I. In examining the question of the divine authority of Episcopacy, we have to consider carefully what we mean by the phrase. Do we intend that Episcopacy stands on the same level as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as a direct ordinance of Christ “generally necessary for salvation or do we mean that it was called into being by the apostles and first teachers of the Christian church under that most real, though perhaps to them insensible, direction of the Holy Spirit, to which their decisions and actions are continually ascribed in the sacred record (Acts viii. 29, X. 19, xi. 12, xiii. 2, xv. 28, xvi. 6, 7, xix. 21, xx. 23) ί Of the former opinion, though asserted as an unquestionable fact by many learned defenders of Episcopacy, we may safely assert that there is not a trace in the New Testament. That the episcopal organization of His church was among the “things pertaining to the kingdom of God” which formed the subject of the intercourse of Christ and the twelve in the interval between His resurrection and His ascension is a mere hypothesis destitute of the semblance of proof. Neither the Acts nor the Epistles contain the slightest hint of any such authoritative communication being made before our Lord’s ascension, or of any direct revelation to that effect subsequent to that event, binding on the church for all time. The conclusion that would be naturally drawn from the brief and scanty references to the organization of the Christian ministry in Holy Scripture is that the apostles were left free to act, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, as they might from time to time judge to be most for the good of the church. There can be no question that this was so in the appointment of the seven whose office is commonly identified with the Diaconate (Acts vi.).; and, though the evidence is less distinct, it appears to have been the case with the Presbyterate (Acts xiv. 23), while the authority of Timothy and Titus, in whom we see the first adumbration of diocesan Episcopacy, is plainly represented as delegated by the Apostle Paul with the view of carrying out the arrangements which special circumstances rendered desirable for the particular time and place. There is certainly nothing in the apostle’s language to either of them to support the idea that by such delegation he was carrying into effect a divine ordinance of perpetual obligation.

If,however, we interpret the expression “divine authority” in the larger sense, as including all that the apostles did, as the holders of Christ’s express commission—“as my Father hath sent me even so send I you’’(John xx. 21)—through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, for the edification of the church of which they were the divinely appointed governors and propagators, there need be as little scruple in allowing the divine authority of Episcopacy as there is in the case of other ordinances of the Christian church, such as the observation of the Lord’s day, the baptism of infants, and confirmation. An institution of which traces are seen in apostolic times, and which is found prevailing throughout the church in the age succeeding the apostles, and continuing everywhere without a break of continuity to the 16th century, and in most parts of Christendom to the present day, cannot be looked upon as anything less than the deliberate expression of the mind of the church. In this qualified sense we may safely adopt the verdict of Hooker, “that if anything in the church’s government, surely the first institution of bishops was from heaven,—was even of God,—the Holy Ghost was the author of it, and is to be acknowledged the ordinance of God no less than that ancient Jewish regiment, whereof though Jethro was the deviser, yet after that God had allowed it all men were subject unto it, as to the polity of God not of Jethro” {Eccl. Polit., bk. vii, c. v. § 2, 10).

II. The twelve apostles were the depositaries of Christ’s commission as the founders and governors of His church (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18, xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15; Luke xxiv. 47, 48; John xx. 21-23). In the Acts we find them its sole directors and administrators. The whole ministry of the church was, in the germ, included in the apostolate, from which it was gradually developed as occasion required by the successive delegation of the powers lodged with the apostles to other members of the church, first as their substitutes and afterwards as their successors. Thus the Christian ministry, as Canon Robertson has remarked {History of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 8), “was developed not from below but from above,” not by elevation, but by devolution. The first delegation was to the seven, for the discharge of the secular functions and lower spiritual offices for which the rapid growth of the church rendered the apostles personally unequal. This was succeeded by the delegation of the duties of teaching, government, and discipline to presbyters or elders, especially in congregations (such as those planted by Paul and Barnabas in Asia Minor) over which the apostles were unable to exercise any continuous personal superintendence (Acts xiv. 23). In Hooker’s words, “the form or regiment by them established at first was that the laity, or people, should be subject unto a college of ecclesiastical persons which were in every such city appointed for that purpose” (Ecd. Polit., bk. vii. ch. v. § 1). It may be desirable here to remove the confusion which may be produced by the ambiguous use of the word “bishop,” ∈7rtσκo7roς, in the New Testament. It happens in all languages that in process of time the meaning of a word changes. That which in one generation is a general term, in the next contracts into a technical term, ora word which designated one office becomes the title of another. It is so with the word “bishop.” In its fundamental sense of an “overseer,” “inspector,” it was not originally a term of office at all. When it appears as such in the New Testament, it is simply synonymous with “presbyter,” the same officer of the church being called indifferently by the one or the other name. The “presbyters” or “elders” of the Ephesian church summoned by St Paul to ιfieet him at Miletus (Acts xx. 17) are in verse 28 designated by him “bishops,” or “overseers,” of the flock. In the pastoral epistles the words are used indifferently. Corresponding directions are given to Titus concerning the ordaining of “elders” (Tit. i. 5-7), and to Timothy for the ordination of “bishops” (1 Tim. iii. 1-7), while the identity of the two is further evidenced by the use of the term “bishop” in Tit. i. 7, and “elders,” 1 Tim. v. 17-19. St Peter also, when exhorting the presbyters, as their “brother presbyter” {σvpττpeσβvτepof), to the zealous fulfilment of their charge, speaks of it as “the work of an overseer,”or “bishop” (e7τισκo7ro⅛τ∈ς) (1 Pet. v. 1, 2.) The titles continue synonymous in the epistle of Clement of Rome {Epish, i. § 42, 44). That the offices were identical in the apostolic age is also more than once asserted by St Jerome, writing towards the close of the 4th century {e.g., li the apostle shows us plainly that presbyters and bishops are the same . . . . it is proved most clearly that a bishop is the same as a presbyter.”— Epist. cxlvi.: see also Epist. lxix; and Ad Tit. i. 8), as well as by Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, and may be regarded as indisputable.

Any conclusion, therefore, drawn from the use of the term “bishop” in the New Testament, as to the existence of the episcopal office, would be fallacious. “Things,” however, as Hooker has said, “are always ancienter than their names,” and letting go the name and coming to the thing, indications may be discovered in the Acts and pastoral epistles of something closely answering to a localized episcopate in apostolic time3. James, the Lord’s brother, occupies a position in the church at Jerusalem, associated with and yet distinct from and superior to his presbytery, and in some respects, at least in Jerusalem, higher than the apostles themselves, which presents many features of the diocesan episcopate of later times (Acts xii. 17, XV. 13, 19, xxi. 18; Gal. i. 19, ii. 9, 12), and tends to confirm the unanimous statement of early writers that he was the first bishop of Jerusalem. (Hieron., De Script. Eccles., ii.; Euseb., Hist. Eccl., ii. 1.) But in him we have the only example of such an organization presented in the Acts. As Professor Shirley lias remarked {Apostolic Age, p. 133), his position was in important respects exceptional. Whether one of the twelve or not, he was ranked with the apostles (Gal. i. 19), and his authority was therefore inherent, not derived from them. And therefore for years he remained the only Christian bishop. We have to pass on to the pastoral epistles of St Paul (the latest that proceeded from his pen) before we again meet with any clear traces of the existence of Episcopacy. The evidence of these epistles, however, is unquestionable, whatever the exact nature of the office to which Timothy and Titus were designated by St PauL Whether permanent or temporary, whether their authority was that of diocesan bishops, or, as was more probably the case, of vicars-apostolic, it is certain that their power was a delegated one,—that they were acting as the substitutes of the apostle, and that their duties were in essence identical with those of the episcopate. In Dr Lightfoot’s words, “they were in fact the link between the apostle, whose superintendence was occasional and general, and the bishop who exercised a permanent supervision over an individual congregation.”

If the “angels” of the seven churches addressed in the early chapters of the Apocalypse could be certainly identified with bishops, we should have a further evidence of localized Episcopacy in apostolic times of the highest value. But this interpretation, though very generally accepted, is not sufficiently free from question to bear the strain of argument.

III. An almost impenetrable cloud hangs over the closing years of the 1st and the opening of the 2d century. When it begins to disperse we see an episcopal organization everywhere established, and working with a quiet regularity, which gives no indications of its being a novel experiment, still less of its having been imposed by superior authority on a reluctant community. How is this momentous change, without a counterpart in history, to be accounted for? How, to adopt Professor Shirley’s image, can we bridge over “the immense chasm which divides the rudimentary order of the churches planted by St Paul from the rigorously defined and universal Episcopacy which we find described by Ignatius? The more we look into the circumstances the more the marvel grows.”

The solution of this problem which appears to satisfy the various conditions most adequately is—that episcopal organization was developed gradually according to the requirements of different churches; that, as Jerome more than once distinctly asserts, it was called into being by the experience of the need of some coercive power to check dissensions, repress rising heresies, and supplement the authority of the rapidly diminishing body of the apostles; and that, taking Tertullian as a trustworthy exponent of the traditions of the 3d century, its first appearance was connected with the latest survivor of the Twelve, the Apostle John. An examination of the early history of the various churches founded in different parts of the world during the 1st century indicates that the establishment, of Episcopacy was not a single definite and formal act proceeding from a central authority 7 ·, such as the apostolic council after the fall of Jerusalem, imagined without sufficient evidence by Rothe, but a gradual and progressive development, advancing faster in some places than in others, as the growth of the Christian community and the increasing inability of the apostles personally to regulate the churches they had founded required. St Paul’s case presents a picture of what must have been occurring in every part of the Christian world. The apostle had at first to bear in his own person “the care of all the churches” (2 Cor. xi; 28), i.e., of all those which looked up to him as their founder. His insufficiency to bear such a burden alone forced itself upon him as these churches became more numerous. Presbyters and deacons, äs Epiphanius has remarked (77α j r., lxxv. 5), could conduct the administration of a church for a while. But occasions arose, as at Ephesus and Crete, when the continuous presence of an authorized ruler became essential to check serious mischief. Letters, however “weighty,” could not compensate for the want of personal influence. It was impossible for the apostle, even when there was no restraint upon his liberty, to meet all the claims upon him in his own person. He therefore delegated his authority (whether temporarily or permanently does not materially affect the question) to others who acted by his commission, and who were charged among other duties with the perpetuation of the Christian ministry (1 Tim. iii. v. 22; 2 Tim. ii. 2; Tit. i. 5). We know from his pastoral epistles that St Paul did this to meet the special needs of the churches of Ephesus and Crete; and we may not unreasonably believe that the same measure was resorted to by him as well as by the other apostles in other churches where a similar emergency called for it. The language of St Jerome, which has been so often unfairly employed to weaken the cause of Episcopacy, when properly interpreted points to this origin. He asserts that the episcopal office was established as a remedy against schism, and to put a curb upon the factious spirit which, by the instigation of the devil, had sprung up in various churches, notably in that of Corinth. As long as the apostolic founder of a church was living, and was able personally to interpose, this need for a bishop’s authority would not be felt. As this resort closed, as it did very gradually, the development of Episcopacy advanced, with a steady though uneven progress, until it became universal. Jerome’s oft-quoted statement that the superiority of bishops to presbyters was rather due to the custom of the church than to any actual ordinance of the Lord, “ex ecclesiae consuetudine magis quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate” (Hieron. in Tit. L 5), does not in any way contradict its apostolical origin, which is indeed implied in the context of the passage, but merely signifies that the institution does not rest upon written words of Christ.

If we further ask by what authority it was decided that, in Jerome’s words (u.s.), “to root out the thickets of heresies all the responsibility should be deferred to a single person,” the testimony of antiquity, scanty, it is true, but adequate, affirms that this authority was apostolic, and points to St John as its chief though not exclusive source. Tertullian expressly asserts that “the order of bishops, if traced back to its origin, will rest upon John as its author” (Ädv. Marcion., iv. 5). This statement is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria, who relates that St John, after his return to Ephesus from Patmos, on the death of Domitian, was in the habit of making progresses through the neighbouring districts, “in one place to establish bishops, in another to organize whole churches, in another to ordain individuals indicated by the Holy Spirit” (Apud Euseb., Hist. Eccl., iii. 23). Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, whose authority on such a fact is indisputable, says that his revered master had been “established by apostles in Asia as bishop in the church of Smyrna” (Iren., iii. 3, § 4), a statement which is confirmed by Tertullian (De ProescripC 32). Polycarp is also distinctly mentioned as bishop of Smyrna, together with Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus, in the genuine letters of Ignatius. The names of Papias of Hierapolis, Sagaris of Laodicea, and Melito of Sardis, all contemporary bishops with Polycarp, supply “irrefragable evidence of the early and wide extension of Episcopacy throughout proconsular Asia, the scene of St John’s latest labours” (Lightfoot, u.s., p. 212), and, “unless all historical testimony is to be thrown aside as worthless, demonstrate that the institution of a localized episcopate — what Hooker calls “bishops with restraint,” in contrast with the “episcopate at large” exercised by the apostles— “cannot be placed later than the closing years of the 1st century, and cannot be dissevered from the *ame of St John” {Ibid. p. 231). There is no reason for supposing that this was the result of the deliberations of an apostolic council, or that it was enforced by an authoritative decree. The doubtful and somewhat legendary tale of Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius, of the calling of such a council at Jerusalem after the fall of the city and the death of St James,—even if it be conceded that at that late period any considerable number of the apostolic body were alive, and were within reach of such a summons,— expressly limits its purpose to the appointment of Symeon, the son of Clopas, as a successor to St James. That this gathering had in view so momentous a step as the establishment of Episcopacy as the form of government for the church for all time is a mere hypothesis, unsupported by any ancient testimony or tradition. Neither have we evidence for any definite decree proceeding either from an apostolic council, or, if that be rejected as baseless, from St John’s individual authority. In the words of Dr Lightfoot, u.s., p. 205,—

“The evident utility and even pressing need of such an office, sanctioned by the most venerated name in Christendom, would be sufficient to secure a wide though gradual reception. Such a reception, it is true, supposes a substantial harmony and freedom of intercourse among the churches which remained undisturbed by the troubles of the times; but the silence of history is not at all unfavourable to this supposition. In this way, during the historical blank which extends over half a century after the fall of Jerusalem, Episcopacy was matured, and the Catholic church consolidated.”

The opening epoch is the only portion of the history of Episcopacy over which any uncertainty hangs. After the commencement of the 2d century, wherever we hear of the existence of a local church we find it, without any exception, and with hardly any variety, under the government of a bishop, and that without any indication of there ever having been a time when it was otherwise. The existing bishop is usually spoken of as the successor of other bishops reaching in unbroken line to apostolic times. Episcopacy is everywhere uniformly...

The ministers who were sent to the recently erected churches had probably different powers, according to the numbers to whom they were to officiate, the situation of the churches in respect of the original church, and the tranquillity or persecution which was their lot. In the immediate neighbourhood of the bishop, and where one person was sufficient, he would merely perform the duties that had been assigned to him previous to his mission; but the same reasons that led the Apostles to plant several presbyters in the churches which they founded might render it expedient that more than one, sometimes that a considerable number, should be attached to the newly-formed congregations; more particularly when the number attending was large, and when there was the prospect of their still farther increasing. In such cases, it appears that the bishop gave to one of the presbyters sent, and did so for the same reasons that had at first created inequality among the pastors, more extensive powers than were entrusted to the rest, and made him his representative authorizing him to preside over the others, and to discharge those parts of the ministerial office which, in his own church, he reserved for himself. When this happened, the person so distinguished was termed _choro-episcopus_: he was more than a presbyter, but he was inferior to the bishop, acted by his directions, and could be controlled by him in the exercise of the privileges which had been granted. Such subordinate bishops continued for a considerable time; but it might, from the beginning, have been foreseen that they would soon aspire to an equality with the original bishops; and they were at length suppressed, under the pretence that, by multiplying the higher order in places of little consequence, the church would detract from the respectability of that order, and lessen the reverence with which it should be regarded.

The different congregations or churches which were established in various cities and the adjoining districts were in so far independent of each other, that the bishops and presbyters of each had the rule of their particular church, and of the churches which had sprung from it, and were entitled, by their own authority, to make such regulations as appeared to them to be requisite; and this species of independence continued for a considerable time, every bishop presiding in his congregation, and afterward in his diocess. There was, however, always a common tie by which they were united. Neighbouring churches, actuated by ardent zeal for the interests of divine truth, consulted together upon the best mode of promoting it. We know that the Apostolic churches were enjoined to communicate to other bodies the epistles which they had received; and while persecution continued, it was natural for all who were exposed to it to consider by what means its fury could be avoided.

After the bishops were established as superior to presbyters, when any meeting was held respecting religion, or the administration of the church, it was chiefly composed of this higher order, and the president of the synod or council was elected from their number. These meetings were generally assembled in the metropolis, or principal city of the district; and hence the bishop of this city, being frequently called to preside, came, at length, to be regarded as entitled to do so: thus acquiring a superiority over the other bishops, just as they had acquired superiority over the inferior clergy. He was, in consequence, distinguished by a particular name, being denominated, from the city in which he presided, a metropolitan.