[Form of Gov., chap. iv.]
WHEN the roll was read in the afternoon of the first day of the sessions of the Assembly [1846], Dr. R. J. Breckinridge moved that the word Bishop be struck out in every case where it was applied to the clerical delegates, and that the word minister be substituted in its place. This motion prevailed by a large majority.
With regard to the title Bishop, there are certain points as to which all parties may be considered as substantially agreed. One is that in the New Testament the title is given to those officers in the Church who are appointed to rule, teach, and ordain. Another is, that the terms Presbyter and Bishop are applied to the same officers. Prelatists long contended against this position, but have at last, with common consent, conceded it. In so doing they have conceded almost the entire ground of argument from Scripture in behalf of prelacy, and assumed the task of proving that though in the apostolic age a Bishop was a Presbyter, and nothing more, in the immediately succeeding age he was a prelate. That is, that during the time of the apostles, the term designated one office, but immediately and forever after a different one. We find while the apostles lived a set of men called Bishops; we find the same thing in the next age, and we are called upon to believe that these men filled offices essentially different. This sudden change in the meaning of a title is unexampled and incredible. A third point beyond dispute is, that though Bishop and Presbyter were convertible terms in the apostolic Church, yet as the hierarchical principle gradually gained ground, the term Bishop was appropriated to one class of the clergy, and Presbyter to another, and that the usus loquendi of the whole Church for centuries has given this restrictive meaning to the word Bishop.
The question then is, is it desirable to change this long-established usage, and to restore to the word its scriptural meaning. We have no hesitation in saying that if practicable, it would be desirable; but believing it to be impracticable, we regard the attempt as altogether inexpedient. If all Protestant Christendom at the time of the Reformation had reverted to the scriptural usage, and called all invested with the cure of souls, all who had the right to rule, teach and ordain, Bishops, it would have deprived prelatists of an advantage to which they admit they are not entitled, and to which they are more indebted than to any of their arguments, either from Scripture or antiquity. As we admit the office of a Bishop to be a scriptural office, to all appearance, Episcopalians have that office and we have it not. In relinquishing to them the title, the Churches of the Reformation, in appearance, conceded that their ministers were not Bishops, whereas, if those Churches had claimed the title, and thus established a Protestant usus loquendi agreeable to the admitted usage of Scripture, making the word Bishop mean a minister of the gospel, prelatists would have been forced to the constant avowal of their real doctrine, viz: that prelates are not Bishops but apostles. This would have placed them on their true ground. But as this was not done, and as the usage of all Churches and of common life, has made Bishop and prelate synonymous, we think it as hopeless a task to attempt a change now as to make the word white mean black, and black white. If all who use the English language would agree that black hereafter should mean white, the change might in time be made, though with great difficulty even then, as all books written before such determination was come to, would have to be expurgated. In like manner, if all Christian nations should agree to revert to the scriptural usage of the word Bishop, its original meaning might gradually be restored. But for any one portion of the Church to effect that change in the meaning of the word, we hold to be impossible; and if impossible, the attempt is obviously unwise. We are glad, therefore, that the motion to substitute the word minister for that of Bishop in the Minutes of the Assembly prevailed, and we hope the matter will rest where it is.
← Chapter XII. A Particular Church, § 6. The Right of Church Members to withdraw from the Communion of the Church · Contents · Chapter XIII. Church Officers, § 2. Who may Vote in the Election of Pastor →