The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-13

vi NltSeuOnid, anu CERTAINLY tueTe COulu not De
in the one city many bishops, in the present
meaning of the term. But because at that time
they called the same persons bishops whom they
called presby tiers, on that account he spoke of
bishops indifferently as of presbyters. This
may still seem doubtful to some unless it be
proved by another testimony 1t is written in
the Acts of the Apostles, that when he had come
to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called the
presbyters of that church. to whom he after
wards said, among other things, Attend to your
selves, and to all the flock over which the Holy
Spirit hath placed you bishops, to feed the
church of the Lord, which he has gained by his
blood And here observe more particularly,
that inviting the presbyters of the one city,
Ephesus, he afterwards calls the same bishops
If that epistle which is written to the Hebrews
under the ma of Paul, be received there also
the care OF a church is equally divided among
many; forasmuch as he writes to the people
Obey your leaders, and be in subsection. for
they watch for your souls, as rendering an &C.
count, lest they may do this with sorrow since
this Is to your advantage. And Peter, who de-
rived his name from the irmness of his faith
speaks in his epstle. saying, Wherefore the
presby.ers among you intreat, who am a CO
presbyter, and witness of the suferings of Christ
who am also an associate in the glory which is
hereafter to be revealed feed the Lords flock,
which is among you, not from necessity but
choice.
These things are recorded, that we may
show, that the ancient presbyters were the same
as the bishops. but by little and little, that the
roots of dissentions might be torn up, the whole
trouble Yves devolved on one. Wherefore, as
presbyters know that they are subjected to him
who shall have been placed over them by the
custom OF the church, so the bishops may know
that they are greater than presbyters, rather by
custom than by the verify of the Lords appoint
ment; and that they ought to govern the church
In common, initiating Moses who when he had
1t In his power to preside over the people of
Israel alone, selected seventy, with whom he
might Judge the people" -Oper. tom. vi, PIP.
1880.
This is very strong, and removes all
difficulty from this subject. 1t completely
negatives DR.. Armstrong; idea that the
Bishops were the successors and repre-
sentatiyes of the Apostles. We hear
nothing about Timothy and Titus
Jerome KIN better, and DIR. Arm
strongs suggesr.on that "we (the editors
of the Central Presbyterian know moth
ing about the writings of Episcopa-
lians for 1900 years." applies as strong
ly to Jerome as to US. He displays
equal ignorance. Surely, after read
ing this passage, no candid Episcopal
liam ought on such an issue (where he
in fact is the party in error), to put OF
airs OF superiority, and refuse to recog-
Mise the other Protestant churches of
Europe and America as in all respects
the peers of the Church of England, or,
at least, as sections of the Church Uni
versal.
This is a new position for the Episco-
pal Church. 1t was not the attitude of
the Church Of England in the time of
Cranmer, Parker, Grindal, and Whitgift.
Here is what Macaulay says on the sub
iect:
The founders the Anglican Church had
retained Eplscopacy "a an ancient, decent, and
convenient ecclesiastical polity, but had not
declared that form of Church government to be
OF Divine institution. We have already seen
how low an estimate Cranmer had form ed of the
office OF bishop. In the reign of Elizabeth
Jewel, Cooper, Whitgift, and other eminent doc
tors defended Prelacy as innocent, as useful. as
what the State might lawfully establish. as what
when established by the State, was entitled to
hN iSoPSNO VI ONeIy ClIIZen. but theY never
denied that Christian community without
bishop might be pnre Church On the con
trary, they regarded the Protestants of the Con
tlnent as of the same household of faith with
themselves: Englishmen in England were in.
deed bound to acknowledge the authority of the
bishop, as they were bound to acknowledge the
authority OF the sheriff and of the coroner: but
the obligation was purely local. An English
Churchman, nay, even an English prelate, If he
went to Holland, conformed without scruple to
the established religion of Holland Abroad.
the ambassadors of Elizabeth and James went
IN state to the very worship which Elizabeth
and James prosecuted at home, and carefully
abstained from decorating their private chapeis
after the Anglican fashion, lest offence should
be given to weaker brethren. In the year 1903.
the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury
solemnly recognised the Church of Scotland. a
Church in which Episcopal control and Episco
pal ordination were then unknown. as branch
OF the Holy Catholic Church of Christ. It was
even held that Presbyterian ministers were en-
titled to place and voice in Gcumenical Coun
ellis"
Hallam and Clarendon testify to pre-
cisely the same effect.
The conceit adopted by the Church.
mani that Timothy was bishop of
Ephesus, and Titus bishop of Crete, is
not supported by any evidence. Timothy
and Titus are constantly described as at
tached to the person of Paul, and as
going forth from time to time in the