CH&P. XV.] OrDUre. 469 iv, 18; for he is simply the messenger of this church, to bear their bounty of benevolence to St. Paul. 3. The ministers or pastors of the church were sometimes called apostles, in respect of their pastoral office, 1 Cor. viii, 23; but not in that large sense in which the apostles were so called. So the word deacon or deaconship is sometimes taken for any ott?ce or ministry, as the apostleship is so called. Acts i, 25. And Timothy an evangelist is called a deacon, that is, a minister. 1 Theas. iii, 2. As the apostles, then, in a particular acceptation of the word, were called deacons, so bishops and pastors might be called apostles. 4. That none in the apostles' time were usually and properly called by' that name but the twelve, to whom were afterward joined Paul and Barnabas, is manifest from Scripture: "Christ chose twelve, whom he named apostles," Luke vi, 13. The name therefore of apostle must be conferred by Christ. And St. Paul saith, (1 Cor. xii, 28; Eph. iv, 11,) that "God gave some to be apostles, some pastors and teachers,** ,red a/l are not a/,ostl?. If then some were apostles and some pastors, the pastors could not be apostles. Epiphanius believed or gave as his opinion, (Heresy 75,) that those were properly called bishops who are the same that were afterward called by that name; but that the name bishop was never applied to presbyters. Bishop Pearson and Petavius follow Epiphanius. It is sufficient to state here, that St. Paul, in writing to the Philipplans, (ch. i, ver. 1,) addresses the bishops and deacons. From this we infer that the Philippian bishops must have been the same with elders, or they could not have been diocesan bishops. We give below, on the point in hand, the arguments which Mr. Wil- let, a minister of the Church of England, used in 1634, in answer to Beilarmine, who maintained, that in the apostles' time the names of bishops and presbyters were confounded, being common to all minis- ters; but that the offices and functions of all were distinct. "Answer. First, Saint Hierome showeth out of St. Paul, I Tim. iii, where he describeth the office of a bishop, that not only the name of a bishop and a priest was taken for the same, but the office also; because the apostle requireth the same properties and qualities in them both: de In'esb?ttero reticetur quia et in episcoFo , lyresharer continetur : titere is no mention made of a l?riest, because lte is contained under a bisho?,,.--Hi- eton. Evagr. And in the same epistle he urgeth that place, Fitus i, 5, 7, where the apostle doth not only give the name of bishops to priest?, but requireth the same gifts and qualities in them both. Secondly, Saint Chrysostom useth the same reason.* Inter ?isctomm et presb?j- terum interest fere nil?il, ?c.: There is almost no difference between a bishop and a priest, because that unto. ?'i.ests the care of the church is com. reitted, and tltat which the aidestie said of hislugs doth agree unto priests. Thirdly, Saint Ambrose also? upon the same ground, thus writeth :?' Post tcotn, m diaconatus ordinat_u. . sujecit, : He doth?thee the ordi- nation of a deazon after a hislug. wh?t ? because there is but one ordina- tion of a bishop and a priest: for both of them is a minister, (sacerdas,) yet the bishop is the first among the Friests. Fourthly, Likewize,?: in these words, out of Isidore, they conclude thus: U'nds ad Timotluntm de ordinatione, &c. Hereupon the apoztle, writing to Timothy, of the o H?n. ii, in 1 Tim. t Coremeat. in 1 Tim. 'fii. ? Coo61. Aoi?m? ?. S. 1
�
