ters succeed to the apostles. Thus Dr. Willet1 declares, that priests succeed in the place of the apostles, is evident out of their own decrees. Distinct. 68, c. 5.' The apostles, therefore, during our Lord's ministry, were presbyters only, and not prelates, and since the seventy were in all essential respects identified with them, there was during this period. but one order of ministers in the church.

In confirmation of this judgment, we beg leave to present to the attentive consideration of our readers, the opinion of Dr. Whitby, who is renowned amongst the hosts of the prelatists. Whereas,' says he, some compare the bishops to the apostles, the seventy to the presbyters of the church; and, thence, conclude that divers orders of the ministry were instituted by Christ himself; it must be granted that the ancients did believe these two to be divers orders, and that those of the seventy were inferior to the order of the apostles; and sometimes they make the comparison here. mentioned. But then it must be also granted, that this comparison will not strictly hold; for the seventy received not their mission as presbyters do, from bishops, but immediately from their Lord Christ, as well as the apostles; and in their first mission were plainly sent on the same errand, and with the same power, and it is obviously observable (says another) in the evangelical records, that the Christian church was not, could not be founded until our Lord was risen, seeing it was to be founded on his resurrection. Our Martyr Cyprian (as appears from his reasonings on divers occasions) seems very well to have known and very distinctly to have observed, that the apostles themselves got not their commission to be governors of the Christian church till after the resurrection. And no wonder, for this, their commission is most observably recorded, John, xx, 23. No such thing is anywhere recorded concerning the seventy. Nothing more certain than that that commission, which is recorded, Luke, x, did constitute them only temporary missionaries, and that for an errand which could not possibly be more than temporary. That commission contains in its own bosom clear evidences that it did not install them into any standing office at all, much less in any standing office in the Christian church, which was not yet in being when they got it. Could that commission which is recorded, Luke, x, any more constitute the seventy standing officers of the Christian church, than the like commission recorded Matt. x, could constitute the twelve such standing officers? But it is manifest that the commission recorded, Matt. x, did not constitute the twelve governors of the Christian church; otherwise, what need of a new commission to that 1 Syn. Pap. p. 273.

purpose after the resurrection? Presumable, therefore, it is, that St. Cyprian did not at all believe that the seventy had any successors, office-bearers in the Christian church, seeing it is so observable that they themselves received no commission to be such office-bearers.'

Even, however, were it granted, that in the twelve and the seventy disciples we have two distinct orders of ministers, the theory of the prelacy is still in want of a third rank, in order to complete its hierarchy; and for this order we are referred to our blessed Lord, who is denominated the High Priest of our profession. Now, were we to allow that, while on earth, our Lord ministerially represented the first or highest order of ministers, and that he was therefore the first prelate; could we for a moment overlook the inexcusable temerity with which a supposition, so derogatory to our Lord's character, so blasphemous in its tendency and spirit, and so repugnant to the ineffable and unapproachable dignity of his glorious nature, is entertained; of what possible advantage would it be to the cause of prelacy? For not only are we instructed that Christ is the apostle and high priest of our profession;' we are also informed that, in this office, he can have no possible successors, nor any partners in his work, character, and mediation. He is, we are assuredly told, a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedec and ever liveth,' as such, to make intercession for us.' Like Melchizedec, Christ neither succeeded unto any other in his office of kingly priesthood, nor is he capable of being succeeded in his royal honours. Like him, who was his chosen type, he continueth ever, in his unchangeable priesthood, being made a priest, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.' As our great high priest, Christ stands singly and alone, the first and the last of his order, the beginning and the end, superior to Aaron, to Levi, and to Abraham. 1 He is the one mediator between God and man,' and 'the only advocate with the Father,' the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, of whose kingdom, dominion, and overruling presidency, as the head of his church, there shall be no end. From this very argument, therefore, and the consideration of the prelacy of Christ, we are conclusively taught that such an order as that of prelates neither can, nor ought to exist in any church pretending to be Christian. One is our master, even Christ.' He alone is our prelate, our pope, our supreme and ever-living head. The prelatic theory is founded upon the dethronement of Christ from his priestly office; and the abjuration of the infinite merit of his sacrifice and intercession, as eternally presented before God in the 1 Heb. vii. Dr. Hawkins on the Hist. Script. of the Old Testament, p. 156.

courts of heaven, for the uninterrupted continuation of the happiness and glory of his people.1

To this one error, the offspring of his prelatic hypothesis, begotten by vanity and pride, and the lust of domination, is to be traced that prime element in all the systems of antichristian superstition and corruption, the priestly character of the gospel ministry, and the consequent doctrines of altars, and sacrifices, and mysteries, and all the profane idolatries by which men have departed from the faith. Christ is first made one link in the chain of succession from Aaron to Peter, conveying down, in holy orders, absolute contact with the God of all the earth.'3 Prelates, and through them all the other orders, are then made successors to Christ in this office, as links in the unbroken chain from Christ to the end of time. As his ministers, or stewards, or ambassadors, or lieutenants in his kingdom upon earth, they are also made his vicegerents in all his three offices as Priest, Prophet, and King. Christ is thus displaced and dethroned by his own ministers, and is to all practical purposes as good as annihilated. We are, therefore, unblushingly required, as Dr. Hickes affirms, by the doctrine of the catholic church,' to honour the bishop as the high priest representing God, representing God as a prince, and Christ as a priest, and therefore we ought to regard the bishop as God!'4 Well might John Walker say, that this whole theory is indeed, a fiction so monstrously absurd, that it might excite laughter if it were not so monstrously profane, that indignation rather must predominate in the Christian who considers it.5

We are, therefore, driven to the conclusion that, during our Lord's manifestation upon earth, as our Emmanuel, nothing like this triple order of distinctly classified ministers, with their subordinated dignities and functions, was to be found in the administration of the church. And that prelatists should have ventured to assert the contrary, and

1 'No one indeed can deny,' says Dr. Chapman, in his sermons to presbyterians, vol. i, p. 148, the perpetual tenure by which Jesus is sustained as the grand hierarchy of the Christian church.' According to the psalmist, The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest after the order of Melchizedec.' And four times does the apostle to the Hebrews reiterate the declaration.

2 Dr. Hawkins, in his Discourses on the Historical Scriptures of the Old Testament, (p. 156,) says that, mistaking the means for the end, the shadow for the substance, is the common error of weak and ignorant men. And the correction of this error is one of the remarkable purposes to which the preaching of the gospel before the law is applied by St. Paul himself.'

The Church, the Bishop, or Korah. Two sermons by Frederick A. Glover, Lond. 1838, pp. 72-74. In Dr. Brown on Civil Obedience, p. 43, supplement, notes.

Ignat. ad Ephes. c. 6, and ad Smyrn. c. 9. Hicke's, vol. ii, pp. 22-24, Conf. ii. Beveridge Can. Apost. Vind. lib. ii, c. 2, sec. 11. In Nolan's Catholic Char. of Christ, pp. 231-237.

5 See also the strong language of the archbishop of Cashel, in charge to the clergy of his Diocese, Dublin, 1822, p. 20. Also of the bishop of Chester, in the Lond. Chr. Obs., Dec. 1841, p. 761. The Churchman's Monthly Rev., 1841, pp. 274, 2, etc. Nolan's Cath. Char. of Christ, p. 203. Essays on the Church, p. 331. Powell on Tradition. supplement, pp. 6, 7, etc.

This was the position taken by bishop Hobart and others, in the Essays on Epis.

to insist upon it so strenuously as they do, would indeed be amazing; had we not been already admonished of the fact, that boldness of assertion is found to be generally in exact proportion to the weakness of the proof by which it is sus tained. Either Christ was himself an order in the priesthood, or he was not. If he was not, as we believe, then, during his ministry, there was but one class of ministers employed in executing the purposes of their temporary commission, and thus is the principle of presbyterian parity established, and the presbyterian shown to be the true and only succession that can exist. If, however, Christ must be regarded as an order of the ministry, then during his life there was but one other; and ever since that time there must be on the prelatic theory at least four orders, and not three. So that in either case, to substantiate the all-important claims of prelates, Christ must be deposed from his office, and dethroned from his kingly and everlasting throne.1

CHAPTER III.

THE CLAIMS OF PRESBYTERY TO THE TRUE APOSTOLICAL OR MINISTERIAL SUCCESSION, SUSTAINED BY THE CHARACTER AND CONDITION OF THE CHURCH WHEN OUR LORD ASCENDED UP INTO HEAVEN.

I. THE APOSTLES WERE NOT COMMISSIONED BEFORE THE DELIVERY OF THE FINAL COMMISSION BY OUR ASCENDING SAVIOUR, WITH AN EXAMINATION OF JOHN, XX, 21.

WE are now brought to that period when the Christian church was openly and permanently established upon the corner-stone of Christ's death, resurrection, and ever-living power, as Head over all things to his church. We are, therefore, to enquire what charter, commission, or law, the inaugurated Redeemer, the Counsellor and Legislator of his church, has left behind him for its guidance and instruction. Nor are we long in finding our way to that last, solemn, authoritative, and full commission, delivered by our Lord just before ascending up into heaven. It has, indeed, been supposed by some, that the apostles were consecrated to their high function on the evening of the day after Christ's ascension, when he told them, as my Father hath sent me, so I send you,' (John, xx, 21,) and that then they received their peculiar prelatical authority. But nothing can be

6

in the Albany Centinel, N. Y., 1806, and quoted in Dr. Mason's Works, vol. iii, p. 86. Also by Dr. Chapman in his writings, and by the present episcopal writers generally. 1 See the argument very conclusively presented in Dr. Mason's Wks., v. iii, p. 87, etc.

more gratuitous and vain than such a supposition. It appears that, on this occasion, as Mr. Scott well explains the passage, the apostles and other disciples met together in some room which they had procured, probably in order to join in prayer and supplication.'1 The evangelist uses the general term disciples,' which, in the very chapter preceding, (xix, 31), is applied to Joseph of Arimathea, and was, we know, given to the seventy, (Luke, x.) He also particularly notices the fact, that it was on the first day of the week,' which day was 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 behis ambassadors and vicegerents.'2

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 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 authorised 1 Commentary, in loco. }

2 Scott, ibid.