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, 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,

Bishop and the Presbyters, we may be in all respects sanctified."— Ephesians, p. 148. "So that ye obey the Bishop and the Presbyters with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread" (p. 168). "But be ye united with your Bishop, and those that preside over you." 'So neither do ye anything without the Bishop and Presbyters."-Magnesians, p. 178.

66

The reader will find at page 273 the Syriac recension, and a glance at it will serve to convince him that it is nothing more than a very short and fragmentary résume of longer writings. In fact, if the Syriac is to be regarded as the original Ignatius, and the Greek as a forgery, then some unknown forger writes with far more Christian eloquence, and far greater depth of piety, than the saint himself. The Syriac occupies barely ten pages, and is of the most disjointed and fragmentary character, but even this contains a recognition of the importance of obedience to the threefold Church rule, which is really as strong as any in the Greek. "Look ye to the Bishop, that God also may look upon you. I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to the Bishop and the Presbyters and the Deacons; with them may I have a portion in the presence of God" (p. 276).

This place from the Syriac is as strong in reality as any similar passage in either the Greek or Latin.

I cannot find any trace of any advocacy of Episcopacy as distinguished from Presbytery. The writer, whether in the Syriac. Greek, or Latin, writes in utter unconsciousness of any antagonism between rival systems of Church rule.

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 Testamentneither Apostle, Prophet, Bishop, Presbyter, nor Deacon is 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 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 “ mcssenger." (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 ministering to St. Paul (Acts xix. 22), the very same word (diakoveîv) 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 mentioned 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 for the benefit of souls in some things, and the deacon in others.

And so with the words Bishop (èπíσкожоs) and Elder (Tрeo Búτepos). The word "bishop," or "overseer," (πρεσβύτερος). 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 TíσкоTOι 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 office bearers.

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 St. James, and the seniors in point of mere age, are all indifferently called "elders."

It is surprising that the controversy respecting Church rule has ever been made to turn upon any names of offices found in the New Testament. Half an hour with a concordance would convince any one that the mere names "bishop," "elder," deacon," can decide nothing.

99.66

Supposing that in every case the name "bishop" is synonymous with "elder," and both represent the modern parochial minister or president of a congregation, you have still the fact that these men are throughout the New Testament assumed to be under the control of the Apostle, and of his vicar or delegate. So that, besides the Episcopate, or oversight of each separate congregation, there is the oversight of the whole Church centred in the Apostle, and by him transmitted always to individuals,

never to boards or synods; and this to the close of the New Testament history.

So that, so far as the New Testament teaches us the government of the Apostolic Churches, there was no supreme government except the Apostolic oversight or rule, and no principle for transmitting this recognised except Apostolic succession by imposition of hands.

From the foregoing observations we can judge how much (or how little) truth there is in the oft-repeated assertion, that " no form of Church government is laid down in the New Testament."

It is quite true that no details are to be found there, such as the size of dioceses, the mode of election to Church offices, the order of proceeding in Church courts, the limits of the authority of presidents or bishops, or of presbyteries; but, though we find no details of this kind, yet we find one principle of supreme rule, and one only, and this is, that Church rule centres in the Apostle, and is transmitted by him to individuals. No counter principle is to be found, such as that all Church officers have equal authority, or that all power resides in the people. So that the principles of Presbyterian parity, or Congregational democracy, are not to be found, and the principle of Apostolic Episcopacy is to be found, in the New Testament.

NOTE. From the above, the reader will perceive how utterly unnecessary, as well as groundless, is the idea that the government of the Christian Church was formed on the model of the Jewish Synagogue.

For this notion there is not one word of authority in Scripture, or in any Ecclesiastic writer. It is a mere guess, and considering the relations of the Synagogue to the Church, one very unlikely to be near the truth. I do not think that St. Paul at least would be in any haste to set forth the Synagogue as a model. The leading features of the worship of the Church differed essentially from that