teachers were the same persons, and presbyters, and here represent the ungifted, ordinary, and permanent ministry of the church, is plain. 'What other were they,' says Hooker, 'than presbyters also, howbeit settled in some charge, and THEREBY differing from evangelists,' who were therefore also presbyters.1 Dr. Pusey ranks the prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, all below apostles, and, therefore, in the order of presbyters. 'It was,' says he, the office of evangelists to extend Christ's kingdom among the heathen, and of pastors and teachers to cultivate and secure the ground thus taken into the vineyard." So that there is only one general permanent order of ministers established by Christ in his church, the presbyterate.3 § 5. The spiritual officers of the New Testament churches, are ranked under the classifications of presbyters or bishops, and deacons, without any allusion whatever to prelates. Another preliminary argument, of some importance to the cumulative character of our proofs, is the fact that every where, throughout the New Testament, without variation, the spiritual officers of the churches are ranked under the classifications of presbyters, or bishops, and deacons. There were, as has been said, some, of both these classes, extraordinarily qualified, by various heavenly gifts, for special functions, and, in this respect, distinguished by titles derived from their peculiar endowments. But, as it regards the ordinary and stated functionaries in the churches, in all the inspired epistles and other records, they are described as the bishops and deacons or the presbyters and deacons. But deacons, as we shall show, and as is allowed, are not an order of spiritual ministers, in any proper sense of the term, and therefore, there was, at this time, but one order of ministers, in all the churches known to the New Testament writers. That there was but one ministerial order in the apostolic church, is granted indeed by Dr. Hammond, bishop Taylor, and others, though they are anxious to prove that it was the order of prelates. We, however, have already clearly established the indubitable certainty of the divine institution of the Lond. 1839, p. 20, who calls them 1) B. v. § 78, vol. ii. p. 391, also Barrington's Wks. vol. i. p. 50. 2) The Ch. the Converter of the Heathen, p. 8. 3) See this view of the passage in Ephesians, presented by Mr. Drury, one of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, in his Model of Ch. Govt. 4) E. g. Phil. 1: 1; 1 Tim. 3; 1 Pet. 5: 12; Acts, 20: 18; Tit. 1: 5, 7. 5) Palmer on the Church, vol. ii. order of presbyters, by the immediate agency and express direction of the apostles, and under the broad seal of Christ's divine charter and commission. Prelates, therefore, as a distinct order, must necessarily be disbanded, deposed from their high office, and reduced, if found otherwise worthy and qualified to remain in the ministry at all, which is not by any means a certainty, to the simple, scriptural rank of ordinary ministers. For to whom were the powers of the apostles, as far as they were continued in the church, transferred, if not to these presbyterbishops? Prelatists have no other scriptural name to give them. They dare not call them apostles. They were not deasons. They were, and must be, presbyters.1 Besides, it cannot be denied, that we have, in the New Testament, a careful delineation of the qualifications necessary for bishops or presbyters, and deacons, but nowhere, as has been seen, is there any such view of the qualifications of the still more important orders of apostles, evangelists, prophets, or prelates. And why so? Manifestly because the former were the only permanent and standing officers designed for the church, while the latter were extraordinary and temporary, being placed in the church, not by the appointment of men, but by the immediate designation and endowment of Christ himself.2 § 6. The terms bishop and presbyter, both as they refer to the office and to the individuals holding it, are used throughout the New Testament as perfectly synonymous, and the very fact that prelatists have usurped the title of bishop, is proof positive of the human origin of the system of prelacy. Many objections are answered. This leads us to remark, as a further argument, that throughout the whole New Testment, the words presbyter and bishop, with their cognate terms, both as they refer to the office and its incumbent, are used interchangeably, and as perfectly synonymous, and the very fact that prelatists have usurped the title of bishop, is proof positive of the human origin of the system of prelacy. That these terms are so employed, has already been proved. We shall only refer to one example. Nothing can be more plain than the identification of the office, order, and duties of presbyters and bishops, by the apostle Paul, in his last solemn 1) See Dr. Rice's Evang. Mag. vol. x. p. 575. 2) See Macknight on 1 Tim. 5: 17, in vol. iii. p. 206. charge to the Ephesian presbyters. These presbyters are here expressly denominated overseers, and are said to have been constituted bishops by the Holy Ghost, the very term being employed which prelates have appropriated to themselves. Again, these presbyters are charged, by the apostle, to rule, guide, or feed the flock of God, as a shepherd does his flock; taking the oversight over them, that is, exercising a bishop's office over them, for the same word is again used. Whatever, therefore, is implied in ruling, governing, overseeing, and feeding the flock of God, or in the application of the official title of episcopos, or bishop, is here given to presbyters, under the most solemn sanctions, and by the Holy Ghost.1 The word bishop, as now employed by prelatists, has reference, chiefly, to the other orders of ministers, over whom it is supposed to imply oversight, authority, and supremacy. But in the New Testament, where it is only used in the substantive, or personal form, five times, (Acts, 20: 28; Phil. 1: 1; 1 Tim. 3:1-5; 1 Pet. 2: 25; Titus, 1: 5-7;) it has an invariable reference, not to the ministry, but to the flock ministered unto.2 ETIKOTOS, or bishop, means overseer, one who has charge or oversight committed to him. It is expressive of whatever functions may be delegated to an individual, or prescribed to him by his employer. The word presbyter, means elder, senior, and is expressive, therefore, not of the functions of the office, but of the authority and power from which those functions flow, and by which they are authorized. And thus the same individual may very often consistently be called a bishop, as overseeing his flock, and a presbyter, as empowered to watch over them, by a divine commission. The apostle Peter, in his first epistle, (5: 1, 2,) certainly distinguishes the dignity of the sacred office by the name presbyters, but the duties connected with it by the term επισκοπειν, which is the same as ποιμαινειν.3 'I can discover,' says Neander, 'no other difference between the terms πρεσβύτεροι, and επισκοποι, in the apostolic age, than that the first signifies rank, the second the duties of the office.' The only difference, therefore, is in favor of the greater dignity 1) On this passage, see Vitringa de Synagog. vet. p. 476. Thorndike on Prim. Govt. of the Ch. p. 36. Hooker's admission in Baxter on Episc. p. 49. Wilson's Prim. Govt. of the Ch. p. 278. Peirce's Vind. of Prot. Dissent. part ii. pp. 50, 57. Jameson's Fundament. of the Hier. p. 157. 2) Jamieson's Sum of the Episcopal Controversy, pp. 78-80, &c. Powell on Apostolic Succession, pp. 38, 39. It is also used, in another form, in 1 Pet. 5: 1, 2, and Acts i. 'his bishopric.' 3) Neander's Hist. of the First Plantg. of Christ'y. vol. i. p. 167. 4) Ibid, 169 N. implied in the term presbyter.1 'This name of presbyter, by which,' says this same writer," 'this office was first distinguished, was transferred from the Jewish synagogue to the christian church. But when the church extended further among Hellenic Gentiles, with this name borrowed from the civil and religious constitution of the Jews, another was joined, which was more allied to the designations of social relations among the Greeks, and adapted to point out the official duties connected with the dignity of presbyters. The name EπσкожOs denoted overseers over the whole of the church and its collective concerns; as in Attica, those who were commissioned to organize the states dependent on Athens, received the title of ETT LOKOTTOɩ, and as, in general, it appears to have been a frequent one, for denoting a guiding oversight in the public administration. Since then, the name EKƖσKOTOS was no other than a transference of an original Jewish and Hellenistic designation of office, adapted to the social relations of the Gentiles; it follows, that originally both names related entirely to the same office, and hence both names are frequently interchangd as perfectly synonymous.' Now-to apply these remarks-these and other phrases are employed, in the New Testament, to denote one and the same officer, and one and the same office. The importance of this conclusion will appear from the fact established in our previous argument. For if, throughout the New Testament, in every catalogue of officers; in every form of salutation; in every directory as to ministerial qualifications; ministers are spoken of as bishops and presbyters indifferently, then does it follow that there is but one order of fixed and permanent ministers recognised in the New Testament. There was a time when it was denounced as heresy to maintain this position. Two of the charges alleged by Epiphanius against Aerius were, that he taught that the apostle, in the third chapter of his first epistle to Timothy, enumerates the qualifications, not of prelates, but of presbyters, and that in Titus, 1: 5-7, Paul considered bishops and presbyters the same persons, calling them indifferently by either name. Even since that time the opinion now advanced, has been controverted with all imaginable zeal and learning, as by bishop Pearson and Dr. 1) 'Of how much more majesty, says Lord Brooke, is the term presbyter, which signifies senior,. whereas episcopus signifies nothing but an overseer-and such indeed bishops have been for many years.' Disc. on Episc. p. 75. 2) Hist. of the First Plantg. of Christ'y, vol. i. p. 167. 3) See Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. of the Ch. pp. 146, 147. Hammond. At length, however, the truth has prevailed against all opposing error, and it is now admitted by the highest prelatic authorities, that in scripture the terms bishop and presbyter designate one and the same office. Of this important concession, we will adduce some proofs. Bishop Onderdonk says,2 'the name bishop, which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to that office in scripture. That name is there given to the middle order of presbyters; and all that we read in the New Testament, concerning bishops, (including, of course, the words 'overseers' and 'oversight,') is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade.' 'That presbyters were called bishops,' says Dr. Bowden, I readily grant; and I also grant that this proves that the officer who was then called a bishop; and consequently the office was the same.' Dr. Chapman is still bolder, declaring that 'the episcopalian cannot be found who denies the interchangeable employment of the terms bishop and presbyter, in the New Testament.' This term bishop, it would appear, was in use in this interchangeable application, even in Old Testament times. 'Yea,' says archbishop Usher, 'in the xi. of Nehemy, we find two named bishops, the one of the priests, the other of the Levites, that dwelt in Jerusalem. The former, so expressly termed by the Greek in the 14th, the latter, both by the Greek and Latin interpreter in the 22d verse, and not without approbation of the scripture itself, which rendereth the Hebrew word of the same original in the Old and by the Greek episcopos in the New Testament.' That the terms bishop and presbyter continued to represent the same office and persons, even to the close of the apostolic government and of the inspired records, is admitted by Hooker, who would have us believe, that for this reason the term angel is employed in the Book of Revelation. Such, also, is the judgment of Hadrian Saravia. To this may be added the opinion of archbishop Whitgift. 'I know,' says he, 'these names be confounded in the scriptures, but I speak according to the manner and custom of the church, even since the apostles time.' But we may go still higher, and give the avowed opinion of eleven bishops, two archbishops, and many 1) See in Peirce's Vind. of Presb. Ord. part ii. p. 55. 2) Episcopacy tested by Scripture, in Wks. on Episc. vol. ii. p. 420. 3) Wks. on Episcop. vol. i. p. 161. 4) Dr. Chapman, Serm. to Presb. P. 238. 5) The original of Bishops, in Scott's Coll. of Tracts, vol. xii. p. 268. 6) Eccl. pol. B. vii. ch. v. § ii. p. 100, vol. iii. Kible's ed. 7) On the Priesthood, pp. 60, 85, 118. 8) Defence of the Answer to Cartwright, Lond. Fol. 1574, p. 383. |