In a recent number of The Catholic Presbyterian, reference was made to the approval, by Dean Stanley, of the views regarding the form of Church government in apostolic times expressed by Dr. Lightfoot, the Bishop of Durham - so well known for his scholarly commentaries on the Epistles to the Galatians, Philippians, and Colossians, and more recently for his thorough and conclusive refutation of the leading statements in 'Supernatural Religion.' We propose to make a few quotations from the bishop's commentary on the Philippians, in which the subject is very fully and fairly discussed, merely reminding our readers that the great point in dispute between Episcopalians and Presbyterians is, whether the office of a 'bishop' is distinct from and superior to that of a presbyter, or not rather identical with it.

At p. 93, Dr. Lightfoot states:

'It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that, in the language of the New Testament, the same officer in the Church is called indifferently "bishop" and "elder" or "presbyter'.'

On pp. 94-8, we find these remarks:

'Of the identity of the "bishop" and "presbyter" in the language of the apostolic age, the following evidence seems conclusive:

(1) In the opening of this epistle [to the Philippians], St Paul salutes the "bishops and deacons." Now, it is incredible that he should recognize only the first and third order, and pass over the second, though the second was absolutely essential to the existence of a Church, and formed the staple of its ministry. It seems, therefore, to follow of necessity that the "bishops" are identical with the "presbyters ..........

'(2) In the Acts (20: 17), St Paul is represented as summoning to Miletus the "elders" or "presbyters" of the Church of Ephesus. Yet, in addressing them immediately after, he appeals to them as "bishops" or "overseers" of the Church (20: 28).

'(3) Similarly, St Peter, appealing to the "presbyters" of the Churches addressed by him, in the same breath urges them to "fulfill the office of bishops" with disinterested zeal (1 Pet. 5:1, 2).

'(4) Again, in the First Epistle to Timothy, St Paul, after describing the qualifications for the office of a "bishop" (3:1-7), goes on at once to 'say what is required of "deacons" (3:8-13). He makes no mention of presbyters. The term "presbyter", however, is not unknown to him: for, having occasion, in a later passage, to speak of Christian ministers, he calls these officers no longer "bishops", but "presbyters" (5:17-19).

'(5) The same identification appears still more plainly from the apostle's directions to Titus (1:5-7): "That thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I appointed thee: if any one be blameless, the husband of one wife, having believing children, who are not charged with riotousness, or unruly: for a bishop must be blameless", etc.

'(6) Nor is it only in the apostolic writings that this identity is found. St Clement of Rome wrote, probably, in the last decade of the first century, and in his language the terms are still convertible. Speaking of the apostles, he says, that, "preaching in every country and city, they appointed their first-fruits, having tested them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of them that should believe", *42. A little later, referring to the disorganized state of the Corinthian Church, he adds: "Our apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife concerning the authority of the bishopric . . . . We shall incur no slight guilt if we eject those who have presented the offerings of the bishopric unblameably and holily. Blessed are the presbyters who have gone before, whose departure was crowned with fruit and perfection."

'This is the last instance of identification. With the opening of the second century, a new phraseology begins. In the genuine epistles of Ignatius, the terms are used in their more modern sense.'

From Dr. Lightfoot's paper on the 'Christian Ministry', appended to his commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, we proceed to make some extracts. Speaking of apostolic times, he says (pp. 192-8) 'The duties of the presbyters were twofold. They were both rulers and instructors of the congregation. This double function appears in St Paul's expression "pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11), where, as the form of the original seems to show, the two words describe the same office, yet the work of teaching must have fallen to the presbyters from the very first, and have assumed greater prominence as time went on. With the growth of the Church, the visits of the apostles and evangelists to any individual community must have become less and less frequent, so that the burden of instruction would be gradually transferred from these missionary preachers to the local officers of the congregation. Hence St Paul, in two passages where he gives directions relating to bishops or presbyters, insists specially on the faculty of teaching as a qualification for the position (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus I:9)

'It is clear, then, that at the close of the apostolic age, the two lower orders of the ministry [viz, the presbyterate and diaconate were firmly and widely established; but traces of the third and highest order, the episcopate, properly so called, are few and indistinct.

'For, the opinion hazarded by Theodoret, and adopted by many later writers, that the same officers in the Church who were first called apostles came afterwards to be designated bishops, is baseless. If the two offices had been identical, the substitution of the one name for the other would have required some explanation. But, in fact, the functions of the apostle an bishop differed widely. The apostle, like the prophet or the evangelist, held no local office. He was essentially, as his name denotes, a missionary, moving about from place to place, founding and confirming new brotherhoods. The only ground on which Theodoret builds his theory is a false interpretation of a passage in St Paul. At the opening of the epistle to Philippi, the presbyters (here called bishops) and deacons are saluted, while, in the body of the letter, one Epaphroditus is mentioned as an "apostle" of the Philippians. If "apostle" here had the meaning which is thus assigned to it, all the three orders of the ministry would be found at Philippi. But this interpretation will not stand. The true apostle, like St Peter or St John, bears this title as the messenger, the delegate, of Christ Himself; while Epaphroditus is only so styled as the messenger of the Philippians brotherhood, and, in the very next clause, the expression is explained by the statement that he carried their alms to St Paul. The use of the word here has a parallel in another passage (2 Cor. 8: 23), where messengers (or apostles) of the Churches are mentioned. It is not, therefore to the apostle .that we must look for the prototype of the bishop.

The history of the name [bishop] itself suggests a different account of the origin of the episcopate. If "bishop" was at first used as a synonym for "presbyter", and afterwards came to designate the higher office under whom the presbyters served, the episcopate, properly so called, would seem to have been developed from the subordinate office. In other words, the episcopate was formed, not out of the apostolic order, by localization but out of the presbyteral, by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them.'

There is scarcely any need for further quotation. Enough has been adduced to show that Bishop Lightfoot acknowledges the early Christian Church to have been without episcopal organization. But he tries to prove that James, the Lord's brother, may be regarded as an example of a Christian bishop, in the later and more special sense of the term. While, however, it is urged that such an instance is found in the Jewish Christian Church, he grants that the New Testament presents no distinct traces of such organization among the Gentile Christians. Yet, when we reach the second century, mention is made of bishops, in the later meaning of the word: episcopal government is already begun, and ever become more and more firmly established. To what must its origin be traced?

Dr. Lightfoot can find no firmer basis for the system than expediency; episcopacy, it is affirmed, arose out of the emergency in which the early Christian Churches were placed. For, when dissensions were caused by Jewish and Gentile converts, when false teachers, also, had begun to make their evil influence felt within the Christian Church, it seemed only proper that some one of the elders should be placed over the rest, having authority to deal with those who were producing schism and anarchy. Moreover, in these days of persecution, when Christ's flock was still small, scattered, and feeble, it was highly advisable to have one presbyter placed over the Church, as a common leader and counselor. Thus, it is stated, episcopacy gradually and naturally grew out of the pressing needs of the Church.

This is a very different position from that occupied by the High Church party, which claims a 'Divine right' in a favor of episcopacy. There is scarcely even the shadow of a claim to Scripture proof.

But let us also consider the acknowledgments of another esteemed Episcopal writer -Dean Alford, whose Greek Testament is so well known and so highly appreciated. On Acts 20: 17, where it is stated that Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the Church, he observes that 'the elders are called, in verse 28, bishops or overseers. This circumstance began very early to contradict the growing views of the apostolic institution and necessity of prelatical episcopacy. Thus, Irenaeus, III. xiv. 2, p. 201, "the bishops and presbyters were called together in Miletus, from Ephesus, and the other neighbouring cities". Here we see (1) the two, bishops and presbyters, distinguished, as if both were sent for, in order that the titles might not seem to belong to the same persons, and (2) other neighbouring Churches also brought in, in order that there might not seem to be bishops in one Church only. That neither of these was the case, is clearly shown by the plain words of this verse: he sent to Ephesus and summoned the elders of the Church. So early did interested and disingenuous interpretations begin to cloud the light which Scripture might have thrown on ecclesiastical questions.

The English version has hardly dealt fairly in this case with the sacred text, in rendering EPISCOPOS, verse 28, "overseers"; whereas, it ought there, as in all other places, to have been bishops, that the fact of elders and bishops having been originally synonymous might be apparent to the ordinary English reader, which now is not.'

This is something more than a candid admission on the part of the Dean; it is more than we might expect, and perhaps as much as we could wish. He seems like a Presbyterian contending for parity among ministers rather than a veritable episcopal dignitary.

Again, when commenting on the expression 'bishops and deacons' in Phil. 1 he refers to his remarks, just quoted, on Acts 2o: and cites the following from Theodoret: 'He [Paul] calls the elders [presbyters] "bishops" [or overseers], for they had BOTH names at that period.

Commenting on 1 Tim. 3:1, 'If any man seeks the overseership (office of an overseer, or bishop)', he remarks, 'it is merely laying a trap for misunderstanding, to render the word, at that time of the Church's history, "the office of a bishop". The "bishops" of the New Testament have, officially, nothing in common with our bishops. In my note on Acts 20: , I have stated that the English version ought to have been consistent with itself, and to have rendered EPISCOPOS everywhere bishops and overseers as suited ecclesiastical prejudices. But it would be better to adopt the other alternative, and always to render EPISCOPOS overseers. Thus we should avoid any chance of identifying it with a present and different office, and take refuge in the meaning of the word itself, which, at the same time, bears an important testimony to the duties of the post. The identity of the bishop [or overseer] and presbyter [or elder] in apostolic times is evident from Titus 1:5-7. And when he comes to the last mentioned passage, where Paul first speaks of 'elders' (or presbyters), and then refers to these as 'overseers', he remarks that these are 'most plainly identified with the presbyter spoken of before'.

from The Reformation of the Church, edited by Iain Murray

David Anderson