For

from the original, that these words are to be taken in their usual and literal acceptation, as to the time intended. It is sufficient to remark, that the Evangelist, St. Matthew, has used the phrase, "unto the end of the world," in four different places in his Gospel, besides the one now under consideration-three times in the thirteenth chapter, and once in the twenty-fourth-in all of which it signifies till the final consummation of all things. The interpretation, therefore, that would limit the expression in question to the Apostles' life-time only, or to the end of the Jewish age, is without foundation. This promise of the Saviour, then, if it means any thing, means that he would be spiritually present with the eleven Apostles and their successors in office. It could not mean that the eleven should live till the end of the world. It implied their right to ordain others as successors. But further and yet more important, it was a promise to be with the Apostles and their successors as Apostles. Any other understanding of the words (as a specific and valuable promise) would destroy their meaning. Christ, in some sense, was to be present to all his disciples. A peculiar presence to them, therefore, was vouchsafed, in consideration of the vast responsibilities, and trials, and difficulties, of their office. So, likewise, of their successors. Here, then, is proof conclusive and direct, that the Apostleship, as established by Christ, was to be perpetual, as a distinct and self-existent order of ministry through all the ages of the church. The age of miracles, indeed, and of plenary inspiration, might cease, and in these respects the office might be modified, but not destroyed. These were merely temporary characteristics of it. In this sense, it is granted, the Apostles, could have no successors: but what then? Is the entire office thereby removed? Some of the ordinary disciples themselves possessed these peculiar gifts. The whole church was distinguished by such miraculous gifts in the early ages. As well, therefore, might we reason that church-membership ceased, and the visible church itself came to an end, because certain peculiarities disappeared, as that the Apostles could have no successors, because they had the "gift of tongues," and various other supernatural gifts. It is evident they could be suc

ceeded in the ordinary and ever essential functions of their office. Unless, then, we would reject the blessed Saviour's promise," Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," we must admit that he designed the Apostleship always to continue in his church.

We are asked to point to some express warrant given to the Apostles to ordain. We have shown such express warrant, in the terms of the commission. But suppose that could not be shown-was it not necessarily implied? Had they not a right to say to others, "As Christ hath sent us, even so we send you"? The nature of the case rendered the exercise of this right a necessary duty. To have neglected to have performed it, would have been clearly to have jeopardized all the interests intrusted to them in behalf of mankind.

Thirdly, we argue the same thing, from well-attested facts taken from Holy Scriptures. We have seen that but one commission was given by Christ, after his resurrection and before his ascension, for a christian ministry; and that was given to the eleven Apostles. We have shown that they possessed the right to ordain, by the very terms of their commission; for they were sent, even as Christ had been sent by the Father; and further, that the nature of the agency on which they were commissioned necessarily implied this right. By them, at least, (whatever may be pretended for others,) it must be exercised. On them rested the responsibility of the existence and perpetuity of the church. That this right and power to ordain was exclusively possessed by them, will remain a self-evident truth, until some other commission shall be pointed out, conveyed in terms equally explicit and significant with this; until it shall be proved that the eleven shared a divided responsibility, in the chief ministry of the church, with a co-ordinate and co-equal set of ministerial officers. And to establish such co-ordination and co-equality, it must be shown, from the text of Holy Scripture, that other men, beside the eleven, received a final and permanent commission from Christ personally; and expressed in the same comprehensive and unlimited terms. A "just as," or even as," must be shown-an identity, in all that remained and was essential to the ministerial office, with the Saviour himself—

thus implying the right (which he exercised) of ordain. ing.

It must be shown that the words, "whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained"-elsewhere called the power of holding the keys, i. e., the chief discipline of the church, from which there was no appeal, except to God-were pronounced to other men besides the eleven Apostles. This part alone of their commission incontestably establishes their exclusive superiority in the ministerial office-exclusive, till it shall be shown that a like prerogative was given to any others. But to leave this recapitulation, and return to the third head of the argument proposed, viz: the facts bearing on the subject. Did the Apostles exercise this power of ordination? The first case we have, is, their ordaining the seven Deacons-recorded in Acts, (vi. 6): "Whom they set before the Apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." We shall not here depart from the main topic of our inquiry, by entering into an examination of the nature and functions of this office of the ministry. It seems that some of their number preached, and others baptized. The office may be regarded as divine and perpetual, though it derives its authority indirectly from Christ, and directly from the Apostles.

The perpetuity of this office must depend on the perpetuity of the Apostleship; for from it must it ever spring, as at the first. The very occasion on which it arose, was to aid, in some of their subordinate duties, the Apostles. The second case, in the order of narration, is found in Acts. (xiv. 23): "And when they (Paul and Barnabas) had ordained* them Elders in every church."

*The word here used in the original, and translated in the common version, “ordain," is by some said to signify a popular election. But this opinion is entirely refuted by the learned Grotius:

66

Although in the Grecian states this word began to be used, in reference to the comitial elections, nevertheless it is true, that the word, by arbitrary custom, was applied to any kind of choice. Thus Appian employs it to signify the choice of magistrates made by the Cæsars; and later historians say that the sons of the Emperors were ordained [the original word] by their Fathers. In Philo, Moses is said to be ordained [same word] by God. But there is no necessity of citing other writers, since St. Luke himself, in this very book of

On this case, we remark, that no one will question that one of the Ordainers, Paul, was an Apostle, in the highest sense of the term, notwithstanding he derived his commission in an extraordinary way. And if, in his com‐ mission to the ministry, we do not find the same enumeration of rights and powers, as in that of the eleven, yet it seems to have been sufficient to warrant him to take his place (as he did) beside the twelve, (Matthias had then been added,) as of co-equal authority. And thus did they recognize and receive him. As to Barnabas, we know not when he received his ordination to the Apostleship, but simply the fact, that he was an Apostle, (now the fourteenth.) In the 14th verse, we read"Which when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of." Now it is true, indeed, that the term Apostle, in its primary signification, means merely a messenger-one sent; and that the word is so used, in several places in the New Testament, is also true. Yet, nothing is easier than to determine whether the term, in any given case, is to be understood in this primary sense, or specifically of the ministerial office. In the passage just quoted, Barnabas is called an Apostle, in the same sense as Paul, without distinction, expressed or implied. Nor, is there any thing, in the circumstances of the case, which would lead us to suppose that Barnabas is, in any respect, inferior in the ministerial office to Paul. They act conjointly, and, apparently, with equal authority. The presumption, then, is strong, that Barnabas had, on some previous occasion, been ordained to the Apostleship. Certainly, it cannot be shown that he was not an Apostle. This ordination of Elders, then, in every church, was performed by the Apostles.

the Acts of the Apostles, c. x. 41, calls the Apostles witnesses ordained [same word] by God, not truly by the extending of the hand or by popular suffrage; but, in the place under consideration, if St, Luke had wished to indicate a popular election, he would not have attributed" the ordaining" (i. e., the act implied in the original word) to St. Paul and Barnabas, but to the multitude themselves. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas perform the same act here as St. Paul desires Titus to do, (Tit. i. 5,) when he directs him to ordain Elders in every city. What in St. Paul is said of every city, that by St. Luke (in the place in question) is said of every church." Translation of Wolf's note on this text.

C2

There is a peculiarity of expression in the account of this transaction, which is worthy of notice: "And when they had ordained them Elders in every church." The phrase, “ordained them Elders," is probably passed over by most readers as a mere Anglicism or mode of speech characteristic of our language. And thus explained, the word “them” would seem to be tautological and superfluous, inasmuch as the verb ordain had its proper nominative in the preceding pronoun they. But when we refer to the original, we naturally inquire, how came an Anglicism in the Greek Testament? Evidently it has no place there. The phrase should have been translated strictly as Greek-" Cheirotonasantes de autois presbuterous. Now, here is no tautology-autois, being in the dative case, cannot be translated simply "them," but, " and having ordained, for themselves, Elders. This materially changes the meaning of the whole sentence. For if the Apostles ordained Elders for themselves, it must be understood that they ordained them as their aids or subordinates in the ministry. They were the Presbyters of Paul and Barnabas, exercising their offices by a commission and authority given to them by these two Apostles.

The second case that presents itself, is recorded in St. Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy, (i. 6,) "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." Here is a positive declaration that Timothy was ordained by Paul. To what office he was ordained must be gathered from the instructions given him by his Ordainer in his two Epistles to him, but especially the first. This point will be more properly considered, however, under another branch of our subject. That the act referred to was an official ordination of Timothy to the ministerial office, cannot (as I believe it is not) be questioned; for St. Paul makes it the ground or reason for the instructions which, in his Epistles, he gives to Timothy. These instructions, based upon and referred to this act, are not of a temporary or partial kind, but embrace all the leading and permanent and general functions of his office. (See Epist. to Tim.) The act, then, was an investiture of Timothy with the ministerial office by the Apostle..