Elder and Bishop the Same Office

 •  13 min. read  •  grade level: 11
 
Extract from Dwight.
1.— “THE Elders which are among you, I exhort; who am also an Elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a par, taker of the glory which shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples, to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:33Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:3).).
“These Elders are exhorted to feed (ποιμαινω) i.e. to teach, edify, and rule the flock of God; they are also directed to oversee it—the word επισκοπουντες is exactly rendered overseeing or exercising the office of an overseer or bishop.”
2.— “And from Miletus He sent to Ephesus, and called the ELDERS of the Church. A part of the directions which He gave to these Elders, is recited thus, ‘Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you BISHOPS, επισκοπους, to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood.’” (Acts 20:17-2.8.)
“From which two verses it appears 1st—that in Ephesus there were several Elders of the Church: end—that all these Elders were Bishops: 3rd—that the Holy Ghost constituted or made, these several Elders, Bishops. The original is εθετο, constituted.”
4th— “That in Ephesus all the Elders of the Church were Bishops: 6th—that therefore, there was no one Bishop of superior authority, or holding an office or character which distinguished him from other Bishops in that city: 6th—that Timothy could not be the sole Bishop or Diocesan of the Church in that city, because other men were Bishops in that Church.”1
“The Elders to whom Peter wrote, were all who dwelt in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia proper, and Bithynia; provinces constituting more than two-thirds of the Lesser Asia; at that time full of Churches and Christians. All the Elders of these Churches, he exhorts to exercise the office of a Bishop in the Church.”
“All the Elders in Ephesus, the chief city in the same country, Paul declares to be ‘constituted Bishops by the Holy Ghost.’ Both Apostles speak the same language to the same persons, language which has obviously but one meaning.”
3.— “Paul and Timotheus, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are in Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons.” (Phil. 1)
“Here the saints with the Bishops and Deacons, are expressly mentioned, but frothing is said of there being Elders in this Church distinct from the Bishops. Had the Epistle been addressed to Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, it would have been thought, by an advocate for prelatical episcopacy, absolutely decisive in favor of three orders of ecclesiastical officers. As it now stands, and as it is uncontradicted by any other passage of Scripture, I think it is equally decisive that there were but two. The same passage proves that there was not at Philippi, a single Bishop presiding over a number of subordinate ministers; nor is there any reason to conclude that this Church was in this respect differently constituted from other Churches.”
4.— “No mention is made of Bishops by way of address (except the text just quoted from Phil. 1) or direction, or salutation.”
“The word επἴσκοπος (Bishop or Overseer) occurs in the New Testament five times; once it is applied to Christ, (1 Peter 2:2525For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. (1 Peter 2:25).) and four times denotes officers in the Church. The word επισκοπη is once used to denote the office of an overseer or Bishop; (1 Tim. 3:11This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. (1 Timothy 3:1).) in two instances to denote visitation; (Luke 19:4444And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. (Luke 19:44). and 1 Peter 2:1212Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:12).) and once is quoted from Psa. 109:88Let his days be few; and let another take his office. (Psalm 109:8) to denote by way of accommodation, the employment of Judas as an Apostle. σπισκοπεν to oversee, or exercise the office of an overseer or Bishop, is used once with that meaning, (1 Peter 5:22Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (1 Peter 5:2)) and once (Heb. 12:1515Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; (Hebrews 12:15)) where it is exactly translated looking diligently.’ In all the addresses of their several letters by the Apostles to the several Churches, there is not, except in that first mentioned, a single allusion to Bishops as a peculiar order of men. In the numerous salutations with which the Epistles are concluded, and in the several directions given to the Churches, there is not the least mention made, nor the least hint given concerning this class of officers.”
“The passages concerning ruling the Church are the following.”—
“Let the Elders who rule well, be accounted worthy of double honor; especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.”
“From these passages it appears, 1st.—that ruling is as extensively ascribed to Elders as to Bishops; 2nd—that the rule over the Churches was committed to many hands.”
5.— “Another proof is drawn from the fact, that wherever the officers of the Church are mentioned together, no more than two classes are ever mentioned.”
“In Tim. 3 Paul instructs him at large in the qualifications of ecclesiastical officers, and more fully than we find done in any other part of the scriptures. But even here we find no other officers mentioned besides the επισκοπος Bishop or Overseer, and the διακονος, Deacon. Had there been an intermediate office distinguished both from the Bishop and the Deacon, and known by the name of Elder, it is strange that it should not be mentioned here.”
“The account given in Acts 15 of the first council at Jerusalem, proves also that there was no one vested with modern episcopal authority, or who took upon him the supreme rule in that Church. The Apostles and Elders came together to ‘consider this matter,’ the decision is returned in the ‘name of the Apostles and Elders, and brethren. It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us.’2 In this assembly there was no Bishop in the modern sense; James, whatever was the fact afterward, was not now such a Bishop. The letter does not go in his name, nor with any authority whatever attributed to him, except as an Apostle, and as a member of that deliberative body; and in neither character any farther, than that he had one voice in the decision of that assembly. And neither at Jerusalem, nor in the Church at Antioch, nor in those of Syria and Cilicia, is there any evidence that such Bishops were established. The brethren of the Church at Antioch sent the messengers, the letter was addressed to the brethren of the Churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. Thus I think it clear that there was not a single such Bishop in the Christian Church at this period.”
“I have now mentioned every passage in scripture where Bishops are even glanced at, or the existence of such an order of ministers, as distinguished from Elders, is directly countenanced even in the opinion of its advocates. If the distinction between Bishops and Elders can be found in the language of Scripture, it is found here. But here no distinction of this kind can be found.” Dwight’s Theology. 150, 151.
Dwight next brings forward a number of acknowledgments from different supporters of episcopacy, that this distinction is not capable of proof from the scriptures; of which one will suffice. In a celebrated work called the “Institution of a Christian man,” approved expressly by Archbishop Cranmer, Bishops Jewell, Willer, and Stillingfleet, and the main body of the English Clergy, together with the King and Parliament is this declaration— “In the New Testament, there is no other mention of any other degrees, but of Deacons or Ministers, and of Presbyters or Bishops.”
We have made the preceding extracts, as giving, in a compendious manner, the evidence of Scripture upon the subject; and where the scriptures alone, and not secondary or doubtful sources are relied upon, perhaps nothing more is needed to determine the question. The subsequent quotation also from one of the most early Protestant manuals in this country, alone sufficiently proves what were the original opinions of the English Reformers. The notion that subsequently arose in the Establishment, is further contradicted by two facts supplied by itself.
1st.—That “the Reformers admitted the ordination of foreign Churches by mere Presbyters, till towards the middle of the reign of Elizabeth, when their validity began to be disputed and denied.” (Neale.)
2nd.—The assumption is further disproved by the fact, that not even now has a Bishop alone power to ordain, but Presbyters are obliged to be joined with him in the exercise of the function.”
The sentiments of the Reformers, however, are but little inquired into by many who avail themselves of the support afforded by their names. It may be well to add a few extracts from Dr. M’Crie’s collection of their real opinions on ecclesiastical subjects.3
Cranmer expressed his opinion formally in writing, that “the Bishops and Priests were at one time, and were no two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ’s religion.” Thirteen Bishops, with a great number of other ecclesiastics, subscribed this proposition “that in the New Testament, there is no mention of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only Deacons or Ministers, and of Priests or Bishops.” Cranmer says, “in the New Testament, he that is appointed a Bishop or Priest needeth not consecration by the scripture; for election or appointment thereto, is sufficient;” and of the same judgment was the Bishop of St. David’s; Latimer and Hooper maintained the identity of Bishops and Presbyters by divine institution, this also was the opinion of Pilkington, Bishop of Durham. Bishop Jewell assents to it in his answer to Harding. Cranmer expressed himself strongly respecting the glorious titles, styles, and pomps which were come into the Church, through the working of the spirit of Diotrephes; and professed his readiness to lay them aside. In fact, the title of Bishop was very generally disused in common speech during the reign of Edward VI. and that of superintendent substituted in its place, and this change of language was vindicated by Ponet, Bishop of Winchester, in an answer which he published to a Popish writer. All the Protestant Bishops and Divines in the reign of Edward
VI. were anxious for the introduction of ecclesiastical discipline. Dr. Cox, (Oct. 5, 1552) complains bitterly of the opposition of the courtiers to this measure, and says that if it was not adopted, “the kingdom of God would be taken away from them.” When Grindal was appointed to the Bishopric of London, he “remained under scruples of conscience about some things, especially, the habits and certain ceremonies required to be used of such as were Bishops.” For the reformed, says Strype, “generally went upon the ground, that, in order to the complete freeing of the Church of Christ from the errors and corruptions of Rome, every usage and custom practiced by that apostate and idolatrous Church, should be abolished, and that the service of God should be more simple, stript of all that show, pomp, and appearance that had been customarily and before; esteeming all that to be no better than superstitious and anti-Christian.” Jewell writes to Martyr, that be “wished the very slightest footsteps of Popery might be removed out of the Church and minds of men; but the Queen would at that time suffer no change in religion.” Grindal and Horn wrote to Zurich, that they did not approve of, but merely suffered kneeling at the Eucharist, and signing with the cross in baptism, with some other ceremonies, hoping that they would speedily obtain their abrogation. in the year 1562, the abrogation of the most offensive ceremonies, were, after long reasoning, put to the vote in the convocation, and carried by a majority of those present. But when the proxies were included, there was found a majority of one for retaining them. The arguments of Archbishop Parker’s chaplains. to prevail upon the house to agree to this, derived their chief force from their being understood to be the sentiments of the Queen. Peter Martyr gave it as his opinion, that “innumerable corruptions, infinite abuses, and immense superstition, could be reformed only by a simple recurrence to the pure fountain, and unadulterated original principles.” And the prudential advice, that as few changes as possible should be made, he called “a device of Satan to render the regress of Popery more easy.” Gaulter in a letter dated January 16, 1550, says, that such advises, though “according to a carnal judgment, full of modesty, and apparently conducive to the maintenance of concord,” were to be ascribed to “the public enemy of man’s salvation;” and he prophetically warns those who suffered such abuses to remain and strengthen themselves in England, that “afterward they would scarcely be able to eradicate them by all their efforts and struggles.”
Such are the recorded opinions of the Reformers. Why their own views were not carried into effect, is too easily explained. The Reformation instead of being conducted solely by disciples of Christ, and amongst His followers, fell into the hands of those who had to reconcile their own political purposes with the changes wrought in matters of religion; and beyond their will, those who desired better things could not go, however clear and scriptural their own principles might have been
 
1. It is said that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete; and that as such Paul directed them to ordain Elders or Presbyters in the Churches of Ephesus and in Crete. But it cannot be proved that they were Bishops of these places in any sense, much less in the diocesan sense, for the scriptures say this in no place and in no manner whatever. They were simply fellow-helpers of the Apostle Paul, and delegates to supply his own personal presence when required, and quite as much so in other Churches as in Ephesus and Crete. It is certain that Timothy was an Evangelist, i.e. an itinerant minister; and therefore not a diocesan Bishop, for Paul directs him to do the work of an Evangelist, (2 Tim. 4:55But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (2 Timothy 4:5)) and directs him to come to him at Rome. (2 Tim. 4:99Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: (2 Timothy 4:9).) Indeed by simply tracing out the history of Timothy in the New Testament, it will be sufficiently clear, that one who remained so little stationary, could not have had the office ascribed to him. When the business for which he had been left at Ephesus was finished, he returned to Paul again. What is true of Timothy, is equally true of Titus; he also resided in Crete but a short time before he returned to Paul at Nicopolis; and was not, so far as appears, ever settled in Crete at all, certainly not at the time specified in the Epistle. And except from the Epistle, there is nothing known about the subject. It need scarcely be added, that the dates at the end of some of the Epistles were not written by the apostles.
2. It is worthy of observation, that the consultation appears to have been in the hands of the Apostles and Elders only, the answer is then given as the opinion of the whole Church; and in this, as in all their assemblies, the Holy Ghost alone presided.
3. See Ryland’s Church Reform