same thing is affirmed also by prelatical writers.1 But what is of more importance, it is, we apprehend, expressly declared by the apostle, who says that it was when he, (that is, Christ,) had ascended on high, he gave some to be apostles, by fully endowing them for their office. Eph. 4:11. The apostles, however, were previously employed, together with the sev enty, in a temporary and ordinary ministry, and went about the country of Judea, proclaiming the approaching establishment of the christian dispensation. It has also been shown, by Lord Barrington, in a very extensive examination of the scripture history, that after his conversion Paul labored in the character of a prophet or teacher for eight or nine years before he was called to be an apostle. During this time he was not recognised by the brethren, or the other apostles, as an apostle, nor even as a disciple; (Acts 9: 26;) neither did he preach to the heathen, but confined his labors to the Jews, and to the proselytes of the gate. And it was only about the year 43, that, in a revelation of Christ, made to him in the temple at Jerusalem, during his second visit, he received his commission to go as an apostle to the Gentiles, and those supernatural endowments he afterwards displayed. Then only was he called an apostle. Acts 13: 9. Then, for the first time, was he ordained and publicly recognised by the special appointment of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 13: 1, &c.) and then only did he commence his inspired writings.2 This is the opinion of Hooker and of Dr. Hales. And it is remarkable that while prophets are said to exhort, evangelists to preach, and others to teach, that the apostles alone are said to witness or testify.4

In the third place we remark, that the denial of this distinction, or the supposition, that without it the apostles are succeeded in their ministry, leads to many absurdities. If the apostles, as they were superior to, and distinguished from, presbyters, are to be ranked as an order of the christian ministry, having peculiar successors in the line of prelates, then is the whole theory of ministerial orders thrown into fathomless confusion. According to archbishop Potter, 'besides them there were at least two orders of fixed and stand

was betrayed, Christ did not ordain his apostles priests-let him be accursed.' 1. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. conc. 2.

1) See Burnet on the Thirty-Nine Art. p. 453. Page's ed. Faber's Diff. of Romanism, B. 2, ch. ii. p. 261.

2) See Lord Barrington's Theol.

Wks. vol. ii. Essay iii. p. 181 -264,

194.

3) Hooker, Eccl. Pol. B. vii. § 4. Hale's Analysis of Chron. vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 1083, and Townsend's N. T. vol. ii. p. 160.

4) Acts 11: 23, and 15: 22; ibid. 8, 5; 12, 35; 21, S, 18, 25; 13,1; 9, 20, 22, 29; 11, 26; 22, 18.

ing ministers, namely, bishops and presbyters, with another of deacons.'1 We have thus three orders besides the apostles, making in all four, and that, too, besides the order constituted by Christ, as the prototype of a prelatical hierarchy. But even this comes short of the beautiful gradations of the hierarchy, as drawn forth by the authoritative pencil of the admired and skilful Saravia. There is no question,' he tells us, but that the apostles held the first rank, evangelists the second, prophets the third, pastors and presbyters the fourth, teachers the last.' Here, then, are five standing orders, besides Christ, and deacons, which make the number seven. But then, 'pastors and presbyters,' he adds, 'were distinguished by the apostles into two orders,'3 which swells the number to eight. And this number, on the same principles of interpretation, might easily be multiplied to as many more, so that the ranks of the celestial hierarchy, in their shining orders of cherubim and seraphim, may hide their diminished heads before the innumerous trains of ministering spirits who crowd the gates of the earthly sanctuary.

In the fourth place we remark, that the apostles themselves seem carefully to distinguish between their authoritative character, as inspired apostles, and their ordinary character, as weak and fallible ministers of the word. Paul shall be our witness. In one place he says, 'I keep my body under, and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away.' So that, independently of the high privilege which he had as an apostle, he had to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, as a christian minister. Thus, also, he says, 'in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.' It is thus that he always distinguishes between himself and his apostleship. Thus, to take another illustration. In his inscription to the Epistle to the Romans, (ch. 1: 1,) he describes himself as Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle.' Here we have his apostolical character, as derived from Jesus Christ, by an immediate call. The apostle adds, 'separated to the gospel of God,' wherein he refers to his being set apart for the work of the gospel by the presbyters of Antioch, as is admitted by Dr. Bloomfield, a staunch prelatist, and as would appear from the use of the identical term employed in the account of that transaction.

1) Church Gov. p. 107, Am. ed. 2) On the Priesthood, pp. 57, 58. See also pp. 65, 67.

3) Ibid.

4) See Jordan's (of Oxford) Review of Tradition. Lond. 1840. p. 78. 5) See Crit. Digest, in loco, also Parkhurst in loco, and Bretschneider.

And thus also in the epistle to the Ephesians, among whom there had been placed presbyters or bishops, as fixed officers, it is declared that Christ gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, and some to be pastors and teachers,' (Eph. 4:11, 12.) The extraordinary gifts and offices necessary to plant the church, are here first expressed, and their design alleged to have been προς τον καταρτισμόν, ' to prepare the saints,' s egyor diaxovias, that is, 'for the duties of the fixed and permanent church, state, and ministry.' And that this is the meaning of the apostle, is evident, from what he adds, εις οικοδομήν του σώματος του χριστου, in order that the church of Christ, (his body,) might be established, fixed, and settled;' Mezo, &c., that is, these extraordinary gifts and offices continued to be necessary until the church had been established in this uniform, settled, and perfect form, under the ministry of its one, only, and simple order of 'pastors and teachers."1

'It is to be observed,' says Ayton, that the work of the ministry is here placed in the middle, between the two ends proposed, perfecting the saints, and edifying the body of Christ; thereby to point forth, that it was a mean, equally concerned in both these, and that it was by the continuance and faithful discharge thereof they were to be promoted. Now, the work of the ministry, being all that was to be continued till the end of time, makes it evident, that the extraordinary character of the apostles, prophets, and evangelists was to cease with themselves, and that nothing they were vested with was to remain, but what they made the investiture of, to pastors and teachers, which was the work of the ministry. They having acted the part that was laid upon them, by virtue of their respective missions, and extraordinary characters, in bringing in and making up the New-Testament state of the church, till its canon was completed, with a view to the perfecting of the saints, and edifying the body of Christ by the work of the ministry, which they labored in during their lives. All that was needful, was, to leave the churches planted with such officers as were to continue to the world's end; and from time to time to be set apart for the ministerial work, that the end proposed might be duly accomplished. And so, pastors and teachers are the office-bearers immediately joined to the ministerial work, to be continued in the church; and there is next to a full stop between them and

1) See Hoogeven p. 97, and Dr. Wilson on the Primitive Government of the Churches, pp. 277, 278. See also this view confirmed in Thorndike's

Prim. Govt. of the Ch. p. 98, ch. ix. See also Bloomfield's Crit. Digest, in loco.

2) Orig. Constit. of the Ch. p. 48.

evangelists, in the original copies, at least, in those which are before me.'

Thus also in 2 Cor. 11: 23, the apostle, in justification of his character as compared with the false teachers, asks, 'are they ministers of Christ?' He thus allows that they were reputed ministers of Christ, but that in this respect also he could show his superiority. And how? Does he assert that while they were only ministers he was an apostle? No, but he shows that, even in his ordinary character as a minister, he was on many accounts superior, as he goes on to enumerate. So also in 1 Tim. 2: 7, he says, 'whereunto I am ordained a preacher and an apostle,' thus distinguishing between himself, in his ordinary character as a preacher, and in his extraordinary character as an apostle. (See also 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1 : 11.

'It seemed,' says Milton, 'so far from the apostles1 to think much of as if hereby their dignity were impaired, that, as we may gather by those epistles of Peter and John, which are likely to be latest written, when the church grew to a settling like those heroic patricians of Rome, (if we may use such comparison,) hastening to lay down their dictatorship, they rejoiced to call themselves and to be as fellowelders among their brethren; knowing that their high office was but as the scaffolding of the church yet unbuilt, and would be but a troublesome disfigurement, so soon as the building was finished. But the lofty minds of an age or two after, such was their small discerning, thought it a poor indignity, that the high-reared government of the church should so on a sudden, as it seemed to them, squat into a presbytery.'

A fifth reason for this distinction, will be found in the usage of the early church. That it was universally recognised by the apostolic, primitive, and early churches, would appear from the acknowledged fact, that while they claimed a ministerial succession, they nevertheless entirely abstained from the use of the title apostle,' as designative of any existing ministers in the church. The strong presumption undoubtedly is, that this was done, not as was afterwards affirmed, when the prelatic theory had to be sustained, through modesty, but on the much better ground, that they believed the peculiar office and functions of the apostles to have ceased with the persons of the apostles themselves.2

We add, as a sixth reason for this distinction, the testi

1) Milton's Wks. vol. i. pp. 106, 107.

2) See Lect. on Apost. Succ. Lect. x. p. 237, &c.

mony of our opponents themselves. Bishops Bilson and Pearson,1 Honnieman, Hale, with Dr. Hammond, and others, will be found unequivocally to distinguish that ordinary power in which the apostles are succeeded, from that extraordinary character in which they had no successors. The 3 language of bishop Andrews is very strong.4 'In the

apostles (that we may come nearer yet) we find three capacities, as we may term them; first, as christians in general; second, as preachers, priests, or ministers more special; third, as those twelve persons, whom in strict propriety of speech we term the apostles.' And after showing that the commission was not given to them personally, he adds: 'It being then neither personal nor peculiar to them as apostles, nor again common to all as christians, it must needs be committed to them as ministers, priests, or preachers; and consequently to these that in that office and function do succeed them, to whom this commission is still continued. Neither are they that are ordained or instituted to that calling, ordained or instituted by any other words or verse than this, John 20:23.'

The apostles, therefore, are to be considered as both extraordinary and ordinary, both as apostles and as ministers of Christ. As apostles they were never ordained, but called by the immediate voice of Christ," while, as a minister, Paul, at least, was certainly set apart by the imposition of the hands of his brethren. As apostles too they could not delegate their office or its power. Neither could they appoint a successor to themselves, as apostles, and therefore Matthias and Paul were both consecrated to their office by an express revelation from heaven, and in fulfilment of prophecy." Nor will the extraordinary authority exercised by the apostles over other

1) On the Creed, Art. i, p. 16. 2) Bilson on Govt. of the Ch. ch. ix. p. 105. Honnieman's Survey of Naphtali, Part ii. pp. 191, 195, 196. Hall's Episc. by Divine Right, Part ii. § 3, and Henderson's Review and Consideration, p. 286. See also Hinds's Rise and Progress of Christ. vol. i. p. 149. Jeremy Taylor is very strong; 'in the extraordinary privileges of the apostles, they had no successors; therefore, of necessity, a successor must be constituted in the ordinary office of the apostolate.' Episc. asserted in Works, vol. vii.

3) See 2 Tim. 4: 9, and 5: 13,21; Titus 3: 12, and Henderson's Review and Considn. Edinb. 1706, pp. 216,219. 4) Serm. on Absol'n Fol. p. 59. Lond. 1635.

5) Potter on Ch. Govt. p. 264. Beveridge's Works, vol. ii. pp. 112, 115. Selden thinks Paul was ordained a scribe in the synagogue, and that he bore the same rank and character when a christian. Rev. G. Townsend in Lord Barrington's Works, vol. ii. p. 159, Note.

6) See Dr. Wilson, Primit. Govt. of the Ch. p. 11. See also Whitaker on, in Henderson's Review and Considn, pp. 306, 307.

7) It may, however, be doubted whether Matthias was really constituted an apostle of his election, it has been said. Now that was an official act, or it was not. If official, it was premature. The apostles were commanded to wait till they received the promise of the Father-till they were