jealousy against the priesthood by the blossoming rod of Aaron laid up in the ark of God. In parallel-wise the Apostles, foreseeing the jealousies which should arise about ministerial office (ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς), did not merely, as has been said, constitute bishops and deacons, but afterwards also made provision, in case of their decease, for a continuous succession of ministerial office. Those, then, who have once been duly constituted ministers, either by Apostles, or by other faithful men after them, with the consent of the whole Church, can never justly be deposed from the ministry which they have so long and blamelessly exercised. Such deposition of men who without scandal or irreverence have exercised the presbyteral office, and offered the gifts of the Church, would involve the Church in grave sin. Such in brief paraphrase is the substance of what is urged in these seven chapters. Now however much it may be questioned whether St. Clement's letter bears witness for or against the presence of episcopacy in Rome or in Corinth, or in both; I must submit that it would be difficult to find a stronger assertion than this, of the principle that ministerial office is an outward and orderly institution, dependent for its validity upon transmission, continuous and authorized, from the Apostles, whose own commission was direct from Jesus Christ.

Whether bishops, priests, and deacons are or are

1 The paraphrase, as given above, is not greatly affected by the uncertainty of the word жIvoμýν (?). Canon Gore translates it gave an additional injunction,' adding, with a query, or 'established a supervision.' Bishop Lightfoot adopts the reading μový, and translates have given permanence to the office.' There is no doubt that Bishop Lightfoot's view of the phrase brings it into singularly exact accord with the context and its argument. The point in that case emphasized by the sentence would be that they provided permanence (cf. èriμovos at the end of ch. 46) by means of succession. Nothing then could be more apt than the expression, just at that point, of the word permanence. But of course, even if it be unexpressed, the idea of permanence is implied in provision made for transmission of succession by the prescience of Apostles. [It has been pointed out to me that the Latin version discovered by Don Morin, with its 'legem dederunt,' is probably decisive in favour of emɩvoμýv. See the Anecdota Maredsolana, 1894.]

not scriptural or exclusive orders of ministry, is on its own grounds fair matter for argument; but antecedently to any such argument, I must submit that the principle. in abstract form-that ministerial authority depends upon continuous transmission from the Apostles, through those to whom the Apostles transmitted the power to transmit-must be recognized as being, from the time of St. Clement onwards, a principle implanted in the consciousness of the Christian Church. When it is remembered in what position St. Clement stood, and with what tone and claim of authoritative remonstrance he wrote, as the 'persona' of the Church of Rome, to the Church of Corinth; and again to what date he and his writing belong, he himself in greater or less degree a companion of Apostles, and his letter written as early as the dying years of the first century, very little after -if after-the close of the life of St. John1, the significance of this exceedingly strong assertion of the principle of apostolic succession in this earliest of authoritative post-apostolic writings becomes overwhelming indeed. Not Ignatius himself is a stronger witness to 'apostolic succession' than is the Church of Rome in the person of St. Clement.

After what has been said, it will be evident that (to put this matter at the lowest) it becomes at least a question of crucial importance to determine whether Christian ministry does or does not depend upon such a continuity of devolution from Apostles as St. Clement describes. Must true ministerial 'character' be in all cases conferred from above? or may it sometimes, and with equal validity, be evolved from below? Is uninterrupted transmission from those who had the power to transmit a real essential? or can the Church originate, at any point, a new ministry

1 The limits of the possible variation of date are not very wide. The year actually fixed by Bishop Lightfoot (and Dr. Salmon) is A.D. 96. Bishop Westcott is expressly of opinion that St. Clement's letter was written and sent while the Apostle St. John was still living at Ephesus. [Speaker's Commentary, Introd. to St. John, p. xxix.]

whose commission of authority should exceed or transcend what had been ministerially received? It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this question, and of the answer which is to be made to it.

Now, strange to say, it is one of the principal complaints against Bishop Lightfoot's famous essay, that he appears to ignore this question altogether. He never really answers it: he never raises it: he shows no consciousness that there is any importance in it: it never presents itself to his mind at all. That he does not intend to contradict the principle of St. Clement might possibly be inferred from the very ambiguity of the statements in the essay itself, and still more from the Bishop's repudiation of views about his own meaning which he found to be current. But not even in demurring to mistaken views of his meaning does he ever put his finger upon our present point, or express his own judgment about it. And meanwhile there are in the essay not a few statements which no one who had the question before his mind at all could possibly have made, unless it were with the purpose, which appears not to be the Bishop's purpose, of controverting the principle. Thus: 'The episcopate properly so-called would seem to have been developed from the subordinate office. In other words, the episcopate was formed not out of the apostolic order by localization but out of the presbyteral by elevation. If in some passages St. James is named by himself, in others he is omitted and the presbyters alone are mentioned. From this it may be inferred that though holding a position superior to the rest, he was still considered as a member of the presbytery; that he was in fact the head or president of the college'.' 'Though remaining a member of the presbyteral council, he was singled out from the rest and placed in a position of superior responsibility' St. Clement 'was rather the chief of the presbyters than the chief over the presbyters.' 'Even as late as the close of the second century the bishop 3 p. 205. 4 V p. 219.

1 p. 194.

2 p. 195.

of Alexandria was regarded as distinct and yet not distinct from the presbytery. The bishop, though set over the presbyters, was still (after the lapse of centuries) regarded as in some sense one of them?' 'In the investigation just concluded I have endeavoured to trace the changes in the relative position of the first and second orders of the ministry, by which the power was gradually concentrated in the hands of the former. Such a development involves no new principle and must be regarded chiefly in its practical bearings. It is plainly competent for the Church at any given time to entrust a particular office with larger powers, as the emergency may require 3.'

These passages are not quoted as necessarily erroneous (though the first and the last of them seem to approach so near to a contradiction of the principle of 'apostolic succession' that they could certainly not have been expressed in this way by any one who thought that it represented a truth of the least importance in the Church), but rather to illustrate the absence of the particular question from Bishop Lightfoot's mind. We may set against them if we will other passages, from the essay and elsewhere, which seem to carry us far in the opposite direction: such as, for example, these three: 'If the preceding investigation be substantially correct, the threefold ministry can be traced to apostolic direction; and short of an express statement we can possess no better assurance of a Divine appointment, or at least a Divine sanction .... The result has been a confirmation of the statement in the English Ordinal: “It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons 5." . . . We cannot afford to sacrifice any portion of the faith once delivered to the saints; we cannot surrender for any immediate advantages the threefold ministry which we have inherited from 1 p. 224. 9 p. 226. 3 p. 242• Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, p. 243

⚫ p. 265.

apostolic times, and which is the historic backbone of the Church. But it will be observed that in the passages on this side, as in those on the other, the principle in the form in which we found it practically in St. Clement is never really raised or touched at all.

Even the statement that the episcopate was 'not formed out of the apostolic order by localization' may mean practically little more than that the office of the bishop was never wholly identical with that of the Apostles. Bishop Lightfoot, in denying this identity, almost seems to think that he is denying the current sense of "apostolic succession 2'; but in truth it may be doubted whether any of those who maintain succession would thereby intend identity 3. The correlative statement that the episcopate was formed out of the presbyteral order by elevation' may be perfectly true, but does not necessarily affect the matter at all. The really crucial question is untouched by these words. It would still have to be asked 'formed by whom?' and 'on whose authority?' It may be urged that what Bishop Lightfoot says about the competence of the Church at any time to entrust a particular office with larger powers' shows that according to his view the episcopal authority was, in principle, rather originated by the general authority of the Church, than authoritatively devolved by the Apostles; and probably the words would, in strictness, contain this conclusion. And yet, upon the whole of the passages, it is greatly to be doubted whether this was in fact the Bishop's meaning; and it may certainly be said that, if he desired to

1 Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, p. 246; so also on p. 244.

2 'It is not therefore to the Apostle that we must look for the prototype of the Bishop. How far indeed and in what sense the Bishop may be called a successor of the Apostles, will be a proper subject for consideration; but the succession at least does not consist in an identity of office,' p. 194.

3 Both Dr. Liddon and Canon Gore make reference to the passage in which Bishop Pearson distinguishes, in the apostolic office and authority, the temporary and extra-ordinary' from the ordinary and permanent';— the former expiring with the Apostles, the latter perpetuated in the Episcopate. See The Church and the Ministry, p. 70, note 1.