Jesus set the standard of humble equality. "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." Matt. 23: 8. " Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Matt. 23:10-12. "And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that cloth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth." Luke 22: 24-27.

Oh, what humbleness is here taught! "Ye are brethren." No one among you is higher than another or can possibly have from me any jurisdiction over the rest. Ye are, in this respect, perfectly equal. He showed them how the Gentiles exalted some above others, but said, "It shall not be so among you."

I will here insert a few extracts from history. "The church was in the beginning a community of brethren. All its members were taught of God, and each possessed the liberty of drawing for himself from the divine fountain of life. The epistles, which then settled the great questions of doctrine, did not bear the pompous title of any single man or ruler. We find from the Holy Scriptures that they began simply with these words: 'The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren.' Acts 15: 23. But the writings of these very apostles forewarn us that from the midst of these brethren, there shall arise a power which shall overthrow this simple and primitive order. '—D 'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, book I, chap. I.

" The doctrine of 'the church, ' and of 'the necessity for its visible unify,' which had gained footing so early as the third century, favored the pretensions of Rome. The great bond which originally bound together the members of the church was a living faith in the heart, by which all were joined to Christ as their own head. But various causes erelong conspired to originate and develop the idea of the necessity for some exterior fellowship. Men, accustomed to the associations and political forms of an earthly country, carried their views and habits into the spiritual and everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ. The invisible and spiritual church was identical with the visible and outward community. But soon a great distinction appeared —the form and vital principle parted asunder. The semblance of identical and external organization was gradually substituted in place of the internal and spiritual unity which is the very essence of a religion proceeding from God. Men suffered the precious perfume of faith to escape while they bowed themselves before the empty vase that held it. Faith in the heart no longer knit together in one the members of the church. Then it united by means of bishops, archbishops, popes, miters, ceremonies, and canons. The living church retiring by degrees to the lonely sanctuary of a few solitary souls— an exterior church was substituted in place of it, and installed in all its forms as of divine institution . . . In the beginning of the gospel, whosoever had received the Spirit of Jesus Christ was esteemed a member of the church. Now the order was inverted, and no one unless a member of the church was counted to have received the Spirit of Jesus Christ."

"It is a noteworthy fact, when the founder of Christianity left the world, he made no provision for any quarterly, or annual, or periodical assembly of his apostles, his ministers, or his followers; he appointed no time nor place for them to congregate, to report, confer, or legislate; he gave to no one authority to convoke such an assembly; and he gave his disciples no reason to suppose that five thousand (Christians assembled had greater authority than two or three who had met in his name, in whose midst he promised to be. And so far from empowering his followers to combine and legislate for themselves or their associates, he expressly defined their duties to be, not the contriving and imposing of new precepts upon the church? but rather the making of disciples among all nations, 'teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.'

" The apostles and early church seemed to understand their duties, and carefully refrained from meddling with such affairs, or setting up courts or ecclesiastical judicatures' and even when consulted by the Gentile converts who were afflicted by intrusion of proselyting Jews, they only rehearsed a few 'necessary things,' for their observance; things that had been regarded as obligatory from the times of Noah down; and declined to undertake anything analogous to the ecclesiastical legislation of the present day. And so the apostles parted, and went forth, probably never expecting to meet again until 'the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering unto him.' The servants of God were attending to their proper work of preaching the gospel, feeding the flock, and saving men; and it was not until religious apostasy and imperial power and patronage combined to corrupt and impair the integrity of the church, that the work of calling councils and legislating for the church of God commenced. "—Who Made the New Testament? pages 3, 4.

In the foregoing we see, according to the testimony of history, the equality of the early ministry and their humbleness. If there was such a thing in the early church as one class of preachers being above the rest and exercising lordship over them, such arrangement was in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ; for he positively taught them, " It shall not be so among you," but "All ye are brethren." But the early church started in with an equality of the ministry. The above quotations from history clearly set forth the standard. All the preachers were officially called "elders," and all were on the same plane.

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: . . . neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." 1 Pet. 5: 1, 3. The following is an extract from Adam Clark's comments on this text: " In this text, the term presbuteros (elders or presbyters) is the name of an office. They were as pastors or shepherds of the flock of God, the Christians people among whom they lived. They were the same as bishops . . . and teachers. That these were the same as bishops the next verse proves. 'Who also am an elder '—presbuteros. One on a level with yourselves. " "either as being lords over God's heritage." According to Paul, there are to he no lords over God's heritage; the bishops and presbyters, who are appointed by the head of the church (Christ), are to feed the flock; to guide and to defend it, not to fleece and waste it; and they are to look for their reward in another world, and the appropriation of God in their consciences. In humility, self-abasement, self renunciation, and heavenly mindedness, they are to be ensamples—types—to the flock; molds of a heavenly form, into which the spirit and lives of the flock may be east, so that they may come out after a perfect pattern. We need not ask, Does the church that arrogates to itself the exclusive title of Catholic, and do its supreme pastors, who affect to be the successors of Peter and the vicars of Jesus Christ, act in this way? They are in every sense the reverse of this. But we may ask, Do the other churches (meaning the Protestant sects), which profess to be reformed from the abominations of the above, follow the advice of the apostle ? Have they pastors according to Cod's own heart, who feed them with knowledge and understanding ? Do they not feed themselves instead of the flock? Are they not lords over the heritage of Christ ruling with a high ecclesiastico secular hand?

The above cuts a clear line of distinction between the modern lords of Babylon and the humble, equal ministry of the early church. The apostle Peter placed himself on a common level with the local presbyters, and also stated that he was a fellow presbyter. In the New Testament "bishop" and "elder" are terms used interchangeably and applied to the same class of officers—the ministers.

Bishop. "In the primitive church, a spiritual overseer; an elder or Presbyter; one who has the pastoral care of a church."—Webster.

" The same persons are called elders and presbyters, and overseers and bishops. "— Scott, Com.

" Till the churches were multiplied (and apostatized), the bishops and presbyters were the same. "—Ibid.

"Both the Greek and Latin Fathers do, with one consent, declare that bishops were called presbyters and presbyters bishops in apostolic times, the name being then common."—Whitbey.

"It appears that those who are called elders in this place [Tit. 1: 5] are the same as those termed bishops in verse 7. We have many proofs that bishops and elders were of the same order in the apostolic church, though afterward they became distinct."—Adam Clark.

"The rulers of the church were called their presbyters or bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men.... Let no one confound the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the church with those of whom we read in the following ages. For, though they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they differed extremely, and that in many respects."—Mosheim,, vol. I, page 99.

"It is also true that in the earliest government of the first Christian society, that of Jerusalem, not the elders only, but the 'whole church' were associated with the apostles; and it is even certain that the terms 'bishop' and ' eider t or 'presbyter' were, in the first instances, and for a short period, sometimes used synonomously, and indiscriminately applied to the same order in the ministry. "—Waddington's Church History, part I, page 41.

"The earliest Christian communities appear to have been ruled and represented, in the absence of the apostle who was their first founder, by their elders, who are likewise called bishops, or overseers of the church. "—Millman's History of Christianity, page 194.

Kurtz, in his Church History, says: "To aid them in their work, or to supply their places in their absence (Acts 14: 23), the apostles ordained rulers in every church, who bore the common name of elders from their dignity, and of bishops from the nature of their office. That originally the elders were the same as the bishops, we gather with absolute certainly from the statements of the New Testament and Clement of Rome, a disciple of the apostles. (See his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 42, 44). The presbyters are expressly called bishops— compare [the Greek especially] Acts 20:17 with verse 28, and Tit. 1: 5 with verse 7. The office of presbyter is described as next to and highest after the apostles (Acts 15: 6, 22). Similarly, the elders are represented as those to whom alone the rule, the teaching, and the care of the church is entrusted (1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:1, etc.).... In several passages of the New Testament and of Clement we read of many bishops in one and the same church. In the face of such indubitable evidence, it is difficult to account for the pertinacity with which Romish and Anglican theologians insist that these two offices had from the first been different in name and functions.... Even Jerome, Augustine, Urban II, and Petrus Lombardes admit that originally the two had been identical. It was reserved for the Council of Trent to convert this truth into a heresy."—Ibid., pages 67, 68.

" The church was in the beginning a community of brethren, guided by a few of the brethren." "All Christians were priests of the living God, with humble pastors as their guides. "—D 'Aubigne's History of the Reforrnation, vol. I, pages 35, 50.

To tile above we heartily say, Amen. Bishop and elder were the same till the mystery of iniquity began to work. The traveling preachers were bishops. "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take. " Acts 1: 20. Bishopric is the office of a bishop. Judas, then, was a bishop, but by transgression he fell. So Matthias was chosen to take his bishopric—his office of bishop. This proves beyond question that all the twelve were properly called bishops. This included Peter and John, who also were called elders (1 Pet. 5: 1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1). So the terms " bishop " and " elder " are used interchangeably, and apply to all the traveling ministers. All the local preachers were bishops. " Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Phil. 1:1. Thus when Paul wrote to the church at Philippi, he addressed all the saints, "with the bishops and deacons." He did not say with bishops, elders, and deacons; but recognized only two classes of officers—bishops and deacons. A plurality of elders were ordained in "every church" (Acts 14: 23). Therefore Paul terms these elders, bishops. Bishop and elder, then, are the same in Scripture. There were but two classes of officers in the church at Philippi: bishops—the ministers of the word of truth, and overseers of the flock; and deaconsthe ministers of the temporal affairs of the church. Anything more than this is apostasy.

On this text Adam Clark remarks: "bishops —the overseers of the church of God, and those who ministered to the poor and preached occasionally. There has been a great deal of paper wasted in the inquiry, 'Who are meant by bishops here? as no place could have more than one bishop.' . . . This is the extravagance of trifle.. I believe no such officer is meant as we now term bishop. " This is clear. Adam Clark readily admits that New Testament bishops were only overseers—common preachers. He further states that it is "a waste of paper" to try to prove that only one bishop can be in an assembly. It is " the extravagance of trifle.. " He understood that the modern office of bishop was unknown in the apostolic church. These are his words: "I believe no such officer is meant as we now term bishop." Amen.

The very language of Tit. 1: 4-7 proves that elders and bishops were the same. "To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless. the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon ; angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre " Language could not be plainer. Paul left Titus in Crete to ordain elders in every city. He says, " If any be blameless, " "for a bishop must be blameless." When Paul sent to Ehpesus, he did not call the bishop and his presbytery, but simply called " the elders of the church" ( Acts 2(): 17). All the ministers in that assembly were simply elders, made overseers by the Holy Ghost Acts 20: 28). When the apostles set churches in order, they did not ordain one bishop, and his presbytery, but simply " ordained elders in every church " ( Acts 14: 23). Paul did not instruct Titus to ordain one bishop and a presbytery of elders for his sanhedrin in every city in Crete, but left him to simply "ordain elders in every city."

At Philippi there was no such thing as a single bishop, and a lower class called elders, and a still lower class called deacons; but there were only two classes of officers—bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1). Did the church at Antioch send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to consult the bishop, the apostles, and the elders about circumcision? No; they simply sent them " to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15:2). Nothing is said of the bishop. When they reached Jerusalem, "they were received of the church and of the apostles and elders " (verse 4). The bishop was left out. Why ? They did not have such a high officer over them. That church was pure from the mystery of iniquity. "But," says one, "James was a bishop." James was an apostle (Gal. 1: 19); hence he was no more a bishop than was Peter or any other of the apostles. Who came together to consider the matter? The bishop (James), the apostles, and the elders? No; it does not read that way. "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter." Acts 15: 6. No mention is made of a bishop presiding in this apostolic assembly. Only apostles and elders are mentioned. As before proved, all the apostles were bishops, and all the elders were bishops. The apostles were the traveling elders or bishops, while the others were the local elders or bishops. Peter and James spoke in this assembly, as they were looked upon by the church as "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). But James was only an apostle or elder in the church at Jerusalem. He probably was a senior elder, as is inferred from Acts 21: 18.

"But," says one, "was not the angel of the church at Ephesus, a bishop over the rest?" (Rev. 2:1) No; for had they had an officer above the common elders, called the bistro;', when Paul called them together, as recorded in (Acts 20: 17, 28) he would have mentioned the bishop. But he simply called "the elders." They were all elders—overseers. No doubt there was, however, one who was a senior elder, or one among the elders who especially ministered tire Word and took the special care of the church upon himself or herself. There was not a bishop above the rest, for they were all on the same level—all elders (Acts 20: 17 28). This humble equality of the early ministry lasted but a very short time. [ The End ]