January 12, 2004 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is excerpted from Thomas Armitage (1819-1896), A History of the Baptists, 2 Vol., London: Bryan, Taylor & Co., 1890:

The shepherds or pastors of the Apostolic Churches were known as PRESBYTERS, OR ELDERS, from presbuteroi; and as Bishops, or overseers, from episkopoi. This fact should stand in its own order of New Testament time; for if we take it out of its historical surroundings and throw it backward or forward into another century, it will lose its distinctive value. Dean Alford says, with clear chronological truth: “In those days titles sprung out of realities and were not merely hierarchical classifications.” In such a question as this, chronology is the stoutest logic. We must, therefore, consider and restrict these titles to their primitive sense, as best defining the office which they represent. They are entirely synonymous in the New Testament, and the nature of the office which they represent, is to be drawn from their acknowledged meaning.

Pastors appeared in all these Churches very early after their organization, and the Hebrew Christians called them presbyters (elders) while the Gentile Churches called them bishops (overseers), the terms being interchangeable. The leaders or rulers of the synagogue were called presbyters, but they were not prototypes of the Christian presbyters, for there was next to nothing in common between the two. The synagogue could in no sense become the pattern of the Christian congregation, which was constituted for a different purpose, and demanded that freer and more independent form, which was in harmony with the genius of Christ’s more generous teaching.

Every one knew what parties were referred to in the Christian congregation when its “elders” were spoken of. But the Gentiles, who were not familiar with the peculiarity of Jewish titles and institutions, could not so well come to a knowledge of this spiritual office by the use of the word, when standing alone and unexplained. To them, the term elder expressed age, but little of fitness or rank. Another term was in use amongst the Greeks which exactly expressed the duties of the Christian presbyter, namely, the word episkopoi, overseer. With them, this was purely a civil and secular name, which was used in private associations, or in municipal and magisterial bodies. The superintendents of finance, of workmen, the inspectors of bread and produce, and the overseers of public affairs generally, were designated by this term. In fact, all persons who had oversight of affairs, either public or private, were known as bishops. For this reason the same class of men who were known as elders in the Jewish-Christian Churches, were called bishops, or overseers, in the Gentile Churches.

The duties of the bishop-elders were to feed and rule the flock of Christ as shepherds, by guidance, instruction, and watchcare. Paul first uses the word bishop at Miletus, when he charges the presbyters of the Church at Ephesus to take heed to the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them bishops. Here the two names are used interchangeably as descriptive of the same thing. On this point Neander remarks:

“That the name also of episcopus was altogether synonymous with that of presbyter, is clearly collected from the passages of Scripture where both appellations are interchanged (Acts 20; compare verse 17 with verse 28; Titus 1:6-7), as well as from those where the mention of the office of deacon follows immediately after that of ‘episcopoi,’ so that a third class of officers could not be between the two. Phil. 1:1; l Tim. 3:1-8. This interchange of the two appellations is a proof of their entire coincidence.” [Hist. Christian Religion, sec. ii, 1]

As to the kind of rule which these bishops exercised, it was executive only, and for the purpose of moral up-building, in submission to the truth which they taught, and not for the exercise of lordship. So far from its being an exercise of personal power, they were held responsible to the local Church which they served for their conduct as stewards. Neander says again: “They were not destined to be unlimited monarchs, but rulers and guides in an ecclesiastical republic and to conduct every thing in conjunction with the Church assembled together, as the servants and not the masters of which they were to act.” [Hist. Christian Religion, i, p. 193] The congregation having first taken them from the common ranks by their own democratic action, as Athens invested its officers with governing powers in olden times, they were responsible to the body which created them for the exercise of their powers.

All sorts of false pretensions have been hung upon the word “bishop,” as used by the writers of the New Testament. But Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:17; and James 5:14, set forth the fact that there were several bishops in the same congregation, an idea which will not harmonize with the assumption that a bishop ranks above an elder, or even a body of elders. Then, 1 Peter 5:1-2, solemnly charges the “elder” to use well his episcopal functions. Even as late as Jerome A.D. 331-370, this oneness of office was generally admitted, in the Churches, for he says: “The elder is identical with the bishop, and before parties had so multiplied under diabolical influence, the Churches were governed (meaning each Church) by a council of elders.”

Nor were the so-called “powers” of Timothy and Titus in any sense those of the modern prelate. They were merely the functions of missionary evangelists. These holy men were sent to establish feeble Churches already planted, and to organize new ones, as the same class of men today who labor without prelatical authority. Neither did James assume authority at Jerusalem after the form of a modern diocesan. He simply attained greater influence than other pastors by his all-absorbing consecration to God, and to the feeding of his flock, as a holy pastor over that single congregation. In association with his fellow-elders in that body, he sacredly guarded its interests as a brotherhood. Persecution was perpetually breaking up this and other Churches and was one of the things which made this plurality of elders in the same congregation necessary. The first blow was generally aimed at the elders, as the official heads of these communities. Some of them were cut down, others were obliged to flee for their lives, and at the best the Churches were broken into groups, especially in large cities, so that they must be ministered to, when, where, and as they could. When the elders did meet together for consultation, either in time of peace or in persecution, some one must preside over their conferences; and he who did so, acted simply as the peer of his brethren, without authority over them; for while he was a bishop, each one of his brethren was the same. This, James did at Jerusalem, no more and no less.

Again, what was known as the presbytery in the Apostolic Churches was not made up of a body of elders, or pastors from the various local Churches, for “Scripture presbytery,” as Dr. Carson says, “is the eldership, or plurality of elders in a particular Congregation.” [Answer to Ewing, p. 382] There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament which gives those who rule in one Church any authority in another; and more, no Church is mentioned as having but one bishop or elder. These had no power out of their own congregation, and no such distinction exists even there as pastoral elders and ruling elders.

Both Dr. George Campbell and Neander have clearly shown that the elders in one Church were all rulers, for the liberty, edification, and usefulness of the body, and that no class or distinction existed amongst them. Had there been two classes, their qualifications had differed with their duties, and so they would have been designated by different names.

No elders are spoken of who do not rule, who are not pastors, but all pastors are known as elders. We read of “all the elders at Jerusalem,” of “elders in each Church” (not an elder, singular); as at Derby, Lystra, Antioch, and other places. At Lystra Paul met with Timothy, and most likely it was there that “the hands of the presbytery” were laid upon him. Not the hands of presbyters from various local Churches; but, in the language of Dr. Samuel Davidson: “The elders set over a single Congregational Church.” [Cong. Lectures 1848]

The phrase, “the presbytery,” as the phrase, “the lawyer,” “the statesman,” in the classification of men, means every presbytery, in the classification of the body of elders in the several Churches. Carson, says, that the word denotes: “A certain kind of plurality of elders. It represents stated association. The accidental or occasional meeting of the elders of a number of Churches, would be a meeting of the elders, not of the presbytery. The word denotes both the plurality and the union. The senate is not even a plurality of senators. . . . It is taken for granted in this kind of expression, that it is a definite, well-known body of men acting in association. As there is no such association among the elders of different Churches, it must be the elders of one Church.” [Ans. to Ewing.]

But, above all absurd positions, is that which makes the bishop of modern times the successor of the Apostles. When they died they appointed none to fill their places, for their office was peculiar and connected only with the planting of Christianity, by upholding Christ’s teachings and requirements; their mission being confirmed by the special gifts of the Holy Spirit. All this was indispensable until the standard of faith and practice was settled in the inspired Books; they themselves, for the time being, filling the place of those writings, as the chosen organ of the Spirit. Then, they were the only authoritative guides for the Gospel Churches, by whom the will of Christ was communicated. Through their tongue and pen the Spirit gave his directions and decisions, and they are now exactly what the Churches of their age recognized them; the New Testament supplied their place as the channel through which the Spirit now speaks to the Churches.

Those who would foist diocesan episcopacy upon the New Testament Churches, think that they find their stronghold in the phrase “angel of the Church” (angelos), which is simply a messenger. In Matt. 11:10, Jehovah himself calls John the Baptist, “my angel” (messenger), and in turn, John calls his own messengers to Christ, “angels” (Luke 7:18-24). But were these prototypes of modern prelates? Even Paul’s thorn in the flesh is called by himself an “angel,” “a messenger of Satan.” 2 Cor. 12:7. So, the seven letters to the Churches, Rev. 2-3, imply that the angel of the Churches was some person sent from each of them on a temporary mission, and chosen by the Church itself for that mission. Each of the Churches had its separate messenger; there was not one angel only for the seven, after the order of modern episcopacy. A cause must be hard pressed, to lay violent hands upon this part of the Apocalypse in support of such an innovation.

Patmos, where the Apostle John wrote this book, was not far from the seven Churches of Asia, and it was natural that the holy prisoner should request each one of them to send some faithful messenger who should receive from him, personally, what message he had from Christ to send to them severally. The Apostle Paul sent his Epistles to the Churches in the same way, for each messenger who carried them, was then capable of proving that they were not forgeries. And, now, this was the only means left at the command of John for sending Christ’s revelations to the Churches, by trustworthy hands. Is it surprising, then, that Jesus should instruct his imprisoned servant, to write this and that message to this and that Church, and to entrust the message to these individual messengers? The trust which the Saviour himself confided to them, entitled them to be called “seven stars,” each bearing new light to one of the seven Churches of which they themselves were the “seven lamp stands” set for the illumination of all around them. These Churches were not to be deprived of necessary light because John was a prisoner; but Jesus would prove to them by these seven epistles, that he still held them as stars in his right hand, and had not turned over their keeping to a sevenfold episcopacy, but maintained for each of them a separate message, to be brought to them by seven faithful messengers, as seven separate congregations, who, despite their faults, were still dear to their Sovereign Lord.