A prelate consecrated for the spiritual government of a diocese. The word comes from the Saxon bishop, and that from the Greek meaning an overseer, or inspector. It is a long time since bishops have been distinguished from mere priests, or presbyters; but whether that distinction be of divine or human right; whether it was settled in the apostolic age, or introduced since, is much controverted. Churchmen in general plead for the divine right; while the Dissenters suppose that the word no where signifies more than a pastor or presbyter; the very same persons being called bishops and elders, or prebyters, Act 20:1-38; 1Pe 5:1; 1Pe 5:3. Tit 1:5; Tit 1:7. Php 1:1.
See EPISCOPACY. All the bishops of England are peers of the realm, except the bishop of Man; and as such sit and vote in the house of lords. Besides two archbishops, there are twenty-four bishops in England, exclusive of the bishop of Sodor and Man. The bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester, take the precedence of the other bishops, who rank after them according to their seniority of consecration.
See EPISCOPACY.
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 themselves; but they differ in their estimate of them.
The Apostles originally appointed men to superintend the spiritual, and occasionally even the secular wants of the churches (Act 14:23; Act 11:30; see also 2Ti 2:2), who were ordinarily called elders, from their age, sometimes overseers (bishops), from their office. They are also said to preside (1Th 5:12; 1Ti 5:17), never to rule, which has far too despotic a sound. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 13:7; Heb 13:17; Heb 13:24) they are named leading men (comp. Act 15:22); and figuratively, shepherds (Eph 4:11). But that they did not always teach is clear from 1Ti 5:17; and the name Elders proves that originally age, experience, and character were their most necessary qualifications. They were to be married men with families (1Ti 3:4), and with converted children (Tit 1:6). 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 (1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:9; 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 6:6, and 1Co 9:14, where he claims for them a right to worldly maintenance: in fact, that the shepherds ordered to ’feed the flock,’ and be its ’overseers’ (1Pe 5:2), were to feed them with knowledge and instruction, will never be disputed, except to support a hypothesis. The leaders also, in Heb 13:7, 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, indeed, the nature of things dictated.
That during St. Paul’s lifetime no difference between elders and bishops yet existed in the consciousness of the church, is manifest from the entire absence of distinctive names (Act 20:17-28; 1Pe 5:1-2). The mention of bishops and deacons in Php 1:1, and 1 Timothy 3, without any notice of elders, proves that at that time no difference of order subsisted between bishops and elders. A formal ceremony, it is generally believed, was employed in appointing elders, although it does not appear that as yet any fixed name was appropriated to the idea of ordination. In 1Co 16:15 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 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 (1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6; Act 13:3; Act 14:26; Act 15:40). To the same effect Act 8:17; Act 19:6—passages which explain Heb 6:2. 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.
The Apostles themselves, it is held by some, were the real bishops of that day, and it is quite evident that they performed many episcopal functions. It may well be true, that the only reason why no bishops (in the modern sense) were then wanting was, because the Apostles were living; but it cannot be inferred that in any strict sense prelates are co-ordinate in rank with the Apostles, and can claim to exercise their powers. The later ’bishop’ did not come forward as a successor to the Apostles, but was developed out of the presbyter; much less can it be proved, or alleged with plausibility, that the Apostles took any measures for securing substitutes for themselves (in the high character of Apostles) after their decease. It has been with many a favorite notion that Timothy and Titus exhibit the episcopal type even during the life of Paul; but this is an obvious misconception. They were attached to the person of the Apostle, and not to any one church. In the last Epistle written by him (2Ti 4:9) he calls Timothy suddenly to Rome, in words which prove that the latter was not, at least as yet, bishop, either of Ephesus or of any other church. That Timothy was an evangelist is distinctly stated (2Ti 4:5), and that he had received spiritual gifts (2Ti 1:6, etc.); there is then no difficulty in accounting for the authority vested in him (1Ti 5:1; 1Ti 5:19; 1Ti 5:22), without imagining him to have been a bishop; which is in fact disproved even by the same Epistle (1Ti 1:3). That Titus, moreover, had no local attachment to Crete, is plain from Tit 3:13, to say nothing of the earlier Epistle, II Corinthians passim. Nor is it true that the episcopal power developed itself out of wandering Evangelists any more than out of the Apostles.
On the other hand it would seem that the bishop began to elevate himself above the presbyter while the Apostle John was yet alive, and in churches to which he is believed to have peculiarly devoted himself. The meaning of the title angel, in the opening chapters of the Apocalypse, has been mystically explained by some; but its true meaning is clear from the nomenclature of the Jewish synagogues. In them, we are told, the minister who ordinarily read the prayers of the congregation, besides acting as their chief functionary in matters of business, was entitled messenger of the church. The term ’angel of the church’ appears therefore to be nothing but a harsh Hebraism for ’minister of the church.’ We therefore here see a single officer, in these rather large Christian communities, elevated into a peculiar prominence, which has been justly regarded as episcopal.
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists agree in one point, viz. that (because of its utility and general convenience) it is lawful for Christians to take a step for which they have no clear precedent in the Scripture, that of breaking up a church, when it becomes of unwieldy magnitude, into fixed divisions, whether parishes, or congregations. The question then arises, whether the organic union is to be still retained at all. To this (1) Congregationalists reply in the negative, saying that the congregations in different parts of a great city no more need to be in organic union, than those of two different cities; (2) Presbyterians would keep up the union by means of a synod of the elders; (3) Episcopalians desire to unite the separate churches by retaining them under the supervision of a single head—the bishop. It seems impossible to refer to the practice of the Apostles as deciding in favor of anysone of these methods; for the case had not yet arisen which could have led to the discussion. The city churches had not yet become so large as to make subdivision positively necessary; and, as a fact, it did not take place. To organize distant churches into a fixed and formal connection by synods of their bishops, was, of course, quite a later process; but such unions are by no means rejected, even by Congregationalists, as long as they are used for deliberation and advice, not as assemblies for ruling and commanding. The spirit of Episcopacy depends far less on the episcopal form itself, than on the size and wealth of dioceses, and on the union of bishops into synods, whose decisions are to be authorative on the whole church: to say nothing of territorial establishment and the support of the civil government. If, under any ecclesiastical form, either oppression or disorder should arise, it cannot be defended: but no form is a security against such evils. Our experience may, in these later times, possibly show us which of these systems is on the whole preferable; but the discussion must belong to ecclesiastical history, and would be quite out of place here.
An overseer, one who has the charge and direction of any thing. The most common acceptation of the word in the New Testament, is that which occurs Mal 20:28 Php 1:1, where it signifies Christ "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls," 1Pe 2:25 . Paul describes the qualities requisite in bishops, 1Ti 3:2 Tit 1:7, etc.; Christ himself is their great exemplar.\par
Bishop. The word originally signified an "overseer" or spiritual superintendent. The titles, bishop and elder, or presbyter, were essentially equivalent. Bishop is from the Greek, and denotes one who exercises the function of overseeing. Presbyter was derived from the office in the synagogue. Of the order in which the first elders or bishops were appointed, as of the occasion which led to the institution of the office, we have no record. The duties of the bishop-elders appear to have been as follows:
1. General superintendence over the spiritual well-being of the flock. 1Pe 5:2.
2. The work of teaching, both publicly and privately. 1Th 5:12; Tit 1:9; 1Ti 5:17.
3. The work of visiting the sick, Jas 5:14.
4. Among other acts of charity, that of receiving strangers, occupied a conspicuous place. 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8. Peter calls Christ, "the shepherd and bishop of your souls." 1Pe 2:25.
Greek
Bishops and deacons are the two orders alone mentioned in Php 1:1. The plural shows there was more than one bishop and more than one deacon there. Those called "elders" (presbyters) are also termed "overseers" (bishops, Greek) as if the terms were interchangeable (Act 20:17; Act 20:28; Tit 1:5; Tit 1:7). The presbyters discharged episcopal functions, i.e. overseeing the flock (1Ti 5:17; 1Pe 5:1-2). So in the epistles of Clement of Rome the two terms are interchangeable. But in Ignatius’ epistles the bishop is regarded as superior to the presbyter. However, in the genuine epistles, in the Syriac version edited by Cureton, the bishop is much less exalted. "Elder" is the correlative term to "younger men" (Greek
Paul and Barnabas transplanted the same Jewish government to the Gentile churches (Act 14:23) by "ordaining elders in every church." "Bishops" are first mentioned in Paul’s address at Miletus (Act 20:28), describing the duty of the elders, namely, to be faithful "overseers." Then, during Paul’s first imprisonment, in Php 1:1 "bishops" is the recognized term for "elders" Every Jewish synagogue had its council of "elders" (Luk 7:3) presided over by one of themselves, "the chief ruler of the synagogue." In their apostleship the apostles have no successors, for the signs of an apostle have not been transmitted. But the presidents over the presbyters and deacons, while still continuing of the same order as the presbyters, have succeeded virtually, by whatever name designated, angel, bishop, moderator, to a superintendency analogous to that exercised by the apostles, and evidently derived from the synagogue; see Vitringa, Synag. 2, chapters 3, 7.
The superintending pastor of each of the seven churches is in Revelation called its "angel," (the abuse of the term "apostle" by pretenders led to its restriction to the twelve and Paul, Rev 2:2) just as in Old Testament the prophet Haggai (Hag 1:13) is termed "the Lord’s messenger (angel) in the Lord’s message." In the larger churches, as Ephesus and Smyrna, there were many presbyters, but only one angel under the one "chief Shepherd and Bishop of Souls," the term "bishop" thus being applicable to the highest pastoral superintendence (1Pe 2:25; 1Pe 5:4). The enigmatic symbolism of Revelation transfers the term of office, angel, from Jehovah’s heavenly to His earthly ministers; reminding them that, like angels above, they should do God’s will lovingly and perfectly.
The "legate (angel) of the church" (
The Jewish council was composed of the elders (the presbytery, Luk 22:66; Act 22:5), and a presiding rabbi; so the Christian church was composed of elders and a president (Act 15:19; Act 15:23). At the ordination of the president three presbyters were always present to lay on hands; so the early church canons required three bishops to be present at the consecration of a bishop. The president ordained in both cases as the representative, in the name of the presbytery. Ordination (compare Act 6:6; Act 13:3) is meant in 1Ti 5:22, "lay hands suddenly (without careful inquiry into his character beforehand) on no man"; not, as Ellicott explains, "receive penitent backsliders into church fellowship by laying on hands." The qualifications are stated in 1Ti 3:1-7.
"Husband of one wife" confutes the Roman Catholic celibacy. He who has a virtuous wife and family will more attractively teach those who have similar ties, not only by precept but by example. The Jews teach a priest should neither be unmarried nor childless, test he be unmerciful. Yet as Jews and Gentiles regarded second marriages with prejudice (compare Anna, Luk 2:36-37), and a bishop ought to stand well in the esteem of his flock, he should be married but once. That prohibition no longer holds good, now that no such prejudice exists, which might otherwise have required lawful liberty to yield to Christian expediency. The prohibition may also refer to a second marriage after a divorce. Of ruing (presiding, Greek) presbyters there were two kinds, those who "labored in the word and teaching," and those who did not. The former were to receive "double honor" and remuneration. Both had "government" (1Co 12:28).
The "apostle" and evangelist" preached to the pagan, but the bishop-presbyter’s office was pastoral (Tit 1:9; 1Th 5:12), including ministration to the sick (Jas 5:14). Timothy as vicar apostolic heard accusations against elders, and deposed the guilty, and ordained presbyters and deacons (1Ti 5:19; Tit 3:10). The presiding bishops in the next age naturally succeeded in a permanent and settled sphere to these duties, which were previously discharged in a less settled charge by the apostles and their deputies, who moved from place to place. The sum of the arguments amounts to this, that episcopacy in the sense of superintendency, not in that of succession to the apostleship, has the apostolic precedent to recommend it; but no directions for the form of church government so positive and explicit as those in the Old Testament concerning the Aaronic priesthood and Levitical ministry are laid down in the New Testament as to the Christian ministry.
Various other orders and gifts are mentioned besides bishop-presbyters and deacons, with superintending apostles and apostolic vicars (as Timothy and Titus). These have not been permanent in all times and places (1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11-12). The absence of literal, positive directions as to church government, and the statement of the broad principle, "Let all things be done unto edifying" 1Co 14:26), and the continual presence of the Holy Spirit in the church to raise up fresh agencies for fresh needs of the church, while justifying episcopacy in its general following of the apostolic order, show us that it is not exclusively the divine platform, but that in all churches holding the essential truths of Scripture "we ought to judge those ministers lawfully called and sent, who be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard." (Ch. of Eng. Art. 23)
a term derived through the Saxon (biscop) from the Greek (
In the early Church, the title was employed either in relation to the pastor of one church or assembly of Christians, or to the superintendent of a number of churches. The former is the meaning attached to the word by Presbyterians and Congregationalists, and the latter by the various Episcopal churches of Christendom, viz., the Roman Church, the Greek Church, the other Oriental churches (Armenian, Coptic, Jacobite, Nestorian, Abyssinian), the Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, the Episcopal Church of Scotland, the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, the Methodist Episcopal churches, the Lutheran Church (in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and several German states), the Moravians, the Mennonites. In some Protestant churches, those of Prussia and Nassau, where the consistorial constitution prevails, the name designates more a title of honor conferred on the superintendents general than a distinct office.
"That during Paul’s lifetime no difference between elders and bishops yet existed in the consciousness of the Church is manifest from the entire absence of distinctive names (Act 20:17-28; 1Pe 5:1-2). The; mention of bishops and deacons in Php 1:1, and 1Ti 1:3 without any notice of elders, proves that at that time no difference of order subsisted between bishops and elders. A formal ceremony it is generally believed, 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 inexcusably interpolated in the English version of Act 1:22. In Tit 1:5, the Greek word is
(1.)
II. Ecclesiastical Usages respecting Bishops
1. Names and Titles. — In the early centuries the following titles were employed with reference to the bishops: The scriptural appellations
4. Duties. — The duties of the bishop in the ancient Church included the celebration of Divine worship and the discipline and government of the Church. His principal duties, though not performed by him exclusively, were catechising and preaching. Others, exclusively belonging to him, were the confirmation of baptized persons, by which they were admitted as acknowledged members into the Church, the ordination of presbyters and inferior ministers, the restoration of penitents, and various acts of consecration and benediction. As to discipline, while at times the prerogatives of the bishop were restricted, he remained the source and centre of ecclesiastical, authority within his diocese. The diocesan clergy were dependent upon him, and the regulations of the churches were directed by him. His authority was seen in the following particulars: In the superintendence of religious worship; in the oversight of all the members of the Church throughout a diocese in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters; in the control of all subordinate spiritual persons and ecclesiastical officers; in the visitation of the clergy, churches, schools, and religious houses; in the presidency over all synods within the diocese, and even in the management and distribution of all the property of the Church (Farrar, s.v.). Most of these powers are retained in the Greek and Roman churches to this day. The bishops of the Roman Church assume some special duties toward the pope by the oath of obedience which is administered to them before their consecration (see below). The most I important of the duties enumerated in the formula of a bishop’s oath are, to be faithfully attached to the pope and to his successors, not to enter into any plot against him, not to divulge a plan which the pope may communicate to him;, to preserve, defend, increase, and promote the rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the Roman See; to observe, and to have observed by others, the entire canonical law; to persecute and assail, to the best of his ability, the heretics, schismatics, and all who may rebel against the pope or his successors ("’ hereticos, schismaticos et rebelles eidem domino nostro vel successoribus praedictis pro posse parsequar et impugnabo"), and to visit Rome in person every third year, in order to give an account of the state of the diocese. In the Church of England and in the Protestant Episcopal Church, the bishops alone have the power to ordain and to confirm, and their authority is confined to their proper dioceses. The powers and duties of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church are those of a general itinerant superintendency, including ordination, appointment of ministers to their fields of labor, etc., and are fully defined in the Methodist " Discipline," pt. ii, ch. ii, § 13.
5. Election of Bishops.-The right of election to a vacant see, in the early ages, was with the clergy and people of the diocese (Balsamon, ad Can. 13 Cone. Laod. p. 834), who, having made their choice, referred it to the bishops of the province, the consent of all of whom was required to the election; after which the bishop elect was confirmed and consecrated by the metropolitan. In the Roman Church bishops are nominated by the chapter of the Cathedral; in some countries by the clergy of the diocese, and in others by the prince of the country (this case, however, is restricted to Roman Catholic princes); but the pope must confirm the nomination and grant his bull for the consecration (Cone. Trid. sess. 24, de Ref. ch. i), At consecration the bishop elect must take the oath of allegiance to the pope. In England the election of bishop lies theoretically with the chapter, but the choice is practically vested in the crown. In the Methodist Episcopal Church bishops are elected by the General Conference (Discipline, pt. ii, ch. ii, § 13), and in the Protestant Episcopal Church by the Diocesan Convention (Canon II, 1844). All the bishops of the Lutheran churches are appointed by the princes of their several countries.
6. Consecration
(1.) In the Roman Church three bishops are required for the rite; one (who must always be a bishop) to consecrate, the two others (who may be mitred abbots, and, in cases of emergency, other prelates, or simply priests) to assist.
[1.] After the consecrator has examined the elect and administered the oath of obedience, the candidate is habited in the pontifical vestments, and the Litany having been sung, the three bishops place upon the head and shoulders of the elect the Book of the Gospels open, nothing being spoken.
[2.] The three bishops then lay their hands upon the head of the elect, saying, "Receive thou the Holy Ghost." [3.] The consecrator prays for grace for the newly-made bishop.
[4.] He anoints him with the chrism on the head and hands, saying, "
Ungatur et consecretur caput tuum," etc.
[5.] He places in his hands the pastoral staff, ring, and Book of the Gospels, saying, "Accipe Baculum... ," etc.
[6.] Mass is completed, and the new bishop communicates in both kinds. Of these ceremonies, the imposition of hands and accompanying prayer are the only parts which are considered essential to episcopal ordination. See Boissonnet, Diet. des Ceremonies, i, 1294. ,
(2.) In the Greek Church the following is the order, as given in Gear’s Euchologion: Mass having commenced, the elect, accompanied by the priests and other clerks, stands at the lower end of the church; the consecrating bishops, who must be three at least, in their pontifical vestments, sit in their stalls, the chief celebrator sitting between the assistants. The gospeller cries "Attendamus!" upon which one of the clerks ("prce reliquis literatissimus") makes the first presentation of the elect, who is led by the clergy as far as the tail of an eagle delineated on the floor of the church. The consecrator then asks him what he has come to request, to which the elect replies that he seeks the laying on of the hands of the bishops. He is then questioned concerning his faith. After this, the consecrating bishop gives him the benediction with the crosier. And then follows a second presentation, the elect having advanced to the middle of the eagle. He now gives a fuller account of his faith, is again blessed by the bishop, and then advances to the head of the eagle. Here the consecrator, for the third time, demands an explication of his faith, desiring him now to explain his views on the subjects of the Incarnation, of the Substance of the Son and Word of God, and how many Natures there are in Christ. After his reply he receives the benediction, the consecrator saying " Gratia S. Spiritus per meam mediocritatem promovet te Deo amantissimum Sacerdotem et electum N.... in Episcopum a Deo custoditae civitatis N...." He is then led to the altar, and there, in front of the table, kneels before the bishops, the eldest of whom lays the Gospels on his head, the other bishops at the same time holding it.
The consecrator declares him to be bishop, and, while the others continue to hold the Gospels, makes three crosses on his head, blessing him in the name of the Holy Trinity; then, laying his hand (all the other bishops doing the same) on him, he prays. O Lord God, who rulest over all, who by Thy holy apostle Paul hast ratified the series of orders and degrees appointed for those who wait at Thy holy altar and minister in Thy spotless and venerable mysteries, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers: do Thou, O Lord of all, by the presence, the power, and the grace of Thy Holy Spirit, confirm him who has been elected and counted worthy to receive the evangelical yoke and pontifical dignity at the hand of me a sinner, and those of the ministers and bishops who stand with me, as Thou didst strengthen the holy apostles and prophets, as Thou didst anoint the kings, and as Thou didst consecrate the priests. Exhibit in him a blameless pontificate; and, adorning him with every virtue, grant to him such holiness that he may be worthy to ask of Thee whatsoever the salvation of his people requireth, and to receive it from Thee." This form differs little from the order of consecrating archbishops and bishops in use in the Russian Church, according to the form printed at St. Petersburg in 1725.
(3.) In the Protestant churches the form of consecration is simple. That of the Methodist Episcopal Church may be found in the Discipline (pt. 4, ch. 6); that of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Prayer-book. As both these forms are modifications of that of the Church of England, we give the latter (omitting the Scripture lessons, collects, etc.).
When all things are duly prepared in the church and set in order, after morning prayer is ended, the archbishop (or some other bishop appointed) shall begin the Communion service, in which this shall be the collect [here the collect is said]. And another bishop shall read the epistle, 1Ti 3:1; or Act 20:17. Then another bishop shall read the gospel, Joh 21:15; or Joh 20:19; or Mat 28:18.
After the gospel, and the Nicene Creed, and the sermon are ended, the elected bishop (vested with his rochet) shall be presented by two bishops unto the archbishop of that province (or to some other bishop appointed by lawful commission), the archbishop sitting in his chair near the holy table, and the bishops that present him saying: "Most reverend father in God, we present unto you this godly .and well-learned man to be ordained and consecrated bishop."
Then shall the archbishop demand the queen’s mandate for the consecration and cause it to be read; and the oath touching the acknowledgment of the queen’s supremacy shall be ministered to the persons elected, as it is set down before in the form for the ordering of deacons; and then shall also be ministered unto them the oath of due obedience to the archbishop, as followeth: " In the name of God, Amen. I, N., chosen bishop of the church and see of N., do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the archbishop and to the metropolitan church of N. and to their successors: so help me God, through Jesus Christ." This oath shall not be made at the consecration of an archbishop.
Then the archbishop shall move the congregation present to pray, saying thus to them [here the address]. And then shall be said the Litany, as before in the ordering of deacons, save only that after the place, " That it may please thee to illuminate all bishops," etc., the proper suffrage there following shall be omitted, and this inserted instead of it: "That it may please thee to bless this brother elected, and to send thy grace upon him, that he may duly execute the office whereunto he is called, to the edifying of thy Church, and to the honor, praise, and glory of thy name.
Answer. We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord." Then shall be said this prayer following [here the prayer].
Then the archbishop, sitting in his chair, shall say to him that is to be consecrated: " Brother, forasmuch as the holy Scriptures and the ancient canons command that we should not be hasty in laying on hands, and admitting any person to government in the Church of Christ, which he hath purchased with no less price than the effusion of his own blood, before I admit you to this administration I will examine you in certain articles, to the end that the congregation present may have a trial and bear witness how you be minded to behave yourself in the Church of God. Are you persuaded that you be truly called to this ministration, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of this realm?
Answer. I am so persuaded.
The Archbishop. Are you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are’ you determined out of the same holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to salvation but that which you shall be persuaded may be con eluded and proved by the same?
Answer. I am so persuaded and determined, by God’s grace.
The Archbishop. Will you then faithfully exercise yourself in the same holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same, so as you may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gain sayers ?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of God.
The Archbishop. Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same?
Answer. I am ready, the Lord being my helper.
The Archbishop. Will you deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, that you may show yourself in all things an example of good works unto others, that the adversary may be ashamed, having nothing to say against you?
Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.
The Archbishop. Will you maintain and set forward, as much as shall lie in you, quietness, love, and peace among all men; and such as be unquiet, disobedient, and criminous within your diocese correct and punish, according to such authority as you have by God’s word, and as to you shall be committed by the ordinance of this realm?
Answer. I will do so, by the help of God.
The Archbishop. Will you be faithful in ordaining, sending, or laying hands upon others?
Answer. I will do so by the help of God.
The Archbishop. Will you show yourself gentle, and be merciful for Christ’s sake to poor and needy people, and to all strangers destitute of help?
Answer. I will so show myself, by God’s help. Then the archbishop, standing up, shall say: "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who hath given you a good will to do all these things, grant also unto you strength and power to perform the same; that, he accomplishing in you the good work which he hath begun, you may be found perfect and irreprehensible at the latter day, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Then shall the bishop elect put on the rest of the episcopal habit, and, kneeling down, Veni, Creator Spiritus, shall be said or sung over him, the presiding bishop beginning, and the bishops, with others that are present, answering by verses, as followeth:
Come, Holy Ghost, our souls inspire,
And lighten with celestial fire:
Thou the anointing Spirit art,
Who dost thy sevenfold gifts impart:
Thy blessed unction from above,
Is comfort, life, and fire of love: etc.
Then follows prayer. Then the archbishop and bishops present shall lay their hands upon the head of the elected bishop, kneeling before them on his knees, the archbishop saying: " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Amen. And remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness." Then the archbishop shall deliver him the Bible, saying: "Give heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon the things contained in this book. Be diligent in them, that the increase coming thereby may be manifest unto all men. Take heed unto thyself, and to doctrine, and be diligent in doing them; for by so doing thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee. Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, not a wolf; feed them, devour them not. Hold up the weak, heal the sick, bind up the broken, bring again the outcasts, seek the lost. Be so merciful that you be not too remiss; so minister discipline that you forget not mercy; that when the Chief Shepherd shall appear you may receive the never-fading crown of glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Then the archbishop shall proceed in the Communion service, with whom the new consecrated bishop (with others) shall also communicate.
Then follow prayer and the benediction. See Bergier, s.v. Eveque; Bingham, Orig. Eccles. bk. 4, ch. ii; Schaff, CC. Hist. § 108, 109; Landon, Eccles. Dictionary, s.v.; Herzog, Real-Encyklopadie, ii 341.
Many of the episcopal sees that are remarkable in history are separately noted in this work. SEE ARCHBISHOP; SEE EPISCOPACY; SEE METROPOLITAN.
Bishop
In addition to information already given, the following will doubtless be of interest.
I. The special conditions of eligibility for a bishopric were,
(1) that the candidate should be (Apost. Constit. 2, 1) fifty years of age; but, according to Conc. Necoces., A.D. 314. and later similar canons, the age of thirty only was insisted on. Photius, in one place, says thirty-five, which is likewise Justinian’s rule in another place. Special merits, however, and the precedent of Timothy (1Ti 4:12) repeatedly set aside the rule in practice, as in the well-known case of St. Athanasius, apparently not much more than twenty-three when consecrated bishop.
(2) That he should be of the clergy of the Church to which he was to be consecrated (a rule enacted from pope Julius to Gregory the Great); a regulation repeatedly broken under the pressure of circumstances, special merit in the candidate, the condition of the diocese, etc.
(3) That he should be a presbyter, or a deacon at the least, and not become a bishop per saltum, but go through all the several stages; also at first ant ecclesiastical custom, grounded on the fitness of the thing (by a number of fathers and popes), but turned into a canon by Conc. Sardic., A.D. 347 (naming reader,. deacon, priest; the object being to exclude neophytes), and by some later provincial councils: and so Leo the Great (admitting deacons, however, on the same level with priests); broken likewise, perpetually, under special circumstances. Instances of deacons, indeed, advanced at once to the episcopate, are numerous, anld scarcely regarded as irregular, beginning with St. Athanasius. But the case of a reader also is mentioned in St. Augustine, and of a subdeacon in Liberatus. Although expressly forbidden by Justinian and by Conc. Arelat. IV, A.D. 455, yet the well-known cases of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Martin of Tours, St. Germanus of Auxerre, and others, prove the admissibility of even a layman, if under the circumstances — as, e.g. by reason of the sudden acclamation of the people — such a choice was held to be “by the will” or “choice of God.” Instances may also be found in the Alexandrian Church. But then
(4) such candidate was not to be a neophyte (1Ti 3:6) or a heathen recently baptized, who had not yet been tried, but one converted at least a year before, or who had been a reader or a subdeacon or a deacon for a year. Yet here, too, special circumstances were held to justify exceptions; as in the case of St. Cyprian himself; of St. Ambrose, and of Eusebius of Cesarea in Pontus, not yet baptized. All these are cases of immediate consecration; the later practice of ordaining to each step on successive days, in order to keep the letter while breaking the spirit of the rule, dating no earlier than the case of Photius above mentioned.
(5) Apost. Can. 21 permits the consecration of one made a eunuch by cruelty, or born so; and of one maimed or diseased in eye or leg; but forbids it in the case of a deaf or dumb person.
(6) Lastly, the bishop who was appointed interventor to a see during the vacancy was, on that account, ineligible to that see. SEE INTERCESSORES. It remains to add
(7) that the candidate’s own consent was not at first held to be requisite, but that in many cases consecration was forced upon him (as in the case of Eusebius of Csesarea in Pontus, A.D. 362). Apost. Can. 36 orders the excommunication of a bishop who refuses the charge of the people assigned to him. But first St. Basil exempts those who in such a case had “sworn not to receive ordination.” Afterwards the emperors Leo and Majorian forbade forced ordinations altogether.
II. Enthronization, which is mentioned in the Apost. Constit., and in Greek pontificals, as the concluding act of ordination, followed upon ordination, either (as at first) immediately or (in course of time) after an interval; a regular service being then provided for it. A sermon was thereupon preached, at least in the East by the newly consecrated bishop. Litteroe communicatorice, or synodicce, or enthronisticce, were written to other bishops, to give account of the sender’s faith, and to receive letters of communion in return. The term was also applied to payments which came to be made by bishops-on occasion of their enthronization. The Arabic version of the Nicene canons has a rule that the bishop be enthroned at once by a delegate of the archbishop, and that the archbishop visit him personally after three months, and confirm him in the see.
III. A profession of obedience to the metropolitan, and (in the Carlovingian empire) an oath of allegiance to the emperor or king, began to be required, prior to confirmation; the former from the 6th century onwards, the latter from the time either of Charlemagne or of his immediate successors — but far earlier in Spain.
(a) The earliest written profession of obedience is one made by the metropolitan of Epirus to the archbishop of Thessalonica, and is condemned by Leo I in 450. Nevertheless, professions to the metropolitan by the bishop to be consecrated became the regular practice.
(b) A general oath of allegiance to the king, from all subjects, occurs repeatedly in the Spanish councils. A promise of fidelity from bishops is mentioned in Gaul as early as the time of Leodegarius of Autun and St. Eligius, c; A.D. 640.
IV. Removal. — The next point to be considered is the various methods by which a bishop ceased to occupy a see.
1. Translation, which, as a rule, was forbidden, but only as likely to proceed from selfish motives. Before the period of the apostolic canons this prohibition would have been hardly needed. Apost. Can. 14 forbids it, unless there be a prospect of more spiritual “gain” in saving souls; and guards the right practical application of the rule by the proviso, that neither the bishop himself, nor the diocese (“parochia”) desiring him, but many bishops,” shall decide the point. The Council of Nice, Conc. Antioch. A.D. 341, Conc. Sardic. A.D. 347, Conc. Carth. III, A.D. 397, and Conc. Carth. IV, A.D. 398, forbid it likewise: the first two without qualification; and the second, whether the suggestion proceed from the bishop, the people, or other bishops; but the third, if “from a small city to a different one;” and the fourth, also in case it be “from an unimportant to an important place;” while allowing it if it be for the good of the Church, so that it be done “by the sentence of a synod,” and at the request of the clergy and laity. The Council of Nice itself showed that exceptional cases were not excluded, by actually itself translating a bishop. St. Athanasius, indeed, gives us the obiter dictuni of an Egyptian council, condemning translation as parallel with divorce, and therefore with the sin of adultery. Similarly St. Jerome. But pope Julius condemns it on the assumption throughout that its motive is self-aggrandizement. Pope Damasils also condemns it, but it is when done “through ambition;” and pope Gelasius, but only “no causes existing.” Leo the Great deposes a bishop who seeks to be translated, but it is “to a greater people,” and “despising the mediocrity of his own city.” Pope Hilary, A.D. 465, condemns a proposed Spanish translation, among other things, as contrary to the Nicene canon. Conc. Chalced., A.D. 451, re-enacts the canons against “transmigration.” At the same time, translations, as a matter of fact, were repeatedly sanctioned, beginning with the noted case of Alexander and Narcissus of Jerusalem. In the Alexandrian Church the rule appears to have been exceptionally strict, so that originally it was forbidden to translate a bishop, already such, to the patriarchate, although in later and Mohammedan times this rule after great contentions became relaxed; and among the Nestorians, as one result of such relaxation of a like rule, it came to pass that patriarchs were often actually reconsecrated.
2. Resignation. —
(a) Of resignation simply; respecting which there is no express canon, absolutely speaking;: but Can. Apostol. can. 36, Conc. Ancyr. can. 18, Conc. Antioch., A.D. 341, cans. 17:18 assume or enact that a bishop once consecrated cannot refuse to go to a see, even if the people will not receive him; and the two latter refer the decision to the synod, which may allow him to withdraw or not as it judges best. Instances accordingly occur of resignations allowed because circumstances rendered it expedient for the good of the Church, as where the people obstinately refused to submit to the bishop: e.g. St. Gregory Nazianzen, when archbishop of Coistantinople, with the consent of the Council of Constantinople. Instances occur also of resignations offered (and approved, though not accepted) for peace’ sake; as St. Chrysostom, Flavian of Antioch under Theodosius, the Catholic African bishops under Aurelius, and St. Augustine at the time of the Donatist schism. Eustathius. of Perga was permitted to. resign on account of old age, “retaining the name, dignity, and fellowship of the episcopate,” but without authority to act as a bishop without a fellow-bishop’s request. The canonical grounds for a resignation, as summed-up, are in substance — 1, guilt; 2, sickness; 3, ignorance; 4, perverse rebelliousness of the people; 5, the healing of a schism; 6, irregularity, such as, e.g. bigamy.
(b) Resignation in favor of a successor, however, was distinctly prohibited, but, as the rest of the canon shows, only in order to secure canonical and free election when the see became actually vacant. The object was, not to prohibit, but to prevent the abuse of the recommendations very commonly made by aged bishops of their successors; a practice strongly praised by Origen, comparing Moses and Joshua, but which naturally had often a decisive influence in the actual election. Such recommendations slipped naturally into a practice of consecrating the successor, sometimes elected solely by the bishop himself, before the recommending bishop’s death, thus interfering with the canonical rights of the comprovincial bishops and of the diocese itself. But then we must distinguish
(c) that qualified resignation which extended only to the appointment of a coadjutor — not a coadjutor with right of succession, which was distinctly uncanonical, but simply an assistant during the actual bishop’s life, and no further. The earliest instance, indeed, of a simple coadjutor, that of Alexander, coadjutor to Narcissus of Jerusalem, was supposed to require a vision to justify it.
3. The deposition of bishops.
A. The grounds upon which bishops as such were deposed were as follows:
(a) Certain irregularities which vitiated an episcopal consecration ab initio; and these were for the most part, although not wholly, irregularities such as disqualified for consecration at all.
(b) The general causes affecting all clergy, as well as causes relating to their .own special office.
(c) Bishops were liable to excommunication as well as deposition, if
(1) they received as clergy such as were suspended for leaving their own diocese; or
(2) if they “made use of worldly rulers to obtain preferment;” or
(3) if, being rejected by a diocese to which they have been appointed, they move sedition in another diocese, etc.
(d) Lastly, bishops were liable to suspension or other less censure,
(1) if they refused to attend the synod when summoned; and if, when summoned to meet an accusation, they failed to appear even to a third summons, they were deposed; or
(2) if they unjustly oppressed any part of their diocese, in which case the African Church deprived them of the part so oppressed.
B. The authority to inflict deposition was the provincial synod; and for the gradual growth and the differing rules of appeal from that tribunal, SEE APPEAL. Conc. Chalced., A.D. 451, forbids degradation of a bishop to the rank of a priest; he must be degraded altogether or not at all. Conc. Antioch., A.D. 341, forbids recourse to the emperor to reverse a sentence of deposition passed by a synod.
V. From the office, we pass to the honorary privileges and rank of a bishop. But no doubt many of such privileges belong to Byzantine times, and date no earlier than the 3d or 4th century.
1. Of the modes of salutation practiced towards him from the 4th century onwards. Such were (1) bowing the head to receive his blessing, mentioned by St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, and others, and referred to in a law of Honorius and Valentinian. (2) Kissing his hand. (3) Kissing the feet, also, appears by St. Jerome to have been at one time a mark of respect common to all bishops; being borrowed, indeed, from a like custom practiced towards the Eastern emperors. The deacon is to kiss the bishop’s feet before reading the Gospel, according to the Ordo Romanus. It was restricted to the pope as regards kings, by Gregory VII. (4) The forms of address, and the titles and epithets, applied to bishops, have been mentioned already.
2. Singing hosannas before a bishop on his arrival anywhere, is mentioned only to be condemned by St. Jerome.
3. The form of addressing a bishop by the phrase corona tua or vestra, and of adjuring him per coronam, frequent in early writers, has been explained as referring to the mitre, to the tonsure, or to the corona or “assembly” of the bishop’s presbyters; The personal nature of the appellation appears to exclude the last of these. Its being peculiar to bishops is against the second.
4. The bishop’s throne. SEE THRONE.
5. If we are to take the pretended letter of pope Lucius to be worth anything as evidence in relation to later times, the bishop of Rome was habitually attended by two presbyters or three deacons, in order to avoid scandal.
VI. Rank. —
1. The relation of bishops to each other was as of an essentially equal office, however differenced individuals might be in point of influence, etc., by personal qualifications or by the relative importance of their sees. St. Cyprian’s view of the “one episcopate” the one corporation of which all bishops are equal members — is much the same with St. Jerome’s well- known declaration, “Wherever there may be a bishop, whether of Rome or of Eugubium... he is of the same merit, of the same priesthood also.” A like principle is implied in the litterce communicatorice or synodicce — sometimes called litterce enthronisticce-by which each bishop communicated his own consecration to his see to foreign bishops as to his equals. The order of precedence among them was determined by the date of consecration (so many Councils and Justinian).
2. This equality was gradually undermined by the institution of metropolitans, archbishops, primates, exarchs, patriarchs, pope: for each of whom see the several articles.
3. However, apart from this, there came to be special distinctions in particular churches; as, e.g. in Mauritania and Numidia the senior bishop was “primus;” but in Africa proper, the bishop of Carthage; and in Alexandria the bishop had special powers in the ordinations of the suffragan sees: for which SEE ALEXANDRIA (Patriarchate of); SEE METROPOLITAN.
4. The successive setting-up of metropolitans and of patriarchs gave rise to exceptional cases (“autocephali”); all bishops whatever having been really independent (save subjection to the synod) before the setting up of metropolitans, and all metropolitans before the establishment of patriarchs. SEE AUTOCEPHALI; SEE METROPOLITANS; SEE PATRIARCHS.
5. For chorepiscopi, in contradistinction from whom we find in Frank times episcopi cathedrales,
6. for suffragans,
7. for coadjutors,
8. for intercessores and interventores, and,
9. for commendatarii, see under the several titles.
VII. Subordinate Titles. — There remain some anomalous cases; as,
1. Episcopi vacanztes, viz. bishops who by no fault were without a see, but who degenerated sometimes into episcopi vagi or ambulantes, vacantivi; and among whom in Carlovingian times, and in northern France, “Scoti” enjoyed a bad pre-eminence. Bishops, indeed, without sees, either for missionary purposes to the heathen, or merely “honorary,” existed from the time of the Council of Antioch, A.D. 341. Wandering bishops, who have- no diocese, are condemned by many councils.
2. The bishop-abbots, or bishop-monks, were principally of Celtic monasteries, but also in some continental ones; the former having no see except their monastery, SEE ABBOT, the latter being simply members of the fraternity in episcopal orders, but (anomalously) under the jurisdiction of their abbot, and performing episcopal offices for the monastery and its dependent district.
3. Episcopus, or antistes palatii, was an episcopal counsellor residing in the palace in the time of the Carlovingians, by special leave.
4. For episcopus cardinalis, which in St. Gregory the Great means simply “proprius,” i.e. the duly installed (and “incardinated”) bishop of the place, SEE CARDINALIS.
5. Episcopus regionarius, i.e. without a special diocesan city. SEE REGIONARIUS.
6. Titular bishops, and bishops in partibus.infidelium, belong under these names to later times.
7. Episcopus ordinum, in Frank times, was an occasional name for a coadjutor bishop to assist in conferring orders.
8. For the special and singular name of libra, applied to the suffragans of the see of Rome, SEE LIBRA.
Bishop. 1Ti 3:2. The original word means "overseer," such as Joseph was in Potiphar’s house, Gen 39:4, or as the 3600 men were in Solomon’s temple, 2Ch 2:18, or as Uzzi was of the Levites, Neh 11:22. In the New Testament the term is synonymous with presbyter or elder, with this difference—that bishop is borrowed from the Greek and signifies the function; presbyter is derived from an office in the synagogue and signifies the dignity of the same office. Comp. Act 20:17; Act 20:28; Php 1:1-30; Php 1:1-30; 1Ti 3:1 ff.; Tit 1:5 ff. These presbyters or bishops of the apostolic period were the regular teachers and pastors, preachers and leaders, of the congregations. We may imagine, however, that among themselves there would be a division made according to individual fitness. Each congregation of Christians as gathered by the apostles, was organized into a church, having a number of elders, or bishops, ordained over it, Act 15:23; Act 20:17; Act 20:28; Php 1:1; Tit 1:5; Tit 1:7, indicating that the office was the same. See Elder.
The Greek word
In Titus 1: and in 1Ti 3:1-7 the qualifications necessary for a bishop are given. Special gifts are not mentioned, but moral qualities are essential. A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, having his children in subjection, etc.; but he must be able to ’take care’ of the church of God, and be ’apt to teach.’ The bishops of Ephesus were exhorted to take heed to all the flock, and to feed the church of God. Though an apostle or his delegate was the instrument used in the appointment of the bishops, and thus the unity of the church was preserved, Paul could say "the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." Act 20:28.
Elders were established to exercise godly care in the undivided local assembly - to ’shepherd’ the flock. Any attempt to appoint them now would be, not only without the necessary apostolic authority, but would ignore the divided state of the church. Such elders could only assume authority over a fragment of the church in a locality, and that with no apostolic sanction. That no security for the church was to be found in them is proved by the warning of the apostle, that among themselves should men arise, speaking perverse things; and in view of this he commends them, not to some ecclesiastical authority, or to a church council, but "to God, and to the word of his grace," a resource which all Christians still have. Happily there are now servants of God who care for the saints, those who are ’apt to teach,’ and gifted to feed the flock of God; and who, without any apostolic appointment, addict themselves to the work of the ministry, as did the house of Stephanas in early days. 1Co 16:15. All such should be acknowledged, and be highly esteemed for their work’s sake. In one passage the Lord is Himself called the Shepherd and Bishop of souls; and who can care for and feed His saints as He? 1Pe 2:25.
The Duties Of A Bishop
1Ti_3:1-7.
BISHOP (Gr. episkopos, Lat. episcopus, Ital. vescovo, Fr. évêque, Germ. Bischof), ELDER (Gr. presbyteros, Lat. presbyterus, Fr. prêtre, Eng. priest).—The two words are so closely connected in the NT that they must be taken together here.
1. The terms.—The Greek word for ‘bishop’ is common in the general sense of an overseer, and in particular of sundry municipal officers. In LXX
In the NT the word is found five times. In Act 20:28 St. Paul reminds the elders of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost has made them bishops over the flock; in Php 1:1 he sends a greeting to the saints at Philippi ‘with bishops and deacons’; in 1Ti 3:2 he tells Timothy that ‘the bishop must be blameless,’ etc.; in Tit 1:7 he gives a similar charge to Titus; and 1Pe 2:25 speaks of Christ as ‘the shepherd and bishop of your souls.’
In the OT the word ‘elder’ is used from early times of an official class having jurisdiction both civil and religious, so that when synagogues were built, the elders of the city would naturally be the elders of the synagogue, with the right of regulating the services and excluding offenders.
In NT times the idea would be carried over to the churches. It is indirectly recognized in Luk 22:26; but we cannot infer the existence of elders from Act 5:6, for ‘the younger men’ who carry out Ananias are simply ‘the young men’ in Act 5:10 when they carry out Sapphira. The first clear trace of Christian elders is at Jerusalem. In Act 11:30 (a.d. 44) they receive the offerings from Barnabas and Saul; in Act 15:6 (a.d. 50) they take part in the Conference; in Act 21:18 (a.d. 58) they join in the welcome to St. Paul. Earlier than this may be Jas 5:14, where the word seems to denote officials. After this we hear no more of them till the Pastoral Epistles and 1Peter.
For the last two hundred years it has been generally agreed that bishops and elders in the NT and for some time later are substantially identical. For (1) bishops and elders are never joined, like bishops and deacons, as distinct classes of officials. (2) Php 1:1 is addressed ‘to bishops and deacons.’ Had there been an intermediate class of elders, it could not well have been omitted. So 1Ti 3:1-16 ignores the elders, though (1Ti 5:17) there were elders at Ephesus, and had been (Act 20:17) for some time. Conversely, Tit 1:6-7 describes elders instead, and nearly in the same words. (3) The bishop described to Timothy, the elders of Act 20:1-38, those of 1Ti 5:17, those described to Titus, and those of 1Pe 5:2, all seem to hold a subordinate position, and to have rather pastoral duties than what we should call episcopal. (4) The same persons are called elders and bishops (Act 20:17; Act 20:28). The words are also synonymous in Clement of Rome, and (by implication) in the Teaching of the Apostles and in Polycarp. Ignatius is the first writer who makes a single bishop ruler of a Church; and even he pleads no Apostolic command for the change.
The general equivalence of the two offices in the Apostolic age seems undeniable; and if there were minor differences between them, none have been clearly traced. The only serious doubt is whether bishops and deacons originally denoted offices at all. The words rather describe functions. Thus Php 1:1 ‘to bishops and deacons’ (no article) will mean ‘such as oversee and such as serve’—that is, the higher and the lower officials, whatever titles they may bear. This would seem proved by Tit 1:5; Tit 1:7 ‘that thou appoint elders …, for the bishop (overseer) must be blameless.’ The argument is that the elder must be so and so, because the bishop must be so and so. This is vain repetition if the bishop is only the elder under another name, and bad logic if he is a ruler over the elders; but it becomes dear if the ‘bishop’ is not a defined official, but an overseer generally. Then, the elder being a particular sort of overseer, the argument will be from a general rule to a particular case.
2. Appointment.—At first popular election and Apostolic institution seem to have gone together. The Seven (Act 6:5-6) are chosen by the people and instituted by the Apostles with prayer and laying-on of hands. In the case of the Lycaonian elders (Act 14:23) the Apostles ‘appointed’ them with prayer and fastings. Similarly the elders in Crete (Tit 1:6) are ‘appointed’ by Titus, and apparently the bishops at Ephesus by Timothy. In these cases popular election and laying-on of hands are not mentioned; but neither are they excluded. 1Ti 5:22 does not refer to ordination at all, nor Heb 6:2 to ordination only. The one is of the laying-on of hands in restoring offenders, while the other takes in all occasions of laying-on of hands. But in any case Timothy and Titus would have to approve the candidate before instituting him, so that the description of his qualifications is no proof that they had to select him in the first instance. Conversely, popular election is very prominent (Clement, and Teaching) in the next age; but neither does this exclude formal approval and institution. The elders are already attached (1Ti 4:14) to the Apostles in the conveyance of special gifts; and when the Apostles died out, they would act alone in the institution to local office. The development of an episcopate is a further question, and very much a question of words if the bishop (in the later sense) was gradually developed upward from the elders. But the next stage after this was that, while the bishop instituted his own elders, he was himself instituted by the neighbouring bishops, or in still later times by the bishops of the civil province or by a metropolitan. The outline of the process is always the same. First popular election, then formal approval by authority and institution by prayer, with (at least commonly) its symbolic accompaniments of laying-on of hands and fasting.
3. Duties
(1) General superintendence: Elders in Act 20:28, 1Ti 5:17, 1Pe 5:2; 1Pe 5:2 (ruling badly); bishops in 1Ti 3:5. Indicated possibly in 1Co 12:28 ‘helps, governments’: more distinctly in Eph 4:11 ‘pastors and teachers,’ in pointed contrast to ‘apostles, prophets, and evangelists,’ whose office was not local. So 1Th 5:12 ‘those that are over you,’ Rom 12:8 ‘he that ruleth.’ and Heb 13:7; Heb 13:17; Heb 13:24 ‘them that have the rule over you,’ remind us of the bishops and elders who rule (1Ti 3:4; 1Ti 5:17). So, too, the ‘rulers’ in Clement must be bishops or elders, for these bishops plainly have no earthly superior, so that they must be themselves the rulers.
Under this head we may place the share taken by the elders: (a) at Jerusalem (Act 15:6) in the deliberations of the Apostolic Conference, and (Act 21:18) in the reception held by James; (b) elsewhere (1Ti 4:14) in the laying-on of hands on Timothy, whether that corresponds to ordination or to something else.
(2) Teaching: 1Th 5:12 rulers admonishing in the Lord; 1Ti 3:2 the bishop apt to teach; 1Ti 5:17 double honour to the elders who rule well, especially those who toil in word and teaching; Tit 1:9 the elder or bishop must be able to teach, and to convince the gainsayers. Yet 1Ti 5:17 seems to imply that elders might rule well who toiled in other duties than word and teaching; and if so, these were not the sole work of all elders.
Preaching is rather connected with the unlocal ministry of apostles, prophets, and evangelists: but in their absence the whole function of public worship would devolve on the local ministry of bishops and deacons. This becomes quite plain in the Teaching and in Clement.
(3) Pastoral care: This is conspicuous everywhere. To it we may also refer: (a) visiting of the sick (Jas 5:14) with a view to anointing and cure—not as a viaticum at the approach of death; (b) care of strangers and a fortiori of the poor (1Ti 3:2, Tit 1:8, the bishop to be a lover of strangers).
H. M. Gwatkin.
(Greek: episkopos, overseer)
Divinely instituted member of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and successor of the Apostles. The Sacrament of Orders, i.e., consecration, confers on bishops spiritual power in the Church, and imprints on their souls an indelible spiritual character. In the hierarchy of orders they are superior to priests; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction by Christ’s will, they rule a diocese, in due dependence and submission to the Roman pontiff.
Notable occurences of bishops in art include
Saint Ambrose of Milan bishop holding a church in his hand
Saint Juvenal of Narni bishop holding a chalice
bishop with a sword in his teeth
(Anglo-Saxon Biscop, Busceop, German Bischof; from the Greek episkopos, an overseer, through Latin episcopus; Italian vescovo; Old French vesque; French évêque).The title of an ecclesiastical dignitary who possesses the fullness of the priesthood to rule a diocese as its chief pastor, in due submission to the primacy of the pope.It is of Catholic faith that bishops are of Divine institution. In the hierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those of priests and deacons; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, by Christ’s will, the are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church, under the direction and authority of the sovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but, not annihilate them. They are the successors of the Apostles, though they do not possess all the prerogatives of the latter. (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, ch. iv; can. vi, vii. See APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.) The episcopate is monarchical. By the Will of Christ, the supreme authority in a diocese does not belong to a college of priests or of bishops, but it resides in the single personality of the chief. The subject will be treated under five heads: I. Historical Origin; II. Present Legislation: III. Rights and Powers of the Bishop; IV. Obligations of the Bishop; V. Non Catholic use. I. HISTORICAL ORIGINThe historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of the Apostolic Fathers relating to the primitive ecclesiastical hierarchy. They are most easily found in the work of von Dunin-Borkowski, on the latest researches concerning the origin of the episcopate (Die Neuren Forschungen uber die Anfange des Episkopats, Frieburg, 1900). The Apostolic and consequently the Divine origin of the monarchical episcopate has always been contested but especially so since Protestantism put forward the doctrine of a universal Christian priesthood. At the present day, rationalistic and Protestant writers, even those who belong to the Anglican Church, reject the Apostolic institution of the episcopate; many of them relegate its origin to the second century. Loning attempts to prove that originally there were several different organizations, that some Christian communities were administered by a body of presbyters, others by a college of bishops, others again by a single bishop. It is the last named form of organization, he declares, which has prevailed (Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristentums. Halle, 1889). Holtzmann thinks that the primitive organization of the churches was that of the Jewish synagogue; that a college of presbyters or bishops (synonymous words) governed the Judaeo Christian communities; that later this organization was adopted by the Gentile churches. In the second century one of these presbyter-bishops became the ruling bishop. The cause of this lay in the need of unity, which manifested itself when in the second century heresies began to appear. (Pastoralbriefe, Leipzig, 1880.) Hatch, on the contrary, finds the origin of the episcopate in the organization of certain Greek religious associations, in which one meets with episkopoi (superintendents) charged with the financial administration. The primitive Christian communities were administered by a college of presbyters; those of the presbyters administered the finances were called bishops. In the large towns, the whole financial administration was centralized in the hands of one such officer, who soon became the ruling bishop (The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, Oxford, 1881). According to Harnack (whose theory has varied several times), it was those who had received the special gifts known as the charismata, above all the gift of public speech, who possessed all authority in the primitive community. In addition to these we find bishops and deacons who possess neither authority nor disciplinary power, who were charged solely with certain functions relative to administration and Divine worship. The members of the community itself were divided into two classes: the elders (presbyteroi) and the youths (neoteroi). A college of presbyters was established at an early date at Jerusalem and in Palestine, but elsewhere not before the second century; its members were chosen from among the presbyteroi, and in its hands lay all authority and disciplinary power. Once established, it was from this college of presbyters that deacons and bishops were chosen. When those officials who had been endowed with the charismatic gifts had passed away, the community delegated several bishops to replace them. At a later date the Christians realized the advantages to be derived from entrusting the supreme direction to a single bishop. However, as late as the year 140, the organization of the various communities was still widely divergent. The monarchic episcopate offers its origin to the need of doctrinal unity, which made itself felt at the time of the crisis caused by the Gnostic heresies.J.B. Lightfoot, who may be regarded as an authoritative representative of the Anglican Church, holds a less radical system. The Primitive Church, he says, had no organization, but was very soon conscious of the necessity of organizing. At first the apostles appointed deacons; later, in imitation of the organization of the synagogue, they appointed presbyters, sometimes called bishops in the Gentile churches. The duties of the presbyters were twofold: 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 chief among them. Within the period compassed by the Apostolic writings, James, the brother of the Lord, can alone claim to be regarded as a bishop in the later and more special sense of the term. On the other hand, through especially prominent in the Church of Jerusalem, he appears in the Acts as a member of the body. As late as the year 70; no distinct signs of episcopal government 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 established in Asia Minor. St. John was cognizant of the position of St. James at Jerusalem. When therefore, he found in Asia Minor manifold irregularities and threatening symptoms of disruption, he not unnaturally encouraged in these Gentile churches an approach to the organization, which had been signally blessed and had proved effectual in holding together the mother-church of Jerusalem amid dangers no less serious. The existence 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. John. The evident utility 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 reception. 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 connection with three great names: Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, who represent as many successive advances 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 writers agree in recognized the Apostolic origin of the episcopate, but are much divided as to the meaning of the terms which designate the hierarchy in the New Testament writings and the Apostolic Fathers. One may even ask if originally these terms had a clearly defined significance (Bruders, Die Verfassung der Kirche bis zum Jahre 175, Mainz, 1904). Nor is there greater unanimity when an attempt is made to explain why some churches 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 designate other personages exercising a certain fixed authority in the early Christian communities. The following facts may be regarded as fully established: To some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest episkopos and presbyteros) are synonymous (See the article: APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.) These terms may designate either simple priests (A. Michiels, Les origines de l’épiscopat. Louvain, 1900, 218 sqq.) or bishops possessing the full powers of their order. (Batiffol. Etudes d’histoire et de théologie positive, Paris, 1902, 266 sqq.: Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’église. Paris. 1906, 94.) In each Community the authority may originally have belonged to college or 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 or presbyter-bishops did not exercise an independent 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 educated and highly respected neophytes the fixed necessary functions relating to the daily life of the community. Sooner or later the missionaries had to leave the young communities to themselves, whereupon their direction direction fell entirely upon local authorities who thus received the Apostolic succession. This local superior authority, which was of Apostolic origin, was conferred by the Apostles upon a monarchic bishop, such as is understood by the term today. 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. In other communities, it is true, no mention is made of a monarchic episcopate 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 monarchic episcopate, that is to say, of an authority superior to that of the college of the presbyter-bishops. The reasons which some writers allege, in order to explain why, for example, in the Epistle of Polycarp no mention is made of a bishop, are very plausible. The best evidence, however, for the existence at this early date of a monarchical episcopate is the fact that nowhere in the latter half of the second century is the least trace to be 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 contemporary 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 impossible to comprehend how at the end of second century the episcopal lists of several important bishoprics giving the succession of bishops as far back as the first century were generally known and admitted. Such, for instance, was the case at Rome. This theory, it must be carefully noted, does not contradict the historical texts. According to these documents, there was a college of presbyters or of bishops which administered several churches, but which had a president who was no other than the monarchic bishop. Although power of the latter had existed from the beginning it became gradually more conspicuous. The part played by the presbyterium, 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 centered around the person of the bishop. The priests and deacons were his auxiliaries but they worked under the immediate direction of the bishop. In large cities, however, like Rome, it was soon found necessary to hand over permanently to the priests and deacons certain definite functions. Moreover, as a result of the spread of Christianity outside the great centres of population, the bishop gradually left to other ecclesiastics the administration of a fixed portion of the diocesan territory. In the East, at first bishoprics were created in all districts where there was a considerable number of Christians. But this system presented great inconveniences. To distant or rural localities, therefore, the Church sent bishops, who were only the delegates of the bishop of the city, and who did not possess the right of exercising the most important powers of a bishop. Such bishops were known as Chorepiscopi or rural bishops. Later on, they were replaced by priests (Gillman, Das Institut der Chorbisch¨fe im Orient, Munich, 1003). The establishment of parishes from the fourth and the fifth century on gradually freed the bishops from many of their original charges; they reserved to themselves only the most important affairs, i.e. those which concerned the whole diocese and those which belonged to the cathedral church. However, above all other affairs, the bishops retained the right of supervision and supreme direction. While this change was taking place, the Roman Empire, now Christian, granted bishops other powers. They were exclusively empowered to take cognizance of the misdemeanors of clerics, and every lawsuit entered into against the latter had to be brought before the bishop’s court. The Emperor Constantine often permitted all Christians to carry their lawsuits before the bishop, but this right was withdrawn at the end of the fourth century. Nevertheless, they continued to act as arbitrators, which office the earliest Christians had committed to them. More important, perhaps, is the part which the Roman law assigns to the bishops as protectors of the weak and oppressed. The master was permitted to legally emancipate his slave in the bishop’s presence; the latter had also the power to remove young girls from immoral houses where their parents or masters had placed them, and to restore them to liberty. Newly born infants abandoned by their parents were legally adjudged to those who sheltered them, but to avoid abuses it was required that the bishop should certify that the child was a foundling. The Roman law allowed the bishops the right to visit prisons at their discretion for the purpose of improving the condition of prisoners and of ascertaining whether the rules in favour of the latter were observed. The bishops possessed great influence over the Christian emperors, and though in the Eastern Church these intimate relations between Church and State led to Casaropapism, the bishops of the West preserved in a great measure their independence of the Empire (Löning, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts, Strasburg, 1878, I, 314-331; Troplong, De l’influence du christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, Paris, 1842, new ed., 1902).The authority of the bishop was even greater after the barbarian invasions; among the Germanic peoples he soon became an influential and powerful personage. He inspired confidence and commanded respect. He was beloved for he protected the young and the weak, he was the friend of the poor, was accustomed to intercede on behalf of the victims of injustice, and especially on behalf of orphans and women. Through his influence, in many spheres, he became the real master of the episcopal city. The only functionaries whose authority was comparable with that of the bishop were the dukes and the counts, representatives of the king. In certain districts the preeminence showed itself clearly in favour of the bishop; in some cities the bishop became also count. In France, as a general rule, this state of affairs did not continue, but in Germany many bishops became temporal lords or princes. Finally, the bishop acquired an extensive civil jurisdiction not only over his clergy but also over the laity of his diocese (Viollet, Histoire des institutions politiques de la France, Paris, 1890, I. 380-409). Such an exalted position was not without its difficulties. One of the gravest was the interference of the lay authority in the election of bishops. Until the sixth century the clergy and the people elected the bishop on condition that the election should be approved by the neighbouring bishops. Undoubtedly, the Christian Roman emperors sometimes intervened in these election, but outside the imperial cities only, and generally in the case of disagreement as to the proper person.As a rule they contented themselves with exercising an influence on the electors. But from the beginning of the sixth century, this attitude was modified. In the East the clergy and the primates, or chief citizens, nominated three candidates from whom the metropolitan chose the bishop. At a later date, the bishops of the ecclesiastical province assumed the exclusive right of nominating the candidates. In the West, the kings intervened in these elections, notably in Spain and Gaul, and sometimes assumed the right of direct nomination (Funk, "Die Bischofswahl im christlichen Altertum und im Anfang des Mittelalters" in "Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen", Paderborn: 1897, I, 23-39; Imbart. de la Tour. "Les élections épiscopales dans lancienne France", Paris, 1890). This interference of princes and emperors lasted until the quarrel about Investitures, which was especially violent in Germany, where from the ninth to the eleventh centuries abbots and bishops had become real temporal princes. (See INVESTITURE.) The Second Lateran Council (1139) handed over to the chapter of the cathedral church the sole right of choosing the bishop, and this legislation was sanctioned by the Decretals (Decretum Gratiani. P. I., Dist. lxiii, ch. xxxv; ch. iii. De causa possessionis et proprietatis, X, II, xii; ch. liv, De electione et electi potestate, X, I, vi; Friedberg, Corpus Juris Canonici, Leipzeig, 1879-81, I, 247, II, 95,276) The bishops of the Middle Ages acquired much temporal power, but this was accompanied by a corresponding diminution of their spiritual authority. By the exercise of the prerogative of the primacy the Holy See reserved to Itself all the most important affairs, the so-called causae majores, as for instance the canonization of saints (ch. i, De reliquiis X, III, xlv; Friedberg, II, 650), the permission to venerate publicly newly discovered relics, the absolution of certain grave sins, etc. Appeals to the pope against the judicial decisions of the bishops became more and more frequent. The religious orders and the chapters of cathedral and collegiate churches obtained exemption from episcopal authority. The cathedral chapter obtained a very considerable influence in the administration of the diocese. The pope reserved also to himself the nomination of many ecclesiastical benefices (C. Lux. Constitutionum apostolicarum de generali beneficiorum reservatione collectio et Breslau, 1904). He also claimed the right to nominate the bishops, but in the German Concordat of 1448 he granted the chapters the right to elect them, while in that of 1516 he permitted the King of France to nominate the bishops of that nation. Subsequently the Council of Trent defined the rights of the bishop and remedied the abuses which had slipped into the administration of dioceses and the conduct of bishops. The council granted them the exclusive right of publishing indulgences; it also impressed upon them the obligation of residence in their dioceses, the duty of receiving consecration within three months after their elevation to the episcopate, of erecting seminaries, of convoking annual diocesan synods, of assisting at, provincial synods, and of visiting their dioceses. It also forbade them to cumulate benefices, etc. The same council diminished exceptions from episcopal authority, and delegated to the bishops some of the rights which in the past the Holy See had reserved for itself. Subsequent pontifical acts completed the Tridentine legislation, which is still valid. Protestantism and at a later date the French Revolution destroyed all temporal power of the bishops; thenceforth they were free to consecrate themselves with greater earnestness to the duties of their spiritual ministry. II. PRESENT LEGISLATIONTwo classes of bishops must be distinguished, not with regard to the power of order, for all bishops receive the fullness of the priesthood but with regard to the power of jurisdiction: the diocesan bishop and the titular bishop or, as he was called before 1882 the episcopus in partibus infedelium. The former is here considered. Those belonging to the second class cannot perform any episcopal function without the authorization of the diocesan bishop; for as titular bishops there have no ordinary jurisdiction. They can; however, act as auxiliary bishops, i.e. they may be appointed by the pope to assist a diocesan bishop in the exercise of duties arising from the episcopal order but entailing no power of jurisdiction. (See AUXILIARY BISHOP.) Such a bishop is also called vicarius in pontificalibus, i.e. a representative in certain ceremonial acts proper to the diocesan bishop, sometimes suffragan bishop, episcopus suffraganeus. In the proper sense of the term, however, the suffragan bishop is the diocesan bishop in his relations with the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province to which he belongs, while the bishop who is independent of any metropolitan is called an exempt bishop, episcopus exemptus. The titular bishop may also be coadjutor bishop when he is appointed to assist an ordinary bishop in the administration of the diocese. Sometimes he is incorrectly called auxiliary bishop. He possesses some powers of jurisdiction determined by the letters Apostolic appointing him. Often also, notably in missionary countries, the coadjutor bishop is named cum jure successionis, i.e. with the right of succession; on the death of the diocesan bishop he enters on the ordinary administration of the diocese.The Council of Trent determined the conditions to be fulfilled by candidates for the episcopate, of which the following are the principal: birth in lawful wedlock, freedom from censure and irregularity or any defect in mind, purity of personal morals, and good reputation. The candidate must also be fully thirty years of age and have been not less than six months in Holy orders. He ought also to have the theological degree of Doctor or at least be a licentiate in theology or canon law or else have the testimony of a public academy or seat of learning (or, if he be a religious, of the highest authority of his order) that he is fit to teach others (c. vii, De electione et electi potestate, X.I. vi; Friedberg, II, 51. Council of Trent. Sess. XXII, De ref., ch. ii). The Holy Office is charged with the examination of persons called to the episcopate, with the exception of the territories subject to the Congregation of the Propaganda or to the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, or of those countries where the nomination of bishops is governed by special laws and concordats ("Motu Proprio" of Pope Pius X. 17 December, 1903; "acta sanctae Sedis, 1904, XXXVI, 385). We have said that the Decretals recognize the right of the cathedral chapters to elect the bishop. This right has long been long withdrawn and is no longer in force. In virtue of the second rule of the Papal Chancery the choice of bishops belongs exclusively to the pope (Walter, Fontes juris eccesiastici antiqui et hodierni, Bonn, 1861, 483) Exceptions to this rule, however, are numerous. In Austria (with the exception of some episcopal sees), in Bavaria, in Spain, in Portugal and in Peru, the Government presents to the sovereign pontiff the candidates for the episcopate. It was so in France, and in several South American Republics before the rupture or denunciation of the concordats between the states and the Apostolic See. By the cessation of these concordats such states lost all right of intervention in the nomination of bishops; this does not, however prevent the Government in several South American Republics from recommending candidates to the sovereign pontiff. The cathedral chapter is authorized to elect the bishop in several dioceses of Austria, Switzerland, Prussia, and in some States of Germany, notably in the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine. The action of the electors, however, is not entirely free. For example, they may not choose persons distasteful to the Government (Letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State to the Chapters of Germany, 20, July 1900; Canonist Contemporain, 1901, XXIV, 727). Elsewhere the pope himself nominates bishops, but in Italy the Government insists that they obtain the royal exequatur before taking possession of the episcopal see. In missionary countries the pope generally permits the "recommendation" of candidates, but this does not juridically bind the sovereign pontiff, who has the power to choose the new bishop from persons not included in the list of recommended candidates. In England the canons of the cathedral select by a majority of the votes, at three successive ballots, three candidates for the vacant episcopal see. Their names, arranged in alphabetical order, are transmitted to the Propaganda and to the archbishop of the province, or to the senior suffragan of the province, if the question is one of the election of an archbishop. The bishops of the province discuss the merits of the candidates and transmit their observations to the Propaganda. Since 1847 the bishops are empowered, if they so desire, to propose other names for the choice of the Holy See, and a decision of the Propaganda (25 April, 3 May, 1904) confirms this practice (Instruction of Propaganda, 21 April, 1852; "Collectanea S. C. de Propagandâ Fide", Rome, 1893. no. 42; Taunton, 87-88). Analogous enactments are in force in Ireland. The canons of the cathedral and all the parish priests free from censure and in actual and peaceful possession of their parish or united parishes, choose in a single ballot three ecclesiastics. The names of the three candidates who have obtained the greatest number of votes are announced and forwarded to the Propaganda and to the archbishop of the province. The archbishop and the bishops of the province give the Holy See their opinion on the candidates. If they judge that none of the candidates is capable of fulfilling the episcopal functions no second recommendation is to be made. If it is a question of the nomination of a coadjutor bishop with the right of succession the same rules are followed, but the presidency of the electoral meeting, instead of being given to the metropolitan, his delegate, or the senior bishop of the province, belongs to the bishop who asks for the coadjutor (Instruction of Propaganda, 17 September, 1829, and 25 April, 1835; "Collectanea," nos. 40 and 41). In Scotland, where there is no chapter of canons, they follow the rules as in England; and when there is no chapter, the bishops of Scotland and the archbishops of Edinburgh and Glasgow choose by a triple ballot the three candidates. The names of these latter are communicated to the Holy See together with the votes which each candidate has obtained. At the same time is transmitted useful information about each of them according to the questions determined by the Propaganda (Instruction of the Propaganda, 25 July, 1883; "Collectanea". no. 45). In the United States of America the diocesan consultors and the irremovable rectors of the diocese assemble under the presidency of the archbishop or the senior bishop of the province, and choose three candidates, the first dignissimus, the second dignior, and the third digmus. Their names are sent to the Propaganda and to the archbishops of the province; the archbishop and the bishops the province examine the merits of the candidates proposed by the clergy and in their turn, by a secret ballot propose three candidates. If they choose other candidates than those designated by the clergy, they indicate their reasons to the Propaganda. In the case of the nomination of a coadjutor with right of succession, the meeting of the clergy is presided over by the bishop who demands a coadjutor. If it concerns a newly created diocese, the consulters of all the dioceses from whose territory the new diocese was formed and all the irremovable rectors of the new diocese choose the three candidates of the clergy. Finally, if it is a matter of replacing an archbishop or of giving him a coadjutor with right of succession all the metropolitans of the United States are consulted by the Propaganda (Decree of Propaganda, 21 January, 1861, modified by that of 31 September, 1885; Collectanea, no. 43). In Canada by a decree of 2 December, 1862, the Church still follows the rules laid down by the Propaganda on 21 January, I861, for the United States (Collectanea. no. 43; Collectio Lacensis 1875, III, 684, 688). Every three years the bishops must communicate to the Propaganda and to the metropolitan the names of the priests they think worthy of episcopal functions. In addition, each bishop must designate in a secret letter three ecclesiastics whom he believes worthy to succeed him. When a vacancy occurs, all the bishops of the province indicate to the archbishop or to the senior bishop the priests whom they consider recommendable. The bishops then discuss in a meeting the merits of each of the priests recommended, and proceed to the nomination of the candidates by secret vote. The acts of the assembly are transmitted to the Propaganda. In Australia, a method similar to that in use in the United States is followed. Two differences, however, are to be noted: first the bishops still signify every three years, to the metropolitan and to the Propaganda the names of the priests whom they consider worthy of the episcopal office. Second, when the nomination of a coadjutor bishop is in question, the presidency over the assembly of consultors and irremovable rectors belongs not to the bishop who demands a coadjutor, but to the metropolitan or to the bishop delegated by him (Instruction of Propaganda, 19 May, 1866, modified by the decree of 1 May, 1887; Collectanea, no. 44).Whatever the manner of his nomination, the bishop possesses no power until his nomination has been confirmed by the Holy See, whether in consistory or by pontifical letters. Moreover, he is forbidden to enter on the administration of his diocese therefore taking possession of his see by communication to the cathedral chapter the letters Apostolic of his nomination (Const. "Apostolicae Sedis", 12 October, 1869, V, i; "Collectanea", no. 1002). From this moment, even before his consecration, the new bishop is entitled in his diocese to all rights of jurisdiction. He is required to make the prescribed profession of faith in the first provincial synod held after his elevation (Council of Trent, Sess., XXV, De ref., ch. ii). Finally, he is obliged within the space of three moths to receive episcopal consecration. The right of consecrating a bishop belongs to the sovereign pontiff, who generally permits the newly elected to be consecrated by three bishops of his own choice. However, if the consecration takes place in Rome, he must select a cardinal or one of the major patriarchs residing at Rome. If however, his own metropolitan is at that time in Rome, he would be obliged to choose him. The consecration ought to take place on a on a Sunday or on the feast of an Apostle, by preference in the cathedral church of the diocese or at least within the ecclesiastical province (Council of Trent, Sess., XXIII, De ref., ch. ii). Before consecration, the bishop must take an oath of fidelity to the Holy See. (For the formula of this oath for the bishops of the United States of America see "Acta et Decreta conc. Plen. Balt., III", Baltimore, 1886. Appendix, 202.) Consecration by a single bishop would not be invalid but would be illicit. However, the bishops of South America have the privilege of being consecrated by one bishop assisted by two or three priests, if it prove difficult for them to obtain three bishops (Letters Apostolic of Leo XIII "Trans Oceanum", 18 April 1897; "Acta Sanctae Sedis", 1896-97, XXIX, 659). Episcopal consecration has the effect of giving to the bishop the full powers of Order. (See Holy Orders. ) III. RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE BISHOPThe bishop possesses, as already stated, the powers of order and jurisdiction. The power of order comes to him through episcopal consecration, but the exercise of this right depends on his power of jurisdiction. The sacerdotal ordination performed by every duly consecrated bishop is undoubtedly valid, yet the bishop can ordain only in conformity with the enactments of canon law. Only the bishop can confer major orders. The question has been discussed, as to whether the pope could delegate to a priest, for example the abbot of a monastery, the power to ordain a deacon. The bishop is the only ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation (Council of Trent, Sees. XXIII, can. vii). Ecclesiastical law has reserved certain benedictions and consecrations to him, viz., those which are performed with holy oil. The following functions are reserved to the bishop: the dedication of a church, the consecration of an altar, of chalices and patens, and generally of the articles serving for the celebration of Holy Mass, the reconciliation of a desecrated church, the benediction of bells, the benediction of an abbot, the benediction of the holy oils, etc. A bishop is forbidden to exercise the Pontificalia -- i.e. to perform episcopal functions in another diocese -- without the consent of the ordinary, i.e. the proper bishop (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, De ref., ch. v).Besides the power of order, bishops possess that of jurisdiction; they have the right to prescribe for the faithful the rules which the latter must follow in order to obtain eternal salvation. The power of jurisdiction is of Divine origin, in the sense that the pope is held to establish in the Church bishops whose mission it is to direct the faithful in the way of salvation. The bishops have then in their dioceses an ordinary jurisdiction, limited, however, by the rights that the pope can reserve to himself in virtue of his primacy. But this jurisdiction is independent of the will and consent of the faithful, and even of the clergy. In certain important matters, however, the bishop must at times seek the advice, at other times the consent, of the cathedral chapter. In certain countries where chapters are not established, the bishop is bound to consult in some specified cases the consultores cleri dioecesani, or diocesan consultors (Third council of Baltimore, nos. 17-22, 33, 179). On the other hand, certain classes of persons, especially the regulars properly so called, are exempt from episcopal authority, and certain matters are removed from the bishops jurisdiction. Moreover, he has no power against the will of a superior authority, i.e. the pope, the councils, whether general, plenary, or provincial. The Bishop possess also other important powers through "delegated" jurisdiction which is accorded to him either by law, whether written or established through the Roman Congregations. The last named jurisdiction he exercises in the name of the Apostolic See (see below). Certain writers attribute to the bishop a third kind of jurisdiction which they call "quasi-ordinary" jurisdiction, but there are wide differences as to the definitions of this kind of jurisdiction. Several writers (such as: Wernz, II, 10; Bargilliat, "Praelect. ju. can.", Paris, 1900, I, 164; and amoung the older canonists, Boix, "De princep. juris canonici", Paris, 1852, 530) think that this distinction is useless; the jurisdiction known as quasi-ordinary is nothing else than an ordinary or delegated jurisdiction granted by written law or by custom.It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff. Authors who hold the contrary opinion say that it is during the episcopal consecration that bishops receive from God their power of jurisdiction. But habitually before their consecration the bishops have already all powers of jurisdiction over their dioceses (Bargilliat, I, 442-445). Another question also discussed is whether the potestas magisterii, or teaching authority, is a consequence of the power of order or of jurisdiction (Sägmüller, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Frieberg, 1900-04, 24-25). Whatever the conclusion, teaching authority will here be ranked among the powers of jurisdiction. The teaching authority of the bishop and his governing authority (potestas regiminis) will now be successively considered, the latter comprising the legislative, dispensative, judicial, coercive, and administrative powers.A. Teaching AuthorityBy Divine law bishops have the right to teach Christian doctrine (Matthew 28:19; Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, De ref., ch. iv; Encyclical of Leo XIII, "Sapientiae christianae", 10 January, 1890; "Acta Sanctae Sedis": 1890, XXXII, 385). At the same time, the obligation of instructing the faithful either personally or, if hindered, through other ecclesiastics is incumbent upon them. They are bound also to see that in the parish churches the parish priests fulfil the requirements of preaching and teaching which the Council of Trent imposes on them (Sess. V, De ref., ch. ii; Sess. XXIV, De ref. ch. iv). The bishop must also supervise the teaching of Christian doctrine in the seminaries, as well as in secondary and primary schools (Conc. Balt. III, nos. 194 sqq.; Const. "Romanos pontifices", 8 May, 1881; op. cit., Appendix, 212). In virtue of this right of superintendence, and because of the intimate relations which exist between instruction and education, the bishop is empowered to forbid attendance at undemominational schools, at least in those districts where Catholic schools exist, and where attendance at the former schools is dangerous. In virtue of the same right he will very often be bound to erect Catholic schools or favour their establishment (Third Council of Baltimore, nos. 194-213). No one is allowed to preach Christian doctrine without the consent of the bishop, or at least without his knowledge if it is a question of exempt religious preaching in their own churches (Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref., ch., ii; Sess. XVIV, De ref., ch. iv). The Bishop has power to supervise writings published or read in his diocese; works regarding the sacred sciences are subject to his approbation; he may forbid the reading of dangerous books and newspapers. He exercises a special control over the publications of the secular clergy, who are bound to consult him before undertaking the direction of newspapers or of publishing works even upon profane matters (Const. of Leo XIII, "Officiorum et munerum", 25 January, 1897; Vermeersch, "De probitione et censura liborum", 4th ed., Rome, 1906). He has the right of special supervision over the manuals used in educational establishments, and as far as possible he will encourage the publication of good books and good newspapers (Third Council of Baltimore, nos. 210,220, 221, 225, 226). The bishop is the Inquisitor natus or protector of the faith for his diocese. He has not, it is true, the right to define, outside an ecumenical council, controverted questions with regard to faith and morals, but when a heated discussion arises in his diocese, he can impose silence upon the parties concerned while awaiting a decision from the Holy See. If anyone, however, denies a point of doctrine defined by the Church, even though it be all exempt religious, the bishop will have the power to punish him (Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref., ch. ii; Sess. XXIV, De ref., ch, iii). He must likewise guard the faithful of his diocese against dangerous societies condemned by the Holy See (Third Council of Baltimore, nos. 244-255).B. Governing Authority(1) Legislative PowerThe bishop can enact for his diocese those laws which he considers conducive to the general good. Though he is not bound to convoke a synod for this purpose, his legislative power is not absolute. He cannot legislate contra jus commune, i.e. enact a law contrary to the general law of the Church, written or established by custom, or to the decisions of general, plenary, or provincial councils. This is on the principle that an inferior cannot act contrary to the will of his superiors (ch. 11, "De electione et electi potestate", I, iii, in the Clementines; Friedberg, II, 937) He can, however, enact laws juxta jus commune, i.e. he can urge the observance of provisions of the common ecclesiastical law by penalizing the violation of the same (ch. ii. De constitutionibus, VI, I, ii; Friedberg, II, 937). He can determine the common ecclesiastical law, i.e. he can permit or forbid that which the common law neither forbids nor permits with certitude, and can apply to the particular needs of his diocese the general enactments of the pontifical laws. Many writers say that the bishop has also the power to enact laws praeter jus commune, i.e. to regulate those matters concerning which the common ecclesiastical law is silent; or at least particular points unforeseen by the common law. In any case, if the bishop wishes to add to the enactments of the common law (and the same principle is valid when it is a question of applying to the needs of his own diocese a general law of the Church), he must take care to make no enactment on matters which the common law, in the intention of the supreme legislator, has completely regulated. The common law implicitly forbids any episcopal action in such matters. Thus, e.g., the bishop cannot introduce new irregularities. In his diocesan legislation the bishop must not go beyond the purpose intended by the common ecclesiastical law. Thus, the latter forbids the clergy to take part in games of chance (ludi aleatorii), the aim of the law being to, condemn the love of lucre and to avoid scandal; at the same time the bishop cannot forbid in private houses other games which are not games of chance. On the other hand, if it be a matter concerning which the common law is silent, the bishop may take all necessary measures to prevent and put and end to abuses and to maintain ecclesiastical discipline. He must abstain, however, from imposing on his clergy extraordinary charges and obligations, and from unusual innovations. The legislative power of the bishop præter jus commune, is, therefore, far from being absolute. (Chaeys-Bouuaert, De canonicâ cleri sæcularis obedientiâ, Louvain, 1904, 69-77). Canonical writers discuss the right of the bishop to abrogate a local custom contrary to the enactments of the common ecclesiastical law. He probably has not the right, provided that the custom be juridical, i.e. a reasonable one and legitimately prescribed this custom obtains only because of pontifical consent, it does not belong to the bishop to act contrary to the will of the pope. The power of granting dispensations is correlative to the legislative power. The bishop may, therefore, dispense with regard to all diocesan laws. He may also dispense, in particular cases only, from the laws of provincial and plenary synods; any dispensation of these laws would be almost impossible, if it were necessary on all such occasions to convoke a fresh provincial or plenary synod. The bishop however, cannot dispense from enactments that relate directly to himself, and impose obligations upon him, or from enactments that accord rights to a third party. The bishop cannot dispense from laws made by the sovereign pontiff. To this there are, however, some exceptions. In certain matters, the written law or custom has granted this right to the bishop. He may also dispense from such laws in virtue of an expressly delegated power, or even sometimes in virtue of the consent, presumed or tacit, of the sovereign pontiff. These cases in reality are determined by custom. Canonical writers also admit that a bishop may grant a dispensation, when there is a doubt whether a dispensation is required, though in such a case it may be a question whether any dispensation at all is requisite (Bargilliat, I, 483-491)(2) Judicial PowerThis power is exercised in two ways: without legal apparatus (extra judicialiter) or in a judicial process (judicialiter). In his diocese the bishop is judge in the first instance in all trials, civil and criminal that pertain to the ecclesiastical tribunal, unless the persons be exempt from his authority, or the matters reserved for other judges; such. e.g., are the process of canonization reserved to the pope or the misdemeanors of a vicar-general, which fall under the cognizance of the archbishop. (Ch. vii, De officio judicis ordinarii, VI, I, xvi; Friedberg, II, 988; Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, De ref., ch. xx.) In ecclesiastical trials he must conform to the general or special provisions of the law. (For matrimonial trials see "Instructio de judiciis ecclesiasticis circa causas matrimoniales" in "Acta et decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis III", Appendix, 262; for trials of ecclesiastics see the Instruction of the Propaganda, "Cum Magnopere", which reproduces substantially the Instruction of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 11 June, 1880, op. cit., 287; see also S. Smith, "New procedure in criminal and disciplinary causes of ecclesiastics", 3d ed., New York, 1898.) The bishop has also judicial power which he exercises extra judicialiter both in foro externo (publicly) and in foro interno (in conscience). He has the power to absolve his subjects from all sins and censures not reserved to the Holy See. Moreover, the absolution from a censure inflicted by an ecclesiastical judge is always reserved for the latter or to his superiors (Bull, "Sacramentum Poenitentiæ" 1 June, 1741 in "Benedicti XIV, Bullarium", Venice, 1775, I, 22; Const. "Apostolicæ Sedis", "Collectanea S.C.P.", 1002). On the other hand, the bishop may reserve to himself absolution from certain sins (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, "De poenit.", ch. vii; Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 124, 127)(3) Coercive PowerThe right to punish is a necessary consequence if the right to judge. Formerly the bishop could and did inflict even corporal punishments and fines. These are no longer customary even for ecclesiastics. The usual penalties for the laity are censures; for ecclesiastics, religious exercises, confinement for a time in a monastery. (Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 72-73), degradation to an office of less importance (privatio officii ecclesiastici), and censures, especially suspension. The bishop may inflict suspension ex informatâ conscientia, i.e. on his personal responsibility, and without observing any legal formality, but in cases foreseen by the law (Instruction of Propaganda, 20 October, 1884; Conc. Balt. in, Appendix, 298). To the coercive power of the bishop belongs also the right of issuing certain commands (præcepta) i.e. of imposing on a particular ecclesiastic special obligations sanctioned by certain penalties (Constitution, "Cum Magnopere" nos. 4 and 8). He has also the lawful power to remove the penalties inflicted by him. Bishops call also grant indulgences: cardinals 200, archbishops 100, and bishops, 50 days’ indulgence (Decree of Congregation of Indulgences, 28 August, 1903; Acta Sanctae Sedis. XXXVI, 318).(4) Administrative PowerThe matters to which the administrative power of the bishop extends can only be briefly indicated here: The foremost is the supreme direction of the clergy. At the present day, generally speaking, it might be said that the bishop has the right to retain in his diocese a priest to whom he has entrusted ecclesiastical functions and given the means of subsistence (Claeys-Bouuaert, 200-244). In case of necessity or great utility, e.g. given the scarcity of priests, the bishop may compel an ecclesiastic to accept ecclesiastical functions, but he will require a pontifical indult to impose upon him the cura animarum, or cure of souls. Ecclesiastics ordained titulo missionis (see HOLY ORDERS, MISSIONS) take upon themselves special obligations in this matter. (See Instruction of Propaganda. 27 April, 1871, and the Reply of 4 February, 1873; Conc. Plen. Balt. III, Appendix, 204-211; decree "De seminariorum alumnis" 22 December, 1905; "Acta Sanctae Sedis", 1905, XXXVIII, 407.) The bishop may also nominate to the benefices and ecclesiastical functions of his own diocese. Certain nominations, however, are reserved to the Holy See, and in several countries the right of patronage still exists. The bishop, moreover, intervenes in the administration of ecclesiastical property. No alienation whatever of ecclesiastical goods is possible without his consent, and he exercises supreme supervision over their administration. He has a special right of intervention in all matters relating to Divine worship and to the sacraments; he authorizes and supervises the printing of liturgical books, regulates public worship, processions, exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, celebration of the Holy Mass, celebration of Mass twice on the same day by the same priest (see Bination), and exorcisms; his consent is required for the erection of churches and oratories; he authorizes the public veneration of the relics of saints and of those who have been beatified; he exercises supervision over statues and images exposed for the veneration of the faithful: he publishes Indulgences, etc. But in all these matters his power is not unlimited; he must conform to the enactments of the canon law.Bishops have also a "delegated jurisdiction" which they exercise in the name of the Holy See; this power is granted to them a jure or ab homine. Ecclesiastical law frequently accords to bishops delegated powers; but it would be wrong to say, for instance, that every power of dispensation granted by a general law of the Church is a delegated one. Such power is perhaps quite as often an ordinary power. But when the law accords a power of jurisdiction to the bishop, tanquam Sedis apostolicæ delegatus, it is a delegated power that he receives. (See, for example, Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref. ch., I, ii; Sess. VI, De ref., ch. iii; Sess. VII, De ref., ch. vi, viii, xiv, etc). Writers do not agree as to the nature of the power accorded to the bishop also as a delegate to the Apostolic See, etiam tanquam sedis apostolicæ delegatus. Some maintain that it is in this case the bishop has at the same time both ordinary and delegated power, but only relative to such persons as are subject to his jurisdiction. (Reiffenstuel, Jus canonicum universum, Paris, 1864, tit. xxix, 37); others contended that in this case the bishop has ordinary jurisdiction with regard to his subjects, and only a delegated one with regard to those who are exempt (Hinschius, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Berlin, 1869, I, 178; Scherer, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts, Graz, 1886, I, 421, note 36); others maintain that the bishop has the same time both an ordinary and a delegated power over his subjects, and a delegated power over those who are exempt (Wernz, II, 816); finally, others see in this formula only a means of removing any obstacles which might pervent the bishop from using the power accorded to him (Santi, Praelect. jur. can., New York, 1898, I, 259). The delegated powers ab homine are at the present of very geat importance especially in missionary countries. The Apostolic Penitentiary grants those which are only concerned with the forum of conscience. The others are granted by the Congregation of the Propaganda. They are called facultates habituales, because not granted for a determined individual case. These faculties are no longer accorded only to the bishop in his own person but to the ordinaries, that is to say, to the bishop, to his successor, to the administrator pro tem of the diocese, and to the vicar general, to vicars apostolic, prefects, etc. (Declaration of the Holy Office, 26 November, 1897, 22 April, 1898, 25 June, 1898, 5 September, 1900; Acta Sanctae Sedis, 1897-98, XXX, 627, 702; 1898-99, XXXI, 120; 1900-01, XXXIII, 225). As a general rule the bishop can subdelegate these powers, provided that the faculties do not forbid it (Holy Office, 16 December, 1898; Acta Sanctæ Sedis, 1898-99, XXXI, 635). For further information see Putzer-Konings, "Commentarium in facultates apostolicas" (5th ed., New York, 1898). On the other hand, the bishop can always ask the Holy See for such delegated powers as are necessary in the administration of his diocese. The bishop is also the ordinary and habitual executor of the dispensations which the Holy See grants in foro externo, i.e. for public use or application. IV. OBLIGATIONS OF THE BISHOPIn describing the rights of bishops we have already in great measure indicated what their obligations are. All their efforts must aim at preserving the true faith and a high moral tone among the people; they attain this end by good example, by preaching, by daily solicitude for the good administration of the diocese, and by prayer. Bishops, in effect, are bound by the Divine law to implore the help of God for the faithful committed to their care. Canon law has determined more fully this obligation, and imposes upon the bishops the obligation of celebrating Mass for the faithful of their dioceses (missa pro grege) every Sunday, on the feast days of obligation and on the abrogated feast days (Const. Leo XIII "In supremâ", 10 June, 1882; "Collectanea, S.C.P.", no. 112). The bishop is bound to take special care of the education of youth and of the training of his clergy; he must exercise continual vigilance over the latter and assist them with his counsels, The Church has imposed as special obligations upon bishops the canonical visitation of the diocese and the holding of an annual diocesan synod. The bishop is bound to visit each year the greater part of his diocese either personally or, if prevented, through his delegates. This visit will permit him to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXXIV, De ref., ch. iii). The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore grants the bishop three years for making this visitation (Acta et decreta, no 14). The Council of Trent ordered that an annual diocesan synod should be held (Sess. XXIV, De ref. ch. ii). At present, the Holy See no longer urges the strict observation of this legislation (Santi Praelect. Jur. can., I, 360) The Third Council of Baltimore decreed that the bishop should take counsel with the diocesan consultors whenever he wished to convoke a synod (Acta et decreta, no. 20) It is then unnecessary for the synod to assemble every year. However in missionary countries the Holy See desires that these synods should be rather frequent and dispenses the bishop from the observation of the formalities difficult to fulfill, e.g. the convoking of all ecclesiastics who ought to be present at the synod (Letter of Propaganda to the Bishop of Milwaukee, 19 July, 1889, "Collectanea, S.C.P." no. 117). It is evident, finally, that the bishop cannot fulfill the duties of his office unless he observes the law of residence. The bishop is obliged to reside in his diocese and it is proper that he should be in the episcopal city on the principal feast days of the year. He cannot be absent from his diocese for more than three months, except for grave reason approved of by the Holy See (Council of Trent. Sess. VI, De ref., ch. i; Sess. XXXIII, De ref., ch. i; Benedict XIV, "Ad universae christianae", 3 September, 1746; Letters of Propaganda, 24 April and 24 August 1861; "Collectanea, S.C.P.", nos. 103, 105).The bishop has also obligations regarding the Holy See. Throughout his entire administration he must conform to the general legislation of the Church and the directions of the pope. In this respect two special obligations are incumbent upon him: he must pay the Visitatio ad limina Apostolorum, and present the Relatio de statu diocesis, i.e. he must visit the shrines of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome and present a report on the condition of his diocese. In the time of Paschal II (1099-1118), only metropolitans were bound to pay this visit. The Decretals imposed this obligation upon bishop whose consecration the pope reserved to himself (C. iv, "De electione et electi potestate"; X, I, vi; c. xiii, "De majoritate et obentia" X, I, xxxiii; c. iv, "De jurejurando", X, II, xxiv; Friedberg, II, 49, 201. 360). It has become general since the fifteenth century, and Sixtus definitely ruled in favour of this obligation (Bull, "Romanus Pontifex", 20 December, 1585; "Bullarum amplissima collectio", ed. Cocquelines, Rome, 1747, IV, iv, 173). According to this Bull the bishops of Italy and the neighbouring islands, of Dalmatia and Greece, must make the visit ad limina every three years; those of Germany, France, Spain, England, Portugal, Belgium, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, and the islands of the Mediterranean Sea every four years; those of other parts of Europe, of North Africa, and the isles of the Atlantic Ocean situated to the east of the New World, every five years; those of other parts of the world every ten years. The bishops of Ireland, in virtue of a privilege of 10 May, 1631, are bound to pay this visit only every ten years. Even in the case of more recently erected sees the years are counted from 20 December, 1585, date of the aforesaid Bull (Instruction of Propaganda, 1 June, 1877; Collectanea, S.C.P.", no. 110). The bishops must pay this visit personally and for this purpose are allowed to absent themselves from their dioceses. The bishops of Italy for four months, other bishops for seven months. The Holy See sometimes dispenses a bishop from the obligation of paying this visit personally, and permits him to send, as his delegate, a priest of his diocese, especially one of those who have been promoted to a high office (dignitates), or a priest of the diocese sojourning at Rome, or even the agent of the bishop in that city, if an ecclesiastic. While this visit, as stated above, ought to be paid the third, fourth, fifth, or tenth year, the rule suffers frequent exceptions in practice (Wernz, II, 914). The Visitatio Liminum includes a visit to the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, an audience with the Holy Father, and a written report which the bishop ought to present to the Congregation of the Council (Congregatio specialis super statu ecclesiarum also called Concilietto) according to the formula of Benedict XIII in 1725 (A. Lucidi, De Visitatione saerorim Liminum, 5th ed., Rome, 1883).Bishops subject to the Propaganda present this statement to the latter congregation (the proper formula is in "Acta Sanctae Sedis", 1891-92; XXIV, 382. "Collectanea", no. 104). In addition they ought also to send every five years, a report to the Propaganda according to the formulary drawn up by this congregation 24 April, 1861 (Collectanea, no. 104). This obligation had formerly been all annual one (Decrees of Propaganda, 31 October, 1838, 27 September, 1843, and 23 March, 1844; Collectanea, nos. 97-99; Third Council of Baltimore, no. 14).Finally, mention may be made of certain privileges enjoyed by bishops. They do not fall under suspensions and interdicts, latæ sententia, i.e. incurred ipso facto, unless express mention of them is therein made; those who are guilty of assaults upon them are punished with an excommunication reserved speciali modo to the sovereign pontiff; they possess the right of having a domestic chapel and enjoy the privilege of the altare portabile, or portable altar, etc. V. NON-CATHOLIC USEThe title of bishop is still retained in certain Protestant churches. For its use in the Anglican Church see Sir R. Phillimore. "Ecclesiastical Law in the Church of England" (new ed., 1895; F. Makeower, "Verfassung der Kirche von England" (1894), and the "Encycl. Britannica" (9th ed.), III, 788-789; cf., also O. J. Reichel. "A Short Manual of Canon Law" (The Sacraments), London, 1896, 283-’298. For its use in the national Protestant Churches of Denmark and Sweden, see articles treating of those countries, and for its history and use in the Evangelical churches of Prussia and the European continent, Jacobson-Friedberg in "Real-Encycl. f. prot. Theol. und Kirche" (3d ed., 1897), III, 246-247. For its use in Protestant churches of the United States see BAPTISTS, METHODISTS, MORMONS. The antiquities and constitution of the Greek episcopate are treated by J. M. Heineccius in "Abbildung der alten und neuen griechischen Kirche" (Leipzig, 1711), and in Milasch-Pessic, "Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländischen Kirche" (Germ. tr. of 2nd ed., Mostar, 1905); the actual conditions of the Greek episcosate, Catholic and Orthodox (Schismatic), are described in Silbernagl-Schnitzer, Verfassung und gegenwartiger Bestand samtlicher "Kirchen des Orients" (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1904), passim.-----------------------------------A. VAN HOVE Transcribed by Matthew Dean The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
General
1. Use in the Septuagint and Classic Greek
The Septuagint gives it the generic meaning of “superintendency, oversight, searching” (Num 4:16; Num 31:14) in matters pertaining to the church, the state, and the army (Jdg 9:28; 2Ki 12:11; 2Ch 34:12, 2Ch 34:17; 1 Macc 1:54; The Wisdom of Solomon 1:6). Nor is it unknown to classical Greek. Thus Homer in the Iliad applied it to the gods (xxii.255), also Plutarch, Cam., 5. In Athens the governors of conquered states were called by this name.
2. New Testament Use
The word is once applied to Christ himself, “unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1Pe 2:25). It abounds in Pauline literature, and is used as an alternative for
Of a formal ordination, in the later hierarchical sense, there is no trace as yet. The word “ordained” used in the King James Version (Act 1:22) is an unwarrantable interpolation, rightly emended in the Revised Version (British and American). Neither the word
3. Later Development of the Idea
According to Rome, as finally expressed by the Council of Trent, and to the episcopal idea in general, the hierarchical organization, which originated in the 3rd century, existed from the beginning in the New Testament church. But besides the New Testament as above quoted, the early testimony of the church maintains the identity of “presbyters” and “bishops.” Thus, Clement of Rome (Ep. 1, chapters 42, 44, 57), the Didache, chapter 15; perhaps the Constitutions, II, 33, 34, in the use of the plural form; Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., iii.2, 3), Ambrosiaster (on 1Ti 3:10; Eph 4:11), Chrysostom (Hom 9 in Ep. ad Tim), in an unequivocal statement, the “presbyters of old were called bishops ... and the bishops presbyters,” equally unequivocally Jerome (Ad Tit, 1, 7), “the same is the presbyter, who is also the bishop.” Augustine and other Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries hold this view, and even Peter Lombard, who preceded Aquinas as the great teacher of the church of the Middle Ages. Hatch of Oxford and Harnack of Berlin, in the face of all t his testimony, maintain a distinction between the presbyters, as having charge of the law and discipline of the church, and the bishops, as being charged with the pastoral care of the church, preaching and worship. This theory is built upon the argument of prevailing social conditions and institutions, as adopted and imitated by the church, rather than on sound textual proof. The distinction between presbyters and bishops can only be maintained by a forced exegesis of the Scriptures. The later and rapid growth of the hierarchical idea arose from the accession of the Ebionite Christian view of the church, as a necessary continuation of the Old Testament dispensation, which has so largely influenced the history of the inner development of the church in the first six centuries of her existence.
Anglican View
I. Episcopacy Defined
Episcopacy is the government in the Christian church by bishops. The rule of the Orthodox churches in the East, of the Roman Catholics, and of the Anglicans is that the consecration of other bishops, and the ordination of priests and deacons can only be by a bishop; and with them, a bishop is one who claims historic descent from apostolic or sub-apostolic times.
II. Offices in the Early Church
In the New Testament, the office of bishop is not clearly defined. Indeed there appear to have been many degrees of ministry in the infant church: apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, presbyters or elders, bishops or overseers, and deacons.
Due allowance is not generally made for the mental attitude of the apostles and early Christians. They were looking for the speedy return of Christ, and consequently did not organize the church in its infancy, as it was afterward found necessary to do. For this reason, while the different persons who composed the body of Christian ministers did not overlap or infringe on each other’s work, yet the relative rank or priority of each minister was not clearly defined.
1. Apostles
The apostles were undoubtedly first, and in them rested the whole authority, and they were the depository of the power committed unto them by Christ.
2. Prophets
Next to the apostles in rank, and first in point of mention (Act 11:27), came the prophets. So important were these officers in the early church that they were sent from Jerusalem to warn the rapidly growing church at Antioch of an impending famine. Then it appears that there were resident prophets at Antioch, men of considerable importance since their names are recorded, Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius, Manaen and Saul (Act 13:1). These men received a command from the Holy Spirit to “separate me Barnabas and Saul,” on whom they laid their hands and sent them forth on their work. The election is conducted on the same lines as the election by the eleven apostles of Matthias, and Barnabas and Paul are hereafter called apostles. It is an ordination to the highest order in the Christian ministry by “prophets and teachers.” Whether “prophets and teachers” refers to two distinct ministries, or whether they are terms used for the same one is uncertain. It may be that of the five men mentioned, some were prophets, and others teachers.
In Act 15:32 we have given us the names of two other prophets, Judas and Silas. Paul tells the Corinthians (1Co 12:28) that God hath set some in his church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, and writing to the Ephesians he places the prophets in the same rank. “He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry” (Eph 4:11, Eph 4:12 the King James Version). And again, he says that the mystery of Christ is now “revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Eph 3:5). The same apostle in that wonderful imagery of Christians being built up for a habitation of God, says they are “being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph 2:20).
In the case of the ordination of Timothy, which Paul says distinctly was by his own laying on of hands and that of the presbytery, it is of great consequence to note that Paul says to Timothy that his ordination was “according to the prophecies which went before on thee” (1Ti 1:18 the King James Version). From this it would appear that the prophets, as in the case of Paul himself, guided by the Holy Ghost, chose Timothy for the overseership or bishopric, or it may be, which is just as likely, that Timothy was set apart by the laying on of hands by some prophets, to the rank of elder or presbyter which did not carry with it the “overseership.” It is at any rate evident that in the selection of Timothy, Paul is insistent on pointing out that it was through the prophets (compare 1Ti 1:18; 1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6).
In Revelation, the term prophet constantly occurs as a term denoting rank equivalent to that of apostle: “ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets” (Rev 18:20); “blood of prophets and of saints” (Rev 16:6; Rev 18:24). The angel calls himself “thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets” (Rev 22:9 the King James Version). The words prophesy and prophesying are used in a general sense, and it does not mean that they were in every case the formal utterances of prophets.
3. Elders or Presbyters
The ministry of the elders of the Christian church was modeled after that of the synagogue in which there were elders and teachers. The Christian elders or presbyters were most likely a council of advice in each local Christian
4. Teachers
Teachers were the equivalent of those teachers or catechists of the synagogue before whom our Lord was found in the temple.
5. Evangelists
Evangelists were persons who probably had the gift of oratory and whose function it was to preach the glad tidings. Philip was one of them (Act 21:8). In the instructions to Timothy he is bidden to do the work of an evangelist, that is to say, to preach the gospel. This was to be part of his work in the ministry.
In writing to Timothy, Paul twice says that he himself was ordained preacher, and apostle and teacher. This does not mean that he held three grades of the ministry, but that his duties as an apostle were to preach and to teach. The fact that the apostles called themselves elders does not thereby confirm the view that the bishops mentioned by them were not superior to elders, any more than the fact that the apostles called themselves teachers, or preachers, makes for the view that teachers, or preachers, were the equals of apostles.
6. Bishops
Bishops or overseers were probably certain elders chosen out of the body of local elders. Under the Jewish dispensation, the elders stayed at home, that is, they did no ministerial visiting, but it was soon found necessary as the Christian church grew to have someone to attend to outside work to win over by persuasion and exposition of the Scriptures those inclined to embrace Christianity. This necessitated visiting families in their own homes. Then, it became necessary to shepherd the sheep. Someone had to oversee or superintend the general work. The Jewish elders always had a head and in a large synagogue the conditions laid down for its head, or
The term
In the Acts, the term is found only twice, one in reference to Judas, “his bishopric (or overseership) let another take” (Act 1:20 the King James Version), and in Paul’s address to the elders of Ephesus, he warns them to feed the church over which they have been made overseers or bishops (Act 20:28). It is impossible to say whether this “overseership” refers to all the elders addressed, or to such of those elders as had been made “overseers,” or “bishops.”
In the epistles, we find the church more clearly organized, and in these writings we find more definite allusions to bishops and their duties (Php 1:1; 1Ti 3:1, 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:7; 1Pe 2:25).
Paul tells Timothy, “If a man desire the office of a bishop (or overseer) he desireth a good work.” “A bishop (or overseer) must be blameless” (1Ti 3:1, 1Ti 3:2 the King James Version). He tells Titus that “he is to ordain elders in every city” and that a “bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God” (Tit 1:5, Tit 1:7 the King James Version).
On the other hand, there are numerous texts where elders and their duties are mentioned and where there is no reference whatever to bishopric or oversight. The epistles show that of necessity there had grown to be a more distinct organization of the ministry, and that following the custom of the synagogue to some of the elders had been committed a bishopric or oversight. At the same time the rank of a bishop, or overseer, was not yet one of the highest. Paul does not enumerate it in the order of ministry which he gives to the Ephesians - apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.
That Timothy had an oversight over the elders or presbyters is evident from the fact that Paul enjoins him to rebuke those that sin: “Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at the mouth of two or three witnesses. Them that sin reprove in the sight of all” (1Ti 5:19, 1Ti 5:20). This, of course, refers to a formal trial by one in authority of persons inferior to him in rank.
It has been asserted that the terms elder and bishop in the New Testament were equivalent and denoted the same office or grade in the ministry. This assertion seems unwarranted. They do not naturally denote the same grade any more than do apostle and teacher, or angel and prophet.
7. Deacons
The deacons were the seven appointed to take charge of the temporal affairs of the church. Their appointment was perhaps suggested by the alms-collectors of the synagogue. In the New Testament they do not appear as deacons to have had any part in the sacred ministry, except, in the case of Philip the evangelist, if it be assumed that he was a deacon, which is uncertain. Nowhere is it recorded that they laid hands on anyone, or were considered as capable of bestowing any grace. In the epistles they are mentioned with the bishops - “bishops and deacons” (Php 1:1), Thus showing the nature of their influence as the helpers of the “bishops” in the management of the growing funds, or properties of the church.
III. Episcopacy According to the New Testament
The passages where the Greek word occurs which has been translated either as bishops, or overseers, are so few that they are enumerated: Act 20:17, Act 20:28: the Ephesian elders are stated to be bishops (or overseers) to feed the church; Php 1:1 the salutation of Paul and Timothy to bishops (or overseers) and deacons at Philippi; 1Ti 3:1, 1Ti 3:2 and Tit 1:7 give the exhortation to Timothy and Titus as holding the office of a bishop; 1Pe 2:25, where the apostle referring to Christ says, “unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”
IV. The “Didache”
Passing out of the New Testament, we come to the early Christian writing, the so-called Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Setting aside the question for what class of Christians this document was intended, the clear fact stands out that at the date of its writing the two highest grades in the Christian ministry were still called apostles and prophets. Various dates have been assigned to this document ranging from 80 to 160 ad.
At the end of chapter 10, which deals with the thanksgiving or eucharist, the remark is made, “But permit the prophets to make thanksgiving as much as they desire.” Chapters 11 and 13 deal with apostles and prophets. They were to be treated “according to the ordinance of the gospel.” An apostle was not to be allowed to stay more than a couple of days at the utmost, and in no case was he to receive any money, else he was to be considered “a false prophet.” A prophet could beg on behalf of others, but not for himself; but a prophet could settle among a congregation, and in that case he was to receive the same first-fruits “of money and raiment and of every possession” as the chief priest did under the old dispensation. It is to be noted that in reality the prophets, though placed second in order, were to be treated with the greater respect. If the prophet settles down, he becomes the man of the first rank in that Christian community.
Chapter 15 deals with bishops and deacons, and we are told that if appointed they rendered the ministry of prophets and teachers, but the warning is given, “Despise them not, therefore, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.” This shows that bishops were localized; and that while they could be appointed over a community, they were not considered as of equal rank with the prophets.
V. Clement of Rome
Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians says that the apostles preaching through countries and cities appointed the first-fruits of their labors to be bishops and deacons (chapter 42). It is usually said that Clement meant elders by the term “bishops,” but it is much more likely that he meant what he said; that according to the tradition received by him, the apostles appointed bishops, that is, appointed bishops out of the elders - mentioned in the Acts. In chapter 44 Clement warns against the sin of ejecting from the episcopate those who have presented the offerings, and says, “Blessed are those presbyters who have finished their course.”
The reason why the terms apostles and prophets fell into desuetude was, as regards the first, not so much out of respect to the original apostles, but because the apostles in the sub-apostolic age became apparently only wandering evangelists of little standing; while the prophets lowered their great office by descending to be soothsayers, as the Shepherd of Hermas plainly intimates. With the fall of the apostles and the prophets, there rose into prominence the bishops and deacons.
VI. Bishops and Deacons
The deacons acted as secretaries and treasurers to the bishops. They were their right-hand men, representing them in all secular matters. As the numbers of Christians increased, it was found absolutely necessary for the bishops to delegate some of their spiritual authority to a second order.
VII. Bishops and Presbyters (Priests)
Thus very slowly emerged out of the body of elders the official presbyters or priests. To them the bishop delegated the power to teach, to preach, to baptize, to celebrate the Holy Eucharist; but how slowly is evidenced by the fact that so late as 755 ad the Council of Vern forbade priests to baptize, except by distinct permission of their bishop.
VIII. Ignatian Epistles on the three Orders
When we come to the Ignatian epistles written between 110-17 ad, we find a distinct threefold order. We have given us the names of Damas, for bishop, Bassus and Apollonius for presbyters, Zotion for deacon. Throughout these epistles there is no question that the bishop is supreme. Apostles and prophets are not even mentioned. The bishop succeeds to all the powers the apostles and prophets had. On the other hand, as with the Jewish elders, so with the Christian presbyters, they form a council with the bishop. Here we see in clear day what we had all along suspected to be the case in apostolic times: a council of presbyters with a ruler at their head and deacons to attend to money matters.
It is quite immaterial as to whether a bishop had ten or a hundred presbyter-elders under him, whether he was bishop in a small town or in a large city. The question of numbers under him would not affect his authority as has been claimed. The greatness of the city in which he exercised this rule would add dignity to his position, but nothing to his inherent authority.
From this time on it is admitted by all that bishops, priests and deacons have been continuously in existence. Their powers and duties have varied, have been curtailed as one order has encroached on the power of the other, but still there the three orders have been. Gradually the presbyters or priests encroached on the power of the bishop, till now, according to Anglican usage, only the power of ordaining, confirming and consecrating churches is left to them.
IX. Views of Reformers
At the time of the Reformation there was a great outcry against bishops. This was caused by the fact that under feudalism the bishops had come to be great temporal lords immersed in schemes of political and material aggrandizement, and often actually leading their armies in times of war. Many of the bishops were proud and arrogant, forgetful that their duties as fathers of the children of Christ were to look after those committed to them with fatherly kindness and charity or that as pastors they had to tend the erring sheep with Divine patience and infinite love.
The bulk of the adherents to the Reformed religion, looking upon the bishops as they were and as their fathers had known them, recoiled from retaining the office, although their principal men, like Calvin, deplored the loss of bishops, and hoped that bishops of the primitive order would some day be restored. The present modern Anglican bishop seems to sum up in his person and office the requirements laid down by Calvin.
Conclusion
Thus the claim put forth by the Anglicans in the preface to the Ordinal may be considered as sound: “It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church - Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”
Literature
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Clement of Rome; Shepherd of Hermas; Ignatian epistles; Muratorian Fragment; Works of John Lightfoot; Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrétien; Pellicia, Polity of the Christian Church; Bishop MacLean, Ancient Church Orders; Cheetham, Hist of the Christian Church during the First Six Centuries; Salmon, Introduction to New Testament; Elwin, The Minister of Baptism; Cruttwell, Literary History of Early Christianity; Potter, Church Government; Lowndes, Vindication of Anglican Orders; E. Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches; C. Gore, The Church and the Ministry; Thompson, Historic Episcopate (Presbyterian); Baird, Huguenots.
Congregational View
1. The New Testament Church a Spiritual Democracy
As a spiritual and social democracy, Congregationaliam finds no warrant or precedent in the New Testament for the episcopal conception of the words “bishop,” “presbyter,” and “eider.” It interprets
The church formed on the day of Pentecost was the spontaneous coming together of the original 120 disciples and the 3,000 Christian converts, for fellowship, worship and work, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Its only creed was belief in the risen Christ and the renewing power of the Holy Spirit; its only condition of membership, repentance and baptism.
2. Election of Officers by Popular Vote
The apostles naturally took leadership but, abrogating all authority, committed to the church as a whole the choice of its officers and the conduct of its temporal and spiritual affairs. Judas’ place in the apostolate was not filled by succession or episcopal appointment (Act 1:23-26). The seven deacons were elected by popular vote (Act 6:1-6). One of the seven - Philip - preached and, without protest, administered the rite of baptism (Act 8:12, Act 8:13).
The churches in the apostolic era were independent and self-governing, and the absence of anything like a centralized ecclesiastical authority is seen by the fact that the council at Jerusalem, called to consider whether the church at Antioch should receive the uncircumcised into membership, was a delegated body, composed in part of lay members, and having only advisory power (Acts 15:1-29).
3. The Epistles Not Official Documents
The apostolic letters, forming so large a part of the New Testament, are not official documents but letters of loving pastoral instruction and counsel. The terms bishops, elders, pastors and teachers are used synonymously and interchangeably, Thus limiting the officers of the early church to two orders: pastors and deacons. See also CHURCH GOVERNMENT; DIDACHE.
4. Restoration of Primitive Ideals
Under the spiritual tyrannies of the Church of England, during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, “bloody” Mary and ’Queen Elizabeth, the Dissenting bodies, chiefly the Congregationalists, returned to the simplicity and spiritual freedom of the primitive church. The issue was forced by two arbitrary acts of Parliament under Elizabeth: the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity. Emancipation from the intellectual and religious tyranny of these acts was won at the cost of many martyrdoms. These struggles and persecutions wrought into the successors of Robert Browne, the father of modern Congregationalism, a deep-seated and permanent resentment against all forms of autocratic power in church and state. They challenged, at the cost of life, both the Divine Right of kings, and of bishops. They believed that in Christ Jesus all believers are literally and inalienably made “kings and priests unto God” (Rev 1:6 the King James Version), actual spiritual sovereigns, independent of all human dictation an d control in matters of belief and worship. The Pilgrims expatriated themselves to secure this spiritual liberty; and to their inherent antagonism to inherited and self-perpetuated power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, must be credited the religious freedom and civil democracy of America.
Literature
For further study see Henry M. Dexter, Congregationalism, chapter ii; Dunning’s Congregationalists in America, chapters i, ii: Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church.
(or overseer; Philippians 1)
- "Bishop" from overseer, "episkopos" in Greek. In the New Testament, the word "overseer" - traditionally "bishop" - is only used a few times, often in association with deacon and with no clear definition of its function. The present role of bishop only developed later in the life of the Church. In the J B Phillips version, "guardian" or "having oversight" is sometimes found