BISHOP, a prelate, holding a barony of the king, and exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction over a certain district called his diocese.
The term bishop is derived from through the medium of the Saxon tt bischop," and denotes an inspector, guardian, or overseer. In the dead guages, however, the word now commonly lated bishop, was originally used with a civil or tical meaning attached to it, as, when Plutarch says, nett =Air ix4o-nesre; rr iit07111 'Pat% via ipsi administrabat ct curabat Phidias, or when Tully is called episcopus orce et CampePnice ; bat, af ll ter the introduction of Christianity, it came exclu sively to denote an ecclesiastical ruler. It is of course in this last sense only, that the Greek or La tin word is synonymous with the English " bishop." From the interpretation given above, it is evident, that the inspector, guardian, or overseer, may he considered either in relation to one church or assembly of Chris tians, committed to his care, or to a number of churches. The former in the notion of the Presby terians and Congregationalists of all descriptions : the latter that of the Episcopalians and Roman Ca tholics. And, as far as the meaning of the word is concerned, there appears to be no doubt, that either idea may be included under it.
It is not to be questioned, that, in the early ages of Christianity, mention is distinctly made of an ec clesiastical officer, bearing rule not over a single church only, but over many churches ; which officer must therefore have been a diocesan or bishop. This is allowed by the keenest advocates for presbytery ; but they deny that such an officer, residing in one place, or confining his labours to a particular district or diocese, existed in the church during the aposto lical age, and regard the introduction of such an of ficer as a culpable deviation from the primitive mo del. Here the parties are exactly at issue. It be longs not to us to attach ourselves to either side, but rather suppressing our own opinion, to give, as impartial historians, a short view of the arguments by which the Presbyterians, op the one hand, and the Episcopalians on the other, have defended their respective opinions : disclaiming that intolerable bi gotry, which would make a devotion to our own forms, or to those of the hierarchy, the exclusive condition of future happiness.
The great object of the Presbyterians is to esta blish an equality among the teachers of religion, un der the sanction of apostolical example, and the con dition of the primitive church. With this view, they remark, that, among the apostles themselves, whe ther considered as ordinary or extraordinary func tionaries, the equality for which they contend may be recognised. To none of these eminent persons was there given any jurisdiction or inspection over the rest, corresponding to that of a modern bishop or archbishop ; not even to Peter, for, though the church is in one place declared to be founded on him, yet the same church is elsewhere said to be built " on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" generally, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cor ner-stone. Upon this footing of equality, likewise,
it was that Paul, in a remarkable instance, so far from yielding to the authority of Peter, " with stood him to the face," because, in his judgment, lie was to be blamed. Nay, there is upon record a precept of Christ, addressed immediately to the apostles, in which lie enjoins them to mutual submis sion and forbearance. " Whosoever will be chief among you," sags he, " let him be your servant," Matt. xx. 29. flie same observations apply to the evangelists, in the number of whom are included Philip, Timothy, and Titus, as well as Mark and Luke, and also to the seventy disciples ; for in neither of these instances are there any traces-of sub ordination to be discovered. In supporting their leading proposition, the Presbyterians farther main tain, that the terms and vgicCulEgo;, are used as synonymous, and convertible in almost every passage of the New Testament. where they occur ;. or, in other words, that the same persons who are called i'vicrxo7ro,, are likewise called zeter1;v1tcoi, the former expression being the name of office, and the latter the epithet of respect. In proof of this asser tion, they adduce the well-known passage in the 20th chapter of the " Acts of the Apostles." . In that chapter, we are informed, that Paul, having sum moned the elders of the church at Ephesus, vrge64:ilself; Exx.Awriac, the presbyters of the church addressed them, that is, the elders or presbyters, in the following words : " Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost bath made you (the presbyters) er•x.o7r4, bishops, or overseers." Here (says Dr Campbell) " there can be no question, that the same persons are denominated presbyters and bishops." Nor does this passage by any means stand alone. There is a similar one in the Epistle to Titus, chap. i. ver. 6. compared with verses 6th and 7th. The reader may likewise consult 1 Pet. v. and 2. ; but, for our re.• marks on these passages, as applicable to the present. question, as well as for additional observations oil the terms rgo-Culecoc and we refer to the ar.. tide PRESBYTERY. We may conclude this para graph, however, with stating, that, wherever the ordinary ecclesiastical functionaries are mentioned by the inspired writers, it is uniformly under the cha racter either of presbyters (i. e. bishops or over seers,) or of:deacons. Two classes of functionaries. only arc spoken of, without the most distant allu sion to a third order, that of diocesans ; yet, (say the Presbyterians) if this last order had existed, be-, ing, according to the Episcopalians, the most im portant of the whole, it would undoubtedly have been specified and noticed as that importance re quired. . See the Epistle to the Philip. chap. i. v. 1. See also the First Epistle to Timothy, chap. iii.