great as can easily be imagined. It has ranged from densest ignorance to the best learning of the schools, from shameless and criminal self-seeking to the heights of Christian integrity, from pinching asceticism to princely luxury.

Besides, the alliance of Church and State offered the bishop long ago an opportunity, which seems to have been all too eagerly accepted, to assume certain civil and even military functions. There were times in the Middle Ages, for instance, when the episcopal court held jurisdiction not only over the clergy, both as to ecclesiastical and civil cases, but also to a large extent over the people. Fines, scourging, imprisonment were some of the punishments inflicted. "The spiritual courts," says Hallam, "usurped, under sophistical pretenses, almost the whole administration of justice.1

There were also times when bishops (and abbots, who sometimes even excelled the bishops in power) took command of troops, and fighting with their own hands, according to the custom of the day, led them to bloody battle against the heretic or the Infidel. In many such instances these ecclesiastico-military leaders were feudal lords; for perhaps one-half the land of Western Europe was then in possession of the Church. So the bishops, like any other vassals, must furnish their quota of soldiers and gird on their own swords in time of war, at the command of their prince. It might be one of the first services they were called upon to perform after ordination. Of some of them special deeds of prowess are recorded. Many doubtless were both dauntless and sincere. Some died on the battlefield. But all were dishonoring the name and office of bishop in the Church of God. Their fatal blunder was not unlike that of Urban II., who cried, in his impassioned preaching of the First Crusade: "It is the will of God. Let these words be your war cry when you unsheathe your swords." They had borrowed his sword from the False Prophet.

"Europe During the Middle Ages" (1885), Vol. I., p. 625. 17

X.

THE BISHOP: ORIGIN OF HIS OFFICE.

THERE is another episcopal question, which, unlike some that have already held our thoughts for a time, has a far more than historic interest. It is the question of the origin of the single episcopate. Innumerable are the discussions which it has evoked; and the well-worn arguments of the last three hundred years, in the hands of all grades of controvertists, from the feeblest to the most formidable, are still doing service. Of late, however, it is asserted that fresh discoveries, which call for some reconstruction of the older views, have been made in this part of the ecclesiologic field. What these are we may see toward the end of the chapter.

The beliefs that are held as to the origin of the single episcopate vitally concern the unity of organized Christianity in the world to-day. For a satisfactory settlement of the question would remove one of the chief obstacles to the federation of the churches. To search out, then, the facts and the truth concerning this matter must be no less than a duty. By all means let knowledge have its rightful share in determining belief. And it will be so increasingly as the Christian centuries come on.

I. THEORY OF ELEVATION FROM THE PRESBYTERAate. Before the close of the second century, the single episcopate had been established generally in the churches. Whence did it originate?

Four attempted solutions of the problem have been offered. The first is, that the office of bishop and that of presbyter were originally one and the same office under two interchangeable names; but when one of the presbyter-bishops was elected to a presidency over his fellows, his power tended to increase and the name bishop ("overseer") came to be restricted to him only. And the others were thenceforth called simply presbyters.

་

Let us recall the familiar proof-texts which seem to show the two titles to be used interchangeably. When Paul had his interview with "the elders (πpeoßurépovs) of the church" in Ephesus, he charged them: "Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops (¿wwкóñovs).”” These elders, then, were at the same time bishops. Again, in the pastoral letter which he writes to his friend and fellowlaborer, Titus, he says: "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint elders (рeσßʊrépovs) in every city, as I gave thee charge; if any man is blameless, for the bishop (èníσκonos) must be blameless." To appoint elders, then, was to appoint bishops. Now it might be supposed that only the word "elder" in these passages is used as a title the word "bishop" being a common term descriptive of the work which a presbyter must do. And this would be no unreasonable supposition. The terms #poïorάuevol ("they that are over you") and youμevo ("they that have the rule over you") are undoubtedly used in this mere descriptive, or unofficial, sense. In fact, the word "bishop" itself is, at least in its participial form, used by the apostle Peter in an unofficial sense: "Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight (eIσKÓTOUTES)." Also, when the term is applied to (επισκόπουντες). our Lord himself "the Shepherd and Bishop (èπíσкowos”—it seems unlikely that any official meaning of the word is in the writer's mind. Why, then, may it not be so when this same word is used in Acts and in Titus?

995

But let us turn to another New Testament writing. Opening the letter to the Philippians, we read: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Beyond a doubt, both terms in such a passage have the appearance of being used as official titles; and except on the supposition that presbyters are addressed in this

'Acts xx. 17, 28.

Titus i. 5, 7.

"I Thess. v. 12.
'Heb. xiii. 17.

"I Pet. v. 2. 'ETTIOKÓTOUTES, however, is omitted here by the present au

thorities in textual criticism.

1 Pet. ii. 25.

salutation under the name of bishops, we should have to adopt the extremely unlikely conclusion that either presbyters did not exist at Philippi-while on the other hand there were more than one bishop—or for some unimaginable reason they were ignored in the salutation of the founder and chief pastor of the church.

Or, again, how shall we understand the third chapter of First Timothy, where the qualifications of bishops and deacons are laid down? For here too both terms have all the appearance of official titles; and unless bishops are the same as presbyters, there is an unaccountable omission of presbyters and their qualifications.

2

Besides, presbyters are mentioned later in this same epistle as rulers of the church and entitled to a maintenance,' as not to be proceeded against in a matter of discipline except on the testimony of two or three witnesses, and as not to be rebuked by the young pastor, but exhorted as fathers. These references seem more consistent with the idea that presbyters are the same as the bishops of the former chapter than with the idea of their being a third class of officers, unmentioned by the side of the bishops and deacons when the qualifications for office are enumerated.

Why, then, it may be asked, are they not called bishops here also? Possibly because they are here spoken of in such a waynamely, as entitled to maintenance, to be dealt with most considerately if accused of misconduct, and not to be rebuked by the young pastor-as would make the venerated name of presbyter the more fitting word.

However, the question of the official or the unofficial use of the terms is not essential. For, at all events, the opinion that these terms denote the same class or company of persons is now held with practical unanimity (barring some recent dissent to be noticed a few pages later) by New Testament scholars.*

21 Tim. v. 19.

1 Tim. v. I.

11 Tim. v. 17, 18. "It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called indifferently 'bishop' (èπíoкoπoç) and 'elder' or 'presbyter'

In the earliest sub-apostolic literature, likewise, the interchangeableness of the two terms, bishop and presbyter, appears.1

But it came to pass that, for the sake of a stronger unity and a more efficient executive, the presbyter-bishops elected a president of their body, who thus became at the same time president of the whole congregation. There was a special demand, as we have seen, for some such personal bond of congregational unity -because of strifes within the Church and heresies threatening from without. And this presiding officer was appropriately called bishop or overseer, while the others were retained about him as a council of presbyters.*"

(πρεσβύτερος ).”

(Lightfoot, Commentary on Philippians, Excursus on "The Synonyms of 'Bishop' and 'Presbyter."

"The admissions of both medieval and modern writers of almost all schools of theological opinion have practically removed this from the list of disputed questions." (Hatch, "Organization of Early Christian Churches," p. 39, n.)

"At first the supreme authority in the Church was vested in the Apostles, and the titles of Priest and Bishop were both used of the same order." (The Anglican Ordinal, annotated by Bloomfield Jackson, p. 26. Cf. also Blunt, Dictionary of Historical and Doctrinal Theology, Art. "Bishops.")

This identity is admitted by Bishop Gore, "The Church and the Ministry," pp. 223-4, 244-5.

'For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the oversight (ÉpíσкoжTý) those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having fulfilled their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world], for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them." (Clement, "To the Corinthians," 44.) The Didache, as we have seen, speaks of bishops and deacons, but not of presbyters. The testimony of Hermas is to the same effect. (See "The Pastor," Sim. IX. 26, 27; Vis. II. 4; III. 5.) Polycarp, also, speaks of presbyters and deacons, but not of bishops. (Ep. to Philippians, 5, 6.)

"The objection to this theory is that it throws no light on the difficulties which are encountered in the effort to trace the origin of the Christian ministry; while it raises even greater difficulties by making the transition inexplicable in the writings of Ignatius, where bishops and presbyters are sharply distinguished." (Allen, "Christian Institutions," p. 79.). I do not feel the force of this objection. Unless one insist that all is darkness so long as two names, even in a formative state of the Church, are used to designate the same officer, the theory in question does throw light on the