copied into others, as they were organized, is plain from the practice of Paul and Barnabas, who, as they passed through Asia Minor, "ordained them elders in every church" (Acts 14: 23), and from Paul's leaving Titus in Crete to "ordain elders in every city" (Tit. 1:5). The powers of these elders were no doubt the same as in the mother-church, and though they are not often mentioned, it is always in a manner to confirm the supposition that they were familiarly regarded as the highest local rulers of the church; as when James says, "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church" (Jas. 5: 14); and John calls himself, in the inscriptions of two epistles, & πρeσßúTepos; and Peter tells the presbyters of Asia Minor, that he is their fellow-elder (ö σvμπрeσẞúтepos 1 Pet. 5 : 1). That in John's case it denotes the senior apostle, and that in the others it is a generic title for church-officers in general, is no doubt possible; and all that is here. intended is to point out how completely even the incidental notices of presbyters agree with the presbyterian hypothesis.

It may be a matter of surprise and even of objection on the part of some, that so few positive testimonies to the truth of that hypothesis are found in Scripture. But let such remember that church-government is very seldom spoken of at all, and ordination scarcely ever, so that in proportion to the space allotted to the general subject, the foregoing proofs may be considered ample. One effect of the comparative neglect of all such matters by the sacred writers is that something, upon any supposition, is to be supplied by inference or analogy. The only question is, which hypothesis requires least to be conjectured or assumed? As this

is no unfair criterion of truth, we are willing to submit our doctrine to a rigorous comparison, in this respect, with that of our opponents. They admit that the presbyterial office was established in the primitive church and was intended to be permanent; that it was clothed with the important powers of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments; and that it is repeatedly spoken of in terms which, taken by themselves, would imply the possession of the highest powers now belonging to the ministry. But this conclusion they avoid by assuming that although the office was intended to continue, and intrusted with some functions of the greatest moment, it was not empowered to ordain or exercise supreme authority, that these prerogatives were specially reserved to a superior order. This, however, cannot be maintained without supposing, that on various occasions when the mention of this higher class would seem to have been almost unavoidable, the sacred writers did nevertheless pass it by in silence, and not only pass it by, but apply the very language that would best describe its powers to the lower order which had no such powers. However this extraordinary fact may be accounted for, it must be assumed, or the adverse doctrine cannot be maintained. The presbyterian hypothesis, on the contrary, takes words and phrases in their usual sense and their most natural construction, and adds nothing to the facts which are admitted by both parties, but setting out from the conceded fact that presbyters were officers of high rank and intrusted with important powers, it concludes that, when they are referred to as the highest local rulers of the churches, they were so in fact; that when certain duties are enjoined upon them, it was

meant that they should do them; in a word, that the obvious and natural meaning of the passages which speak of elders is the true one, and that no other need be sought by forced constructions or gratuitous assumptions. By the application of this safe and simple method of interpretation, we have reached the conclusion that presbyters, as presbyters, possessed and exercised the highest ministerial powers, including those of discipline and ordination, in the days of the apostles; that the same rights and powers belong to them at present; and that no ministrations can be charged with invalidity, because they are performed under authority derived from presbyters.

ESSAY III.

ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.

IN the foregoing essay an attempt was made to prove that the highest permanent office in the church is that of Presbyter, by showing that the primitive Presbyters exercised the highest ministerial functions. In opposition to this doctrine, some allege the superiority and perpetuity of the Apostolic office. If this office was superior to that of Presbyter, and if it was designed to be perpetual, it follows of course that no church authority can rightfully be exercised, except by those who have succeeded the Apostles in the powers which belonged to them as such, and as distinguished from the Elders of the Church. Let it be observed, however; that in order to justify this conclusion, two things must be made out. If the Apostles were not an order of church-officers, distinct from and superior to the Presbyters or Elders, the strongest proof that the office was perpetual only proves that that of Elder was designed to be perpetual, which all admit. If, on the other hand, the Apostolic office was a temporary one, it matters not how far it may have been superior

to that held by Presbyters, who still remain, in that case, the highest permanent office-bearers in the Christian Church. In order then to the decision of the controversy, two distinct questions are to be determined. 1. Were the Apostles superior to Presbyters? 2. Was their office, as distinct from that of Presbyter, designed to be perpetual? By some Presbyterian writers both these questions have been answered in the negative, while all Episcopalians, who assert the jus divinum of prelatical episcopacy, answer both affirmatively. In the remainder of the present argument the first point. will be conceded; that is to say, it will be granted that the Apostles were church-officers superior to Presbyters or Elders. At the same time an attempt will be made to prove, exclusively from Scripture, that the Apostolic office was a temporary one.

I. The first argument in favour of this proposition is, that the continuance of the office is nowhere expressly stated.

To this it might be answered, that an office being once created, its continuance must be presumed, without an explicit declaration to the contrary.

The general principle is not denied; but in this case there are peculiar circumstances which afford strong ground for a contrary presumption.

1. The original Apostles are uniformly spoken of as constituting a distinct and well defined body of men, not only in the gospel history, but in the latest books of the New Testament. "But beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before by THE APOSTLES OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts" (Jude, vs. 17, 18). This