In Timothy and Titus we have an instance of this. They exercised the supreme Apostolic authority. They found churches; they ordain men to the presbyterate, and they exercise disciplinary power over them. They are the later Bishops without being Diocesan. They have under them Presbyters and Deacons. But their mission is more general after the example of the Apostles.

Furthermore, the Apostolic minister is qualified by a special "charisma" of a nature of a permanent character bestowed by the laying on of hands in ordination.' Here we have, then, what is quite familiar in later Church History.

In other Epistles we find, that, though the Apostolic office was general, yet a distribution of races had been arrived at. And the local ministry was well established. What we find in the Epistles we find in the Acts. We have what may be called the subApostolic Ministry" the Prophets and Teachers."" S. James, though not of the Twelve, is clothed with Apostolic authority. Then we have the local ministry. There were Presbyters at Jerusalem with S. James, appointed by the Apostles and associating with them in legislative authority." We find also Deacons there. At Ephesus we find the same-they are overseers-bishops subordinate to the Apostles for the government and nourishment of the Church. Here, then, we find the conception of the Apostolate found in the Gospels confirmed in Apostolic history.

8

That it was universal; that some of its features were extended to "Prophets," such as S. James, and to Apostolic men like Timothy and Titus. Under this we have a local ministry-" Presidents," PresbyterBishops, and Deacons. Here we have, then, in the germ at least, the form and functions that the Apostolic ministry took in the sub-Apostolic age.

The sub-Apostolic Age. When Ignatius wrote his famous Epistles the government of the Church had but lately fallen from the hands of S. John. Ephesus was still radiant with his memory. Antioch and Corinth had shared with Rome the honour of a foundation by S. Peter and S. Paul. Jerusalem had risen again from her ashes, and was still regarded by all as "the Mother of all the Churches," and with such holy associations as too sacred to allow of her motherhood to be transferred to any other Church. The whole atmosphere of the Church in these days was Apostolical. Can it be supposed, therefore, that the Constitution of the Church at this time would be any thing but Apostolic? The mind refuses to believe such a thing possible, even if we had no evidence, fragmentary as it is, it is true, to the contrary. From the time when S. Paul penned his Pastoral Epistles in his lonely cell at Rome, to the time when Ignatius penned his Epistles, is at the most but a period of forty-five years. Can it be supposed, therefore, that the Constitution of the Church could be changed during this period to a non-Apostolical, and then be restored to an Apostolical? Such a thing would be impossible. Let any one carefully compare the opening chapters

1 Snirley, Apostolic Age, pp. 128-140.

of the Apocalypse with the Pastoral Epistles on the one hand, and those of Ignatius on the other, and see whether such an irregularity could take place, and whether during this short period there could be any other form of government than the Apostolic.

But although the change from the rudimentary order of the Churches as planted by S. Paul to the defined and universally accepted Episcopacy of the Ignatian days is so marvellous that there is nothing like it in history-except the spread of Christianity at this period-yet, "unless we have recourse to a sweeping condemnation of received documents," we cannot explain this period of the Church's history, and why Episcopacy should be so universally accepted as we find it to be during the last three decades of the first century-thirty years after the martyrdom of S. Paul and during the lifetime of the last surviving Apostle.

"How otherwise is it imaginable, that all the Churches founded by the Apostles in several most distant and disjoined places (at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Alexandria, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Rome) should presently conspire in acknowledgment and use of it (Episcopal government) ? How could it without apparent confederacy be formed? How could it creep in without notable clatter, how could it be admitted without considerable opposition, if it were not in the foundation of those Churches laid by the Apostles? How is it likely that in those times of grievous persecution falling chiefly upon the Bishops an ambition of

1 Bp. Lightfoot, Christian Ministry, 1868,

irregularity advancing themselves above their brethren should so generally prevail among the ablest and best Christians? How could those famous martyrs for the Christian truth be some of them so unconscionable as to effect, others so irresolute as to yield to, such injurious encroachments? and how could all the holy Fathers (persons of so renowned, so approved wisdom and integrity) be so blind as not to discern such a corruption, or so bad as to abet it? In fine, how can we conceive that all the best monuments of antiquity down from the beginning (the Acts, the Epistles, the Histories, the Commentaries, the writings of all sorts coming from the blessed Martyrs and most Holy Confessors of our faith), should conspire to abuse us? the which do speak nothing but Bishops." These questions can never be answered unless we recognise the fact that throughout this period the government of the Church was in its nature Apostolic, and that some years prior to the death of S. John the Apostle Episcopacy was universally accepted as of divine origin. On no other grounds can we explain the marvellous development, during so short a period, of the germ of the Apostolic ministry found in the Gospels. Now let us examine the witnesses of the sub-Apostolic age.

1 Dr. Isaac Barrow's Works, Cambridge, 1859, ed. by Napier, vol. iii. serm. xv. Vid. also Treatise Pope's Supremacy, vol. viii. sup ii. pp. 172-185. Notes Wordsworth Gr. Test. on Tim. iii. and on first chapters of Apocalypse.

IV.

As a first witness we take the Episcopate of S. James. There can be no doubt that S. James ori

1

A. D. 60-70.

ginated the Bishopric of Jerusalem. The Church History without exception regards him "Bishop of Jerusalem." He has Presbyters and Deacons under him; he is localized and is

the head of a line of Bishops, who at first were of the family of Christ. Symeon, who succeeded S. James, was chosen as "the Cousin of the Lord," " a descend

ers.

ant of David and a Christian." "James receives the

Church in succession with the Apostles."

After

5

his death those of the Apostles and of the disciples of the Lord who were still alive came together from all parts to select a worthy person to succeed S. James, and they all approved of Symeon, the son of Clopas. As the next witness we have the Didache, or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." This work bears every mark of very great antiquity. A. D. 70-85. Its birthplace has been assigned to the country east of the Jordan, where Christian Jews

1 " Peter and James and John, after the assumption of the Saviour, though even the Lord had assigned them special honours, did not claim distinction, but elected James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem."-Euseb. H. E. ii. 1. Cf. Gibbon, Rom. Hist., cap. xv.

2 Lightfoot, Dissert., p. 197: "James can claim to be regarded as a Bishop." Simcox, Early Ch. Hist., p. 50: "It is scarcely inaccurate to say, the first example of a diocesan Bishop."

* Hegesippus ap. Euseb., H. E. ii. 23, iv. 22. Clementine's Hom. xi. 35. Recog. 1, 43, 68, 73.

4 Διαδέχεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων. Heges. ap. Euseb. ii. 23.

Heges. ap. Euseb. iii. 32, iii. 11. Cf. Rothe, 354, 60, referred to by Shirley, Apos. Age, p. 137.