The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-13
Letter from DR.. Armstrong.
RICHMOND, VA, June 3Oth, 81


MeSsrS E'ditors,-I sincerely hope that,
being an Episcopalian, 1 shall not be re-
garded by you as unreasonable when l
ask the use Of your columns to make some
structures on your last editorial, bearing
the caption, 1.-The New Version on the
Episcopate.
In this editorial your endeavor evil
IDENTIFY is to persuade your readers that
the New Version of the New Testa-
ment antagonizes and overthrows the
position of the Church of England, and
of course that of the Protestant Episco-
pal Church Of the United States, on the
subject of the ministry. That position is
expressed in these words: 1t is evident
unto all men, diligently reading Holy
Scripture and ancient authors, that from
the apostles time there have been three
ders of ministers in Christs Church, :
Bishops, Priests, and DeaconS." Now is
this position true? or is it not true? L
affirm you deny and you claim that
your denial is not only strengthened"
by {" the new Version" but also so
strengthened by it that those who have
been heretofore affirming ought instantor
to make the anaende honorable to those
VINO nave been denying.
The question that is sprung in your
article is simply whether or not the New
Testament Scriptures teach that there are
three orders of ministers in the Christian
Church. You maintain that they do not,
and you support your position by the
fact that the terms epiSkopoS and preSble-
teroS are frequently used to designate the
same person. There is one class of peo-
pie, Messrs. Editors, upon whom this
argument will have little weight, and
that is intelligent Episcopalians. Why,
sirs, these have never thought of deny
ing such Scripture use of these terms. If
you were at all familiar with the writ
ings of Episcopalians for eighteen hun
dred years you would know that they
have admitted and reiterated that in all
those passages which you quote the terms
eplskopoi and preSbutero5 are designations
of the same. persons, the former having
reference to their office, and the latter to
their age or dignity. 1 assume that you
have not been familiar with such writ
ings, else you surely would not have tried
as you have done, to produce the impress
sion that until this new revised Version
made its appearance we were either ig-
norant of this Scripture use of these
terms, or else we desired to conceal or
Ignore it. You are quite correct, and 1
can quote Episcopal writers all down
through these ages to corroberate your
statement, when you say that 1t seems
(oCe say SeemSi nay, it tsO beyond any
controversy that Paul addresses the elders
Of the church as bishops" And 50 we
say, and 80 we have always said, with re-
gard to your other Scripture quotations.
But what of all this? You surely can
not claim that simply because these terms
are thus used to designate the same per-
sons, therefore the persons so designated
must necessarily have held the same of
flee, or have been Of the same order. You
Presbyterians use the term elder, for in
stance, to designate both the pastor and
the lay member of the Session or Pres
bytery, but you do not assign to these the
same office or order. The office of the
former you call that of the teaching elder,
the Office Of the latter you call that of the
ruling elder. And when st. Peter saws
:" The elders therefore among you ex-
hort, who am a fellow-elder, he no more
asserts or implies that he and the elders
whom he addressed held of necessity the
same Office than would a Presbyterian
pastor in addressing the same words to
his elders" assert or imply that his Of
tice and that of the elder" were pre-
clsely the same. The Presbyterian the
ory, believe, is that the office of the
pastor is higher, or at least broader, than
that of the lay member Of his Session,
and that the latter is included in the
ttormer. And our position is that while
5St Peter was truly an elder or zores6yter,
ne yet held another Office higher and
broader than this, and that gave him the
authority to charge upon the elders pro-
Per to tend the flock Of God which was