BISHOP
582
BISHOP
of the organization of the synagogue, they appointed
presbyters, sometimes called bishops in the Gentile
churches. The duties of the presbyters were two-
fold: they were both rulers and instructors of the
congregation. In the Apostolic age, however, traces
of the highest order, the episcopate properly so
called, are few and indistinct. The episcopate was
not formed from the Apostolic order through the
localization of the universal authority of the Apostles,
but from the presbyteral (by elevation). The title
of bishop originally common to all came at length
to be appropriated to the cliief among them. Within
the period compassed by the Apostolic writings,
James, the brother of tha Lord, can alone claim to be
regarded as a bishop in the later and more special
sense of the terra. On the other hand, though es-
pecially prominent in the Church of Jerusalem, he
appears in the .\cts as a member of a body. As late
as the year 70, no distinct signs of episcopal govern-
ment had yet appeared in Gentile Christendom.
During the last three decades of the first century,
however, during the lifetime of the latest surviving
Apostle, St. John, the episcopal office was estabhshed
in Asia Minor. St. John was cognizant of the position
of St. James at Jerusalem. When, therefore, he
found in .\sia Minor manifold irregularities and
threatening symptoms of disruption, he not unnat-
urally encouraged in these Gentile churches an ap-
C roach to the organization, which had been signally
lessed and had proved effectual in holding to-
gether the mother-church of Jerusalem amid dangers
no less serious. The ejcistence of a council or college
necessarily supposes a presidency of some kind,
whether this presidency be assumed by each member
in turn, or lodged in the hands of a single person.
It was only necessary, therefore, to give permanence,
definiteness, stability to an office the germ of which
already existed. There is no reason, however, for
supposing that any direct ordinance was issued to
the churches by St. Jolui. The evident utihty and
even pressing need of such an office, sanctioned by
the most venerated name in Christendom, would
be sufficient to secure its wide though gradual re-
ception. The earliest bishops, however, did not
hold the position of independent supremacy which
was and is occupied by their later representatives.
This development is most conveniently grasped in
connexion with three great names: Ignatius, Irenseus,
and Cyprian, who represent as many successive ad-
vances towards the supremacy ultimately attained.
By Ignatius the bishop is regarded as the centre of
unity; to Irenaeus he is the depositary of primitive
truth; to Cyprian, he is the absolute vicegerent of
Christ in things spiritual (Lightfoot, The Christian
Ministry, 181-269, in his commentary on St. Paul's
Epistle to the Philippians, London, 1896).
Catholic WTiters agree in recognizing the Apostolic origin of the episcopate, but are much divided as to the meaning of the terms which designate the hier- archy in the New Testament writings and the Apos- tolic Fathers. One may even ask if originally these terms had a clearly defined significance (Bruders, Die Verfassung der Kirche bis zum Jalire 175, Mainz, 1904). Nor is there greater unaniraitv when an attempt is made to explain why some cliurches are found without presbyters, others without bishops, others again where the heads of the community are called sometimes bishops, sometimes presbyters. This disagreement increases when the question comes up as to the interpretation of the terms which desig- nate other personages exercising a certain fixed authority in the early Christian communities. The following facts may be regarded as fully established: (1) To some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest (iwlaKOTros and irpeapvTcpot) are synonymous. (See the principal interpretations in the article: College, Apostohc.) (2) The.se terms
may designate either simple priests (A. Michiels, Les
origines de I'^piscopat, Louvain, 1900, 218 sqq.) or
bishops possessing the full powers of their order.
(Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire et de thfiologie positive,
Paris, 1902, 266 sqq.; Duchesne, Histoire ancienne
de r^glise, Paris, 1906, 94.) (3) In each community
the authority may originally have belonged to a
college of presbyter-bishops. This does not mean
that the episcopate, in the actual sense of the term,
may have been plural, because in each church the
college of presbyter-bishops did not exercise an in-
dependent supreme power; it was subject to the
Apostles or to their delegates. The latter were
bishops in the actual sense of the term, but they did
not possess fixed sees nor had they a special title
(Batiffol, 270). Since they were essentially itinerant,
they confided to the care of some of the better edu-
cated and higUy respected neophytes the fixed neces-
sary functions relating to the daily life of the com-
munity. (4) Sooner or later the missionaries had to
leave the young communities to themselves, where-
upon their direction fell entirely upon these local
authorities who thus received the Apostolical suc-
cession. (5) This local superior authority, which
was of Apostolic origin, was conferred by the
Apostles upon a monarcliic bishop, such as is under-
stood by the term to-day. This is proved first by the
example of Jerusalem, where James, who was not
one of the Twelve Apostles, held the first place, and
afterwards by those communities in Asia Minor of
which Ignatius speaks, and where, at the beginning
of the second century the monarchical episcopate
existed, for Ignatius does not write as though the
institution were a new one. (6) In other communities,
it is true, no mention is made of a monarchic episco-
pate until the middle of the second century. We do
not wish to reject the opinion of those who believe
that there are in several documents of the second
century traces of the monarcliic episcopate, that is to
say, of an authority superior to that of the college of
the presbyter-bishops. The reasons which some
■^Titers allege, in order to explain why, for example,
in the Epistle of Polyearp no mention is made of a
bishop, are very plausible. The best evidence, how-
ever, for the existence at this early date of a monarolii-
cal episcopate is the fact that nowhere in the latter
half of the second century is the least trace to bo
found of a change of organization. Such a change
would have robbed the supposed college of presbyter-
bishops of their sovereign authority, and it is almost
impossible to comprehend how this body would have
allowed itself to be everywhere despoiled of its
supreme authority, without leaving in the contem-
porary documents the least trace of a protest against
so important a change. If the monarchical episcopate
began only in the middle of the second century, it is
impossible to comprehend how at the end of the
second century the episcopal lists of several impor-
tant bishoprics giving the succession of monarchic
bishops as far back as the first century were generally
known and admitted. Such, for instance, was the
case at Rome. (7) This theoiy, it must be carefully
noted, does not contradict the liistorical texts. Ac-
cording to these documents, there was a college of
presbyters or of bishops which administered several
churches, but which had a president who was none
other than the monarcliic bishop. Although (he
power of the latter had existed from the beginning
it became gradually more conspicuous. The part
played by the presbt/terium , or body of priests, was a
very important one in the earlier days of the Christian
Church; nevertheless it did not exclude the existence
of a monarchic episcopate (Duchesne, 89-95).
During the first three centuries, the entire religious life of the diocese centred around the person of the bishop. The priests and deacons were liis auxiliarief . but they worked under the immediate direction oi
