problem than any encountered hitherto. The attempt to decipher the
(for he does not profess to be giving a direct quotation) has unintentionally paraphrased and interpreted the statement of Dionysius by the light of later ecclesiastical usages. However Athens, like Corinth, did not long remain without a bishop. The same Dionysius, writing to the Athenians, reminds them how, after the martyrdom of Publius their ruler, Quadratus becoming bishop sustained the courage and stimulated the faith of the Athenian brotherhood. If, as seems more probable than not, this was the famous Quadratus who presented his apology to Hadrian during that emperor's visit to Athens, the existence of episcopacy in this city is thrown back early in the century; even though Quadratus were not already bishop when Hadrian paid his visit. 6. The same writer, from whom we learn these particulars about episcopacy at Athens, also furnishes information on the Church in CRETE. He writes letters to two different communities in this island, the one to Gortyna commending Philip who held this see, the other to the Cnossians offering words of advice to their bishop Pinytus . The first was author of a treatise against Marcion: the latter wrote a reply to Dionysius, of which Eusebius has preserved a brief notice. 7. Of episcopacy in THRACE, and indeed of the Thracian Church generally, we read nothing till the close of the second century, when one Publius Julius bishop of Debeltum, a colony in this province, signs an encyclical letter. The existence of a see at a place so unimportant implies the wide spread of episcopacy in these regions. 8. As we turn to ROME, we are confronted by a far more perplexing problem than any encountered hitherto. The attempt to decipher the early history of episcopacy here seems almost hopeless, where the evidence is at once scanty and conflicting. It has been often assumed that in the metropolis of the world, the seat of imperial rule, the spirit which dominated in the State must by natural predisposition and sympathy have infused itself into the Church also, so that a monarchical form of government would be developed more rapidly here than in other parts of Christendom. This supposition seems to overlook the fact that the influences which prevailed in the early church of the metropolis were more Greek than Roman, and that therefore the tendency would be rather towards individual liberty
than towards compact and rigorous government. But indeed such presumptions, however attractive and specious, are valueless against the slightest evidence of facts. And the most trustworthy sources of information which we possess do not countenance the idea. The earliest authentic document bearing on the subject is the Epistle epistle from the Romans to the Corinthians, probably written in the last decade of the first century. I have already considered the bearing of this letter on episcopacy in the Church of Corinth, and it is now time to ask what light it throws on the same institution at Rome. Now we cannot hesitate to accept the universal testimony of antiquity that it was written by Clement, the reputed bishop of Rome: and it is therefore the more surprising that, if he held this high office, the writer should not only not distinguish himself in any way from the rest of the church (as Polycarp does for instance), but that even his name should be suppressed. It is still more important to observe that, though he has occasion to speak of the ministry as an institution of the Apostles, he mentions only two orders and is silent about the episcopal office. Moreover he still uses the word bishop in the older sense in which it occurs in the apostolic writings, as a synonym for presbyter, and it may be argued that the recognition of the episcopate as a higher and distinct office would oblige the adoption of a special name and therefore must have synchronized roughly with the separation of meaning between bishop and presbyter. Again not many years after the date of Clement's letter, St Ignatius on his way to martyrdom writes to the Romans. Though this saint is the recognised champion of episcopacy, though the remaining six of the Ignatian letters all contain direct injunctions of obedience to bishops, in this epistle alone there is no allusion to the episcopal office as existing among his correspondents. The lapse of a few years carries us from the letters of Ignatius to the Shepherd of Hermas. And here the indications are equivocal. Hermas receives directions in a vision to impart the revelation to the presbyters and also to make two copies, the one for Clement who shall communicate with the foreign churches (such being his duty), the other for Grapte who shall instruct the widows. Hernias himself is charged to 'read it to this city with the elders who preside over the church.' Elsewhere mention is made of
the 'rulers' of the church. And again, in an enumeration of the faithful officers of the churches past and present, he speaks of the 'apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons.' Here most probably the word 'bishop' is used in its later sense, and the presbyters are designated by the term 'teachers.' Yet this interpretation cannot be regarded as certain, for the 'bishops and teachers' in Hermas, like the 'pastors and teachers' in St Paul, might possibly refer to the one presbyteral office in its twofold aspect. Other passages in which Hermas uses the same terms are indecisive. Thus he speaks of 'apostles and teachers who preached to the whole world and taught with reverence and purity the word of the Lord'; of 'deacons who exercised their diaconate ill and plundered the life of widows and orphans;' of 'hospitable bishops who at all times received the servants of God into their homes cheerfully and without hypocrisy,' 'who protected the bereaved and the widows in their ministrations without ceasing.' From these passages it seems impossible to arrive at a safe conclusion respecting the minis try at the time when Hermas wrote. In other places he condemns the false prophet 'who, seeming to have the Spirit, exalts himself and would fain have the first seat;' or he warns 'those who rule over the church and those who hold the chief-seat', bidding them give up their dissensions and lire at peace among themselves"; or he denounces those who have 'emulation one with another for the first place or for some honour.' If we could accept the suggestion that the writer condemns the ambition which aimed at transforming the presbyterian into the episcopal form of government, we should have arrived at a solution of the difficulty: but the rebukes are couched in the most general terms and apply at least as well to the ambitious pursuit of existing offices as to the arrogant assertion of a hitherto unrecognized power. This clue failing us, the notices in the Shepherd are in themselves too vague to lead to any result. Were it not known that the writer's own brother was bishop of Rome, we should be at a loss what to say about the constitution of the Roman Church in his day. But while the testimony of these early writers appears at first sight and on the whole unfavourable to the existence of episcopacy in Rome when they wrote, the impression needs to be corrected by important considerations on the other side. Hegesippus, who visited Rome about
the middle of the second century during the papacy of Anicetus, has left it on record that he drew up a list of the Roman bishops to his own time. As the list is not preserved, we can only conjecture its contents; but if we may judge from the sentence immediately following, in which he praises the orthodoxy of this and other churches under each succession, his object was probably to show that the teachings of the Apostles had been carefully preserved and handed down, and he would therefore trace the episcopal succession back to apostolic times. Such at all events is the aim and method of Irenaeus who, writing somewhat later than Hegesippus and combating Gnostic heresies, appeals especially to the bishops of Rome, as depositaries of the apostolic tradition. The list of Irenaeus commences with Linus, whom he identifies with the person of this name mentioned by St Paul, and whom he states to have been entrusted with bishops. the office of the bishopric by the Apostles. The second in succession is Anencletus of whom he relates nothing, the third Clemens whom he describes as a hearer of the Apostles and as writer of the letter to the Corinthians. The others in order are Evarestus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherus during whose episcopacy Irenaeus writes. Eusebius in different works gives two lists, both agreeing in the order with Irenaeus, though not according with each other in the dates. Catalogues are also found in writers later than Irenaeus, transposing the sequence of the earliest bishops, and adding the name Cletus or substituting it for Anencletus. These discrepancies may be explained by assuming two distinct churches in Rome - a Jewish and a Gentile community - in the first age; or they may have arisen from a confusion of the earlier and later senses; or the names may have been transposed in the later lists owing to the influence of the Clementine Homilies, in which romance Clement is represented as the immediate disciple and successor of St Peter. With the many possibilities of error, no more can safely be assumed of LINUS and ANENCLETUS than that they held some prominent position in the Roman Church. But the reason for supposing CLEMENT to have been a bishop is as strong as the universal tradition of the next ages can make it. Yet, while calling him a bishop, we need not suppose him to have attained the same distinct
isolated position of authority which was occupied by his successors Eleutherus and Victor for instance at the close of the second century, or even by his contemporaries Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. He was rather the chief of the presbyters than the chief over the presbyters. Only when thus limited, can the episcopacy of St Clement be reconciled with the language of his own epistle or with the notice in his younger contemporary Hermas. At the same time the allusion in the Shepherd, though inconsistent with any exalted conception of his office, does assign to him as his special province the duty of communicating with foreign churches, which in the early ages was essentially the bishop's function, as may be seen by the instances of Polycarp, of Dionysius, of Irenaeus, and of Polycrates. Of the two succeeding bishops, EVARESTUS and ALEXANDER, Alexander no authentic notices are preserved. XYSTUS, who follows, is the reputed author of a collection of proverbs, which a recent distinguished critic has not hesitated to accept as genuine. He is also the earliest of those Roman prelates whom Irenaeus, writing to Victor in the name of the Gallican Churches, mentions as having observed Easter after the western reckoning and yet maintained peace with those who kept it otherwise. The next two, TELESPHORUS and HYGINUS, are described in the same terms. The former is likewise distinguished as the sole martyr among the early bishops of the metropolis; the latter is mentioned as being in office when the peace of the Roman Church was disturbed by the presence of the heretics Pius, Valentinus and Cerdon. With Pius, the next in order, the office emerges into daylight. An anonymous writer, treating on the canon of Scripture, says that the Shepherd was written by Hermas quite lately while his brother Pius held the see of the Church of Rome. This passage, written by a contemporary, be sides the testimony which it bears to the date and authorship of the Shepherd (with which we are not here concerned), is valuable in its bearing on this investigation; for the use of the 'chair' or 'see' as a recognised phrase points to a more or less prolonged existence of episcopacy in Rome, when this writer lived. To Pius succeeds Anicetus. And now Rome becomes for the moment the centre of interest and activity in the Christian world. During this episcopate Hegesippus, visiting the metropolis for the