successors; which they consider as a convincing argu. ment, that it was not a temporary expedient, but a permanent institution. They observe, that though the number of the Apostles during our Saviours's abode on earth was only twelve, and though the number continued fixed for some time after his Ascension to Heaven, yet when the boundaries of the Church were mightily extended by numerous converts in Gentile nations, they added to their number several other Apostles, to whom they committed the same office and dignity. The first was James, our Lord's near relation, and called his brother, who evidently was none of the twelve, and is reckoned apart from them by St. Paul, (1 Cor. xv. 5, 6, 7) and yet called by him an Apostle, (Gall. i. 19). "The same person is by the concurrent testimony of all the Christian fathers, called the first Bishop of Jerusalem, St. Jerome, in his Comment on Isaiah, calls him the thirteenth Apostle, that is, the first that was made an Apostle after the twelve, being so called, from his pos sessing the power and dignity of Bishop of Jerusalem, In the first Council that was held there, we find the sen. tence he gave with respect to circumcision and other matters of dispute, was decisive. Afterwards we are told that, when Paul and his company were come to Jerusalem, the brethern received him gladly, and that the day following Paul went in with them unto James, and all the Elders were present.—Acts, xxi. 17, 18. "Now, for what other reason should Paul go in unto James more especially, or upon what other account should all the Elders be present with James, but that he was a person of the greatest note and figure in the Church of Jerusalem? and for the same reason, in all probability, St. Paul mentions James before Peter and John, dis

coursing of a meeting he had with them at Jerusalem, (Gal. ii. 9) because though Peter and John were two of the principal of the twelve Apostles, and St. James was not so much as one of that number, yet in the Church of Jerusalem, he had the priority of them both; now considering that St. James is called an Apostle, and considering the preference he had, in all these instances above the other Apostles at Jerusalem, it is at least highly probable that he was peculiarly the Apostle of the Church at Jerusalem. But if to all this evidence, we add the most early testimonies of Christian antiquity, we shall advance the probability to a demonstration; for by the unanimous consent of all Ecclesiastical writers, St. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem."*

The second instance to which they point is that of Epaphroditus, who is styled the Apostle of the Philippians. "But I supposed it necessasy to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labour, and fellow soldier, but your Apostle."-Phil. ii. 25. Theodoret, upon the place, gives this reason why he was called the Apostle of the Philippians, he was entrusted with Episcopal Government, as being their Bishop.

The third instance is that of Titus, and some others, not expressly named. "Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow helper concerning you or our brethren be inquired of, they are the Apostles of the Churches." From this they argue that Titus was evidently invested with Apostolical, or Episcopal authority, over the Church of Crete, and possessed of a right to judge what things were wanting,

VOL. II.

• Scott's Christian Life, p. p. 395, 396.

L

and to supply them, to judge what things required correction, and to reform them, which is a plain demonstration of his superiority in that Church. St. Paul also gives him authority to ordain Elders in every city. They argue that it is plain that there were Elders, or Presbyters in the Church of Crete, before Titus was left there by the Apostle, for St. Paul had formed Churches in several cities of that Island, and as to the constituting of Churches, Elders were necessary, it is as evident say they, that these Presbyters had no power to ordain Elders as Titus had, for upon the supposition that they possessed that power, what necessity could there be for the Apostle's leaving him with a new power to do that, which the Presbyters, already ordained, had sufficient power to do? If the Presbyters had the power of ordination, this new power of Titus must have been not only unnecessary, but mischievous; as it would have appeared to be an invasion of the power of the Presbytery, and rather have provoked strife and contention than been an expedient to produce peace and good order. They conclude their argument on this instance with the testimony of Eusebius, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, and several others of the fathers, and early Ecclesiastic writers, who all affirm that Titus was ordained by St. Paul, the first Bishop of Crete.

The fourth instance, say they, is Timothy, who evidently appears, by St. Paul's Epistles to him, to have been vested with Episcopal authority over Presbyters and Deacons; to take care that none should be admitted a Deacon, without sufficient trial; and none ordained an Elder, till he had acquitted himself well in the office of a Deacon (1 Tim. iii. 10, 13); to inspect their lives, to receive accusations, and to judge of their conduct (v. 19,

20); to rule without preferring one to another, and without partiality (v. 21); which acts of government all proceed upon an acknowledged authority and superiority. And, as the Apostle recognises him as possessed of this authority, he also gives him the power of ordination, and instructs him in the manner how he ought to perform it; that he should lay hands suddenly on no man; neither be partaker of other men's sins. They observe also, that the argument acquires additional force from this circumstance, that the Apostle himself had laboured three years together in the Church of Ephesus, of which Timothy was Bishop a longer space than in any other Church, had reduced it to much greater perfection, and consequently had formed a Presbytery in it, as he did in all other Churches, which proves this Episcopal power to have been no temporary arrangement, suiting an imperfect state of things, but a permanent institution, ordained in that Church, and by consequence in all Churches. With the divine authority of St. Paul's Epistles, they observe that the testimony of all Ecclesiastical antiquity conspires to prove that Timothy was the first Bishop of the Church of Ephesus. "Other instances might be given, but these are sufficient to show, that the Apostles did not look upon our Saviour's institution of a superior order of Ecclesiastical Officers as a temporary thing, that was to expire with them, but as a standing model of Ecclesiastical Government, since they derived to others that superiority over the Churches of Christ which he communicated to them."*

In the next place the advocates of Episcopacy argue from the general consent of the primitive fathers. St.

• Scott's Christian Life, p. 402.

Clement who, as Irenæus tells us, saw the Apostles, and conversed familiarly with them, mentions in his epistle to the Corinthians, three orders of Ecclesiastical officers in his time, whom he calls the High Priests, the Priests, and the Levites; which words can be understood no otherwise than of Bishop, Presbyter, and the Deacons. Ignatius, the next of the fathers whose writings have come down to our times, in the six epistles which he wrote on his way to martyrdom, has given the most ample evidence of the existence of the three orders, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in the Christian Church, and enjoins the two latter, as well as the laity, to be subject to the former. In his epistle to the Trallians, “What is the Bishop," says he, "but he that hath authority and power? What is the Presbytery, but a sacred constitution of Counsellors and Assessors to the Bishop? What are the Deacons, but Imitators of Christ, and Ministers to the Bishop, as he was to the Father?"

The testimony of the writers of the next age, who had intercourse with those who had conversed with the Apostles, the advocates of Episcopacy observe, are expressly to the same purpose. Of this number are Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, and Clemens Alexandrinus. These all represent Bishops as acknowledged by the Churches in their time, to be superior to Presbyters.

The last argument of the advocates of Episcopacy that our limits will admit, is taken from our Saviour's addressing the epistles in the Apocalypse to the Seven Churches in Asia, to single persons in each of those Churches, who are called the Angels of the Churches. That there was a plurality of Elders in some of those Churches is evident, and it is most probable that there was such in all