Starting from the original identity of ' bishop ' and ' presbyter,' Theodore (on 1 Ti 3^'*) infers that episcopacy existed from the first. The first bishops, among whom were Timothy and Titus, were con- secrated by apostles, governed whole provinces, and were sometimes called ' apostles.' Theodore erroneously supposed that ' laj-ing on of the hands of the presbytery' (1 Ti 4") meant consecration of Timothy by some of the Twelve. He was conse- crated by St. Paul with certain elders (2 Ti P). 'The presbytery,' which in Lk 22'^'^ and Ac 22= means the body of elders in the Sanhedrin, here means a body of Christian elders. The details of Theodore's theory need not detain us ; the central point in it is the proposition that the apostles instituted a distinct class of officials to be their successors. But did they? The question admits of no secure answer. It must be remembered that we have no evidence that either Christ or the apostles ever prescribed any particular form of government for the society which they founded ; and there is the improbability that men who be- lieved that Christ would very soon return would think it worth while to devise and prescribe a particular form of government for the increasing number of Christian communities. On the other hand, it is probable that, as the apostles passed away, and the Lord still did not appear, the com- munities would be driven to devise some form of government for themselves.
Jerome (Ep. 146, ad Evanqelum) answers the question in the negative. The apostles did not institute distinct officials to be their successors. Churches were governed by a council of presbyters. But when presbyters began to form parties, and each presbyter thought that those whom he bap- tized belonged to him, it was decreed throughout the world that one of them should be elected and set over the others, and that on him should rest the general supervision of the Church. On Tit P he says that it is ' by custom rather than by the Lord's arrangement' that bishops are a higher order.
There is no need to assume that party spirit was in all cases, or even in most, the chief reason for setting one presbyter above the rest. The more usual reasons would be the obvious advantage
150 BISHOP, ELDEK, PRESBYTER
BISHOP, ELDER, PRESBYTER
of having one person to -whom doubtful matters might be referred, and the fact that in most colleges of presbj'ters there was one who -was manifestly more capable than the others. When once a particular presbyter had been either form- ally elected, or allowed more and more to take the lead, his special functions would be likely to grow. The dignity of bishops appears to have developed rapidly. They led their congregations in public worship, regulating liturgical forms and the dis- tribution of the alms. They also regulated the congregation's power of punishing and forgiving offenders. They represented their congregations in all relations, Godward and manward. They gradually absorbed the functions of the expiring charismatic ministry, and were at once prophets and teachers, and they conducted tlie correspond- ence with other local churclies. The fi-equent appearance of questionable doctrines greatly aug- mented the importance of bishops, who came to be regarded as teaching with unique authority. Montanism was a revolt against this official episcopacy — an attempt to restore the charismatic ministry of the prophets, and when it failed, the triumph of episcopacy Avas complete. And it deserved to fail, not merely because of its ex- travagances, but because of its rebellion against external forms. In one sense, forms are un- essential ; the realities whicii the forms express are the things which matter. But it is only by continuity in the forms that the realities can be preserved ; ' formlessness inspired by enthusiasm melts away. . . . The elaboration of a close hier- archical organization and the setting up of a fixed dogmatic teaching were proved to be the necessary means of self-preservation, if the Gospel itself was not to be lost in the vortex of Gnosticism' (Dob- schiitz, Apostol. Age, Eng.tr., London, 1909, pp. 122, 141). The bishops were witnesses to the deposit of faith, and as such decided as to the soundness of doctrines.
Probably the first function that was assigned to the bishop was that of being leader and guide in public worship. But we know very little about the beginnings of this worship. The influence of the synagogue in determining the form was con- siderable, and it is possible that certain heathen mysteries exercised some influence, but the latter point has been exaggerated. Clement's Epistle shows that the trouble at Corinth was about persons — whether certain presbyters had been rightly deposed ; not about principles — whether government by presbyters could be rightly main- tained. Clement himself was not a bishop in the later sense : he was president of the college of presbyters in Rome. But such a president would be likely to develop into a monarchical bishop. Clement is the first Christian writer to take the fateful first step of interpreting the nature of office in the Church by reference to Jewish institutions, for which, to a certain extent, the way is prepared in 1 Co 9^ and 1 Ti 5'^ (Harnack, Constitution and Law of the CAwrcA, London, 1910, p. 72). He draws a parallel between the Jewish priest and Levite and the Christian priest and deacon, and bases an argument from analogy on the resemblance {Cor., ch. 40). It is doubtful whether the mention of the iiigh priest has any reference to a monarchical episcopate.