the "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, presbtyers, even then, sometimes ordained; and that the reason of their not continuing to exercise this power was, that an ecclesiastical arrangement, subsequent to the apostolical age, alone prevented it.

The testimony of Chrysostom, who wrote about the year 398, is also in our favour. "The apostles," says he, "having dis"coursed concerning the bishops, and described them, declaring "what they ought to be, and from what they ought to abstain, "omitting the order of presbyters, descends to the deacons; and

why so, but because between bishop and presbyter there is "scarcely any difference; and to them is committed both the "instructions 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, and of this they seem to "have defrauded them."* 1 Epist. ad Tim. Hom. 11.

* This perfectly agrees with the representation of Jerome, (with whom Chrysostom was nearly contemporary) who says that the only right which bishops had gained over presbyters, in his day, was that of ordination,

Theodoret, who flourished about the year 430, in his commentary on 1 Tim. iii. makes the following declaration: "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, who was contemporary with Theodoret, and is said to have been Augustine's disciple, in explaining 1 Tim. iii. 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 wrote about the year 470, in his commentary on Titus i. 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. In proof of this, he adduces the case of the elders of Ephesus, Acts xx. who all dwelt in one city, and who, though called elders or presbyters in the 17th verse of that chapter, are yet, in the 28th verse, called bishops.

And, finally, Aerius, a presbyter of Sebastia, and contemporary with Jerome, maintained the same doctrine with that father, on the subject before us. He not only opposed prayers for the dead, the superstitious observance of fasts and festivals, and other uncommanded rites; but he insisted, with zeal, that bishop and presbyter were the same in the apostolic church, and that there ought to be no distinction of orders in the holy ministry.

We are told indeed by the friends of prelacy, that Aerius, was reputed an heretic for holding that there was no difference between bishops and presbyters. And as an authority on this subject, they refer us to Epiphanius, who, towards the close of the fourth century, undertook to give a list of heresies, and included Aerius in the number. But when this alleged fact is impartially examined, it will be found to weigh nothing in this controversy. For, in the first place, Epiphanius is a writer of no credit. The learned Mosheim speaks of him in the following terms. "His book against "all the heresies which had sprung up in the church until his time, "has little or no reputation ; as it is full of inaccuracies and errors,

"and discovers almost in every page the levity and ignorance of "its author." But, secondly, by comparing the whole testimony of antiquity on this subject, it appears that Aerius was condemned. not so much for maintaining that bishop and presbyter were the same by the word of God, as for insisting that there ought not to be any difference made between them; in asserting which, he opposed that pre-eminence which the bishops had gradually gained, and set himself against the actual constitution of most of the churches in his day. For this he was hated and reviled by the friends of high-church doctrines, and stigmatized as a heretic and schismatic. This appears to have been the true reason why Aerius rendered himself so obnoxious,and was condemned by so many; while Jerome and Augustin, unquestionably the most learned divines of the age, though they held and avowed substantially the same doctrine, yet escaped similar treatment, by tolerating, and even approving the moderate prelacy which was established in their time, not as a divine appointment, but as a system founded on human prudence. Accordingly Bishop Stillingfleet observes, "I believe, upon the "strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Jerome, "Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact were all of Aerius his judgment, as to the identity of both the 66 name and the order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive "church. But here lay the difference: Aerius proceeded from "hence to separate from bishops and their churches, because they "were bishops. Whereas Jerome, while he held the same doctrine "did not think it necessary to cause a schism in the church by separating from the bishops, for his opinion is clear, that the "first institution of them was for preventing schism, and therefore "for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the

The following passage from Dr. Hawies's (an Episcopal clergyman) Ecclesiastical History, i. p. 340, is worthy of notice. "Aerius made a “fiercer resistance, and maintained more offensive doctrines; that bishops "and presbyters in the Scripture are the same persons, and only different "descriptions of age and office; that prayers for the dead were futile, "and hopes from their intercession vain; that stated fasts and festivals "had no prescription in the New Testament. These, with similar asser❝tions, roused a host of enemies, and he was quickly silenced. So super"stition stalked triumphant, and no man dared open his mouth against any abuses."