History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A. D. 100-325

Ignatius in the first quarter of the second century, while a few carry it further back to the close of

the first, when St. John still lived in Ephesus.

I. For the apostolic origin of episcopacy the following points may be made:

(1) The position of James, who evidently stood at the head of the church at Jerusalem,

163

62

and is called bishop, at least in the pseudo-Clementine literature, and in fact supreme bishop of the

whole church.

164

63 This instance, however, stands quite alone, and does not warrant an inference

in regard to the entire church.

(2) The office of the assistants and delegates of the apostles, like Timothy, Titus, Silas,

Epaphroditus, Luke, Mark, who had a sort of supervision of several churches and congregational

officers, and in a measure represented the apostles in special missions. But, in any case, these were

not limited, at least during the life of the apostles, each to a particular diocese; they were itinerant

evangelists and legates of the apostles; only the doubtful tradition of a later day assigns them distinct

bishoprics. If bishops at all, they were missionary bishops.

(3) The angels of the seven churches of Asia,

165

64

 who, if regarded as individuals, look very

like the later bishops, and indicate a monarchical shaping of the church government in the days of

John. But, apart from the various interpretations of the Apocalyptic 

       

, that office appears not

co-ordinate with the apostolate of John, but subordinate to it, and was no more than a congregational

superintendency.

(4) The testimony of Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, in his seven (or three) epistles

from the beginning of the second century (even according to the shorter Syriac version), presupposes

the episcopate, in distinction from the presbyterate, as already existing, though as a new institution,

yet in its growth.

(5) The statement of Clement of Alexandria,

166

65

 that John instituted bishops after his return

from Patmos; and the accounts of Irenaeus,

167

66 Tertullian,

168

67 Eusebius,

169

68 and Jerome,

170

69

that the same apostle nominated and ordained Polycarp (with whom Irenaeus was personally

acquainted) bishop of Smyrna.

(6) The uncertain tradition in Eusebius, who derived it probably from Hegesippus, that the

surviving apostles and disciples of the apostles, soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, elected

Symeon, the son of Klopas and a cousin of Jesus, bishop of that city and successor of James. But

this arrangement at best was merely local, and not general.

171

70

163

Acts 15:13; 21:18. Comp. vol. I. 264 sqq.

164

Ἐπίσκοπος έπισκόπων.

165

Rev. 1:20. For the different views see vol. I. 497

166

Quis dives salvus, c. 42.

167

Adv.Haer. III. 3

168

De PraescR.C. 32

169

H. E.III. 36

170

Catal. sub Polyc

171

H. E. III. 11. Comp. the fragment of Hegesippus, in IV. 22. Lightfoot (Philippians p. 202) remarks against Rothe’s inference:

"The account of Hegesippus confines the object of this gathering to the appointment of a successor of St. James. If its deliberations

had exerted that vast and permanent influence on the future of the church which Rothe’s theory supposes, it is scarcely possible

that this early historian should have been ignorant of the fact, or knowing it should have passed it over in silence."

86

Philip Schaff

History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene

Christianity. A.D. 100-325.

---

(7) The tradition of the churches of Antioch and Rome, which trace their line of bishops

back to apostolic institution, and kept the record of an unbroken succession.

(8) A passage in the second of the Pfaff Fragments of Irenaeus, which speaks of "second

ordinances of the apostles" (

                                

). Rothe understands by these the institution of the

episcopate. But aside from the doubtful genuineness of the Fragments, these words are at all events

of unsettled interpretation, and, according to the connection, relate not to the government of the

church at all, but to the celebration of the eucharist.

(9) Equally uncertain is the conclusion drawn from an obscure passage in the Epistle of

Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, which admits of different interpretations.

172

71

 The apostles,

it is said, foreseeing the future controversy about the name of the episcopal office, appointed bishops

and deacons, and afterwards made the disposition,

173

72 that when they should fall asleep, other

approved men should follow them in office. Rothe refers "they" and "them" to the apostles as the

main subject. But these words naturally refer to the congregational officers just before mentioned,

and in this case the "other approved men" are not successors of the apostles, but of the

presbyter-bishops and deacons.

174

73

 This view is sustained by the connection. The difficulty in the

Corinthian congregation was a rebellion, not against a single bishop, but against a number of

presbyter-bishops, and Clement reminds them that the apostles instituted this office not only for

the first generation, but provided for a permanent succession, and that the officers were appointed

for life, and could therefore not be deposed so long as they discharged their duties. Hence he goes

on to say, immediately after the disputed passage in chapter 44: "Wherefore we think that those

cannot justly be thrown out of their ministry who were appointed either by them (the apostles), or

afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole congregation; and who have with

all lowliness and innocency ministered to the flock of Christ, in peace, and without self-interest,

and were for a long time commended by all."

172

Ad Corinth. c. 44: 

Οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμων ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ κυρίουἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς

ἐπισκοπῆς . Διὰ ταύτην οὖ́ν τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν κατέστησαν τοὺς προειρημένους καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν

(or 

ἐπιμονὴν) ἔδωκαν, ὅπως , ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν. " Our

apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office [i.e., the office of

the ministry, in general; Comp. Acts 1:20; Sept. Num. 4:16; Ps. 109:8; 2 Chr. 23:18]. For this cause, therefore, having complete

foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons [i.e., presbyter-bishops and deacons; Comp. c. 42 and 57], and afterwards

they made the disposition [or provided a continuance, if we read with Lightfoot 

ἐπιμονήν.], that if these should fall asleep, other

approved men should succeed to their ministration."

173

The reading is obscure and disputed. The Alexandrian MS. reads: 

ἐπινομήν, the Constantinopolitan: ἐπιδομήν (both have

E I-OMHN). The former word is rare (from or from 

νέμω or fromνόμος) is not found in the dictionaries; and hence various

emendations have been proposed, as 

άπονομήν (Junius), ἐπιδοχήν (Bryennios), ἐπιβολήν (von Gebhardt and Harnack), ἐπιμονήν

(Bunsen, Lightfoot), 

ἐπιτροπήν (Hilgenfeld), ἐπιλογήν, ἐπινομίαν, ἐπιστολήν, ἐπιταγήν, ἔτι νόμον. Rothe (Anfänge, p. 374)

ingeniously translates 

ἐπινομήν " testamentary disposition" (testamentarische Verfügung =ἐπινομίς ,an after-enactment, a

codicil), and identifies it with the 

δεύτεραι διατάξεις of the fragment of Irenaeus. But this is rejected by the latest editors as

untenable. Lightfoot (with Bunsen) reads 

ἐπιμονήν, permanence (not "life-tenure," as Bunsen rendered it). The drift of the

passage, however, does not so much depend upon the meaning of this word as upon the question whether the apostles, or the

congregational officers are the grammatical subjects of the following verb, 

κοιμηθῶσιν.

174

See also Gebhardt and Harnack (presbyteri et diaconi illi, quos apostoli ipsi constituerunt), the Roman Catholic editor Funk

("

κοιμηθῶσιν, sc. episcopi et diaconi de quorum successione Clemens agit"), and Bishop Lightfoot ("the first generation of

presbyters appointed by the apostles themselves"). (Comp. also on this whole passage Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 203, where he

refutes Rothe’s interpretation; Baur Ursprung des Episcopats, p. 53; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, VII. 300; Ritschl, Altkath.

K. 358 and 413, and Ilgenfeld, Apost. Väter, 70.

87

Philip Schaff

History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene

Christianity. A.D. 100-325.

---