B I S 



co-operation cf nilTerent b'ftop? ; and tlicrefor^ as before, 

 one of the prcfbytci'! of a cjty was raited to he a biflK.p, and 

 to have authority over other prcfbyti-rs. fo one of thebifhops 

 of a provincf was feUaeH a- d invrllr d with certain authority 

 over other biiliopi, and he wjs cailed an arclibiflicp ; and 

 in the appointment of archb^fliops, the civil in-puvtance of 

 the city feems to have been ng'.rded, for wc find the me- 

 tropohtan bifhops were generally archbifliops, and hence 

 afchbilTiops were called metropolitans, Archbifliops, it has 

 been faid, were firll appointed in the fecoiid centniy; and 

 they had power to aflemble the bidiops within their relpcc- 

 ti%e provinces, to regulate tlie clcftion of bifliops, to confe- 

 crale them, to hear appeals from their dccifions, and to take 

 cugni/.ar.cc of their general conduct. See Archbishop 

 and Patriarch. 



Tt is fometimes urped, that bifliops, pricfts, and deacons, 

 arc" now, in their office and authority, very different fom 

 whiit they foinnerly were ; but this, fay the advocates of 

 epif'opacy, is no more tl.an a ncceflary confequence of a 

 chan:;e ot times and circumllaucep. Tliey do not contend, 

 that the bifltops prielh, and deacons of EnG;land are :it pre- 

 fent precifely the fame tiiat bifluip'-, prtfbyters, and deacons 

 vcre in Afia Minor, 1700 years aj^ai. Tliey maintain, how- 

 ever, that there have been always bidiop!--, priefts, and dea- 

 cons in the Chrillian church, fuice the days of the apoHles, 

 woth different poweis and func\ions in different countries and 

 at different pi riods ; but the general principles and duties, 

 which have refpeftivcly charaderized thefe clerical orders, 

 have been cffentially the fame at all times and in all places ; 

 and the variations which they have undcrijone, have only 

 been fuch as have ever belon,jed to all perlons in public fitu- 

 ation«, whether civil or ccclefiaftical, and which are, indeed, 

 infeparable from every thin^ in which maikind are con- 

 cerned in this tranfiiory and fluttuating world. A learned 

 prelate, who flatters hinifeif that, by the tcllimonies and 

 arguments, of which we have above given a genenil account, 

 he has proved cpifcopacy to be an apoftolical inditution, 

 veadtly acknowledges, however, that there is no pret tpt in 

 the New Tellament, which cumtrands that every chnich 

 /hould be governed by brfliops. As it has not pleafcd the 

 Almighty to prefcribe any particular form of civil govern- 

 ment for the fecurily of tanporal comforts to his r.itional 

 creatures ; fo neither has he prefcnbed any particular form 

 of ccclefiailical policy as abfoluttly ntceflary to the attain- 

 ment fif eternal luippinefs. And though the Scriptures con- 

 tain no direftions concerning the eftaMidiment of a power by 

 which minilUrs are to be admitted to their facred office, yet 

 he conceives, that from the apollles, epifcopal ordmation 

 has been regularly conveyed to ns ; a!id the legidature of 

 this kingdom has recognized and confirmed tins power to 

 bifhops. Sec Ordination. Elements of Chrillian Theo- 

 logy, by lord biihop of Lincoln, vol. ii. p. 376 — 401. 



Pcrfons, on the other hand, who do not admit of cpif- 

 copacy to be of apoilolic and divine mllitnlion, contend, 

 that the terms iirifrxoiro, and t^kt^v'Ii^o;, that is, bifhop and 

 prt(byt(.T, are uftd promifcuoufly ui tiie New Tellament, to 

 ■wliieh they thjnk It neccffary to appeal, as to the fcle au- 

 thoritative rule of faith and praftice, and t!-at I hey denote 

 the fame, and not a dillinft order or office in the Chnilian 

 church. To this purpofe they allege the paffage already 

 cited, Adls XX. 17. 28. in which the fame perfons are de- 

 nominated prcfbyters and bidiops. Tluis alf, the name, of- 

 fice, and work of a biihop and prefbyter appear to be the 

 fame, in Titus i. 5. 7. ; and unlefs the apolUe be charged 

 with prguiugvery incoherently, he mull mean the fame thing 

 fcy elder, v. 5,, and biihop, v. 7. In like manner, prefby- 

 icrs arc eahcried (j Pet. v. 1, 2.) to difcharge the office of 



B I S 



bifliops. The word tm<rKrjvc;, it is faid, was properly flu 

 name of office, vv.ii ■jr^^ar^xTl^o; was a title of refpeft, bor- 

 rowed from the Jewifh cuilom, which was analogous to that 

 of other nations, of call ng not only the mcndiers of the 

 Sanhedrim Tr^nr^w^^-t, elders or fenators, but alfo the mem- 

 bers of the city ci'uncil. It l-.as been moreover nflirmed, 

 that not a fingle paiTage from the apollolical wiitings lias yet 

 been produced, in which it appears from the context, that 

 the two terms ir^iciSvUf,; and tTicrxoTro.; mean different offices ; 

 and that there is the llrongeil poliiive evidence, which 

 the nature of the thing can admit, that in thefe writings the 

 two terms uirfcni^dy mean the fame office. The apniUe 

 Paul, in the direftions he gave to Timothy, about the pro- 

 per fupply of chinches with fuitable minitlers, takes parti- 

 cular notice, merely, of two orders, ot'C called bilhops, and 

 the other deacons ; and hence, it is argued, that if by bi- 

 fhops be meant, what in modern flyle is fo denominated, 

 thofe who have the charge of many prcfbyters, it is allonifh- 

 ing.that In- fl-.ould not think it of importance to give any di- 

 reftions about the qualllications of prcfbyters, whlKl he is 

 particular in fpccifying the qualifications of deacons, who 

 •were to occupy an order allowed to be much inferior to 

 the other j and if he here means by bifhops only prcfbyters, 

 as fomc friends of cpifcopacy have fuppoftd, it is ftrange 

 that an office fo important as that of bifhops, if it was a dif- 

 ferent and fiipcrior office, fhould have been entirely over- 

 looked. Fiom St. Paul's addrefs to the Philippians, 

 ch. i. I. it is inferred, that there were but two orders 

 then ellablilhed, viz. bilhops, i.e. ordinary pallors or pref- 

 byters, and deacons. If there was a billiop in the modern 

 fenfe at Philippi, when the apollle wrote that letter, it 

 feems llrange that tlie chief perfon in the fociety fliould be 

 the only perfon dil regarded by the apoftle. Moreover, in 

 the cpillle written by Polycarp to the fame fociety, about 

 60 years after this time, we find mention of only thefe two 

 orders, the prefbytevs and the deacons ; nor is it of any con- 

 fequence whether we call their pallors bifhops with the apof- 

 tle, or preflivters with Polycarp, as both fpeak of two or- 

 ders only among them. In the whole book of Afts, the 

 Hated pallors of the churches are denominated prcfbyters ; 

 the colleCiion for the poor Chrillians is fent to the prcfby- 

 ters ; nor do we find a finale hint of any different claffes of 

 prcfbyters. The appellafon ecttkotoi, bifliops, occurs but 

 once, and in the paffage where it is applied to thole that are 

 denominated prcfbyters. It is urged further, tl at the im- 

 pofition of hands, which has been confideied by many as a 

 neceiTary attendant on ordination, is attributed in I Tim. 

 iv. 14. to the prefbytery ; Paul and Barnabas wee ordained 

 by certain prophets and teachers in the church of Antioch, 

 and not by any bifliop, of whom there is not a word in 

 that whole folem-^ity, prefiding in that city, Aftsxiii. 1, 2, 

 3 ; and it is alleged, as an acknowledged and incontcftible 

 taft, that prelbyters, in the church of Alexandria, ordained 

 even their own bifhops for more than 200 years in the ear- 

 liell ages of Chrillianity. It appears alto, from the firft epif- 

 tle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, chap. xlii. that 

 there were two dillinft orders, viz. bifhops and deacons, ella- 

 blilhed by the apoflles in the church ; and by bifliops he 

 means the fame with thofe who, in the book of Afts, are 

 called ■z^talivHfoi, prcfbyters, or ordinary teachers. Since it 

 mull therefore be admitted, that in the New Tellament, 

 and alio in this work if Clement, the words Eiricrcowo; and 

 iriia^vls^of are, not oceafionally, but uniformly, iifed fyno- 

 nymoufly, the difcovery that there was not any diltinftive 

 appellation for fuch an oHice as that now called bifhop, is 

 adduced as affording a Urong prelumption, that it did not 

 exifl. Another tclUmony alleged to the fame purpofe is 

 2 that 



