when the office had been held, if it existed, under a different name which was "subsequently discontinued," which "gradually died away." The real writer of those sentences must have lived in the "more settled state of the church," and "when a more appropriate name had been obtained" by "limiting the signification" of a word which had not previously been thus limited.

But have we no light on this subject? Let us inquire.

We are so accustomed to refer to the Scriptures for authority, that we may easily overlook the fact, that history still exists, and, in its usual way, furnishes evidence. We go to the Scriptures for the grounds of religious belief, hope, and obligation. But, as to facts, history gives evidence. The strength of the evidence is to be estimated in the usual way, and the character and value of the facts determined by reference to the proper standard. The Bible stands alone. It is God's book. To say that it is better than other books, very inadequately states the case. It is different, likewise. It is sui generis. It is the volume of inspiration. For the purposes for which it was given, we go to no other book. It is not that it stands at the head of a long list of theological writings, some portions being written by those who witnessed and aided the establishment of Christianity. In one sense its value is unrelated to time. It may be taken by each successive generation as though just then given. It teaches us the alwayspresent will of the eternally living God. We may not lower it by comparing it with other books, in such a manner as should imply that it belongs to them, though we give it the superiority. It is the standard by which all statements (that is, all moral and religious statements) are to be judged "so that, whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." Carry the chain of tradition, every ring interlocked, up to the very foot of this wall, and if more be not done, nothing is done for conscience. There must be, undeniably, evidently, a staple in the wall to which the last ring is attached.

:

and there is one which Jerome most distinctly

But many facts may be learned from history; appears to cast light on the subject before us. states, that Bishops (as the term was used in his day) began to exist after the Apostles. It may be very soon after; but still, after. His statement remarkably agrees with the just inferences from Mr. Galloway's premisses. He says that, at first, churches were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters; so that the terms "Bishop," and "Presbyter" were indiscriminately applied; but that dissensions arose, and therefore, to avoid schism, one was appointed to preside over the others, the terms, originally, describing but one order, (that is, the separated, ordained ministry,) so that there should be no boasting. Now, Jerome would scarcely have invented all this. He evidently believed it himself. And, whether it be fact or no, it is, at all events, in harmony with facts. If the churches were thus governed, it is very likely that the apostolic delegations, of which Mr. Galloway speaks, would occasionally occur. The oneness of the church, in its outward, disciplinary form, was constituted by apostolic superintend-· ence, immediately or mediately exercised. At Ephesus it was mediately exercised by Timothy, as Mr. Galloway states; and at the same place it was immediately exercised by St. Paul, when, being at Miletus, he called for the Elders of the church, and exhorted them to oversee, superintend, bishop, it. Here were several of these Presbyters; and he requires them,

by his apostolical authority, rightly to feed the flock, to govern the church. A method of preserving order and peace, if one should come to be needed, would at once be suggested by the apostolic employment of messengers or legates. And if thus the plan of having one Presbyter for general superintendence in the churches respectively, originated, it is easy to see out of what grew the assumption afterwards productive of so much tyranny and mischief, that Bishops were the successors of the Apostles. Taking Jerome's statement as true, it is most likely that this would be said: “Let us have one to keep all orderly and quiet, just as the Apostles used to do, by themselves, or those to whom they, from time to time, and to various churches, delegated authority." In such a case, and with such a meaning, this would be said innocently enough. It was reserved to aftertimes to attach another sense to the expressions. Something of this sort, also, seems necessary to account for the unfixed and floating term descriptive of the office. According to Mr. Galloway, the officer was called, in the last-written portion of the inspired volume, "the angel of the church,” legate, messenger, nuncio. But though, on his supposition, the office, was fully established, and its name given, before the sacred canon was completed, a name, therefore, thus existing and thus applied about the beginning of the reign of Trajan, under whom, eight or nine years after, Ignatius was martyred, yet this name was "gradually discontinued,” and another, hitherto applied to the ministry generally, was employed in its stead. Be it true or be it not true, Jerome's statement does at least seem to cast light on the subject, and explain the reason of what otherwise is inexplicable, the unsettled state of the terminology in question. Nor is this all. There are other facts in early church history which are likewise cleared up. The antiquity of Episcopacy is allowed. Yet there is evidently no plain command for it in Scripture. Its judicious advocates satisfy themselves with proving its lawfulness. Even High-Churchmen have to make it out by argumentation, one in one way, another in another. Jerome's statement accounts both for the antiquity and the absence of definite Scripture authority. It also accounts for what is stated to have been the ancient practice of the church at Alexandria, the selection, by the Presbyters, of a Bishop from their own number, whenever a vacancy occurred in the office. Thus, too, were "Bishops" sent forth from the northern Presbyters of Iona. And such, it is highly probable, were the Bishops of the early Irish Church, at the time when there were between three and four hundred in that country. And thus will another important fact be explained, admitted by Mr. Galloway, (we shall soon quote the passage,) the concurrence of the Presbyters with the Bishop in the act of ordination, "the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery" being a scriptural term, and denoting a Scripture usage.

Nor does Jerome assign, we will not say an impossible, nor even an improbable, reason, but one which, in the proved circumstances of the case, could scarcely fail to exist. He refers to dissensions, and the necessity of the office for preventing schism. Now, what was the temper of these early Christians? From what sources were mischievous issues likely to proceed? We refer to two as prominent on the divine record. One we only mention as not belonging to our argument, the attachment to an unspiritual externalism. The other is, the strongly-marked tendency to dissension through natural ambition. Even in our Lord's time, he had to repress this. There was the questioning as to who should be greatest, the desire of seats on the right and left hand of the Sovereign. He had to tell them not 3 G

VOL. III.-FOURTH SERIES.

to be called Rabbi, to be the greatest by being the least, the servants of all, to cherish the temper of little children. And this was the chief object of that impressive and significant transaction, his washing his disciples' feet. In the Acts, and the Epistles, the references to this subject are remarkably numerous, in one form or other; sometimes as facts, sometimes as admonitions, sometimes as rebukes, sometimes as exhortations. Let any person, having been previously directed to the fact, read the New Testament in reference to it, and he will be struck with the number and earnestness of the statements which he will find, and which he had not noticed before, as only viewing them as portions of Christian duty. We may just mention the connexion marked by St. Paul between fully-manifested Christian affection, and the example of condescension and unselfishness afforded by the incarnation of our Lord, Phil. ii. 1-16. The conclusion of this passage is very remarkable. There is an exhortation to a certain line of conduct, in order to a certain result. We could almost say that, unhappily, that result contains an important statement respecting Christian character ; so that it is very frequently detached from its connexion, as though it really stood alone. How often is this text quoted, as though it were the perfect text! "Be blameless and harmless, the sons of God without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life." Whereas, this is only the result to be secured. The real exhortation is that which refers to the means of securing it: "Do all things without murmurings and disputings: that ye may be "-then follows-"blameless and harmless," &c.

With such tendencies, so existing,-and the case of Diotrephes shows their manifestation to the very close of the inspired canon, the fact mentioned by Jerome seems only too natural. It is just such a one as we should expect to find.

We now quote what Mr. Galloway says on the connexion between Bishops and Presbyters in ordination, and on the limits beyond which, according to him, the necessity of Episcopacy must not be carried. The Italics are the author's own: the passages to which we wish to direct particular attention, will be found in CAPITALS.

66

While, however, I thus view the episcopal office as of apostolical appointment and authority, let me not be considered as asserting, that the vital power of conferring orders, or of perpetuating the church, is so confined to the Bishop, as that a church, abandoned by its Bishops, must lose, in one generation, its continuance of life, and have its ordinances made thereafter void and null. But in this case, rather, the widowed church, and the people who are left as orphans, may still look to the Father of the fatherless and the Husband of the widow. It may not be that the great Head of the church SHOULD ABANDON THE WHOLE MASS OF THE PRIESTHOOD, AND OF THE CHURCH, IN ORDER TO GLORIFY AMBITIOUS AND WORLDLY-MINDED PRELATES IN A CASE WHERE THOSE PRELATES HAVE PREFERRED DARKNESS TO LIGHT, AND PROFITABLE CORRUPTIONS TO PRIMITIVE TRUTH. It is clear that THE BISHOP IS NOT ALONE in the act of continuing the life of the priestly order; but, in the ordination of a Presbyter, the church directs that PRESBYTERS, ALSO, SHOULD LAY ON THEIR HANDS along with the Bishop. What means this if they possess in no degree the vital power of ordination? Have THEY not also apostolic authority to lay on hands? Their act, indeed, differs from that of the Bishop in some respect; but is it so clear that it is in respect of their act being destitute of

vital power? BY NO MEANS; this were to make it void as an empty ceremony. May it not, then, be fairly asked, in what capacity the Bishop lays on hands, and in what his act differs from that of the Presbyters who concur in it? On this subject I would not be understood to speak confidently; but I venture to suggest, that the power of the Bishop in ordination differs from that of the Presbyters who lay on hands with him, first, in this, that in his person is concentrated, by apostolical appointment,"-(we think we have shown that Mr. Galloway's principles by no means justify this. They go to the length of establishing the lawfulness of a form of church government involving such ministerial superintendence, but not its necessity; that it may be exercised, not that it must be. He thus proceeds,)—"the governing power of THE CHURCH; so that, as long as he retain his office," (by the way, Mr. Riddle states, in his able work on ecclesiastical antiquities, that in ancient times there were cases of temporary Episcopacy. There appears nothing of this, nominally, in modern times; for the Wesleyans, who hold the principle, content themselves with putting it forth under the Latin term of superintendency; and we fear that Mr. Galloway would not allow them to have any share in the Greek Episcopacy,)—" any ordination attempted without his concurrence, even if it were by the whole Clergy of his diocess, would be disorderly and irregular; but whether, in all possible circumstances, it must necessarily be void, is quite another question, which may partly depend on the next consideration. Secondly, that the Bishop is the NATURAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CLERGY of his diocess, and that HIS ACT in ordination expresses and conveys THE UNITED AUTHORITY OF THE ACT OF ALL THE PRESBYTERS, the better to express which it is required that ONE OR TWO OF THEM should lay on hands ALONG WITH HIM. THEIR act conveys

their individual concurrence as Presbyters of the diocess; his act conveys not only his own, but the UNITED AUTHORITY OF THE PRESBYTERY of his diocess; but this it does ONLY while he is recognised by them as their Bishop; so that, if he should abandon his diocess, and JOIN PARTY WITH ANTICHRIST, he no longer has, on this second ground, any power at all. But the COLLECTIVE PRESBYTERY may, so far as this second consideration is concerned, ACT IN ITS OWN RIGHT.

66

"Thus it would seem to follow that the present Bishops hold the same rank of internuntii, being, on the one hand, representatives of the apostolic authority, vested in their hands for the more united, orderly, and quiet government of the church ;"-(we would rather say, that it should be, in virtue of a scriptural principle, by the regulation of the Presbytery, the church approving ;)—" and, on the other hand, representatives of the collective Clergy. But in a STRUGGLE FOR LIFE, such as in various places Christianity has had to sustain, QUIET, ORDER, AND REGULARITY MAY REQUIRE TO BE BROKEN. It is disorderly and irregular in a regiment to disobey their Colonel; but it is their duty to do so when he is leading them over to the party of the enemy. The vital power of the church, and ESPECIALLY THE POWER TO TRANSMIT ORDERS, may not, then, depend solely and ultimately on a single individual; but it may be POSSIBLE FOR THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION TO BE CONTINUED IN THE LINE OF THE PRESBYTERS ALONE, though the church be thereby marred and mutilated, and a more clumsy and cumbrous machinery established for the primitive model." So Mr. Galloway may think as maintaining his view of Episcopacy: the upholders of a ministerial superintendence combined with the Presbytery, can see none of this marring and mutilating; and they are very sure-for they have long known its working-that the machinery has nothing

clumsy or cumbrous about it. They see it to be simple, they know it to be efficacious. Of course, after all this, Mr. Galloway must say something about schism; but the question would then have to be carried back to the times of “a struggle for life," as he calls it; and very melancholy would be the answer. He says, “I trust this view will not be considered as excusing the sin of abandoning the Bishop where there is no absolute necessity. The question of schism remains; life may be retained even where sin exists; and the admission of their vitality, as members of Christ, does not, therefore, acquit Presbyterians of error and of blame," &c.

It is not good to reason on figures, and Mr. Galloway here furnishes an instance. Life, physically considered, may co-exist with sin; but surely not spiritual life. We may even retort. It is a most serious question, Where is there most life? Where are the most efficacious services? We refer not to some occult influence, materially conveyed. Chateaubriand may speak of a dying man as "receiving the body of the Lord" by receiving the consecrated wafer; but we speak of the New-Testament salvation from the guilt, and misery, and power of sin. And is a non-episcopal ministry less "the power of God unto salvation?" On whose altars does the flame burn most brightly? Mere followers of Balaam, as Mr. Galloway would term them, may treat such questions lightly; but Mr. Galloway is of another opinion. We quote part of a note, (p. 87,) in which he seems to us virtually to surrender the point. He speaks of "the choice between the irregular orders of the original Lutheran and Reformed Churches, and the errors, impieties, and immoralities of the Romish communion ;" and says, "On the whole, is it not very much the question, whether we should choose to drink adulterated and poisonous water from a splendid and ancient aqueduct, or pure water of the fountain by a modern and temporary pipe? It is the truth which makes us free from Satan's thraldom. (John viii. 32.) It was to bear witness of the truth that Christ came. (xviii. 37.) It was as a vehicle of truth the church was constituted. Who can hesitate between the truth and the outward vehicle; between the water and the aqueduct ?

وو

Yes; it is the truth that is all-important. Where the living water is received, Christ is present. Mr. Wesley was raised up to recall attention to neglected truth; and had his voice been heard by the Church, its situation would now have been very different. He published his "Appeals " a century ago. A few only hearkened. After a while, evangelism gradually revived in the Church; but they who were evangelical, chose, however wellmeaningly, yet, as we think, most unhappily, to give all their strength to the exclusiveness of their opponents. What now, a century after that providential call, is the result? They obtained no support for their evangelism; but exclusiveness was (except in a few single, honourable cases) unanimously supported, and has now gained power and ascendancy. With individual exceptions, a Romanizing externalism is now the characteristic of the living, in opposition to the documentary, Church. There is the aqueduct; but where is the water? At all events, we have Mr. Galloway's authority for saying that it is for the water that the people are to inquire. They must go where truth is to be found; for that alone can feed and save them.

The importance of outward order, in its proper place, we have always readily acknowledged. We have often been impressed by the recollection that Providence, in the revival of religion, has borne testimony to this importance by selecting as instruments those who had been regularly