Objections to the Catholic view on Church Government: A Response to the Dutch Reformed and an Examination of St. Jerome

"Οι Απόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ΙΗΣΟΥ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς Επισκοῆς. 

Our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention about the name of Episcopacy." 

- St. Clement of Rome, Epis. to Corinth.

Recently a friend of mine had translated a section from Gisbertus Voetius' Disputation concerning the episcopacy. However, upon reading some of the arguments put forth in that post he had made, I was disappointed by the neglected engagement of the tradition from the English divines on this issue.  

Now, being new to the Anglican tradition, I am careful to speak on issues I am not confident about. The greatest virtue anyone can learn when coming to the faith or to a new tradition is silence. But here, I am certain that my comments will not presume more knowledge than I have. Here I will not give an extensive case for the Episcopacy, my goal is much more modest. I hope to give an apology, showing how the objections used are not enough to disprove the historical view of the Eastern and Western churches. 

Additionally, this post will presume that the reader has either some knowledge of that post in question or an introductory knowledge of the controversy surrounding the Episcopacy. Much like the English divines of the Reformation, they were prompted by their continental counterparts to give a defense of their view, and here too, being prompted, I will make a response. Now, because none of the arguments in that post are put into a syllogism I will attempt to form them in that way. Also, after addressing the main argument of the post, I want to engage with St. Jerome and offer some comments. 

I say all of the following with no malice or contempt, but an earnest desire from charity, that this brother, and perhaps others, will not be persuaded by these kinds of arguments against the properly catholic and divinely ordered structure for the church of Christ, but rather that they might be led to embrace the fullness of truth. 

THE OBJECTION - 

Maj. The terms "πρεσβύτερος" and "ἐπίσκοπος" are interchangeable in the NT.

Min. But interchangeable terms have no real distinction between what they designate. 

Con. Therefore, there is no real distinction between the ministerial power of "πρεσβύτεροι" and "ἐπίσκοποι"

*If anyone doubts this is the argument, here's a direct quote from the post "[1. Obj.]: From the term "bishop" which they distinguish from "presbyter," and want to designate a different thing and power. [Resp:] but the contrary is evident from Phil. 1, Tit. 1, Acts 20" 

RESPONSE - 

The Major premise we concede: All of the English Divines and early Fathers note that both the terms are common and applied promiscuously but eventually are given to particular people because of the substance of the reality, i.e., that there is some intrinsic difference between a particular Priest and the rest. At most, the New Testament shows what we already teach, that the terms are interchangeable. But, it goes no further into saying that there is only one degree in the office of Priest. So, by custom and use of language, what both sides admit, is that the terms narrowed their meaning and application as is the case with all things, e.g., that other men are called "Apostles" such as Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25 "Ἐπαφρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν καὶ συνεργὸν καὶ συστρατιώτην μου ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον") but by custom the term is reserved for the twelve. Now the term "apostle" in its linguistic sense refers to one who is sent out, but when we by common speech use the term we imagine distinctly only the twelve apostles despite this. This is why translations of Phil. 2:25 will not translate that Ephaphroditus is an "apostle" but rather a "messenger." 

Also, we must be clear, that from the traditional Anglican view, our experience of Bishops was not immediate in the apostolic age. For just as Deacons were not always in the church, but made by the necessity of the Apostolic choice, and following the divine image of the Old Testament reality, so too the same with Bishops. The major premise has no bearing on the validity of the Anglican position.

The Minor premise we reject: On one hand, it is true that terms used interchangeably could indeed apply to one subject, however, this does not mean the terms necessarily collapse into each other's identity, i.e., that a presbyter necessarily is an overseer. To wit, Peter is called an Apostle, but he too is called a "fellow elder" (συμπρεσβύτερος) 1Pet 5:1. Therefore, because there are interchangeable terms for Peter, namely “Apostle” and “Elder”, we identify one subject of multiple names. But, by the logic used above, this would mean there is no real distinction between the office of apostle or elder. This is so obviously false that no one would accept this argument. 

Now, if one responds, "But there are two ministerial realities signified by the terms of apostle and elder, and so your counter does not suffice", we answer, "Firstly, that was neither your objection nor our argument. Your argument deals simply with the concept that terms are interchangeable and thus means that there is no degree of difference in the office of priest. Further, with your response to the counter, the same is said for us. For we say there are two ministerial realities signified by the witness of the NT, although not immediately present with names, but present by demonstration and example both from the Apostles and their successors such as Titus and Timothy" 

Regarding also the conclusion, we note: Firstly, (1) the major premise does not deal with whether the terms contain only one or two ministerial realities in the priesthood, only that terms are interchangeable. Secondly, (2) the conclusion attempts to make an assessment as to whether there are different realities only based on names. In other words, the major premise does nothing to contribute to the conclusion of the same thing (res) in distinct signs, which is a confusion of categories within the argument and makes it weaker.  

In short, just because these terms happened to be used more loosely in the NT, shows no bearing on whether there is a distinction between the priesthood, i.e., that one among them has an intrinsic power that distinguishes him from the rest. More must be shown to disprove or demonstrate that position. 

As a final note on this point, consider the following from Bishop Lancelot Andrews in his Epistle to Pierre Du Moulin: 

"That the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are taken promiscuously in Holy Scriptures: that at first, there was not so great force in the Words, I shall easily grant you... [you presume] that these things were spoken to this purpose, as if the Names being promiscuous, the Things themselves were so also... For, in those very places, in those very Authors whom you name, it is said in like manner also of Deacons. Even a Bishop is called a Deacon: whereupon S. Paul, writing to Timothy, said to him, though a Bishop, Fulfill thy Deaconry. From thence you may gather, that the Names of Bishop and Deacon are taken for the same. Nay, the very Apostles themselves call themselves sometimes Presbyters, sometimes Deacons, and so their whole Office a Deaconry; and yet is not Deacon or Presbyter the same that Apostle. Why therefore did you not add that too, that it might appear that the other suffered as much as Bishops: and that, in the beginning, not only the names of Bishops but of other Orders also were taken, in like manner, promiscuously; whereas the Things, the Offices themselves were distinct." 2nd Epist. ad Moulin (here) 

*For those who wish to read more on this from others who can more eloquently set forth the Anglican position, I recommend Bp. James Ussher's, Bp. Thomas Bilson's, and Bp. Lancelot Andrews' defenses (here Bp. JU (pgs. 267-282) (here Bp. TB) and (here Bp. LA)

Additionally, these discussions often contain citations from St. Jerome. His Epis. 83 and commentary on Titus have been used to such a degree, that in a manner of speaking, those opposed to the episcopacy have "rung out more ink than is present within the page", that is to say, they have drawn more from him than is actually present in his own words. 

Here, I want to challenge the idea that Jerome doesn't affirm the catholic view, which is often conceded or granted in some cases. From his commentary, the following is cited, "bishops are greater than presbyters, rather by the custom of the church than by the truth of the Lord's disposition." (Comm. ad Tit. 1:5) Regarding this quote, I think Bilson handles this well, so I will use him here. Again, I urge the reader to examine Bilson's work if they wish to dive into this further. 

Bilson says the following, 

"The other [St. Jerome] resolving that " bishops are greater than presbyters, rather by the custom of the church than by the truth of the Lord's disposition. Both these authorities [Ambrose and Jerome cited earlier*] I have thoroughly discussed and laid forth the right intent of those fathers, not only by comparison of other writers, but even by their own confession, lest any should think I draw them to a foreign sense besides their true meaning; for when Jerome and [St. Augustine] allege the use and custom of the church, for the distinction betwixt bishops and presbyters, if it be understood of the names and " titles of honor'," which at first were common to both, and after divided by the use of the church," as [St. Augustine] expresseth, we can absolutely grant the places without any prejudice to the cause if it be applied to their power and function in the church; it is most true that Jerome saith, " presbyters were subject" (in such sort as the primitive church observed) rather by custom than by the truth of the Lord's ordinance. For presbyters in the primitive church, as appeareth by Tertullian, Jerome, Posidonius, and others, " might neither baptize, preach, nor administer the Lord's supper without the bishop's leave," especially in his presence; which indeed grew rather by custom for the preservation of order, than by any rule or commandment of the Lord. By the word of God, " a bishop did nothing which a presbyter might not do, save imposing of hands to ordain. [Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat? - St. Hieronymus] " That is the only distinction in the scriptures betwixt a bishop and a presbyter, as Jerome and Chrysostom affirm; other differences, which the church kept many, as to impose hands on the baptized and converted, to reconcile penitents, and such like, were rather peculiar to the bishop for the honor of his calling, than for any necessity of God's law." 

- Bilson, Thomas, The Perpetual Government of Christ's Church (Oxford, LD: Oxford University Press, 1842) pgs.14-16

Adding onto Bilson, I'd like to offer a few comments. Firstly, suppose Jerome conceived that Bishops and Priests were all together one in the entirety of the apostolic age. In that case, it makes no sense that he says the only thing that distinguishes them is the imposition of hands for ordination, "Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat?" i.e., "What does a bishop do that a presbyter does not do, except for ordination?" (Epis. cxlvi. ad Evangelum) 

For he either means this by what is proper to the office in its institution, or what arrives later by custom. If he means this for the former, then he teaches our view, if the latter, then his point is superfluous as he has already shown that there are delegated rights and honors to Bishops more than just "imposing of hands to ordain." This shows that it cannot be the case St. Jerome holds their view. 

Further, Jerome seems to show the head of a presbytery is from Christ himself, and thus apostolical, when in his "Contra Jovinius" he says, 

"But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all..." (ibid. Bk. 1.26)

He says that Peter was chosen by Christ as a head so that there be no occasion for schism. But what is the common refrain of the defenders of the new order? That the appointing of a head over the presbytery for unity and protection against schism is only a later tradition made and given by the custom of the church. However, Jerome places this in the action of Christ. Of course, the above citation plainly contradicts this. For it was "one among the twelve that was chosen." 

Further, it cannot be the case that a threefold system of order is only a man-made construction from the perspective of Jerome. I am indebted for the following section to "MG" for his work on this issue, read his entire article on this (here), 

Later, in the same letter cited above, Jerome says, 

"Of the names presbyter and bishop the first denotes age, the second rank. In writing both to Titus and to Timothy the apostle speaks of the ordination of the bishops and of deacons, but says not a word of the ordination of presbyters; for the fact is that the word bishops includes presbyters also. Again when a man is promoted it is from a lower place to a higher. Either then a presbyter should be ordained a deacon, from the lesser office, that is, to the more important, to prove that a presbyter is inferior to a deacon; or if on the other hand it is the deacon that is ordained presbyter, this latter should recognize that, although he may be less highly paid than a deacon, he is superior to him in virtue of his priesthood. In fact as if to tell us that the traditions handed down by the apostles were taken by them from the Old Testament, bishops, presbyters, and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple." 

- (Epis. cxlvi. ad Evangelum)

Two questions must be asked, (1) why does St. Jerome emphasize the identity of the offices? And (2), is there an apostolical distinction between the Bishop and Presbyter despite their similitude? To answer the first, we must consider the context for why this letter is being written, i.e., Jerome writes this because someone is contending that deacons are equal to presbyters. 
 
So answering the first, as to why he emphasizes the identity between bishops and priests, it is for the refuting of the error he is writing against. So how does he refute this error? 
 
He shows (1) that Deacons are not equal to bishops. Then, (2) if anything could be equal to a bishop in power or authority, it would be greater than a deacon. Therefore, (3) if presbyters can be equal to bishops, then presbyters must be greater than deacons and not equal to them. So, (4) if presbyters were once bishops (and thus they can be equal to bishops) it is concluded that (5) presbyters must be greater than deacons.
 
The emphasis on the offices here is to show that presbyters are greater than deacons because of their similitude to bishops, it has no impact on whether there is an apostolical distinction between a bishop and a presbyter per se. To urge that he collapses the identity of the offices because of this is to, as stated earlier, “ring out more ink than is present within the page.” Further, he rejects this idea implicitly by what will be shown in the answer to the second question, and explicitly by what was stated earlier mentioning that all that distinguishes the two is a function not common to the other (i.e., imposition of hands to ordain*).

Answering the second question [is there an apostolical distinction between the Bishop and Presbyter despite their similitude in Jerome?] we can say, 
 
Yes, there is an apostolical distinction between the Bishop and Priest in Jerome. Why? Jerome offers the three (Bishop, Priest, Deacon) as offices being "handed down from the apostles" and a copy of the three-fold order of "Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple." He says this in light of the earlier statement, “What does a bishop do that a presbyter does not do, except for ordination?" so although there is a more intimate identity between the two earlier on, by the Apostle's charge and tradition, the distinction is made clear, and eventually made more explicit by the church when she affords certain rights and honors to the bishop uniquely. Notice, that it is from the apostles handing down that the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons fulfill the seats and image of Aaron (High priest), his sons (gen. priests), and the Levites (servants of the temple).

TO CONCLUDE -

There is much more I would like to say concerning the objections made to the Anglican view of church order, and the use of Jerome in this controversy, especially comments by Jerome concerning the ordination of Polycarp as the Bishop of the entirety of Asia by the Apostle St. John, "Polycarpus, Joannis apostoli discipulus et ab eo Smyrnæ episcopus ordinatus, totius Asiæ princeps fuit, i.e., "Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John and ordained by him as bishop of Smyrna, was the leader of all Asia." (Jerome, Catalogus Scriptor. ecclesiast.) but I will not write further. I again employ the reader to read through the resources provided above for a fuller, richer, and more expansive defense of the historical and apostolic view of church order. I hope I fulfilled my goal of giving a little apology for the Anglican view and that my comments on St. Jerome did not frustrate his original intent or meaning. 

I pray this brief article was helpful and edifying to all who read it. May the Lord Jesus Christ bring you all a greater love for him and his sacraments, apart from which "the Saints are not gathered, the Church is not edified, faith is not perfected, [and] heaven is not opened." - Bp. Thomas Bilson