صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

THIUS; affirming him to be a proud man, and inclined, "ad pecuniarum collectionem," to hoarding of money. On this ground, AERIUS entered into a fchifm, by departing from the church; and having allured unto him a multitude of men and women, he fell into many abfurdities. With the view of still more vexing EUSTATHIUS, as alfo for the advancement of his own credit, he affirmed himself (being but a priest) to be equal in honour and dignity with EUSTATHIUS a bishop; and that there was no difference by the word of God betwixt a priest and a bishop. For proof of these affertions he used the very fame arguments which now are used by those who maintain the fame opinions. As 'that the Apoftles fometimes writing to priests and deacons, and fometimes to bishops and deacons, fhould thereby fignify that a bishop and a priest is all one. An affertion (fays EPIPHANIUS*) which is "ftultitia plena, full of folly."

[ocr errors]

you

Thus much, Sir, it may be fufficient to have faid in answer to your first observation; in which appear to argue, from the indifferent application of the fame titles to a fimilarity of office in the parties: a mode of arguing which falls very far fhort of proof.

* EPIPHANIUs lib. iii. tom. 1. HÆRES. 75.

But it may not, perhaps, be amifs to beftow an additional word or two on this fubject. With this view, I pass on to your quotation from the lectures of Archbishop CRANMER; which I conceive was not defigned, in the application of it by the Archbishop, to convey that sense which, if I understand you right, you mean fhould be drawn from it.

To enable us to form a proper judgment of the teftimony of ST. JEROM, it fhould firft be confidered who he was; at what time he lived; and what objects he had in view, in those parts of his writings which have been supposed to favour the Presbyterian cause.

[ocr errors]

JEROM was a prefbyter in the church in the fourth century. In his time, there were fome deacons in the church of Rome, who, in confequence of their having grown great through wealth, challenged to themselves places above prefbyters. In his epistle to EVAGRIUS, therefore, he argues ftrongly against the folly of fuch prefumption, Legimus in ISAIA, Fatuus fatua loquitur.' Audio quendam in tantam erupiffe vecordiam, ut Diaconos nos prefbyteris, i. e. epifcopis, anteferret." Feeling for the dignity of the office of prefbyter, with which he was invested, and confidering that it was attempted to be encroached on by the deacon; his object was, by every possible

argument, to magnify the former, with the view of repreffing the aspiring pretenfions of the latter. On fuch a fubject, it may be expected, (as it too generally happens, when perfons engage warmly in defence of a cause, in which they themselves are interested) that ST. JEROM fhould push his argument beyond its proper bearing. This will certainly be found to be the case, by all those who read his writings with attention: and I am inclined to think, Sir, you will find more difficulty in reconciling ST. JEROM with himself, than you will reap advantage from any teftimony that is to be derived from him, in favour of the cause which he is generally brought forward to support. It appears, indeed, that in fpite of the apparent contradictions to be found in JEROM's writings, fome of the strongest proofs of the original establishment of the Christian church are to be produced from them. The Archbishop's quotation is taken from his commentary upon the Epiftle to TITUS, published anno 387, in which he says, "that a priest is the fame as a bishop." Now the question is, in what fense this fameness is to be understood. It should appear, from the object you have in view in bringing forward this quotation, that according to the opinion of JEROM, the title bishop and prefbyter, as the words

were understood in the church in his time, were but two names for the fame office. But let JEROM fpeak for himself, and it will be found that this was certainy not his meaning. The words immediately preceding the fhort paffage above cited refpect the qualifications required by the Apostle for the office of prefbyter and bishop, where ST. PAUL gives directions to TITUS on that fubject; c. i. 6, 7. From the circumstances of the qualifications required being the fame, JEROM draws his conclufion in favour of the dignity of his particular office. "Idem eft ergo," &c. Taking the fubject in this light, the premises do not appear to warrant your conclufion. For, though the fame qualifications were required in a prefbyter as in a bishop, it will not follow from thence that there was to be no diftinction in their office.

But the fact is, JEROM, in order to magnify his office, is speaking of that state of the church, when the titles bishop and prefbyter were promiscuously ufed, and before any discriminate application of them had taken place; before the contentions which are fpoken of by ST. PAUL in his first epiftle to the Corinthians had rendered it neceffary, in order to prevent schifm, that one prefbyter fhould be invested with authority over his brother prefbyters. The argu

ment which he draws from ST. PAUL'S addrefs to the bishops and deacons at Philippi, correfponds precisely with that drawn by ST. CRYSOSTOM from the fame circumstance, who afks this queftion upon it: "What meaneth this? were there many bishops of one city?" To which he returns the following anfwer: "No, by no means, but by this title he defigneth the prefbyters, for then the name was common!" JEROM's argument from ST. PAUL'S calling the prefbyters of the church of Ephesus bishops, Acts xx. 17, &c. goes to the fame point.† "This is

a certain rule (fays Bishop BILSON, in his book on the perpetual government of CHRIST's church, p. 248) to distinguish bishops from prefbyters; the presbyters were many in every church of whom the presbytery confifted. Bishops were always fingular, that is, one in a city, and no more; except another intruded, (which the church of CHRIST counted a fchifm, and would never communicate with any fuch;) or elfe an

"Philippi una eft urbs Macedoniæ; et certè in unâ civitate plures (ut nuncupantur) epifcopi effe non poterant. Sed quia eofdem epifcopos illo tempore quos et prefbyteros appellarent, propterea indifferenter de epifcopis quafi de prefbyteris eft locutus." Ep. ad TITUM.

"Et hoc diligentius obfervate, quomodo unius civitatis Ephefi prefbyteros vocans, poftea eofdem epifcopos dixerit. Ep. ad TITUм.

« السابقةمتابعة »