APPENDIX.

ON THE USE OF THE TITLE BISHOP.

The word bishop, we have seen, is employed in the New Testament synonymously with the term presbyter, as the special title or designation of that officer in the church whose duty it is to oversee, superintend, preside, preach, and administer the sacraments and discipline of the church. Other terms are employed for the same purpose, such as pastor, minister, angel, ambassador, and steward, but these two, viz., presbyter and bishop, are more frequently employed, and especially when the qualifications and duties of the office are distinctly pointed out. When the apostles went about settling and completely organizing the churches, they ordained presbyters in every city. (Acts 14: 23.) When Paul took his final leave of the Ephesian Christians he called together their presbyters, whom he also denominates bishops, and whose office he clearly identifies with that of the preacher. (Acts 20: 17, &c.) When Paul writes to the church at Philippi, A. D. 62 or 63, he addresses himself only to the bishops and deacons. (Phil. 1: 1.) When Peter addresses all the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, he exhorts only the presbyters that are among them. (1 Peter 5: 1, 2.) And in all the passages in which full and explicit delineations are given of the nature and qualifications of the ministry, the word bishop is employed (See 1 Tim. 3: 1-8, Titus 1: 5-9, & 1 Peter 5: 1-5.) In the second of these passages, (Titus 1: 5-9,) the term presbyter and the term bishop are both employed, and the officer denoted by them is clearly identified as an instructor in the faith.

Both these terms, though very similar in meaning, are used to designate the ministry, because the one-PRESBYTER—was familiar to the Jews, and not known among the other nations, and because the other-BISHOP-was familiar among the other nations, and not common among the Jews. And as most of the first Christian churches were composed of both converted Jews and Gentiles, it was important to use both titles for their teachers.

In the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Old Testament, the term bishop is very frequently employed to designate the office of overseer in a sense analogous to that in which it is employed in the New Testament. (Neh. 2: 9, 14: 22; Numb. 4: 16; 2 Kings 34: 12, 17.) The corresponding term "shepherds" is the common title given in the Old Testament to the doctors of the people and to the prophets. (Zech. 2: 8, &c.)

And it is expressly declared that the officers of the church, in the New Testament church, should be known by this title, (Isa. 60: 17,) "I will make thy officers (in the Greek episcopi, or bishops) peace." (See also Psalms 69: 25, compared with Acts 1: 20.) This very passage Clemens, in his Epistle to the Corinthian church, quotes in confirmation of his view of the officers of the church. We will only add, as has been already fully shown, that in the Jewish synagogue the title of bishop or its cognate terms, chazan, angel, &c., were given exclusively to the minister who presided, and who had the charge of preaching also.

And while it is thus manifest that both these titles were adopted by the apostolic churches, it is beyond controversy that they came to be the established names by which ministers were known in the period succeeding the apostolic age. No other words, except when they speak figuratively in order to vary their language, are found in THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, nor are these titles used by them in any other than their original synonymous application to those who occupied the pastoral office. This I have fully proved elsewhere, and in part also in this volume. Neither can any man tell when, or why, the title of bishop came to be exclusively appropriated to an order of ministers higher than presbyters, and having supreme authority over them. That the terms presbyter and bishop are the same, and applied only to one and the same office in Scripture, all prelatists have been constrained to admit. And that there was a gradual change in the use of these words, until at length the term BISHOP was limited to the order of prelates, they also admit; but when or why this change was introduced they cannot, because they will not, tell. The truth is, as has been seen, that one of the presbyters or bishops being necesarily appointed as is the case now among all Presbyterians-president or moderator of the body of presbyters, who watched over the interests of a whole neighborhood, and who, from the necessity of the case, then lived together, it became necessary to call him by some distinctive name. The apostles called this officer "the presiding presbyter," (1 Tim. 5: 17,) but as there were two principal titles for the ministry, it came afterwards to be the custom to call this "presiding presbyter," by way of brevity, "THE BISHOP," and the others "THE PRESBYTERS.' And as many things then conspired to throw power and influence into the hands of this president, who was chosen for life, the application to him of the term "the bishop," came to be fixed, until at length it was regarded as indicating those prerogatives of authority and power which circumstances had attributed to his office. Thus was the higher order of prelatical bishops gradually introduced, with all the pride, ambi

tion, and growing corruption, both in doctrine and in practice, to which the prelatical system has given birth.

This view of the primitive order of the church, will at once account for all subsequent changes; meet all the difficulties of the case; and resolve all the problems which are proposed. Thus, when prelatists draw out their lists and catalogues of successive bishops, in the several apostolic churches, we find them at once, so far as they are credible, in these presidents, who would naturally constitute the individual representatives of their brethren and contemporaries. In later times, when there were several congregations in the same presbytery, the president was made pastor of the ecclesia principalis, the αυθεντιχη χαθεδρα, which was ιδιος θρονος, his peculiar throne, and thus would he in every way shine forth among the other stars, as the most eminent and brilliant. But, even then, these presidents were eminent only as the first in rank among their colleagues in the same order and office, just as were archdeacons among the deacons, archpresbyters among the presbyters, archbishops among the bishops, and patriarchs among the archbishops. Thus, also, among the archontes at Athens, while all were equal in power, yet was one called archon, by way of eminence. His name alone was inserted in the public records of that year, which was reckoned from him. And so also, was it among the five epohri at Sparta, of whom, in like manner, one was chosen as president, and actually denominated πроeσTws, as Plutarch informs us. So that a succession of single persons named above the rest in the apostolic churches, would never prove that they were any other than what we have described-the πроεσтwτes or presidents of the churches-especially as this title is given to presbyters as well as bishops, even by Cyprian himself.

Again, when prelatists taunt us with the evident existence of diocesan prelacy at an early period, we find its origin in the corruption and abuse of this apostolic presbyterianism, or parochial episcopacy. "For," says the learned Whitaker, the darling of the Church of England, "as at the first one presbyter was set over the rest of the presbyters and made a bishop; so afterwards one bishop was set over the rest of the bishops. And thus that custom hatched the pope with his monarchy, and by degrees brought him into the church."

Such also is the opinion of Vitringa, who says:* "From such acts of communion, there were derived, in course of time, titles and dignities altogether unknown in the early ages of the

*De Vet. Synag., Part II., ch. iii., in Bernard's Synagogue, pp. 155, 156. See, also, pp. 178, 179, 214, and 229, where he shows how other similar errors crept in. Dr. Hinds traces these offices to the same origin. Hist. of Rise and Progress of Christianity, vol. i., p. 345.

church-for instance, it was necessary that some bishop should summon the council, that some bishop should preside, and as the presidents of the presbyteries had before this assumed to themselves authority, had taken exclusively the title of bishop, and thus came to be looked on as a distinct order from their presbyteries; just so, the presidents of these councils arrogated much to themselves, assumed a higher rank and office; and hence, the titles of archbishop, metropolitan, primate, patriarch, &c."

Thus it came to pass, that the title of bishop was associated with all the pride, pomp, ambition, tyranny, licentiousness, ungodliness, and infamy of men who never, or very seldom, preached at all, and whose only business it was to LORD it over God's heritage, and to live in pomp and luxury, from the taxes imposed upon the enslaved and superstitious church. The very title of bishop therefore came to be identified with these enormities, and to be a hissing and a by-word in the mouth of all men. And when, therefore, the enormous mass of Romish corruptions was thrown off the almost smothered church, at the reformation, the reformers endeavored to cleanse the Augean stable and to restore the primitive purity and simplicity of Christ's church, they abstained for a time from the use of this abominated title of bishop, in order to do away the powerful association by which it was connected with all that was hateful and fearful. It is not, however, true, as some imagine, that they rejected the term, or were at all blind to its true and Scriptural meaning. On the contrary, they every where bring to light the Scriptural meaning and use of the word in all their standards and confessions; and every where contended for it as the true, proper, and only signification. This fact will not, and cannot be denied, since this demonstration of the original parity of the ministry constituted one of the very first towers of impregnable defence, into which the reformers betook themselves, and from which they could not be, and were not, dislodged.

Thus Milton, speaking of the Presbyterian form, says: "It is but episcopacy reduced to what it should be, and were it not that the tyranny of prelates, under the name of bishops, had made our ears tender and startling, we might call every good minister a bishop."*

The Helvetic Confession thus speaks: "Therefore the church ministers that now are may be called bishops, elders (or presbyters,) pastors and doctors."+

"Whereas," says Calvin, "I have indiscriminately called

*Prose Works, vol. i., p. 52. See, also, pp. 9, 14. See, also, Lord Brooke on Episcopacy, London, 1642, p. 2.

†Harmony of Confessions, pp. 234, 235.

those who govern the churches, bishops, presbyters, and pastors, I have done so according to the usage of Scripture, for WHOEVER executes the office of minister of the gospel, to them the Scriptures give the title of bishops."

"There are four ordinary functions or offices in the Kirk of God," says the Second Book of Discipline of 1578, "the office of the pastor, minister or bishop," &c. (Ch. ii. § 6.) This it repeats in the chapter concerning them, (Ch. iv. § 1,) where it says they "are sometimes called episcopi or bishops, because they watch over the flock." And they add this solemn advice to the several officers: "All these should take those titles and names only (leist they be exalted and puft up in themselves) which the Scripture gives unto them, as these import labor, travell and work." (Ch. iii. § 7.)

"There are," said Adamson, in the General Assembly of 1572, "three sorts of bishops; my Lord bishop; my Lord's bishop; and the Lord's bishop. My Lord bishop was in the papistrie. My Lord's bishop is now when my Lord gets the benefice, and the bishop serves for nothing but to make his title sure; and the Lord's bishop is the true minister of the gospel."+

Again, in 1576, the General Assembly decided that "the name of bishop is common to all who are appointed to take charge of a particular flock, in preaching the word, administering the sacraments, and exercising discipline with the consent of the elders." This was in the days of Knox and Melville. And Calderwood says: "The Pastor can see no Lord-bishop in Scripture but the Lord's bishop only, a name of labor and diligence, and not of honor and ease."

So much for the Church of Scotland; and as it regards the Church of England, a candid Episcopalian writer says: "It was the judgment of her founders, (that is, of the Church of England,) PERHAPS UNANIMOUSLY, but at all events generally, that the bishop of the primitive church was merely a presiding elder; a presbyter ruling over presbyters; identical in order and commission; superior only in degree and authority."§ But for the full quotations on this point, I refer the reader elsewhere.tt We will only here say, that in the "Declaration of the Functions of Bishops and Priests, &c.," it is said: "Yet the truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and of priests (presbyters) OR BISHOPS." And to

*Comment. on Titus, 1: 5.

†See similar views of, in a sermon as quoted by Jameson in Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, p. 55.

The Pastor and Prelate, 1628, pp. 2, 3.

Essays on the Church, p. 251.

tt See Presbytery and Prelacy, p. 429, &c.

9-VOL IV.