I. Origin of Episcopacy. — The high Episcopal writ- ers, both of the Church of Rome and the Church of England, maintain that the order of bishops takes the place of the apostles in the Christian Church l)y direct divine appointment. Their view has been stated as follows: "While our Lord remained upon earth he acted as the immediate governor of his Church. Hav- ing himself called the apostles, he kept them constant- ly about his person, except at one time, when he sent them forth upon a short progress through the cities of Judea, and gave them particular directions how they should conduct themselves. The seventy disciples whom he sent forth at another time are never men- tioned again in the New Testament. But the apostles received from him manj' intimations that their office was to continue after his departure ; and as one great object of his ministry was to qualifj' them for the ex- ecution of this office, so, in the interval between his resurrection and his ascension, he explained to them the duties of it, and he invested them with the author- ity which the discharge of those duties implied (Matt, xxviii, 19, 20; John xx, 21, 22). Soon after the as- cension of Jesus, his apostles received those extraordi- narj' gifts of which his promise had given them assur- ance, and immediately they began to execute their commission as the rulers of that societv which was gathered by their preaching. In Acts vi we find tl;e apostles ordering the Christians at Jerusalem to ' look out seven men of honest report,' who might take charge of the daily ministrations to the poor, and to bring the men so chosen to them, that 'we,' said the apostles, ' ma}' appoint them over this business.' The men accordingly were 'set before the apostles, and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them.' Here are the apostles ordaining deacons. Afterward we find St. Paul, in his progress through Asia Elinor, ordaining in every church elders, Trpjcr/Jurffjoj't' (Acts xiv, 23). The men thus ordained by St. Paul appear, from the Acts and the Epistles, to have been teachers, pastors, overseers, of the flock of Christ ; and to Tim- othy, who was a minister of the Word, the apostle speaks of 'the gift which is in thee by the jiutting on of my hands' (2 Tim. i, G). Over the persons to whom he tluis convc}'ed the office of teaching he exercised jurisdiction, for he sent to Ephesus to the elders of tiie church to meet him at Miletus; and there, in a long discourse, gave them a solemn charge (Acts xx, 17-35), and to Timotliy and Titus he writes epistles in the style of a superior. He not only directs Timo- thy, whom he had ijcsought to abide at Ephesus, how to behave himself in the house of (iod as a minister, but he sets him over other ministers. He empowers him to ordain men to the work of the ministry (2 Tim. ii, 2). He gives him directions about the ordination of bishops and deacons ; he places both these kinds of office-bearers in Ephesus under his inspection, instruct- ing him in what manner to receive an accusation against an elder who labored in word and doctrine; and he commands him to charge some that they teach no other doctrine but the form of sound words. In like manner he describes to Titus the qualifications of a bishop or elder, making him the judge how far any jierson in Crete was possessed of these qualitications ; he gives him authority over all orders of Christians there ; and he empowers him to reject heretics. Here,
EPISCOPACY
263
EPISCOPACY
then, is thit r.postle with whose actions we are best acquainted seemingl}' aware that there would be con- tinual occasion in the Christian Church for the exer- cise of that authority over pastors and teachers which the apostles had derived from the Lord Jesus ; and by these two examples of a delegation, given during his lifetime, preparing the world for beholding that au- thority exercised l)y the successors of the apostles in all ages. Accordingly, tlie earliest Christian writers tell us that the apostles, to prevent contention, ap- pointed bishops and deacons ; giving orders, too, that upon their death other approved men should succeed in their ministry. We are told that the other apos- tles constituted their first-fruits, that is, their first dis- ciples, after thej' had proved them by the Spirit, bish- ops and deacons of those who were to believe ; and that the apostle John, who survived the rest, after re- turning from Patmos, the place of his banishment, went about the neighboring nations, ordaining bish- ops, establishing whole churches, and setting apart particular persons for the ministrj', as the}' were point- ed out to him by t!ie Spirit" (Watson, s. v.). In sub- stance, the higli Episcopalians claim that "after the ascension of our Lord, and before the death of the in- spired apostles, there were in the Church three orders in the ministry ^ — apostles, presbyters, and deacons; and these three orders have continued ever since. The name apostle, out of respect to the memor}' of the in- spired apostles, was changed to bishop, while the office remained the same."
The view above given, however satisfactory it may be to high Episcopalians, is not adopted by the more moderate writers on that side, nor bj'' other denomina- tions of Christians. The following brief account, from Neander's Introduction to Coleman's ApostoHcal and Primitive Church., is both lucid and impartial. "Tlie earliest constitutic;^ of the Church was modelled, for the most part, after that I'eliglous communitj' with which it stood in closest connection, and to which it was most assimilated — the Jewish synagogue. This, however, was so modified as to confoi'm to the nature of the Christian community, and to the new and pecu- liar spirit with wliich it was animated. Like the syn- agogue, the Church was governed by an associated body of men appointed for this purpose. The name of presbyters, which was appropriated to this body, was derived from the Jewish synagogue. But in the Gentile churches formed by tlie apostle Paul they took the name of tTviaKD—oi, li.-hops, a term more sig- nificant of their office in the language generally spo- ken b}' the members of these churches. The name pi-esl)i/ttr denoted the dignity of their office, while bish- op, on the other hand, was expressive rather of the nature of their office, t—iTKo—ili' ti)v iKKXi^aiav, to take the overs'ght of the Church. Most certainlj' no other distinction originally existed between them. But, in process of time, some one, in the ordinary course of events, would graduall}- obtain the pre-eminence over liis colleagues, and, by reason of that peculiar over- siglit which he exercised over the whole communitv, might come to be designated by the name tTrifricmrnc, -bishop, which was originally applied to them all indis- criminately. The constant tumults, from within and from without, which agitated the Church in the time of the apostles, may have given to such a one oppor- tunity to exercise his influence the more efficiently; so that, at such a time, the controlling influence of one in this capacity may have been XL'xy salutary to the Church. This change in the relatiou of tlie pres1)v- tars to each other was not the same in all the churches but varied according to their difterent circumstances. It may have been as early as the latter part of the life of John, when he was sole survivor of the other apos- tles, that one, as president of this body of presl)yters, was distinguished by the name of s ttiVtico— oc, bishop. There is, however, no evidence that the apostle him- self introduced this change, much less that he author-