B I S 



bidiop of Lyons ; Dionyfius fiill prcftyter, tlien bidiop of 

 Rome ; and EUutherius, firll deacon, then biHiop of Rome; 

 and all thefe three lived in the fecond century, " When 

 your captains," fays Tertullian (De Fuga in Perf.}, " that 

 is to fay, the deacons, prefbyters, and bifliops fly, who (liall 

 teach the laity that they mull be conftant ? And upon ano- 

 ther occafion, fpcaking of baptifni, he fays (De Baptifm. 

 c. 17.), " the high-prieft, who is the bifhop, has the chief 

 right of adminillering it, then the preftyters and deacons, 

 but not without the authority of tlie bidiop." Ongen, in 

 many places, fpeaks of bilhops as fuperior to prcfbyiers and 

 deacons ; and many authors compare the bifhups, tailed by 

 the Greeks x^x^t^u;, and by the Latin fathers " fummi fa- 

 cerdotes" and " principes facerdotum," prefbyters and dea- 

 cons of the Chriftian church, to the high-prieft, priefts, and Le- 

 vites under the JewiflTdifpcnfation; and hence prefbyters after- 

 wards obtained the name of priells. Clement, a difcple of 

 the apolUe, fay? (Ep. id Cor. ^ 40 ), " To the high-prieil 

 are given his proper duties ; to the priefts their proper place 

 is affigned ; and to the Levites tljeir proper fervices are ap- 

 pointed ;" in whicli paflage this ancient father is fpeakin^ 

 of the bifhop, prefbvters, and deacons of the Chriftian 

 church ; and Tertullian, in the paffage juft^ cited, called the 

 bifhop the high-prieft. Jerome, though he is fometimes re- 

 prefcnted as unfavourable to the caufe of tpifcopacy, is ftiil 

 more exprefs, and denominates (Epill. ad Evag. ) the order 

 of bifhups, priefts, and deacons, , an apotlolical tradition. 

 " To what purpofe," fays Optatus (lib. i.), " (hoiild I men- 

 tion deacons, who are in the third, and prefbyters, who are 

 in the fecoud degree of priefthood, when the veiy heads and 

 princes of all, cvm certain of the bifhops them.felvcs, were 

 content to redeem life with the lofs of heaven ?" In the 

 tenth canon of the council of Sardis, held A. D. 347, it is 

 enjoined that a perfon fhoi.ld not be rafhly and lightly ap- 

 pointed a bifhop, a prieft, or a deacon. It is further pleaded, 

 that epifcopal power was not called in queilion in the three 

 firft centuries ; but towards the end of the fourth century, 

 Aerius, an Arian, wrote againft it, and maintained that 

 there ought to be no order in the church fuperior to that of 

 prefbyters. Neverthelefs, it is alleged, that no advocate is 

 found for his opmion m the centuries imn ediately following ; 

 and that even Aerius allowed there had been bifliops in the 

 Chriftian church from the earlicft period. From thele feve- 

 ral tcftimoi.ies it is ir.ferrtd, that bifticps were appointed by 

 the apoftles ; that there were three dillincl orders of mini- 

 fters, viz. bifhops, priefts, and deacons, in the primitive 

 church ; and that there has been a regular fucccflion of bi- 

 fhops from the apoftolic age to the prcfent time ; and the 

 enemies of cpifcopacy are challenged to produce evidence 

 of the cxifter.ce of a fingle ancur.t independent church fuirly 

 eftabliilied, which was not governed by a bifhop. While 

 the apoftles lived, the churches, it is faid, were fubjeft to 

 their authority and government j and to this circumftance it 

 is owing, that little is faid concerning the diftinftion and 

 power of minifters, in the Acls and Epiftles ; but when the 

 gofpel was fpread into diilant parts, and the apoftles were 

 under a neccfTtty of difccntinuing their vifits, or rendering 

 them Icfs frequent, they found it expedient for the better 

 government of the Chriftians, and in order to put a ftop to 

 their fchifms and contentions, which brgau to make their 

 appearance both among the prefbyters and their congrega- 

 tions, to place the fuprcme authority in one perfon, who, 

 from the fuperintending care which he was to txcrc fe, was 

 called ETTicrvoTcf, abiftiop ; and this word, which was perhaps 

 at fint applied indiferiir.inately to all who had any fpiritual 

 office in the church, was now conferred on him who was its 

 chuf governor. 



The bilhops were at firft appointed by the apoftles, and 



B I S 



aftenvards cliofen by the prefbyters and the congrega- 

 tions at large ; and in both cafes they were generally taken 

 from the preftjyters of the refptftive churches, except in 

 thofe inftances in which they were the immediate companions 

 of the apoftles. Accordingly Jerome, (De Ecclef. Script.) 

 where he is fpeaking, as it is fuppofcd, of the apoftolical times, 

 in which James was made biftiop of Jerulalem by the apoftles; 

 Timothy biftiop of Ephefus, and Titus biftiop of Crete, by 

 St. Paul ; and Polycarp biftiop of Smyrna, by St. John ; ob- 

 ferves, that " churches were governed by the common ad- 

 vice of preftjyters ; but when every one began to reckon 

 thofe whom himfelf had baptized, his own, and not Chnft's, 

 it was decreed in the whole world, that one, chofen out of 

 the preflivters, fhould be placed over the reft, to whom all 

 care of trie church ftiould belong, and fo the feeds of fchifm 

 fhould be removed." When St. Paul was at Miletus, A.D 

 58, and convened the elders of the church at Ephefus, no 

 mention is made of the biftiop ; and in his addrefs to them 

 he calls them "bifliops or overfeers of the flock ;" hence it 

 is inferred, that the word bifliop was not then the appro- 

 priate name of the perfon Vho held the firft office in the 

 church, or rather, that there was as yet no fuch perfon in .the 

 church at Ephefus. But in the year 64, St. Paul found it 

 necetfary to place Timothy in that fituation, with power to 

 prevent the preaching of any unfound doArine, and to ordain 

 andexercife authority over prefljyters, that is, with epifcopal 

 power ; and in his epiftle, written to him in that year, he 

 fpeaks exprefsly of the " office of a biftiop," and gives a Ue- 

 tailed account of the qualifications of a bifliop. See 1 Tim. 

 i. 3. V. I, 19, 22. I Tim. iii. i. We have alfo a fimilar 

 account in the epiftle to Titus, written in the fame year ; 

 and he was invefttd with the further power of rcjecling he- 

 retics from the churches over which he prefided. See Ti- 

 tus iii. 10. Hence it is concluded, that in the year 64 

 there was fuch an office as that of bifliop. St. Paul, ad- 

 drefling hi: epiftle to the Philippians, ufed the word bilhops 

 in the plural number, and does not mention prefbyters; 

 whence it is thought by Chryfoftom, Theodoret, Jerome, 

 and indeed by almoft all commentators, that by bifliops we 

 are here to underftand prtftjyters ; and it is therefore pre- 

 fumed, that there was then no bifliop, in the ftrift fenfe of 

 the appellation, at Plulippi, A. D. 62. From a comparifon 

 of thefe different paffages it has been conjedured, t! at Paul 

 began to eftabUlh epifcopacy immediately after his releafe 

 from his firft confinement at Rome. However, it is ac- 

 knowledged, that at this early period there w as not a bifliop 

 in every church. Neverthelefs, it is inferred from St. Paul's 

 epiftles, that he gave the minifters of the churches which he 

 founded, a certain power over their re fpeclive congregations, 

 and as St. Paul and the twelve apoftles afted equally under 

 the influence of the Holy Ghoft, it is prefumed, that they 

 invefted all, whom they appointed to preach the gofpel, 

 with a fimilar degree of power ; and thus church authority 

 is derived from the apoftles themfelves. This power, thus 

 originally given, was not limited to the primitive Jges ; it is 

 fuppofcd to have been tranfmitted to thofe " faithful men 

 who ftiall be able to teach others alfo" (2 Tim. ii. 2.), and to 

 remain in the church under different modifications, as etfen- 

 tially neceflary for the purpofes fpecified by the ap9ftle, 

 Ephef. iv. 13, 14. 



At firft the jurifdiftion of a biftiop was confined to tfie 

 walls of his own city ; but afterwards, when the gofpel 

 made its way into towns and villages, the concerns of the 

 Chriftians that inhabited them, would naturally fall under 

 the cognizance and direftion of the biftiops of the neigh- 

 bouring cities; and thus diocefes wonld be gradually 

 formed. Sec Diocese. In procefs of time, it is fnppofed, 

 the affairs of the church would require the confultation and 



co-ope- 



