The Apostles themselves, it is held by some, were the real bishops of that day, and it is quite evident that they performed many episcopal func tions. It may well be true, that the only reason why bishops (in the modern sense) were then want ing was, because the Apostles were living; but it cannot be inferred that in any strict sense prelates are co-ordinate in rank with the Apostles, and can claim to exercise their powers. The later ' bishop' did not come forward as a successor to the Apostles, but was developed out of the presbyter; much less can it be proved, or alleged with plausibility, that the Apostles took any measures for securing sub stitutes for themselves (in the high character of Apostles) after their decease. It has been with many a favourite notion that Timothy and Titus exhibit the episcopal type even during the life of Paul; but this is an obvious misconception. They were attached to the person of the Apostle, and not to any one church. In the last Epistle written by him (2 Tim. iv. 9), he calls Timothy suddenly to Rome, in words which prove that the latter was not, at least as yet, bishop, either of Ephesus or of any other church. That Timothy was an evan gelist is distinctly stated (2 Tim. iv. 5), and that he had received spiritual gifts (i. 6, etc.); there is then no difficulty in accounting for the authority vested in him (t Tim. v. I; xix. 22), without imagining him to have been a bishop ; which is in fact disproved even by the same Epistle (i. 3). That Titus, moreover, had no local attachment to Crete, is plain from Titus iii. 13, to say nothing of the earlier Epistle, 2 Cor. passim. Nor is it true that the episcopal power developed itself out of wan dering evangelists any more than out of the Apostles. On the other hand, it would seem that the bishop began to elevate himself above the presbyter while the Apostle John was yet alive, and in churches to which he is believed to have peculiarly devoted himself. The meaning of the title angel, in the opening chapters of the Apocalypse, has been mystically explained by some; but its true mean ing is clear from the nomenclature of the Jewish synagogues. In them, we are told, the minister who ordinarily led the prayers of the congregation, besides acting as their chief functionary in matters of business, was entitled ilnvm 1-16.2:1 [SYNA GOGUE], a name which may be translated literally nuncios ecclesi,E, and is here expressed by the Greek dryeXos. The substantive ri:t.6n also (which by analogy would be rendered ci-y-yeXta, as lz..6n is ef-y-yeXos) has the ordinary sense of opus, ministerium, making it almost certain that the `angels of the churches' are nothing but a harsh Hebraism for ministers of the churches.' We therefore here see a single officer, in these rather large Christian communities, elevated into a pecu liar prominence, which has been justly regarded as episcopal. Nor does it signify that the authorship of the Apocalypse is disputed, since its extreme antiquity is beyond a doubt; we find, therefore, the germ of episcopacy here planted, as it were, under the eyes of an Apostle. (Neander, Pflan z:mg and Leitung, p. 186-90, 2d ed. ; Stanley, Apost. Age, p. 63 f.) Nevertheless, it was still but a germ. It is vain to ask, whether these angels received a second ordination and had been promoted from the rank of presbyters. That this was the case is possible, but there is no proof of it ; and while some will regard the question as deeply interesting, others will think it unimportant. A second question is,
whether the angels were overseers of the congrega tion only, or of the presbyters too ; and whether the church was formed of many local unions (such as we call parishes), or of one. Perhaps both questions unduly imply that a set of fixed rules was already in existence. No one who reads Paul's own account of the rebuke he uttered against Peter (Gal. ii.), need doubt that in those days a zealous elder would assume authority over other elders, officially his equals, when he thought they were dishonouring the Gospel ; and, a fortiori, he would act thus towards an official inferior, even if this had not previously been defined or understood as his duty. So again, the Christians of Ephesus or Miletns were probably two numer ous ordinarily to meet in a single assembly, espe cially before they had large buildings erected for the purpose ; and convenience must have led at a very early period to subordinate assemblies (such as would now be called ' chapels-of-ease' to the mother church); yet.we have no ground for sup posing that any sharp division of the Church into organic portions had yet commenced.
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congrega tionalists agree in one point, viz., that (because of its utility and general convenience) it is lawful for Christians to take a step for which they have no clear precedent in the Scripture, that of break ing up a church, when it becomes of unwieldy magnitude, into fixed divisions, whether parishes or congregations. The question then arises, whether the organic union is to be still retained at all. To this (i) Congregationalists reply in the negative, saying that the congregations in different parts of a great city no more need to be in organic union, than those of two different cities ; (2) Presbyterians would keep up the union by means of a synod of the elders ; (3) Episcopalians desire to unite the separate churches by retaining them under the supervision of a single head—the bishop. It seems tmpossible to refer to the prac tice of the Apostles as deciding in favour of any one of these methods ; for the case had not yet arisen which could have led to the discussion. The city churches had not yet become so large as to make subdivision positively necessary ; and, as a fact, it did not take place. To organize distant churches into a fixed and formal connection by synods of their bishops, was, of course, quite a later process ; but such unions are by no means rejected, even by Congregationalists, as long as they are used for deliberation and advice, not as assemblies for ruling and commanding. The spirit of Episcopacy depends far less on the episcopal form itself, than on the size and wealth of dioceses, and on the union of bishops into synods, whose decisions are to be authoritative on the whole church : to say nothing of territorial establishment and the support of the civil government. If, under any ecclesiastical form, either oppression or disorder should arise, it cannot be defended ; but no form is a security against such evils. Our experience may, in these later times, possibly shew us which of these systems is on the whole preferable ; but the dis cussion must belong to ecclesiastical history, and would be quite out of place here. —F. W. N.