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

If a democratic constitution, such as Presbyterianism or Independency, 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 democratic 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 St. 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 establish such a form or recognise it as established.

If this original democratic constitution is according to the will of God, then Episcopacy in any form is a sinful usurpation, for it, of necessity, interferes with and neutralizes an organization adapted to express and carry into 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 established 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 Apostolic 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 institutions founded on Apostolical succession? We cannot 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 Episcopal principles of the second or third centuries are in one sense a modification of the hierarchical principles of the New Testament α 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 as Timothy and Titus even, could not possibly have had the prestige of the purely Apostolical, and must necessarily 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 "Deacons" are 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.

From what I have written I think the reader will perceive 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, which we have to do with, 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 kinds, 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.

U

Again, Epaphroditus is called an Apostle to the Philippian Church (Phil. ii. 25), but evidently rather in the 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.)

66

Let us now con

So far for the highest official name. sider the lowest, the diákovos, or deacon. 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 whom we are told anything appear to exercise the higher functions of baptizing, disputing, and preaching.

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

Of course it is ridiculous to suppose that we are to judge of the duties and responsibilities of Timothy, as one of St. Paul's staff, as it were, by the functions of the deacons which it was afterwards part of his duty to

oversee.

Then St. Paul calls Christ a deacon (Rom. xv. 8). He calls himself and Apollos "deacons” (1 Cor. iii. 5; see also in the Greek Rom. xvi. 1, Eph. iii. 7). And yet nothing can be more certain than that the "deacons " men

tioned in 1 Tim. iii. are an order of ministers below the Episcopate or Presbyterate.

Of course the clue to all this seeming diversity is the idea of ministry, or service, inherent in the word diákovos, an Apostle being, equally with a deacon or acolyte, a "minister," or servant (2 Cor. iv. 5) of the Church; only the Apostle was ordained to minister in some things for the benefit of souls, and the deacon in others.

And so with the words Bishop (èπíσкожOs) and Elder (TрEσBUTEрos). The word "bishop," or "overseer," may be applied to the minister who oversees a congregation of twenty persons meeting in a room; or it may be applied to an officer like Titus deputed to " oversee all the congregations of the Church in a large island, with all their ministers of all grades. And the word "elder," or "presbyter," may be (as it is) applied by an Apostle to himself, as being much the senior of those to whom he wrote (1 Pet. v. 1); or it may be applied to any lay person whose years and spiritual character give him weight in the congregation, as it is in Acts ii. 17-❝ your old men" (your "presbyters," as it is in the original) "shall dream dreams.” Peter and John both call themselves "elders," and yet they at least were in the strictest sense "Apostles."

The "elders" mentioned in Titus i. 5 are certainly an order of Church ministers, and seem to be the same as the TiσкOTOL of verse 7; and yet the "elder" of 1 Tim. v. 1 would seem to be an elder in point of years rather than a distinct Church officer, for he is contrasted with the "younger; " and in the next verse the "elder" and "younger" women are mentioned evidently not as officebearers.

Scripture is altogether silent respecting the duties of the elder. Apostles, Bishops, the members of the Jewish Sanhedrim, the Christian ministers who were present with