stance which this scholiast has noticed in many passages from Gregory. 149

It is truly remarkable how long, and how distinctly, these views of the original identity of bishops and presbyters were retained in the church. Isidorus Hispalensis, bishop of Seville in Spain, in the seventh century, and one of the most learned men of that age, copies with approbation the authority of Jerome given above, as an expression of his own sentiments. He may accordingly be regarded as expressing the sentiments of the Western church at this time.

The views of the church at Alexandria, in the tenth century, have already been expressed in the extract from Eutychius given above.

Bernaldus Constantiensis, about A. D. 1088, a learned monk, and a zealous defender of Gregory VII, after citing Jerome, continues: "Inasmuch, therefore, as bishops and presbyters were anciently the same, without doubt they had the same power to loose and to bind, and to do other acts which are now the special prerogatives of the bishop. But after the presbyters began to be restricted by Episcopal preëminence, what was formerly lawful for them became unlawful. Ecclesiastical authority having delegated such prerogatives to the prelates alone."150

Even pope Urban II. 1091, says,-"We regard deacons and presbyters as belonging to the sacred order, since these are the only orders which the primitive church is said to have had. For these only have we apostolical authority." "151

149 Greg. Naz., Vol. II. p. 830. Ed. Colon. 1590. Also Ed. Basil. 1571, pp. 262, 264.

150 Quum igitur presbyteri et episcopi antiquitus, idem fuisse legantur etiam eandem ligandi atque solvendi potestatem, et alia nunc episcopis specialia, habuisse non dubitantur. Postquam autem presbyteri ab episcopali excellentia cohibiti sunt, coepit eis non licere quod licuit, videlicet quod ecclesiastica auctoritas solis pontificibus exequendum delegavit.-De Presbyterorum officio tract. in monumentorum res Allemannorum illustrant. S. Blas, 1792, 4to. Vol. II. 384 seq. 151 Sacros autem ordines ducimus diaconatum et presbyteratum.

Gratian again, a benedictine, eminent for his learning and talents, a century later, adopts all the passages cited above from Jerome, ad Tit. 1.152

Nicholas Tudeschus, archbishop of Panorma, about A. D. 1423, says "Formerly presbyters governed the church in common, and ordained the clergy."153

:

It is perhaps still more remarkable that even the papal canonist, Jo. Paul Launcelot, A. D. 1570, introduces the passage from Jerome without any attempt to refute it.154

Thus all through the middle ages, during the proudest ascendency of prelatical power, the doctrine of the original equality of bishops and presbyters was acknowledged in the Roman Catholic church, as is attested by a succession of the most learned of her clergy.

Gieseler remarks, "That the distinction between the divine and the ecclesiastical appointment, institutio, was of less importance in the middle ages than in the modern catholic church, and this view of the original identity of bishops and presbyters, was of no practical importance. It was not till after the Reformation that it was attacked. Michael de Medina, about A. D. 1570, does not hesitate to assert that those fathers were essentially heretics; but adds, that out of respect for these fathers, this heresy in them is not to be condemned. Bellarmine declares this a very inconsiderate sentiment.' Thenceforth all catholics, as well as English Episcopalians, maintain an original difference between bishop and presbyter."155

Hos siquidem solos primitiva legitur ecclesia habuisse; super his solum preceptum habemus apostoli.—Conc. Benevent, an. 1090. can. 1.

152 (Dist. XCV. c. 5.) Epist. ad Evangel. (Dist. XCIII. c. 24.) and Isidori His. (Dist. XXI. c. 1).

153 Super prima parte Primi, cap. 5. ed. Lugdun, 1543, fol. 1126. Olim presbyteri in commune regebant ecclesiam et ordinabant sacerdotes.

154 Institutt. juris Canon. Lib. 1. Tit. 21. § 3.

155 Comp. especially Petavii de ecclesiastica hierarchia Lib. 5, and

In view of the whole course of the argument, then, have we not good and sufficient reasons, for regarding the Episcopal claim of an original distinction between bishops and presbyters, as a groundless assumption? The existence of such a distinction has been denied by prelates, bishops, and learned controversialists, and commentators, both in the Eastern, and Western churches, of every age down to the sixteenth century. It was unknown to those early fathers, who lived nearest to the apostolical age, and some of whom were the immediate successors of the apostles. It was wholly unauthorized by the apostles themselves. On the contrary, they assign to bishops and presbyters the same specific duties. They re quire in both the same qualifications. They address them by the same names and titles interchangeably and indiscriminately. Are not bishops and presbyters, then, one and the same?-the same in office, in honor, and in power; possessing equally all the prerogatives, rights, and privileges of those pastors and teachers, to whom the apostles, at their decease, resigned the churches, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ? Or must we believe that the presbyter after all is a mere subaltern of the bishop; ordained of God to perform only the humbler offices of the ministry, and to supply the bishop's lack of service? Must we believe moreover, that dissertatt. theologic. Lib. 1, in his theolog, dogmat. Tom. 4. p. 164. On the other side, Walonis Messalini, (Claud. Salmasii) diss. de episcopis et presbyteris. Lugd. Bat. 1641, 8vo. Dav. Blondelli apologia pro sententia Hieronymi de episcopis et presbyteris. Amstelod. 1616, 4to. Against these Henr. Hammondus dissertatt. IV. quibus episcopatus jura ex sacra scriptura et prima antiquitate adstruuntur. Lond. 1651. The controversy was long continued. On the side of the Episcopalians, Jo. Pearson, Guil. Beveridge, Henr Dodwell, Jos. Bingham, Jac. Usserius. On that of the Presbyterians, Jo. Dallaeus, Camp. Vitringa; also the Lutherans, Joach. Hildebrand, Just. Henn. Boehwer, Jo. Franc. Buddeus, Christ. Math. Pfaff, etc. Comp. Jo. Phil. Gabler de episcopis primae ecclesiae Christ. eorumque origine diss. Jenae, 1805, 4to.

the bishop, this honored and most important dignitary of the church, in whom all clerical grace centres, and to whose hands alone has been intrusted all that authority and power, the proper transmission of which is essential to the perpetuity of the ministry and the just administration of the ordinances,-that this important functionary is but a nameless nondescript, known by no title, represented by no person, or class of persons in the apostolical churches, and having no distinct, specific duties prescribed in the New Testament? All this may be asserted and re-affirmed, as a thousand times it has virtually been; but it can never be proved. It must be received, if received at all, with blind credulity; not on reasonable evidence. Verily this vaunting of high church Episcopacy is an insult to reason;—a quiet complacent assumption, which makes "implicit faith the highest demonstration." If any assertor of these absurd pretensions finds himself disquieted, at any time, by the renewed remonstrances of Scripture, truth and reason, in order to repel these impertinent intruders and restore the equilibrium of his mind, he has only to "shake his head and tell them how superior after all is faith to logic!"

The foregoing chapters give us an outline of that ecclesiastical organization which the churches received from the hands of the apostles, and which was continued in the primitive church for some time after the apostolic age. The government is altogether popular. The sovereign authority is vested in the people. From them all the laws originate; through them they are administered. The government guarantees to all its members the enjoyment of equal rights and privileges, secures to them the right of private judgment, admits of their intervention in all public affairs. It extends to all the right of suffrage. Each community is an independent sovereignty, whose members are subject to no foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Their confessions, formularies and

terms of communion are formed according to their own interpretation of the laws of God; and if the deportment of any one is subject to impeachment, the case is decided by the impartial verdict of his brethren. Their officers are few; and their ministers, equal in rank and power, are the servants, not the lords of the people. The entire polity of the apostolical and primitive churches was framed on the principles, not of a monarchical hierarchy, but of a popular and elective government. In a word, it was a republican government administered with republican simplicity.

This exhibition of the original organization of the Christian church suggests a variety of reflections, some of which we must be permitted, before closing this view of the apostolical and primitive church, to suggest to the consideration of the reader.

REMARKS.

1. The primitive church was organized as a purely religious society.

It had for its object the promotion of the great interests of morality and religion. It interfered not with the secular or private pursuits of its members, except so far as they related to the great end for which the church was formed,—the promotion of pure and undefiled religion. Whenever the Christian church has let itself down to mingle or interfere with the secular pursuits of men, the only result has been her own disgrace, and the dishonor of the great cause which she was set to defend.

2. It employed only moral means for the accomplishment of religious ends.

The apostles sought, by kind and tender entreaty, to reclaim the wandering. They taught the church to do the same; and to separate the unworthy from their communion.