66

economy; it will follow, therefore, that, if presbyters and bishops are distinct orders of officers, presbyters are the highest in dignity and power;-they are the lords and masters over the church, while bishops are only their servants to oversee or inspect it. But as no good could be expected to result from a mere transfer of lordly titles and prerogatives from one order of ecclesiastics to another, the best way would be for bishops to resign them, and presbyters to let them alone. Good old bishop Latimer has well described the effects of this strange and forbidden union of lord and bishop, in the same person: But this much I dare say, that since lording and loitering hath come up, preaching hath come down, contrary to the apostles' times; for they preached and lorded not. And now they lord and preach not. Ever since the prelates were made lords and nobles the plough standeth; there is no work done; the people starve. They are otherwise occupied, some in king's matters, some are ambassadors, some of the privy council, some to furnish the court, some are lords of the parliament, some are presidents, and comptrollers of mints. Well, well. Is this their duty? Is this their office? Is this their calling? Should we have ministers of the church to be comptrollers of the mints? Is this a meet office for a priest, that hath cure of souls? Is this his charge? I would here ask one question;-I would fain know who comptrolleth the devil at home in his parish, while he comptrolleth the mint? If the apostles might not leave the office of preaching to be deacons, shall we leave it for minting? A bishop hath his office, a flock to teach, to look unto; and therefore he cannot meddle with another office, which alone requireth an whole man. He should, therefore, give it over to whom it is meet, and labour in his own business, as Paul writeth to the Thessalonians: 'Let every man do his own business, and follow his calling.' Let the priest preach, and the nobleman handle the temporal matters.”*

*Sermon on the Plough.

The word presbyter, is the term of office and dignity; the word bishop, is used to denote the duty of the presbyter office, which is to oversee, to inspect. Hence the same officers are sometimes called presbyters, and sometimes bishops. Thus the apostle Paul charged the presbyters of the church of Ephesus, to feed the flock, over whom the Holy Ghost had made them episcopous, "bishops;" (Acts xx. 17-28;) and directed Titus to ordain as presbyters, in every city in Crete, men of unblemished character, because "a bishop must be blameless," etc.; (Titus i. 5-7;) but this reason would not apply, if a presbyter and bishop were not the same.

To this it is generally and triumphantly replied, "It is granted that one and the same man is, in the New Testament, styled sometimes a bishop and sometimes a presbyter; but, although every bishop was undoubtedly a presbyter, it does not follow that every presbyter was likewise a bishop. Aaron and his sons are without any discrimination of order, frequently styled priests; but though he had the title proper to their order, they had not the title proper to his,-they are not styled high priests. The apostles Peter and John call themselves presbyters; it does not follow, however, as a matter of course, that mere presbyters may call themselves apostles. In some cases a man is at liberty to assume a title below his proper rank, but in no case to assume one above it."

This argument, if it deserves to be called one, will not solve the difficulty. Episcopalians hold, that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus; the episcopal title, therefore, according to the objection, did not belong to any other officer in that church, though it is given by the apostle Paul to the presbyters, whom he expressly calls bishops.

Neither does the argument apply to what is said on Titus i. 5-7. It is said that the episcopal office is distinct from that of presbyter, and far superior to it in point of dignity; the duties of a bishop are supposed to be quite different in many respects from

those of a presbyter, and to be much more important, arduous, and difficult. But this cannot be admitted; for it would make the apostle reason foolishly to say, that presbyters must possess such and such qualifications, because these qualifications are necessary to bishops, who are officers of superior rank. This would be as absurd, as to require every petty civil officer to possess those great abilities which are necessary to the supreme magistrate. A man may surely know how to use a constable-staff, who is not qualified to sway a sceptre.

Nothing more is required of a bishop than of a presbyter. Each must support a good moral character, be the husband of one wife, keep his family in good order, and teach and govern the church of God. (Acts xx. 17-28; 1 Tim. iii. 1—7; v. 17; Titus i. 5-9.) It is not required of either, to ordain bishops, priests, and deacons; to administer the sacraments; to confirm children; perform marriage ceremonies, and bury the dead; nor even to preach in public. When the qualifications and duties of both are precisely the same, to say that they differ as to office and order, is a contradiction in terms.*

The title of bishop was formerly given to all persons who were appointed to the oversight of either men or things. Thus the office of Eleazer the priest, in Numbers iv. 16, is styled pekudath, which the LXX. have rendered episcopos, "bishop;" because he had the oversight of the tabernacle and its furniture. The same word in the Hebrew and Greek occurs, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12. These were bishops, or overseers, of the workmen employed in repairing the house of the Lord. For the same reason, an overseer of the highways is a bishop of the highways; an overseer of the poor, is a bishop of the poor; and an overseer of a church, which every presbyter is, is a bishop of a church.

Admitting the identity of bishops and presbyters, it

*This is too strongly expressed; it is rather contending for a distinction where there is no difference, than maintaining a contradiction in terms.-EDIT.

is granted that the New Testament furnishes a few examples of bishops receiving ordination, though not a single instance can be produced of their giving it. The only persons who conferred holy orders, that we read of, were Paul and Barnabas, Timothy and Titus ; the two former were apostles, and the two latter evangelists.*

But allowing that presbyter-bishops had the power of ordination, it does not follow that our bishops possess it. The presbyter office is now split into two, and its duties are divided betwixt two distinct orders of men. It has been shown, that to oversee or bishop the church, is a duty of the presbyter office. If presbyters are obliged to discharge the duties of their office personally, (and few will dispute this,) it must follow, that bishops, as an order of men distinct from presbyters, and exercising a part of their office, are unauthorised and unaccredited intruders into the christian church.

Granting, however, for the sake of argument, that presbyters are not obliged to perform all the duties of their office themselves, it cannot be denied that they are superior to all the drudges employed in their office. It is universally admitted, that a person who holds an office, the duties of which are performed by others, is superior to them in dignity and power; they are obliged to submit to his authority; they can make no new officers without his leave; he assigns them their work, and can dismiss them if they do not perform it to his satisfaction. The duty of preserving the peace and good order of society, belongs to the kingly office; but his Majesty employs a great number of magistrates to assist him in the discharge of this duty; and they of course act in his name, and by virtue of his authority. Were they to cabal and make a new king, and

* Mr. Isaac, in making this assertion, overlooked Acts vi. 2-6, where the twelve are said to have ordained the seven deacons ; and Acts xiii. 1-3, where Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul, separating them unto a special work.-EDIT.

new officers of state, they would be justly looked upon as rebels and traitors. Yet they have as much right to do this, as bishops, who only perform a part of the presbyter office, have to make presbyters and other ecclesiastical officers. The power of ordination, if it remain with either, must be in presbyters, and not in bishops.

66

Bishop Stillingfleet reasons well upon this subject: Among the Jews," says he, "in the times of the apostles, it is most evident that the name presbuteroi imported not only dignity but power; the presbyters among the Jews having a power both of judging and teaching, given them by their Semicha or ordination. Now, under the gospel, the apostles, retaining the name and the manner of ordination, but not conferring that_judiciary power by it, which was in use among the Jews, to show the difference between the law and the gospel, it was requisite some other name should be given to the governors of the church, which should qualify the importance of the word presbyters, to a sense proper to a gospel state; which was the original of giving the name episcopoi to the governors of the church under the gospel; a name importing duty more than honour, and not a title above presbyter, but rather used by way of diminution and qualification of the power implied in the name presbyter. Therefore, to show what kind of power and duty the name presbyter imported in the church, the office conveyed by that name is called episcope; and presbyters are said episcopein, 1 Peter v. 2, where it is opposed to that lording it over the people, as was the custom of the presbyters among the Jews. So that, if we determine things by the importance of words, and things signified by them, the power of ordination was proper to the name presbuteros, presbyter,' and not episcopos, bishop,' because the former name did then import that power, but not the latter."*

6

It is shown, in the preceding essay, that presbyters

*Iren., part ii., chap. vi., p. 286.