BISHOP. 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 them selves ; but they differ in their estimate of them.
The Apostles originally appointed men to super intend the spiritual, and occasionally even the secular wants of the churches (Acts. xiv. 23; xi. 30; see also 2 Tim. ii. 2), who were ordinarily called elders, from their age, sometimes erianorot, overseers (bishops), from their office. They are also said 7rpoto-rao-Oal., to preside (1 Thess. v. 12 ; I Tim. v. 17), never lipxetv, to rule, which has far too despotic a sound. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 7, 17, 24) they are named iryoonevol, leading men (comp. Acts xv. 22); and, figuratively, irouelves, shepherds (Ephes. iv. is). But that they did not always teach is clear from I Tim. v. 17 ; and the name Elders proves that originally age, ex perience, and character, were their most necessary qualifications. They were to he married men with families (I Tim. iii. 2, 4), and with converted children (Tit. i. 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. Tim. iii. 2; Titus. i. 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 Gal. vi. 6, and i Cor. ix. 14, where he claims for them a right to worldly main tenance • in fact, that the shepherds ordered to feed the flock,' and be its 'overseers' (I Pet. v. 2), were to feed them with knowledge and instruction, will never be disputed, except to support a hypo thesis. The leaders also, in Heb. xiii. 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, incised, the nature of things dictated.
That during St. Paul's lifetime no difference ' between elders and bishops yet existed in the con sciousness of the church, is manifest from the entire absence of distinctive names (Acts xx. 17 28 ; I Pet. v. I, 2). The mention of bishops and deacons in Phil. i. t, and I Tim. iii., without any notice of elders, proves that at that time no dif ference of order subsisted between bishops and elders. A formal ceremony, it is generally be lieved, 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 questionably interpolated in the English version of Acts I. 22: In Tit. i. 5 the Greek word is Karaarlyry, set, or set up; and in Acts xiv. 23 it is xeuporor ParTes, having elected, properly by a hew of hands; though, abusively, the term came to mean simply, having chosen or nominated (Acts x. 41) ; yet in 2 Cor. viii. 19, it seems to have its genuine democratic sense). In I Cor. xvi. 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 as 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 (I Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6; Acts xiii. 3 ; xiv. 26; xv. 40). To the same effect Acts viii. 17 ; xix. 6; —passages which explain Hub. vi. 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.