ity was designed to be a universal religion," "" and external forms adapted to the nature of civil government," it must have been at its first formation imperial. Peter must have been the emperor of the apostles: Apostolorum omnium princeps ac patronus, as Valesius calls him. This is a most glorious discovery, and with regard to the form of primitive Christianity, must shut all protestants' mouths for ever. To use the imposing title which one of the papal polemicks has given to his book, it is, "The end of all controversy."

But Dr. B. is still more liberal in his concessions. "No individual of the human family, as he verily believes, is necessarily excluded from the acceptable service of his Maker." We say so too, provided they accept the terms on which salvation is offered; but if this was all that Dr. B. meant, it is a truism which does not seem to have much connexion with his subject. Perhaps he meant every individual of the human family in his present condition; whether he calls upon Jehovah, Jove, or Lord; in which case, the Hindoos and Hottentots, as well as the savages of America, are as likely to be saved as Christians, and we are great fools to be at the expense and trouble of sending missionaries to convert them. "Without sincerity," says Dr. B., no one will find acceptance,' How true! But it would have been a little more in point, if he had asserted the converse of the proposition: with sincerity, every one will find acceptance! the sincere Mahometan and the sincere pagan, as well as all the sin cere hereticks and schismaticks who, with wrong-headed turbulence have in all ages destroyed the peace of the Christian church, might have been, and may be, quite sure of doing accepta ble service to their Maker. Perhaps Dr. B. did not intend to say this, and we should be very unwilling to charge him with more than he is willing to admit ; but if he did not intend it, we

66

can only say that he does not think on this subject with much precision.

But how do all these declarations comport with what follows? "The ecclesiastical polity established by our divine Lord is fully adapted to the purpose of his reign. Christ declares, 'that his kingdom is not of this world."" p. 98. Excellent! Nothing could have been said better. There was, then, an "ecclesiastical polity" " established by our DIVINE Lord." It was "fully adapted to the purpose of his reign," and therefore there was no possible pretext for men to change it, on the plea of necessity or expediency. "The kingdom of Christ is not of this world;" it is therefore wholly independent on human policy, and in all that is essen tial, uninfluenced by the mutability of political institutions. "The ecclesiastical polity established by our divine Lord," consisted in the entire transfer of his authority to his apostles; their power in ordering and establishing the church being guided by the influences of the Holy Ghost.-John xx. 21. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.-Luke xxii. 29. I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me.-Matt. xxviii. 18, 19, 20. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach (uareórare make disciples of) all nations, baptizing them, &c. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.➡ John xvi. 12, 13, 14, 15. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Fa ther hath are mine; therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall

show it unto you.-Acts i. 2. After that he (Jesus) through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen; v. 3, 4, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and being assembled together with them command ed them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.-v. 8. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.

Put all these declarations together, and weigh well their import, and it will be seen that our Saviour made a complete transfer of his authority in his church on earth, to his apostles, or, as we should say in the language of political diplomacy, gave full powers to his apostles to act in his name, and to represent him in constituting the church. The great object of his mission was to die for mankind; and all the time he spent on earth, after he began his ministry, was employed in teaching his apostles. This done, they were to teach the disciples whom they baptized, to observe all things that Christ commanded them, and they were assured, that the Holy Ghost would bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever Christ had told them. Both they, then, were assured, and we may be assured, that what the apostles instituted, was of divine institution. And this, indeed, is expressly affirmed by St. Paul. "God hath set (er, hath appointed, as in Luke xxii. 29,) some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, &c. 1 Cor. xii. 28. But the prophets and teachers certainly were appointed by the apostles. Therefore, according to St. Paul, those appointed, or set in the church by the apostles, were set, or appointed by God, on the well

36

ADVOCATE, VOL. II.

known axiom of common sense, as well as of law, that qui facit per alium facit per se: whatsoever we do by the instrumentality of another, is to be considered as done by ourselves.

Let us then consider what the apostles established. In the first place, we find, that they filled up the vacancy> in their own order, occasioned by the treachery, and subsequent death of Judas. Acts i. 26. Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles. The twelve aspostles, answering to the twelve tribes of Israel, being thus constituted, "to go unto the circumcision," (Gal. ii. 8, 9.) God was pleased soon after, to convert the persecuting Saul, and constitute him an apostle, to go unto the gentiles. Acts ix. 15. With him Barnabas was associated, in the same apostleship; for Barnabas is expressly called an apostle, as well as Paul; (Acts xiv. 14,) and St. Paul, in order to prove to the Galatians that he was in nothing behind the very chiefest apostles, (2 Cor. xii. 11,) tells them that James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, that is, Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, the most eminent of the apostles of the circumcision, gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, (Gal. ii. 9,) acknowledging their equality. Here then are fourteen apostles; and a fifteenth is mentioned by St. Paul, in the same epistle. Three years after his conversion, he went up to Jerusa lem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. "But other of the apostles," says he, "saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother." This James, the Lord's brother, is so called, to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee; and he was not therefore one of the original twelve. Here then is conclusive proof, that the apostles enlarged their number. We forbear to mention further proof at present, because we shall have occasion hereafter to mention Epaphroditus, and others, who are called ἀπόςολοι τῶν ἐκκλήσιων, apostles of the churches. That the

apostles constituted an order of the ininistry, called presbyters (peσbúτepoi) or elders, we presume, will not be questioned. We read of the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, (Acts xiv. 23,) that during their mission in Asia minor, "they ordained them elders in every church;" and in the next chapter, that on their return to Jerusalem, they were received of the apostles and elders; that the apostles and elders came to gether, to consider the case of the gentiles; that it pleased the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, &c. evidently showing, that a distinction existed between these two orders. See Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23.

It is equally unquestionable that another order of men was appointed, and solemnly ordained, by the laying on of the apostles' hands. Seven of these are mentioned, as having been appointed from the Grecian, or Hel. lenistick converts; (Acts vi. 3, 5,) and though they are not there called deacons, yet it is sufficiently evident, that they were distinct from the elders.* Here, then, we have, first,

* On the subject of the appointment of deacons, Mosheim maintains, that the seven mentioned, Acts vi. 3, 5, were not the first who were appointed in the church of Jerurusalem, but only the first who were appointed among the Greek, or Hellenistick converts. He considers the " young men," (verépos) who were in waiting on the apostles, and who committed the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira to the earth, (Acts v. 6, 10,) as in fact the deacons of the church. "Now, if this opinion be correct," he adds, "as it really appears to me to be, there is at once an end of the notion, entertained by some, that the deacons of after-ages, differed from those of the primitive times; in that it was the office of the original or primitive ones to take care of the poor, but, that those of after times, had duties of a very different nature assigned to them by the bishops. To me il seems clear, that no such alteration took place in the functions of the deacons, but that from the first, it was their duty to render themselves serviceable in all things, which might be required of them, by the situation and cir

apostles; secondarily, elders, or presbyters; (πperCurepo,) and, thirdly, younger men, (veripoi,) or deacons.

But our author affirms, (p. 100,) that "there is no proof from the new testament, that the apostles instituted more than one order of ministers." The apostles themselves, he of course excludes; and of deacons, he also affirms, (p. 102,) that they "were not, in the primitive age, considered as an order of the priesthood." Of the priesthood, they certainly never were considered as an order; and any one, accustomed to accurate language on this subject, would never have em. ployed the term. But deacons were, and still are, considered as an order of the Christian ministry. As Dr. B. produces no proof of his assertion, the reader, we trust, will consider ours, as equivalent, at least, to his. As an evidence, however, that we do not speak without book, we would simply refer to the eighth chapter of the Acts, and ask, whether Philip, one of the seven appointed by the laying on of the apostles' hands, did not preach and baptize? By another affirmation equally positive, he gets rid of the apostles. "It is unnecessary to bring into view the distinction, between apostles who were supernaturally endued to execute their high commission, and the ordinary ministers of the gospel." p. 103. We, on the contrary, think it very necessary to bring into view this distinction; and, if Dr. B. did but know it, the whole of the question, be has undertaken to discuss, turns upon

cumstances of the church at that time." See Mosheim's commentaries on the affairs of Christians before the time of Constantine the great, translated by Vidal. vol. i. p. 237, note. But if we are to believe Dr. B. "deacons originally were considered as the almoners of the church; and no service was performed by them, in the offices of publick worship, but serving the bread and wine to communicants, and providing materials for baptism." p. 112. We may surely be permitted to use Dr. Bancroft's own authorities, when they evidently make against him.

this point.

But let us attend to the reason he assigns, for its not being necessary. "The apostles," he says, "were supernaturally endued to execute their high commission." And were not others thus endued, beside the apostles? Were supernatural gifts confined to them? Did not Stephen, the deacon, do "great wonders, and miracles among the people?" Acts vi. 8. Did not Philip, the deacon, work miracles? Acts viii. 6. Did not Cornelius and his company, who were laymen, speak with tongues? Acts x. 46. If these things are so, the working of miracles had no necessary connexion with the question about the orders of the ministry, or even with the ministry itself. The fact is, that all orders of men in the church, laity, as well as clergy, received, at that time, those extraordinary manifestations of divine power, which were predicted by the prophet: "It shall come to pass in the last days, (saith God,) I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shal! prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams and on my servants, and on my hand-maidens, I will out in those days of my spi pour rit, and they shall prophesy." See Acts ii. 17, 18, compared with Joel ii. 28, 29. If, then, the apostolick office ceased, when miraculous gifts ceased, by the same mode of arguing, we may prove, that all orders of the ministry have ceased. But the assertion is directly contrary to our Saviour's promise, contained in his commission. Matt. xxviii. 18, &c. Jesus came, and spake unto them, (i. e. the eleven disciples, v. 16, the whole body of the apostles which remained after the treachery and death of Judas,) saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, (apostles) therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, &c. teaching them, &c. And lo, I am with you (apostles) alway, even unto the end of the world."

:

The apostolick commission is not, and will not be fulfilled, till all nations are converted to the Christian faith, baptized, and instructed, in the duties of their religion. For the accomplishment of this great purpose, our Lord, who hath all power in heaven and earth, will, by his authority, be with his apostles in their official character, and consequently with all who derive authority from them, 'till the end of the world. Then be will come again, to judge the world in righteousness, and to demand from his apostles, and from all whom they have commissioned, an account of their trust. Such is the declaration of the scriptures; and such is the foundation of Episcopacy; namely, that our Saviour appointed in his church, an order of men, invested with plenary powers to continue the office, given to them, to the end of the world; that this order of men appointed under them two other orders, elders, or presbyters, and deacons ; but that the apostles confined to their own order the right of commissioning to the ministry, for this plain reason, because they were the only order appointed with plenary powers by our Saviour himself.

But Dr. B. having, in this summary way, turned the apostles out of doors, and disfranchised the deacons, proceeds to prove, that there was but one order of the ministry, by showing, that in the new testament, the words presbyter or elder, and bishop, are used to denote the same office. A very useless labour; for if he had known any thing of the controversy, or at least, if he had read on both sides of the question, he would have known that this was never disputed. He assumes throughout his book, the very point to be proved, and proves what is not denied. The term bishop is applied, in the new testament, both to apostles and elders; the office of an apostle being called, Acts i. 20, tùv iπionOTV an episcopate or bishoprick. So the term presbyter or elder is also applied

to the apostles. 1. Pet. v. 1. The elders (poripovs) which are among you, 1 (Peter) exhort, who am also an elder; (vapeoCurepos, their fellow elder.) So St. John, in the salutation of his second and third epistles, calls himself, the elder, i pobúrepos. And in Acts xi. 30, both the first and second order of the ministry seem to be comprehended under this name. The disciples at Antioch, in expectation of a great dearth predicted by one of the prophets sent to them from Jerusalem, determined to send relief to the brethren in Judea, "which also they did, and sent it to the elders (pòs Tous perCurious) by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." As the apostles were residing still at Jerusalem, and it appears, from Acts iv. 35, 37, that it was the practice to deposit the charities of the church with them, the term elders, must here signify either the apostles alone, or at most the apostles, and those of the second order. If then, both offices, that of apostles, as well as that of elders, were called in the new testament by the same titles, nothing is gained to the argument by proving that the two titles were appli⚫ ed indiscriminately to the same office. When St. Paul sent for the elders of Ephesus to come to him at Miletus, a distance of fifty miles, and gave them a charge to take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them (inoxóTous) overseers or bishops, Acts xx. 25, the whole of the transaction shows that he considered himself, and was considered by them, as their ecclesiastical superiour. Of what consequence then, is the name by which the inferiour order is called, provided the fact be established, that it is inferiour? This petty verbal criticism is unworthy of a rational and learned mind. It is precisely the same quibbling sophistry, which would strip the Redeemer of his attributes, because one of the names of God was employed among the Jews, to designate a civil ruler.

The source of the fallacy may be very easily traced. Dr. B., and all the advocates of presbyterian parity, assume, that the term bishop was used in the same restrained signification in the apostolick age, in which it is used now. But there is a constant fluctuation in language, a constant contraction from general to specifick, which vitiates every argument of this nature. Hooker has assigned the reason of this change, with his usual acuteness: "Sith the first things," says he, "that grow into general observation, and do thereby give men occasion to find name for them, are those which being in many subjects, are thereby the easier, the oftener, and the more universally noted; it followeth that names imposed to signify common qualities of operations, are antienter than is the restraint of those names, to note an excellency of such qualities and operations, in some one or few amongst others. For example, the name disciple being invented to signify generally a learner, it cannot chuse, but in that signification be more antient than when it signifies, as it were, by a kind of appropriation, those learners who being taught of Christ, were, in that respect, termed disciples, by an excellency. The like is to be seen in the name apostle, the use whereof, to signify a messenger, must needs be more antient than that use which restraineth it unto messengers sent concerning evangelical affairs; yea, this use more antient than that whereby the same word is yet restrained farther to signify only those, whom our Saviour himself immediately did send. After the same manner, the title or name of a bishop, having been used of old to signify both an ecclesiastical overseer in general, and more particularly, also, a principal ecclesiastical overseer; it followeth, that this latter restrained signification is not so antient as the former, being more common. Yet because the things themselves are always antienter than their names; therefore that thing which the restrained use of