Truth Unites - Does Jerome Undermine Apostolic Succession?

Episode Date: August 14, 2023

In this video I argue that the testimony of Jerome opposes apostolic succession in its technical meaning. Along the way I respond to the argument by Keith Little that a key passage in Jerome has been misrepresented by Protestants. For Keith's argument see here: https://www.youtube.com/live/TmAIVTVRI7k?feature=share Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

Hey everybody, this video is going to be about Jerome and Apostolic Succession. If you're not familiar at all with this topic, it might sound kind of obscure or specific. This is one of the most important areas in all of ecumenical disagreement, I think. The idea of apostolic succession is a real sticking point in our ecumenical disagreements. All of us, of course, believe in apostolic succession in a non-technical sense, that the Apostles' Ministry succeeds to the post-apistolic Christian. church. But in its more technical and full expression, apostolic succession usually involves several different ideas, that the office of bishop and presbyter are different offices by apostolic appointment,

that the bishops uniquely are the successors of the apostles, that valid episcopal succession, that means basically from one bishop to another subsists in the laying on of hands, from one bishop to another, that apart from valid apostolic succession, there's normally no valid ordained ministry and thus no efficacious sacraments, with the exception of baptism. So, you know, there actually are some nuances in how apostolic succession is defined differently, but their net result is a very tight and exclusivistic ecclesiology, and it's a huge sticking point in our different debates and traditions. Well, one of the most important testimonies in this debate is that of Jerome. Jerome lived from the 340s to about 420, I think, and he's an authority on this question.

Jerome is so important, just across the board. He's not as good of a theologian as like Augustine, arguably, but he's a better biblical scholar and historian. In terms of biblical exegesis and acumen, I think he's unrivaled in the early church. So in certain respects, like in a matter of history, his testimony is very important. And Jerome famously maintained that the distinction between the office of bishop and presbyter, which is one of the linchpins of apostolic succession, is a gradual development.

And that, strictly speaking, these two offices of presbyter and bishop are the same. He makes that claim in a number of places in his writings. I'll put up the short Latin phrase from his commentary on Titus, where it's very succinctly stead. You could just translate it. A presbyter is therefore the same as a bishop, or it is therefore the presbyter who is also the bishop. And this is a passage. We'll just dissect in a moment, looking at the context of it. And there's similar statements in his letters. Epistle 69, for example, he says the clerical office, whether as bishops or as presbyters, indeed with the ancients, these names were synonymous. And he says one has to do with the office, the other with age. And then in his

Epistle 146, he says basically the same thing, these are the same office, basically, and one has to do with age and the other rank. So Jerome seems to be pretty explicit about the synonymy of Bishop and Presbyter, synonymy meaning like they're synonyms. They mean the same thing. And in fact, he gives us very specific information that we will look at about how he thinks these offices developed so that they went from being the same into two distinct offices. So that's all background orientation. Now, I'm coming back from my YouTube break, and I noticed a video that Keith Little put out on Swansona's channel, and it's on this topic. And he's pointing out that the most frequently cited of these various passages in Jerome, which is from his commentary on title,

I can't talk today, his commentary on Titus, I preached this morning already, and my brain is kind of frazzled. The most important passage in Jerome on this, in his commentary on Titus, is usually quoted with an ellipsis, meaning, you know, the three dots. So there's a large section of the quote that is omitted. And he claims that basically it's being misused. I won't put up a clips of him talking. I've been thinking more lately about how to not escalate things, and I never want it to feel like a gotcha or something like that. Keith's video was charitably done. I'll try to respond in kind. But he's saying things. So at the 16 minute mark, he says it's missing key information. At the 17-minute mark, he says it changes the meaning substantially, if you see the full quote in context. At the 22-minute

mark, he calls it a truncated, misquoted, almost fictitious version of what Jerome actually said. There's other statements about it being fictitious. A misquotation, that word is used for it. At the 38-minute mark, he says, basically, the quote is commonly given doesn't actually exist. Okay, so people watching this video are going to get the wrong impression thinking, oh, these Protestants are misquoting Jerome and using a fictitious quote, and that is not at all the case. So what I want to do is simply read through this entire passage from Thomas Sheck's translation because there's actually not a public record of this passage on the Internet. You can find it if you really dig, but it's hard to find, and the book is expensive.

So a lot of people just don't have the full quote. And they didn't actually quote in their video the full passage either, which is fine. I'm not criticizing them for that, but I'm just saying it's nice to have this out there. I'm also going to throw it up on my blog, so people can just, if they don't want to just see it in a video, they can just copy and paste the quote it, and right there, I'll put up Sheck's whole translation. And what we will see is that the section neglected in the ellipsis doesn't in any way undermine or even change Jerome's point. Now, it is true that the older translation that Keith references omits the citation of 1st Corinthians 1. But as we'll see, that's not as important as he, as he, as

Keith claims. But the bulk of the section left out an ellipsis is just a further supportive set of proof texts for Jerome's point. As you'll see as I read it through, he just quotes Philippians 1-1, Acts 28, Hebrews 13, 17, and 1st Peter 5 1 through 2. And those are basically a lot of the passages along with Titus 1, which he's commenting on that I use to make the exact same point that Jerome is making, namely Presbyter bishop were originally one office. So he's just, that's all that's omitted in the ellipsis. So let me just read through the whole passage and make a few comments maybe as we go. And then I want to draw, after I read the passage, don't, don't click off the video if you get bored during the reading.

Just skip ahead. But, well, don't skip ahead because it's, it's the important point is to know what Jerome said here. But then after that, I'm going to make three observations to the effect that the testimony of Jerome is an undermining factor. with respect to apostolic succession. That is to say, otherwise stated, to the degree that we take Jerome's testimony seriously, and I'll give some reasons why we should, it's a rebutting point to apostolic succession proper. In other words, to put it plainly, yeah, Jerome is against apostolic succession in its common definitions. And I'll explain why. But let me read the passage first. In context, Jerome is commenting on the book of Titus. He's at chapter 1 verse 5. He's bewailing the sin of simony. Then he quotes

chapter 1 verse 6, chapter 1 verse 7, and then he comments as follows. 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 Seifis, 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. Now, a lot of times here is where you'll have the ellipsis start. So here's the omitted section. You'll notice that it's doing nothing but giving

biblical proof text for Jerome's position, that the priest and bishop are the same. He continues, if someone thinks that this is our opinion, but not that of the scriptures, that bishop and priest are one, and that one is the title of age and the other of his duty, let him reread the Apostle's words to the Philippians when he says, Paul and Timothy, slaves of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, grace to you and peace, and so on. That's a quotation from Philippians 1-1. Jerome continues, Philippi is a single city in Macedonia, and at least in one city, several were not able to be bishops, as they are now thought. But because at that time, they called the same men bishops whom they also called priests, therefore he has spoken

indifferently of bishops as if of priests. This may still seem doubtful to someone unless it is proven by another testimony. In the acts of the apostles, it is written that when the apostles came to Meletus, he sent to Ephesus and summoned the priests of that church to whom later he said, among other things, watch yourselves and the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit appointed you bishops to feed the Church of God, which he acquired through his own blood. And observe here very carefully how, by summoning the priests of the single city of Ephesus, later he has spoken of the same men as bishops. If anyone wants to receive that epistle, which is written in Paul's name to the Hebrews, even there care for the church is shared

equally by many, for indeed he writes to the people, obey your leaders and be in subjection, for they are the ones who watch over your souls as those who will give a reckoning, let them not do this with sighing, for indeed this is advantageous to you. And Peter, who received his name from the firmness of his faith, speaks in his own epistle and says, As a fellow priest, then, I plead with the priests among you, and as a witness of Christ's sufferings. I, who am a companion also of his glory that is to be revealed in the future,

tend the Lord's flock that is among you, not as though by compulsion but voluntarily. These things have been said. So that's the end of the ellipsis. So did you catch that? All it is is biblical proof texts from Philippians 1-1, Acts 2028, Hebrews 13, 17, 1st Peter 5, 1 through 2, to buttress the point. Now he picks up, and this is the part where it's commonly quoted.

These things have been said in order to show to the men of old the same men who were the priests were also the bishops. But gradually, remember that word gradually, as the seedbeds 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 an imitation of Moses, who, when he had under his authority to preside alone over the people of Israel, he chose the 70 by whom he could judge the people. Okay, there's the quote.

Three observations. Number one, Jerome notes that this change took place gradually. This is the Latin word palatim, which you can translate gradually or little by little or bit by bit. Lewis in short, another dictionary also lists by degrees as a possible translation. Jerome uses this word two other times later in his commentary on Titus, both of which Sheck translates as gradually. One is in chapter 2 verse 2, and it's a reference to love gradually growing cold. The other is in chapter 3 verse 9. It's a reference to scribal errors that gradually come in during the copying of texts. So also here in chapter 1 verse 5, he's saying the transition from a single bishop to

from a plurality of presbyters to a single bishop is gradual. So the words, it was decreed. Keith put a lot of focus on these words. It was decreed for the whole world. That does not refer to a church council or any one formal decision at one specific time. It was a gradual decision. And so if you want to ask when, which is where we're going to go next, when did this development take place?

The answer to that is it depends on where we're looking. Most people think it's earlier in the east and then spreads to the west, generally speaking. Okay. Second comment. This development was not completed around 50 AD, as Keith seems to suggest. That is a really radical proposal. I don't know too many people who think that there was that kind of development at that time. I think he's coming to that conclusion because there's a citation of 1st Corinthians 1, which was written some time early on, early 50s maybe, and because of the reference to Mark the Evangelist in letter 146, who came to Alexandria allegedly and was there from the 40s to the 60s. But there's a couple problems here. So let's just think this through here.

Jerome references the Corinthian schisms as an example of the kinds of schisms that caused this change, not as the only schisms that did that or the time at which the change had been affected, certainly not the time at which it was universal. If that were the case, then Jerome would be contradicting himself in this very same passage, because he's quoting a series of texts, all of which are written after First Corinthians, as proof of the synonymy of Presbyter and Bishop, including the very passage he's commenting on here in Titus. That's his whole point, is to say, so in other words, Titus is written in the 60s sometime, one of it, Paul's later epistles.

I think Paul wrote it. Some people don't. But anyway, that's a separate thing. Philippians, also written later in the 50s after 1st Corinthians. 1 Peter, Acts, elsewhere, Hebrews, 2nd and 3rd, John, he'll quote elsewhere. All of his proof texts for the synonymy of Presbyter and Bishop are after 1st Corinthians. So if Jerome thought that the change to the mono-episcopacy had happened in around 50 AD, He wouldn't cite evidence against that model from the 60s, right? That would be like saying, well, I know that my neighbor died at 4 o'clock p.m.

And I know this because I saw him eating dinner at 7 p.m. And then I saw him go inside to go to bed at 9 p.m. Well, that's a completely illogical statement because if he's eating dinner, he's not dead. Similarly, it would be illogical if Jerome said the episcopate began in 50 AD. here's a bunch of proof texts for the synonymy of Presbyter and Bishop from the 60s, AD. See? When Jerome references this change, he describes it as subsequent to John's epistles of second and third John. So in letter 146, Jerome is recounting various of his biblical proof texts for this idea.

He references John, the Son of Thunder. He quotes from 2 John 1-1, right? I guess there's no chapter, so I'll just say the verse. 2 John 1 and 3rd John 1, because John introduces himself as a presbyter there, and then he says, subsequently, one presbyter was chosen to reside over the rest, and then he gets to Alexandria. And we'll come back to Alexandria and mark the evangelist in just a moment. Third, and this is really the only and the most decisive point, the development, according to Jerome, is not of apostolic command, and it is not binding upon the church, according to Jerome.

In other words, the change to the mono-apiscopacy, the idea of one bishop, is not an apostolic institution. How do we know that? By the way, that's the most important thing. So it's not just when it happens. Keith seemed to be assuming that if it happens during the apostolic age, then it's with apostolic authority. But those are not the same thing.

Not everything that happens during the apostolic age is done at the commandment of the apostles. Some people, you know, a lot of people put it later, but some people like J.B. Lightfoot, famous critic of certain more tight expressions of apostolic succession, thinks it starts with John, the apostle. So some of the apostles are dead, but John is alive, you know, so you'd have to get through and work through all those issues. But the point is, the important point is whether the apostles commanded this structure, because that's what apostolic succession teaches. And on that point, Jerome is very clear. Let's say why for three reasons. First, his commentary on Titus explicitly distinguishes between a commandment of the Lord and a custom or tradition of the church. I'll put up the

Latin word there. Then you say, okay, what kind of custom? What kind of tradition? Well, you can tell that, secondly, by the conclusion he draws from this point. Jerome's leveraging all of this history for a purpose in the present day in his own life, for how the church should function. in his day. Jerome is not saying the presbyters were the same as the bishops until the apostles quickly decreed that they weren't. He's saying the presbyters are the same as the bishops. That's why he concludes his comments in Titus 1 saying, this is how you ought to rule the church. You ought to rule commonly. The bishops, you need to remember. It's only by the custom of the church that you are over the presbyters. And he gives the example of Moses sharing leadership and so forth.

Thirdly, most decisively, in letter 146, he seems to indicate that this change was a decision of the presbyters themselves. And this is what's going on in Alexandria here. Okay, so it's not the apostles telling people in Alexandria to do something. It's the presbyters of the church affecting this change. For even at Alexandria, from the time of Mark the evangelist until the episcopates of Heracles and Dionysius, the presbyters always named as bishop, one of their own number chosen. by themselves. Then it gives two comparative examples here, the way an army elects a general,

and the way a group of deacons appoint one of their number to be the arch deacon. Now, what most scholars think, it's disputed, but what most scholars think is this is talking about ordination. So this is a completely different model than apostolic succession, where you have the necessity of episcopal ordination. Heracles and Dionysius were third century bishops in the mid-third century. So from Mark, mid-first century to them, you have about 200 years of this model of presbyters electing their own bishop. It changed from that model sometime in there. Jerome seems to think it's in the mid-third century. That's his view. Now, some people question the timing of that. They say it's a little earlier, and they appeal to origins testimony. But it's certainly not 50 AD.

50 AD is, you know, that first 200-year time slot, this is why. this model is a problem for apostolic succession, this kind of hybrid model of the presbyters electing their own bishop and ordaining him. And in a lot of the church orders texts, it's talking about the necessity of the like the apostolic constitutions, for example, saying about the necessity of the consent of the entire congregation. And it's depicted it with the congregation's involvement. Now, let me buttress Jerome here on this, because it's not just Jerome. I have so many people who just want to, they say it's only Jerome and they want to kind of psycho-economic. analyze Jerome here, but I think it's a little conspiratorial to imagine Jerome making up this very

specific historical scenario. And in fact, that exact same historical scenario is affirmed by multiple testimonies. It's not just Jerome. This kind of hybrid model is remembered in Alexandria for a long time. And it's just part of the development. It's how things are unfolding. So, for example, Here is how Uticius in the 10th century, he was a patriarch of Alexandria, puts it, he's basically saying that when Mark came, he appointed the first bishop, he calls him a patriarch, but that's an anachronism. And then he says he also appointed 12 presbyters. And whenever there's a vacancy, the presbyters select one of their number to be the next bishop. And then he gives the time frame. Quote, nor did this custom respecting the presbyters, namely that they should create their patriarchs from the 12 presbyter.

cease at Alexandria until the times of Alexander, patriarch of Alexandria. He was a key person at the Council of Nicaea. So Uticius is putting this in the early 4th century, where the transition comes in to where you get Episcopal succession. And so he continues, and thus that ancient custom by which the patriarch

used to be created by the presbyters disappeared and in its place succeeded the ordinance for the creation of the patriarch by the bishops. You see a similar idea in Severus in the 6th century, a bishop of Antioch, who says that the bishop of Alexandria used in former times to be appointed by presbyters. Elsewhere, Severus recounts a specific occurrence of this, towards the end of the third century, where the priests and the people gathered together and lay hands on Pope Peter of Alexandria,

not the Apostle Peter, the Pope, the bishop, or Pope, you can call him, of Alexandria, who started in 300, the year 300 AD. So even those, like Charles Gore is a kind of historic defender of the Episcopal model, but even he, he quotes Severus and he concedes, the plain statements of Jerome and Severus are very hard to resist. Most historians, German and English, appear to think Jerome's evidence by itself enough. Now, he does himself, stricture Jerome. Rome's time frame based upon origin, testimony, Clement, other factors like this. So I'm not trying to

close down the discussion on the details here. I don't know myself exactly when this happens. It's really hard. You're doing detective work historically trying to piece together all the data. But the point is that from the first century to some time period in there, whether it's early fourth, third, or push it back, it's fine. You have a model that's inconsistent with apostolic succession, because apostolic succession requires ordination from a bishop. Now, what a lot of people just want to say is basically that Jerome is wrong. And, you know, it's fair to say Uticius is in the 10th century. That's very late.

So, yeah, I mean, but here's basically what I would say for why I think Jerome's testimony should be taken seriously. And that is this. Jerome's testimony accords with the single most important factor for historical questions like this, and that is the evidence from the time in question. Jerome's proposal fits so perfectly like puzzle pieces with what the evidence from that time. That's always the most important factor indicates. So take the first century data. The New Testament, the didache, the first epistle of Clement. They tell you the tale of Jerome exactly.

it just fits with Jerome perfectly. And then in the early second century, you see Ignatius as the first witness to what has emerged, this distinct office of bishop, but it is not yet understood as the successor to the apostles. Ignatius calls the presbyters standing in the seat of the apostles. They are not yet diocesan. It's just congregational leaders, like we would call a senior pastor. And then at that time, you see that model has not spread everywhere because you've got the Shepherd of Hermus and Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, where it's clear you still have

plurality of presbyter leadership in certain regions. And then as you get later into the second century, you get apostolic succession coming into the picture, though you can trace the development. It's still got oddities, like you've got Ironaeus talking about how presbyters are the successors of the apostles. And, you know, there's little oddities like this, and it's taking a while before it all sort of congeals. But, and I've gone into all this elsewhere, but let me just mention the first epistle of Clement as a corroborative testimony to Jerome, because this is a very, obviously, very important testimony. It gives us some key information early on about both Rome and Corinth. Like the didache, Clement is explicit that there are two offices in the church that the apostles

appointed, and he interprets the constitution of these two offices, bishop and deacon, as the fulfillment of prophecy. He says that the apostles appointed the first fruit of their labors, first fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterward believe. Later, he uses the term bishop and presbyter interchangeably. In chapter 44, he teaches that the apostles established the office of the episcopate, and he warns that it is no small sin to wrongfully depose those who hold that office, and that's what's happened in Corinth that occasions the letter, and then he immediately refers to godly holders of this office as

presbyters. And then later in both chapter 47 and in chapter 57, he refers again to the leaders of the Church of Corinth as presbyters. People, if you just read Clement on its own terms and you don't read later developments back into it, it fits perfectly with a two-office view. It just looks like the two-office view is what's present at that time. And again, none of this is really disputed in the scholarship. I know that people don't like it when I quote Roman Catholic scholars. Let me explain this. When I quote Roman Catholic scholars, I'm not doing that because I'm a skeptic. I'm doing that because I agree with their arguments, and I think they're correct. So I've quoted this from Duffy before, even Duffy, I'll do it again.

Here's how he summarizes it. He's a Roman Catholic himself. He says, Clement made no claim to write as bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community. He never identifies himself or writes in his own person. That's true. The letter itself makes no distinction between presbyter's and bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth is at Rome, the church at this time was organized under a group of bishops or presbyters rather than a single ruling bishop. A generation later, this was still so in Rome. Let me give from Francis Sullivan, another Roman Catholic scholar. He opens up his book on this topic as follows, and note that he's summarizing the scholarship here. He says, the question whether the episcopate is of divine institution continues to divide the churches, even though Christian scholars from both sides agree that one does not find the threefold structure of ministry, with a bishop in each local church, assisted by presbyters and deacons in the New Testament, they agree, rather, that the historic episcopate was the result of a development in the post-New

Testament period, from the local leadership of a college of presbyters, who were sometimes called bishops, to the leadership of a single bishop. Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the Church of Rome was led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the Church of Rome was still led by a group of presbyters for at least a part of the second century. Note that Sullivan is not giving his own position. He is summarizing the position of scholars on both sides of ecclesial divides. This is why when people defend Episcopal Church government and apostolic succession, they often do so as a Holy Spirit-led development rather than something that's literally apostolic, like the apostles themselves commanded

it. I'll put up this Raymond Brown quote, and you can read that, but I won't keep go on. I'll also mention the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, huge work of scholarship in its article on the Office of Bishop identifies the following as fully established facts. Those are its terms. Number one, to some extent in this early period, the words bishop and priest are synonymous. Number two, in each community, the authority may have originally belonged to a college of presbyter bishops. And number three, in other communities, it is true. No mention is made of a monarchic Episcopate until the middle of the second century. Now, again, when I'm quoting the scholarship, I'm not, I'm trying to help people understand that what I'm saying is just kind of standard.

And it's just to show, it doesn't settle the question, but hopefully it invites people to consider, why is everybody going this route on both sides of our differences? Now, when people deviate from the scholarly mainstream, it usually isn't in affirming apostolic succession. So you can read Alistair's newer book. He thinks bishops were distinct from the beginning, but he doesn't think they're the successors of the apostles. They didn't oversee presbyters. They didn't have regional jurisdiction, so forth. Okay. Some people act like this idea that there'd be a development. I don't know, maybe people feel scared of it. I can understand that. It's a little messy. Other people act like it's like a conspiracy or it's, I don't know, they say it's skepticism. That's another thing I just want to

continue to plead is it's not skepticism. I'm not affirming this development because I'm a skeptic. I'm driven to this because I'm accepting these testimonies. I believe in what they're saying. I believe in what Clement said. I believe in what the New Testament teaches. I've gone into the other texts like the Shepherd and the New Testament in other contexts. I'll keep this, I'm going to finish this video up now. But I would just say, you know, other people, I think they worry that this is like a major conspiracy. But it's actually not at all shocking. Almost every institution goes through a rapid institutionalization after its founders are gone. In the second century, and as you've, well, really late first century already,

once the apostles are gone, and even once you just have Peter and Paul gone, and John is in exile, you're in this different circumstance, and you're facing the triple pressures of heresy, schism, and persecution. It's a very tempestuous time. It's not at all surprising that without the apostles, and you're facing this pressure, there'd be. evolution and how you're functioning as the church. And then you just see further evolution from that time forward with like archbishops later on and so forth. Now what I would say is this, to sum it up, the recognition that apostolic succession is not of divine institution, but rather represents a gradual development in the church. Need not entail that there's anything necessarily wrong with

episcopal church government. That is to say with having a bishop as a distinct office from Presbyter. On prudential grounds, you could say that's the best way to do things. But requiring that structure and restricting valid ministry to only those churches that adhere to it and even excluding some of those, like the Anglicans, which the Catholics exclude, that unnecessarily injures and divides the church. And I think the testimony of Jerome needs to be considered in this discussion. And I would say, I could sum it up by saying Jerome is worth taking seriously because he accords with the most important factor, and that's all of the evidence from the time. That's the most trustworthy source of historical knowledge. Because Ironaeus, Trotullian, they're a hundred years later in a

highly polemical context. So anyway, I hope this video will clarify things for people watching along so they'll understand we're not misciting Jerome. Jerome is, his position is very clear. At the end of the day, let Jerome be Jerome. Let Jerome say what he wants to say. And he says it as plain as you could hope to say that the office of bishop is in his day the same as the office of Presbyter, and the only change is because of a custom of the church that had developed. I think it's legitimate to debate the details of that development, but that development took place is, I would say, the overwhelming implication from the evidence.

Just read, you know, looking at the New Testament. The New Testament alone is a huge source of knowledge about this. And then you combine the shepherd and Clement and the particularities of a Ignatius and so forth. So anyway, and that's why the scholars are driven to that view. So anyway, I hope this will help people understand that, and I'll put up on my blog, that full citation from Jerome so people can read it. All right, I'm going to wrap it up. Let me know what you think in the comments. Thanks for watching. Hope this helps everybody. God bless you.