tle, in his instructions to Timothy, 1 Tim. 3: 1-7, respecting the qualifications of a bishop, proceeds immediately to specify those of deacons, the second class of officers in the church, without making the least allusion to presbyters, though confessedly giving instructions for the appointment of the appropriate officers of the church. This omission was not a mere oversight in the writer; for he subsequently alludes to the presbytery, 4: 14, and commends those that rule well, 5: 17. In these passages the apostle evidently has in mind the same offices, and uses the terms bishop and presbyter, as identical in meaning.

To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, the apostle addresses his salutation, to the saints, with the bishops and deacons, that is, to the church and the officers of the church. Here, again, as in all the New Testament, these officers were distributed into two classes. For, had there been at Philippi a third order of ministers, superior to the deacons, it is incredible that the apostle could have omitted all allusion to them, in a salutation so specific. In truth, we must either charge him with neglecting an important and superior class of officers in the church at Philippi, a neglect totally inconsistent with his character, or we must admit that the presbyters are addressed in the salutation of the bishops as being one and the same with them.

The supposition, again, that these were bishops of the Episcopal order, involves the absurdity of a plurality of bishops over the same church; a supposition at variance with the first principles of Diocesan Episcopacy, which admits of but one in a city. This difficulty appears to have forcibly im

2

Epiphanius tells us, that Peter and Paul were both bishops of Rome at once: by which it is plain he took the title of bishop in another sense than now it is used; for now, and so for a long time upward, two bishops can no more possess one see, than two hedge-sparrows dwell in one bush. St. Peter's time was a little too early for bishops to rise."—Hales' Works, Vol. I. p. 110.

pressed the mind of Chrysostom. "How is this?" exclaims the eloquent patriarch. "Were there many bishops in the same city? By no means; but he calls the presbyters by this name [bishops]; for at that time this was the common appellation of both.”3

Finally, we appeal to 1 Pet. 5: 2, 3, where the apostle, as a fellow-presbyter, exhorts the presbyters to feed the flock of God, taking the oversight of them, inɩoxorovvres, acting the bishop, performing the duties of a bishop over them, requiring of them the same duties which the apostle Paul enjoins upon the presbyter-bishops of Ephesus. As at Ephesus, where Paul gave his charge to those presbyters, so here, again, it is evident that there could have been no bishop over those whom Peter commits to the oversight of these presbyters. But who are the flock in this instance? Plainly, any body of those Christians scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, to whom he addresses his epistle. These Christians, throughout this vast extent of country, are committed to the care of their presbyters, who are severally to act as the pastors and bishops of their respective charges.

Thus it appears that the appellations and titles of a presbyter are used indiscriminately and interchangeably with those of a bishop. In the same sentence even, and generally throughout the writings of the apostles, these are perfectly convertible terms, as different names of the same thing. This fact is very forcibly exhibited in the following summary from the Rev. Dr. Mason. "That the terms bishop and presbyter, in their application to the first class of officers, are perfectly convertible, the one pointing out the very same class of rulers with the other, is as evident as the sun

3 Σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις. Τὶ τοῦτο; μιᾶς πόλεως πολλοὶ ἐπίσκοποι ἦσαν ; Οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλλὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους οὕτως ἐκάλεσε τότε γὰρ τέως ἐκοινώνουν τοῖς ὀνόμασι.-In Phil. 1: 1. p. 199 seq.

Tom. 11.

*

'shining in his strength.' Timothy was instructed by the apostle Paul in the qualities which were to be required in those who desired the office of a BISHOP. Paul and Barnabas ordained PRESBYTERS in every churcht which they had founded. Titus is directed to ordain in every city PRESBYTERS who are to be blameless, the husband of one wife. And the reason of so strict a scrutiny into character is thus rendered, for a BISHOP must be blameless. If this does not identify the bishop with the presbyter, in the name of common sense, what can do it? Suppose a law, pointing out the qualifications of a sheriff, were to say, a sheriff must be a man of pure character, of great activity, and resolute spirit; for it is highly necessary that a governor be of unspotted reputation, etc., the bench and bar would be rather puzzled for a construction, and would be compelled to conclude, either that something had been left out in transcribing the law, or that governor and sheriff meant the same sort of officer; or that their honors of the legislature had taken leave of their wits. The case is not a whit stronger than the case of a presbyter and bishop in the epistle to Titus. Again: Paul, when on for the PRESBYTERS of

his last journey to Jerusalem, sends Ephesus to meet him at Miletus, and there enjoins these PRESBYTERS to feed the church of God over which the Holy Ghost had made them BISHOPS. It appears, then, that the bishops to whom Paul refers in his instructions to Timothy, were neither more nor less than plain presbyters. To a man who has no turn to serve, no interest in perverting the obvious meaning of words, one would think that a mathematical demonstration could not carry more satisfactory evidence."4

These terms, as the reader must have noticed, are also precise and definite, descriptive of a peculiar office, which

* 1 Tim. 3: 1. † Acts 14: 23.

Tit. 1: 5. § Acts 20: 17, 28.
Comp. King, Prim.

4 Mason's Works, Vol. III. pp. 41-43. Christ. pp. 67, 68.

he is in no danger of mistaking for any other in the apostolic church. The name of apostle is not in a single instance exchanged for that of bishop, or deacon. But the term presbyter, on the contrary, is in a few instances assumed by the apostles as an appropriate designation of their office. "The elder, noεoßúregos, the presbyter unto the elect lady," John, Epist. 2, 1: 1. The presbyter unto the well beloved Gaius, Epist. 3, 1: 1. and 1 Peter 5: 1. If therefore, this use of the name is of any importance in the argument, it intimates that presbyters rather than bishops are the true successors of the apostles. But in truth, these terms are not confounded with any other title; and for the very obvious reason, that they are descriptive of an office distinct from all others. Why, then, are these particular terms mutually interchanged one with the other, save that they are equally descriptive of the same office? Indeed, the original identity of bishops and presbyters, is now conceded by Episcopalians themselves. "That presbyters were called bishops I readily grant; that this proves that the officer who was then called a bishop, and consequently the office, was the same."5 "The Episcopalian cannot be found who denies the interchangeable employment of the terms bishop and presbyter in the New Testament."6 Bishop Burnet admits that they are used promiscuously by the writers of the first two centuries."

66

The scriptural title of the office under consideration is usually that of presbyter or elder. It had long been in use in the synagogue. It denoted an office familiar to every Jew. It conveyed a precise idea of a ruler whose powers were well defined and perfectly understood. When adopted into the Christian church, its meaning must have been easily settled; for the office was essentially the same in the church as previously in the synagogue. Accordingly, it constantly occurs

5 Bowden, Works on Episcop. Vol. 1. p. 161.

• Chapman, cited in Smyth's Pres. and Prelacy, p. 111.

in the writings of the apostle, to denote an officer familiarly known, but having no resemblance to a modern diocesan bishop. The term, bishop, occurs but five times in the New Testament; and, in each instance, in such a connection as to be easily identified with that of presbyter. The former is derived from the Greek language, the latter has a Jewish origin. Accordingly, it is worthy of notice, that the apostles, when addressing Jewish Christians, use the term presbyter; but in their addresses to Gentile converts, they adopt the term bishop, as less obnoxious to those who spoke the Greek language.7

2. A presbyter is required to possess the same qualifications as a bishop.

The apostle has specified at length the qualifications, both for a bishop and a presbyter, which for the sake of comparison, are here set in opposite columns.

QUALIFICATIONS.

For a bishop, Tim. 3: 2-7.

A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church cf God? Vs. 2, 4, 5.

Vigilant, nyálov, circumspect, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. V. 2.

For a presbyter, Tit. 1: 6-10.

If any be blameless, the hus-band of one wife, having faithful children, (who are) not accused of riot, or unruly. V. 6.

A lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate, holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort, and to convince the gainsayers. Vs. 8, 9.

7 Rothe, Anfänge, I. 218, 219. Neander, Apost. Kirch. I. 178, 179. Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen, I. 247-249. Comp. Bishop Croft, in Smyth's Apost. Succ. p. 159.