CHAP. XXIII.

AN OPINION OF ST. JEROME'S REFUTED.

In reply to an objection which is adduced. from St. Jerome's Commentary on Tit. i. namely, that Bishops are above Presbyters rather by human custom, than by virtue of our Lord's institution, &c. I observe, that this was the private opinion of St. Jerome, agreeing with that of Aerius, and contrary to the word of God. It will be proper, however, to sift his arguments, lest we should appear rashly to disagree with him, and those learned and pious men who adopt his notion. St. Jerome says, 66 Before divisions arose in the Church by instigation of the Devil, and

before it was said among the nations, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presbyters: when, however, each had baptized his several disciples, and had begun to look upon them as his own, not Christ's; it was agreed throughout the world, that one Presbyter should be elected from among the rest, and set over them, to have charge of the whole Church, and for the eradication of all seeds of schism." As to his assertion, that the Churches were at first governed by the common advice of the Presbyters, I do not deny it, but it cannot thence be proved, that the subsequent appointment of Bishops as heads of the Churches was not part of our Lord's institution, no more than it can be proved that Presbyters and Deacons were not ordained by the Apostles, with a divine ordination, because, before the appointment of those Orders, the Churches were ruled by the Apostles with the help of Deacons, and without Presbyters. Every one knows, from the Epistle of St.

Paul to Titus, that the Apostles governed the Churches themselves with the aid of some few of their fellow-workers, before they ordained Presbyters; and whoever possesses the least discernment may easily perceive, that, in those first commencements of things, so long as the Apostles could themselves visit the Churches, there was no need of other Bishops besides them. Presbyters were sufficient, and might be very well styled Bishops, so long as there were no other Bishops, properly so called, but the Apostles. I allow then that there was a time, when the Churches were governed by the common advice of the whole community of believers; as, for instance, in Crete, in Corinth, and in Rome, before the creation of Presbyters; but these Churches having afterwards received Presbyters, like the Church of Philippi and that of Ephesus, were thenceforth governed by the advice of those Presbyters, but still under the superintendence of the Apostles and Evangelists. It does not however hence follow, that wherever

P

God gave men fit for such an office, the Apostles did not set single Bishops over these Presbyters, to take the place of the Apostles, and perform the same duties which these would have themselves performed, if they could have been every where and at all times present with the Churches, or had lived for ever. For what need could there be of other Bishops, so long as the Apostles themselves performed the duties of that office? When however the Churches increased in number throughout the world, and Christians became so numerous, that the Apostles could neither remain always on the same spot, nor visit all the places which required their presence, and which they gladly would have visited, could they possibly have done it, they at last appointed Bishops, to whom they deputed their duties; Titus, for instance, Timotheus, and many others; and this they did by the same divine authority by which they appointed Presbyters. As to the assertion of St. Jerome, that the superiority of Bishops over Pres