thus early set apart in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. This interview, therefore, was not merely with the twelve, but with all the disciples of Christ; and was designed to comfort their sorrowing hearts, to inspirit their drooping faith, and to impart to them that peace they were previously led to expect. Having, therefore, repeated to them the assurance of his peace, Christ 'renewed and confirmed to them, their apostolic commission; sending them forth to declare his truth to the world, and to be his ambassadors and vicegerents.' 1 We would also remark, that the exclusive application of these words of Christ to prelates, is no less arbitrary, and a complete begging of the question, than the interpretation given to them by the Romanists, who allege, that as the Father sent Christ to offer sacrifice for sin, so did Christ send his priests to offer the sacrifice of the mass. Both these explanations, however, the prelatic and the Romish, are perfectly gratuitous. We remark, further, that the application of these words to popes, prelates, or to any christian ministers whatsoever, in their full literal wording, so as to convey the idea that they have the same power conveyed to them by Christ, which was conveyed to Christ by God, is gross impiety, and blasphemous presumption. The supposition is impossible in the very nature of things. The human nature of Christ never existed as a distinct person. His mediatorial power was not committed to the human nature of Christ, but to the human and divine natures as together constituting one person. It was as a divine person, and not merely as human, Christ had all power given to Him, and was able to forgive sins and to exercise all other authority. It was, therefore, as God and man in one person the Father sent the Son. The persons here addressed, then, be they who they may, could not be sent with the same authority or in the same manner as Christ was sent by God. The supposition lands us in open heresy or blasphemy, and the words therefore must be understood as we have explained them, as referring only to the fact, that as Christ was sent by the Father and authorized by Him, so were they and all true ministers sent by Christ, and authorized by Him to preach his gospel, and to conduct the affairs of his kingdom. But it is added, that 'when Christ had said this, he breathed on them, and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost.' These words, however, can only be understood prophetically. As Christ 1) Scott, ibid. now breathed upon them, so certainly were they to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, which should come upon them as the sound of a mighty rushing wind. So it is expressed by Luke, who says, 'behold I send the promise of my Father upon you, (not, indeed, at this time, but before long and most certainly,) tarry ye, therefore, in the city of Jerusalem, until ye are endowed with this power from on high.'1 He also informs us, that our Saviour, just before his ascension, ordered them 'not to depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. The apostle John, also, declares the same truth, when he records our Saviour's discourse at Capernaum; 'but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe in him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.' And thus we are further informed, 'that Christ being exalted at the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye see and hear,' and by which, for the first time, they were empowered to act as his inspired apostles. And hence it will be ob served, that the promise here given is so worded, as to be fully comprehended in that fulfilment. Neither is any gener al promise annexed, such as forms so conspicuous a feature in the great commission; as if to show most clearly, that the latter alone was to be looked upon as the full, final, and perpetual commission of the ministry, for which Christ's privileged disciples were now prepared. Thus when Christ addressed Peter in the name of all the apostles, saying, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' he says, 'not I now give, but I wILL give.' Now that future commission, was the final commission which was given in His last conversation with them upon earth. 6 5 § 2. The commissions, recorded in the gospels of Matthew and of John, not different. It has also been attempted to be shown, that the commissions, as recorded by Matthew and by John, are different, the latter containing in it the delegation of the powers of gov 1) Luke, 24: 49. 2) Acts, 1: 4, 5, 8. 4) Acts, 2:33, and 5: 30-30. See Lord Barrington's Theol. Wks. vol. i. pp. 15, 16, 137, 207, and vol. ii. P. 10. 5) See Barrington's Theol. Wks. ii. pp. 11. 12, 43, 69, 92. Also Neander's Hist. of the Plant. of the Chr. Ch. by the Ap. vol. i. pp. 3, 8, &c. 6) So speaks bishop Burgess in his Tracts on Origin and Indep. of the Anc. Brit. Ch. p. 13. Lond. 1815. ernment or jurisdiction, in the words, 'As my Father hath sent me even so send I you.' But to this it may be replied, that as the gospel by Matthew was originally designed for a different class of christians than that of the apostle John, and was in circulation long before it, whatever ministers were appointed in their churches must have been set apart by virtue of this commission, as recorded by Matthew. If, then, the other contains provision for a different order of ministers, there must have existed different forms of polity under apostolic sanction. Besides, this theory, as advanced by Mr. Leaming and others, is suicidal and absurd. It is suicidal, for, while this passage does speak of the Father sending Christ, and of Christ sending those whom he addressed, it does not say a word about their sending any one else, or of their having any authority to do so. And if it is urged, that this power must be implied, because necessary, this we grant; but then this is as perfectly true of the promise given in Matthew, which is much more full and explicit, and must, on the same principle, be allowed to convey, in perpetuity, to all acting under that commission, its plenary powers; and since this was avowedly given, to the seventy, or some of them, as well as to the twelve, it necessarily conveys to presbyters the whole powers of the ministerial office. This theory is also absurd, since it supposes the apostles to have received two separate commissions, of different import and authority, and that too after they had gone through the three gradations of ministerial rank, and were, as prelatists teach, already prelates. On this ground we must believe, that they were now consecrated arch-prelates, and afterwards popes. This absurdity will further appear from hence, that the commission in John, which contains, as is said, the highest authority,1 was given, in the order of time, before the other, which nevertheless conveys only a subordinate authority, and thus, according to this theory, the twelve, after having been ordained prelates, were again commissioned, first, as bishops, and then, to consummate their episcopal ascent, as presbyters. So that, after all, according to this view, the presbyterate is the highest order in the church, and the episcopate an inferior and subordinate one. This promise, therefore, must be regarded as synonymous with that contained in the general commission, or as specially designed to prepare the minds of the disciples for its reception, and to end with such an application. It was thus 1) See Paley's Wks. vol. vi. p. 91. intended to sustain their faith, hope, and courage, by the renewal of their apostolic appointment, and the present bestowment of a divine blessing; and to assure them of the certain fulfilment of the promise, that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, should yet be given to them, to guide them into all truth, and to fit and prepare them for their high and holy calling. It is, therefore, to be considered as addressed to the apostles, not exclusively, though emphatically; but to them, in the name of, and as representing, the ministers of the gospel, to the end of the world. Such an interpretation alone can save us from inextricable confusion and palpable absurdity. Nor does it involve any real difficulty, since it will be our object to show, that, as his ambassadors, every true minister represents Christ in his prophetical, priestly, and kingly office, in which he was sent forth by God; and are by Him commissioned to teach, to rule, and to preside over the worship and ordinances of his church, and to administer its laws in his name, by his authority, and sustained by his powerful authentication of their acts. 1 §3. The final commission delivered by Christ is the true and only charter of the christian ministry and church. We are to look, therefore, to the final commission, delivered by our ascending Lord, as the complete and permanent charter of the ministry. For, whatever application be given to the promise already considered; inasmuch as it is blasphemous to suppose any human being can be as absolutely empowered as Christ was by the Father, which the words literally might be made to declare, the actual powers to be intrusted to the permanent ministers, can only be ascertained from this formal charter. All the power, authority, and jurisdiction vested in the ministry, is conveyed to them by this commission. We have here the supreme law of Christ's house, as to the character and functions of its officers. So that, whatever power or order is claimed by any pretended successors of the apostles, not sanctioned by this charter, and any attempt to found such claims upon the authority of Christ, is a gross usurpation, which every christian man is bound to disown and to resist. Every such imposition is 1) Mr. Benson, in his Disc. on the Power of the Ministry, has very ably presented an argument to show, that the words imply inspiration — and are applied exclusively to the apostles, and cannot possibly apply to any minister who does not possess such supernatural gifts. See Disc. II. on this text, p. 26, &c. 2) See Dr. Hawkins on the Apost. Succ. p. 18. null and void, and all efforts to constrain others to obedience to it, is a treasonable act of daring rebellion against the supremacy of Christ. Go and make disciples of all nations is the first foundation of apostolic ordinations.'1 In this commission the departing Head and Counsellor of his church, having finished his own ministry, and laid the foundations of the church, transfers to others the duty of carrying it on in His name, by His authority, and through His ever-living agency and presence. It will be found, therefore, summarily, to comprehend the laws and institutes of the christian church. After asserting his own omnipotence and the plenitude of his power and authority, in consequence of which he had the authority and right to commission his ministers to convert, baptize, and instruct the world, Christ here lays down, first, the principle of increase, or the law by which the propagation of the truth, and the increase and perpetuity of the church, should be secured, and this is by the ministry of men;-'go ye, therefore, and teach all nations.' Christ here prescribes, secondly, the law of admission or initiation, by which, when thus indoctrinated and prepared, men should be received as members, into the church, and this is by baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Thirdly, we have here the law of discipline, by which, when thus initiated, the members of the christian church should be instructed and governed, 'teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' And, fourthly, we have in this commission the motive, or encouragement, to perseverance in these christian efforts, and this is the assurance of Christ's abiding presence and 1) See Ogilby on Lay Baptism, N. Y. 1842. pp. 20, 22. Dr. Bowden, in Wks. on Episcopacy, vol. ii. p. 142. Dr. Cooke, in ibid, vol. ii. p. 202. Bishop Croft's True State of the Church, in Scott's Coll. of Tracts, vol. vii. p. 300. Hinds's Rise and Progress of Christ. vol. i. p. 149. Potter on Ch. Govt. Daubeny's Guide to the Church, vol. ii. p. 261. Lord Barrington's Wks. vol. ii. p. 13, &c. and p. 15, § 4. The Methodist Mag. and Quart. Rev. July, 1831, pp. 325, 326. Bridge's Christian Ministry, part iv. ch. i. Scriptural Grounds of Union, by Prof. Scholefield of Cambridge, p. 23. Bp. Sanderson's Div. Right of the Episcop. in Angl. Fathers, vol. i. p. 312, and bishop Sparrow, in do. p. 334. Benson's Disc. on the Power of the Ministry, Disc. II. pp. 31, 32. Bishop Burgess' 'Now we had always considered, says the Churchman's Monthly Rev. that ministers received their commission as delegated by our Divine Head, (John 20: 22,) and therefore that they were representatives, not of the Church, but of Christ, and that we were 'so to account of them as ministers of Christ:' (1 Cor. 4: 1) in labor, indeed, the servants of the Church, but in authority, 'ambassadors for Christ. (1 Cor. 4: 5; 5: 20.) We need scarcely remind our clerical readers, that this was their ordination commission.' |