The Bishops in the Primitive Church

The Bishops in the Primitive Church BY A. A. RAMSEYER The English word bishop is derived from the Greek word Episkopos, which means an overseer, a superintendent. This shows at once that the calling of a bishop is entirely different from that of an apostle, which in Greek means one that is sent forth, viz., to testify of Christ and preach the gospel. In these latter days, the Lord considered the office of a bishop of such im- portance that Edward Partridge was chosen and appointed as the first bishop of the Church, as early as February, 1831, four years before the quorum of Twelve apostles was organized. Do not forget, however, that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were apostles, even before the Church was organized, for they are called such in section 18 (v. 9), given in June, 1829 (see also sections 21 and 27) ; therefore, the apostleship did pre- cede the bishopric in the modern as well as in the primitive Church of Jesus Christ. It would be very interesting to know whether Christ chose bishops as well as apostles during his earthly career. If he did, the New Testament gives us no information on this subject; but Chrysostom informs us that James, the Lord's brother, who was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and consequently the first bishop in the primitive Church, was made bishop by Christ himself ; while Jerome says that the apostles ordained him immediately after the Lord's crucifixion. The author of the Apostolic Constitution says that James was made bishop both by Christ and his apostles. This may have happened between the crucifixion and the ascen- sion of our Lord. But all ancient ecclesiastical writers agree on this fact, that James, the Lord's brother, was the first bishop of Jerusalem. This fact, proven by the unanimous testimony of numerous ancient writers, and the fact that the New Testament mentions that there were bishops during the life and ministry of the apos- tles, evidently ordained by the latter (for the apostles were first ordained), shows the folly of those who presumptuously claim for the bishops the same authority as the apostles possessed. When Judas' place among the Twelve became vacant, another disciple^ Matthias, was chosen, ordained and added to the eleven apostles, to fill the quorum of the Twelve ; Matthias was not or- dained a bishop ; he was ordained an apostle ; "and he was num- bered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1 :26).

1098 IMPROVEMENT ERA About 63 A. D., James, the Lord's brother, was martyred by the Jews ; according to Eusebius, and the author of the apostol- ical constitutions, the apostles and the disciples met together and selected Simeon, son of Cleopas, our Savior's cousin, as James' successor in the bishopric of Jerusalem. He must have remained in this office at least until 70 A. D., the year of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. If Peter had selected a bishop to suc- ceed him, at the head of the Church, he certainly would have chosen James' successor, a kin of the Lord. Remember, too, that Peter was martyred, A. D. 67, three years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Remember, too, that Peter never showed any sign of being an autocrat, in the first general council of the Church held at Jerusalem, A. D. 49, Peter did not give his judg- ment alone, but heard all who had anything to say, and they concurred in his decision, vis., not to lay any unnecessary burden upon the gentiles. Roman Catholics claim Peter as the first bishop of Rome, having before been the first bishop of Antioch ; a paltry honor for the man whose privilege it was to preside over the whole Church in his office of chief of the apostles ! Who would care to exchange that exalted office for a minor one ? Besides, the Church was not then broken up into sections, provinces and cities, but was yet a whole body ; it was the bride of Christ ; Peter was a far more important personage than the bishop of Rome or of Antioch, or of any other city. Further, our Catholic friends are in a very sad plight about the succession of Peter, as they have no less than three different lists of the first bishops of Rome ; Eusebius quotes them as follows : Linus, then Anacletus, third Clemens, fourth Evaristus. Anastasius' list reads: 1. Linus; 2. Cletus ; 3. Clemens ; 4. Anacletus ; 5. Evarestus. According to the Liberian Catalogues the bishops were: 1. Linus; 2. Clemens; 3. Cletus; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus. So that the chain of suc- cession is of unequal strength, the first links being exceedingly weak. This difference in the succession of the bishops of Rome has been explained in this manner: "That Linus and Anacletus died whilst St. Peter lived, and that Clemens was ordained their successor by St. Peter also. So that we have two or three persons, by this account, ordained successively bishops of Rome by the hands of the apostles."* If this is true, it takes away another big prop from under the scaffolding put up to support the claims of Rome. The strongest argument against the claims of the bishops of Rome is this : Peter, James and John were the chief apostles ; *Bingham, "Antiquities of the Christian Church," Book II, chap. I. This is an excellent work, full of precious information about the Primitive Church..

BISHOPS IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH 1099 those taken into the confidence of our Lord; those whom Paul called pillars (Gal. 2:9) ; these three presided over the Church, Peter being the chief. James, the son of Zebedee, was martyred about 43 A. D. ; Peter, A. D. 67 ; his death left one of the three pillars, viz., John, who was still living A. D. 96, when, after the death of the emperor Domitian, he returned to Ephesus. To John, the beloved apostle, belonged the honor to preside over the Church of Christ, after the death of Peter, and not to an ob- scure, minor officer of the Church, the bishop of Rome.