Jesus set the standard of humble equality. "But be
not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ;
and all ye are brethren." Matt. 23: 8. " Neither
be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he
that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Matt.
23:10-12. "And there was also a strife among them,
which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he
said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise
lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon
them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but
he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger;
and he that is chief, as he that cloth serve. For whether
is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth?
is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he
that serveth." Luke 22: 24-27.
Oh, what humbleness is here taught!
"Ye are brethren." No one among you is higher
than another or can possibly have from me any jurisdiction
over the rest. Ye are, in this respect, perfectly equal.
He showed them how the Gentiles exalted some above others,
but said, "It shall not be so among you."
I will here insert a few extracts
from history. "The church was in the beginning a
community of brethren. All its members were taught of God,
and each possessed the liberty of drawing for himself from
the divine fountain of life. The epistles, which then
settled the great questions of doctrine, did not bear the
pompous title of any single man or ruler. We find from the
Holy Scriptures that they began simply with these words:
'The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto
the brethren.' Acts 15: 23. But the writings of these very
apostles forewarn us that from the midst of these
brethren, there shall arise a power which shall overthrow
this simple and primitive order. '—D 'Aubigne's History
of the Reformation, book I, chap. I.
" The doctrine of 'the church,
' and of 'the necessity for its visible unify,' which had
gained footing so early as the third century, favored the
pretensions of Rome. The great bond which originally bound
together the members of the church was a living faith in
the heart, by which all were joined to Christ as their own
head. But various causes erelong conspired to originate
and develop the idea of the necessity for some exterior
fellowship. Men, accustomed to the associations and
political forms of an earthly country, carried their views
and habits into the spiritual and everlasting kingdom of
Jesus Christ. The invisible and spiritual church was
identical with the visible and outward community. But soon
a great distinction appeared —the form and vital
principle parted asunder. The semblance of identical and
external organization was gradually substituted in place
of the internal and spiritual unity which is the very
essence of a religion proceeding from God. Men suffered
the precious perfume of faith to escape while they bowed
themselves before the empty vase that held it. Faith in
the heart no longer knit together in one the members of
the church. Then it united by means of bishops,
archbishops, popes, miters, ceremonies, and canons. The
living church retiring by degrees to the lonely sanctuary
of a few solitary souls— an exterior church was
substituted in place of it, and installed in all its forms
as of divine institution . . . In the beginning of the
gospel, whosoever had received the Spirit of Jesus Christ
was esteemed a member of the church. Now the order was
inverted, and no one unless a member of the church was
counted to have received the Spirit of Jesus Christ."
"It is a noteworthy fact, when
the founder of Christianity left the world, he made no
provision for any quarterly, or annual, or periodical
assembly of his apostles, his ministers, or his followers;
he appointed no time nor place for them to congregate, to
report, confer, or legislate; he gave to no one authority
to convoke such an assembly; and he gave his disciples no
reason to suppose that five thousand (Christians assembled
had greater authority than two or three who had met in his
name, in whose midst he promised to be. And so far from
empowering his followers to combine and legislate for
themselves or their associates, he expressly defined their
duties to be, not the contriving and imposing of new
precepts upon the church? but rather the making of
disciples among all nations, 'teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you.'
" The apostles and early
church seemed to understand their duties, and carefully
refrained from meddling with such affairs, or setting up
courts or ecclesiastical judicatures' and even when
consulted by the Gentile converts who were afflicted by
intrusion of proselyting Jews, they only rehearsed a few
'necessary things,' for their observance; things that had
been regarded as obligatory from the times of Noah down;
and declined to undertake anything analogous to the
ecclesiastical legislation of the present day. And so the
apostles parted, and went forth, probably never expecting
to meet again until 'the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
and our gathering unto him.' The servants of God were
attending to their proper work of preaching the gospel,
feeding the flock, and saving men; and it was not until
religious apostasy and imperial power and patronage
combined to corrupt and impair the integrity of the
church, that the work of calling councils and legislating
for the church of God commenced. "—Who Made the New
Testament? pages 3, 4.
In the foregoing we see, according
to the testimony of history, the equality of the early
ministry and their humbleness. If there was such a thing
in the early church as one class of preachers being above
the rest and exercising lordship over them, such
arrangement was in direct opposition to the teaching of
Christ; for he positively taught them, " It shall not
be so among you," but "All ye are
brethren." But the early church started in with an
equality of the ministry. The above quotations from
history clearly set forth the standard. All the preachers
were officially called "elders," and all were on
the same plane.
"The elders which are among
you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the
sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory
that shall be revealed: . . . neither as being lords over
God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." 1
Pet. 5: 1, 3. The following is an extract from Adam
Clark's comments on this text: " In this text, the
term presbuteros (elders or presbyters) is the name of an
office. They were as pastors or shepherds of the flock of
God, the Christians people among whom they lived. They
were the same as bishops . . . and teachers. That
these were the same as bishops the next verse proves. 'Who
also am an elder '—presbuteros. One on a level
with yourselves. " "either as being lords over
God's heritage." According to Paul, there are to he
no lords over God's heritage; the bishops and presbyters,
who are appointed by the head of the church (Christ), are
to feed the flock; to guide and to defend it, not to
fleece and waste it; and they are to look for their reward
in another world, and the appropriation of God in their
consciences. In humility, self-abasement, self
renunciation, and heavenly mindedness, they are to be
ensamples—types—to the flock; molds of a heavenly
form, into which the spirit and lives of the flock may be
east, so that they may come out after a perfect pattern.
We need not ask, Does the church that arrogates to itself
the exclusive title of Catholic, and do its supreme
pastors, who affect to be the successors of Peter and the
vicars of Jesus Christ, act in this way? They are in every
sense the reverse of this. But we may ask, Do the other
churches (meaning the Protestant sects), which profess to
be reformed from the abominations of the above, follow the
advice of the apostle ? Have they pastors according to
Cod's own heart, who feed them with knowledge and
understanding ? Do they not feed themselves instead of the
flock? Are they not lords over the heritage of Christ
ruling with a high ecclesiastico secular hand ?
The above cuts a clear line of
distinction between the modern lords of Babylon and the
humble, equal ministry of the early church. The apostle
Peter placed himself on a common level with the local
presbyters, and also stated that he was a fellow
presbyter. In the New Testament "bishop" and
"elder" are terms used interchangeably and
applied to the same class of officers—the ministers.
Bishop. "In the
primitive church, a spiritual overseer; an elder or
Presbyter; one who has the pastoral care of a
church."—Webster.
" The same persons are called
elders and presbyters, and overseers and bishops.
"— Scott, Com.
" Till the churches were
multiplied (and apostatized), the bishops and presbyters
were the same. "—Ibid.
"Both the Greek and Latin
Fathers do, with one consent, declare that bishops were
called presbyters and presbyters bishops in apostolic
times, the name being then common."—Whitbey.
"It appears that those who are
called elders in this place [Tit. 1: 5] are the same as
those termed bishops in verse 7. We have many proofs that
bishops and elders were of the same order in the apostolic
church, though afterward they became
distinct."—Adam Clark.
"The rulers of the church were
called their presbyters or bishops, which two titles are,
in the New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same
order of men.... Let no one confound the bishops of this
primitive and golden period of the church with those of
whom we read in the following ages. For, though they were
both distinguished by the same name, yet they differed
extremely, and that in many respects."—Mosheim,,
vol. I, page 99.
"It is also true that in the
earliest government of the first Christian society, that
of Jerusalem, not the elders only, but the 'whole church'
were associated with the apostles; and it is even certain
that the terms 'bishop' and ' eider t or 'presbyter' were,
in the first instances, and for a short period, sometimes
used synonomously, and indiscriminately applied to the
same order in the ministry. "—Waddington's Church
History, part I, page 41.
"The earliest Christian
communities appear to have been ruled and represented, in
the absence of the apostle who was their first founder, by
their elders, who are likewise called bishops, or
overseers of the church. "—Millman's History of
Christianity, page 194.
Kurtz, in his Church History, says:
"To aid them in their work, or to supply their places
in their absence (Acts 14: 23), the apostles ordained
rulers in every church, who bore the common name of elders
from their dignity, and of bishops from the nature of
their office. That originally the elders were the same as
the bishops, we gather with absolute certainly from the
statements of the New Testament and Clement of Rome, a
disciple of the apostles. (See his first Epistle to the
Corinthians, chapters 42, 44). The presbyters are
expressly called bishops— compare [the Greek especially]
Acts 20:17 with verse 28, and Tit. 1: 5 with verse 7. The
office of presbyter is described as next to and highest
after the apostles (Acts 15: 6, 22). Similarly, the elders
are represented as those to whom alone the rule, the
teaching, and the care of the church is entrusted (1 Tim.
5:17; 1 Pet. 5:1, etc.).... In several passages of the New
Testament and of Clement we read of many bishops in one
and the same church. In the face of such indubitable
evidence, it is difficult to account for the pertinacity
with which Romish and Anglican theologians insist that
these two offices had from the first been different in
name and functions.... Even Jerome, Augustine, Urban II,
and Petrus Lombardes admit that originally the two had
been identical. It was reserved for the Council of Trent
to convert this truth into a heresy."—Ibid., pages
67, 68.
" The church was in the
beginning a community of brethren, guided by a few of the
brethren." "All Christians were priests of the
living God, with humble pastors as their guides.
"—D 'Aubigne's History of the Reforrnation, vol. I,
pages 35, 50.
To tile above we heartily say,
Amen. Bishop and elder were the same till the mystery of
iniquity began to work. The traveling preachers were
bishops. "For it is written in the book of Psalms,
Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell
therein: and his bishopric let another take. " Acts
1: 20. Bishopric is the office of a bishop. Judas, then,
was a bishop, but by transgression he fell. So Matthias
was chosen to take his bishopric—his office of bishop.
This proves beyond question that all the twelve were
properly called bishops. This included Peter and John, who
also were called elders (1 Pet. 5: 1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1).
So the terms " bishop " and " elder "
are used interchangeably, and apply to all the traveling
ministers. All the local preachers were bishops. "
Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all
the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the
bishops and deacons." Phil. 1:1. Thus when Paul wrote
to the church at Philippi, he addressed all the saints,
"with the bishops and deacons." He did not say
with bishops, elders, and deacons; but recognized only two
classes of officers—bishops and deacons. A plurality of
elders were ordained in "every church" (Acts 14:
23). Therefore Paul terms these elders, bishops. Bishop
and elder, then, are the same in Scripture. There were but
two classes of officers in the church at Philippi:
bishops—the ministers of the word of truth, and
overseers of the flock; and deaconsthe ministers of
the temporal affairs of the church. Anything more than
this is apostasy.
On this text Adam Clark remarks:
"bishops —the overseers of the church of
God, and those who ministered to the poor and preached
occasionally. There has been a great deal of paper wasted
in the inquiry, 'Who are meant by bishops here? as no
place could have more than one bishop.' . . . This is the
extravagance of trifle.. I believe no such officer is
meant as we now term bishop. " This is clear. Adam
Clark readily admits that New Testament bishops were only
overseers—common preachers. He further states that it is
"a waste of paper" to try to prove that only one
bishop can be in an assembly. It is " the
extravagance of trifle.. " He understood that the
modern office of bishop was unknown in the apostolic
church. These are his words: "I believe no such
officer is meant as we now term bishop." Amen.
The very language of Tit. 1: 4-7
proves that elders and bishops were the same. "To
Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy,
and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
our Savior. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou
shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and
ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: if
any be blameless. the husband of one wife, having faithful
children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must
be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled,
not soon ; angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given
to filthy lucre " Language could not be plainer. Paul
left Titus in Crete to ordain elders in every city. He
says, " If any be blameless, " "for a
bishop must be blameless." When Paul sent to Ehpesus,
he did not call the bishop and his presbytery, but simply
called " the elders of the church" ( Acts 2():
17). All the ministers in that assembly were simply
elders, made overseers by the Holy Ghost Acts 20: 28).
When the apostles set churches in order, they did not
ordain one bishop, and his presbytery, but simply "
ordained elders in every church " ( Acts 14: 23).
Paul did not instruct Titus to ordain one bishop and a
presbytery of elders for his sanhedrin in every city in
Crete, but left him to simply "ordain elders in every
city."
At Philippi there was no such thing
as a single bishop, and a lower class called elders, and a
still lower class called deacons; but there were only two
classes of officers—bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1). Did
the church at Antioch send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem
to consult the bishop, the apostles, and the elders about
circumcision? No; they simply sent them " to
Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this
question" (Acts 15:2). Nothing is said of the bishop.
When they reached Jerusalem, "they were received of
the church and of the apostles and elders " (verse
4). The bishop was left out. Why ? They did not have such
a high officer over them. That church was pure from the
mystery of iniquity. "But," says one,
"James was a bishop." James was an apostle (Gal.
1: 19); hence he was no more a bishop than was Peter or
any other of the apostles. Who came together to consider
the matter? The bishop (James), the apostles, and the
elders? No; it does not read that way. "And the
apostles and elders came together for to consider of this
matter." Acts 15: 6. No mention is made of a bishop
presiding in this apostolic assembly. Only apostles and
elders are mentioned. As before proved, all the apostles
were bishops, and all the elders were bishops. The
apostles were the traveling elders or bishops, while the
others were the local elders or bishops. Peter and James
spoke in this assembly, as they were looked upon by the
church as "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). But James was
only an apostle or elder in the church at Jerusalem. He
probably was a senior elder, as is inferred from Acts 21:
18.
"But," says one,
"was not the angel of the church at Ephesus, a bishop
over the rest?" (Rev. 2:1) No; for had they had an
officer above the common elders, called the bistro;', when
Paul called them together, as recorded in (Acts 20: 17,
28) he would have mentioned the bishop. But he simply
called "the elders." They were all
elders—overseers. No doubt there was, however, one
who was a senior elder, or one among the elders who
especially ministered tire Word and took the special care
of the church upon himself or herself. There was not a
bishop above the rest, for they were all on the same
level—all elders (Acts 20: 17 28). This humble equality
of the early ministry lasted but a very short time.