But surely we must ask, What was the will of God ir this matter?

If Presbyterian equality or Congregational Democra cy was established in all the primitive Churches by the will of God, how could this be altered except by going contrary to His will-if, that is, He willed such a government to be permanent.

If God willed that this supposed original Presbyterian or democratic Congregational constitution of the Churches should be merely temporary, then there is an end of the matter-then this original popular government is a thing of the past, just as the semi-Judaical state of the Church of Judea is a thing of the past, and we have no practical concern with it.

But if it was the will of God that this supposed original democratic constitution was to be permanent, then we are to believe that a tide of popular opinion in favour of Episcopacy, a thing contrary to God's will, set in from the earliest period, and soon became so universal that it overwhelmed the original Divinely appointed democratic government and yet neither S. Paul, nor any other Apostle, is inspired to say a word of warning against the impending ruin. On the contrary, he is inspired, as we have seen, to say and do much which could not but help on the tide against this supposed original popular government. He rules the Churches without any regard to any supreme democratic organization which God may have given to them, and he gives no orders to his subordinates to estab lish such a form or to recognise it as established.

If some original democratic constitution was ordained by the will of God, then Episcopacy in any form is a sinful usurpation, for it, of necessity, interferes with and peutralizes an organization adapted to express and carry inte effect the will of the congregation. On the supposition,

then, that God established some democratic form to be the permanent government of His Church, how came a constitution of a diametrically opposite character to be es tablished without a protest? Why was not some Luther raised up to make his voice heard from one end of Christendom to another against such corrupt following of Apos tolic precedent? How could the consent of the whole Church be got for the surrender of institutions founded on popular right, and the substitution for them of institu tions founded on Apostolical succession? We cannot

1

No less than three writers who flourished in the latter part of the second century, i. e. within sixty or seventy years after the death of St. John, ground the then existing Episcopal government very distinctly upon Apostolic succession.

First, Irenæus, A. D. 160-200. "We can reckon up those Bishops who have been constituted by the Apostles and their suc cessors all along to our times. And if the Apostles knew hidden mysteries, they would have communicated them especially to those in whose hands they placed the care of the Churches, and whom they left for their own successors, delivering to them the same office of government which they had occupied themselves." Again, "We have a list of the Bishops in succession to whom the Apostolic Church in every place was committed." Irenæus, Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. cap. 3; lib. iv. cap. 63. Quoted in Sinclair's Vindication of the Apos tolic Succession, p. 44.

Again, Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 180-210, mentions the three orders in the words," The promotion of Bishops, of Presby ters, and of deacons, are imitations, as I conceive, of the angelic glory." Also, "The Apostle John, when he settled at Ephesus, went about the neighbouring regions, ordaining Bishops, and setting apart such persons for the clergy as were signified to him by the Holy Ghost." Strom. lib. vi. p. 667, quoted in Sinclair's Vindication, p. 46.

Thirdly, Tertullian, A.D. 180-220. "But if there be any here sies, which venture to plant themselves in the midst of the age of the Apostles, that they may therefore be thought to have been han ded down from the Apostles, because they existed under the Apos tles, we may say, Let them then make known the originals of theit

then account for the universal prevalence of Episcopacy on the hypothesis of some original popular constitution becoming unpopularised.

It must be remembered that the hierarchical or Epis copal principles of the second or third centuries are in one sense a modification of the hierarchical principles of the New Testament—a most necessary modification, but still a modification, for the government exercised by Apostles, so far as it is revealed to us in the New Testament, was in substance hierarchical. It was a government, no doubt, utterly without pomp or parade. It was a government entirely in the interests of the governed, and was altogether free from all self-aggrandizement in those who exercised it; but notwithstanding this it was absolute, and it was carried on by sacred persons not designated to their office by the popular voice, or removable by the popular will, and so was in the highest sense hierarchical. The government of the Churches after the Apostles' decease, by such men

Churches; let them unfold the roll of their Bishops, so coming down in succession from the beginning, that their first Bishop had for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles, or of Apostolic men, so he were one that continued steadfast with the Apostles. For in this manner do the Apostolic Churches reckon their origin: as the Church of Smyrna recounteth that Polycarp was placed there by John; as that of Rome doth that Clement was in like manner ordained by Peter. Just so can the rest also show those whom, being appointed by the Apostles to the Episcopate, they have as transmitters of the Apostolic seed."-Tertullian, De Præscrip. Haer. xxxii. page 465 of Oxford translation.

Let the reader remember that Tertullian lived at Carthage, Irenæus in Gaul, Clement in Alexandria; so that we have the testimony of the most distant places in the Christian world of that time.

Let the reader also remember that these places are not cited as proving Episcopacy merely, but Episcopacy founded upon Apostolic Succession.

as Timothy and Titus even, could not possibly have had the prestige of the purely Apostolical, and must necessarially have been a modification of it.

Again, the Church government by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as it appears in the Greek copies of Ignatius, is not only a modification of that higher Episcopacy which is necessarily implied in the rule of inspired companions of Christ, but it is also a modification of that Episcopacy which must have been exercised by such men as the constant companions of St. Paul, for "Presbyters " and " Deaare joined with the Bishop by St. Ignatius, as commanding, along with the Bishop, the obedience of the faithful. So that it is the greatest mistake to assume that the earlier we get in Church history the more democratic the form of government must be.

cons

From what I have written I think the reader will per. ceive how beside the mark are all controversies respecting the names or titles of Christian ministers, since the matter in dispute is from beginning to end a matter of things, not of names.

The things, or principles, with which we have to do, are, first, the authority exercised by the Apostles over the whole Church and its ministers of all grades.

Secondly, the authority exercised over various Churches, with all their ministers of all grades, by men deputed by the Apostles.

We can gather nothing from the mere name of an office what its peculiar functions are; and this applies to every designation of ministers in the New Testament-neither Apostle, Prophet, Bishop, Presbyter, nor Deacon are applied uniformly.

There was a difference of authority even amongst those to whom the name of Apostle was given. Nothing can be clearer than the distinction between "the twelve "

and all others except St. Paul, for St. Paul was evidently equal in authority with "the twelve," and he was, as we have shown, most careful to assert his full Apostleship. And yet St. Barnabas certainly, and St. James probably, were accounted Apostles, though not of "the twelve: but in what respect their authority differed from that of "the twelve" we are not told.

Again, Epaphroditus is called an Apostle to the Philippian Church (Phil. ii. 25), but evidently rather in tho sense of Evangelist, not in the high sense in which "the twelve" or St. Barnabas were Apostles.

Again, Andronicus and Junia (Rom. xvi. 7) are said to be "of note among the Apostles ;" and a careful consideration of this passage will, I think, show that the word "Apostle" here is used in its widest sense of "messenger. (Compare 2 Cor. viii. 7 in the original.)

So far for the highest official name. sider the lowest, the diákovos, or deacon.

Let us now con

All ecclesiastical history agrees in representing the seven" (Acts vi.) as deacons, but yet this name is not once given to them. They are ordained to superintend the distribution of alms, an office always accounted the speciality of the deacon; and yet we read not one word about their fulfilment of this their peculiar duty, and the only two of whose acts we have any account appear to exercise the higher functions of baptizing, disputing, and preaching.

Again, when we read of Timotheus and Erastus minis. tering to St. Paul (Acts xix. 22), the very same word (diakoveîv) is used which is employed to describe the ful filment of their office by the deacons in 1 Tim. iii 13 (using the office of a deacon).

Of course it is ridicnlous to suppose that we are to judge of the duties and responsibilities of Timothy, as ne