Apostolic Succession (1): Presbyter = Bishop?

The common view among many of the Reformers and biblical scholars ancient and modern is that the titles of office "presbyter" and "bishop" have identical referents in Scripture. Put simply, every presbyter is a bishop, and every bishop is a presbyter. Calvin asserts this in his commentary on Acts:

Concerning the word overseer or bishop, we must briefly note this, that Paul calleth all the elders of Ephesus by this name, as well one as other. Whence we gather, that according to the use of the Scripture bishops differ nothing from elders. But that it came to pass through vice and corruption, that those who were chief in every city began to be called bishops. I call it corruption, not because it is evil that some one man should be chief in every college or company; but because this boldness is intolerable, when men, by wresting the names of the Scripture unto their custom, doubt not to change the tongue of the Holy Ghost.

Commentary on Acts 20:28-32

Similarly, in his "Essay on the Christian Ministry" Joseph Lightfoot states that "It has been shown that in the apostolic writings the two [titles, presbyter and bishop] are only different designations of one and the same office." (pg. 192)

In Chapter XIX of Apostolic Succesion: Is It True? Felix Cirlot offers arguments against the standard view that the titles of office "presbyter" and "bishop" are words exclusively both designating the second order of ministry in the New Testament and early post-Apostolic Church. The implications of this for debates between Presbyterians and Episcopalians are significant, undercutting a main argument for the non-existence of a third and highest order of ministry in the Church through which alone office can be transmitted.

THE PRIMITIVE MEANING AND USAGE OF THE TERM "PRESBYTER"

342. One of the most perplexing questions hindering a solution of the history of the origin of the monarchical Episcopate is the relation of the terms "bishop" and "presbyter" in pre-Ignatian sources. By pre-Ignatian I mean, here and elsewhere in this book, not only those sources earlier in date than the Epistles of St. Ignatius, but also sources later in date though representing a late survival elsewhere of the polity of nomenclature originally universal, but which reached its age-long form in Antioch and Asia Minor before St. Ignatius wrote, while still retaining its primitive form in some places at that time and even a bit later.

The more common opinion has been that the terms are strictly and exactly synonymous in the sense that they are completely interchangeable, that every presbyter was a bishop and that every bishop was a presbyter. This opinion was naturally very palatable to any who held the Presbyterian theory, of which it was one of the main pillars. But it was no mere prejudice of the Presbyterians that led their scholars to accept this conclusion. It seemed to be so decisively proved by several clear and unambiguous passages in Acts, in the Pastorals, and in I Clement, that scholars quite free from Presbyterian presuppositions accepted it without reservation. Many Catholic scholars, whether Anglican or otherwise, have accepted it…

Division I

343. We see from 1 Peter 5:1 that St. Peter could call himself a fellow-presbyter. It is not satisfactory to explain that this was possible because the highest office includes the lower, as nowadays every Bishop is a priest and presbyter but not every priest or presbyter is a Bishop. Ordination was per saltum at least in many cases in the early Churches. And anyway, it is obvious that St. Peter had not been a presbyter before he became an Apostle. Nor can we get out of the difficulty by supposing 1 Peter to be pseudonymous. For it is just as difficult to explain how such a writer could plausibly represent St. Peter as so calling himself, and still escape detection as a forger.

Again, the theory of the original identity cannot explain how the great Ephesian John could be called "The Presbyter," not to distinguish him from another John who was not a presbyter, but as a cognomen analogous to "The Apostle" later in the case of St. Paul. Clearly "John the Presbyter" was sufficiently identified by the title "The Presbyter" entirely apart from the use of his name…whatever the sense in which John was a Presbyter, it clearly was not the same sense in which collegiate bishops were presbyters (on Lightfoot’s Theory of course) for he was certainly not a collegiate bishop. Such a bishop would certainly be inferior rather than superior to Diotrephes, to say nothing of being insufficient to gather to himself (even if unhistorically) all the attributes which the later tradition ascribed to him.

344. Then, there is the famous passage in Papias… I now think that the passage in Papias, when restudied more carefully, admits of the identification of the Apostles with "the Presbyters" at least as easily as of the interpretation Chapman accepted following St. Irenaeus and Euesbius. In fact I am inclined to think it rather favors the identification…But if the Apostles are there referred to under the title "the Presbyters," the passage falls into line with 1 Peter 5:1 and the opening signature of II and III John…

345. Then, we run into a serious difficulty about the usage, well known to all scholars, whereby several of the Fathers at the end of the second and beginning of the third centuries applied the title "presbyter" in the singular or in the plural to men whom they clearly believed to be, and who in some cases at least certainly were, pure and simple monarchical Bishops…For Lightfoot himself has pointed out that, although the monarchical Bishops were still called presbyters, the presbyters were never any more called Bishops. This seems to me to suggest that, whatever was the true explanation of the phenomenon, it was certainly not the one alleged by Lightfoot, that the Church still remembered such an original relation of the later Bishops to the earliest bishops as Lightfoot held to be true. This doubt is greatly increased by the fact that the usage in question is attested in the East as well as in the West, and among Western Fathers who had been under strong and prolonged Eastern influence. Yet surely the Episcopate arose and prevailed so early and so quickly in the East as to make this less likely than, on Lightfoot’s theory, it was in the West. Finally, there is a passage in St. Irenaeus who was one of the chief Fathers addicted to this usage, which shows conclusively that he did not still "remember" that bishops and presbyters had originally been strictly identical. He is describing the event narrated in Acts XX, and he feels obliged to interpret the passage thus, "When the bishops and presbyters who came from ephesus and the other adjoining cities had assembled at Miletus etc." Those amazing pearls of exegesis seem to show to me quite conclusively that St. Irenaeus was incapable of conceiving a single Church with more than one Bishop, even in the days of St. Paul. Nor could he conceive it as possible that those called presbyters in the narrative passage before St. Paul begins his speech can possibly be the same ones called bishops within the speech. And yet he himself calls bishops presbyters repeatedly, while he also, of course, often uses "presbyters" in the contemporary Ignatian sense. This shows, I think, that the usage did not depend on a memory that presbyters and bishops had ever been identical.

That leaves open, of course, the possibility that the usage in question originated as Lightfoot suggested, and long survived all memory of how it had originated. But this is only a possibility. If accepted, it still will not at all explain the application of the term "presbyters" to Apostles, which as we just saw in sections 343-4 is attested. Nor will it explain why Bishops could still be called presbyters yet presbyters could never any longer be called bishops. Moreover, if presbyters and bishops were originally quite identical, and Apostles could be called presbyters, why could they not also be called bishops? None of these points can be decisive, of course, where the evidence is so scanty. But they all seem to have real weight, and they point, every one of them, in the same direction, which is away from the theory accepted by Lightfoot and so many others.

346. Then there is another very interesting phenomenon. It is that while presbyters, bishops, and deacons are all mentioned or alluded to quite a few times in pre-Ignatian sources, we never hear of presbyters in combination with either of the other two. Of course Lightfoot’s theory would explain easily why bishops and presbyters would never be bracketed. But it provides no explanation why presbyters should never be bracketed with deacons, while bishops are so bracketed at least in Philipians, the Pastorals, Hermas, 1 Clement, and the Didache. Presbyters are mentioned in all but the first and last of these five sources, but whenever the hierarchy is to be dissolved into its constituent orders, the term "presbyters" is always avoided. Yet this ceases in the two very first sources we get reflecting the Ignatian terminology. In view of the scantiness of our evidence such silence cannot, again, be decisive… It will become weighty, I think, if some explanation can be given which will explain all of the irregularities of terminology at the same time… that explanation will be more probable than several discrete explanations woven into a sort of loose combination. And if such an explanation can do justice to the passages which are the stronghold and basis of Lightfoot’s theory—that presbyters and bishops are originally strictly identical—it would at once acquire a strong claim to our acceptance.

347. I have tried all the alternative proposals I have seen by which presbyters and bishops can be treated as groups at least partially distinct. I have come again and again to the conclusion that the presbyters could hardly be a third group intermediate between bishops and deacons…

348. But the fact mentioned above that deacons, though bracketed with "bishops," are never bracketed with presbtyers in the pre-Ignatian sources, but are immediately when we come to Ignatian sources (St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp) suggests the theory I had not until very recently met in the writings of others that the term "presbyters" might be an early equivalent of our modern terms "minister" or "clergyman". We do not speak of ministers and deacons, because deacons are just as truly ministers as priests. Can it not be for the same reason that presbyters and deacons were not at first—and later were—bracketed? When we check the evidence, we discover that neither were presbyters ever bracketed in pre-Ignatian sources with any other order of the ministry, with one solitary exception.

That is with Apostles, in Jerusalem, in Acts 15 and does not seem to me a serious difficulty. For we have already established conclusively that Apostles could be called presbyters in the Apostolic age, and hence the term need not be bracketed with Apostles in Acts because the latter were not presbyters, but because the presbyters who were not Apostles had no other specific name such as they later had in the Pauline-gentile world; viz., bishops. Hence, there was nothing else to call them except presbyters. But the usage did not mean presbyters as distinguished from Apostles who were not presbyters, but rather "mere presbyters" as distinguished from those who were both presbyters and Apostles.

This same explanation will explain the Ignatian usage which treats "presbyters" as a specific term, and so brackets it with both Bishops and deacons (St. Ignatius) or with deacons alone (St. Polycarp) where there were no monarchical Bishops, whether normally or only temporarily. For (on the theory I propose) as soon as the term "bishop" was transferred from the second order of the ministry to the localized member of the first, deutero-Apostolic, order, the second order was once again left without any specific title. What could be more natural, then, than to appropriate as the specific title of that order the already existing generic title, presbyters, by which it as also other orders of the ministry, was already frequently called? This appropriation, supposing this theory to be correct, would not necessarily destroy for some time the older usage by which the term presbyter could also be applied, as a generic term, to the higher order of the ministry, and possibly to the lower order also, though we lack any clear case in which a deacon is unambiguously called a presbyter. But it was certainly applied to Apostles before the Ignatian terminology came into being, and quite possibly afterward, if it is the Apostles who are called presbyters by Papias. And it is equally certain that indubitable monarchical Bishops were called presbyters long after the Ignatian terminology had widely prevailed, and presbyters had utterly ceased to be called bishops. Such a theory satisfies all the evidence that we have noticed above as raising difficulties for the theory of the original complete identity of bishops and presbyters. Can it also satisfy the evidence commonly supposed to support the identity?

Division II

349. The passage in Acts 20 seems to pass the test successfully. In Acts 20:17 "the presbyters" are summoned, and in 20:28 it is assumed that these (or at least most of them) are "bishops." This would be smooth sailing if there were no deacons in Ephesus; also if there were deacons there, but the term presbyter was not applied to them…

350. The passage in the Pastorals which is commonly supposed to be most decisive in favor of the originally complete identity is Titus 1:5-7. But all we surely have here is the assumption that in appointing presbyters St. Titus would automatically be appointing bishops…

351. 1 Peter 5:1-2 is certainly even less difficult. It assumes that the presbyters (or at least most of them) would have an office involving oversight (Cf. "overseers = bishops"). But it does not exclude the possibility of there being presbyters of a lower order (deacons) in addition to those who were bishops…

352. The only other passage commonly supposed to prove strict original identity is 1 Clement XLIV:4-5. Here it seems clearly implied that presbyters who had already died were secure against being removed from the episcopate. It is very generally agreed, of course, that the term "episcopate" is used here in the pre-Ignatian sense. But while this passage, like the others already examined, does truly exclude the possibility of the term presbyters being used to designate one order alone unless that order is the episcopate, it does not tell against the relation of the two terms I suppose—certainly not decisively. The terms appear to be used interchangeably—in a sense—but not more so than in Catholic circles today we can use "minister" and "priest" interchangeably. The way St. Clement speaks is sufficiently explained if we suppose the relation of the terms I propose, but that only bishops had been deposed at Corinth, and no deacons, or very few. But those who had already died, whether bishosp or deacons, were secure against the indignity—and worse—of deposition. For still living deacons were certainly subject to such deposition, even if few or none had actually suffered it. Hence St. Clement could easily use the term "presbyters" instead of "bishops" when referring to those who had died before the trouble arose. For surely that would include deacons as well as bishops. Besides, in the very sentence where the term "presbyters" is used, the term "episcopate" is not repeated, but the more general term "place". This cannot be pressed, I suppose. But at least it leaves open the possibility that the wider term is used interchangeably.

353. It is worth emphasizing once more that the view that "presbyters" is a generic term can stand even if it did not cover deacons but only those who belonged to the two higher orders—Apostles and bishops…

354. To confirm our main result strongly, let us forget for the moment that, at the present time, Bishops may accurately be called priests, and treat the latter term as applicable only to the second order of our present threefold Ministry. Then let us try the experiment of reading these four supposedly decisive passages with "minister" or "clergyman" substituted for "presbyter" wherever it occurs in these four passages, but with "priest" substituted for "bishop" every time. I think we shall see at once that there is no difficulty in any of these passages, so read. The two terms are identical in the sense that ministers and priests are identical to-day, but not in the sense that ministers and clergymen are identical, or in the sense that presbyters and priests are identical (in Anglicanism, of course—not in Protestantism).

355. We are now ready to summarize our two main conclusions on this point. They are that the term "presbyter" was certainly a generic term in pre-Ignatian sources, and the term "bishops" was certainly specific. That is, the term "presbyter" could be applied to at least two distinct orders (the first and the second) of a threefold Ministry, and probably but by no means certainly to the third. But the latter term "bishop" was applicable (in pre-Ignatian sources) to one order only—the second. In many local Churches, the second order was the highest locally represented, except when occasionally members of the first order would visit such local Churches. But the bishops and deacons mentioned in Philippians, for example, were aware beyond all dispute that there was a higher order than either of them, the Apostles. And we have seen in Chapter XVIII of this book that the first, Apiostolic order was extended to others who thus held the same office, and were sometimes called by the same name, though not always or probably normally. I have called these, for convenience, by a title by which they were never actually called in ancient history, but which is accurately descriptive—deutero-Apostles.

It has been seen clearly above that Apostles could be called "presbyters" in the first and second generations of Christianity. It is also clear that by the third generation monarchical Bishops were already in existence in some places, and that these could also be called "presbyters." It follows, therefore, that deutero-Apostles could be so called also; though we have no actual case attested, unless "John the Presbyter" was a deutero-Apostle, which I cannot believe. It follows that, in places where there was an Apostle, deutero-Apostle, or monarchical Bishop, the "presbyterate" would include this individual (or these, if more than one such were present at the same time), and the collegiate bishops, and possibly or probably the deacons. On the other hand, in places where there was no member of the first order, the "presbyterate" would include at least the "bishops" and possibly or probably the deacons. Hence referring to "presbyters" or "the presbyterate" will neither favor nor disfavor the presence of a member of the higher order, unless something else in the context or in the rest of the evidence gives us reason to affirm or deny such presence. This conclusion, if sound, is of capital importance. And the reasons we have seen in its support are very weighty.

Share this:

• Tweet
• Email
.

Reblog

Like

Be the first to like this.

Apostolic Succession (3): The Didache

I. A common objection to the Apostolic Succession of the trifold ministry goes like this. If the Apostles had instituted the trifold ministry, then we would expect that every text in the Apostolic Fathers would reflect this belief. These writers were, after all, closest to the Apostles in time and…

May 8, 2010

In "Apostolic Succession"

Apostolic Succession: Is it True?

February 11, 2019

In "Apostolic Succession"

Apostolic Succession (4): St. Clement of Rome

I. A significant challenge to the historical case for the Apostolic succession of the Trifold ministry is that St. Clement of Rome teaches (1 Clement 44) a succession of only two tiers of ministry. The only offices that are described as continuing after the Apostolic age are "bishops and deacons".…

May 19, 2010

In "Apostolic Succession"

Apostolic Succession (2): Presbyterian Ordination?

Felix Cirlot argues in Apostolic Succession: Is It True? that there are no clear cases in primitive Christianity of Presbyterian ordination. Instead, every instance of ordination in the first few hundred years of Christianity fits into the hypothesis that only the third tier of ministry can ordain; in other words, only monarchical bishops and Apostles can appoint new officers in the Church. Each example, says Cirlot, fits one of three categories. The first category of texts is those that teach ordination by monarchical bishops and Apostles, but do not state or imply that only bishops and Apostles can ordain. There are many clear cases of appointment and ordination of new officers in the Church by someone in the third tier of ministry (an Apostle or a monarchical bishop). Numerous biblical texts can be offered that involve Apostolic ordination, and perhaps even texts that teach monarchical bishops can ordain (though that will not be the subject of this post). Early in the post-Apostolic era we see St. Clement of Rome attesting to the practice of appointment (presumably by the laying on of hands, as was the scriptural practice) by monarchical bishops (circa 90 AD). St. Irenaeus supplements this testimony (writing circa 180 AD, though his views in Against Heresies probably represent his beliefs at an earlier age, closer to 160 AD). And at the beginning of the third century, Tertullian speaks of the ordination of bishops by Apostles.

The second category is texts that state or imply only bishops and Apostles can ordain. Early in Church history we have writers like St. Clement of Alexandria (at around 190 AD) that imply an exclusive ordination by bishops and Apostles. Additionally, there is St. Hippolytus who in his On the Apostolic Tradition (around 217 AD) explicitly states that only bishops can ordain. It is noteworthy that as a liturgical and theological conservative, Hippolytus’ views probably did not change much over the course of twenty years; so we have attestation of exclusive ordination by bishops that stretches back to before the end of the second century. This evidence will be treated in more detail in a later post.

The third category of texts is those that are consistent with the idea that only bishops and Apostles can ordain. Though some have argued that the canons of the Council of Ancyra, or a quotation from Jerome about the presbyterate in Alexandria, or numerous other patristic citations show that members of the second tier of ordination had the power to ordain, it is not so. These citations, upon examination, either fail to establish the intended point, or ironically show an implicit belief that only the bishop ordains.

But there is one last refuge for proponents of Presbyterianism about church government: 1 Timothy 4:14. The verse in its surrounding context reads as follows:

(12) Let no one despise you because of your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (13) Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. (14) Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. (15) Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. (16) Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

Here it seems we have a problem for the idea that only members of the third tier of ministry can ordain. For Paul says that Timothy’s ordination came "with the laying-on of hands of the presbytery". This seems to mean that a group of leaders in the second tier of Christian ministry assembled together, laid hands on Timothy, and gave him his spiritual gift of office. Is this not a clear case of ordination by someone other than an Apostle or a monarchical bishop?

1. The first problem with the idea that this verse is an example of Presbyterian ordination is that the word "presbyter" does not mean "member of the second tier of ministry". As I argued here, a "presbyter" in the New Testament parlance (and the language of some Church Fathers who did not adopt Ignatius’ terminology) is just a minister, a Church leader. There is no specification in the word "presbyter" of whether or not someone is in the first, second, or third tier of ministry. Some presbyters are "elders" as we now commonly understand them, members of the second tier of ministry (called bishops in the New Testament); but some presbyters were Apostles, and possibly some were deacons. Having clarified the language, we can now see that here we have a case of Christian ministers ordaining. But this is consistent with saying the ministers that ordained Timothy were either Apostles or monarchical bishops. After all, an Apostle can be called "presbyter" in Scripture. Nothing in the text favors the idea that these presbyters are specifically local congregational rulers in the second tier of ministry. The presbytery could have been elders as we now understand them, or Apostles, or monarchical bishops.

2. A second problem arises when we try to synthesize this instance of ordination with Paul’s ordination of Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:6. Paul writes to Timothy saying "Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." This verse is either talking about the same event as 1 Timothy 4:14, or a different event. If it is talking about the same event, then the presbyters of 1 Timothy 4:14 included at least one Apostle—Paul. This would be problematic for Presbyterian understandings of office, because at most this verse could show that presbyters can ordain when someone in the third tier of ministry is present. It would not show that presbyters can ordain in the absence of someone in the third tier of ministry.

If we say that the two verses are recounting different events, then we have a different problem for the Presbyterian hypothesis. For assuming 1 Timothy 4:14 is talking about Timothy being ordained as an elder, 2 Timothy 1:6 would have to be talking about Timothy being ordained to something other than a Presbyter. Given Timothy’s administrative role and its connection to the grace of God that Paul speaks of in 1:6, it seems unlikely that Paul is talking in 2 Timothy 1:6 about Timothy’s ordination to the diaconate. So if we assume two different ordinations of Timothy are being spoken of here, then we have a case of ordination of Timothy by (what might be) elders to become an elder in the second tier of ministry. But then in 2 Timothy 1:6 we also have an example of Timothy probably being ordained to the third tier of ministry. Although this does not square neatly with the hypothesis that only bishops can ordain, it does not square with Presbyterianism either. After all, Presbyterianism does not think that there is a third tier of ministry occupied by non-Apostles. If such a tier exists, then even if Episcopal ordination is not the only way to get Church office, it is much harder to say deny that the Episcopate is necessary to be the Church. The usual argument for only needing elders and deacons is that when the Apostles died, the third tier of ministry died with them. But if there were people in the New Testament era who were members of the third tier of ministry, but not Apostles (people who had seen the risen Christ and been appointed to the third tier of ministry by Him), then in order to have a properly biblical Church, you still probably need a third tier of ministry.

3. The third reason that 1 Timothy 4:14 does not imply ordination by mere elders is that the phrase "with the laying on of hands" uses the preposition "meta". The word "with" implies correlation, simultaneous occurrence, or one thing happening alongside another. But it does not commonly mean "through" or "by means of", which would imply a causal relationship. The word "dia", used in 2 Timothy 1:6 to describe Paul’s imparting the gift of office "by the laying on of hands" implies causality or instrumentality, ie. that it was by means of the laying on of hands that the gift entered Timothy. Why is this important? Though the difference between "alongside" and "by means of" may seem minor, it was part of the early Church’s liturgical theology that elders should be involved in a highly specific way in the ordination of another elder. A group of elders participated by approaching the presbyter and laying their hands on him, while a bishop laid his own hands on the elder that was getting ordained. But the involvement of the other elders was not the same as that of the bishop. Whereas the bishop actually conferred the gift of office, the presbyters merely "sealed" the bishop’s action. The bishop ordained, the presbyters showed their acceptance and approval. St. Hippolytus says

SECTION 7:

When an elder is ordained, the bishop places his hand upon his head, along with the other elders, and says according to that which was said above for the bishop, praying and saying:
2God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
look upon your servant here,
and impart the spirit of grace and the wisdom of eldersa,
that he may help and guide your people with a pure heart,
3just as you looked upon your chosen people,
and commanded Moses to choose elders,
whom you filled with your spirit
which you gave to your attendant.

4Now, Lord, unceasingly preserving in us the spirit of your grace,
make us worthy, so that being filled
we may minister to you in singlenessb of heart,
praising you,
5through your son Christ Jesus,
through whom to you be glory and might,
Father and Son
with the Holy Spirit,
in your Holy Church,
now and throughout the ages of the ages.
Amen.

SECTION 8

…6Upon the elders, the other elders place their hands because of a common spirit and similar duty. 7Indeed, the elder has only the authority to receive this, but he has no authority to give it. 8Therefore he does not ordain to the clergy. Upon the ordination of the elder he seals; the bishop ordains.

It is interesting, then, that St. Paul says Timothy was ordained "with" the laying on of hands of the presbytery. Even if these were elders in the way we now understand them, their role could have been something other than ordination. They could have been sealing their new brother, acknowledging and accepting him into the status of his office. Because Paul is a master rhetorician and careful in his language, the difference between "with the laying on of hands" and "by the laying on of hands" should be considered significant, and probably implies a difference in meaning. Even on the assumption that the writer of the pastoral epistles is not St. Paul, the author(s)’ different language is still significant, given that the word "dia" is used in this section to describe prophecy’s causal role in bringing Timothy to be ordained. Whereas it was "by" prophetic calling (1 Timothy 1:18) that Timothy got ordained, it was merely "with" the laying on of hands of the presbytery. The use of two different prepositions in the same context supports a specific meaning for "with".

Cirlot concludes his investigation of 1 Timothy 4:14 by saying the following:

To the present writer, then, it would seem considerable of an under-statement to say 1 Timothy 4:14 easily admits of an interpretation in harmony with the great body of the evidence, even though it does not favor that interpretation, and if it stood alone ought to be interpreted the way our Presbyterian friends interpret it. pg 468

Given these three objections, there does not seem to be any positive evidence for Presbyterian ordination in this passage. And although it is possible that this passage teaches Presbyterian ordination, it is unlikely that such is Paul’s meaning, especially when we note that there are no other cases of primitive Presbyterian ordination that we know of, all the known cases of ordination in the first few hundred years of Church history conform to the "bishop only" pattern, and there are early witnesses to the idea that only the bishop can ordain. In later posts, I will examine the biblical evidence for exclusive ordination by the third tier of ministry, including evidence from the pastoral epistles. If this evidence is strong, it would further support the conviction that 1 Timothy 4:14 does not teach ordination of elders by elders.