Near the close of the New -Testament period the term bishop is used a few times by the inspired writers Luke and Paul, indicating an additional office growing up out of the presbyterate, somewhat as the latter had done from the diaconate. On questions that have arisen respecting the office of bishop in the New-Tes- tament Church modern controversies in reference to Church polity have largely centred. One theory is that the apostles appointed bishops to be their direct and only official successors having the prerogative of ordaining future ministers by divine right. An oppo- site theory is that the tTriaK07roi and TtptafHiTEpoi of the New Testament were absolutely identical in office and order, and, consequently, that every elder was a bishop. The more probable theory lies between these extremes. It is that the episcopate was a natural se- quence of the presbyterate, not specially appointed, but, in fact, recognised by the apostles. Whereas for the work of evangelization not only an elder but elders were ordained in the principal churches, there would exist in every body of elders the necessity of a presi- dency or primacy for the purpose of general superin- tendence and direction. Thus one of the number would be designated, either by seniority or formal choice, as a primiis inter pares, who should serve as overseer (tTria- kottoq) of the body and the flock under them. Accord- ing to this theory, the episcopate was an office of su- perintendency rather than a distinct clerical order; and in this respect it was analogous if not identical in its functions with that of such apostolical legates as were Timothy and Titus. Nevertheless, it was an office of such importance in the administration of the affairs of the Church and so well adapted to the necessities of the times that it soon became general. Nothing in its original character would prevent its being held in ro- tation by several elders in the same church or diocese, yet a successful administration of it would tend to its perpetuation in the same individual. Hence it soon became an office for life.
The episcopacy of the primitive Church was dioce- san, and in many cases dioceses embraced only single churches. But as Christian influences radiated from those churches, and contiguous churches were estab- lished, the dioceses expanded, and the bishoprics grew in importance. At this early period an error crept into the Church which had a great influence upon its polity in after-ages. It was that of attributing priestly func- tions to the Christian ministry. Soon after the custom became current of calling presbyters priests, it also be-
POLITY
356
POLITY
came customary to call bishops high-priests, and dea-
ites, and thus a full hiernrchical system was
initiated in the Church. After the conversion of Con-
stantine this system became gradually expanded, until
• d in pomp and detail of ceremony the whole ritual of Judaism, and threw the pontifical rites ofGre< k and Roman paganism far in the shade. From the dio-
jhop as the primitive centre, episcopal offices expanded upwards into archbishops, metropolitans, ex- archs, and patriarchs; downwards into chorepiscopi, or country bishops, suffragans, titular bishops, and in the African churches intercessors or episcopal advocates. Corres] ding to this expansion, the lower ranks of the
. re similarly increased by the addition ol arch- presbyters, archdeacons, and Bubdeacons, together with acolothists, exorcists, lectors, < >~t i.irii. psalmistae, copiatse, parabolani, catechista, Byndics, notaries, and still other officers in large churches. In the upward expansion of the episcopate, tin- Greek Church stopped al the patri- archate, bul the Roman Church was content with noth- ing shorl ofa universal patriarchate or papacy (q. v.).
ite somewhat more fully the organization of the Church in the 1th and 5th centuries, it may be said thai the Church of that period consisted of several or- ders of men. Eusebius reckons three, viz. the 'Hyov- rroi, and Kartixov/uvot, i. e. rulers, believers, and catechumens. < Irigen reckons five orders: bul then be divides the clergy into i lint- orders, to make up the number. Both these accounts, when compared together, come i" the Bame thing. Under the 'Hyovfitvoi, or ruler.-, were comprehended the clergy, bishops, priests. ms; under the rjtoro/, or believers, the bap- tized laity; and under the Karrixovftevoi, or catechu- mens, the candidates for baptism. The believers were
rfecl < Ihristians; the catechumens in The t'Tiner. having received baptism, were allowed to partake of the Eucharist, to join in all the prayer- of the Church, and to hear discourses upon the most profound mysteries of religion: more particularly the use of the i - lyer was the sole prerogative of the I
it was called Evxn irioTtZv, the prayer ofbe- li \>r-. From .all these privileges the- catechumens Sei I itechumi \>. The distinction between the laity and tie clergj is by churchmen deduced from the very beginnings of the Christian Church: yet Rigaltius, Salmasius, and Saldi thai tLere was originally no distinction, hut that it is an innovation, and was called forth by the ambition of the clergy of the 3d century, in which Cyprian and Tertullian lived. See < 1.1 rgy.
The various orders of the clergy were appointed to
■ 'il Offices in the Church hy solemn tonus of
consecration or ordination, and had their respective
privileges, immunities, ami revenues. The unity and
worship ofthe Church were secured by law- both eccle-