CHURCH
749
CHURCH
(I Thess., v, 12) to have regard to those who are over
them in the Lord (irpo'icrTtiLixevoi; ef. Rom., xii, 6)
would seem to imply that there also St. Paul had in-
vested certain members of the community with a
pastoral charge. Still more explicit is the evidence
contained in the account of St. Paul's interview with
the Ephesian elders (Acts, xx, 17-2.S). It is .told
that, sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he summoned
"the presb3'ters of the Church", and in the course of
his charge addressed them as follows: "Take heed to
yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy
Ghost has placed you bishops to tend [iroip.alfeii']
the Church of God" (xx, 28). St. Peter employs
similar language: "The presbyters that are among
you, I beseech, who am myself also a presbyter . .
tend [irot^atveTe] the flock of God which is among
you." These expressions leave no doubt as to the
office designated by St. Paul, when in Eph., iv, 11, he
enumerates the gifts of the Ascended Lord as follows:
"He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and
other some evangelists, and other some pastors and
doctors [robs de -wct^vas Kal 8ida<TK&\ovs]. The Epistle
of St. James provides us with yet another reference
to this office, where the sick man is bidden send
for the presbyters of the Church, that he may re-
ceive at their hands the rite of unction (James, v, 14).
The term presbyter was of common use in the Jewish Church, as denoting the "rulers" of the syna- gogue (cf. Luke, xiii. 14). Hence it has been argued by some non-Catholic writers that in the bishops and deacons of the New Testament there is simply the . 'gal organization familiar to the first converts, and introduced by them into the Christian commu- nities. St. Paul's concept of the Church, it is urged, is essentially opposed to any rigid governmental system; yet this familiar form of organization was gradually established even in the Churches lie had founded. In regard to this view it appears enough to say that the resemblance between the Jewish "rulers of the synagogue" and the Christian presby- ter-episcopus goes no farther than the name. The Jewish official was purely civil and held office for a time only. The Christian presbyterate was for life, and its functions were spiritual. There is perhaps more ground for the view advocated by some (cf. de Smedt, Revue des quest, hist., vols. XLIV, L), that presbyter and episcopits may not in all cases be per- fectly synonymous. Tin- term presbyter is undoubt- edly an honorific title, while that of episeopus prima- rily indicates the function performed. It is possible that the former title may have had a wider significance than the latter. The designation presbyter, it is sug- gested, may have been given to all those who were recognized as having a claim to some voice in direct- ing the affairs of the community, whether this were based "ii official status, or social rank, or benefactions In tin- local Church, or on some other ground; while those presbyters who had received the laying on of hands would be known, not simply as "presbyters", but as "presiding [irpoiuTiiuvoi — I Thess., v. 12] presbyters , " presbyter-bishops", "presbyter-rulers" (rfyoiiuvoi— Ileb., xiii, 17).
It remains to consider whether the so-called "mo- narchical " episcopate was instituted by the Apostles. establishing a college of presbyter-bishops, did they further place one man in a position of su- premacy, entrusting the government of the Church in him, and endowing him with Apostolic authority over the Christian community? Even if we take into account flu- Scriptural evidence alone, there are suffi- cient grounds for answering this question in the affirmative. From the time of the dispersion of the Apostles, St. James appears in an episcopal relation to the Church of Jerusalem (Acts, xii, 17: XV, 13 : Gal., ii. 12). In the other Christian communities the institution of " monarchical " bishops was a somen hat later development. At first the Apostles themselves
fulfilled, it would seem, all the duties of supreme over-
sight. They established the office when the growing
needs of the Church demanded it. The Pastoral
Epistles leave no room to doubt that Timothy and
Titus were sent as bishops to Ephesus and to Crete
respectively. To Timothy full Apostolic powers are
conceded. Notwithstanding his youth he holds au-
thority over both clergy and laity. To him is con-
fided the duty of guarding the purity of the Church's
faith, of ordaining priests, of exercising jurisdiction.
Moreover, St. Paul's exhortation to him, "to keep
the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ", shows that this was
no transitory mission. A charge so worded includes
in its sweep, not Timothy alone, but his successors
in an office which is to last until the Second Advent.
Local tradition unhesitatingly reckoned him among
the occupants of the episcopal see. At the Council
of Chalcedon, the Church of Ephesus counted a suc-
cession of twenty-seven bishops commencing with
Timothy (Mansi, VII, 293; cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.,
HI, iv, v).
These are not the sole evidences which the New Testament affords of the monarchical episcopate. In the Apocalypse the "angels" to whom the letters to the seven Churches are addressed are almost cer- tainly the bishops of the respective communities. Some commentators, indeed, have held them to be personifications of the communities themselves. But this explanation can hardly stand. St. John, through- out, addresses the angel as being responsible for the community precisely as he would address its ruler. Moreover, in the symbolism of ch. i, the two are rep- resented under different figures: the angels are the stars in the right hand of the Son of Man; the seven candlesticks are the image which figures the com- munities. The very term angel, it should be noticed, is practically synonymous with apostle, and thus is aptly chosen to designate the episcopal office. Again the messages to Archippus (Col., iv, 17; Philem., 2) imply that he held a position of special dignity, superior to that of the other presbyters. The men- tion of him in a letter entirely concerned with a private matter, as is that to Philemon, is hardly ex- plicable unless he were the official head of the Colos- sian Church. We have therefore four important indications of the existence of an office in the local Churches, held by a single person, and carrying with it Apostolical authority. Nor can any difficulty be occasioned by the fact that as yet no special title distinguishes these successors of the Apostles from the ordinary presbyters. It is in the nature of things that the office should exist before a title is assigned to it. The name of npn.<tle, we have seen, was not confined to the Twelve St. Peter (I Peter, v, 1) and St. John (II and III John, i, 1) both speak of them- selves as "presbyters". St. Paul speaks of the Apos- tolate as a Siaxovla. A parallel casein later ecclesias- tical history is afforded by the word pope. This title was not appropriated to the exclusive use of the Holy See till the eleventh century. Yet no one maintains that the supreme pontificate of the Roman bishop was not recognized till then. It should cause no surprise that a precise terminology, distinguishing bishops, in the full sense, from the presbyter-bishops, is not found in the New Testament.
The conclusion reached is put beyond all reason- able doubt by the testi ay of the sub-Apostolic
Age. This is so important in regard to the question of the episcopate that it is impossible entirely to pass
it over. It will be enough, however, to refer to the
evidence contained in the epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, himself a disciple of the Apostles.
In these epistles about I d 107 he again and again asserts that the supremacy of tin- bishop is of Divine
institution and belongs to the Apostolic constitution of the Church. He goes so far as to affirm that tie
