high church claims, which confine the power of jurisdiction to the bishops alone. Besides, bearing rule in the Church, is also here represented as a less honorable employment than preaching, or labouring in word and doctrine.

(3.) The Scriptures represent presbyters as empowered to ordain, and as actually exercising that power.

There are three instances in which this power seems to be exercised in ordination, or in a separation to the ministry, equal to an ordination. The first case is the imposition of hands on Paul and Barnabas by Simeon Niger, Lucius, and Manaen, prophets and teachers. (Acts xiii.)

The next instance is that of Timothy, (1 Tim. iv, 14; 2 Tim. i, 6,) by Paul and the presbytery.

The third instance is that of Paul and Barnabas, who ordained elders in every Church throughout Lystra, Iconium, &c.; Acts xiv. See Miller on this topic, p. 29-36.

8. As Christ gave but one commission for the Gospel ministry, this office is properly one.

The commission was originally given to one order of ministers; viz., the eleven apostles. (Matt. xxviii, 18-20; John xx, 21-23.) This commission embraces the highest and fullest ecclesiastical power that has been, is, or can be possessed by any of the ministers of Christ. It conveys directly a right to preach, to administer sacraments, and by inference, to ordain other men to the work of the ministry. This commission did not expire with the apostles, but is directed equally to their successors in all ages. But who are their successors? Undoubtedly all those who are authorized to perform the functions which the commission authorizes, that is, to preach, and to administer the sacraments. Every minister of the Gospel, therefore, who has these powers, is a successor of the apostles, is authorized by this commission, and stands on a footing of official equality with those to whom it was originally delivered, so far as their office was ordinary or perpetual. It is remarkable, that in this commission, preaching the word and administering the sacraments, are the most prominent and important duties of the Christian ministry. The power of ordaining others is not mentioned; and we infer only that it is included because the minister's office is to continue to the end of the world. We must therefore infer that all who have a right to preach and administer sacraments, have a right to take a part in ordaining; because it is absurd to suppose that the former functions, containing the burden of the commission, should belong to a lower grade of clergy, while the latter, which is included by way of inference, is reserved for a higher order. Those who possess the most distinguished powers conveyed by the commission, must possess the whole.

There is no way of evading the force of this argument, but by supposing that the ministerial powers conveyed by this commission were afterward divided; and that while some retained the whole, others were invested with a part of these powers. On the merits of this, we will not now pretend precisely to determine; although we will state, that the principal error connected with this matter, is the assumption that the mere imposition of hands is every thing in ordination, and that one or two persons are officially concerned in the

business; whereas several persons, or even grades of persons are concerned, and other rites are as important as imposition of hands, which was used only in some cases, and in others not at all. An eligible person must first be fixed on, as is clear from the qualifications required of deacons and elders. The private members of the Church are first to move the candidate toward ordination to the ministry, as is plain from the case of the seven deacons,-from the manner of electing an apostle in the place of Judas,-from that scrutiny implied by Paul's instructions, requiring the candidate to be of good report, and last of all, from the general usage, (of which some shadow yet remains,) of accounting those only eligible to the ministerial office who received the approval of the Churches. Next to the private Church members, the body of ministers are to have a voice. And the mere act of ordination by imposition of hands was sometimes omitted; when used, it was performed mostly or altogether by more than one person, and these, too, sometimes of a grade inferior to those whom they thus set apart by public authority. But this point can only be touched here. A larger space at a future time will be devoted to its discussion. We will only now say, that the superstitious and punctilious particularity with which mere imposition of hands has been observed, argues a great want of the substantial integral parts of ordination among those who so warmly contend for this rite, and lay so much stress upon it.

9. Before we proceed farther, it may be pertinent to inquire whether the Christian ministry be formed on the model of the Jewish priesthood. It is contended, "That as there were in the temple service a high priest, priest, and Levites, so there should be bishops, priests, and deacons, in the New Testament Church."

To this allegation we reply, that Scripture does not support this argument; but, on the other hand, contradicts and destroys it. The Jewish priesthood, as such, was a typical and temporary institution, which had both its accomplishment and termination in Christ. (See Heb. vii.-x.) For since the great sacrifice was offered up once for all, Christ himself is the great High Priest of our profession; it is profane to represent any human officer in the Christian Church as standing in his place. There was, however, an intimate connection between the two dispensations, and between the ministers of the one, and those of the other. But the analogy, as contended for above, between bishops and high priests, has no scriptural support. The words priest and priesthood, in the New Testament, are never applied to the Christian Church. For though the word priest is a corruption of the word presbyter, this is a modern use and derivation of the word priest, and originated since the canon of Scripture was closed. In the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, the name given to priest, is expressed by a word, which in the Septuagint is always rendered 'Iɛpeus, Hiereus, i. e., a consecrated person. Now this word is never used in the New Testament to designate any description of Christian ministers. Accordingly the writers of the New Testament, when referring to the Jewish economy, call their ministers priests, and their office the priesthood; while they uniformly apply to the ministers of the Christian Church the names elders, bishops, deacons, &c.

If the Levitical priesthood be the model for the Christian ministry,

it will then follow, that as there was one high priest over the Jewish Church, so there must be one bishop over the Christian Church. Consequently we must have a pope, as the vicar of Jesus Christ, in the place of diocesan episcopacy. Indeed, the whole argument belongs to the Roman Catholics, and they only can use it with any show of reason. The argument, as a mere sophism, may serve the cause of popery, but cannot sustain that kind of episcopacy which prevails in the Church of England, and in the Protestant Episcopal Church in America.

10. It has been on the one hand maintained, and on the other hand denied, that the Christian Church was founded after the model of the Jewish synagogue.

The

Perhaps, in this matter, as in many others, the truth lies nearer the middle than in the opinions of those who maintain the extreme sentiments. That the Christian Church was formed, to some extent, after the model of the synagogue, there seems to be sufficient evidence. The synagogue worship was that part of the Old Testament Church, which, like the decalogue, was moral and spiritual, and therefore, in its leading characters proper to be adopted under any dispensation. Accordingly Christ attended and taught in them; and the apostles and other Christian ministers did the same. place where Christians met, is once called synagogue, (James ii, 2.) And the names teacher, elder, overseer, minister or deacon, angel or messenger, are borrowed from the synagogue. The name temple is never applied to a place of Christian worship. And the names of priest and Levite are never applied to Christian ministers. In short, there is a constant and studied avoidance of temple names and offices, and an adoption of synagogue terms and offices, in the Christian Church. The great reason against innovating by the introduction of the temple service names, is, not because the names are in no sense applicable, (that is not pretended,) but because, first, they are unnecessary; secondly, their former application must unavoidably create misapprehensions concerning the nature of an evangelical ministry; and thirdly, because the inspired penmen never did apply to it those names. Indeed, the name, the mode of worship, the titles of the officers, their characters, duties, and powers, their mode of appointment, of the Christian Church, bear a strong resemblance to the synagogue organization. Our limits, however, do not now allow us to enlarge. (See Miller, p. 36–44, and 277–284. Bowen, p. 320. Campbell, sub voce; synagogue, in the index.)

11. Many who have been convinced that bishops and elders were not two orders according to the views obtained from the New Testament, have yet maintained that the origin of modern episcopacy, is found in the apostolate itself. And here we may inquire whether this was one of those extraordinary offices which was in its nature temporary, and did not admit of succession. The apostles may be considered in a twofold view, viz., either in their general character as preachers of the Gospel and administrators of the sacraments; or in what is implied in their special character of apostles of Jesus Christ. In the first view, they are the predecessors of all who, to the end of the world, shall preach the same Gospel and administer the sacraments, whether they are called bishops, priests, elders, presbyters, preachers, ministers, or deacons. Now it is

asserted, that not in their general character as preachers of the Gospel, but in their special functions as apostles, modern diocesan bishops are their proper successors, presbyters and deacons being the successors only of those who were, in the beginning, ordained by the apostles. But that the apostles had no successors in their special character as apostles, we contend, for the following reasons: (1.) It was necessary to constitute an apostle, that he should have been one who had seen Christ in the flesh, after his resurrection, in order to be a witness of this great event, the foundation of the Christian faith. St. Peter makes this a necessary qualification for an apostle, when one was about to be chosen in the place of Judas : "Wherefore of those men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning at the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." (Acts i, 21, 22.) The same requisition for an apostle is frequently spoken of in several places in the Acts of the Apostles, (Acts ii, 32; and iii, 15; and v, 32; and x, 41; and xiii, 31.) St. Paul, also, claims this mark of an apostle : Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. ix, 1.) "And last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (1 Cor. xv, 8.) And the design of Christ's appearing to him was, 'to make him a minister and a witness of those things which he had seen." (Acts xxvi, 16.) The office of apostle then, in this respect, could not have existed after that generation had passed away.

(2.) The apostles received their commission immediately from Christ, and not through any human ordination or appointment. The first twelve were appointed by Christ himself, and St. Paul is careful to show that he got his authority from the same source. He observes, "Paul, an apostle, not of man, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father." (Gal. i, 1.) And again, (ver. 11, 12,) "But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

(3.) The apostles also possessed the power of conferring miraculous gifts by the imposition of their hands. This the apostles exercised to a great extent; and Paul claims it in his epistle to the Corinthians in proof of his apostleship: "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." (2 Cor. xii, 12.)

(4.) They were Divinely inspired and instructed in all the doctrines of Christianity. It is true, there were others beside them who were inspired; but then this gift has ceased, so that none claim to succeed them in its possession.

(5.) Their mission was of a different kind from that of any ordinary pastor or preacher. They were to "go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature," to Jews and Gentiles. It is true, the apostles may be called bishops or overseers; yet not in the same sense in which others may be so called, whether ancient or modern. They were universal bishops, having the whole earth for their charge, and they were all colleagues one of another. As far as they can have successors, in exact strictness, they must be

found among missionaries, who preached Christ where he was not before preached. Indeed, both the words are of the same import; as the word missionary, through the French, may be traced to mitto, to send, as the word anоσтоhos, apostle, comes from ɑñoσтɛλλw, to send or send forth. Whatever name the person may go by who is sent to uncultivated fields, and who imitates apostolic example in preaching the Gospel, is properly the apostolic man. But in the sense in which the apostles proper are so denominated, it is nothing less than the height of arrogance for any to claim to be their

successors.

St. Chrysostom says, "The apostles were constituted of God rulers; not each over a separate nation or city, but all were intrusted with the world in common." To have limited themselves to any thing less than the whole world, would have been disobedience to the commission. If, through age or infirmities, any of them were confined to one place, that place might naturally fall under their inspection. And even this, if it did happen, is all that gave rise to the tradition, (for there is no historical evidence that it was so,) that any of them were bishops or pastors of particular Churches. And in some instances, the tradition has originated from the circumstance that the first pastors in such a Church were appointed by such an apostle.

(6.) On the death of an apostle no one was ever substituted in his room. When the original college was extinct, the title became extinct with it. The election of Matthias in the room of Judas, is no exception, as it was previous to their entering on their charge. It was Christ's intention that twelve missionaries of those who had attended his ministry on earth should be employed as ocular witnesses of his resurrection, as appears from the passage already quoted, (Acts i, 22, 23.) But afterward, when James, the brother of John, was put to death, there is no mention made of a successor. Nor does the admission of Paul and Barnabas to the apostleship form any exception from what has been advanced; for they were introduced, not as successors to any one, but were especially called by the Holy Spirit, as apostles, particularly to the Gentiles. And in them also were found suitable qualifications for the apostolate.

Upon the whole, we may safely conclude that the apostles, in their special character as persons who had an immediate call from Christ himself, were eye witnesses of his resurrection, possessed the power of conferring spiritual gifts, were Divinely inspired with the knowledge of all truth, were commissioned to go with plenary powers throughout the world, and who, at their death, had no proper successors, either in name or office. Therefore, neither diocesan bishops, nor any other bishops, nor any class of clergy whatever, constituted an order, or does now constitute an order that can properly be such a one as the apostolate was.

The apostles, however, did exercise a general authoritative superintendency over the universal Church, ordering the conduct of ministers and the affairs of Churches. In the infancy of the Church this was necessary. Being under the immediate guidance of the Holy Ghost, they were to the primitive Church what the New Testament is to us. But it does not follow that they must have successors in the extensive jurisdiction which they undoubtedly