# Presbyterian gov't in the early church



## wturri78 (Dec 31, 2008)

I've heard several times that the government of the earliest church was presbyterian, with no distinction between an "elder" and "overseer," and that each congregation was governed by a plurality of elders. I've also heard it said that certain elders came to be "first among equals" and then eventually the system evolved to mirror the Roman hierarchical model, with bishops being over elders, and with elders being appointed from the top down rather than chosen from the bottom up. 

I've also read from those who defend episcopal government, that this is either nonsense or is a misreading of the earliest history, and that the episcopate is both biblical and historically original. Naturally everyone has a nice collection of quotes from early fathers ready to prove their point.

What evidence, primary sources, etc. can be used to show that the early church was presbyterian in its government? Quotes and citations would be appreciated if you have them handy.

Thanks!
Bill


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 31, 2008)

This little booklet is a good place to start, getting the Presbyterian view, as drawn from the Bible (over against an emphasis on church history)
The Apostolic Church - Which is it?

This thread has several other links and recommendations on the subject of ecclesiology
http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/heavy-duty-ecclesiology-21616/


----------



## Ginny Dohms (Dec 31, 2008)

wturri78 said:


> What evidence, primary sources, etc. can be used to show that the early church was presbyterian in its government? Quotes and citations would be appreciated if you have them handy.



Acts 15 lays out Presbyterianism. When things could not be resolved on a local church level, the issue was taken to the multitude of elders and apostles in Jerusalem for a discussion, a decision, and a ruling.


----------



## DTK (Dec 31, 2008)

wturri78 said:


> I've heard several times that the government of the earliest church was presbyterian, with no distinction between an "elder" and "overseer," and that each congregation was governed by a plurality of elders. I've also heard it said that certain elders came to be "first among equals" and then eventually the system evolved to mirror the Roman hierarchical model, with bishops being over elders, and with elders being appointed from the top down rather than chosen from the bottom up.



First of all, I would recommend purchasing and reading Peter Lampe, _From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries_, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) where on p. 397 he states the thesis for which he argues..."The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75), and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. *Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship*." To be sure, Lampe's not the easiest to read simply for this one subject, but I think that the proof which he states for his thesis above is well presented.

As for patristic writers, they constantly called attention to the fact that a presbyter and bishop held one and the same office in the primitive church, and that they were different descriptions for it. The quotes from the early church father Jerome are the most numerous in this respect. Particularly interesting is Jerome's exegesis of Titus...


> *Jerome (347-420):* A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and *before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil*, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ *Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters*; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. *Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’ *John Harrison, _Whose Are the Fathers?_ (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867), p.488. See also Karl Von Hase, _Handbook to the Controversy with Rome_, trans. A. W. Streane, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. rev. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909), p. 164. Cited also by Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.4.2, pp. 1069-1070.
> *Latin text:* Idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu, studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis: Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi presbyterorum consilio, Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Putet aliquis non Scripturarum, sed nostram esse sententiam, episcopum et presbyterum unum esse, et aliud aetatis, aliud esse nomen officii: relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis: Paulus et Timothaeus servi Jesu Christi, omnibus sanctis in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Philippis, cum episcopis et diaconis, gratia vobis et pax, et reliqua. Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:562-563.
> 
> *Jerome (347-420):* Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person.
> ...



*Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466)*, an eastern father this time, in his commentaries on 1 Timothy and Titus, makes essentially the same point as that of Jerome. For example, while commenting on 1 Timothy 3:1 he says, "By _overseer_ here he (Paul) means elder, as we demonstrated in commenting on the letter to the Philippians. Here, too, it is very easy to grasp this: after the laws for overseers he puts in writing those for deacons, making no mention of the elders. But, as I remarked, at that time they were in the habit of calling the same people overseers and elders, whereas to those now called overseers they gave the name apostles." And then later in his commentary on Titus 1:7, Theodoret wrote, "From this it is clear that they called the elders _overseers_: after saying, _that you might appoint elders in every city_, he went on, _An overseer, you see, must be above reproach_. Now it was the custom for there to be in each city a number, not of bishops, but of elders." See Robert Charles Hill, _Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul,_ Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), pp. 216-217, 253.



> I've also read from those who defend episcopal government, that this is either nonsense or is a misreading of the earliest history, and that the episcopate is both biblical and historically original. Naturally everyone has a nice collection of quotes from early fathers ready to prove their point.


I have read Anglicans who are very open to the evidence that the early church was originally governed by a college of and/or a plurality of elders.


> What evidence, primary sources, etc. can be used to show that the early church was presbyterian in its government? Quotes and citations would be appreciated if you have them handy.


If you don't have the time to read volumes and volumes of patristic literature, I recommend that you go here, Internet Archive: Details: Whose are the fathers? : or, The teaching of certain Anglo-Catholics on the church and its ministry, contrary alike to the Holy Scriptures, to the fathers of the first six centuries, and to those of the reformed Church of E and download for free, John Harrison, _Whose Are the Fathers?_ (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867). His is a very large catena of extended patristic citations on this and other subjects. He was writing to refute the claims of the Tractarians in the Oxford Movement of the 19th century.

DTK


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 1, 2009)

> His is a very large catena of extended patristic citations



I appreciate how my vocabulary grows here. My dictionary has what I assume is the related word, a noun

"catenary"- math curve assumed by the part of a cord or chain that hangs freely between two points.

So this is a range of opinions between two points, presbyterian and episcopal. Good information. Good language.


----------



## wturri78 (Jan 1, 2009)

My vocabulary grows, too! And we can even learn Latin from DTK's posts!

Actually I took four years of Latin in high school (woah--well over a decade ago now) and could have had a nearly full ride to study "classics" in college, had I not chosen the dead-end path of engineering  Now I can barely translate the Latin on a dollar bill. 

At any rate, the quotes from Jerome especially seem to prove beyond a doubt (unless he was wrong and every other church father contradicted him, which I would somehow doubt) that government for over a century was presbyterian in form. Interesting...

So for someone to advocate episcopal government as the norm for the church based on history, he would have to believe that the development from presbyterian to episcopal was what was desired by Christ for the church? That the Spirit guided the church into that pattern as it grew? Obviously that cannot be proved from Scripture or from history, but must be accepted on other grounds. It makes sense (sort of) from the Catholic and maybe Orthodox positions, where tradition is given infallible authority, but for Anglicans, I guess I'm at a loss for why that system would be embraced when it cannot be proved from Scripture.

Maybe I'll figure that out by reading your suggested download, in my copious amounts of free time!


----------

