Bishop

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Bishop (Gr. episkopos , Lat. episcopus , Ital. vescovo , Fr. évêque , Germ. Bischof ), Elder (Gr. presbyteros , Lat. presbyterus , Fr. prêtre , Eng. priest ). The two words are so closely connected in the NT that they must be taken together here.

1 . The terms . The Greek word for ‘bishop’ is common in the general sense of an overseer , and in particular of sundry municipal officers. In LXX [Note: Septuagint.] it is used in   Isaiah 60:17 of taskmasters, in   Nehemiah 11:19 of minor officials, and in 1Ma 1:51 of the commissioners of Antiochus who enforced idolatry. But, so far as we can see, it was not the common name for the treasurers of private associations.

In the NT the word is found five times. In  Acts 20:28 St. Paul reminds the elders of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost has made them bishops over the flock; in   Philippians 1:1 he sends a greeting to the saints at Philippi ‘with bishops and deacons’; in   1 Timothy 3:2 he tells Timothy that ‘the bishop must be blameless,’ etc.; in   Titus 1:7 he gives a similar charge to Titus; and   1 Peter 2:25 speaks of Christ as ‘the shepherd and bishop of your souls.’

In the OT the word ‘elder’ is used from early times of an official class having jurisdiction both civil and religious, so that when synagogues were built, the elders of the city would naturally be the elders of the synagogue, with the right of regulating the services and excluding offenders.

In NT times the idea would be carried over to the churches. It is indirectly recognized in  Luke 22:26; but we cannot infer the existence of elders from   Acts 5:6 , for ‘the younger men’ who carry out Ananias are simply ‘the young men’ in   Acts 5:10 when they carry out Sapphira. The first clear trace of Christian elders is at Jerusalem. In   Acts 11:30 (a.d. 44) they receive the offerings from Barnabas and Saul; in   Acts 15:6 (a.d. 50) they take part in the Conference; in   Acts 21:18 (a.d. 58) they join in the welcome to St. Paul. Earlier than this may be   James 5:14 , where the word seems to denote officials. After this we hear no more of them till the Pastoral Epistles and 1Peter.

For the last two hundred years it has been generally agreed that bishops and elders in the NT and for some time later are substantially identical. For (1) bishops and elders are never joined, like bishops and deacons, as distinct classes of officials. (2)  Philippians 1:1 is addressed ‘to bishops and deacons.’ Had there been an intermediate class of elders, it could not well have been omitted. So   1 Timothy 3:1-16 ignores the elders, though (  1 Timothy 5:17 ) there were elders at Ephesus, and had been (  Acts 20:17 ) for some time. Conversely,   Titus 1:6-7 describes elders instead, and nearly in the same words. (3) The bishop described to Timothy, the elders of   Acts 20:1-38 , those of   1 Timothy 5:17 , those described to Titus, and those of   1 Peter 5:2 , all seem to hold a subordinate position, and to have rather pastoral duties than what we should call episcopal. (4) The same persons are called elders and bishops (  Acts 20:17;   Acts 20:28 ). The words are also synonymous in Clement of Rome, and (by implication) in the Teaching of the Apostles and in Polycarp. Ignatius is the first writer who makes a single bishop ruler of a Church; and even he pleads no Apostolic command for the change.

The general equivalence of the two offices in the Apostolic age seems undeniable; and if there were minor differences between them, none have been clearly traced. The only serious doubt is whether bishops and deacons originally denoted offices at all. The words rather describe functions. Thus  Philippians 1:1 ‘to bishops and deacons’ (no article) will mean ‘such as oversee and such as serve’ that is, the higher and the lower officials, whatever titles they may bear. This would seem proved by   Titus 1:5;   Titus 1:7 ‘that thou appoint elders …, for the bishop (overseer) must be blameless.’ The argument is that the elder must be so and so, because the bishop must be so and so. This is vain repetition if the bishop is only the elder under another name, and bad logic if he is a ruler over the elders; but it becomes dear if the ‘bishop’ is not a defined official, but an overseer generally. Then, the elder being a particular sort of overseer, the argument will be from a general rule to a particular case.

2. Appointment . At first popular election and Apostolic institution seem to have gone together. The Seven (  Acts 6:5-6 ) are chosen by the people and instituted by the Apostles with prayer and laying-on of hands. In the case of the Lycaonian elders (  Acts 14:23 ) the Apostles ‘appointed’ them with prayer and fastings. Similarly the elders in Crete (  Titus 1:6 ) are ‘appointed’ by Titus, and apparently the bishops at Ephesus by Timothy. In these cases popular election and laying-on of hands are not mentioned; but neither are they excluded.   1 Timothy 5:22 does not refer to ordination at all, nor   Hebrews 6:2 to ordination only. The one is of the laying-on of hands in restoring offenders, while the other takes in all occasions of laying-on of hands. But in any case Timothy and Titus would have to approve the candidate before instituting him, so that the description of his qualifications is no proof that they had to select him in the first instance. Conversely, popular election is very prominent (Clement, and Teaching ) in the next age; but neither does this exclude formal approval and institution. The elders are already attached (  1 Timothy 4:14 ) to the Apostles in the conveyance of special gifts; and when the Apostles died out, they would act alone in the institution to local office. The development of an episcopate is a further question, and very much a question of words if the bishop (in the later sense) was gradually developed upward from the elders. But the next stage after this was that, while the bishop instituted his own elders, he was himself instituted by the neighbouring bishops, or in still later times by the bishops of the civil province or by a metropolitan. The outline of the process is always the same. First popular election, then formal approval by authority and institution by prayer, with (at least commonly) its symbolic accompaniments of laying-on of hands and fasting.

3. Duties

(1) General superintendence  : Elders in   Acts 20:28 , 1Ti 5:17 ,   1 Peter 5:2;   1 Peter 5:2 (ruling badly); bishops in   1 Timothy 3:5 . Indicated possibly in   1 Corinthians 12:28 ‘helps, governments’: more distinctly in   Ephesians 4:11 ‘pastors and teachers,’ in pointed contrast to ‘apostles, prophets, and evangelists,’ whose office was not local. So   1 Thessalonians 5:12 ‘those that are over you,’   Romans 12:8 ‘he that ruleth.’ and   Hebrews 13:7;   Hebrews 13:17;   Hebrews 13:24 ‘them that have the rule over you,’ remind us of the bishops and elders who rule (  1 Timothy 3:4;   1 Timothy 5:17 ). So, too, the ‘rulers’ in Clement must be bishops or elders, for these bishops plainly have no earthly superior, so that they must be themselves the rulers.

Under this head we may place the share taken by the elders: ( a ) at Jerusalem (  Acts 15:6 ) in the deliberations of the Apostolic Conference, and (  Acts 21:18 ) in the reception held by James; ( b ) elsewhere (  1 Timothy 4:14 ) in the laying-on of hands on Timothy, whether that corresponds to ordination or to something else.

(2) Teaching  :   1 Thessalonians 5:12 rulers admonishing in the Lord;   1 Timothy 3:2 the bishop apt to teach;   1 Timothy 5:17 double honour to the elders who rule well, especially those who toil in word and teaching;   Titus 1:9 the elder or bishop must be able to teach, and to convince the gainsayers. Yet   1 Timothy 5:17 seems to imply that elders might rule well who toiled in other duties than word and teaching; and if so, these were not the sole work of all elders.

Preaching is rather connected with the unlocal ministry of apostles, prophets, and evangelists: but in their absence the whole function of public worship would devolve on the local ministry of bishops and deacons. This becomes quite plain in the Teaching and in Clement.

(3) Pastoral care  : This is conspicuous everywhere. To it we may also refer: ( a ) visiting of the sick (  James 5:14 ) with a view to anointing and cure not as a viaticum at the approach of death; ( b ) care of strangers and a fortiori of the poor (  1 Timothy 3:2 ,   Titus 1:8 , the bishop to be a lover of strangers).

H. M. Gwatkin.

Fausset's Bible Dictionary

Greek Episkopos , applied to the inspectors sent by Athens to her subject states, to inquire into their state, to rule and defend them. The Greek speaking Jews or Hellenists applied it in the Septuagint to officers who had "the oversight of the tabernacle" ( Numbers 4:16;  Numbers 31:14), "the officers overseeing the host" ( Psalms 109:8, "his charge of overseeing let another take," quoted in  Acts 1:20 "his bishopric";  Isaiah 60:17, "thine overseers righteousness." Presbyter or elder was the term in the Christian church at Jerusalem for the pastoral superintendent; episcopus or bishop was naturally adopted in Gentile Christian churches, the word being already in use among the Greeks. The terms were originally equivalent; Presbuteros (whence "priest" comes by contraction) marking the age, rank, and respect due to him, episcopus marking his official duty.

Bishops and deacons are the two orders alone mentioned in  Philippians 1:1. The plural shows there was more than one bishop and more than one deacon there. Those called "elders" (presbyters) are also termed "overseers" (bishops, Greek) as if the terms were interchangeable ( Acts 20:17;  Acts 20:28;  Titus 1:5;  Titus 1:7). The presbyters discharged episcopal functions, i.e. overseeing the flock ( 1 Timothy 5:17;  1 Peter 5:1-2). So in the epistles of Clement of Rome the two terms are interchangeable. But in Ignatius' epistles the bishop is regarded as superior to the presbyter. However, in the genuine epistles, in the Syriac version edited by Cureton, the bishop is much less exalted. "Elder" is the correlative term to "younger men" (Greek Neoteroi ),  Acts 5:6. "Elders" are first mentioned in the church in Judaea ( Acts 11:30).

Paul and Barnabas transplanted the same Jewish government to the Gentile churches ( Acts 14:23) by "ordaining elders in every church." "Bishops" are first mentioned in Paul's address at Miletus ( Acts 20:28), describing the duty of the elders, namely, to be faithful "overseers." Then, during Paul's first imprisonment, in  Philippians 1:1 "bishops" is the recognized term for "elders" Every Jewish synagogue had its council of "elders" ( Luke 7:3) presided over by one of themselves, "the chief ruler of the synagogue." In their apostleship the apostles have no successors, for the signs of an apostle have not been transmitted. But the presidents over the presbyters and deacons, while still continuing of the same order as the presbyters, have succeeded virtually, by whatever name designated, angel, bishop, moderator, to a superintendency analogous to that exercised by the apostles, and evidently derived from the synagogue; see Vitringa, Synag. 2, chapters 3, 7.

The superintending pastor of each of the seven churches is in Revelation called its "angel," (the abuse of the term "apostle" by pretenders led to its restriction to the twelve and Paul,  Revelation 2:2) just as in Old Testament the prophet Haggai ( Haggai 1:13) is termed "the Lord's messenger (angel) in the Lord's message." In the larger churches, as Ephesus and Smyrna, there were many presbyters, but only one angel under the one "chief Shepherd and Bishop of Souls," the term "bishop" thus being applicable to the highest pastoral superintendence ( 1 Peter 2:25;  1 Peter 5:4). The enigmatic symbolism of Revelation transfers the term of office, angel, from Jehovah's heavenly to His earthly ministers; reminding them that, like angels above, they should do God's will lovingly and perfectly.

The "legate (angel) of the church" ( Sheliach Tsibbur ) recited the prayers in the name of the assembled worshippers in the synagogue; the apostles, as Jews, naturally followed this pattern, under God's providential sanction: compare  James 2:2, "assembly," Greek synagogue,"  2 Corinthians 8:23. Timothy either at his ordination as presbyter, or else consecration as temporary overseer or bishop over Ephesus, received a spiritual gift "by prophecy," i.e. by the Spirit speaking through the prophets ( Acts 13:1-3;  1 Timothy 1:18;  1 Timothy 4:14-15), accompanied "WITH the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." The laying on of hands symbolized the impartation of spiritual strength; as in Joshua's case ( Numbers 27:18-20;  Deuteronomy 34:9). The "with" implies that the presbyters' laying on of hands accompanied the conferring of the gift. The "by" in  2 Timothy 1:6 implies that Paul was the more immediate instrument of conferring it: "stir up the gift of God which is in thee BY the putting on of my hands."

The Jewish council was composed of the elders (the presbytery,  Luke 22:66;  Acts 22:5), and a presiding rabbi; so the Christian church was composed of elders and a president ( Acts 15:19;  Acts 15:23). At the ordination of the president three presbyters were always present to lay on hands; so the early church canons required three bishops to be present at the consecration of a bishop. The president ordained in both cases as the representative, in the name of the presbytery. Ordination (compare  Acts 6:6;  Acts 13:3) is meant in  1 Timothy 5:22, "lay hands suddenly (without careful inquiry into his character beforehand) on no man"; not, as Ellicott explains, "receive penitent backsliders into church fellowship by laying on hands." The qualifications are stated in  1 Timothy 3:1-7.

"Husband of one wife" confutes the Roman Catholic celibacy. He who has a virtuous wife and family will more attractively teach those who have similar ties, not only by precept but by example. The Jews teach a priest should neither be unmarried nor childless, test he be unmerciful. Yet as Jews and Gentiles regarded second marriages with prejudice (compare Anna,  Luke 2:36-37), and a bishop ought to stand well in the esteem of his flock, he should be married but once. That prohibition no longer holds good, now that no such prejudice exists, which might otherwise have required lawful liberty to yield to Christian expediency. The prohibition may also refer to a second marriage after a divorce. Of ruing (presiding, Greek) presbyters there were two kinds, those who "labored in the word and teaching," and those who did not. The former were to receive "double honor" and remuneration. Both had "government" ( 1 Corinthians 12:28).

The "apostle" and evangelist" preached to the pagan, but the bishop-presbyter's office was pastoral ( Titus 1:9;  1 Thessalonians 5:12), including ministration to the sick ( James 5:14). Timothy as vicar apostolic heard accusations against elders, and deposed the guilty, and ordained presbyters and deacons ( 1 Timothy 5:19;  Titus 3:10). The presiding bishops in the next age naturally succeeded in a permanent and settled sphere to these duties, which were previously discharged in a less settled charge by the apostles and their deputies, who moved from place to place. The sum of the arguments amounts to this, that episcopacy in the sense of superintendency, not in that of succession to the apostleship, has the apostolic precedent to recommend it; but no directions for the form of church government so positive and explicit as those in the Old Testament concerning the Aaronic priesthood and Levitical ministry are laid down in the New Testament as to the Christian ministry.

Various other orders and gifts are mentioned besides bishop-presbyters and deacons, with superintending apostles and apostolic vicars (as Timothy and Titus). These have not been permanent in all times and places ( 1 Corinthians 12:28;  Ephesians 4:11-12). The absence of literal, positive directions as to church government, and the statement of the broad principle, "Let all things be done unto edifying"  1 Corinthians 14:26), and the continual presence of the Holy Spirit in the church to raise up fresh agencies for fresh needs of the church, while justifying episcopacy in its general following of the apostolic order, show us that it is not exclusively the divine platform, but that in all churches holding the essential truths of Scripture "we ought to judge those ministers lawfully called and sent, who be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." (Ch. of Eng. Art. 23)

Holman Bible Dictionary

episkopos  Acts 20:28 Philippians 1:1 1 Timothy 3:2 Titus 1:7 1 Peter 2:25

Prior to the advent of Christianity episkopos meant “inspector,” “watchman,” or “overseer.” It was used of the finance officers of Greek guilds and of the officers Athens sent to its subject-states. Finance officers administered revenues for Greek temples.

One of the five usages of episkopos in the New Testament was as a title applied to Jesus: “the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (  1 Peter 2:25 ). The other four uniformly referred to one who had a role or office in an early Gentile Christian congregation. In addressing the elders of the church of Ephesus the Apostle Paul stated, “the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers ( episcopous ), to feed the church of God” ( Acts 20:28 ). In the salutation to his Epistle to the Philippians he greeted “the bishops and deacons” of the church at Philippi ( Acts 1:1 ). In  1 Timothy 3:1-7 qualifications were given for a “bishop”: reputation, marital status, character traits, hospitality, teaching ability, non-drunkenness, attitude toward money, responsible parenthood, and length of time as a Christian. A similar list of qualifications for a “bishop” appears in   Titus 1:6-9 .

The noun episkope , meaning “overseership,” “bishopric,” or “office,” appears in  Acts 1:20 (a quotation from   Psalm 109:8 ) and in  1 Timothy 3:1 . The verb episkopeo , meaning “to exercise oversight,” appears in some Greek New Testament manuscripts and hence some English translations (Kjv, Asv ) in  1 Peter 5:2 .

Paul, addressing the Ephesian “elders,” reminded them that the Holy Spirit made them “overseers” ( episkopous ) “to feed (verb which is cognate to the noun “pastor”) the church of the Lord.” From this many conclude that in Paul's time “elder,” “bishop,” and “pastor” were terms used to describe three different functions of the same Christian leader, not three distinct ministerial offices. Moreover, according to  Philippians 1:1 the church at Philippi had more than one bishop.

During the second century A.D. churches came to have a single bishop, and then that bishop came to exercise oversight over nearby rural churches as well as the city church so that his ecclesiastical territory became known as a “diocese” or “see” (“eparchy” in the East). Bishops of churches that had been founded by apostles were said to be in succession to the apostles, and hence their teaching was held to be authentic and their authority collegial. By 400 A.D. in the West, the bishop of Rome began to assume extraordinary authority above other bishops.

Today the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Old Catholic Church, the Anglican communion, and the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden teach the doctrine of apostolic (or episcopal) succession. Other Lutheran bodies, the United Methodist Church (USA), and the Moravian Church have bishops who serve as superintendents.

James Leo Garrett, Jr.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words

1: Ἐπίσκοπος (Strong'S #1985 — Noun Masculine — episkopos — ep-is'-kop-os )

lit., "an overseer" (epi, "over," skopeo, "to look or watch"), whence Eng. "bishop," which has precisely the same meaning, is found in  Acts 20:28;  Philippians 1:1;  1—Timothy 3:2;  Titus 1:7;  1—Peter 2:25 . See Overseer.

 Acts 20:17  Acts 20:28 Acts 14:23 20:17 Philippians 1:1 Titus 1:5 James 5:14 1—Timothy 3:2 Titus 1:7 1—Peter 2:25Elder.

2: Ἐπισκοπή (Strong'S #1984 — Noun Feminine — episkope — ep-is-kop-ay' )

besides its meaning, "visitation," e.g.,  1—Peter 2:12 (cp. the Sept. of   Exodus 3:16;  Isaiah 10:3;  Jeremiah 10:15 ), is rendered "office," in  Acts 1:20 , RV (AV, "bishoprick"); in  1—Timothy 3:1 , "the office of a bishop," lit., "(if any one seeketh) overseership," there is no word representing office.

 1—Peter 5:2Oversight.

King James Dictionary

BISH'OP, n. L. episcopus Gr. of, over, and inspector, or visitor to view, or inspect whence, to visit also, to view. This Greek and Latin word accompanied the introduction of christianity into the west and north of Europe.

1. An overseer a spiritual superintendent, ruler or director applied to Christ.

Ye were as sheep going astray, but are now returned to the shepherd and bishop of your souls. 1. Pet 2

2. In the primitive church, a spiritual overseer an elder or presbyter one who had the pastoral care of a church.

The same persons are in this chapter called elders or presbyters,and overseers or bishops. Scott,Comm.  Acts 20

Till the churches were multiplied, the bishops and presbyters were the same. Ib.  Philippians 1:1 .  1. Tim 3:1.  Titus 1.7 .

Both the Greek and Latin fathers do, with one consent, declare, that bishops were called presbyters, and presbyters bishops, in apostolic times, the name being then common.

3. In the Greek, Latin, and some Protestant churches, a prelate, or person consecrated for the spiritual government and direction of a diocese. In Great Britain, bishops are nominated by the king, who, upon request of the dean and chapter, for leave to elect a bishop, sends a conge d'elire, or license to elect, with a letter missive, nominating the person whom he would have chosen. The election, by the chapter, must be made within twelve days, or the king has a right to appoint whom he pleases. Bishops are consecrated by an archbishop, with two assistant bishops. A bishop must be thirty years of age and all bishops, except the bishop of Man, are peers of the realm.

By the canons of the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States, no diocese or state shall proceed to the election of a bishop, unless there are at least six officiating presbyters residing therein, who shall be qualified, according to the canons, to vote for a bishop a majority of whom at least must concur in the election. But the conventions of two or more dioceses, or states, having together nine or more such presbyters,may join in the election of a bishop. A convention is composed of the clergy, and a lay delegation, consisting of one or more members from each parish. In every state, the bishop is to be chosen according to such rules as the convention of that state shall ordain. The mode of election, in most or all of the states,is by a concurrent vote of the clergy and laity, in convention, each body voting separately. Before a bishop can be consecrated, he must receive a testimonial of approbation from the General Convention of the church or if that is not in session, from a majority of the standing committee in the several dioceses. The mode of consecrating bishops and ordaining priests and deacons differs not essentially from the practice in England.

Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary

פקיר . επισκοπος , signifies an overseer, or one who has the inspection and direction of any thing. Nehemiah speaks of the overseer of the Levites at Jerusalem,   Nehemiah 11:22 . The most common acceptation of the word bishop is that in   Acts 20:28 , and in St. Paul's Epistles, Php_1:1 , where it signifies the pastor of a church. St. Peter calls Jesus Christ "the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,"  1 Peter 2:25; and St. Paul describes the qualities requisite in a bishop,  1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1, 2, &c. It is not improbable that the overseers of Christ's church are in the New Testament called επισκοποι , from the following passage in Isaiah: "I will also make thy officers peace, and thine overseers" ( επισκοπους ), "righteousness,"  Isaiah 60:17 . The word, as used by the Apostolic writers, when referring to the pastors of Christian churches, is evidently of the same import as presbyter or elder; for the terms, as they occur in the New Testament, appear to be synonymous, and are used indifferently. Thus the same persons that are called επισκοποι , bishops are also called ωρεσβυτεροι , elders. Hence, when St. Paul came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus for the presbyters of the church, and thus addressed them: "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you" (the presbyters) " επισκοπους , bishops," or overseers,  Acts 20:17 . "Here, says Dr. Campbell, "there can be no question that the same persons are denominated presbyters and bishops." Nor is this the only passage in which we find the terms used convertibly. In  Titus 1:5 , it is said, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders" (Greek πρεσβυτερους ) "in every city;" and then it follows in  Titus 1:7 , "For a bishop" (επισκοπον ) "must be blameless." In like manner, the Apostle Peter,  1 Peter 5:1 : "The elders" (πρεσβυτερους ) "which are among you I exhort; feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof; επισκοπουντες , that is, discharging the office of bishops." See Episcopacy .

Morrish Bible Dictionary

The Greek word ἐπίσκοπος is once translated 'overseer,'  Acts 20:28 , and this occurrence shows conclusively that the 'elders' and the 'bishops' were the same. Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus,  Acts 20:17 , and called them 'overseers.' The same thing is seen in the epistle to Titus: Paul left Titus in Crete to "ordain elders in every city . . . . for a bishop must be blameless."  Titus 1:5-7 . The above two passages prove that, instead of a bishop being set over a large district, with inferior clergy (as they are called) under him, as is now the custom in Christendom, each city had more than one bishop or overseer, and at that time there was only one assembly in a city. Titus was to ordain (literally 'to appoint') elders in every city.

In  Titus 1 : and in  1 Timothy 3:1-7 the qualifications necessary for a bishop are given. Special gifts are not mentioned, but moral qualities are essential. A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, having his children in subjection, etc.; but he must be able to 'take care' of the church of God, and be 'apt to teach.' The bishops of Ephesus were exhorted to take heed to all the flock, and to feed the church of God. Though an apostle or his delegate was the instrument used in the appointment of the bishops, and thus the unity of the church was preserved, Paul could say "the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers."   Acts 20:28 .

Elders were established to exercise godly care in the undivided local assembly — to 'shepherd' the flock. Any attempt to appoint them now would be, not only without the necessary apostolic authority, but would ignore the divided state of the church. Such elders could only assume authority over a fragment of the church in a locality, and that with no apostolic sanction. That no security for the church was to be found in them is proved by the warning of the apostle, that among themselves should men arise, speaking perverse things; and in view of this he commends them, not to some ecclesiastical authority, or to a church council, but "to God, and to the word of his grace," a resource which all Christians still have. Happily there are now servants of God who care for the saints, those who are 'apt to teach,' and gifted to feed the flock of God; and who, without any apostolic appointment, addict themselves to the work of the ministry, as did the house of Stephanas in early days.  1 Corinthians 16:15 . All such should be acknowledged, and be highly esteemed for their work's sake. In one passage the Lord is Himself called the Shepherd and Bishop of souls; and who can care for and feed His saints as He?  1 Peter 2:25 .

People's Dictionary of the Bible

Bishop.  1 Timothy 3:2. The original word means "overseer," such as Joseph was in Potiphar's house,  Genesis 39:4, or as the 3600 men were in Solomon's temple,  2 Chronicles 2:18, or as Uzzi was of the Levites,  Nehemiah 11:22. In the New Testament the term is synonymous with presbyter or elder, with this difference—that bishop is borrowed from the Greek and signifies the function; presbyter is derived from an office in the synagogue and signifies the dignity of the same office. Comp.  Acts 20:17;  Acts 20:28;  Philippians 1:1-30;  Philippians 1:1-30;  1 Timothy 3:1 ff.;  Titus 1:5 ff. These presbyters or bishops of the apostolic period were the regular teachers and pastors, preachers and leaders, of the congregations. We may imagine, however, that among themselves there would be a division made according to individual fitness. Each congregation of Christians as gathered by the apostles, was organized into a church, having a number of elders, or bishops, ordained over it,  Acts 15:23;  Acts 20:17;  Acts 20:28;  Philippians 1:1;  Titus 1:5;  Titus 1:7, indicating that the office was the same. See Elder.

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Bishop. The word originally signified an "Overseer" or Spiritual Superintendent. The titles, bishop and elder, or presbyter, were essentially equivalent. Bishop is from the Greek, and denotes One Who Exercises The Function Of Overseeing. Presbyter was derived from the office in the synagogue. Of the order in which the first elders or bishops were appointed, as of the occasion which led to the institution of the office, we have no record. The duties of the bishop-elders appear to have been as follows:

1. General superintendence over the spiritual well-being of the flock.  1 Peter 5:2.

2. The work of teaching, both publicly and privately.  1 Thessalonians 5:12;  Titus 1:9;  1 Timothy 5:17.

3. The work of visiting the sick,  James 5:14.

4. Among other acts of charity, that of receiving strangers, occupied a conspicuous place.  1 Timothy 3:2;  Titus 1:8. Peter calls Christ , "the shepherd and bishop of your souls."  1 Peter 2:25.

Charles Buck Theological Dictionary

A prelate consecrated for the spiritual government of a diocese. The word comes from the Saxon bishop, and that from the Greek meaning an overseer, or inspector. It is a long time since bishops have been distinguished from mere priests, or presbyters; but whether that distinction be of divine or human right; whether it was settled in the apostolic age, or introduced since, is much controverted. Churchmen in general plead for the divine right; while the Dissenters suppose that the word no where signifies more than a pastor or presbyter; the very same persons being called bishops and elders, or prebyters,  Acts 20:1-38;  1 Peter 5:1;  1 Peter 5:3 .  Titus 1:5;  Titus 1:7 .  Philippians 1:1 .

See EPISCOPACY. All the bishops of England are peers of the realm, except the bishop of Man; and as such sit and vote in the house of lords. Besides two archbishops, there are twenty-four bishops in England, exclusive of the bishop of Sodor and Man. The bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester, take the precedence of the other bishops, who rank after them according to their seniority of consecration.

See EPISCOPACY.

Webster's Dictionary

(1): (n.) A spiritual overseer, superintendent, or director.

(2): (n.) In the Methodist Episcopal and some other churches, one of the highest church officers or superintendents.

(3): (v. t.) To admit into the church by confirmation; to confirm; hence, to receive formally to favor.

(4): (n.) A piece used in the game of chess, bearing a representation of a bishop's miter; - formerly called archer.

(5): (n.) An old name for a woman's bustle.

(6): (n.) A beverage, being a mixture of wine, oranges or lemons, and sugar.

(7): (n.) In the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Anglican or Protestant Episcopal churches, one ordained to the highest order of the ministry, superior to the priesthood, and generally claiming to be a successor of the Apostles. The bishop is usually the spiritual head or ruler of a diocese, bishopric, or see.

(8): (v. t.) To make seem younger, by operating on the teeth; as, to bishop an old horse or his teeth.

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

An overseer, one who has the charge and direction of any thing. The most common acceptation of the word in the New Testament, is that which occurs  Acts 20:28   Philippians 1:1 , where it signifies Christ "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls,"  1 Peter 2:25 . Paul describes the qualities requisite in bishops,  1 Timothy 3:2   Titus 1:7 , etc.; Christ himself is their great exemplar.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 Acts 20:17-28 1 Peter 5:1,2 Philippians 1:1 1 Timothy 3 1 Peter 2:25

Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types

 1 Peter 2:25 (a) This title is given to the Lord Jesus in regard to His right to rule over the religious life and affairs of the church.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

See Overseer

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

a term derived through the Saxon (biscop) from the Greek ( Ἐπίσκοπος , episcopus, Overseer) as a title of office in the Christian ministry. In the Septuagint the word designates a holder of public office, whether civil or religious (e.g.  2 Chronicles 34:12;  2 Chronicles 34:17;  Isaiah 40:17). In classical use the word ordinarily has a political meaning; Cicero is called Episcopus Orse and Campanic. "The inspectors or commissioners sent by Athens to her subject states were Ἐπίσκοποι (Aristoph. Av. 1022), and their office, like that of the Spartan harmosts, authorized them to interfere in all the political arrangements of the state to which they were sent. The title was still current and beginning to be used by the Romans in the later days of the republic (Cic. ad Att. 7:11). The Hellenistic Jews found it employed in the Sept., though with no very definite import, for officers charged with certain functions ( Numbers 4:16;  Numbers 31:14;  2 Kings 11:16;  2 Kings 11:19;  Judges 9:28; for Heb. פָּקוּד , etc.; so in Wisd. i, 6;  1 Maccabees 1:53; comp. Joseph. Ant. 12:5, 4). When the organization of the Christian churches in Gentile cities involved the assignment of the work of pastoral superintendence to a distinct class, the title Ἐπίσκοπος presented itself as at once convenient and familiar, and was therefore adopted as readily as the word elder ( Πρεσβύτερος ) had been in the mother Church of Jerusalem." (See Elder); (See Overseer).

In the early Church, the title was employed either in relation to the pastor of one church or assembly of 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, Coptic, 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, Russia, and several German states), the Moravians, the Mennonites. In some Protestant churches, those of Prussia and Nassau, where the consistorial constitution prevails, the name designates more a title of honor conferred on the superintendents general than a distinct office.

"Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists agree in one point, viz., that it is lawful for Christians to take a step for which they have no clear precedent in the Scripture, that, of breaking up a Church, when it becomes of unwieldy magnitude, into fixed divisions, whether parishes or congregations. The question 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 different parts of a great city no more need to be in organic union than those of two different cities; (2) Presbyterians would keep up the union by means of a synod of the elders; (3) Episcopalians desire to unite the separate churches by retaining them under the supervision of a single head-the bishop. It seems impossible to refer to the practice of the apostles as deciding in favor of any one of these methods, for the case had not yet arisen which could have led to the discussion. The city churches had not yet 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 deliberation 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 establishment and the support of the civil government" (Kitto, Cyclopedia, s.v.). For the controversy as to the office of bishops, (See Episcopacy); here we simply give, first, Biblical applications of the word in connection with Πρεσβύτερος ; 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 appointed men to superintend the spiritual, and occasionally even the secular wants of the churches ( Acts 14:23;  Acts 11:30; see also  2 Timothy 2:2), who were ordinarily called Πρεσβύτεροι , Elders, from their age; sometimes Ἐπίσκοποι , Overseers (bishops), from their office. They are also said Προϊ v Στασθαι , to Preside ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12;  1 Timothy 5:17); never Ἄρχειν , to Rule, which has far too despotic a sound. In the Epistle to the Hebrews ( Hebrews 13:7;  Hebrews 13:17;  Hebrews 13:24) they are named Ἡγούμενοι , leading men (comp.  Acts 15:22), and figuratively Ποιμένες , Shepherds ( Ephesians 4:11). These presbyters were the regular teachers of the Church, expounding Scripture, administering the sacraments, and exercising pastoral care and discipline. They were to be married men with families ( 1 Timothy 3:4), and with converted children ( Titus 1:6). 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 Timothy 3:2;  Titus 1:9; the latter of which passages should be translated, 'That he may he able both to exhort men by sound teaching, and also to refute opposers). That teachers had obtained in Paul's day a fixed official position is manifest from  Galatians 6:6, and  1 Corinthians 9:14, where he claims for them a right to worldly maintenance: in fact, that the Shepherds ordered to 'feed the flock,' and be its 'overseers' ( 1 Peter 5:2), were to feed them with knowledge and instruction, will never be disputed, except to support a hypothesis. The leaders also, in  Hebrews 13:7, are described as ‘ speaking unto you the word of God.' Ecclesiastical history joins in proving that the two offices of teaching and superintending were, with few exceptions, combined 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 distinctive names ( Acts 20:17-28;  1 Peter 5:1-2). The; mention of bishops and deacons in  Philippians 1:1, and  1 Timothy 1:3 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 believed, was employed in appointing elders, although it does not appear that as yet any fixed name was appropriated to the idea of ordination. (The word ordained is inexcusably interpolated in the English version of  Acts 1:22. In  Titus 1:5, the Greek word is Καταστήσῃς , Set, or Set Up; and in  Acts 14:23, it is Χειροτονήσαντες , Having Elected, properly by a show of hands; though, abusively, the term came to mean simply Having Chosen or Nominated [ Acts 10:41 ]; yet in  2 Corinthians 8:19, it seems to have its genuine democratic sense.) In  1 Corinthians 16:15, 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 themselves to such.' It would appear, then, that a formal investiture into the office was not as yet regarded essential. Be this as it may, no one doubts that an ordination 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 Timothy 4:14;  2 Timothy 1:6;  Acts 13:3;  Acts 14:26;  Acts 15:40). To the same effect  Acts 8:17;  Acts 19:6 -passages which explain  Hebrews 6:2. 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 episcopal rank.

"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 only 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 coordinate 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 plausibility, 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 Timothy 4:9), he calls Timothy suddenly to Rome in words which prove that the latter was not, at least as yet, bishop, either of Ephesus or of any other Church. That Timothy was an Evangelist is distinctly stated ( 2 Timothy 4:5), and that he had received spiritual gifts ( 2 Timothy 1:6, etc.); there :is then no difficulty in accounting for the authority vested in him ( 1 Timothy 5:1), without imagining him to have been a bishop, which is, in fact, disproved even by the same epistle ( 1 Timothy 1:3). That Titus, moreover, had no local attachment to Crete, is plain from  Titus 3:13, to say nothing of the earlier epistle. 2 Corinthians passion; 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 himself.

The meaning of the title angel in the opening chapters of the Apocalypse has been mystically explained by some, but its true meaning is clear, from the nomenclature of the Jewish synagogues. In them, we are told, the minister who ordinarily led the prayers of the congregation, besides acting as their chief functionary in matters of business, was entitled צַבּוּר שְׁלַיחִ (See Synagogue), a name which may be translated literally Envoy Of The Congregation, and is here expressed by the Greek Ἄγγελος . The substantive מְלָאכָח also (which by analogy would be rendered Ἀγγελια , as מִלָאךְ is Ἄγγελος ) has the ordinary sense of Work, Service, making it almost certain that the 'angels of the churches' are nothing but a harsh Hebraism 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 signify that the authorship of the Apocalypse is disputed, since its extreme antiquity is beyond a doubt; we 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 ordination, and had been promoted from the rank of presbyters. That this was the case is possible, but there is no proof of it; and while some will regard the question as deeply interesting, others will think it unimportant. 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 many 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 (Galatians 2) 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 probably too numerous ordinarily to meet in a single assembly, 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."

2. The Title Bishop, As Compared With Presbyter, Or Elder. — "That the two titles were originally equivalent is clear from the following facts:

(1.) Ἐπίσκοποι and Πρεσβύτεροι are nowhere named together as being orders distinct from each other.

(2.) Ἐπίσκοποι and Διάκονοι are named as apparently an exhaustive division of the officers of churches addressed by Paul as an apostle ( Philippians 1:1;  1 Timothy 3:1;  1 Timothy 3:8).

(3.) The same persons are described by both names ( Acts 20:17-18;  Titus 1:5;  Titus 1:8).

(4.) Πρεσβύτεροι discharge functions which are essentially episcopal, i.e. involving pastoral superintendence ( 1 Timothy 5:17;  1 Peter 5:1-2). The age which followed that of the apostles witnessed a gradual change in the application of the words, and in the epistles of Ignatius, even in their least interpolated or most mutilated form, the bishop is recognised as distinct from and superior to, the presbyters (Ep. Ad Smyrn. 8; Ad Trail. 2, 3, 8; ad Magn. vi). In those of Clement of Rome, however, the two words are still dealt with as interchangeable (1 Corinthians 42, 44, 57). The omission of any mention of an Ἐπίσκοπος in addition to the Πρεσβύτεροι and Διάκονοι in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (c. v), and the enumeration of 'apostoli, episcopi, doctores, ministri, in the Shepherd of Hermas (1:3, 5), are less decisive, but indicate a transition stage in the history of the word. Assuming as proved the identity of the bishops and elders of the N.T., we have farther (in this connection) only to inquire into, 1, the relation which existed between the two titles; 2, the functions and mode of appointment of the men to whom both titles were applied; 3, their relations to the general government and discipline of the Church. (See Elder).

" (I.) There can be no doubt that Πρεσβύτεροι had the priority in order of time. The existence of a body bearing that name is implied in the use of the correlative Οἱ Νεώτεροι (comp.  Luke 12:26;  1 Peter 5:1;  1 Peter 5:5) in the narrative of Ananias ( Acts 5:6). The order itself is recognised. in  Acts 11:30, and takes part in the deliberations of the Church at Jerusalem in Acts 15. It is transferred by Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile churches in their first missionary journey ( Acts 12:23). The earliest use of Ἐπίσκοποι , on the other hand, is in the address of Paul to the elders at Miletus ( Acts 20:18), and there it is rather descriptive of functions than given as a title. The earliest epistle in which it is formally used as equivalent to Πρεσβύτεροι (except on the improbable hypothesis that 1 Timothy belongs to the period following on Paul's. departure from Ephesus in  Acts 20:1) is that to the Philippians, so late as the time of his first imprisonment at Rome. It was natural, indeed, that this should be the order; that the word derived from the usages of the synagogues of Palestine, every one of which had its superintending elders ( זְקֵנַים ; comp.  Luke 7:3), should precede that borrowed from the constitution of a Greek state. If the latter was afterward felt to be the more adequate, it may have been because there was a life in the organization of the Church higher than that of the synagogues, and functions of pastoral superintendence devolving on the elders of the Christian congregation which were unknown to those of the other periods. It had the merit of being descriptive as well as titular; a 'nomen officii' as well as a 'nomen dignitatis.' It could be associated, as the other could not be, with the thought of the highest pastoral superintendenceof Christ himself as the Ποιμὴν Καὶ Ἐπίσκοπος ( 1 Peter 2:25).

" (II.) Of the order in which the first elders were appointed, as of the occasion which led to the institution of the office, we have no record. Arguing from the analogy of the seven in  Acts 6:5-6, it would seem probable that they were chosen by the members of the Church collectively (possibly to take the place that had been filled by the seven; comp. Stanley's Apost. Age, p. 64), and then set apart to their office by the laying on of the apostles' hands. In the case of Timothy ( 1 Timothy 4:14;  2 Timothy 1:6). the Πρεσβυτέριον , probably the body of the elders at Lystra, had taken part with the apostle in this act of ordination; but here it remains doubtful whether the office to which Timothy was appointed was that of the bishop-elder or one derived from the special commission with which the two epistles addressed to him show him to have been intrusted. The connection of  1 Timothy 5:22, is, on the whole, against our referring the laying on of hands there spoken of to the ordination of elders- (comp. Hammond, in loc.), and the same may be said of  Hebrews 6:2. The imposition of hands was indeed the outward sign of the communication of all spiritual Χαρίσματα , as well as of functions for which such 'gifts' were required, and its use for the latter (as in  1 Timothy 4:14;  2 Timothy 1:6) was connected with its instrumentality in the bestowal of the former. The conditions which were to be observed is choosing these officers, as stated in the pastoral epistles, are blameless life and reputation among those that are without' as well as within the Church, fitness for the work of teaching, the wide kindliness of temper which shows itself in hospitality, the bent 'the husband of one wife' (i.e. according to the most probable interpretation, not divorced and then married to another; but comp. Hammond, Estius, Ellicott, in loc.; see Hasaeus, De Episcopo Δευτερογάμῳ [Brem. n. d.]; Walch, De Episcopo Unius Uxois Ziro [Jen. 1733]), showing powers of government in his own household as well as in self-control, not being a recent and therefore an untried convert. When appointed, the duties of the bishop elders appear to have been as follows:

1. General superintendence over the spiritual well-being of the flock ( 1 Peter 5:2). According to the aspects which this function presented, those on whom it' devolved were described as Ποιμένες ( Ephesians 4:11), Προεστῶτες ( 1 Timothy 5:17), Προϊσταμενοι ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12). Its exercise called for the Χάρισμα Κυβερνήσεως ( 1 Corinthians 12:28). The last two of the above titles imply obviously a recognised rank, as well as work, which would show itself naturally in special marks of honor in the meetings of the Church.

2. The work of teaching, both publicly and privately ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12;  Titus 1:9;  1 Timothy 5:17). At first, it appears from the description of the practices of the Church in  1 Corinthians 14:26, the work of oral teaching, whatever form it assumed, was not limited to any body of men, but was exercised according as each man possessed a special Χἀρισμα for it. Even then, however, there were, as the warnings of that chapter show, some inconveniences attendant on this freedom, and it was a natural remedy to select men for the special function of teaching because they possessed the Χάρισμα , and then gradually to confine that work to them. The work of preaching ( Κηρύσσειν ) to the heathen did not belong, apparently, to the bishop-elders as such, but was the office of the apostle- evangelist. Their duty was to feed The Flock, teaching publicly ( Titus 1:9), opposing errors, admonishing privately ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12).

3. The work of visiting the sick appears in  James 5:14 as assigned to the elders of the Church. There, indeed, it is connected with the practice of anointing as a means of healing, but this office of Christian sympathy would not, we may believe, be confined to the exercise of the extraordinary Χαρίσματα Ἰαμάτων , and it is probably to this, and to acts of a like kind, that we are to refer the Ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι Τῶν Ἀσθενούντων of  Acts 19:34, and the Ἀντιλήψεις of  1 Corinthians 12:28.

4. Among these acts of charity that of receiving strangers occupied a conspicuous place ( 1 Timothy 3:2;  Titus 1:8). The bishop-elder's house was to be the house of the Christian who arrived in a strange city and found himself without a friend.

5. Of the part taken by them in the liturgical meetings of the Church we have no distinct evidence. Reasoning from the language of  1 Corinthians 10:12, and from the practices of the post-apostolic age, we may believe that they would preside at such meetings, that it would belong to them to bless and to give thanks when the Church met to break bread.

"The mode in which these officers of the Church were supported or remunerated varied probably in different cities. At Miletus Paul exhorts the elders of the Church to follow his example and work for: their own livelihood ( Acts 19:34). In  1 Corinthians 11:14, and  Galatians 6:6, he asserts the right of the ministers of the Church to be supported by it. In  1 Timothy 5:17, he gives a special application of the principle in the assignment of a double allowance ( Τιμή , comp. Hammond, In Loc.) to those who have been conspicuous for their. activity.

"Collectively at Jerusalem, and probably in other churches, the body of bishop-elders took part in deliberations ( Acts 15:6-22;  Acts 21:18), addressed other churches (ibid. 15:23), were joined with the apostles in the work of ordaining by the laying on of hands ( 2 Timothy 1:6). It lay in the necessities of any organized society that such a body of men should be subject to a power higher than their own, whether vested in one chosen by themselves or deriving its authority from some external source; and we find accordingly that it belonged to the delegate of an apostle, and, afortiori, to the apostle himself, to receive accusations against them, to hear evidence, to admonish where there was the hope of amendment, to depose where this proved unavailing" ( 1 Timothy 5:19;  1 Timothy 4:1;  Titus 3:10). (See Superintendent).

It seems therefore to be certain that not only were the titles "bishop" and "presbyter" uniformly interchangeable in the New Testament, but also that but one office was designated by these two names. The "bishop" of the N.T. is not to be thought of as a diocesan bishop, such as those of the Roman or other churches of later times, but only as an authorized officer of the Church and congregation. "The identity of presbyters and bishops in the Apostolic Church was acknowledged by the most learned Church fathers, on exegetical grounds, even after the Catholic episcopal system (whose origin was referred to the Apostolate) had come to its full form and force. We confine ourselves to the most important. Jerome says, ad Tit. i, 7: Idem est ergo presbyter qui episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent... communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesiee gubernabantur. Again, Ep st. 85, ad Evagrium (in the later copies, ad Evangelum): Nam quum apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse preshyteros et episcopos, etc. Finally, Ep. 82, ad Oceanum (al. 83): In utraque epistola (the first to Timothy and that to Titus) sive episcopi sive presbyteri (quamquam apud veteres iidem episcopi et presbyteri fuerint, quia illud nomen dignitatis est, hoc aetatis) jubentur monogami in clerum elegi. So Ambrosiaster, ad  Ephesians 4:11, and the author of the PseudoAugustinian Quoestiones V. et N.T. qu. 101. Among the Greek fathers, Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Philipp. says: Συνεπισκόποις (so he reads  Philippians 1:1, instead of Ἐπισκόποις Καὶ Διακόνοις . Τί Τοῦτο; Μιᾶς Πόλεως Πολλοὶ Ἐπίσκοποι ῏Ησαν; '''''Ο''''' '''''Ù''''' Δαμῶς Ἀλλὰτοὺς Πρεσβυτέρους Οὕτως Ἐκάλεσε Τότε Γάρ Τέως Ἐκοινώνουν Τοῖς Ὀνόμασι , Καὶ Διάκονος Ὁ Ἐπίσκοπος Ἐλέγετο , Κ . Τ . Λ . Still more plainly Theodoret, Ad Phil. i, 1 Ἐ ῏Πισκόπους Δὲ Τοὺς Πρεσβυτέρους Καλεῖ , Ἀμφότεραγὰρ Εϊ v Χον Κατ Ἐκεῖνον Τὸν Καιρὸν Τὰ Ὀνόματα , for which he quotes texts already given. So again Ad Timothy 3: 1: Ἐπίσκοπον Δέ Ἐνταῦθα Τὸν Πρεβυτέρον Λέγει , Κ . Ι . Λ . Even theologians of the Middle Ages maintained this view, among whom Pope Urban II (A.D. 1091) is especially worthy of note: Sacros autema ordines dicimus diaconatum et presbyteratum. Hos siquidem solos primitiva legitur ecclesia habuisse; super his solum preceptum habemus apostoli. Among the later Roman Catholic expositors, Mack (Pastoralbriefe des Ap. Paulus, Tub. 1836, p. 60 sq.) grants in full the identity of the N.T. presbyters and bishops; he sees in them the later presbyters, and takes the later bishops, on the contrary, for the successors of the apostles and their immediate assistants. This last view is undoubtedly, from the Roman Catholic stand- point, the only tenable derivation of the episcopate. Among Protestant interpreters and historians, this identity has always been asserted; and this even by many learned Episcopalians, e.g. Dr. Whitby, who, on  Philippians 1:1, admits: 'Both the Greek and Latin fathers do with one consent declare that bishops were called presbyters and presbyters bishops in apostolic times, the names being then common.' See also, as a recent authority, Bloomfield on  Acts 20:17 (Grk. Test. Eng. Notes, etc., vol. i, p. 560, Phil. ed.)." - Schaff, Apost. Ch. § 132; Stanley, Ap. Age, 63-77; Neander, Planting, etc., i, 168, Cunninghaim, Hist. Theol. ch.viii. (See Episcopacy).

II. Ecclesiastical Usages Respecting Bishops

1. Names And Titles. — In the early centuries the following titles were employed with reference to the bishops: The scriptural appellations Προϊστάμενοι , Προεστῶτες (see  1 Thessalonians 5:12;  1 Timothy 5:17) were translated into Latin by proepositi (whence our word provost), and were retained by the Greek fathers. We have also antistites and prcesules, used in the same signification. In nearly the same sense was the term Πρόεδροι , presidentes, presidents, used; Ἔφοροι , Inspectors; Angeli Ecclese, angels of the churches. Summi Sacerdotes and Pontifices Maximi owe their origin to the practice of deducing the ecclesiastical constitution from the priest of the Hebrew temple. They are also called Patres, Patres Ecclesice, Patres Clercorum, and Patres Patrum, fathers, fathers of the Church, fathers of the clergy, and fathers of the fathers. In early times they were Called Patriarchs, as being the superiors of the presbyters; afterward the title became equivalent to archbishop. In allusion to their appointment by Christ, they were called Vicars Of Christ. This title was assumed by many bishops before its exclusive appropriation by the bishop of Rome. In some early writers we meet with the term Ἄρχοντες Ἐκκλησιῶν , governors or rulers of the churches. Various other epithets are applied to them, such as Blessed, Most Blessed, Holy, Most Holy. In the Roman Church, the English Church, and the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, bishops are now styled right reverend. In England they belong to the House of Lords, and are styled lord. In the Methodist Episcopal Church they are simply styled reverend, like other ordained ministers.

2. Classes.-The episcopal order in some churches is divided into four degrees, the same as to order, but differing in jurisdiction, viz.:

(1.) Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, etc.;

(2.) Primates, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc.;

(3.) Metropolitans, bishops of capital cities; and

(4.) Simple Bishops. The Roman Church recognises in the pope a Fifth order, that of sovereign pontiff, or head of the whole Church. We meet also with classes of inferior bishops. Among these may be mentioned vacui, vacantes, bishops without cures. Some of these had vacated their office in times of persecution or religious commotion. Titular bishops, episcopi in partibus, or in partibus infidelium, are invested with office, but with no stated charge or diocese. Suffragans are such as are appointed to act as the assistants or substitutes of the metropolitans. They derive their name either from the fact that they cannot be consecrated without the suffrage of the metropolitan, or because they possess the right of suffrage in the synods (see Dufresne, s.v. Suffcragio). Diocesan bishops who are impeded by sickness or old age from discharging their duties receive a coadjutor, who, as long as he has not received the episcopal consecration, is called episcopus' designatus. The term country bishops, Χωρεπίσκοποι , rural bishops, occurs in the older writers. They appear to have been subject to a city bishop, and to have acted as his colleagues. The derivation of the word is disputed; some derive it from Chorus, Χόρος , a choir of singers; others from the appellation Cor Episcopi, heart of the bishop, as the archdeacon was sometimes called. The true etymon seems to be Χώρα or Χωρίον , a country. Their peculiar duties were to give letters of peace or testimonials; to superintend the affairs of the Church in their district; to appoint ecclesiastical officers, read Ers, exorcists, etc.; and to ordain presbyters and deacons, but not without the permission of the city bishop. The name ceases to be found in history about the twelfth century, and their place was supplied by archdeacons and rural deans.

3. Insignia. — The insignia of the episcopal office were a Ring, emblematical of the bishop's espousals to the Church-it was called Annulus Sponsalitius; The Pastoral Staff bent or crooked at the top; the Mitre Or Fillet, sometimes called Crown, Diadem, Tiara; Gloves, Chirothecce, always worn during the performance of any religious office; Sandals-No one could celebrate the Eucharist without these; Caligce, or boots-in ancient warfare they were a part of the soldier's equipments, and, when worn by a bishop, pointed out the spiritual warfare on which he had entered; Pallium, the pall; pectorale, the breastplate. The pallium was so peculiar and distinctive that its name was often used to denote the person or office of a bishop. It was first worn by bishops, but afterward by archbishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs only. The form of the pallium in the earliest times is not known; subsequently it was made of white linen, without seam, and was worn hanging down over the shoulders. In the twelfth century it was made of wool. Previous to the eighth century it had four purple crosses on it, and was fastened by three gold pins. The cross, like the Hebrew pectoral, was worn on the neck or breast, and was also carried in public processions, and thus became a twofold badge of the bishop's office. Most of these insignia are still used in the Greek and Roman churches. -Farrar, s.v.

4. Duties. — The duties of the bishop in the ancient Church included the celebration of Divine worship and the discipline and government of the Church. His principal duties, though not performed by him exclusively, were catechising and preaching. Others, exclusively belonging to him, were the confirmation of baptized persons, by which they were admitted as acknowledged members into the Church, the ordination of presbyters and inferior ministers, the restoration of penitents, and various acts of consecration and benediction. As to discipline, while at times the prerogatives of the bishop were restricted, he remained the source and centre of ecclesiastical, authority within his diocese. The diocesan clergy were dependent upon him, and the regulations of the churches were directed by him. His authority was seen in the following particulars: In the superintendence of religious worship; in the oversight of all the members of the Church throughout a diocese in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters; in the control of all subordinate spiritual persons and ecclesiastical officers; in the visitation of the clergy, churches, schools, and religious houses; in the presidency over all synods within the diocese, and even in the management and distribution of all the property of the Church (Farrar, s.v.). Most of these powers are retained in the Greek and Roman churches to this day. The bishops of the Roman Church assume some special duties toward the pope by the oath of obedience which is administered to them before their consecration (see below). The most I important of the duties enumerated in the formula of a bishop's oath are, to be faithfully attached to the pope and to his successors, not to enter into any plot against him, not to divulge a plan which the pope may communicate to him;, to preserve, defend, increase, and promote the rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the Roman See; to observe, and to have observed by others, the entire canonical law; to persecute and assail, to the best of his ability, the heretics, schismatics, and all who may rebel against the pope or his successors ("' hereticos, schismaticos et rebelles eidem domino nostro vel successoribus praedictis pro posse parsequar et impugnabo"), and to visit Rome in person every third year, in order to give an account of the state of the diocese. In the Church of England and in the Protestant Episcopal Church, the bishops alone have the power to ordain and to confirm, and their authority is confined to their proper dioceses. The powers and duties of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church are those of a general itinerant superintendency, including ordination, appointment of ministers to their fields of labor, etc., and are fully defined in the Methodist " Discipline," pt. ii, ch. ii, § 13.

5. Election Of Bishops.-The right of election to a vacant see, in the early ages, was with the clergy and people of the diocese (Balsamon, Ad Can. 13 Cone. Laod. p. 834), who, having made their choice, referred it to the bishops of the province, the consent of all of whom was required to the election; after which the bishop elect was confirmed and consecrated by the metropolitan. In the Roman Church bishops are nominated by the chapter of the Cathedral; in some countries by the clergy of the diocese, and in others by the prince of the country (this case, however, is restricted to Roman Catholic princes); but the pope must confirm the nomination and grant his bull for the consecration (Cone. Trid. sess. 24, de Ref. ch. i), At consecration the bishop elect must take the oath of allegiance to the pope. In England the election of bishop lies theoretically with the chapter, but the choice is practically vested in the crown. In the Methodist Episcopal Church bishops are elected by the General Conference (Discipline, pt. ii, ch. ii, § 13), and in the Protestant Episcopal Church by the Diocesan Convention (Canon II, 1844). All the bishops of the Lutheran churches are appointed by the princes of their several countries.

6. Consecration

(1.) In the Roman Church three bishops are required for the rite; one (who must always be a bishop) to consecrate, the two others (who may be mitred abbots, and, in cases of emergency, other prelates, or simply priests) to assist.

[1.] After the consecrator has examined the elect and administered the oath of obedience, the candidate is habited in the pontifical vestments, and the Litany having been sung, the three bishops place upon the head and shoulders of the elect the Book of the Gospels open, nothing being spoken.

[2.] The three bishops then lay their hands upon the head of the elect, saying, "Receive thou the Holy Ghost." [3.] The consecrator prays for grace for the newly-made bishop.

[4.] He anoints him with the chrism on the head and hands, saying, "

Ungatur et consecretur caput tuum," etc.

[5.] He places in his hands the pastoral staff, ring, and Book of the Gospels, saying, "Accipe Baculum...," etc.

[6.] Mass is completed, and the new bishop communicates in both kinds. Of these ceremonies, the imposition of hands and accompanying prayer are the only parts which are considered essential to episcopal ordination. See Boissonnet, Diet. des Ceremonies, i, 1294.,

(2.) In the Greek Church the following is the order, as given in Gear's Euchologion: Mass having commenced, the elect, accompanied by the priests and other clerks, stands at the lower end of the church; the consecrating bishops, who must be Three at least, in their pontifical vestments, sit in their stalls, the chief celebrator sitting between the assistants. The gospeller cries "Attendamus!" upon which one of the clerks ("Prce Reliquis Literatissimus") makes the first presentation of the elect, who is led by the clergy as far as the tail of an eagle delineated on the floor of the church. The consecrator then asks him what he has come to request, to which the elect replies that he seeks the laying on of the hands of the bishops. He is then questioned concerning his faith. After this, the consecrating bishop gives him the benediction with the crosier. And then follows a second presentation, the elect having advanced to the middle of the eagle. He now gives a fuller account of his faith, is again blessed by the bishop, and then advances to the head of the eagle. Here the consecrator, for the third time, demands an explication of his faith, desiring him now to explain his views on the subjects of the Incarnation, of the Substance of the Son and Word of God, and how many Natures there are in Christ. After his reply he receives the benediction, the consecrator saying " Gratia S. Spiritus per meam mediocritatem promovet te Deo amantissimum Sacerdotem et electum N.... in Episcopum a Deo custoditae civitatis N...." He is then led to the altar, and there, in front of the table, kneels before the bishops, the eldest of whom lays the Gospels on his head, the other bishops at the same time holding it.

The consecrator declares him to be bishop, and, while the others continue to hold the Gospels, makes three crosses on his head, blessing him in the name of the Holy Trinity; then, laying his hand (all the other bishops doing the same) on him, he prays. O Lord God, who rulest over all, who by Thy holy apostle Paul hast ratified the series of orders and degrees appointed for those who wait at Thy holy altar and minister in Thy spotless and venerable mysteries, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers: do Thou, O Lord of all, by the presence, the power, and the grace of Thy Holy Spirit, confirm him who has been elected and counted worthy to receive the evangelical yoke and pontifical dignity at the hand of me a sinner, and those of the ministers and bishops who stand with me, as Thou didst strengthen the holy apostles and prophets, as Thou didst anoint the kings, and as Thou didst consecrate the priests. Exhibit in him a blameless pontificate; and, adorning him with every virtue, grant to him such holiness that he may be worthy to ask of Thee whatsoever the salvation of his people requireth, and to receive it from Thee." This form differs little from the order of consecrating archbishops and bishops in use in the Russian Church, according to the form printed at St. Petersburg in 1725.

(3.) In the Protestant churches the form of consecration is simple. That of the Methodist Episcopal Church may be found in the Discipline (pt. 4, ch. 6); that of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Prayer-book. As both these forms are modifications of that of the Church of England, we give the latter (omitting the Scripture lessons, collects, etc.).

When all things are duly prepared in the church and set in order, after morning prayer is ended, the archbishop (or some other bishop appointed) shall begin the Communion service, in which this shall be the collect [here the collect is said]. And another bishop shall read the epistle,  1 Timothy 3:1; or  Acts 20:17. Then Another Bishop Shall Read The Gospel,  John 21:15; or  John 20:19; or  Matthew 28:18.

After the gospel, and the Nicene Creed, and the sermon are ended, the elected bishop (vested with his rochet) shall be presented by two bishops unto the archbishop of that province (or to some other bishop appointed by lawful commission), the archbishop sitting in his chair near the holy table, and the bishops that present him saying: "Most reverend father in God, we present unto you this godly .and well-learned man to be ordained and consecrated bishop."

Then shall the archbishop demand the queen's mandate for the consecration and cause it to be read; and the oath touching the acknowledgment of the queen's supremacy shall be ministered to the persons elected, as it is set down before in the form for the ordering of deacons; and then shall also be ministered unto them the oath of due obedience to the archbishop, as followeth: " In the name of God, Amen. I, N., chosen bishop of the church and see of N., do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the archbishop and to the metropolitan church of N. and to their successors: so help me God, through Jesus Christ." This oath shall not be made at the consecration of an archbishop.

Then the archbishop shall move the congregation present to pray, saying thus to them [here the address]. And then shall be said the Litany, as before in the ordering of deacons, save only that after the place, " That it may please thee to illuminate all bishops," etc., the proper suffrage there following shall be omitted, and this inserted instead of it: "That it may please thee to bless this brother elected, and to send thy grace upon him, that he may duly execute the office whereunto he is called, to the edifying of thy Church, and to the honor, praise, and glory of thy name.

Answer. We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord." Then shall be said this prayer following [here the prayer].

Then the archbishop, sitting in his chair, shall say to him that is to be consecrated: " Brother, forasmuch as the holy Scriptures and the ancient canons command that we should not be hasty in laying on hands, and admitting any person to government in the Church of Christ, which he hath purchased with no less price than the effusion of his own blood, before I admit you to this administration I will examine you in certain articles, to the end that the congregation present may have a trial and bear witness how you be minded to behave yourself in the Church of God. Are you persuaded that you be truly called to this ministration, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of this realm?

Answer. I am so persuaded.

The Archbishop. Are you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are' you determined out of the same holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to salvation but that which you shall be persuaded may be con eluded and proved by the same?

Answer. I am so persuaded and determined, by God's grace.

The Archbishop. Will you then faithfully exercise yourself in the same holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same, so as you may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gain sayers ?

Answer. I will so do, by the help of God.

The Archbishop. Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same?

Answer. I am ready, the Lord being my helper.

The Archbishop. Will you deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, that you may show yourself in all things an example of good works unto others, that the adversary may be ashamed, having nothing to say against you?

Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.

The Archbishop. Will you maintain and set forward, as much as shall lie in you, quietness, love, and peace among all men; and such as be unquiet, disobedient, and criminous within your diocese correct and punish, according to such authority as you have by God's word, and as to you shall be committed by the ordinance of this realm?

Answer. I will do so, by the help of God.

The Archbishop. Will you be faithful in ordaining, sending, or laying hands upon others?

Answer. I will do so by the help of God.

The Archbishop. Will you show yourself gentle, and be merciful for Christ's sake to poor and needy people, and to all strangers destitute of help?

Answer. I will so show myself, by God's help. Then the archbishop, standing up, shall say: "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who hath given you a good will to do all these things, grant also unto you strength and power to perform the same; that, he accomplishing in you the good work which he hath begun, you may be found perfect and irreprehensible at the latter day, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

Then shall the bishop elect put on the rest of the episcopal habit, and, kneeling down, Veni, Creator Spiritus, shall be said or sung over him, the presiding bishop beginning, and the bi

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

bish´up  : The word is evidently an abbreviation of the Greek ἐπίσκοπος , epı́skopos  ; Latin, episcopus.

General

1. Use in the Septuagint and Classic Greek

The Septuagint gives it the generic meaning of "superintendency, oversight, searching" ( Numbers 4:16;  Numbers 31:14 ) in matters pertaining to the church, the state, and the army ( Judges 9:28;  2 Kings 12:11;  2 Chronicles 34:12 ,  2 Chronicles 34:17; 1 Macc 1:54; The Wisdom of Solomon 1:6). Nor is it unknown to classical Greek. Thus Homer in the Iliad applied it to the gods (xxii.255), also Plutarch, Cam ., 5. In Athens the governors of conquered states were called by this name.

2. New Testament Use

The word is once applied to Christ himself, "unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" ( 1 Peter 2:25 ). It abounds in Pauline literature, and is used as an alternative for presbúteros or elder ( Titus 1:5 ,  Titus 1:7;  1 Timothy 3:1;  1 Timothy 4:14;  1 Timothy 5:17 ,  1 Timothy 5:19 ). The earliest ecclesiastical offices instituted in the church were those of elders and deacons, or rather the reverse, inasmuch as the latter office grew almost immediately out of the needs of the Christian community at Jerusalem ( Acts 6:1-6 ). The presbyteral constitution of Jerusalem must have been very old ( Acts 11:30 ) and was distinct from the apostolate ( Acts 15:2 ,  Acts 15:4 ,  Acts 15:6 ,  Acts 15:22 ,  Acts 15:23;  Acts 16:4 ). As early as 50 ad Paul appointed "elders" in every church, with prayer and fasting ( Acts 14:23 ), referring to the Asiatic churches before established. But in writing to the Philippians ( Philippians 1:1 ) he speaks of "bishops" and "deacons." In the Gentile Christian churches this title evidently had been adopted; and it is only in the Pastoral Epistles that we find the name "presbyters" applied. The name "presbyter" or "elder," familiar to the Jews, signifies their age and place in the church; while the other term "bishop" refers rather to their office. But both evidently have reference to the same persons. Their office is defined as "ruling" ( Romans 12:8 ), "overseeing" ( Acts 20:17 ,  Acts 20:28;  1 Peter 5:2 ), caring for the flock of God ( Acts 20:28 ). But the word archeı́n , "to rule," in the hierarchical sense, is never used. Moreover, each church had a college of presbyter-bishops ( Acts 20:17 ,  Acts 20:28;  Philippians 1:1;  1 Timothy 4:14 ). During Paul's lifetime the church was evidently still unaware of the distinction between presbyters and bishops.

Of a formal ordination , in the later hierarchical sense, there is no trace as yet. The word "ordained" used in the King James Version ( Acts 1:22 ) is an unwarrantable interpolation, rightly emended in the Revised Version (British and American). Neither the word cheirotonḗsantes ( Acts 14:23 , translated "appointed" the American Standard Revised Version) nor katastḗsēs ( Titus 1:5 , translated "appoint" the American Standard Revised Version) is capable of this translation. In rendering these words invariably by "ordain" the King James Version shows a vitium originis . No one doubts that the idea of ordination is extremely old in the history of the church, but the laying on of hands, mentioned in the New Testament ( Acts 13:3;  1 Timothy 4:14;  2 Timothy 1:6; compare  Acts 14:26;  Acts 15:40 ) points to the communication of a spiritual gift or to its invocation, rather than to the imparting of an official status.

3. Later Development of the Idea

According to Rome, as finally expressed by the Council of Trent, and to the episcopal idea in general, the hierarchical organization, which originated in the 3rd century, existed from the beginning in the New Testament church. But besides the New Testament as above quoted, the early testimony of the church maintains the identity of "presbyters" and "bishops." Thus, Clement of Rome (Ep. 1, chapters 42, 44, 57), the Didache , chapter 15; perhaps the Constitutions , II, 33, 34, in the use of the plural form; Irenaeus ( Adv. Haer ., iii.2, 3), Ambrosiaster (on  1 Timothy 3:10;  Ephesians 4:11 ), Chrysostom (Hom 9 in Ep. ad Tim ), in an unequivocal statement, the "presbyters of old were called bishops ... and the bishops presbyters," equally unequivocally Jerome ( Ad Tit , 1, 7), "the same is the presbyter, who is also the bishop." Augustine and other Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries hold this view, and even Peter Lombard, who preceded Aquinas as the great teacher of the church of the Middle Ages. Hatch of Oxford and Harnack of Berlin, in the face of all t his testimony, maintain a distinction between the presbyters, as having charge of the law and discipline of the church, and the bishops, as being charged with the pastoral care of the church, preaching and worship. This theory is built upon the argument of prevailing social conditions and institutions, as adopted and imitated by the church, rather than on sound textual proof. The distinction between presbyters and bishops can only be maintained by a forced exegesis of the Scriptures. The later and rapid growth of the hierarchical idea arose from the accession of the Ebionite Christian view of the church, as a necessary continuation of the Old Testament dispensation, which has so largely influenced the history of the inner development of the church in the first six centuries of her existence.

Anglican View

I. Episcopacy Defined

Episcopacy is the government in the Christian church by bishops. The rule of the Orthodox churches in the East, of the Roman Catholics, and of the Anglicans is that the consecration of other bishops, and the ordination of priests and deacons can only be by a bishop; and with them, a bishop is one who claims historic descent from apostolic or sub-apostolic times.

II. Offices in the Early Church

In the New Testament, the office of bishop is not clearly defined. Indeed there appear to have been many degrees of ministry in the infant church: apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, presbyters or elders, bishops or overseers, and deacons.

Due allowance is not generally made for the mental attitude of the apostles and early Christians. They were looking for the speedy return of Christ, and consequently did not organize the church in its infancy, as it was afterward found necessary to do. For this reason, while the different persons who composed the body of Christian ministers did not overlap or infringe on each other's work, yet the relative rank or priority of each minister was not clearly defined.

1. Apostles

The apostles were undoubtedly first, and in them rested the whole authority, and they were the depository of the power committed unto them by Christ.

2. Prophets

Next to the apostles in rank, and first in point of mention ( Acts 11:27 ), came the prophets. So important were these officers in the early church that they were sent from Jerusalem to warn the rapidly growing church at Antioch of an impending famine. Then it appears that there were resident prophets at Antioch, men of considerable importance since their names are recorded, Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius, Manaen and Saul ( Acts 13:1 ). These men received a command from the Holy Spirit to "separate me Barnabas and Saul," on whom they laid their hands and sent them forth on their work. The election is conducted on the same lines as the election by the eleven apostles of Matthias, and Barnabas and Paul are hereafter called apostles. It is an ordination to the highest order in the Christian ministry by "prophets and teachers." Whether "prophets and teachers" refers to two distinct ministries, or whether they are terms used for the same one is uncertain. It may be that of the five men mentioned, some were prophets, and others teachers.

In  Acts 15:32 we have given us the names of two other prophets, Judas and Silas. Paul tells the Corinthians (  1 Corinthians 12:28 ) that God hath set some in his church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, and writing to the Ephesians he places the prophets in the same rank. "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry" ( Ephesians 4:11 ,  Ephesians 4:12 the King James Version). And again, he says that the mystery of Christ is now "revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" (  Ephesians 3:5 ). The same apostle in that wonderful imagery of Christians being built up for a habitation of God, says they are "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone" ( Ephesians 2:20 ).

In the case of the ordination of Timothy, which Paul says distinctly was by his own laying on of hands and that of the presbytery, it is of great consequence to note that Paul says to Timothy that his ordination was "according to the prophecies which went before on thee" ( 1 Timothy 1:18 the King James Version). From this it would appear that the prophets, as in the case of Paul himself, guided by the Holy Ghost, chose Timothy for the overseership or bishopric, or it may be, which is just as likely, that Timothy was set apart by the laying on of hands by some prophets, to the rank of elder or presbyter which did not carry with it the "overseership." It is at any rate evident that in the selection of Timothy, Paul is insistent on pointing out that it was through the prophets (compare   1 Timothy 1:18;  1 Timothy 4:14;  2 Timothy 1:6 ).

In Revelation, the term prophet constantly occurs as a term denoting rank equivalent to that of apostle: "ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets" ( Revelation 18:20 ); "blood of prophets and of saints" ( Revelation 16:6;  Revelation 18:24 ). The angel calls himself "thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets" ( Revelation 22:9 the King James Version). The words prophesy and prophesying are used in a general sense, and it does not mean that they were in every case the formal utterances of prophets.

3. Elders or Presbyters

The ministry of the elders of the Christian church was modeled after that of the synagogue in which there were elders and teachers. The Christian elders or presbyters were most likely a council of advice in each local Christian ekklesia ̌ . They appear to act conjointly and not separately ( Acts 15:4 ,  Acts 15:6 ,  Acts 15:22;  Acts 16:4;  Acts 20:17;  James 5:14 ).

4. Teachers

Teachers were the equivalent of those teachers or catechists of the synagogue before whom our Lord was found in the temple.

5. Evangelists

Evangelists were persons who probably had the gift of oratory and whose function it was to preach the glad tidings. Philip was one of them ( Acts 21:8 ). In the instructions to Timothy he is bidden to do the work of an evangelist, that is to say, to preach the gospel. This was to be part of his work in the ministry.

In writing to Timothy, Paul twice says that he himself was ordained preacher, and apostle and teacher. This does not mean that he held three grades of the ministry, but that his duties as an apostle were to preach and to teach. The fact that the apostles called themselves elders does not thereby confirm the view that the bishops mentioned by them were not superior to elders, any more than the fact that the apostles called themselves teachers, or preachers, makes for the view that teachers, or preachers, were the equals of apostles.

6. Bishops

Bishops or overseers were probably certain elders chosen out of the body of local elders. Under the Jewish dispensation, the elders stayed at home, that is, they did no ministerial visiting, but it was soon found necessary as the Christian church grew to have someone to attend to outside work to win over by persuasion and exposition of the Scriptures those inclined to embrace Christianity. This necessitated visiting families in their own homes. Then, it became necessary to shepherd the sheep. Someone had to oversee or superintend the general work. The Jewish elders always had a head and in a large synagogue the conditions laid down for its head, or legatus , were almost identical with those laid down by Paul to Timothy. He was to be a father of a family, not rich or engaged in business, possessing a good voice, apt to teach, etc.

The term episkopos was one with which the Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles were well acquainted; and it became Thus a fitting term by which to designate the men called out of the body of elders to this special work of oversight. Then, again, the term episkopos was endeared to the early Christians as the one applied to our Lord - "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" ( 1 Peter 2:25 ). The duties of elders, or presbyters, are not clearly defined in the New Testament.

In the Acts, the term is found only twice, one in reference to Judas, "his bishopric (or overseership) let another take" ( Acts 1:20 the King James Version), and in Paul's address to the elders of Ephesus, he warns them to feed the church over which they have been made overseers or bishops (  Acts 20:28 ). It is impossible to say whether this "overseership" refers to all the elders addressed, or to such of those elders as had been made "overseers," or "bishops."

In the epistles, we find the church more clearly organized, and in these writings we find more definite allusions to bishops and their duties ( Philippians 1:1;  1 Timothy 3:1 ,  1 Timothy 3:2;  Titus 1:7;  1 Peter 2:25 ).

Paul tells Timothy, "If a man desire the office of a bishop (or overseer) he desireth a good work." "A bishop (or overseer) must be blameless" ( 1 Timothy 3:1 ,  1 Timothy 3:2 the King James Version). He tells Titus that "he is to ordain elders in every city" and that a "bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God" (  Titus 1:5 ,  Titus 1:7 the King James Version).

On the other hand, there are numerous texts where elders and their duties are mentioned and where there is no reference whatever to bishopric or oversight. The epistles show that of necessity there had grown to be a more distinct organization of the ministry, and that following the custom of the synagogue to some of the elders had been committed a bishopric or oversight. At the same time the rank of a bishop, or overseer, was not yet one of the highest. Paul does not enumerate it in the order of ministry which he gives to the Ephesians - apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

That Timothy had an oversight over the elders or presbyters is evident from the fact that Paul enjoins him to rebuke those that sin: "Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at the mouth of two or three witnesses. Them that sin reprove in the sight of all" ( 1 Timothy 5:19 ,  1 Timothy 5:20 ). This, of course, refers to a formal trial by one in authority of persons inferior to him in rank.

It has been asserted that the terms elder and bishop in the New Testament were equivalent and denoted the same office or grade in the ministry. This assertion seems unwarranted. They do not naturally denote the same grade any more than do apostle and teacher, or angel and prophet.

7. Deacons

The deacons were the seven appointed to take charge of the temporal affairs of the church. Their appointment was perhaps suggested by the alms-collectors of the synagogue. In the New Testament they do not appear as deacons to have had any part in the sacred ministry, except, in the case of Philip the evangelist, if it be assumed that he was a deacon, which is uncertain. Nowhere is it recorded that they laid hands on anyone, or were considered as capable of bestowing any grace. In the epistles they are mentioned with the bishops - "bishops and deacons" ( Philippians 1:1 ), Thus showing the nature of their influence as the helpers of the "bishops" in the management of the growing funds, or properties of the church.

III. Episcopacy According to the New Testament

The passages where the Greek word occurs which has been translated either as bishops, or overseers, are so few that they are enumerated:  Acts 20:17 ,  Acts 20:28 : the Ephesian elders are stated to be bishops (or overseers) to feed the church;   Philippians 1:1 the salutation of Paul and Timothy to bishops (or overseers) and deacons at Philippi;   1 Timothy 3:1 ,  1 Timothy 3:2 and   Titus 1:7 give the exhortation to Timothy and Titus as holding the office of a bishop;   1 Peter 2:25 , where the apostle referring to Christ says, "unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

IV. The " Didache "

Passing out of the New Testament, we come to the early Christian writing, the so-called Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Setting aside the question for what class of Christians this document was intended, the clear fact stands out that at the date of its writing the two highest grades in the Christian ministry were still called apostles and prophets. Various dates have been assigned to this document ranging from 80 to 160 ad.

At the end of chapter 10, which deals with the thanksgiving or eucharist, the remark is made, "But permit the prophets to make thanksgiving as much as they desire." Chapters 11 and 13 deal with apostles and prophets. They were to be treated "according to the ordinance of the gospel." An apostle was not to be allowed to stay more than a couple of days at the utmost, and in no case was he to receive any money, else he was to be considered "a false prophet." A prophet could beg on behalf of others, but not for himself; but a prophet could settle among a congregation, and in that case he was to receive the same first-fruits "of money and raiment and of every possession" as the chief priest did under the old dispensation. It is to be noted that in reality the prophets, though placed second in order, were to be treated with the greater respect. If the prophet settles down, he becomes the man of the first rank in that Christian community.

Chapter 15 deals with bishops and deacons, and we are told that if appointed they rendered the ministry of prophets and teachers, but the warning is given, "Despise them not, therefore, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers." This shows that bishops were localized; and that while they could be appointed over a community, they were not considered as of equal rank with the prophets.

V. Clement of Rome

Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians says that the apostles preaching through countries and cities appointed the first-fruits of their labors to be bishops and deacons (chapter 42). It is usually said that Clement meant elders by the term "bishops," but it is much more likely that he meant what he said; that according to the tradition received by him, the apostles appointed bishops, that is, appointed bishops out of the elders - mentioned in the Acts. In chapter 44 Clement warns against the sin of ejecting from the episcopate those who have presented the offerings, and says, "Blessed are those presbyters who have finished their course."

The reason why the terms apostles and prophets fell into desuetude was, as regards the first, not so much out of respect to the original apostles, but because the apostles in the sub-apostolic age became apparently only wandering evangelists of little standing; while the prophets lowered their great office by descending to be soothsayers, as the Shepherd of Hermas plainly intimates. With the fall of the apostles and the prophets, there rose into prominence the bishops and deacons.

VI. Bishops and Deacons

The deacons acted as secretaries and treasurers to the bishops. They were their right-hand men, representing them in all secular matters. As the numbers of Christians increased, it was found absolutely necessary for the bishops to delegate some of their spiritual authority to a second order.

VII. Bishops and Presbyters (Priests)

Thus very slowly emerged out of the body of elders the official presbyters or priests. To them the bishop delegated the power to teach, to preach, to baptize, to celebrate the Holy Eucharist; but how slowly is evidenced by the fact that so late as 755 ad the Council of Vern forbade priests to baptize, except by distinct permission of their bishop.

VIII. Ignatian Epistles on the three Orders

When we come to the Ignatian epistles written between 110-17 ad, we find a distinct threefold order. We have given us the names of Damas, for bishop, Bassus and Apollonius for presbyters, Zotion for deacon. Throughout these epistles there is no question that the bishop is supreme. Apostles and prophets are not even mentioned. The bishop succeeds to all the powers the apostles and prophets had. On the other hand, as with the Jewish elders, so with the Christian presbyters, they form a council with the bishop. Here we see in clear day what we had all along suspected to be the case in apostolic times: a council of presbyters with a ruler at their head and deacons to attend to money matters.

It is quite immaterial as to whether a bishop had ten or a hundred presbyter-elders under him, whether he was bishop in a small town or in a large city. The question of numbers under him would not affect his authority as has been claimed. The greatness of the city in which he exercised this rule would add dignity to his position, but nothing to his inherent authority.

From this time on it is admitted by all that bishops, priests and deacons have been continuously in existence. Their powers and duties have varied, have been curtailed as one order has encroached on the power of the other, but still there the three orders have been. Gradually the presbyters or priests encroached on the power of the bishop, till now, according to Anglican usage, only the power of ordaining, confirming and consecrating churches is left to them.

IX. Views of Reformers

At the time of the Reformation there was a great outcry against bishops. This was caused by the fact that under feudalism the bishops had come to be great temporal lords immersed in schemes of political and material aggrandizement, and often actually leading their armies in times of war. Many of the bishops were proud and arrogant, forgetful that their duties as fathers of the children of Christ were to look after those committed to them with fatherly kindness and charity or that as pastors they had to tend the erring sheep with Divine patience and infinite love.

The bulk of the adherents to the Reformed religion, looking upon the bishops as they were and as their fathers had known them, recoiled from retaining the office, although their principal men, like Calvin, deplored the loss of bishops, and hoped that bishops of the primitive order would some day be restored. The present modern Anglican bishop seems to sum up in his person and office the requirements laid down by Calvin.

Conclusion

Thus the claim put forth by the Anglicans in the preface to the Ordinal may be considered as sound: "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church - B ishops, Priests, and Deacons."

Literature

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Clement of Rome; Shepherd of Hermas; Ignatian epistles; Muratorian Fragment; Works of John Lightfoot; Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrétien  ; Pellicia, Polity of the Christian Church  ; Bishop MacLean, Ancient Church Orders  ; Cheetham, Hist of the Christian Church during the First Six Centuries  ; Salmon, Introduction to New Testament  ; Elwin, The Minister of Baptism  ; Cruttwell, Literary History of Early Christianity  ; Potter, Church Government  ; Lowndes, Vindication of Anglican Orders  ; E. Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches  ; C. Gore, The Church and the Ministry  ; Thompson, Historic Episcopate (Presbyterian); Baird, Huguenots .

Congregational View

1. The New Testament Church a Spiritual Democracy

As a spiritual and social democracy, Congregationaliam finds no warrant or precedent in the New Testament for the episcopal conception of the words "bishop," "presbyter," and "eider." It interprets ἐπίσκοπος , épiskopos , literally as overseer - not an ecclesiastical dignitary but a spiritual minister. It finds the Romanist view of Peter's primacy, founded alone on   Matthew 16:18 , contradicted by the entire trend of Christ's teaching, as e.g. when referring to the Gentiles exercising lordship and authority Christ says, "Not so shall it be among you" (  Matthew 20:26 ). He set the precedent of official greatness when He said "the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister," and that "whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister (servant)." Paul's testimony confirms this in suggesting no primacy among the apostles and prophets, but making "Christ ... himself ... the chief corner stone" ( Ephesians 2:20 ). The organization and history of the early Christian church establish this view of its simplicity and democracy. In  Acts 1:20 the Revised Version (British and American) corrects the rendering "bishopric" (given by the King James translators, who were officers in the Episcopal church) to "office," Thus, relieving the verse of possible ecclesiastical pretensions.

The church formed on the day of Pentecost was the spontaneous coming together of the original 120 disciples and the 3,000 Christian converts, for fellowship, worship and work, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Its only creed was belief in the risen Christ and the renewing power of the Holy Spirit; its only condition of membership, repentance and baptism.

2. Election of Officers by Popular Vote

The apostles naturally took leadership but, abrogating all authority, committed to the church as a whole the choice of its officers and the conduct of its temporal and spiritual affairs. Judas' place in the apostolate was not filled by succession or episcopal appointment ( Acts 1:23-26 ). The seven deacons were elected by popular vote ( Acts 6:1-6 ). One of the seven - P hilip - preached and, without protest, administered the rite of baptism ( Acts 8:12 ,  Acts 8:13 ).

The churches in the apostolic era were independent and self-governing, and the absence of anything like a centralized ecclesiastical authority is seen by the fact that the council at Jerusalem, called to consider whether the church at Antioch should receive the uncircumcised into membership, was a delegated body, composed in part of lay members, and having only advisory power (Acts 15:1-29).

3. The Epistles Not Official Documents

The apostolic letters, forming so large a part of the New Testament, are not official documents but letters of loving pastoral instruction and counsel. The terms bishops, elders, pastors and teachers are used synonymously and interchangeably, Thus limiting the officers of the early church to two orders: pastors and deacons. See also Church Government; Didache .

4. Restoration of Primitive Ideals

Under the spiritual tyrannies of the Church of England, during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, "bloody" Mary and 'Queen Elizabeth, the Dissenting bodies, chiefly the Congregationalists, returned to the simplicity and spiritual freedom of the primitive church. The issue was forced by two arbitrary acts of Parliament under Elizabeth: the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity. Emancipation from the intellectual and religious tyranny of these acts was won at the cost of many martyrdoms. These struggles and persecutions wrought into the successors of Robert Browne, the father of modern Congregationalism, a deep-seated and permanent resentment against all forms of autocratic power in church and state. They challenged, at the cost of life, both the Divine Right of kings, and of bishops. They believed that in Christ Jesus all believers are literally and inalienably made "kings and priests unto God" ( Revelation 1:6 the King James Version), actual spiritual sovereigns, independent of all human dictation an d control in matters of belief and worship. The Pilgrims expatriated themselves to secure this spiritual liberty; and to their inherent antagonism to inherited and self-perpetuated power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, must be credited the religious freedom and civil democracy of America.

Literature

For further study see Henry M. Dexter, Congregationalism , chapter ii; Dunning's Congregationalists in America , chapters i, ii: Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church .

Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature

The active controversy in which the subject of episcopacy has been involved, although it has not reconciled conflicting opinions, has brought out the historical facts in their fullest clearness. The able and candid on opposite sides can scarcely be said to differ as to the facts themselves; but they differ in their estimate of them.

The Apostles originally appointed men to superintend the spiritual, and occasionally even the secular wants of the churches ( Acts 14:23;  Acts 11:30; see also  2 Timothy 2:2), who were ordinarily called elders, from their age, sometimes overseers (bishops), from their office. They are also said to preside ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12;  1 Timothy 5:17), never to rule, which has far too despotic a sound. In the Epistle to the Hebrews ( Hebrews 13:7;  Hebrews 13:17;  Hebrews 13:24) they are named leading men (comp.  Acts 15:22); and figuratively, shepherds ( Ephesians 4:11). But that they did not always teach is clear from  1 Timothy 5:17; and the name Elders proves that originally age, experience, and character were their most necessary qualifications. They were to be married men with families ( 1 Timothy 3:4), and with converted children ( Titus 1:6). In the beginning there had been no time to train teachers, and teaching was regarded far more in the light of a gift than an office; yet St. Paul places 'ability to teach' among episcopal qualifications ( 1 Timothy 3:2;  Titus 1:9; the latter of which passages should be translated, 'that he may be able both to exhort men by sound teaching, and also to refute opposers'). That teachers had obtained in St. Paul's day a fixed official position, is manifest from  Galatians 6:6, and  1 Corinthians 9:14, where he claims for them a right to worldly maintenance: in fact, that the shepherds ordered to 'feed the flock,' and be its 'overseers' ( 1 Peter 5:2), were to feed them with knowledge and instruction, will never be disputed, except to support a hypothesis. The leaders also, in  Hebrews 13:7, are described as 'speaking unto you the word of God.' Ecclesiastical history joins in proving that the two offices of teaching and superintending were, with few exceptions, combined in the same persons, as, indeed, the nature of things dictated.

That during St. Paul's lifetime no difference between elders and bishops yet existed in the consciousness of the church, is manifest from the entire absence of distinctive names ( Acts 20:17-28;  1 Peter 5:1-2). The mention of bishops and deacons in  Philippians 1:1, and 1 Timothy 3, 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 believed, was employed in appointing elders, although it does not appear that as yet any fixed name was appropriated to the idea of ordination. In  1 Corinthians 16:15 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 themselves to such.' It would appear then that a formal investiture into the office was not as yet regarded essential. Be this as it may, no one doubts that an ordination 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 Timothy 4:14;  2 Timothy 1:6;  Acts 13:3;  Acts 14:26;  Acts 15:40). To the same effect  Acts 8:17;  Acts 19:6—passages which explain  Hebrews 6:2. 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 afterwards have been called episcopal, it was not by virtue of a second ordination, nor, therefore, of episcopal rank.

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 only 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 plausibility, 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 Timothy 4:9) he calls Timothy suddenly to Rome, in words which prove that the latter was not, at least as yet, bishop, either of Ephesus or of any other church. That Timothy was an evangelist is distinctly stated ( 2 Timothy 4:5), and that he had received spiritual gifts ( 2 Timothy 1:6, etc.); there is then no difficulty in accounting for the authority vested in him ( 1 Timothy 5:1;  1 Timothy 5:19;  1 Timothy 5:22), without imagining him to have been a bishop; which is in fact disproved even by the same Epistle ( 1 Timothy 1:3). That Titus, moreover, had no local attachment to Crete, is plain from  Titus 3:13, to say nothing of the earlier Epistle, II Corinthians passim. 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 himself. The meaning of the title angel, in the opening chapters of the Apocalypse, has been mystically explained by some; but its true meaning is clear from the nomenclature of the Jewish synagogues. In them, we are told, the minister who ordinarily read the prayers of the congregation, besides acting as their chief functionary in matters of business, was entitled messenger of the church. The term 'angel of the church' appears therefore to be nothing but a harsh Hebraism for 'minister of the church.' 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.

Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists agree in one point, viz. that (because of its utility and general convenience) it is lawful for Christians to take a step for which they have no clear precedent in the Scripture, that of breaking up a church, when it becomes of unwieldy magnitude, into fixed divisions, whether parishes, or congregations. The question 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 different parts of a great city no more need to be in organic union, than those of two different cities; (2) Presbyterians would keep up the union by means of a synod of the elders; (3) Episcopalians desire to unite the separate churches by retaining them under the supervision of a single head—the bishop. It seems impossible to refer to the practice of the Apostles as deciding in favor of anysone of these methods; for the case had not yet arisen which could have led to the discussion. The city churches had not yet 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, quite a later process; but such unions are by no means rejected, even by Congregationalists, as long as they are used for deliberation 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 authorative on the whole church: to say nothing of territorial establishment and the support of the civil government. If, under any ecclesiastical form, either oppression or disorder should arise, it cannot be defended: but no form is a security against such evils. Our experience may, in these later times, possibly show us which of these systems is on the whole preferable; but the discussion must belong to ecclesiastical history, and would be quite out of place here.

The Nuttall Encyclopedia

Originally an overseer of souls, eventually an overseer of churches, especially of a district, and conceived of by High-Churchmen as representing the apostles and deriving his powers by transmission from them.