In the early Church, the title was employed cither in relation to the pastor of one church or assembly of I
Christians, or to the superintendent of a number of churches. The former is the meaning attached to the word by Presbyterians and Congregationalists, and the latter by the various Episcopal churches of Christendom, viz., the Roman Church, the Greek Church, the other Oriental churches (Armenian, Cop- tic, Jacobite, Nestorian, Abyssinian), the Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, the Episcopal Church of Scotland, the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, the Methodist Episcopal churches, the Lutheran Church (in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Rus- sia, and several German states), the Moravians, tho Mennonites. In some Protestant churches, those of Prussia and Nassau, where the consistorial constitu- tion prevails, the name designates more a title of hon- or conferred on the superintendents general than a dis- tinct office.
"Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregational- ists agree in one point, viz., that it is lawful for Chris- tians to take a step for which they have no clear prec- edent in the Scripture, that of breaking up a Church, when it becomes of unwieldy magnitude, into fixed di- visions, whether parishes or congregations. The ques- tion then arises whether the organic union is to be still retained at all. To this (1) Congregationalists reply in the negative, saying that the congregations in dif- ferent parts of a great city no more need to be in or- ganic union than those of two different cities ; (2) Presbyterians would keep up tho union by means of a synod of the elders ; (3) Episcopalians desire to unito the separate churches by retaining them under the su- pervision of a single head — the bishop. It seems im- possible to refer to the practice of the apostle's as de- ciding in favor of any one of these methods, for the case had not yet arisen which could have led to the dis- cussion. The city churches had not jret become so large as to make subdivision positively necessary, and, as a fact, it did not take place. To organize distant churches into a fixed and formal connection by synods of their bishops was, of course, a much later process ; but such unions are by no means rejected, even by Congregationalists, so long as they are used for delib- eration and advice, not as assemblies for ruling and commanding. The spirit of Episcopacy depends far less on the episcopal form itself than on the size and wealth of dioceses, and on the union of bishops into synods, whose decisions are to be authoritative on the whole Church, to say nothing of territorial establish- ment and the support of the civil government" (Kitto, Cyclopaedia, s. v.). For the controversy as to tho office of bishops, see Episcopacy ; here we simply give, first, Biblical applications of the word in connection with Trpfcrfivrtpoc, ; and, secondly, the names, classes, insignia, duties, election, and consecration of bishops in ancient and modern churches.
I. New Testament Uses of the Term "Bishop:" 1. Origin of the Office. — " The apostles originally appoint- ed men to superintend the spiritual, and occasionally even the secular wants of the churches (Acts xiv, 23 ; xi, 30 ; see also 2 Tim. ii, 2), who were ordinarily called Trpeajivripot, elders, from their age. ; sometimes i~ ia- kotvoi, overseers (bishops), from their office. They are also said ttpoioraodai, to preside. (1 Thess. v, 12 ; 1 Tim. v, 17) ; never ap\tn>, to ruk, which has far too despotic a sound. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii, 7, 17, 24) they are named t'/yovfievoi, leading -men (comp. Arts xv, 22), and figuratively iroipii'ic, shepherds (Ephes. iv, 11). These presbyters were the regular teachers of the Church, expounding Scripture, admin- istering the sacraments, and exercising pastoral care and discipline. They were to be married men with families (1 Tim. iii, 4), and with converted children (Tit. i, 6). In the beginning there had been no time to train teachers, and teaching was at first regarded far more in the light of a gift than an office ; yet Paul places ' ability to teach' among episcopal qualifications (1 Tim. iii, 2 ; Titus i, 9 ; the latter of which passages
BISHOP
81!
BISHOP
should he translated, 'That lie may be able both to ex- hort men by sound teaching, and also to refute oppos- ers'). That teachers had obtained in Paul's day a fixed official position is manifest from Gal. vi, 6, and 1 Cor. ix, 14, where he claims for them a right to worldly main- tenance : in fact, that the shepherds ordered to ' feed the flock,' and be its ' overseers' (1 Pet. v, 2), were to feed them with knowledge and instruction, will never be disputed, except to support a hypothesis. The leaders also, in Heb. xiii, 7, are described as 'speaking unto you the word of God.' Ecclesiastical history joins in proving that the two offices of teaching and superin- tending were, with few exceptions, coml lined in the same persons, as, indeed, the nature of things dictated.
" That during Paul's lifetime no difference between elders and bishops yet existed in the consciousness of the Church is manifest from the entire absence of dis- tinctive names (Acts xx, 17-28 ; 1 Pet. v, 1, 2). The mention of bishops and deacons in Phil, i, 1, and 1 Tim. iii, without any notice of elders, proves that at that time no difference of order subsisted between bishops and elders. A formal ceremony, it is generally be- lieved, was employed in appointing elders, although it does not appear that as yet any fixed name was appro- priated to the idea of ordination. (The word ordained is inexcusably interpolated in the English version of \ Acts i, 22. In Titus i, 5, the Greek word is Karacr!)- ' aye, set, or set vp ,- and in Acts xiv, 23, it is x^'porovi)- traiTEC, having elected, properly by a show of hands ; though, abusively, the term came to mean simply hav- ing chosen or nominated [Acts x, 41] ; yet in 2 Cor. viii, 19, it seems to have its genuine democratic sense.) In 1 Cor. xvi, 15, we find the house of Stephanas to have volunteered the task of 'ministering to the saints;' and that this was a ministry of ' the word' is evident from the apostle's urging the Church ' to submit them- selves to such.' It would appear, then, that a formal investiture into the office was not as yet regarded es- sential. Be this as it may, no one doubts that an or- dination by laying on of hands soon became general or universal. Hands were first laid on, not to bestow an office, but to solicit a spiritual gift (1 Tim. iv, 14; 2 Tim. i, 6 ; Acts xiii, 3 ; xiv, 26 ; xv, 40). To the same j effect Acts viii, 17; xix, 0 — passages which explain; Heb. vi, 2. On the other hand, the absolute silence of the Scriptures, even if it were not confirmed, as it is, by positive testimony, would prove that no idea of consecration, as distinct from ordination, at that time existed at all; and consequently, although individual elders may have really discharged functions which would afterward have been called episcopal, it was not; by virtue of a second ordination, nor, therefore, of j episcopal rank.