teachers of the nation-the only ones permitted to offer sac. rifice in behalf of the people. Should we not then naturally expect, that when the Christian ministry took the place of this priesthood, it would be, like every thing else, conformed in some degree to the ancient model? Such would be our reasonable supposition, and we find it realized. In the early Church-as its condition is learned both from Scripture and History-we recognize everywhere the traces of a threefold ministry-Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

See, too, how strictly, under the old Dispensation, the Priesthood was guarded from the intrusion of those who could not enter it by regular descent from the family of Aaron. "No man "-writes the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews—“ taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." In every case the most fearful punishment awaited those who ventured to discharge its sacred duties without having been thus regularly commissioned. Such was the case with Korah and his company. In that spirit which prevails so extensively at this day, they raised their voices against the authorized ministers of the Sanctuary, and in language the very counterpart of which we too often hear around us, proclaimed themselves to be as good as those whom God had commissioned, and therefore authorized to assume the duties of the priesthood. "They gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore, then, lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord ?" But mark the reply of Moses-"Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi': Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?...... and seek ye the priesthood also?"* Read, too, how God gave forth His verdict on this point. Fire from the Lord burned all who joined in that act-the earth opened her bosom, and swallowed those who favored them—while the breath of the pestilence was poured forth,

* Num. xvi.

until it had destroyed the people who murmured at these judgments.*

Again-we have another example of the same kind in King Uzziah. Listen to the account in the sacred record"When he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction; for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men. And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, 'It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense; go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast transgressed; neither shall it be for thine honor from the Lord God.' Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense altar. And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord." Thus, you perceive that he entered the sanctuary an unaccredited priest, and came forth smitten with the plague of leprosy.

And do you think, that for fifteen centuries God thus

* Mr. Percival, in his "Apostolic Succession," has paraphrased this passage, to adapt it to modern times. Let it be read as overlined, and the address might be made to some in our day:

Presbyters

"Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi: Seemeth it but a small thing Christian

Son of God

unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congre people

gation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister

Episcopate

unto them? . . . . and seek ye the Priesthood also?"

....

† 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-21.

carefully guarded the priesthood, and by fearful judgments taught His people, that none could be numbered with it except they received the privilege by direct succession, and then, as soon as His Church had expanded into a nobler form, did he leave this subject totally unsettled? Did He give no authority, as in old time, to be transmitted down by descent ? Did He, instead of sending authorized heralds who bore the terms of peace, do what no earthly monarch would have done, permit His rebellious subjects to appoint their own messengers to proclaim to them His will? No, brethren, such is not the lesson which we learn from the analogy of the Jewish priesthood.

A

Neither is there any force in the objection sometimes advanced, that this argument proves too much—that it wou'd support, not only Episcopacy, but also the Papacy. We are told "There was but a single Jewish High Priest, and therefore, according to your analogy, there should be but a single Bishop. The ancient Church had but one head; if then the principle is to be carried out, but one universal Bishop should preside over Christendom. You, therefore, are sustaining the claims of the Romanist." moment's reflection, however, will show the futility of this objection. There was but a single High Priest among the Jews, because that Church was to stand single and alone, confined in a great measure to but one land. All men were obliged "to go up to Jerusalem," as the centre of their faith. But one single temple was allowed to be built, in which sacrifices could be offered. Under the Christian dispensation, however, the Church assumed a Catholic character and form. It was to be universal-diffused everywhere. Jerusalem could no longer claim extraordinary privileges, as "the place where men ought to worship," for everywhere "the true worshippers could worship the Father in spirit and in truth." Tha land became, under the new economy, but a portion of the Church, and as such had its Bishop-its single head and ecclesiastical ruler. And so it was throughout the world. The office is everywhere one and the same, although, from the extended limits of the Church, it must be held in different countries, by different and numer ous individuals. The Catholic believer, therefore, in passing from diocese to diocese, finds everywhere a successor of

the Jewish High Priest, but all the while he is under one Apostolate, as under one sky and sun.

But let us proceed to the direct Scripture evidence. The first proof we advance is that there is a recognition, in the Acts and the Epistles, of the existence of three orders in the early Church. A confusion is, indeed, sometimes created in the minds of readers, in consequence of the indis criminate use of the title Bishop. A few sentences, how. ever of explanation will remove this difficulty. As we already remarked-the three orders of ministers were, 1st, Apostles; 2d, Bishops or elders; 3d, Deacons. After, how ever, the death of the Apostles, who were the first Bishops, those who succeeded to the Episcopal office, out of respect to them as having stood nearest to our Lord, would not assume the name of Apostles, although they inherited their authority. They therefore took the name of Bishops, leav ing those in the second rank of the ministry to be called, as before, Elders or Presbyters-and the third, to retain the title of Deacons. Thus it is that the early historian, Theodoret, gives the history of this change of name. "The same persons were anciently called promiscuously both Bishops and Presbyters, whilst those who are now called Bishops, were called Apostles. But shortly after, the name of Apostles was appropriated to such only as were Apostles indeed; and then the name Bishop was given to those who before were called Apostles."* Thus, he says, that Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, and Titus the Apostle of the Cretians, and Timothy the Apostle of the Asiatics. And this he repeats in other places.†

The ancient writer under the name of St. Ambrose as. serts the same thing. They who are now called Bishops, were originally called Apostles. But the holy Apostles being dead, they who were ordained after them to govern the Churches, could not arrive to the excellency of these first, not had they the testimony of miracles, but were in many other respects inferior to them. Therefore they thought it not decent to assume to themselves the name of Apostles, but dividing the names, they left to Presbyters the

* Theodoret, Cor.m. in 1 Tim. 3, 1. Ibid. Com. in Phil. 1 1, and 2, 25.

name of the Presbytery, and they themselves were called Bishops.* Here, you perceive, is a full explanation of the change. The name however is a matter of no importance. It is the office and the authority for which we contend. We only wish to prove, that there was a grade of ministers higher in rank than the Elders or Presbyters.†

* Bingham'sOrig. Eccles. lib. ii. c. 2, sec. 1.

If a more familiar illustration of this change of title may be al lowed, we would give the following. Suppose that Washington had been elevated to the office of Chief Magistrate over this country, with the name of Dictator, while the highest magistrate in each state was called, indiscriminately, President or Governor. We will imagine, also, that the successors of Washington, although placed in office with exactly the same powers, out of respect to him as the Pater Patria, would not assume the same title. They therefore took the name of President, leaving that of Governor to be still borne by the magistrate of each state. Would this change make any difference in the office itself, or render it difficult for us to prove, that those who in 1785 were called Presidents or Governors, held the same office with those now called Governors? Or would any one deny, on account of the change of name, that he who is now called the President of the United States holds the same office which his first predecessor held under the title of Dictator?

Bishop H. U. Underdonk has given an admirable explanation, drawn from Scripture. "The word 'Sabbath' is applied in Scripture to only the Jewish day of rest; by very common use, however, it means the Lord's day. Now, 'the Sabbath' is abolished by Christianity, and the observance of it discountenanced; yet ministers of Christian denominations are constantly urging their Christian flocks to keep 'the Sabbath.' Does any conft sion of mind result from this confusion of names? We suppose not All concerned understand, that in Scripture the word means the Jewish Sabbath, while out of Scripture the same word is constantly applied to the Christian Sabbath. Let the same justice be done to the word 'Bishop.' In Scripture, it means ■ Presbyter, properly so called. Out of Scripture, according to the usage next to universal of all ages since the sacred canon was closed, it means that sacerdotal order, higher than Presbyters, which is found in Scripture under the title of Apostle.' When a Christian teacher who enjoins the observance of the day which he calls the Sabbath,' is asked for his New Testament authority, he has to exclude all the passages which contain that word, giving them a different application, and go to other passages which do not contain it; and he agrees that he seeks the thing, not the name. And when we Episcopalians are

6