Jerome: The church’s government was originally presbyterial

[Reformed Covenanter]

Let us pay careful attention to the words of the apostle who says, “that you should appoint priests in every city, just as I arranged for you.” He discusses what sort of priest ought to be ordained in what follows when he says, “If anyone is without fault, a husband of one wife,” and so on. Later he added, “For a bishop must be without fault, as a steward of God.” It is therefore the very same priest, who is a bishop, and before there existed men who are slanderers by instinct, [before] factions in the religion, and [before] it was said to the people, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, but I am of Cephas,” the churches were governed by a common council of the priests. But after each one began to think that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ’s, it was decreed for the whole world that one of the priests should be elected to preside over the others, to whom the entire care of the church should pertain, and the seeds of schism would be removed. ...

For more, see:

Jerome: The church’s government was originally presbyterial

Jerome made the following comments on Titus 1:5 in relation to church government: Let us pay careful attention to the words of the apostle who says, “that you should appoint priests in every city, …

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

 

[Northern Crofter]

...it was decreed for the whole world that one of the priests should be elected to preside over the others, to whom the entire care of the church should pertain...

I'm afraid this sounds more papist than presbyterian

 

[LittleFaith]

I'm afraid this sounds more papist than presbyterian

That's the whole point he is making. The original form of government was corrupted with the passage of time.

 

[Northern Crofter]

That's the whole point he is making. The original form of government was corrupted with the passage of time.

I guess I read the full quote differently. Towards the end, Jerome sounds like he is justifying the papal order as an improvement in the Church - that when dissension ceased it allowed power to be given to one person. It sounds like his concern is that that one man is chosen carefully in the context of apostolic succession: "...gradually, as the seed beds of dissensions were eradicated, all solicitude was conferred on one man. Therefore, just as the priests know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who was previously appointed over them, so the bishops know that they, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, are greater than the priests. And they ought to rule the Church commonly, in imitation of Moses who, when he had under his authority to preside alone over the people of Israel, he chose the seventy by whom he could judge the people. Therefore let us see what sort of priest, or bishop, ought to be ordained."

 

[J.L. Allen]

I guess I read the full quote differently. Towards the end, Jerome sounds like he is justifying the papal order as an improvement in the Church - that when dissension ceased it allowed power to be given to one person. It sounds like his concern is that that one man is chosen carefully in the context of apostolic succession: "...gradually, as the seed beds of dissensions were eradicated, all solicitude was conferred on one man. Therefore, just as the priests know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who was previously appointed over them, so the bishops know that they, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, are greater than the priests. And they ought to rule the Church commonly, in imitation of Moses who, when he had under his authority to preside alone over the people of Israel, he chose the seventy by whom he could judge the people. Therefore let us see what sort of priest, or bishop, ought to be ordained."

The church would have come to appreciate an episcopal model of government by this point. So Jerome speaking positively of the change would make sense. Not only this, but the defenders of episcopal church government point to the relatively clear indication (as they see it) of the apostolic office, though no longer in existence as it was in the Apostles' day, as a Scriptural proof of their prelatic tendencies. I haven't read any church father of that era, Augustine included, who would have disagreed with prelatic church order and government.

Jerome's writing is good proof to say that something else existed before prelacy; namely, that Presbyterianism is not only justified by Scripture more consistently than episcopal church government (as we would argue), but it has its roots in the church's history, too.

 

[RamistThomist]

I guess I read the full quote differently. Towards the end, Jerome sounds like he is justifying the papal order as an improvement in the Church - that when dissension ceased it allowed power to be given to one person. It sounds like his concern is that that one man is chosen carefully in the context of apostolic succession: "...gradually, as the seed beds of dissensions were eradicated, all solicitude was conferred on one man. Therefore, just as the priests know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who was previously appointed over them, so the bishops know that they, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, are greater than the priests. And they ought to rule the Church commonly, in imitation of Moses who, when he had under his authority to preside alone over the people of Israel, he chose the seventy by whom he could judge the people. Therefore let us see what sort of priest, or bishop, ought to be ordained."

We can make a distinction, one which Jerome might have made, between a bishop as administrator and a bishop as the font of succession. For all practical purposes, a presbyter of presbyters would have arisen, especially since Rome was the capital of the world. None of that entails papal claims.

Said another way: Jerome argued that Presbyter and Episkopos were synonymous. But he also argues that for the sake of good order in the church, churches felt they had to have administrators.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The church would have come to appreciate an episcopal model of government by this point. So Jerome speaking positively of the change would make sense. Not only this, but the defenders of episcopal church government point to the relatively clear indication (as they see it) of the apostolic office, though no longer in existence as it was in the Apostles' day, as a Scriptural proof of their prelatic tendencies. I haven't read any church father of that era, Augustine included, who would have disagreed with prelatic church order and government.

Jerome's writing is good proof to say that something else existed before prelacy; namely, that Presbyterianism is not only justified by Scripture more consistently than episcopal church government (as we would argue), but it has its roots in the church's history, too.

I agree - I don't see Jerome suggesting presbyterian polity as much as episcopal church government, but I do appreciate the point that he is clear that something else existed before prelacy. I think I was reacting to the title of the post - perhaps it would be more accurate to title it "Jerome: Something else existed before the papacy."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Jerome is not arguing for Presbyterianism. Some people have tried to argue that Jerome was a Presbyterian, but that is an unobjective misreading of him. He is saying that the church was originally governed by a council of presbyters; but, as I read him, he justified later developments away from this form of polity.

 

[RamistThomist]

I agree - I don't see Jerome suggesting presbyterian polity as much as episcopal church government, but I do appreciate the point that he is clear that something else existed before prelacy. I think I was reacting to the title of the post - perhaps it would be more accurate to title it "Jerome: Something else existed before the papacy."

We also need to beware the tendency to read "incipient papism" in aspects of the early church. Eastern Orthodox, for example, are militantly opposed to the Papacy, yet they had bishops and the like.