bour", "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, nor lie to one another", "Thou shalt not vex a stranger, nor oppress him", "If thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, thou shalt surely help with him." It appears that neglect of the moral side of their functions by the priests brought about the substitution of prophets of the order of Elijah for prophets of the order to which Saul joined himself on a certain occasion. What the priests neglected was taken up by the prophets. It is to be noticed that the priestly and prophetic offices, originally united in Moses, are joined together again in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

To the priesthood of Israel, quite as much as to Israel's princes, or other princes, came the word "I have said, ye are gods," reminding them of their duty of giving just judgment and teaching righteousness. In this respect the priests of Israel are differentiated from the official state-priesthoods of the pagan world, these being orders of sacrifices, altar-ministers. It was the function of the priest in Israel to keep knowledge of justice and mercy and walking humbly with God, as well as of sin-offerings, thank-offerings, and the distinction of meats clean and unclean.

In their knowledge lay their claim to be heard and obeyed, but not only in this. For though their knowledge of ritual no doubt availed them much, among people to whom ritual was so important, even when they displayed but little moral wisdom, yet another circumstance of their position was of supreme importance. They claimed-and the claim was accepted without question-not only official, but seminal descent from the men whom Moses, at God's command, selected out of all Israel to be priests, and set apart to wait continually upon this very thing. The priest is "the messenger of the Lord of Hosts." Not only does he present the sacrifices and offerings of his fellow-men, but he also delivers to him assurance of pardon and peace, and, if he truly fulfils his ministry, shows them the true and the right way.

The priesthood of Israel, then, claimed Divine institution and Divine commission. But had the popular mind and will no part in their authority? It must be admitted that it had, and the same holds good of the authority held by the prophets. It is quite possible that a commission Divinely given may not ob

tain recognition. The prophets experienced this, and in considering the shortcomings of the priests, it should be taken into account that, while they were listened to as instructors and judges upon questions of ritual, they may have found their character as moral teachers ignored or even denied. However that may be, one knows that again and again when the word of the Lord came to Israel it was disregarded. Even when the Word became flesh, and dwelt among them, "his own received him not." The part taken by the popular mind and will in constituting the authority of priest and prophet in Israel is clearly indicated in Isaiah's commission-"Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed, but perceive not." The consent of the people constituted the authority of priest and prophet in this sense-that, according as it was given or withheld, so their words took effect or failed of it. When it was given, what did that giving of consent mean? It did not necessarily mean recognition of power to punish grievously those who disobeyed, for though such punishment might have befallen, it might also have befallen in such a manner as precluded the supposition that the messenger of the Lord of hosts had had any hand in it. The people of Jerusalem could hardly have supposed that Isaiah brought Sennacherib down upon them. What the yielding of consent and obedience meant was recognition of the fact that the messenger spoke truththat he knew that he had wisdom.

Between paganism on the one hand, and Judaism on the other, we see a great gulf fixed, for the pagan, though required to recognize the gods of his fatherland, might worship other gods besides, such as those who were appointed to bear rule over him approved of, while the Jew might worship none save Yahveh. In pagan religion, theology counted for much less than ritual. So long as the rites and ceremonies were diligently performed, there was little likelihood of anyone getting into trouble for the confusion of divine persons or the division of the divine substance. It was not asserted "on authority" that the gods whose names were known were all the gods that existed. More than one altar in Athens and Attica bore the inscription ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩΙ ΘΕΩΙ. But Judaism had a definite "creed." First of the Ten Words was "I am Yahveh thy God: thou shalt have none other gods but me." The pagan was not

compelled, under terror of divine wrath, to make an image of his god or gods, unless an "oracle" had been delivered enjoining the making of an image, and such oracles were not found everywhere, if indeed anywhere. The Jew was absolutely forbidden to make to himself any graven image for worship. Many thoughtful pagans looked with amused contempt upon images, even the finest, as utterly inadequate symbols of deity. But we never find a philosopher breaking down the carven work with axes and hammers. The Jew was always ready to play the iconoclast.

In Paganism, again, morality was the maintenance of "mos et instituta majorum" rather than obedience to "lively oracles" uttered by a divine voice. It is not fair to paganism to say that it divorced religion from Morality. But the office of moral instructor was not so joined with sacredotal functions in paganism as it was in Judaism and Christianity. Aristotle held that the aim and purpose of the laws of the State was to make good men. He prefaces his ethical enquiry by describing it as πολιτική τις μέθοδος

Socrates, in the Crito, represents the laws as the citizen's guardians and teachers. Glaucus, son of Epicydes, was rebuked by the god at Delphi for attempting to make him a partner in iniquity. Nemesis was believed to dog the steps of the proud. Still, the pagan priest, generally speaking, was an expert in ritual and a temple-minister, rather than a teacher of righteousness. Moral teaching was not required of him. We have seen how these matters stood in Judaism, and Christianity from the first required the minister of sacred things to point out the way of righteousness by precept and lead in it by example.

3. Christianity, Christendom. Originally, the seats of authority were held by the Apostles. They were believed to "have knowledge of that whereof they spoke." They had been eye-witnesses of the acts and sufferings, of the humiliation and the glory, of Jesus. Their testimony, so we read in the narrative of the Acts, was confirmed by signs and wonders. It was also confirmed by the character of their lives.

The position of Paul differed from that of the Apostles who had been associated with Jesus during the days of his earthly life. There are indications of conflict between those

who had become believers through Paul's preaching, and those who had been converted by the other Apostles, among whom the lead was taken by Peter. Ultimately, it was Pauline doctrine that prevailed, and its adherents claimed that it had obtained the approval of the older Apostles. They could refer to statements left by Paul himself in his Epistle to the Churches of Galatia, and to the narrative of the treatise entitled "Acts of the Apostles." But whether Paul was, or was not, for any length of time actually contending with and opposed by the older Apostles, he was at one with them on this point-that the apostolate was a Divine commission. For himself he makes high claims. The Gospel he preached had been taught him by no human being, but "in revelation" by the Lord Jesus Himself. His call had come to him directly from Heaven, his commission. and authority were of Heaven and not of men.

With the Churches and sects of modern Christendom far from general agreement regarding the position of their several ministries, it may appear fantastic to speak of all Christian. ministers of religion as one order. Yet each one of the great Christian bodies claims that its pastors are engaged in work which was begun by the Apostles, and such a claim on behalf of a ministry or pastorate is a claim that it stands in the Apostolic succession.

Ordination, or appointment to the ministry, is investiture with authority. The person ordained is to be heard as a teacher, and recognized as a minister of the sacraments. Whence is his authority? What makes his acts valid, what gives him the right to speak and teach? In the matter of ecclesiastical government, what gives his acts and rulings a binding quality? Is he an authoritative person because he has been, directly or indirectly, elected by the congregation over which he is set? Is it the delegation of imperium, primarily resident and inherent in the general body of the congregation, to one of its members? Or is he an authoritative person, not merely because he has been called or elected by a congregation, or a whole group of congregations, to take office, but in virtue of some other circumstance or quality as well?

The ministerial commission is a twofold one. Each Christian body needs a ministerial order of men, successors of the original ministers and pastors of the Church, i.e. successors of

the Apostles. The question, how that order is to be maintained from age to age, and the question, how in case of a break in the succession that succession is to be restored, are rocks of offence upon which the unity of Christendom has been shattered. But those who are to be ministered unto are in a position to claim' some part, directly or indirectly, in the admission of men to this order, and in the appointment of members of this order to the actual exercise of ministry. The authority of ministers, then, is the authority of office-holders. But it is also the authority of men whose commission, in its ultimate origin is from God, their office having been instituted by Christ Himself, as the Son of God.

One part of their ministry is doctrine. It is not open to the individual minister to preach and teach simply and solely in accordance with his own judgment. He has received the fidei commissum of a 'form of sound words.' He, therefore, and the whole company of his order, must be guided by the written records of Apostolic teaching and practice. What they teach, and what they do as ministers (rites and ceremonies) must square in principle with the acts and teaching of those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word of God Incarnate. The written record of the New Covenant does not, like that of the Old, give a number of detailed instructions concerning acts of religion. But even with all its multiplicity of details the Law of Moses left full scope for the activities of νομοδιδάηαλοι.

The Law of the New Testament is expressed in principle. The application of it to the actual emergencies of human life is the Torah, the instruction, which the lips of the Christian priest should keep. Besides matters of conduct, moreover, the Christian minister has matters of belief whereon he must discourse. What is the right interpretation of all that Apostles and Evangelists have written concerning the Person of Christ, or Divine Grace, or the Holy Spirit? Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, and learning is more than mere reading over-more even than committing to memory. "Understandest thou what thou readest? How can I, except some man shall guide me!"

There are those who speak as though they believed that the true way of religion for everyone lay in his interpreting the