BISHOP. 



541 



Bishop. Tully is called episcopus orce et CampOnic ; but, af- 

 "I ter the introduction of Christianity, it came exclu- 

 sive ly to denot an ecclesiastical ruler. It is of 

 course in this last sense only, that the Greek or La- 

 tin word is synonymous with the English " bishop." 

 From the interpretation given above, it is evident, that 

 the inspector, guardian, or overseer, may he considered 

 either in relation to one church or assembly of Chris- 

 tians, committed to his care, or to a number of 

 churches. The former in the notion of the Presby- 

 terians and Congregationalists of all descriptions : 

 the latter that of the Episcopalians and Roman Ca- 

 tholics. Anil, as far as the meaning of the word is 

 concerned, there appears to be no doubt, that either 

 idea may be included under it. 



It is not to be questioned, that, in the early ages' 

 of Christianity, mention is distinctly made of an ec- 

 clesiastical officer, bearing rule not over a single 

 church only, but over many churches ; which officer 

 must therefore have been a diocesan or bishop. This 

 is allowed by the keenest advocates for presbytery ; 

 but they deny that such an officer, residing in one 

 place, or confining his labours to a particular district 

 or diocese, existed in the church during the aposto- 

 lical age, and regard the introduction of such an of- 

 ficer as a culpable deviation from the primitive mo- 

 del. Here the parties are exactly at issue. It be- 

 longs not to us to attach ourselves to either side, 

 but rather suppressing our own opinion, to give, as 

 impartial historians, a short view of the arguments 

 by which the Presbyterians, on the one hand, and 

 the Episcopalians on the other, have defended their 

 respective opinions : disclaiming that intolerable bi- 

 potry, which would make a devotion to our own 

 forms, or to those of the hierarchy, the exclusive 

 condition of future happiness. 



The great object of the Presbyterians is to esta- 

 blish an equality among the teachers of religion, un- 

 der the sanction of apostolical example, and the con- 

 dition of the primitive church. With this view, they 

 remark, that, among the apostles themselves, whe- 

 ther considered as ordinary or extraordinary func- 

 tionaries, the equality for which they contend may 

 be recognised. To none of these eminent persons 

 was there given any jurisdiction or inspection over 

 the rest, corresponding to that of a modern bishop 

 or archbishop ; not even to Peter, for, though the 

 church is in one place declared to be founded on him, 

 yet the same church is elsewhere said to be built 

 " on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" 

 generally, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cor- 

 ner-stone. Upon this footing of equality, likewise, 

 it was that Paul, in a remarkable instance, so far 

 from yielding to the authority of Peter, " with- 

 stood him to the face," because, in his judgment, 

 he was to be blamed. Nay, there is upon record a 

 precept of Christ, addressed immediately to the 

 apostle*, in which he enjoins them to mutual submis- 

 sion and forbearance. " Whosoever will be chief 

 among you," says he, " let him be your servant," 

 Matt. xx. 2<). The same observations apply to the 

 evangelists, in the number of whom are included 

 Philip, Timothy, and Titus, as well as Mark and 

 Luke, and also to the seventy disciples ; for in 

 neither of these instances are there any traces of sub- 



ordination to be discovered. In supporting their Bishop, 

 leading proposition, the Presbyterians farther main- v 



tain, that the terms eVirjcoTros, and vgic&ifltfos, are 

 used as synonymous, and convertible in almost every 

 passage of the New Testament where they occur ; 

 or, in other words, that the same persons who are 

 called 7n<rx6jroi, are likewise called wgwStflsfo*, the 

 former expression being the name of office, and the 

 latter the epithet of respect. In proof of this asser- 

 tion, they adduce the well-known passage in the 20th 

 chapter of the " Acts of the Apostles." In that 

 chapter, we are informed, that Paul, having sum- 

 moned the elders of the church at Ephesus, tk; 

 a^ss-oalsjKs -im iMrtl W K ) the presbyters of the church 

 addressed them, that is, the elders or presbyters, in 

 the following words : " Take heed, therefore, to 

 yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy 

 Ghost hath made you (the presbyters) KrurxMMr, 

 bishops, or overseers." Here (says Dr Campbell) 

 " there can be no question, that the same persons 

 are denominated presbyters and bishops." Nor does 

 this passage by any means stand alone. There is a 

 similar one in the Epistle to Titus, chap. i. ver. 5. 

 compared with verses 6th and 7th. The reader may 

 likewise consult 1 Pet. v. and 2. ; but, for our re- 

 marks on these passages, as applicable to the present 

 question, as well as for additional observations on. 

 the terms irgnrZuiigo; and S7rir;, we refer to the ar- 

 ticle Phesbytery. We may conclude this para- 

 graph, however, with stating, that, wherever the 

 ordinary ecclesiastical functionaries are mentioned by 



the inspired writers, it is uniformly under the cha- 

 racter either of presbyters ('. e. bishops or over- 

 seers,) or of deacons. Two classes of functionaries 

 only are spoken of, without the most distant allu- 

 sion to a third order, that of diocesans ; yet, (say 

 the Presbyterians) if this last order had existed, be- 

 ing, according to the Episcopalians, the most im- 

 portant of the whole, it would undoubtedly have 

 been specified and noticed as that importance re- 

 quired. See the Epistle to the Philip, chap. i. v. 1. 

 See also the First f.pistle to Timothy, chap. iii. 



The advocates for presbytery next contend, that 

 the bishops or presbyters of the apostolical age, were 

 usually the pastors, each of a single congregation. 

 They say, usually the pastors, each of a single con- 

 gregation, because, as they affirm, there are instances 

 where two or- more pastors have been allotted to one 

 Christian assembly ; though the converse of this pro- 

 position is not true, that there are instances in the 

 age referred to, of two or more congregations sub- 

 jected to the authority of one bishop. In establish- 

 ing the proposition enunciated above, it is asserted, 

 that, when Titus, acting in the capacity of an extra- 

 ordinary minister, was left at Crete, it was, for the 

 following purposes, among others, " that he should 

 ordain presbyters or bishops in every city," Tit. i. 5. 

 Now, from this statement, it is evident, at first 

 sight, that these presbyters or bishops could not be 

 diocesans. Had it been the intention of Paul to 

 establish, by the agency of Titus, a diocesan autho- 

 rity in Crete, we should have found one individual 

 put in possession of that authority, with a college of 

 priests for his assistants. But this was not the case : 

 Titus was left to ordain presbyters or bishops in- 



