tianity, have been introduced. Of this we shall have melancholy illustration, in the final suppression, by prelatic and papal fraud, and tyranny, of the primitive, scriptual, and presbyterian church of Scotland. In the mean time, let us feel, that it is our great and signal privilege to have received, together with apostolic truth, the very structure of apostolic order. We have no church formed by ecclesiastical skill-no humanly devised ministry-but that church and ministry begun by Christ, and continued, expanded, and completed by his apostles. Our system is not only right and proper, but also scriptural and divine, and therefore efficacious, because it is of Christ's institution and promise. And while we may rejoice in believing that other churches differing from ours are blessed of God, we may be very sure that ours is a church moulded and fashioned after his own pattern.

3. The character of the church and its ministry, during our Lord's continuance with it, was presbyterian and not prelatical.

Let us now proceed to inquire, whether this system of prelacy, as founded upon the assumption of three essentially distinct orders of ministers, was instituted by Christ during the period in which he ministered as the teacher sent from God. This is affirmed by prelatists, and this we deny.

Since the whole question is involved in the exclusive claims of the order of prelates as distinct from and superior to that of presbyters and deacons, it will be necessary to understand what are the peculiar powers or prerogatives attributed to this highest order. We shall then be able more satisfactorily to determine the character and office of the several functionaries spoken of throughout the New Testament. For as it is on all hands admitted, that mere variety of names does not prove a variety of orders, this can be ascertained only by the nature of the functions with which such names are connected.

The chief powers believed to be resident in prelates, as the first order of the christian ministry, are described by archbishop Potter to be, preaching, praying, baptizing, administering the Lord's supper, ordaining ministers, and exercising

1) Hetherington's Hist. of Ch. of Scotl. p. 17.

2) See Lectures on Apost. Suc. Lect. vi. p. 148. Additional Note.

spiritual jurisdiction.1 Similar are the views of bishop Bilson, bishop Taylor,2 Dr. Chandler, and Dr. Bowden.*

Hadrian Saravia, in explanation of the ordinary functions of an apostle, as described by St. Paul in the words 'dispensation of the mysteries of God,' (1 Cor. 4:1,) more logically, and we think accurately, arranges them, under three divisionsfirst, the preaching of the gospel; secondly, the administration of the sacraments; thirdly, authority for governing the church. To the third part,' he adds, 'further pertains the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and of binding and loosing on earth what shall be bound and loosed in heaven; and this has two subdivisions, one the ordination of ministers, the other censorship of manners.'5

Such, then, being the self-acknowledged powers claimed for prelates, we proceed to inquire, whether these functions were conferred by our Lord Jesus Christ upon any one class of men, to be exercised by them over two inferior orders? The Rev. T. Hartwell Horne, in enumerating the functions of prelates, identifies their office with such a superintendency, making it to consist in these four things; '1, in ordaining presbyters and deacons; 2, in superintending the doctrine of these ministers; 3, in superintending their conduct; 4, in regulating those matters in the church not settled by divine authority." If, then, there were such prelates during our Lord's ministry, we may demand some proof of their commission and authority. Where are these orders enumerated in the record of our Saviour's life? Where do we find their respective commissions? Where the distinct enumeration of their several func

1) On Ch. Govt. ch. v. To this might be added, if it could be regarded as even an imaginary power or ascertained ordinance, the power of confirmation.

2) Yet the apostles' charge to teach, baptize, and administer the Lord's supper, to bind and loose sinners in heaven and in earth, to impose hands for the ordaining of pastors and elders, these parts of the apostolic function and charge are not decayed, and cannot be wanted in the church of God. There must either be no church, or else these must remain; for without these no church can continue.'* See also Sinclair's Vind. of the Episc. Succ. pp. 16, 18. 3) The

powers especially dis

*Bishop Bilson, Perp. Govt. of Chr. Ch. ch. ix. p. 105.

tinctive of a prelate, are, according to Dr. Chandler, the powers of government, ordination, and confirmation.'t

4) Bowden, 1. Works on Episcop. vol. ii. p. 140.

5) Of the priesthood, pp. 52, 53, ch. 1. See also Thorndike's Prim. Govt. of the Ch. Lond. ed. 1840, pp. 90, 99, 118, 148, &c. Bishop Sanderson enumerates what is peculiar to bishops under ordination and managing the keys. See Div. Right of the Episcopate in Anglican Fathers, vol. i. pp. 305, 307.

6) See these points fully illustrated in Note A to his Discourse on the Conformity of the Ch. of Engl. to Apo. Precept and Pattern, Lond. 1834.

tApp. on Behalf of the Ch. of Engl. in Amer. p. 14.

tions? Or where are we informed, that these orders were instituted by Christ, and made essential to the constitution of his church?

That on different occasions Christ sent forth the twelve disciples, and other seventy also, we are, indeed, informed. But this he could not do in the character of an order in the christian ministry; since, as has been already shown, the christian church was not established until after Christ's resurrection, when and not till when he had finished his work as our Mediator-laid the foundations of his kingdom-and established the everlasting covenant. That plenitude of power whereby, as King and Head of his church, he now administers its affairs, was then given to Him in recompense of His humiliation, sufferings, and death, (Phil. 2: 8-11,) and was manifested by Him in the bestowment of these very ministerial offices. (Eph. 4: 8, 11, 12.) These individuals, we must therefore conclude, were employed by our Lord merely as his ministering disciples, to execute temporary and special commissions, and not as organized, separate, and perpetual officers. The good tidings they were to proclaim were only of the approaching kingdom of heaven. It was a joyful expectation they were commissioned to spread; and the preparation of men's hearts for the coming of the kingdom, was all they had authority to enforce. Having executed this required embassy they returned to Christ, and rendered in an account of their proceedings. Of the seventy we read nothing further than that they were thus sent forth. We are not informed that they were ever afterwards engaged in the same service. The twelve, however, after their return, continued with Christ,2 because they were his chosen witnesses, and selected as his future apostles or extraordinary ambassadors; that they might, by communication with him, be fully instructed and qualified for their important charge; and be publicly known as his followers and as his companions during the whole course of his ministry. Christ formed these twelve as it were into an apostolic college-the exemplar of all theological seminariesand for the space of three years continued to indoctrinate them in the truths pertaining to his kingdom. It is idle, therefore, to attempt to transform these temporary officers into permanent orders of the christian ministry. All that Christ did up to the close of his life, was preparatory to the great and final consummation achieved by his death. Till then there could be no christian church, no christian ordinances, and no christian ministry.

1) See Chap. I.

2) See Potter, on Ch. Govt. p. 45.

These disciples were not, then, authorized to act as apostles in proclaiming the kingdom of heaven as established—or in making it known to all without distinction-but were on the contrary sent out on a temporary agency, and limited expressly to the Jewish cities and people, as the field of their operations.1

It may be objected to this view of the matter, that the twelve are unquestionably denominated apostles during our Lord's ministry, and that they must therefore be regarded as truly apostles. This title is, it is confessed, once used by the avengelist, in giving a list of their names, but this he might have done either in the general and unlimited sense of that term, or because he wrote after they had received this title in its specific designation. Accordingly we find, that when our Lord first gave them this name, (Luke, 6: 13,) they had received no commission whatever, so that they must have received it in anticipation, or in an unofficial sense. This view of the matter is remarkably confirmed, by a reference to what is regarded by prelatists, as the first commission of the twelve. (Matt. 10.) In delivering to them, on this occasion, his instructions, Christ does not employ the term apostles. It was 'his twelve disciples' Jesus called together. It was to 'his twelve disciples' he gave miraculous endowments. It was 'these twelve' he sent forth 'two by two.' Throughout the entire discourse delivered by our Saviour on that occasion, he speaks of 'his disciples.' Nay, even after having been thus commissioned, they are still spoken of, not as apostles, but as 'the twelve disciples,' (see Matt. 11: 1,) and it was in this character they went through the towns and villages preaching that men should repent, and that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Until they had thus returned back, and Jesus was going up to Jerusalem to suffer, the twelve ‘are generally, if not always, mentioned under the common appellation of disciples, as far as I can remember." The sole duty enjoined upon them was to make this proclamation, and to present miraculous attestation to the truth of Christ's character and mission as the long promised and expected Messiah. Having, as Mark tells us, fulfilled this work, (ch. 6: 12, 13,) 'they returned, and told Jesus all that they had done.' (Luke 9: 10.) Their commission was now fully executed. They were now to accompany Jesus, to the intent that

1) See Hinds's Hist. of the Rise and Progress of Christianity, vol. i. p. 149. Their former commission, as from its nature might seem natural, expired on their return to resume their attendance on him.'

See also in Lord Barrington's Works, vol. ii. pp. 11, 12, 43, 69, 92. 2) See Potter on Ch. Govt. pp. 199, 204.

3) Lord Barrington's Theol. Wks. vol. ii. p. 9.

they might be the better acquainted with 'all that Jesus began both to do and teach,' until the day in which he was taken up, after that he, through the Holy Ghost, had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen." They thus 'continued with him in his temptations." And most certain it is, that there is nothing in this commission having the remotest bearing upon the institution of three orders of ministers; or upon the appointment of these twelve as an order of prelates, who were as such to ordain, govern, and direct two other orders under their jurisdiction. In proof of this, we need only refer to the endless variations of opinion among those, who have attempted to make out, from this commission, the three orders; many being of opinion, that, until Christ's death, the apostles were presbyters, and Christ alone bishop or prelate; others, that during the same period the apostles were prelates; others again affirming, that the apostles were never commissioned till after Christ's resurrection; and others being of opinion, that, in every period, the apostles were extraordinary officers, and could have no successors in the ministry of the church. Bishop Sherlock, indeed, thinks he finds these three orders enumerated in the closing verses of this commission, the apostles being referred to in one place, (Matt. 11: v. 40,) and the other orders under the title of prophets," (v. 41.) But nothing can be wilder, or more gratuitous, than such baseless assumptions. For if we will be guided by the previous context, as universally explained, the reference must be made to all christians indifferently, while no sanction whatever can be found for interpreting the word prophet as meaning the two orders of presbyter and deacon, in distinction from that of prelates, or for applying the latter portion of this passage (v. 41) in any other sense than as explanatory of the preceding. (v. 40.)

The truth in the case, then, is this, that, as our Lord approached the termination of his ministry on earth, he thought it necessary to prepare the way for those scenes which were to transpire in Jerusalem, and therefore sent forth the twelve, that the eyes of all might be directed to him as the angel of the

1) See Acts, 1: 12. See also ibid, v. 21, 22; and Luke, 22: 28.

2) See Lord Barrington's Wks. vol. ii. pp. 6, 7.

3) See the authorities for these several views in Lect. on Apost. Succ.p. 149. Lect. vi. Note A.

4) Matt. 10: 40, 41.

He that receiveth you, receiveth

me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward.

5) Sherlock's Wks. vol. iii. p. 281.