Church History, Volume 1 (of 3)Kurtz, J. H. (Johann Heinrich)
Religion
Church History, Volume 1 (of 3)
Kurtz, J. H. (Johann Heinrich)
Church history
§ 17.6. =The question about the original position of the
Episcopate and Presbyterate=, as well as their relation to one
another, has received three different answers. According to
the =Roman Catholic= theory, which is also that of the Anglican
Episcopal Church, the clerical, hierarchical arrangement of the
third century, which gave to each of the larger communities a
bishop as its president with a number of presbyters and deacons
subject to him, existed as a divine institution from the
beginning. It is unequivocally testified by the New Testament,
and, as appears from the First Epistle of Clement of Rome (ch. 42,
44, 57), the fact had never been disputed down to the close of
the first century, that bishops and presbyters are identical.
The force of this objection, however, is sought to be obviated by
the subterfuge that while all bishops were indeed presbyters, all
presbyters were not bishops. The ineptitude of such an evasion
is apparent. In Phil. i. 1 the Apostle, referring to this one
particular church greeted not one but several bishops. According
to Acts xx. 17, 28, all the presbyters of the one Ephesian
community are made bishops by the Holy Ghost. Also, Tit. i. 5, 7
unconditionally excludes such a distinction; and according to
1 Pet. v. 2, all such presbyters should be ἐπισκοποῦντες.--In
opposition to this theory, which received the sanction of the
Council of Trent, the =Old Protestant= theologians maintained the
original identity of the two names and offices. In support of
this they could refer not only to the New Testament, but also to
Clement of Rome and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (§ 34, 1),
where, just as in Phil. i. 1, only bishops and deacons are named
as congregational officers, and as appointed by the free choice
of the congregation. They can also point to the consensus of the
most respected church fathers and church teachers of later times.
Chrysostom (Hom. ix. in _Ep. ad Tim._) says: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι
τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκαλοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι Χριστοῦ, καὶ οἱ
ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι. Jerome (_ad Tit._ i. 5) says: _Idem
est presbyter qui et episcopus et antequam diaboli instinctu
studia in religione fierent ... communi presbyterorum concilio
gubernantur ecclesiæ._ Augustine, and other church fathers of the
fourth and fifth centuries, as well as Urban II. in A.D. 1091,
Petrus [Peter] Lombardus and the Decree of Gratian, may all
be referred to as supporting the same view. After such an
identification of the person and office, the existence of the two
names must be explained from their meaning as words, by assuming
that the title ἐπίσκοπος, which arose among the Gentile-Christian
churches, pointed more to the duty officially required, while
the title πρεσβύτερος, which arose among the Jewish-Christian
churches, pointed more to the honourable character of the person
(1 Tim. v. 17, 19). The subsequent development of a monarchical
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account