The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-13
BISHOP OR PRESB YTER?


the Monumental (EpiscopaD church in
this city, invites us to a controversy
which we did not exactly contemplate,
when, rather in vein of pleasantly,
(taking the hint from the New Version),
we pointed out in recent article that in
the New Testament the terms bishop
and 'presbyter are interchangeable, and
refer to one and the same person. We
are rather afraid of sectarian controversy,
because it tends to engender bitterness of
feeling between Christians, and does not
often convince any one: at the same time,
we recognise that there are occasions for
such discussions, with the proviso that
they shall always be conducted in an
amiable, candid, and good-tempered
spirit. Our esteemed neighbor of the
Southern Churchman also comes to the
rescue, and, replying to our article, takes
the same ground with DR.. Armstrong.
DR.. Armstrong; communication is pub
lished elsewhere, and we refer the reader
to it in connection with the remarks we
propose to make on it,
l. DR.. Armstrong contents himself with
trying to establish the proposition that
there are three orders in the ministry.
But suppose this to be made out to his
satisfaction: that is not all the main
point which we made in our article was
that difference of opinion in regard to
this matter does not warrant the Episco-
pal Church in refusing to affiliate with
the other Protestant churches of Chris
tendon. That's the main point is it not
objectionable arrogance for the Church of
England to unchurch the Churches of
Scotland, Holland, France, Switzerland,
Prussia, etc., because they differ with her
on this Gin the eyes of many Episcopa-
lians) exceedingly obscure point, whicl
Is after all a mere question of church
polity?
z. Dr. Armstrong admits that in the
New Testament the terms bishop and
'presbyter' refer to the same person.
That ought to end the controversy but
Dr. Armstrong observes, "You surely
cannot claim that simply because these
terms are thus used to designate the same
persons, therefore the persons so desig-
mated must necessarily have held the
same office" That is precisely what we
do maintain in this case: In Act Xxx: II,
%, and Titusi: 5, 7, the office of bishop
and of elder is described as identical
So that DR.. Armstrong; discussion about
teaching elder and ruling elder is en-
tirely beside the mark. We do not see
how it is possible for any one to deny
that Luke, Paul, and Peter use the terms
as applied to the office as the exact equiv
alent the one of the other. Just one ques-
ton: when Paul addresses his letter to
the saints which are at Philippi, "with
the bishops and deacons, how many bish-
ops were there?
3. DR.. Armstrong (and the Church.
MANI Gnconsistently, we think, with the
foregoing position taken by DR.. Arm
strong rest their argument in favor of
prelatical bishops on the assertion that we
find In the New Testament three orders
of ministers, viz, Apostles, Elders or
Bishops, and Deacons. The modern do
cesar bishops are, therefore, in the place
of the apostles. This is the High Church
position. It's father was Archbishop
Laud, who came so near being Roman
ist, that he was twice offered cardinals
hat by Pope Urban VIII.
1t is well to narrow discussion down.
The reason assigned for the non-recogni-
ton Of the other Protestant Churches by
the Episcopal Church is this: that the
Apostolic office is unrepresented in the
non-prelatical churches.
AS Archbishop Whately and other dis
tinguished members Of the Church Of
England have pointed out, this view pro-
ceeds on an entire misconception of the
nature Of the Christian Church. The
Apostolic Office was limited to twelve in
spired men, who had personally seen the.
Lord Jesus Christ, and who were per-
sonally commissioned by him, and they
have no representatives, and there is not