where St. Paul characterizes by this epithet the entire body of the clergy of Ephesus; and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, where the same apostle distinguishes but two orders of the clergy, the diakóvovs and the πσKÓTоUÇ. And there is absolute demonstration against this theory in the fact referred to in No. 4, namely, that some of the towns of Asia Minor, which were not episcopal towns, had πρεσCurépovs ordained for them, who were the local governors of their respective flocks.

If, then, the primitive churches founded by the apostles were not all episcopal churches, are we necessitated to fall into the second opinion put forth at the beginning of this section, and to hold that they were parishes, or something similar, governed by the clergy of the second order? After a full and candid examination of this question, I believe we must come to the conclusion that the first ordinations by the apostles were of priests, with quasi-parochial jurisdiction. Before assigning the grounds of this conclusion, it will be well to meet a difficulty which arises out of the statements made in Nos. 1 and 3. From these statements, it appears, on the authority of the Apocalypse, that Ephesus was an episcopal city; and, on the authority of St. Ignatius the martyr, that there were some episcopal towns and cities in Asia Minor, at the time that he wrote his Epistles. How, then, can it be held consistently with these facts, that the primitive churches founded by the apostles were not immediately governed by bishops, but by priests? The answer to this difficulty is obvious: it may be comprised in a few words. St. John wrote the Apocalypse at the close of the first century; St. Ignatius wrote his Epistles at the beginning of the second century. The first Christian churches, of whose foundation record is preserved in the sacred Scriptures,' were formed at a far earlier period.

We return to the main question. In the first place, I think, we may assume that the same system of parochial or episcopal churches was established by the apostles in

Acts of the Apostles xiv. 22.-Epistle to Titus i. 5.

countries similarly circumstanced. In Asia Minor, for example, Greece and Crete, where the churches were numerous, and where they bore much the same relation to each other in point of distance, there would appear to be no reason for establishing episcopal churches exclusively in one country, parochial churches in another, and episcopal with parochial in a third. Whatever the system was, -being introduced by the same apostles, and for the regulation of the church of God, which was to be essentially one and uniform,-it must have been similar in all parts of the Roman empire, where the faith was equally diffused.

This being presupposed, we ask ourselves, what was the system of church government first established by the apostles? Again we answer, the quasi-parochial system. We proceed to assign the grounds of this opinion. The TрEO CUTEрOL, ordained by St. Paul and Barnabas, to whom allusion is made in the 22nd verse of the 14th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and the ρεσCúrɛрo ordained by Titus for the churches of Crete, appear to have been all of the same rank; and none of them appear to have been bishops. We must suppose them to have belonged to the same order of the hierarchy, because they are simply designated by the same name, and there is no distinction made between them. If the commission of St. Paul to Titus involved the appointment of bishops over some churches of Crete, and of priests over others, we would reasonably expect to find the apostle directing his attention to this twofold duty, when he reminds him of the end of his mission to this island. His words would be, in all probability, "I left you at Crete to appoint a certain number of bishops in the principal cities, and to subject to their authority priests, ordained by you, in the lesser towns and villages," instead of being as they are. "For this cause, I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain 'πрEσCuréρous' in every city, as I also appointed thee."

1 Epistle to Titus i. 3.

In the same sense, we must understand the words of St. Luke, in the 14th chapter of the Acts,—“ And when they had ordained to them ' πρεσβυτέρους' in every city, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed." The Evangelist does not say priests and bishops, or priests of the first and second order; but, without any qualification, he says,— "When they had ordained to themπрeσCurépoυç." The clergy, therefore, ordained by the apostles through the cities of Asia Minor, and those whom Titus ordained for the towns of Crete, were obviously priests or bishops, but probably not priests and bishops.

I have said that none of them appear to have been bishops. I think this assertion is borne out by various circumstances. In the first place, there was no necessity for erecting episcopal sees, while the apostles were still living. They were themselves the bishops of the church. They went about from place to place performing episcopal functions, correcting abuses, eradicating errors, ordaining the clergy. The churches of Troas and Iconium did not require a bishop resident immediately in their neighbourhood; they were sufficiently directed by the apostles and their companions, who visited them from time to time.

Then it would have been very difficult, after the first propagation of Christianity, to determine the limits of episcopal jurisdiction. The faith was speading in every direction, and ramifying through countries strange to the apostles, and in a great measure unexplored. The churches. were increasing in number day after day. If bishops were in the first instance appointed in churches at certain distances from each other, it is clear that there could be no rule for determining the extent of their jurisdiction, and that numberless disputes must arise as to the ownership of the new churches, which were every day being erected; so that confusion and chaos should have been the result of the immediate erection of episcopal sees. Apart from these considerations, there are two impor

1 Acts xiv. 22.

tant facts that must not be lost sight of, viz.: first, the character of the men whom the apostles should select; and, secondly, the great authority and dignity of the episcopal office. There was no choice, but among the recent converts from Paganism or Judaism. There was evidently a difficulty in raising them at once to the highest rank among the clergy. They might be priests in submission; they ought not to be bishops in authority. There was still greater difficulty in placing them in a position of such independence and authority at a distance from the centre of government. Might they not rebel? Might they not divide the church? Might they not dissolve the union, before the joints were well knit together? The appointment of bishops immediately upon the first diffusion of Christianity would have resulted in raising up rivals to the apostles, and endangering the unity of the church.

Such considerations as these lead us naturally to the conclusion, that the first ordinations in the primitive church were of priests and deacons, and the truth of this view is confirmed and illustrated by a passage in the first epistle of St. Clement of Rome. The epistle is inscribed, "The church of God which is in Rome, to the church of God which is in Corinth, &c.," and the principal object for which it is written is manifestly to put an end to certain dissensions which had arisen between the faithful and their priests. From the body of the epistle it appears that the Christians of Corinth had rejected certain priests from the sacred ministry, and deprived them of their position in the church. "We see," says St. Clement, "that you have banished some of them [the priests] who lived piously, and who acquitted themselves in the ministry, not only without reproach, but even with honour." Obviously there is question of priests only, not of bishops. The church of Corinth had but one bishop, whereas the clergy referred to by St. Clement must have been numerous in the church of Corinth. They had rejected

1 Ep. Clem. i. No. 45, ed. Cot.

some of their priests; and the drift of the epistle of St. Clement is to convince them that "it will be no trifling sin to deprive of the episcopacy those who worthily offer the sacred gifts." 1

What argument does he adduce in favour of this conclusion? He shows that the priesthood is of apostolic ordination; and in establishing this fact, he uses words which distinctly signify that the primitive appointments by the apostles were limited to deacons and priests. "Thus preaching in the countries and the cities, they established the 'primitia' of the flocks, after having approved them by the Holy Spirit for the ' ἐπισκόπους and deacons of those who received the faith." 2 He then goes on to affirm that the priests of the church are the properly-constituted successors of the “¿πiσкool,” established by the apostles in their first missions.

"Our

apostles, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, have well known the contentions which must arise for the name of the episcopacy. ... Wherefore have they established the aforesaid, and have ordained that after their deaths other approved men should succeed to their ministry." So it appears that the whole argument rests on the appointment of priests by the apostles in their primitive missions. They appointed, he says, priests and deacons : not a word about their appointing bishops. It cannot be argued that St. Clement, from the nature of his argument, had no need of referring to the bishops, if they were appointed; for, it may be answered, that he had less need of referring to the deacons. They appointed, he says, priests and deacons, and no more; and these priests appointed by them are the direct predecessors of the priests of the Church at the present day. St. Clement does not directly touch the question as to whether the apostles subsequently appointed bishops. He insinuates that they did, in the words "other distinguished men," which he employs in a subsequent part of the passage last adduced; but he clearly agrees with me in the thesis I 3 Ibid.

1 Ep. Clem. i. No. 45, ed. Cot. 2 No. 44, ibid.