The Church of England, and indeed all reformed Churches, recognize three, and only three, orders of the ministry; and such has manifestly been the constitution of the Church of God both under the Jewish and Christian Dispensations.

3. Upon what basis did our blessed Lord constitute the Christian ministry; and whence does it appear that the same constitution has always been maintained in his Church?

Under the Mosaic economy, there were a high-priest, priests, and Levites, invested with different degrees of ecclesiastical authority; and as, in many of her outward forms and ceremonies, the Christian Church was modelled upon that of the Jews, her divine founder thence also adopted a three-fold order of ministers. During his personal ministry, our Lord being the great high-priest of our profession, appointed under himself, as the Head, the twelve Apostles, and subordinate to them, the seventy disciples. After his ascension, to the Apostles and the seventy disciples a third order of deacons was added; and it appears, both "from the holy Scripture and antient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been three orders of ministers in Christian Churches, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."

4. Confirm your statement by authorities from the Apostolic Epistles, and the writings of the primitive Church.

St. Paul distinctly specifies three orders, when he states that "God had set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers" (1 Cor. xii. 28.); and there are passages in his other Epistles which agree with this statement. Compare Eph. iv. 11. 1 Tim. iii. 13. iv. 12. With respect to the early Fathers, Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, and bishop of Antioch in the first century, affirms that xwpis Tourwv, i. e. bishop, priests, and deacons, éккλŋoiα оv кaλeiтαι (Epist. ad Trall. c. 3.). Compare also c. 7; ad Magn. cc. 6, 7; ad Philad. cc. 4, 7; ad Smyrn. c. 8. Thus also in the eighteenth canon of the Council of Nice:—ἐμμενέτωσαν οἱ διάκονοι τοῖς ἰδίοις μέτροις, εἰδότες ὅτι τοῦ μεν ἐπισκόπου

ὑπηρέται εἰσὶ, τῶν δὲ πρεσβυτέρων ἐλάττους. Authorities might be multiplied; but enough have been given to establish the fact.

5. Does it not appear, however, that the titles of the three orders of Christian ministers were not originally applied as at present; and how then is their more recent application accounted for?

It is very true that the titles now applied to distinguish the three orders of the ministry, were not so limited in their application by the writers of the New Testament. As the circumstances of an institution vary, either new terms must be coined, or those already in existence modified, to answer the occasion; and the latter method has been more commonly adopted. There is an obvious example in the Latin title Imperator. Now ἐπίσκοπος, which signifes generally an overseer, was originally assumed to denote the presiding, and diákovos, a servant, to denote the ministerial functions of the Church so that the former is even applied to our Lord (1 Pet. ii. 25.); and both of them to his Apostles (Acts i. 20. 2 Cor. iii. 6. Eph. iii. 7.), who, with respect to their age and dignity, are sometimes also called πрεσßúтeроι. Compare Acts xix. 17. 28. When, however, the Apostles, in anticipation of their approaching martyrdom, appointed their successors in the superintendence of the several Churches which they had founded, as Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, the title of dróσroλog was reserved, by way of reverence, to those who had been personally sent by Christ himself; éπíσкоTоs was assigned to those who succeeded them in the highest office of the Church, as overseers of pastors as well as flocks; and πрεσẞÚτEроs, became the distinctive appellation of the second order, so that, after the first century, no writer has designated by éπɩσкoжŋ, the office of one of that class.

6. Shew that the immediate successors of the Apostles in the government of the Church were entirely distinct from the Presbyters, both in office and authority?

That the Bishops appointed by the Apostles as their successors were not only distinct from presbyters, but exercised an authority

over them similar to that of the Apostles, is evident from a variety of considerations. They were ordained to complete whatever the Apostles themselves had left imperfect (Tit. i. 6.); and were required to ordain elders as occasions might arise; to receive accusations against them; to regulate their doctrine; to rebuke openly and sharply, and (μerà xáons éxitayñs) with all authority, those who gave offence; to stop the mouths of false teachers; and to reject heretics. See 1 Tim. i. 3. v. 19, 20. Tit. i. 11. 13. ii. 15. iii. 10. It appears that one such ruler directed each of the seven Apocalyptic Churches of Asia.

7. By what general appellations are the priesthood and people commonly distinguished; and what is their derivation and import?

The priesthood and people are generally distinguished from each other, as the Clergy and Laity. Of these appellations the former is derived from the Greek word кλñpos, a lot or portion; either because the Clergy (Kλnpukoi, clerici), are the Lord's portion, to whose service they are allotted; or because God is their portion and inheritance. On the other hand the Laity are so named from Xaos, a people; as being the chosen and peculiar people of God.

8. Does not the very nature of the clerical office prove that it is exercised by commission?

As "ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. iv. 1.), and as "ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. v. 20.), it is manifest that the Clergy can only execute their functions by commission and appointment.

9. Distinguish between ability and authority; shew that mission as well as power is essential to the discharge of the ministerial functions; and point out the danger of an intrusive service.

Ability to execute an office by no means confers the right to do it. Power is one thing; authority, another: the former may be acquired by labour or study; the latter is conferred by those with whom it originates. Hence St. Paul asks, "how shall they (the ministry)

preach, unless they be sent ?" (Rom. x. 15.). Again he declares that "no man taketh this honour, i. e. the priesthood, unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron;" adding that even "Christ glorified not himself to be made a high-priest" (Heb. v. 4, 5.). Our Saviour himself declares that "he that entereth not in by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John x. 1.); and the fearful examples of Korah and his company, of Saul, and of Uzziah, afford ample warning against a presumptuous intrusion into the service of the 'sanctuary. God may not visibly interpose upon every repetition of the offence; but the warning remains, and the neglect of it must be perilous.

10. May not then a man, gifted with extraordinary endowments, be looked upon as entitled to minister in the congregation?

However extraordinary a man's endowments may be, they can give no title to the exercise of the ministerial functions, unless he be visibly and authoritatively commissioned to perform them. The faculty of speaking with ease and fluency, and of praying and preaching with energy and effect, is doubtless a valuable qualification for the office of the ministry; but it does not confer the office.

11.

Whence does it appear that it is necessary, not only to be called, but visibly and publicly sent, in order to a lawful exercise of the ministerial office ?

Aaron was not only called of God, but publicly ordained by Moses (Lev. viii. 1. sqq. Ecclus. xlv. 16.); Christ did not enter upon his ministry, until he was openly inaugurated by the baptism of John (Matt. iii. 16, 17.); the twelve Apostles and seventy disciples received their authority from Christ himself; and the "fullness of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom," with which the first deacons were gifted, did not qualify them for even the lowest office in the Church, until the Apostles" had prayed and laid their hands on them," and duly "appointed them over the business." (Acts vi. 3. 6.)

12. But does not the Church of England acknowledge a call to the ministry, provided a man feels himself moved thereto by the Holy Ghost?

Assuredly the Church of England does recognize an authoritative call to the ministry; and accordingly every ordained minister declares his conviction that he is "truly called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ." This call however is altogether apart from the notion of some Christians, who regard it as a supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit upon the soul; and merely refers to the appointment duly conveyed by those who have derived their authority, by regular succession from the Apostles, to call others, as they have been called. If then the candidate has a sincere and heartfelt desire to be admitted into holy orders, with a view to the promotion of God's glory by the spread of the Gospel, he may safely "trust that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him that office and ministration."

13. With whom then, and whence derived, does the authority of ordaining ministers exclusively rest?

When Christ was about to depart out of the world, he delegated his authority to his Apostles:-" As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (John xx. 21. See also Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. Luke xxii. 29.). The Apostles sent others with the same commission; directing them in like manner to commit their doctrines" to faithful men who should teach others also" (2 Tim. ii. 2.): by which means a permanent succession of the ministry has been kept up. That the ordaining power rests only with the bishops, or highest order of the ministry, is manifest from the fact that during 1500 years no Christian Church was subject to any other than Episcopal government; and that the chief pastors of each Church is traced back through individuals, of whom the first is without exception either a Apostle, or a bishop ordained by one of the Apostles.

14. In what terms does St. Paul caution Timothy against rash ordination; and how has our Church provided against it?