EPISCOPACY 487 John" (Ibid. p. 231). There is no reason for supposing that this was the result of the deliberations of an apos tolic council, or that it was enforced by au authoritative decree. The doubtful and somewhat legendary tale of Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius, of the calling of such a council at Jerusalem after the fall of the city and the death of St James, even if it be conceded that at that late period any considerable number of the apostolic body were alive, and were within reach of such a summons, expressly limits its purpose to the appointment of Symeon, the son of Clopas, as a successor to St James. That this gathering had in view so momentous a step as the estab lishment of Episcopacy as the form of government for the church for all time is a mere hypothesis, unsupported by any ancient testimony or tradition. Neither have we evidence for any definite decree proceeding either from an apostolic council, or, if that be rejected as baseless, from St John s individual authority. In the words of Dr Lightfoot, u.s., p. 205, " The evident utility and even pressing need of such an office, sanctioned by the most venerated name in Christendom, would be sufficient to secure a wide though gradual reception. Such a reception, it is true, supposes a substantial harmony and freedom of intercourse among the churches which remained undisturbed by the troubles of the times ; but the silence of history is not at all un favourable to this supposition. In this way, during the historical blank which extends over half a century after the fall of Jerusalem, Episcopacy was matured, and the Catholic church consolidated." The opening epoch is the only portion of the history of Episcopacy over which any uncertainty hangs. After the commencement of the 2d century, wherever we hear of the existence of a local church we find it, without any excep tion, and with hardly any variety, under the government of a bishop, and that without any indication of there ever having been a time when it was otherwise. The existing bishop is usually spoken of as the successor of other bishops reaching in unbroken line to apostolic times. Episcopacy is everywhere uniformly established, and its claim to an unbroken descent from, the apostles is every where asserted, and nowhere called in question. In the words of Dr Arnold, no prejudiced champion of Episcopacy, "The beginning of the 2d century found the church under the government of bishops, many of whom derived their appointment from the apostles themselves at only one or two removes, that is to say, they had been chosen by men who had themselves been chosen by an apostle, or by persons such as Timotheus, in whom an apostle had entertained full confidence" (Fragment on the Church, p. 124). Irenreus, writing at the close of the 2d century, argues for the apostolical purity of the faith of the Church of Home from the unbroken chain by which it was connected with the apostles. " Linus was appointed by the apostles themselves ; Anacletus succeeded Linus ; Clemens, Ana- cletus ; after whom followed in regular succession Euaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Ilyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, down to Eleutherius (the bishop of his own clay), who holds the episcopal position twelfth in order from the apostles" (lib. iii. c. 3, 3). The challenge given by Tertullian, a little later, to the heretics of his day, to " produce the roll of their bishops running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that that first bishop of theirs shall be able to show for his ordainer or predecessor some one of the apostles, or of apostolic men" (De Prescript., c. 31), is equally convincing. In the following paragraph, where, after referring to the appointment of Polycarp at Smyrna by St John, and Clement at Rome by St Peter, he pro ceeds " This is the manner in which the apostolic church hand down their registers, and exhibit those whom, having been appointed to their episcopal seats by apostolic law." Catalogues of the bishops of almost all the earlier churches are in existence. These may contain some doubtful names ; but they may be accepted as satisfactory evidence of tho belief, in the age nearest to that which they refer, that, in the words of Hooker, "under them [the apostles], and l>y their appointment, this order began, which maketh many presbyters subject unto the regiment of some one bishop" (Eccl. Polit, vii. 10). Once established, the value, nay, the necessity, of the episcopal form of government secured its permanence. It was not only, as in its first beginnings may have been its chief object, a remedy against schisms, and a safeguard against heresies, but it was the outward symbol of the unity of the church, and one of the most effectual methods by which that unity was maintained. The individual bishop was the visible representative of the corporate life of the individuals making up a congregation. The maxim of St Cyprian, " Ecclesia est in Episcopo" (Gyp., iv. Ep. l>), was universally recognized. " They were the represen tatives of the church, and without them the church had no existence ; those were not the prayers of the church, that was not her communion which the bishop did not either preside at or sanction" (Arnold, u.s., p. 124). The bishop was regarded as the channel of divine grace, the bond of Christian brotherhood. Episcopacy, moreover, was not only the bond tying all the members of a church into one body, but also that which united the scattered churches into one organic whole. The collective episcopate formed the system of "joints and bands" by which the body of the catholic church was knit together. This idea has been well expressed by the present bishop of Edin burgh, Dr CottoriU " The episcopal office was the means of the confederation of the church, whether in the several provinces or throughout the world. The office was not something isolated the mere promotion of an individual to certain functions ; it was and is the result and the means of church federation, connecting first of all each generation with that which preceded, and then each bishop with the episcopal body, and through it with the whole church, the functions of the office being exercised in union with other members of the federation, from whom mission is received, and in obedience to its laws, and not according to the mere will of the individual. From these considerations it is obvious that Episcopacy and organic unity are entirely of the same essence (Charge to the Synod of the Diocese oj Edinburgh, 1877). The idea of Episcopacy thus set forth, as the unifying instrumentality in the church of Christ, is that which holds the prominent place in the estimate of the first Christian writer in whom we have any detailed reference to episcopal organization, St Ignatius of Antioch. In his eyes the bishop represents the church, and is the centre of unity to the body, a safeguard against disunion, and a security for the maintenance of discipline and the harmonious co-operation of its various constituents. With Irenseus the idea of the bishop as the centre of unity undergoes some modification. Heresy was the church s danger in his day, as intestine strife had been its danger in Ignatins s time. The unity of which Irenasus, like his later contemporary Tertullian, regards Episcopacy as the safeguard and guarantee is the unity of the faith. The one undying episcopate, with its direct descent from the apostles, was the assurance of the permanence of apostolic truth. The bishop, as the successor of the apostles, was the depositary of primitive truth, the inheritor of apostolic tradition. " If you wish to ascertain the doctrine of the apostles, you must apply to the church of the apostles." The views of the necessity of Episcopacy expressed by these early writers may seem to us sometimes overstrained, and their language exaggerated. But to them these exalted terms were most real. They were no more than the natural expression of their experience of the strength and safety derived from the organization which they most certainly believed to be the gift to the church of her Great
Head. Whatever divergencies of view there may be aa