duction of the ceremony of the laying on of hands: because the prior existence of the ceremony, is evident in its having been practised long before,* in the ordination of deacons. From these considerations it is inferred, that St. Paul was like the twelve apostles, in being a designated witness of the resurrection; and in the benefit of the promise of plenary inspiration. The leading part which he was to take, in the bringing of the Gentiles within the Church, may sufficiently account for the interposition of heaven, in the peculiar circumstances of his designation to the apostleship.

The other branch of the proposition, respects the ministry designed to be perpetuated. It appears in the promise made to the apostles by the great Head of the Church,+ of being with them to the end of the world. Connected with this promise, was the command to— "Teach" [that is, make disciples of]" all nations." A commission, which will not have been discharged, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled;" that is the conversion of all nations to the faith of Christ.

There needs the less to be said on this point, because of agreement on it, between the opposite parties under the present head of argument. But here begins the opposition of opinion. For it is insisted on by the antiepiscopalian system, that in the ministry spoken of, the apostles can have no successours; because of a supereminence of character, in which they had no partakers. Accordingly the inquiry, still proceeding in the line of fact, has reached the second proposition: which isthat in the exercise of the permanent ministry, the apostles associated with themselves others, coordinately; and to be of a higher grade, than those commonly called presbyters or elders.

The ground of the argument, shall begin in what is found in the fifteenth chapter of the acts of the apostles. The subject of the chapter, is the question of circumcision and the other legal rites, in reference to the + Verse 19.

* vi. 6. S Luke xxi. 24.

† Matt. xxviii. 20.

Gentile converts. "The apostles and elders came together, for to consider of this matter." Their final determination, is stated to be the sense of "the apostles and elders, with the whole Church:" and the consequent epistle to the Church of Antioch, is in the name of "the apostles, and elders, and brethren." Here, besides those called in one place "the whole Church," and in another "the brethren;" there appear two grades of ecclesiastical character-that of the apostles, and that of elders or presbyters: the latter word being the nearest in sound to the original. If then, under the term "apostles," there can be shown to have been persons, who possessed the apostolick character which is here denied to have ceased with the apostolick age; there will appear, even in this very early incident, the more enlarged superintendency in question. Now it will be insisted on, that there were in the assembly in Jerusalem, at least two of its members, who were coordinate with the first apostles in this respect. These two, were St. James and St. Barnabas.*

In the case of the former, the only difficulty which can occur, is on the question, whether he were of the twelve. That he was one of those who came under the name of "the brethren of the Lord," is generally agreed. But by some, he is identified with James the son of Alpheus: for as to the son of Zebedee of the same name, he is out of the question; having already fallen under the sword of Herod. But that the James

* Some of the manuscripts, in the phrase " Aros0201, xai Πρεσβύτεροι, και αδελφοι,” drop the last « και.” "xa." On the ground of these manuscripts, the Greek editor Mills contends, that the true reading is--the apostles and elders brethren: A mode of expression similar to what is found in several places, and particularly in the seventh and thirteenth verses of this very chapter; where we read-" Avdges adeλpor," more strictly translated" men, brethren:" that is, men, who are brethren. So in the place in question-the elders who are brethren. Thus Mills: but Griesbach retains the usual reading, with his mark denoting, that it is not beyond doubt. Whichever may be the correct reading, it is evident from the twenty-second verse, that regard was had to the concurrence of the Church in general, in the decision.

here spoken of, is a distinct person from either of them; may be perceived, by comparing, first, Matt. x. 2—4, and Mark iii. 16-19; then Matt. xiii. 54—56; Mark vi. 2, 3, and John xvi. 42; and by afterwards consulting John vii. 5. On the first of these comparisons, will be seen the concurrence of the two evangelists, as to the time of the appointment of the twelve. The second comparison will show the harmony of the three evangelists mentioned, in the comment of our Lord's countrymen, in regard to his family resident among them, at a period later than that of the choice of the twelve apostles. Not only are the texts from St. Matthew and St. Mark expressive of the residence of James among them at the time; but the place the last referred to in St. John, which refers to a still later period, says "Neither did his brethren believe in him." From these circumstances it would seem, that these kinsmen of the Messiah, perhaps stumbling at the spiritual character of his kingdom, had not submitted themselves to his authority, until at most a short time before his passion. There are coincident circumstances to the same effect. The forty-sixth verse of the twelfth chapter of St. Matthew, speaks of Christ's brethren standing without, desiring to speak with him: a record, which would hardly have appeared in this form, had the elder of those brethren been near his person in the quality of his apostle. The translators of the Bible seem to have had the same apprehension of the incident: for to the name of James in the thirteenth chap. ter, there is attached a marginal reference to the aforesaid forty-sixth verse of the twelfth. In like manner, connected with what is said in Mark iii. 21-" When his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him, for they said he is beside himself;" the marginal translation has it-" his kinsmen." This the translators seem to have considered as a rendering permitted by the original; and it contributes to the position here maintained.

Some have held, that this St. James was a son of Joseph, by a former wife: others, that he was his

nephew; and others, that he was the nephew of the Virgin Mother. Now although the point here contended for, does not rest on the issue of this question; yet the first of the hypotheses is the most favourable, and is also conceived to be the most reasonable. St. Mark describes as present at the crucifixion, three women, of whom one was named Mary; and she is called "the Mother"*-which may be understood to mean by marriage-" of James and of Joses." We learn from St. John's account of our Lord's delivery of his mother to the care of that apostle, during the crucifixion, that she was present at it. It is very improbable, that St. Mark would notice the presence of certain female disciples, at the important scene; and yet omit the most distinguished personage among them.† This goes to the point, that James was the son of Joseph; unless it be supposed with some, that he bare the name of Alpheus also. But this is mere conjecture, Although it is not contrary to scriptural language, to include cousins under the name of brethren; yet it is the most natural to take the latter word in its strict sense, unless reason to the contrary should appear. But James is expressly called "The Lord's brother:"f-doubtless meaning, on the father's side only. It gives weight to the sentiment, that he is called "The brother of Jesus," by the historian Josephus, in the eighth chapter of the twentieth book of his Antiquities.

The account which has been given of the St.

xv. 40.

A difficulty may occur on the other side, as to the denominating of the Virgin Mother from her relation to James the Less; when she stood in the same relation to a character so much higher. But perhaps the relation to a living character, may have been the more natural for the designation of the person meant. Or there may have been the reason which bishop Taylor, in his life of this apostle, cites from Gregory of Nyssa-the passing over of what might expose to persecution.

Gal. i, 19.

James discoursed of, agrees with the testimony of Hegesippus, preserved by Eusebius in his history.* That testimony, which is as early as the beginning of the second century, distinguishes between the person in question, and the apostles strictly called. That the same was the sense of the early Church in general, we have no slight evidence in the book of Common Prayer, and in the Roman ritual from which the matter here spoken of was taken. These documents commemorate two of the name of James; one of whom is distinguished by the name of "The Apostle:" and that the son of Zebedee is meant, appears from the Collect and from the epistle for the day. It must have been on the same principle, that Eusebius entitled the ninth chapter of the second book of his history-" Of the Martyrdom of James the Apostle:" meaning the son of Zebedee, as the chapter shows. He certainly could not have considered James the Just, of whom he speaks so often, as one of the twelve; and yet have made that title the descriptive trait of the other.

In 1 Cor. xv. 7, James is expressly distinguished from the twelve. But there has been an endeavour to do away the effect of this, by noticing from John, xx. 24: that Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to the eleven. And as a special appearance was vouchsafed to Thomas; so it has been thought that James the apostle may have been absent, and the like appearance may have been vouchsafed to him. The pertinency of this is not here admitted: but as it has been advanced, there appeared to be use in extraneous evidence, in proof of the distinction between James the son Alpheus, and James the Just.

The character the next to be attended to, is that of Barnabas; whot is twice called an apostle, although not of the number of the twelve; and not immediately commissioned after the ascension, as † Acts, xiv. 4 and 14.

* Lib. ii. cap. 23.