4. But when the apostles died, and no one succeeded to their authority, the branches of the church were left separate and independent organizations, united, it is true, in faith and charity, but the visible, general presidency recognized in the apostles and cheerfully submitted to by all sections of the church, ceased when the apostles passed away, and each branch was left an independent organization of itself.[45] There is no evidence that there was such a thing as subordination among the churches when so left, or rank among the bishops. Each church was a sort of independent commonwealth, of which the bishop was president and a vassal to no other bishop.[46] 5. Manner of Electing Bishops.--The manner in which bishops were first elected was for the apostles to nominate them, and then for the whole church over which they were to preside to sustain them by their vote. After the apostles had passed away then "other men of repute" made the nominations {141} and the people sustained them as at first.[47] The duties and powers of the bishops in the first and in the greater part of the second century were limited to conducting the public worship, administering the ordinances of the gospel, settling difficulties which arose between brethren, attending in person the sick and the poor. They also were made the custodians and managers of the public fund. In all these duties they were assisted by the elders [presbyters] and the deacons of the church. Yet neither the bishops nor the elders, nor both of them together, seem to have had power to ordain or determine anything without the approbation and consent of the members of the church. The principle of common consent was closely adhered to in the primitive church. (See note 3, end of section.) 6. Equality Among Bishops Changed.--This equality of rank among the bishops, together with the simple form of church government, described above, was soon changed. The bishops who lived in cities either by their own labors or those of the elders associated with them, raised up new churches in the adjacent villages and hamlets. The bishops of these rural districts being nominated and ordained by the bishops presiding in the city, very naturally, perhaps, felt themselves under the protection and dependent upon the city bishops. This idea continued to grow until these "bishops of the suburbs and the fields," were looked upon as a distinct order of officers, possessing a dignity and authority above the elders, and yet subordinate {142} to the bishops of the cities, who soon came to be designated as archbishops.