drawing any certain conclusions concerning them.* Diotrephes, indeed, mentioned by St. John, 3d Epist. 9., was a real person; but whether the influence by which he was enabled to withstand the Apostle's authority was derived from his official position as bishop of the Church, or whether he was merely an ambitious and arrogant presbyter, we know not. It is possible that both the "angels" of the Apocalyptic Churches and Diotrephes were formal bishops, for no reasonable doubt can be entertained that, if the date commonly assigned to the Apocalypse-viz. a. D. 95 or 96 be correct, episcopacy was, when that book was written, generally, if not universally, established; but whence the "angels" or Diotrephes, if bishops, derived their commission, by whom they were appointed to preside over their respective churches; in short, respecting the origin of the episcopal order; upon this, the essential point in the present argument, Scripture leaves us very much. in the dark.

Such is the real amount of proof which Scripture alone furnishes for the apostolicity of the episcopal regimen; how scanty and insufficient it is needs not to be pointed out. The reader will now be able to judge how far the actual facts of the case bear out the assertion that episcopacy is matter of divine prescription; a law of God, as essential to the being of a Church as the Aaronic priesthood was to the integrity of the Levitical ritual; so essential that Cyprian could say, "Scire debes episcopum in ecclesiâ esse et ecclesiam in episcopo, et si quis cum episcopo non sit, in ecclesiâ non esse."† The truth is, that, while none of the three orders is traceable to a directly divine institution, of the three, episcopacy is the one, the very apostolicity of which is the most difficult of establishment by the unaided evidence of Scripture: for while it is clearly recorded that the Apostles instituted the orders of presbyters and deacons, it is not so clearly recorded (indeed it is not recorded at all) that they instituted the order of bishops. It certainly is a

If Augustin's authority is to decide the question, the Apocalyptic angels are to be regarded, not as individuals, but as personifications of the churches themselves; -"laudatur angelus ecclesiæ quæ est Ephesi (quem nemo recte intelligens dubitat ipsius ecclesiæ gestare personam)" &c. - Post Coll. Lib. s. 37. Stillingfleet's remarks upon the passage are well worthy of attention. "If many things in the epistles be directed to the angels, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then, of necessity, the angel must be taken as a representative of the whole body; and then, why may not the word 'angel' be taken by way of representation of the body itself, either of the whole Church, or, which is far more probable, of the concessors or order of presbyters in that church? We see what miserable unaccountable arguments those are which are brought for any kind of government from metaphorical or ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously used."- Irenicum, part 2. c. 6.

† Epist. 69. Ad Florent.

curious, but highly characteristic, fact that that particular order of the ministry which the Church system pronounces to be the most divine and the most essential should rest upon Scriptural proof, to say the least, obscure and ambiguous as compared with that which can be adduced for the two inferior orders. For if the "angels" of the Apocalypse, and Diotrephes, were not of this order, the foregoing considerations make it more than probable that the New Testament does not present us with any instance of a formal bishop.

Nevertheless the cases of Timothy and Titus, if they fail in establishing the apostolicity of episcopacy, are not without their value, as against the opponents of that form of Church government. Like the positions of the Apostles after the institution of presbyters and deacons, that of Timothy at Ephesus and of Titus at Crete is a significant fact to which the candid reader of Scripture, mindful of the manner in which the New Testament propounds apostolic precedents to our imitation, will not fail to give due weight. What these cases really appear to establish is, the general, but important, principle, or rather principles, that an imparity of Christian ministers is not only allowable, but Scriptural; and that, according to the mind of St. Paul, the general superintendence or government of an ecclesiastical district, including churches with their presbyters and deacons, is best committed to a single person. For if no strong reasons exist for the contrary supposition, it is to be presumed that what was best for the Ephesian church for a time (Timothy's mission thither being supposed to be only a temporary one) would have been also best for it permanently; and that form of government which was best for the church of Ephesus or of Crete would, it may equally be presumed, have been the best for every church then existing, and, by parity of reasoning, for every church now in existence. Thus, no doubt, the cases alluded to furnish a hint-an apostolic precedent upon which episcopacy may be made to rest: they serve to rebut the allega. tion that that form of polity is intrinsically unscriptural: but beyond this it does not appear that they can be safely urged.

To the establishment of episcopacy proper there cannot, with any show of probability, be assigned an earlier date than A. D. 70, which is later than the latest of St. Paul's writings. Every thing conspires to induce the belief that the Church did not possess formal bishops until after the destruction of Jerusalem. In the first place, if bishops really are successors of the Apostles, is it likely that St. Paul would have appointed persons to take his

place while he was yet alive and actively engaged in the oversight of the churches? It is conceivable, indeed, that he may have designated certain persons to occupy the post of chief pastor in each considerable church as soon as death should have removed him from his ministerial labours upon earth; but that he would actually instal them in their offices, while he himself held in his own hands the reins of government, is not at all probable. It should seem, therefore, that they who lay such stress upon the cases of Timothy and Titus find themselves on the horns of the following dilemma: If Timothy and Titus, when St. Paul addressed his epistles to them, were formal bishops, bishops are not successors of the Apostles, for the Apostle Paul had not, at that time, either abdicated his apostolic functions, or been removed from earth: if, on the other hand, it is essential to the idea of a bishop that he succeed to the place of the Apostles, Timothy and Titus could not, at the time of which we are speaking, have been formal bishops. But another, and a stronger argument, in favour of the date just mentioned, is derivable from the nature of the episcopate, as compared with the two inferior orders of the ministry. It has been already remarked that, while presbyters and deacons are clearly traceable to the synagogue, we cannot discover in that institution the prototype of a Christian bishop, whose office, therefore, seems to have been the peculiar and independent offspring of Christianity: in giving episcopacy to the Church the Apostles appear to have acted, for the first time, irrespectively of any Jewish precedent. In short, it was in becoming episcopal that the Church first became conscious of her independence of Judaism, and proclaimed to the world that, whatever might become of the forms of the elder dispensation, she had within herself her own peculiar organization, and could thenceforward advance alone. Now if we bear in mind the extreme reluctance which the Apostles, even St. Paul himself, exhibited to commit themselves to any act which might seem forcibly to sever the connexion between the church and the temple, we shall see how probable it is that, while the temple stood, the synagogical polity of presbyters and deacons was all that the Church possessed. Christianity was the offspring of genuine-i. e. spiritual-Judaism; and, the Mosaic polity with the temple services being of express divine appointment, the Apostles, themselves Jews, would naturally feel reluctant, in the absence of any intimation from heaven that the Jewish institutions were abrogated, to take decisive steps to make the church and the synagogue two visibly dis

tinct bodies. The Jewish Christians universally regarded the temple with something of the same feeling which their unbelieving brethren of the synagogue cherished towards it: they looked upon it as still their own, as the visible symbol and proof of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob being still their God in a sense in which He was not the God of other nations. As forming Christian synagogues, modelled after the Jewish institution, they felt or conceived themselves to be still under the shadow of the ancient vine; a fond notion which, unfounded as it was, as long as it did not infringe any of the essential doctrines of the Gospel, the Apostles, we may be sure, would not rudely disturb. The dissolution of the Jewish polity, and temple services, however, produced a total alteration in the existing state of things, and for ever dissipated the hopes which it is probable many of the Christians of Palestine cherished, of seeing Judaism and Christianity combined into one system. By that great event God declared with a voice which could not be mistaken that the elder dispensation, having fulfilled its purpose, was at an end, and that thenceforward the Church of Christ—the true Israel of which the former had been but the type-was to pursue her own independent course. Every tie which bound the Christians of Jewish origin to the Mosaic institutions was now snapt asunder; and, consequently, they were ready to receive whatever further enlargement of the Church's polity the circumstances of the times might seem to call for, even though the new institution should have no counterpart in the ancient economy. That about the period named-viz. A. D. 70— the circumstances of the Church did imperatively call for an extension of its polity will hereafter be shown. There is every reason to believe, therefore, that during the lifetime of the great Apostle of the Gentiles the Church had no formal bishops; that this new feature of Church polity emerged into view subsequently to the destruction of Jerusalem; and that it emanated from those of the Apostles who survived that event.

3. For however difficult it may be to establish, from Scripture alone, the apostolicity of episcopacy, we yet have the strongest grounds for believing it to be an apostolical institution. But the weight of the evidence rests upon uninspired testimony; or rather upon that testimony combined with the precedents furnished by Scripture. By the aid of history and Scripture combined, it may be satisfactorily made out that Apostles either instituted or sanctioned the episcopal form of Church government.

There is no reason whatever why, in a matter of fact of this kind,

we should refuse to listen to the voice of antiquity. There can be little doubt that the Apostles gave, on many points of order, directions which have not reached us through the medium of Scripture; just as our Lord, according to the testimony of St. John, did many things, the record of which the Gospels do not contain. Both in the one case and in the other, it is but a selection which, in Scripture, the Holy Ghost has thought fit to give to the Church: it is only, therefore, what might have been expected, it may even have been designedly so ordered, that several of the apostolic regulations should come down to us by the channel of uninspired Church history; the testimony of which, if there is no reason to suspect it, is to be received like that of profane history in an analogous case. There is, no doubt, a wide difference, as regards binding authority, between those of the apostolic appointments which are recorded in Scripture and those the proof of which rests upon uninspired testimony. As regards the former, we are absolutely certain of the fact, inasmuch as we have it from the immediate followers of the Apostles, and from persons supernaturally preserved from error; whereas, in the latter case, we depend upon the testimony of those who, for the most part, only transmit to us what they themselves had received from others, and who, being uninspired, were liable to human error and imperfection. When Ignatius, or Clement, tells us that such and such practices or institutions proceeded from the Apostles, or that they heard so from others, there is no primâ facie reason why we should not give credence to their testimony; but, inasmuch as we tread upon uninspired ground, we are compelled to be more circumspect in dealing with the evidence, and, above all, to consider carefully whether the alleged apostolical ordinance accords, in its spirit, with the undoubted principles of apostolical polity recorded in Holy Scripture. For to admit, without limitation, Augustin's maxim, that, whatever is universally prevalent in the Church, must, for this sole reason, be ascribed to the Apostles, is to open a wide door to abuse; stamping, as it does, with apostolic sanction, every superstitious and unscriptural practice which can plead in its behalf antiquity and universality.* If the practice or institution in question is manifestly opposed to the spirit of the apostolic regulations as set forth in Scripture, we may be sure, however ancient it may profess to be, that it is not apostolic; in other words, that it has not really existed from the first.

"Sunt multa quæ universa tenet ecclesia, et ob hoc ab apostolis præcepta bene creduntur, quanquam scripta non reperiantur."- De Bap. cont. Don. I. v. s. 31.