now appears, pursuing the same objects, by the same means; when, on a comparison of the past with the present state of religion in the world, we find that a growing acquaintance with the great "mystery of godliness" has, upon the whole, been kept up, both in individuals, and in the Church at large, by an ostensible adherence to the apostolic system; in other words, by the perpetuation of certain spiritual offices, held under a stated authority, and professedly exercised under a divine sanction; we are encouraged in our confidence, that, though separated by a long course of years from the Church of the apostles, as it existed under their personal regulation, we are still substantially the same body, retaining the same ordinances, acting on the same principles, and occupying the same position. That the operation of this system has been grievously impeded and interrupted, as by the partial disconnexion of the Christian ministry from its spiritual head through the usurpation of the Romish pontificate, and by all the other manifestations of the same antichrist'; so, in more modern times, by the unauthorised attempt to carry on the work of the ministry independently of any fixed or traditional order, is indeed most true, and affords an unwished-for confirmation of the general principle. These deviations assure us yet more fully that "God has set some in the Church," that "Christ has given" some to his people,-ministers of holy things by special right, to whom the heavenly dispensation has been distinctly confided, and in whose hands, while they continue faithful to their trust, it will be eminently blessed. Thus far, I repeat, all is clear; but when we compare the details of the picture, as it is presented in the page of Holy Writ,

12 Thess. ii. 3-12.

with the actual state of the things as they now appear, we are struck no less with the difference, than with the similarity. In particular, the spiritual persons enumerated by St. Paul in the two passages which we have been considering, will be judged to bear other names and offices, more in number, and different in kind, than those for which in modern, and indeed in the most ancient times, subsequently to the age of the apostles, the sanction of a divine appointment is claimed.

Thus much may safely be admitted, that the Church, at the time of which we are treating, was still in a state of transition, tending indeed to that form which it was eventually intended to assume, but not yet perfectly organised'. A Church, for instance, consisting entirely of new converts, and still under the immediate direction of an apostle, neither admitted nor required that graduated scale of divine offices, which time alone could provide, and which the removal of its inspired Founder first made indispensable. On the other hand, we need not wonder that certain extraordinary teachers were demanded by the exigences of a rising Church, whose duties expired when the need which created them ceased. Of this kind, in all probability, were the evangelists mentioned above". Again, the miraculous powers, of which I have already spoken, will account for several temporary arrangements"; and possibly the distinction still subsisting between the Gentile and Jewish converts, a distinction distinctly recognised by the apostles in a meeting convened to con

1 EPIPH. Hæres. 1. xxv. sect. 5, p. 908, quoted in POTTER On Church Government, chap. iv. Ov γὰρ πάντα εὐθυς ἠδυνήθησαν οἱ ̓Απόστολοι καταστῆσαι, κ. τ. λ.

In genere Ευαγγελισταί vocantur ministri quidam Ecclesiæ Christianæ, extra ordinem et ad tempus a Deo vocati ad prædicandum Evangelium.SUICER. in voc. 3 1 Cor. xiv.

sider this very question', and not obliterated till after the destruction of Jerusalem, may have been incompatible with that uniformity of discipline which ultimately prevailed. On the whole, when we take into account the scope and occasion of the several Scriptures from which we gather our notions of the infant Church, as it then appeared, while the apostles still watched over its cradle, we must freely confess, or rather solemnly urge, that if we had no other guide in the formation of our ecclesiastical polity, than the faint delineations to which I have been alluding, were we not assisted in our interpretation of these authorities, first by certain principles, collected from a general study of the Sacred Volume, and secondly by certain facts, supplied by the Church itself historically considered,-we should be led into the most extravagant errors, as experience has repeatedly proved, both in ancient, in modern, and in recent times.

To touch for a moment upon the facts of the case, we know that, from the age immediately following the apostolic to the present time, there have been found in

66

1 Acts xv. 6-31. If "the pharisees which believed" had not held themselves personally under covenant to keep the law of Moses,and if this obligation had not been recognised by the apostles,—there could have been no ground for the sentence of the council, "that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God.” If the Jewish converts were free, there could have been no debate respecting those of the uncircumcision. On the words, "for Moses of old time hath in every city those that preach him, being read

in the synagogues every sabbathday," Chrysostom remarks, Kai ἵνα μὴτις ἀνθυπενέγκῃ, διὰ τί μὴ καὶ Ιουδαίοις τὰ αὐτὰ επιστέλλομεν; ἐπήγαγε λέγων· Μωϋσῆς ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων κατὰ πόλιν τοὺς κηρύσσοντας ἑαυτὸν ἔχει· τουτέστι Μωϋσῆς αὐτοις διαλέγεται συνεχώς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστι τὸ κατὰ πᾶν σάββατον ἀναγινωσκόμενος.

Aoy. λy. From this it would seem that in the opinion of Chrysostom, the Jewish Christian still adhered generally to the worship of the synagogue, and to the observance of the (Jewish) sabbath.

every particular Church, of which we have any account, not merely a number of sacred offices, more or fewer; three or four of which (for if we include the order of deaconesses', the latter number is obtained,) have been universally believed to be of apostolic institution, while the remainder have claimed no higher authority than that of the particular Church in which they appear'; but a sacred class, standing in the same relation to the Church at large, as the Aaronical priesthood under the Mosaic economy, to the remainder of the Jewish people'. It is to this class that the three orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as they come before us in ecclesiastical history, are to be assigned; and in this respect alone is it of any moment to inquire whether we can trace their prototypes in the sacred record. It is surely idle to draw a comparison between the officers of the Church, as they existed before and after the death of the apostles, independently of that distinction, be it what it may, which gives to the three permanent orders their peculiar character. Under the former state of things, we have apostles, prophets, and evangelists; we have those who spake with tongues, and those who interpreted them; we have those who wrought miracles, and those who healed diseases. Subsequently, we have sub-deacons,

2

1 Rom. xvi. 1. clergy was by no means confined Different churches, or the to the three superior orders. On same church in different ages, had the contrary, it was frequently more or fewer of the inferior used as a general term for those orders. They were not, therefore, ecclesiastics which were below the of catholic institution.-JOHNSON's degree of deacon.-See the ApostoVade Mecum. vol. ii. Pref. lical Canons, passim, particularly 3 The distinction of lay and the first, twelfth, and twentyclerical is of somewhat another ninth. See also BINGHAM'S Ankind, and of rather later origin. tiquities of the Christian Church. In the primitive Church, the term chap. v. sect. 6, 7, and 8.

readers, singers, exorcists, acolytes, ostiaries, &c., all included under the general name of clergy, and this in the most primitive times. They are noticed by the earliest fathers (after those called apostolical'), and are recognised by the most ancient canons of the Church. Bishops, presbyters, deacons, appear in both catalogues, and the same indeed may be said of deaconesses; but to the three former is assigned a distinct and incommunicable character. Their offices are regarded as essential to the Church. They are believed to form a component part of the divine economy-a necessary element in the Christian scheme. They are said to be typified by the high priest, the common priest, and the Levites of the elder dispensation: and hence, while the remaining offices may properly vary in kind and number with the varying exigencies of the Church, these are said to be of perpetual appointment, an immutable institution of Christ himself, and, in fact, an integral part of the great evangelical scheme. Now the real question is, whether there are any grounds in Scripture for this belief.

Such, I say, are the notions which we collect from ecclesiastical history. The facts to which they correspond

1 As Tertullian, Cyprian, and the author or authors of the (so called) Apostolical Canons.—See JOHNSON'S Vade Mecum. vol. ii. Pref. P. lxvii. Second Edit.

2 It appears that this order was not everywhere abandoned before the synod of Trullus at Constantinople, anno 683.-See SUICER. in νος. Διακόνισσα et ἡ Διάκονος. Bingham contends that they were not universally suppressed till the tenth century.

3

3 To yàp aрxiepêi idíaι Xeiτουργίαι δεδομέναι εἰσι, καὶ

Toîs iepevσiv idios Ó TÓπOS πроστέτακται καὶ λευίταις ἰδίαι διακονίαι ἐπίκεινται, ὁ λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῖς λαϊκοῖς προστάγμασιν δέδεται.—Clem. Ep. ad Rom. sect. XL. In utroque Testamento, docente Hieronymo, alium ordinem Pontifex tenet, et alium Sacerdotes, alium Levitæ ; atque traditionibus Apostolicis de veteri lege descendentibus, successerunt Episcopi, Presbyteri, et Diaconi, Aaroni, et filiis ejus, et Levitis.-COTELERIUS in loco,