In NT we have fairly frequent mention of bishops and elders (passages collected in art. ChiteCH GoVERNiMENT), and the two olfices seem much the same. This is proved thus : — (1) Bishops and elders are never joined together, like bishops and deacons, as separate classes of officials. (2) Ph 1' ' to bishops and deacons ' (no article). If there had been a distinct order of elders, it could scarcely have been omitted. So 1 Ti 3 passes over the elders, though (5") there certainly were elders at Ephesus, and had been (Ac 20") for some time
Sast. Conversely, Tit l'"' passes over bi.shops, escribing elders in their place, and in nearly the same words. (3) The bishops described to Timothy, the elders of 1 Ti 5", and tnose of 1 P 5^, have dis- tinctly pastoral functions. So, too, have the elders of Ac 20 and those described to Titus. (4) The same persons seem to be called bishops and elders (Ac 20"' ^, Tit I'- ' tya /caTo<rjT)(rpj vpta^uTipovi . . . St'i yip rbr itlaKoiror r.T.X.). The words are also synonyms in Clement ad Cor. xlii. 44, and (by implication) in Teaching, xv., and Polycarp, Fhil. i. It is only in Ignatius that the bishop takes a distinct position. The gcne-al equivalence of the two offices in the apostolic age seems undeniable, though so far we must not assume that every bishop was an elder or vire vcrsd, or that there never were any minor dip'erences between them. The ditlerence of name may of it.se!f point to soma difference of origin : and this is our next (luestion. As regards elders, it seems likely that the name comes from Jewish sources, Theofficeis already half
302
BISHOP
BIT, BRIDLE
hinted at in Lk 22=^" (hardly in Ac 5» peJiTepot : cf. '" KayluKoi) ; and we have every reason to tliink that the cliurches (even those not of Jewish orif^in) largely followed the arrangements of the syna- po"ue. Their meeting is actually called (ruva7c<r)T) in Ja 2', and the Ebionitea retained the name even in the 4th cent. It may, however, be noted at once, that if the office and the name were adopted from the Jews, it does not follow that the duties were even originally quite those of the D'jpj of the synagogue.
The origin of bishops b more doubtful. The name may jjerfectly well be Jewisli, though the early connexion of the word with Gentile churches is against this. The LXX use of iwlaKoiroi and iincKOTrri may have suggested it ; but Gentile Chris- tians might have found a still readier hint in the general meaning of the word, combined with its freedom from special associat'ons with idolatry. Yet on the other side is the connexion of bishoiis ■with deacons, and Clement's direct appeal to Is 60". The question is best left undecided.
Appointment. — In the first age popular election and apostolic institution seem to have been co- ordinate. The Seven (Ac 6"- •) are chosen by the people, and instituted by the apostles with prayer and laying on of hands. Something similar seems indicated for the Lycaonian elders, though x^P"- Tov-fiaairret (Ac 14^) grammatically refers to the apostles who by prayer with fastings commended them to the Liord. The elders in Crete are ap- pointed (Tit 1° tva /caTaanJtrj/s) by Titus, and appar- ently the bishops at Ephesus by Timothy in like manner, though 1 Ti 5^^, He 6' seem not specially concerned witn the matter ; but it does not follow that there was no popular election. In any case Timothy or Titus would have to approve the candi- date before instituting him : so that the particular description of his quaUiications need not mean that they had to select him in the first instance. As soon as we get outside NT (Teaching, xv., Clement, xliv. liv.) popular election becomes very conspicuous, though neither does this exclude a formal institution. The elders are already attached to the apostle even in the conveyance of special gifts (1 Ti 4''', where the contrast of /«t4 with the SiA of 2 Ti 1' may indicate their secondary position) ; and when the unlocal ministry died out, they would act alone in the institution to local office. How soon an episcopate was developed is a further question ; and very much a question of words, if the development was from below.
In conclusion, it would seem that the outline of the process was much the same in all church offices — first designation, then institution by prayer with (at least commonly) its symbolic accompani- ments of laying on of hands and fasting. But there is one all-important distinction, that if the designation to local office was by popular election, that to unlocal office was by the will of the Holy Spirit (Ac 13', of Apostles ; 1 Ti 4" 1", apparently of an Evangelist, 2 Ti 4»).
Duties. — (1) General Superintendence. — Elders In Ac 20*', 1 Ti 5", Tit V, 1 P 5»- ' (/coraKi.p. is mpteiav done the wrong waj'), bishops in 1 Ti 3'. Indicated possibly in Kv^epv-fiaen, aini\-fiii\j/(i.t, 1 Co 12" ; more distinctly Eph 4" roils Si Toifi^vat Kal i^SalrK6.\ovt, so pointedly contrasted with the nnlocal officers. So jrpoiVrrdMfi'oi 1 Th .5", Ro 12* remind us of tlie bishops and elders, 1 Ti 3^ irpoiVrrd- /levoi', 5" irpofijTwTes. The ijyovfievoi or vpoijy. also of He 13'- "• «, and of Clement, ad Cor. i. 26, 37, may be set down as bishops or elders, for (a) men entitled to obedience must have other than the purely spiritual functions of the unlocal ministry ; (6) the bishops at Corinth evidently own no higher authority, 80 that they must themselves be the