Bishop. The word comes to us from the Anglo-Saxon biscop, an abbreviated form of the Greek episcopos—i.e. 'overseer.' In classical writers, from Homer downwards, it signifies an inspector or superintendent of any kind, though they also use it as a title of various officers with special and determinate functions—e.g. of commissioners sent by the Athenians to regulate the affairs of colonies and subject states, and of magistrates who superintended the sale of provisions in the market under the Roman empire. In the Septuagint the usage of the word corresponds, on the whole, to that in classical writers. Sometimes the sense is quite general, as when, for instance, in Job, xx. 29, it occurs as a name for God who watches over the conduct of men; but usually it denotes officers entrusted with the superintendence of some particular work, whether civil or religious. Had the history of the word ended here, it would never have come, as it actually has done, to form part and parcel of every language spoken by Christians of the East and West. It appears in Syriac and Arabic, in Spanish and German, and everywhere, even in the French évêque, the original Greek form may be recognised. While, however, the word itself has been retained, the sense attached to it has undergone a radical alteration. Throughout the New Testament episcopos is interchangeable with presbyter; both are synonymous titles of officers who direct the discipline and administer the affairs of a single congregation, but, from the latter part of the 2d century, it has assumed a widely different meaning, which it still retains. Instead of being synonymous with presbyter, it implies superiority over a body of presbyters; instead of superintendence in a particular congregation, it suggests rule over a number of congregations united in a diocese. It has ceased to mark an office which may be held by many in the same place, and has been appropriated to one who is supreme over presbyters and laity within the confines of a diocese. A modern bishop occupies a position in his diocese which is unique. He alone ordains presbyters and consecrates churches. He exercises authority over clergy and laity alike. To him the duty of preaching and instructing, and of maintaining sound doctrine, is specially committed. A New Testament bishop or presbyter was the member of a council which watched over the government of a congregation. So far we are on secure ground. The proofs of the alterations which have affected the meaning of the term will be given further on. Meantime, it is enough to say that the fact is admitted by competent persons of every theological school, even by Roman Catholics, such as Döllinger, First Age of the Church (Eng. trans. p. 286), and is treated as probable by Estius on Philippians, and Petavius, Ecclesiast. Hierarch. lib. iv. cap. 2. 'The orders,' says Thomas Aquinas (on Philippians), 'were distinct, but not the names of the orders.'
The matter is indeed very different when we pass from the word 'bishop' to the history of the episcopal office. Thus, while the more learned Roman Catholics admit that the words 'bishop' and 'presbyter' are synonymous in the New Testament, they also allege that modern bishops are by divine right superior to presbyters, and are the successors, not of those who bear the same name in the New Testament, but of the apostles. The Council of Trent anathematizes those who deny that bishops are superior to presbyters, or assert that the episcopal power of ordination is common to the latter (Sess. xxiii. can. 7). True, Roman Catholic divines make some distinction between bishops and apostles, whose successors they are said to be. It is admitted that the apostles had jurisdiction throughout the world, whereas the bishop's power is restrained to a particular diocese. But the bishop, like the apostle, ordains priests, rules over them and over the laity, and this by divine and unalterable institution. The position of High Church Anglicans is much the same. They consider episcopacy as necessary, not only to the well-being, but to the being of a church. To Anglicans of the more moderate school, episcopacy is a venerable form of church government which descends from apostolic times, but they do not count it an essential matter, and they have no mind to unchurch the Protestant communities which have been formed on another model. Presbyterians, on the other hand, contend that the government of the church by presbyters has, and has alone, the sanction of the New Testament, and they reject modern episcopacy as a corruption of primitive Christianity. But at all times the Protestant churches, whether Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Congregationalist, have had men among them who could adopt none of these positions; who believed that the free spirit of Christianity inculcates no definite form of church government, and have regarded the varying shapes which it has assumed as things indifferent in themselves, good or bad according to circumstances, never so good as to compensate in any degree for the absence of spiritual life, never so bad as to preclude its existence. And just as there have been men who forgot disputes about church government in the interests of the spiritual life, so there have been in England, and still more in Germany, scholars who have investigated the history of episcopal power with a learning and impartiality which is not to be found in the war of the churches. We may say, briefly, that the result of all real investigation has been to show how utterly unlike the state of the earliest churches was to anything which either exists or could be reasonably desired at the present day. An attempt will be made here to state and to arrange the facts without entering into sectarian controversy. It must be premised that the whole tradition of the church, from the close of the 2d century onwards, tells, on a prima facie view, for the Roman Catholic and High Church theory of apostolical succession. Each cause has enlisted consummate learning on its side. But the method chosen here has at least the advantages that it is less familiar to the mass of English readers, that it has commended itself to scholars even within the pale of episcopal communions, and that it enables us to exhibit, without prejudice to any theory, the data by which all theory must be tested and proved.
Our earliest and surest sources of information are the undisputed epistles of St Paul, and there it is significant that the word 'bishop' occurs once only, and that in the latest of his epistles (Philip. i. 1). But in one important passage the apostle makes a formal enumeration of the different positions or grades occupied by the members of the church. We use of set purpose language which is vague, because, as we shall see presently, the powers indicated are vague, at least so far as the government of the church is concerned. 'God,' he says, 'hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues' (1 Cor. xii. 28). It will be observed that he speaks of divine appointment, not of popular choice, and the reason is plain, for 'powers,' 'gifts of healing,' 'tongues,' 'prophecy,' were obviously miraculous gifts, and the same holds good, though perhaps in a lower degree, even of teaching, as appears from 1 Cor. xiv. 26; while Paul himself is a conspicuous example of an apostle, sent neither from men nor through human instrumentality, but by God 'through revelation of Jesus Christ' (Gal. i. 1-17).
Still the question remains whether the apostolic included the later episcopal office, and to this question diverse answers are given. Roman Catholics and many Anglicans reply in the affirmative. Presbyterians and many independent scholars also urge that there is scarcely a single feature common to the two. It is only, they plead, in the teeth of history that the distinction can be reduced to one between universal and local jurisdiction. The apostles had no universal jurisdiction; and their nearest counterpart, though even that is wide of the mark, is to be found in the modern missionary. The name of 'apostle,' which occurs once only in Matthew (x. 2), and once in Mark (vi. 30), oftener in Luke, was first given to the twelve. They were sent to the twelve tribes of Israel, and they continued this work, after the death of Jesus, in Jerusalem, and then throughout Judæa. The same name was taken by Paul after he 'had seen the Lord.' Among the Jewish congregations it was extended to James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 19), who had seen the risen Christ (1 Cor. xv. 7), and no doubt at a very early date to others, for Paul distinguishes 'all the apostles' as a larger class from the restricted number of the twelve. In the churches beyond Judæa, Timothy and Silvanus (1 Thess. i. 1, ii. 6), Barnabas (1 Cor. ix. 5), Apollos (1 Cor. iv. 6-9), Andronicus, and Junias (Romans, xvi. 7), were all apostles. Certain conditions seem to have been required before a man was generally recognised by this title. He must have seen the Lord (1 Cor. ix. 1), approved himself by signs (2 Cor. xii. 12) and visions (2 Cor. xii. 1). The appointment, then, of an apostle, and the qualifications according to this view were wholly different from the appointment and qualifications of a bishop. No less different are the powers in the one case and the other. The bishop is the supreme administrator within the diocese in which he is nominated, being invested therein with supreme disciplinary authority. An apostle had no authority except over churches which he had founded. Paul, believing in the truth of his gospel, was ready to proclaim it to all, but the position he adopts to the Romans is quite other than that which he adopts to churches which owed their faith to him. He will not build 'on another man's foundation;' if he hopes to impart some spiritual gift to the Romans, he adds that the benefit will be mutual (Romans, i. 12), and he almost apologises for writing to them at all (Romans, xv. 15). It was his converts who were the seal of his apostleship (1 Cor. ix. 2). Even within his own sphere there is scarcely a resemblance between the authority of an apostle and a bishop. That of the former is much greater and much less, much greater in moral influence, much less in legislative authority. Paul's rights over his converts were those of a father who had begotten them in the gospel (1 Cor. iv. 15; Gal. iv. 19): it was his duty to remind them of the gospel they had received, accompanied and attested by the gifts of the Spirit, and to admonish them in case they were unfaithful to it (1 Cor. iv. 18-21, xiv. 37; 2 Cor. xiii. 2). When he has a distinct command of the Lord, he lays down an absolute precept. 'Unto the married,' he says, 'I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband . . . and that the husband leave not his wife' (1 Cor. vii. 10, 11)—appealing no doubt to a saying of Jesus preserved in the tradition of the disciples. On other matters, and those most important, he distinguishes between his own decision and that 'of the Lord,' and does but give his 'judgment' as 'one that has found mercy' (1 Cor. vii. 10-25). He also gives his own opinion as a spiritual man to whom the really spiritual will listen (1 Cor. xiv. 37, 38), and he refers to the general custom of the churches (1 Cor. xi. 16, vii. 17, iv. 17). But the congregation administered its own affairs in a completely democratic manner. The story of the incestuous Corinthian is a crucial instance. Paul is sure of what will take place; he is present in spirit at the meeting of the believers, but it is the meeting itself which passes sentence of exclusion. 'St Paul's spirit,' as Bishop Ellicott puts it, 'with the associated power of Christ, is present with the convoked synod, and with that synod passes the authoritative sentence' (Comm. on 1 Cor. v. 3). The older apostles had just as little official authority, just the same scope for moral influence. When Paul met them at Jerusalem in 51 A.D., they did not decide for the believers generally, but for themselves and their own course. They gave Paul and Barnabas 'the right hand of fellowship' that 'they should go unto the Gentiles.' Again, Paul felt he had to do, not with a board of officials, but with men whose past gave them great moral weight. In the second chapter of Galatians he never once uses the name 'apostle,' but he does mention 'the men of repute,' 'those who were reputed to be pillars.' Peter and John owed their position in great measure to their personal character, and James also to the fact that he was the brother of Jesus.
It may be objected that, anyhow, some official government must have been required in the early Christian gatherings, and that Paul implies that there were persons who presided in the Thessalonian Church (1 Thess. v. 12). To which the answer is, 'That no doubt government existed, but that it was the government of those who were marked out for it by supernatural or natural gifts, not of officials.' We have seen already, that 'governments' are classed among the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Further, the first converts, or those in whose house the church met (Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19), would naturally direct the others, and take the lead in the congregation. 'I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints), that ye also be in subjection unto such, and to every one that helpeth in the work, and laboureth' (1 Cor. xvi. 15). Here the ministry or deaconship is one with the episcopate or superintendence. All is spontaneous, nothing official. The profusion of miraculous gifts prevented any desire for official teachers, and would have thrown them into the shade had they existed. Nor, some would add, could the apostles have thought of providing the churches with a regular government to last after their own death, though even so early a writer as Clement of Rome attributes this design to them. The fact, it is said, that the apostles, like the other Christians, confidently expected the coming of the Lord in their own time, proves this theory untenable.
Philippi was the earliest of the European churches, and there St Paul, towards the close of his life, does salute 'the saints' with the 'bishops and deacons.' Possibly, even then, these titles were beginning to be attributed, the former, to those who were the acknowledged leaders of the congregation; the latter, to those who devoted themselves to furthering and helping on its work. In later books of the New Testament canon, there is frequent mention of bishops or presbyters and deacons. And in the Acts the origin of these offices is traced back to the apostles themselves, and to the very beginning of the gospel. We are as yet, however, a long way from the Presbyterian system, because the office of teaching and preaching is quite separate from that of the presbyter. He was not a minister or preacher, but an 'overseer' or 'shepherd' of the church (Acts, xx. 28). He replaced the presbyters of the Jewish synagogue who presided over its discipline. And we are still further from diocesan episcopacy. Never once, from the beginning to the end of the New Testament, is 'a threefold ministry' of bishops, priests, and deacons so much as hinted at. On the contrary, bishop and presbyter are two words for the same office. The presbyters of Miletus (Acts, xx. 17) are also its bishops (verse 28); so are the presbyters in Crete (compare Titus, i. 5 with 7). The author of 1 Tim. iii. 7 having described the qualifications of a bishop, passes straight to those of the deacon, knowing nothing of any third office. True, it has been suggested—e.g. by Rothe (Anfänge der Christ. Kirche, p. 173, seq.) and by Bishop Lightfoot—that diocesan episcopacy may have sprung up at the close of the apostolic age. But it was unknown to Clement of Rome about 120 A.D. 'In his epistle,' says Bishop Lightfoot, 'there is no mention of episcopacy properly so called, for bishop and presbyter are still synonymous terms (see Clem. Ep. i. 44-47).'
Precisely the same argument may be drawn from the 'Teaching of the Apostles' (xv.), and the Shepherd of Hermas (Vis. iii. 5). These authorities carry us well into the 2d century. An analogue to the diocesan bishop has been seen by some in the 'angels' of the Revelation. They are the guardian spirits of the churches, or possibly personifications of them, but not human rulers, as Bishop Lightfoot with others, before and since, has conclusively proved.
In the pastoral epistles, supposed by the more advanced critics to have been written in St Paul's name against the Gnostic heresies of the 2d century, we get closer to the point. There Titus and Timothy are certainly empowered to guard the faith, to appoint bishops or presbyters in every city, and to exercise authority over them. There is a tendency to identify the bishop or presbyter with the teacher or preacher, for the bishop is to be 'apt to teach' (1 Tim. iii. 2), but the identification is not yet complete, for it is taken for granted that only some bishops teach (1 Tim. v. 17). The recurrence of such phrases as 'sound doctrine,' and the position of Timothy and Titus, make us feel that we are already on the threshold of the Catholic Church with its rule of faith and its hierarchy. But even here much is lacking. Timothy and Titus are temporary delegates of the apostle, not diocesan bishops. It is in the Ignatian epistles that the Rubicon is passed, and here indisputably, in any case as early as the middle of the 2d century, the claims of bishops, in the modern sense, are insisted upon perpetually. It is useless to multiply quotations from writers of later date. By the time of Irenæus (190 A.D.), the diocesan episcopate was established throughout the Roman world. The old enthusiastic life of the early Christian meetings was replaced by the rule of the hierarchy. Even Ignatius had not reached the view which is familiar to Irenæus, and still more to Cyprian, that bishops are the successors of the apostles, and the channels through which primitive tradition is conveyed to successive ages. Thus, it is held by many, the Catholic Church arose, formed by a kind of necessity in the struggle against the exaggerated doctrines of the Gnostic sects, which threatened to dissolve Christianity in systems of fantastic and variable speculation. The canon or collection of New Testament books, with binding authority equal to that of the Old Testament, the episcopacy united with itself, the appeal to apostolic tradition, all arose from the same need, and on this triple foundation the Catholic Church was built.
Two other points, however, deserve notice. First, Jerome (died 420) (on Titus, i. 5; Ep. i. 46) and an earlier writer, whose works are printed with those of St Ambrose (on 1 Tim. iii. 8, 9, 10), perceived that bishops and presbyters had been originally one, and that the current distinction could claim no higher sanction than the custom of the church. Jerome's words, than which nothing can be more clear and strong, were incorporated in the Decretum, the earliest medieval collection of canon law (Dist. xciii. c. 24; xcv. c. 5), and thus all through the middle ages the schoolmen retained some idea of the real history of the office. Next, even in the 4th century, the church had not reached the modern principle that a bishop alone can confer valid orders. Thus, the Council of Ancyra in 314 A.D. (canon 13) assumes that presbyters may ordain presbyters with the bishop's sanction. The fathers of the council recognised of course the episcopal authority, but they did not attribute any supernatural efficacy to the imposition of episcopal hands.
The foregoing is a statement of the opinions, and the arguments on which these are based, held by the less conservative New Testament scholars both in England and Germany. Their argument has been given the more fully as still being much less known in England than the time-honoured High Church view, which has been for centuries the consistent theory of the whole Catholic Church. That theory of course is a perfectly simple and intelligible position, and the attitude of believers towards it depends mainly on the view they hold as to the literal interpretation of Scripture. For apart altogether from the much wider and more difficult question, how far the general development in dogma of the whole body politic of the church is itself the outward evidence and expression of Christ's promised presence and guidance to the end of the world, the High Church theory of the apostolic succession of bishops—the representatives of the apostles, and through them of the Lord himself—finds strong support from the plain words of Scripture and the unforced exegesis of the same.
We must content ourselves with a brief summary of the later history of the office; and here it will be convenient to begin with the Roman Catholic and Eastern churches. There the duties and power of bishops remain much as they were in the middle of the 3d century, except so far as they have been curtailed by the rise of the papal power in the West, by the institution of Patriarchates and the interference of the state in the East. The Council of Trent requires the bishop to preach the word of God, and to maintain purity of doctrine among clergy and people. He has to superintend divine worship, and is bound to visit all the churches of his diocese at least once in every two years. He approves priests, and gives them faculties to hear confessions. He makes laws for his diocese, without power, however, to alter the common law of the church; decides ecclesiastical causes in the first instance; can suspend his clerical or excommunicate his lay subjects; he collates to all benefices, except those reserved to the pope; he directs the administration of temporal goods belonging to the diocese; he can dispense from his own laws, and, within certain narrow limits, from the law of the church. Such is the jurisdiction or ruling power of a bishop, but he is by no means supreme or unfettered even in his own diocese. He is subject by divine law to the councils of the church, and, as Roman Catholics believe, to the pope, and by ecclesiastical law he is in subordination to patriarchs, metropolitans, &c. In respect of orders—i.e. in power of consecration and the like—he has no superior, nor do pope or patriarch pretend to higher power than that of a simple bishop. He alone can consecrate other bishops, and ordain priests, and he alone, according to the Roman Catholic theory, is the ordinary minister of confirmation.
He is now addressed in the Latin Church as 'Most Illustrious and Reverend Lord,' though once titles which have become peculiar to the pope—e.g. 'Most Holy, Most Blessed Lord,' 'Your Holiness,' 'Servant of the Servants of God,' were common to mere bishops. His insignia are the ring, pectoral cross, episcopal throne, mitre, pontifical vestments, gloves, and sandals.
Bishops were in the earliest ages chosen by the people, subject to a veto by the bishops of the province (Cyprian, Ep. lxviii.). In 325 A.D. the first Nicene Council (canon 4) recommended appointment by the provincial bishops, subject to confirmation of their choice by the metropolitan. Greek canonists understood this canon as annulling the old form of popular election, and at present the Greek orthodox bishops are nominated by the patriarch, though in Russia the final nomination rests with the czar. In the West the canon was understood to leave the popular rights of election unimpaired, merely requiring the presence of the bishops of the province, and confirmation by the metropolitan. In the 11th century the right of election passed to the Cathedral Chapter, and the pope gradually engrossed the sole right of confirmation, till at last Clement V. and his successors claimed the right of nomination also, first in certain cases, and then absolutely. Since then the pope has restored the right of election to the chapters in Prussia, Hanover, the Upper Rhine, Switzerland, and the
Austrian archbishoprics of Salzburg and Olmütz, with their suffragan sees, the respective governments having a right of veto. In Austria, with the exceptions just mentioned, in Bavaria, France, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, and Spanish America, the head of the state nominates. The election is purely papal in Belgium, also in Holland, Great Britain and Ireland, North America, and other Protestant countries. A right of recommendation, however, is conceded to the Roman Catholic chapters in Belgium, Holland, and England, to chapters and parish priests in Ireland, to the bishops of the province in North America. The right of consecration, which used to belong to the metropolitan and two other bishops, is now reserved to the pope, or a bishop nominated by him. There are about 180 archiepiscopal and 750 episcopal sees in the Roman Catholic Church. In Ireland there are 4 archbishoprics, 24 bishoprics; in England, 1 archbishopric, 15 bishoprics; in Scotland, 2 archbishoprics, 4 bishoprics. Altogether there are about 120 Roman Catholic sees in the British empire. In the United States there are nearly 100. Besides these, there are the titular bishops, till the pontificate of Leo XIII. called bishops in partibus infidelium. They have received episcopal consecration, but have no regular jurisdiction. They assist some other bishop, or are delegates of the pope where the hierarchy is not established.
Passing to the Reformed churches, we find the theory of the Anglican much the same as that of the Roman episcopate, except that in England the authority of the crown has replaced that of the pope. The Anglican bishop is said, though the statement is disputed by Roman Catholic controversialists, to descend in direct line of consecration from his predecessors in the middle ages. He alone can ordain, confirm, and consecrate churches. He institutes to benefices and licenses curates; he has the right to preach throughout the diocese, to inspect the churches and churchyards. He can withdraw the licenses of curates, who may, however, appeal to the metropolitan. He is ex officio president in the Consistorial Court. With regard to criminal clerks his power is very limited, not only because the final decision rests with the Queen in council, but also because the English law protects the interests of the inferior clergy with a zeal unknown to the modern canon law of the Roman Church. Thus, whereas the Council of Trent permits a bishop to decide in cases of certain grave charges against clerks 'without formal trial, having simply ascertained the truth of the fact,' an Anglican prelate has no such power. He may institute a commission of inquiry, and decide the case with three assessors, one of whom must be a barrister, or he may at once prosecute in the Superior Court. If he himself passes sentence, an appeal lies to the Court of Arches in the province of Canterbury, to the Chancery in the province of York, and ultimately to the Privy-council. If a bishop refuses to institute a clerk to a benefice, the appeal is first to the archbishop and then to the Privy-council. There are in England and Wales two archbishoprics and thirty-two bishops, besides twenty-three bishops-suffragan or assistant bishops, the archbishops and twenty-four of the bishops having seats in the House of Lords. There are two archbishoprics and eleven bishops in the disestablished Church of Ireland; seven bishops in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, one of whom is called Primus; eighty-one colonial, eleven missionary bishops; and seventy bishops in the Episcopal Church of the U.S.
The early Lutherans were singularly moderate and rational in their attitude to episcopacy. They denied its divine institution, but they were quite willing to tolerate it, when circumstances made it expedient to do so. In Germany the name of bishop fell into disuse, or was retained as a merely civil title, or revived for a short time, and then allowed to drop; and the Lutheran superintendent is a mere shadow of a medieval bishop. On the other hand, the Lutheran churches of Denmark and Scandinavia have always been episcopal. There are seven bishops in Denmark, nominated by the crown, one archbishop and eleven bishops in Sweden; six bishops in Norway, which last are chosen by the clergy. These Lutheran bishops have the sole right of ordination, but in Sweden their disciplinary power is exercised in union with a consistory, the majority of whose members are laymen.
For the early history of the office, see Lightfoot on Philippians; Rothe, Anfänge der Christlichen Kirche, p. 261 seq.; Ritschl, Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche, p. 399 seq.; Baur, Christentum und Kirche der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, p. 260 seq.; Hatch, Organisation of the Early Christian Churches; Weizsäcker, Apostolisches Zeitalter, p. 606 seq. The historical canonists of the Roman Catholic Church, such as Thomassin, afford abundant and trustworthy information on the episcopate in later patristic and medieval times. Dr Wordsworth's Theophilus Anglicanus is a popular statement of the High Church theory by a divine of great learning; Döllinger's First Age of the Church (trans. by Oxenham) treats the subject in a masterly fashion from the Roman Catholic standpoint. For the Reformed churches recourse has been had to Blunt's Church Law, revised by Phillimore, and to the articles on the Danish and Scandinavian churches in Herzog and Plitt's Encyclopädie für Protestantische Theologie. See also the articles in this work on APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, ARCHBISHOP, ENGLAND (CHURCH OF), ORDERS, PRIEST, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.