468 OUDS?tS. []?)OS IL Cath, olics, as the plea of the Jews, who claimed Abraham for their z?ther, though they were destitute of Ms faith. 10. $eco?//y, we will adduce the testimony of Scripture and of early antiquity against the high claims of the Roman Catholic prelates. (1.) Of the difference between presbyters and bishops them are three opinions, which may be stated here. The first opinion is, that all ministers should be equal, and that a bishop was not, neither ought to be superior to a priest. The second opinion in the other extreme is that of the Roman Ca- tholics who would not only have a difference, but a princely' pre-emi- hence of the bishops over the clergy, and that by the word of Cod; and they urge it to be so necessary, that they consider those to be no churches which do not receive this hierarchy. How far some Pro- testants have 'adopted this doctrine it is not necessary now to inquire. The third opinion is between both, and is as follows, that though a distinction of bishops and presbyters cs?mot be directly p?oved from Scripture, yet it is very useful for the government of the church, in order to avoid schism, and to preserve unity. Of this opinion Bishop Jewel against Harding showeth Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome to have been. Of this opinion was Bishop Jewel himself, and Bishop Whirgift, as well as Cranmer, and the early writers of the Church of England. Without attempting here to decide respecting the comparative weight of the first and third opinions, we present the following arguments against the second, or that embraced by the Church of Rome. (2.) According to the New Testament, presbyters and bishops in the apesties' time were all one. Acts xx, 17, 28. Those whom the .apostle call8 elder or presbyter, he also calls overseer or bishop. Tit. ?. 5, 7. The same persons called elders are also named bishops. Also, St. Peter, I epis. v, 1, exhorts the elders to do the duties of a bishop or overseer. Hence we conclude, with Je,rome, that a bishop and a priest are all one. To these testimonies from Scripture the greatest number and weight of the ancient fathers testify. It is the opinion of St. Chrysostom, who (Hem. 1, in epis. to the Philippisns) teaches that the name of bishop in the time of' the apesties w? attributed both to bishops and presbyters. So also Thcophylact, (Ecumeuius, Jerome, Bede, Anselre, ?he Angelic Doctor. Into this opinion almost all the Latin and Greek z?thers have gone. And if they are the interpreters of Scripture, cer- tainly they ought to decide this matter against the Church of Rome. Indeed, such distinctions as they now make between presbyters and bishops are utterly inconsistent with a common name, office and rink. There have been found, however, among the ancients, as ?mong them- selves, persons of different sentiments. Theedoter, in his comment on ! Tim. iii, asserts that in the alMS* ties' time the bishops were called apesties, and those who were pro- perly presbyters were then denominated bishops. On this opinion we remark: 1. It is more probable that bishops should be called almsdes after the apostles' time than during their lives ;. but after the departare of the apostles, the ancient bishops refused to be called apostles, as is plain from both Ignatius and Cyprian. 2. The case of Epaphroditus, who is called apostle or messenger, is not an instance in point, Phil I
�
