Page images
PDF
EPUB

concerning our subject, except the mention of the offices of two of the martyrs. The first is of Sanctus, who is styled a deacon from Vienne, diaxovos año Bieνvns: the other of the venerable Pothinus, who died in his ninetieth year, in prison, from the abuse he received at his trial. He is said in the letter, according to Eusebius, to have been "intrusted with the ministry of the episcopate in Lyons," & nv diaxovia ons RioxoTAS EV Auyduva TεTISTEUμevos. Nicephorus has given the same portion of the letter, with more simplicity in these words; "Pothinus, a minister of the church at Lyons,"-IIνος δὲ ὁ διάκονος της λυγδυνων εκκλησιag." If Nicephorus wrote from the letter itself, the last is the truth; or if he compiled from Eusebius, his was probably still the original reading both of Eusebius, and the letter; and the term diaxovog may have been subsequently changed into diaxoviav, and Sidons inserted. We have shown in a former number, that Eusebius was unfaithful in his quotations of ancient writings. That Pothinus was the goeslag, or presiding presbyter, and consequently a bishop of the church at Lyons, is very possible. (c.) The church appears to have been small, and the cause of truth an object of hatred, and contempt, in that region; it is therefore, improbable that a diversity in orders, which as yet existed no where else, should have originated there. Also Irenæus, who was a presbyter in the same place, will presently be found to have known no difference between presbyter and bishop. As there appears in this letter no order, above that of presbyter, which hitherto always had the oversight, so we find no lay presbyters.

(c) Mons Blondel (Apol. p. 23-32.) has proved, that it was nine years after Irenæus had been placed in the chair, a

giz, of Pothinus, a bishop and martyr, at Lyons, where he was represented in a letter written by that church to Eleutherins, as their brother and a presbyter of the church, reso Bulegor sandlas.-Euseb.

- C. 4.

Melito of Sardis wrote about A. D. 182, several works, the titles of which Eusebius has preserved; with a fragment of his Apology for what he calls the new philosophy, and an important catalogue of the books of the Old Testament. But there remains nothing from him on our subject.

Athenagoras is a writer, who also falls within our present period. The proofs in support of his apology for Christians, and of his discourse on the resurrection are few, and modern ; yet no one can read the book, and doubt its genuineness. The apology, being directed to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus sufficiently determines its own date. Written to idolaters, its arguments are as they should be, chiefly drawn from reason. This writer styles himself an Athenian (d) and a philosopher, and the apology speaks itself the work of a Christian, and well suited to its period. His arguments, in the discourse concerning the resurrection, are worthy of attention even in the present day. Of church officers, we have been able to find no mention in either of his productions.

The tract of Hermias, called the "Irrisio Geatium, or 66 Διασυρμος,” which is more properly the discordance of philosophers, is of uncertain time, but very ancient; and is probably the genuine, though unsupported, production of a christian. The various opinions of the nature of the soul, the chief good and our future condition, are well contrasted and with great effect. It terminates abruptly, but not before it has well established the position, with which it commenced, that "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." It touches not our subject.

There are three small books, written by Theophilus of Antioch to his friend Autolycus, an idolator. The writer had been himself a heathen,

(d) Phillip Sidetes (apud Dodwell p. 489,) says that he studied the Scriptures on purpose to confute them, but became convinced of their truth.

and appears to have had much Greek
learning. The first is a general de-
fence of the nature and perfections
of the true God, of his work of cre-
ation, and of the resurrection. The
second is against idolatry, and the
different opinions of philosophers;
and compares the cosmogony of the
poets with that of Moses. He speaks
of the "Trinity (Tgiados) of God,
"and of the Logos, and of wisdom."
He says it was the Logos, who ap-
peared in Paradise; and though he
describes him as an effect, yet rep-
resents him as being at the first in
God. In the third, after vindicating
christians from aspersions, he com-
pares the profane with the Scriptural
chronology. There is no claim of
an ecclesiastical office by the writer,
nor even the mention of any in either
of the books. They bear all the
marks of genuineness. His death
has been placed at periods somewhat
different, but the weight of probabili-
ty seems to determine it to about the
year of Christ 182, which is but two
years later, than the death of Mar-
cus Aurelius, expressed in the end of
his third book, as the last period of
his chronological calculation.

Irenæus was a Greek of Asia Minor, for he remembered there to have seen, when a youth, the venerable Polycarp. He spent his advanced life in Gaul, at Lyons. That he was a Presbyter, we learn from his own church. That he received any other ordination, or held any other of fice, there is no competent proof, nor have we found any evidence of such occurrence in his day. That he was a "disciple of Polycarp" and was raised to the episcopal chair" upon the death of Pothinus, ought neither to be assumed, nor granted without evidence brought from the second century. That he died a martyr, has been often said, but gratuitously, because inserted too lately. His death may be placed with sufficient correctness, after many vain efforts at precision on the point, about the commencement of the third century. He wrote five

[ocr errors]

books against the wild opinions of Valentinus, and other Gnostics. Of these a Latin version censured by different writers as feverish, faulty, and barbarous; and some Greek fragments, in Eusebius, Epiphanius, John Damascenus and Nicephorus, together with some portions of let ters, yet remain. The moral endowments of this father were much greater than his intellectual. Under all disadvantages, the facts, so far as given from his own observation, are worthy of belief.

In a fragment of an epistle written to Florinus on the subject of the errors of Valentinus, and preserved by Eusebius, he says; "These doctrines, they who were presbyters before us, οι προ ήμων πρεςβύτεροι, aud who were the followers of the apostles, never delivered unto thee. If that blessed, and apostolic Presbyter Polycarp, had heard any such thing, &c. he would have said", &c. In the fragment of a letter to Victor at Rome, who had attempted to cause the Asiatic churches, on account of a diversity in the observance of Easter, to be excommunicated, Irenæus possessing equal authority and more prudence says, "those presbyters who, before Soter presided over that church which you now govern, & rgo Σωτηρος τρεσβύτεροι, οι προσίανίες της εκκλησίας ἧς νυν αφηγη &c. I speak of Anicetus, and Pius and Hyginus with Telerphorus and Sixtus, they neither observed it themselves, nor did they require those who were under them. Those who were presbyters before you, who did not observe the custom of the Asiatic churches, οι μη τηρουντες οι προ σου πρεσβύτεροι sent the eucharist to those from other churches, who did observe it. ther did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, who alleged that he ought to maintain the custom of the Presbyters, who had gone before him, ηv σuvndslav TWV πgo autoυ πgedBulegwv".

Nei

By these letters it is clear that Polycarp, and the predecessors of Victor, who are in modern times in the

catalogue of popes, were presbyters; and consequently other christian churches could have had no higher officers than the geo Bulego gorTavles, presiding presbyters.

To

these were attributed the continuance of the succession from the apostles. To them resort was had for the tradition of the custom in relation to Easter. That these presbyters were bishops, no one will deny; they were consequently not laymen. The Papal predecessor, neither possessed infallibility, nor even superiority over Irenæus, who in this letter written in presence of his brethren, aðɛλpwv, in Gaul, thus arraigned his conduct. The term presbyter, so often repeated in these letters, may be taken sometimes appellatively, but then the persons so denominated have received no official designation. Its connexion also with the epithet, goolavles, presiding, the expression αποστολικος πρεσβυτερος, and the uncertainty of such descriptions, as, "those who were old men before you" show the official sense to have been at least sometimes designed. If the correptions intended in these letters, should be assigned as a reason for the omission of titles yet justice and truth required, that their offices in the church should have been fairly recognized, had different orders of preachers then existed.

Speaking of the unwillingness of the heretics to be bound, either by the scriptures or by the traditions of the churches, he says: (lib. iii, c. 2, s. 2.)" When we appeal to that tradition which is from the Apostles, and is preserved in the churches, through the successions of the presbyters, per successiones presbyterorum, they oppose traditions, saying; that they are wiser, not only than the presbyters, but even than the Apostles." That by presbyters here, are meant officers, seems conclusively established by their successions. These were necessarily described by the successive primi, or posoles. In the next chapter he observes; "It is ea

sy for all who wish to see the truth, to behold in every church the traditional doctrines of the Apostles announced in all the world, and we can enumerate those, who by the Apostles were ordained,instituti sunt, bishops, episcopi, in the churches, and the successors, (or successions,) of them, even to ourselves; who taught no such thing; nor did they know, what is doted about by these. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were teaching to higher proficients in secret, and without the knowledge of the rest, they would especially have delivered them to those, to whom they committed the churches. For they earnestly desired, that they should be perfect in all things, and irreprehensible, whom they were leaving as successors, delivering up their own place of government, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes.” The very same traditions and successions, here referred to bishops, were in the next preceding chapter predicated expressly of presbyters. If therefore the passage, in this chapter, be taken alone, as it has sometimes been, and accounted "the testimony of Irenæus," it will, though true in the sense of the writer, speak what he never intended; at least, it will do so in the eyes of those, who understand the term bishop in their own modern acceptation. Those therefore whom later times have elevated into diocesan bishops, were, in the days of Irenæus, bishops only as they were presbyters. When enumerated in sucessions, because presiding presbyters in particular churches, they must have been ordained in the same manner, as other presbyters; since there is no evidence that there was as yet any but one ordination of elders. To represent the magisterium, which was given to officers, indifferently called presbyters and bishops, as au authority given to bishops over presbyters, is to adopt a conclusion without premises. To say that the succession and mastership affirmed

by Irenæus of bishops, who were presbyters, are a proof, that bishops in the modern sense, were intended by him, is the petitio principii, or weakness of begging the question. The frequent mention, made by this writer, of the uninterrupted successions in several of the principal churches, does not appear to have proceeded from his respect to the dignity, or even to the importance of such presidential authority in the respective particular churches, but from the certainty which he supposed to have been hereby attached to the traditional doctrines, which he opposed to the heretics, against whom he wrote. The gift to Linus of the public work of the episcopate, or oversight, "IσXOTHE XEITOUPIα, "(e) being understood of the individual church at Rome, "xxλndia,” expresses care and labor, not worldly honor. So Clement, who succeeded Linus, and Polycarp, mentioned under the same circumstances in this chapter thought. That Irenæus intended no superiority above presbyters is also clear; because he afterwards assigns the episcopate, in so many words, to presbyters. "It is proper," says he, "to obey those presbyters, eis presbyteris, who are in the church, "his," these, who have sucession from the Apostles, as we have shown; who with the succession of the episcopate, qui cum episcopatus successione, have received the sure, gift of the truth, according to the will of the father."(f)" Presbyters," it has been objected, may mean here, old men. But he contrasts those presbyters, with the heretical preachers, and speaks of them as being in the church, and having succession from the Apostles, and with the succession of the episcopate, as having received the gift of the truth; that is, those sound doctrines, which are taught in the original churches. On all which accounts, they were to be obeyed,

(e) Lib. iii. C. 3. S. 2, 3. (f) Lib. iv. C. 26. S. 2.

rather than the heretics, who had none of these things. "Such presbyters, gerBulegous," he says in another place," the church nourishes, concerning whom also the prophet says, I will give your princes, apxovlas, in peace, and bishops, 100Tous, in righteousness.""(g) The prophecy which he here introduces, in support of presbyters, expresses bishops. The succession from the apostles, which he sometimes affirms of bishops, (h) he also applied to presbyters: repeatedly thus discovering, that he accounted presbyters to be bishops, and bishops presbyters. When Irenæus therefore makes presbyters the successors of the apostles, and ascribes the episcopacy to presbyters, he may be considered a very positive, as well as competent witness to establish, that there were no preachers, after the apostles and evangelists, of an order higher than that of presbyters, nor any presbyters of an inferior grade.

In another place he speaks of bishops, as of those to whom the apostles delivered the churches, "episcopi quibus Apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias," and says that "the church every where preaches the truth.'(i) In the next paragraph he observes, that "They who leave (relinquent) the preaching of the church, praeconium ecclesiæ, accuse, arguunt the holy presbyters of ignorance." The presbyters named in this passage are spoken of as the only preachers then in the church, as baving had succession from the apostles, as being the bishops to whom the church was committed, and evidently the highest officers, at that period existing in the church. The writer is speaking of his own day, and in the present tense, and therefore excludes the fond conceit of those, who imagine that Irenæus used the terms bishop and presbyter promiscuously, only of those, who lived before his day.

(g) Lib. iv. C. 26. S. 5. (h) Lib. iv. C. 33. (i) Lib. v. 20.

It

is plain that one preaching office only existed in this age. He mentions no preaching officer of his day either superior or inferior to a presbyter, and no class among presbyters who were not preachers. Neither do the works which remain of Irenæus, nor any other genuine writing in or before his time, appear to contain a solitary proof of any distinction in the office of presbyter.

One passage only have we found in Irenæus to present a semblance of variance with the promiscuous use of presbyter and bishop. "The bish ops and presbyters who were from Ephesus, and other neighbouring cities, being convened at Miletus, because he," Paul, “was hastening to spend Pentecost at Jerusalem," &c. (k) In the history of "the Acts of the Apostles," the bishops only of a single "flock," or church are addressed, unless we suppose them placed over the whole christian church. Consequently, they who are on that occasion called presbyters, are the same persons whom Paul denominates bishops. If the original of this inconsistent passage should ever emerge from darkness, and article should follow the xa before ger Buregov, the identical persons were at the same time bishops and presbyters. This hearsay evidence, for a version is no more, of a distinction in the only preaching office, appears in a faulty, barbarous and miserable translation, the original of which, at the place, has been lost. It not only stands alone, and is at va

no

riance with every book and testimony before it, but it is diametrically opposed to all the numerous representations of Irenæus himself upon the same subject. And after all, if the distinction had been expressed by him, and had been true, it could have furnished not even the idea of a lay presbyter.

That this passage in the translation falsely represents the mind of Irenæus, plainly appears, when he afterwards expressly affirms the office of presbyter to be the bighest in the church.(1) "They who have also been accredited as presbyters by many, but serve their own pleasures and have no fear of God, in their hearts, who treat others reproachfully and are puffed up with the loftiness of the principal seat, et principalis concessionis (m) tumore elati sunt, and do evil in secret, and say no one sees us, shall be condemned by the Word." This language plainly represents, that the presbyterial office was the highest in the church. If the gosolwles presidents of churches are here intended, which is probable, because he speaks of such in the persons of Soter, Victor and others, in the present catalogue of popes, yet they are in this place expressly called presbyters. The testimony of Irenæus is therefore upon the whole decisive, that in his day, the office of presbyters was one and undived, and the brightest in the christian church; and consequently that no presbyters were laymen.

J. P. W.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »