to take the lead in its affairs.  In the same irregular way the title of bishop was appropriated to the first presbyter.”  Eccl.  Hist., Vol.  I, p. 65.  In the days when the apostles were active in the affairs of the church there were but two classes in the ministry—­elders, or bishops, and deacons; but when one of the presbyters was exalted to a higher position than the rest and assumed to himself the exclusive use of the word bishop, there were three classes.  To quote the words of Geo. P. Fisher:  “After we cross the limit of the first century we find that with each board of elders there is a person to whom the name of bishop is specially applied, although, for a long time, he is likewise often called a presbyter.  In other words, in the room of a two-fold, we have a three-fold ministry.”  Hist. of the Christian Church, p. 51.

The height to which the single bishop of authority in a church had been exalted is well illustrated in the Ignatian Epistles.  Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and was condemned by the emperor Trajan to suffer death by being thrown to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre in Rome.  His execution in this manner took place Dec. 20, A.D. 107.  He wrote a number of epistles, a few extracts from which I will give.  “Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do.  For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.”  To the Ephesians, Chap. 4.  “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father....  Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop.”  To the Smyrnaean’s, Chap. 8.  “It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God.”  Smyrnaean’s, Chap. 8.  “It is well to reverence both God and the bishop.  He who honors the bishop has been honored of God; but he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.”  Smyrnaean’s, Chap. 9.

The power of these bishops advanced steadily during the second century.  The churches of the cities where they were located extended themselves into the surrounding country and smaller towns, and the presbyters or elders of these inferior churches were presided over by the bishop of their mother church, and in this manner the great system of diocesan episcopacy was developed.[3]

[Footnote 3:  The ancient signification of the term diocese must not be confounded with the modern usage of the term.  It then designated a territory or district, usually containing a number of minor churches, presided over by one bishop.]

In the latter part of the second century when the disputes concerning Easter and Montanism arose, the custom of diocesan bishops consulting with each other on important doctrines began, and this developed in the third century into regular provincial synods, or councils.  On account of the ecclesiastical or political importance of the cities in which they were located, certain bishops had a special deference given them, and they were not slow to take advantage of the opportunity to exalt themselves to the presidency of these councils; and in a very short time they possessed immense power and constituted entirely a separate order, designated by the term metropolitan.