" The apostles themselves, it is held by some, were the real bishops of that day, and it is quite evident that they performed many episcopal functions. It may ; well be true that the onty reason why no bishops (in the modern sense) were then wanting was because the apostles were living; but it cannot be inferred that in any strict sense prelates are co-ordinate in rank with the apostles, and can claim to exercise their powers. The later " bishop" did not come forward as a successor to the apostles, but was developed out of the presbyter ; much less can it be proved, or alleged with plausibil- ity, that the apostles took any measures for securing substitutes for themselves (in the high character of apostles) after their decease. It has been with many a favorite notion that Timothy and Titus exhibit the episcopal type even during the life of Paul; but this . is an obvious misconception. They were attached to the person of the apostle, and not to any one church. ; In the last epistle written by him (2 Tim. iv, 9), he ' calls Timothy suddenly to Home in words which prove j that the latter was not, at least as yet, bishop, either i of Ephesus or of any other Church. That Timothy was an evangelist is distinctly stated (2 Tim. iv, 5), and that he had received spiritual gifts (i, G, etc.) ; there I
is then no difficulty in accounting for the authority vested in him (1 Tim. v, 1 ; xix, 22), without imagin- ing him to have been a bishop, which is, in fact, dis- proved even by the same epistle (i, 3). That Titus, moreover, had no local attachment to Crete, is plain from Titus iii, 13, to say nothing of the earlier epistle, 2 Cor. jiassim; nor is it true that the episcopal power ] developed itself out of wandering evangelists any more than out of the apostles. | "On the other hand, it would seem that the bishop began to elevate himself above the presbyter while the apostle John was yet alive, and in churches to Which he is believed to have peculiarly devoted him- self. The meaning of the title angel in the opening chapters of the Apocalypse has been mystically ex- plained by some, but its true meaning is clear, from 1 the nomenclature of the Jewish synagogues. In them, we are told, the minister who ordinarily led the pray- ers of the congregation, besides acting as their chief functionary in matters of business, was entitled !~pbb "ASlS [see Synagogue], a name which may be trans- lated literally envoy of the. congregation, and is here ex- pressed by the Greek ayytkoQ. The substantive rtxbp also (which by analogy would be rendered j dyyeXia, as "XS'O is oyytXoc) has the ordinary sense I of work, service, making it almost certain that the ' an- gels of the churches' are nothing but a harsh Hebra- ism for 'ministers of the churches.'' We therefore here see a single officer in these rather large Christian communities elevated into a peculiar prominence which has been justly regarded as episcopal. Nor does it sig- nify that the authorship of the Apocalypse is disputed, since its extreme antiquity is beyond a doubt ; wc find, therefore, the germ of episcopacy here planted, as it were, under the eyes of an apostle.
" Nevertheless, it was still but a germ. It is vain to ask whether these angels received a second ordina- tion, and had been promoted from the rank of presby- ters. That this was the case is possible, but there is no proof of it; and while some will regard the ques- tion as deeply interesting, others will think it unim- : portant. A second question is whether the angels were overseers of the congregation only, or of the presbyters too, and whether the Church was formed of main' local unions (such as we call parishes) or of one. Perhaps both questions unduly imply that a set • of fixed rules was already in existence. No one who reads Paul's own account of the rebuke he uttered against Peter (Gal. ii) need doubt that in those days a zealous elder would assume authority over other elders officially his equals when he thought they were dishonoring the Gospel; and, a fortiori, he would act thus toward an official inferior even if this had not previously been defined or understood as his duty. So, again, the Christians of Ephesus or Miletus were prob- ably too numerous ordinarily to meet in a single as- sembly, especially before they had large buildings erected for the purpose; and convenience must have led at a very early period to subordinate assemblies (such as would now be called " chapels of ease" to the mother Church) ; yet we have no ground for supposing that any sharp division of the Church into organic portions had yet commenced" (Kitto, Cyclop, s. v.).
2. The ti/'i' Bishop, as compared with Presbyter, or Elder. — '■ That the two titles were originally equiv- alent is <lear from the following facts : (1.) i^ia- Koirot and TrpeafivTtpoi arc nowhere named together as being orders distinct from each other. (2.) tnia- KOTroi and dioiKOVOt are named as apparently an ex- haustive division of the. officers of churches addressed by Paul as an apostle (Phil, i, 1 ; 1 Tim. iii, 1, 8). (3.) The same persons are described by both names (Acts xx, 17, 18; Tit. i, 5, 8). (4.) irptafivripot discharge functions which are essentially episcopal, i. e. involv- ing pastoral superintendence (1 Tim. v, 17; 1 Pet. v, 1, 2). The age which followed that of the apostles