was not instituted, but one superior to it. But it has been, we trust, fully shown that the permanent ministry was instituted by this Commission.* And

as no distinction whatever is made, in the Commission, between the Apostles and their successors, the latter necessarily succeed to all the powers granted the former by their common Commission. The Apostles, by this Commission, were made no more than the first members and representatives of the permanent ministry. The objection is consequently groundless.f

The truth is, as we shall have occasion to show more particularly, the Apostles derived their superior authority from the extraordinary gift of the Saviour. It was in fact no other than the authority of the Holy Ghost. As our Lord expresses it, "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father

Serm. 1. Inquiry 4 and 5.

But if it were possible to prove, that they did derive their superior authority from this -Commission, this would not militate against our conclusion. For, it is certain that they exercised their superior authority over all the other members of the permanent ministry indiscriminately; and of course, this was no part of their ordinary and transmissible authority. If it be said, that they exercised authority over the inferior part of the permanent ministry, but not over the superior part of it, the distinction is expressly denied; and it will be shown in the sequel, that they exercised authority, as decisively at least, over those, whom the advocates for prelacy claim to be bishops, as over those, whom they have represented to be the inferior order of priests.

which speaketh in you." This authority unquestionably binds all classes of men to obedience. But it is manifest that this extraordinary endowment or authority is not necessary to fulfil the duties of the Commission, because it is not continued to the ordinary ministry. If it were necessary to fulfil these duties, it must have been continued, or the ministry must have ceased. Hence it is evident, that this high authority did not belong to the Apostles as a part and representation of the ordinary or permanent ministry, but in a distinct and extraordinary char. acter. There is nothing, therefore, to invalidate the conclusion, that the ordinary or permanent ministry is of one order.

But a question has been made,

2. Whether a division of the powers is inconsistent with the Commission.

It has been said, that the full powers of the Commission were given to a part of the ministry, and to the rest but a part of these powers. The most learned advocate of prelacy in this country, whilst he expressly maintains the perpetuity of the Commission in its full force, strongly asserts this division of its powers. "There is the same necessity," he says, 66 now that there ever was, for every particular implied in the Apostolic Commission. The church of CHRIST cannot exist without it; accordingly, you ascribe to your Presbytery the whole authority implied in the Apostolic Commission. We ascribe but a part of it to the Presbyters, and the whole of it to the Bishops. This is the jugulum causæ;† and

As the same idea is usually expressed in English, "the point on which the controversy turns."

when this shall be once settled, the dispute must come to an end.”‡

We admit that this is a correct statement of the point in debate; and, though it may appear as presumptuous, as when the stripling son of Jesse went forth to meet Goliah of Gath, yet we are ready to join issue with the learned Doctor, and consent that the dispute shall be terminated by a fair decision of this question.

The Doc

Bowden's Letters, Vol. 1. page 298. tor states the same thing in substance in a number of places, and devotes several pages to an attempt to sustain this position. (Vide Letters, Vol. 1. pp. 355-364.) The Doctor in this attempt professedly follows Bishop Hoadly, but his reasoning is wholly fallacious. All the plausibility, which it may appear to possess, depends entirely upon artfully changing the ground of argumentation, and upon the assumption of facts which are expressly denied.

Nothing can be more evident than this, that CHRIST by the Commission instituted the permanent ministry, and made the Apostles, in their ordinary and transmissible character, the first members of that ministry. And this is clearly implied, if not asserted, in the statements, which the Doctor himself makes in a number of other places. But in his attempt to sustain this supposed division of powers, he artfully changes his ground. His reasoning, through a number of his observations, proceeds entirely upon this supposition, that CHRIST did not institute the permanent ministry himself, but merely authorized the Apostles to institute it. If the ground of his reasoning were correct, it would follow irresistibly that the Commis

Now, my brethren, this question has been in reality decided, by the observations made upon the successors of the Apostles, and the answer given to the preceding question. But, as such great stress is laid upon this supposed division of powers, you will excuse me in making a more particular application of the facts and principles already established to this point. You cannot be surprised that the advocates for prelacy should insist upon this division of powers, with uncommon pertinacity and vehemence; since the Commission, if it will not admit of it, is, by their own confession, fatal to their cause.

Now, it cannot be denied that CHRIST, by this Commission, instituted the permanent ministry.This is generally conceded by the advocates of prelacy, but, if it were not, it has, we trust, been fully proved. But it cannot be pretended, that the Commission makes any difference in the powers of those who act under it, There is not the most dis

sion given by CHRIST terminated with the Apostles, and that the permanent ministry depends upon a dis tinct and subsequent institution of theirs. The detection of this fallacy dissipates the substance of his reasoning upon this point.

But the Doctor endeavors to fortify himself, by assuming facts which are denied. He asserts that the Apostles, "in their ordinary transmissible character," were superior to the Presbyters whom they ordained, and that the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete were "debarred from ordination." Now, neither of these facts is admitted; and the advocate for prelacy will be required to prove them by clear scriptural evidence, before he can be permitted to reason from them.

tant intimation of any such thing. All those, there fore, who have a right to act under the Commission at all, must, as we have already observed, have a right to all the powers which it confers. For if the authority of the Commission will justify one man, who acts under it, in claiming the full powers which it contains, it will, for the very same reason, justify every other, who has a right to act under it, in claiming the same powers. For, I repeat it, their Commission makes no difference between them.

Upon this principle, it will be easy to show, that this supposed division of powers is, not merely unauthorised by the Commission, but inconsistent with it. For, it excludes some from the exercise of those powers, which they have an equal right with others to claim under their joint Commission. In fact, by the existing system of Episcopacy founded upon it, it deprives much the greater part of their rights, equally conferred upon them by the Supreme Head of the Church. So palpably inconsistent with the Commission is this system of prelacy, and, in its own nature, so evidently an usurpation.

But the inconsistency of this supposed division of powers, may be contemplated in another light. The Commission confers no powers, but such as are necessary to fulfil the duties, which it requires. This is incontrovertible. It constitutes no sinecure. The powers conferred are inseparable from the duties enjoined. For, the powers are expressly given for the performance of those duties, or are fully implied, because they are necessary to the performance. Not a single power can be derived from the Commission, besides those which are necessary to fulfil it.