The world, it is certain, is very much divided in their sentiments about this matter, some concluding that a Bishop is not only distinct from, but superior, both in order and degree to those who are styled Presbyters or Elders; whereas, others think, that there is either no difference between them, or, at least, that it is not so great, as that they should be reckoned distinct officers in a church. The account we have, in scripture, of this matter seems to be somewhat different from what were the sentiments of the church in following ages. Sometimes we read of several Bishops in one church: thus the apostle, writing to the church at Philippi, directs his epistle to the Bishops and Deacons, Phil. i. 1. and elsewhere he seems to call the same persons Bishops and Elders, or Presbyters; for it is said, that he sent to Ephesus, and called together the Elders of the church, Acts xx. 17. and advises them to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over whom the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers, or Bishops, ver. 28. and, at another time, he charges Titus to ordain elders, or Presbyters, in every city; and then gives the character of those whom he was to ordain, bidding him take care that they were blameless, and had other qualifications, necessary for this office; and, in assigning a reason for this, he adds, For a Bishop must be blameless, &c. where, it is plain, the word Elder and Bishop are indifferently used by him, as respecting the same person. And the apostle Peter 1 Pet. v. 1. addresses himself to the Elders of the churches, to whom he writes, styling himself an Elder together with them;[[287]] and, besides this, a witness of the sufferings of Christ, which was his character, as an apostle. And he exhorts them to perform the office of Bishops, or Overseers,[[288]] as the word, which we render Taking the Oversight, signifies; from whence it is evident, that Elders and Presbyters had the character of Bishops, from the work they were to perform.
Moreover, that venerable assembly, that met at Jerusalem, to discuss an important question brought before them by Paul and Barnabas, is said to consist of the Apostles and Elders, Acts xv. 6. Now, if Bishops had been, not only distinct from, but a superior order to that of Elders, they would have been here mentioned as such, and, doubtless, have met together with them; but it seems probable that they are included in the general character of Elders. Some think, that the same persons are called Bishops, because they had the oversight of their respective churches; and Elders, because they were qualified for this work, by that age and experience which they had, for the most part arrived to; as the word Elder signifies not only one that is invested in an office,[[289]] but one who, by reason of his age, and that wisdom that often attends it, is fitted to discharge it, 1 Tim. v. 1.
We read nothing in scripture, of Diocesan churches, or Bishops over them, how much soever this was pleaded for in many following ages; and they, who maintain this argument, generally have recourse to the writings of the Fathers, and church-historians, which, were the proofs, taken from thence, more strong and conclusive than they are, would not be sufficient to support the divine right thereof. I shall not enlarge on this particular branch of the controversy, inasmuch as it has been handled with a great deal of learning and judgment, by many others,[[290]] who refer to the writings of the Fathers of the three first centuries, to prove that churches were no larger in those times than one person could have the oversight of, and that these chose their own Bishops. Some think, indeed, that there is ground to conclude, from what we find in the writings of Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers in these ages, that there was a superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, at least, in degree, though not in order; and that the Presbyter performed all the branches of that work, that properly belonged to Bishops, only with this difference, that it was done with their leave, or by their order, or in their absence; and there being several Elders in the same church, when a Bishop died, one of those were ready to succeed him in that office.
Some, indeed, speak of the church as Parochial, and contradistinguished from Diocesan; but, inasmuch as it does not appear, by their writings, that these Parochial churches had any other bond of union, but nearness of habitation, I cannot so readily conclude, that their church-state depended principally on this political circumstance; but rather that Christians thought it most convenient for such to enter into a church-relation, who, by reason of the nearness of their situation to each other, could better perform the duties that were incumbent on them, pursuant hereunto.
But, notwithstanding this, it appears from several things occasionally mentioned by the Fathers, that the church admitted none into its communion, but those whom they judged qualified for it, and that not only by understanding the doctrines of Christianity, but by a conversation becoming their profession thereof; and it was a considerable time that they remained in a state of probation, being admitted to attend on the prayers and instructions of the church, but ordered to withdraw before the Lord’s supper was administered: these are sometimes called Hearers by Cyprian; at other times, Candidates, but most commonly Catechumens. And there were persons appointed not only to instruct them but to examine what proficiency they made in religion, in order to their being received into the church. In this state of trial they continued generally two or three years[[291]]; such care they took that persons might not deceive themselves, and the church, by joining in communion with it, without having those qualifications that are necessary thereunto. This is very different from parochial churches, as understood and defended by many in our day. Therefore when churches were called parishes, in the three first centuries, it was only a circumstantial description thereof.
In every one of these churches there was one who was called a bishop, or overseer, with a convenient number of elders or presbyters; and it is observed, by that learned writer but now referred to, that these churches, at first, were comparatively small, and not exceeding the limits of the city, or village, in which they were situate, each of which was under the care, or oversight, of its respective pastor, or bishop.
This was the state of the church, more especially, in the three first centuries: but, if we descend a little lower to the fourth century, we shall find that the government thereof was very much altered, when it arrived to a peaceable and flourishing state; then, indeed, the bishops had the oversight of of larger dioceses, than they had before, which proceeded from the aspiring temper of particular persons[[292]], who were not content till they had added some neighbouring parishes to their own, and so their churches became very large, till they extended themselves over whole provinces. But even this was complained of by some, as an abuse; which occasioned Chrysostom so frequently to insist on the inconvenience of bishops having churches too large for them to take the oversight of, and not so much regarding the qualifications as the number of those over whom they presided; and he signifies his earnest desire, that those under his care might rather excel in piety, than in number, as it would be an expedient for his better discharging the work committed to him[[293]].
Thus concerning the character and distinction of the pastors of churches, together with the form of the church in the first ages of Christianity; and what is observed, by many, concerning the agreement and difference which there was between bishops and presbyters: but this has been so largely insisted on, by many who have written on both sides the question, and the controversy turning very much on critical remarks made on some occasional passages, taken out of the writings of the Fathers, without recourse to scripture; it is therefore less necessary, or agreeable to our present design, to enlarge on that head: however, we may observe, that some of those who have written in defence of Diocesan Episcopacy, have been forced to acknowledge, that Jerom, Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, in the Fourth Century; and, in some following ages, Sedulius, Primatius, Theodoret, and Theophylact, have all held the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church[[294]]. Jerom, in particular, is more express on this subject than any of them, and proves it from some arguments taken from scripture, which speak of the distinction that there was between them, as being the result of those divisions, by which the peace and order of the church was broken, and that it was no other than an human constitution.[[295]] This opinion of Jerom is largely defended by a learned writer, who shews that it is agreeable to the sentiments of other Fathers, who lived before and after him. Thus concerning a pastor, as styled a bishop or presbyter; we shall now consider him as invested in his office, whereby he becomes related to a particular church of Christ. That no one is pastor of the catholic church, has been observed, under a foregoing head[[301]], wherein we shewed, that the church, when styled catholic, is not to be reckoned the seat of government; and therefore we must consider a pastor as presiding over a particular church; and, in order hereunto, it is necessary that he should be called, or chosen, to take the oversight of it, on their part, and comply with the invitation on his own, and, after that be solemnly invested in, or set apart, to this office.
(1.) We are to consider what more especially respects the church, who have a right to choose, or call those, who are qualified for the work, to engage in this service, and to perform the two branches of the pastoral office, namely, instructing and governing. This is not only agreeable to the laws of society, but is plainly contained in scripture, and appears to have been the sentiment and practice of the church, in the three first centuries thereof. The church’s power of choosing their own officers, is sufficiently evident from scripture. If there were any exception hereunto, it must be in those instances in which there was an extraordinary hand of providence in the appointment of officers over them; but, even then, God sometimes referred the matter to their own choice: thus, when Moses made several persons rulers over Israel, to bear a part of the burden, which before was wholly laid on him, he refers this to their own election, when he says, Take ye wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you, Deut. i. 13. And in the gospel-church, which, at first, consisted of about an hundred and twenty members, Acts i. 15. when an apostle was to be chosen to succeed Judas, they appointed two out of their number, and prayed, that God would signify which of them he had chosen; and, when they had given forth their lots, the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles, ver. 23. so we render the words: but if they had been rendered, he was numbered among the eleven apostles, by common suffrage or vote, it would have been more expressive of the sense thereof[[302]]. Soon after this, we read of the choice of other officers, to wit, deacons in the church, chap. vi. 3. and the apostles say to them, Look ye out among you seven men, whom ye may appoint over this business. And afterwards, in their appointing elders, or pastors, over particular churches, we read of their choosing them by vote or suffrage: thus it is said, in Acts xiv. 23. When they had ordained them elders in every church; so we translate the words[[303]]; but they might be better rendered, When they had chosen elders in every church by lifting up of the hand. This was, and is, at this day, a common mode of electing persons, either to civil or religious offices.[[304]] And it might be easily proved from the Fathers, that this was the universal practice of the church in the three first centuries, and not wholly laid aside in following ages, till civil policy, and secular interest usurped and invaded the rights thereof: but this argument having been judiciously managed by Dr. Owen[[305]], I pass it over, and proceed to consider,
(2.) That a pastor being thus chosen, by the church, and having confirmed his election by his own consent; then follows his being separated, or publicly set apart to this office, with fasting and prayer, which is generally called ordination. This does not, indeed, constitute a person a pastor of a church, so that his election, confirmed by his consent, would not have been valid without it; yet it is not only agreeable to the scripture-rule, but highly expedient, that, as his ministerial acts are to be public, his first entering into his office should be so likewise, and, in order thereunto, that other pastors, or elders, should join in this solemnity; for, though they do not confer this office upon him, yet thereby they testify their approbation of the person, chosen to it; and a foundation is laid for that harmony of pastors and churches, that tends to the glory of God, and the promoting of the common interest. This also fences against several inconveniences which might ensue; since it is possible that a church may chuse a person to be their pastor, whose call to, and qualification for this office may be questioned; and it is natural to suppose, that they would expect that their proceedings herein should be justified and defended by other pastors and churches, and the communion of churches maintained: but how can this be done if no expedient be used to render this matter public and visible, which this way of ordaining or setting apart to the pastoral office does? And they who join herein testify their approbation thereof, as what is agreeable to the rule of the gospel.