The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-27

except their own,-the Lutherans not bayin O
preserved the succession of their bishops, while
the Calvinists had altogether abolished that
order.-they began to speak of them, not as breth-
rem OF the same faith united in the same cause
and distinguished only by differences little more
material than those of political commonwealths
(Which had been the language of the Church of
England ever since the Reformation. but as
aliens to whom they were not at all related and
sschismatics with whom they held no commun
lon,-nay, as wanting the very essence of a
Christian society. This again brought them
nearer oy irresistible consequence to the dis
ciples OF Rome, whom, with becoming charity.
but against the received creed of the Puritans'
and perhaps against their own articles, they ali
acknowledged to be part of the Catholic
Church, while they were withholding that an
Pellation, expressly or by inference, from Hell
deberg and Geneva"
Clarendon males the same statement.
By taking this step, England drew a
line between herself and the work of all
the Reformers in the rest of Europe
Luther, Melancthon, and Bucer, in Ger
many; Farel, Viret, and Calvin, in France
and Geneva; zwingle and Gcolampadius,
IN Switzerland; Peter Martyr in Italy !;
A. Lasco, in Hungary; Knox, in Scot
land; all of whom believed in Presbyte-
rian ordination, and the parity of the
ministry.
JEROME.
D. DIR. Armstrong depreciates the .tes-
timony of Jerome. He says he lived as
late as A. ID. $40. Jerome was the
scholar of the ancient Church. He is
the author of the Latin Vulgate. He
was the contemporary and peer of Au-
gustine. 1t is one of the greatest names
in Christian antiquity. He lived just at
the time when the Episcopate was in full
flower. 1t so happens that he is one OF
the few patristic writer's who have under
taken to account for the expansion and
enlargement of the Episcopal office. For
tunately, living in the 4th century, he
has left these precious words on record,
to explain this great puzzle, which has
so greatly perplexed the judgments OF
men. What motive did he have to mis-
represent? He was faithful son of the
Church; he did not seek to overthrow
Episcopacy; he wrote merely as critic
His testimony is nearly decisive. Yet
Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, is equally
explicit on this very same point, but we
can only allude to him.
And SO we do not cite Polycarp, Justin
Martyr, Iren@us, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, Firmilian, Chrysos-
tom, Hilary, etc., simply because our
space fails us.
Dr. Armstrong does not notice our cita-
ton of Bishop Lightfoot; he is very high
authority on question of this sort.
ARCHBISHOP wHATELY AND DEAN
STANLEY.
We must cite the following from Arch
bishop Whately and the late Dean Stan
ley. Archbishop Whately was one of
the most clear-headed and candid of
writers. In his Kingdom of Christ and
Errors of Romanism," he says:
(P. Az. "a CHURCH and DIOCESE seem to
have been for a considerable time co-ertensive
and IDENTICAL"
P. 74). Successors, in the Apostolic office,
the Apostles have none"
In the christian institutions" of Dean
Stanley, recently published, he says:
(P. 2l0). 1--WE commonly speak ofthree Orders.
and the present elevation of Bishops has fully
Justified that phrase but according to the strict
rules of the Church, derived from those early
times, there are but two-Presbyters and Dea
cons"
(P. Pa 1t was only by slow degrees that
the name of Bishop became appropriated to one
chief pastor raised high in rank and station
above the mass OF the clergy.
u. 2l2). Before the conversion of the EN-
Pire, Bishops and Presbyters alike were chosen
by the whole mass OF the people in the parish
or the diocese (the words at that time were al
most interchangeable. The election of Dana
sus at Rome, of Gregory at Constantinople, of
Ambrose at Milan, and of Chrysostom at Con-
stantnople, are decisive proofs of this practice.
A QUESTION OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY.
But we must stop, and the main point
has just been touched. That main point.
we repeat, is this No matter who is right
in this discussion, that is no reason WHY
one Church agreeing in fundamentals and
the 80 articles are an excellent embodi-
ment Of truth), should unchurch another.
That is what DR.. Armstrong and the
Churchn1on will not talk about. How can
thau onproua 40 Eoo,1ooJ L -