the apostles had been lately driven from Jerusalem, and though the Jews were exhibiting increasing aversion to the gospel, the Church was, notwithstanding, about to expand with extraordinary vigour by the ingathering of the Gentiles. In reference to these new members Paul and Barnabas pursued a bold and independent course, advocating views which many regarded as dangerous, latitudinarian, and profane; for they maintained that the ceremonial law was not binding on the converts from heathenism. Their adoption of this principle exposed them to much suspicion and obloquy; and because of the tenacity with which they persisted in its vindication, not a few were disposed to question their credentials as expositors of the Christian faith. It was, therefore, expedient that their right to perform all the apostolic functions should be placed above challenge. In some way, which is not particularly described, their appointment by the Spirit of God was accordingly made known to the Church at Antioch, and thus all the remaining prophets and teachers, who officiated there, were warranted to testify that these two brethren had received a call from heaven to engage in the work to which they were now designated. Their ordination, in obedience to this divine communication, was a decisive recognition of their spiritual authority. The Holy Ghost had attested their commission, and the ministers of Antioch, by the laying on of hands, set their seal to the truth of the oracle. Their title to act as founders of the Church was thus authenticated by evidence which could not be legitimately disputed. Paul himself obviously attached considerable importance to this transaction, and he afterwards refers to it in language of marked emphasis, when, in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans, he introduces himself as "a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God."

* Rom. i. 1.

In the circumstantial record of this proceeding, to be found in the Acts of the Apostles, we have a proof of the wisdom of the Author of Revelation. He foresaw that the rite of "the laying on of hands" would be sadly abused; that it would be represented as possessing something like a magic potency; and that it would be at length converted, by a small class of ministers, into an ecclesiastical monopoly. He has, therefore, supplied us with an antidote against delusion by permitting us, in this simple narrative, to scan its exact import. And what was the virtue of the ordination here described? Did it furnish Paul and Barnabas with a title to the ministry? Not at all. God himself had already called them to the work, and they could receive no higher authorisation. Did it necessarily add anything to the eloquence, or the prudence, or the knowledge, or the piety, of the missionaries? No results of the kind could be produced by any such ceremony. What then was its meaning? The evangelist himself furnishes an answer. The Holy Ghost required that Barnabas and Saul should be separated to the work to which the Lord had called them, and the laying on of hands was the mode, or form, in which they were set apart, or designated, to the office. This rite, to an Israelite, suggested grave and hallowed associations. When a Jewish father invoked a benediction on any of his family, he laid his hand upon the head of the child;* when a Jewish priest devoted an animal in sacrifice, he laid his hand upon the head of the victim;t and when a Jewish ruler invested another with office, he laid his hand upon the head of the new functionary. The ordination of these brethren possessed all this significance. By the laying on of hands the ministers of Antioch implored a blessing on Barnabas and Saul, and announced their separation, or dedication, to the work of the gospel, and intimated their investiture with ecclesiastical authority.

* Gen. xlviii. 13-15. + Lev. viii. 18, and iv. 4.

Num. xxvii. 18.

It is worthy of note that the parties who acted as ordainers were not dignitaries, planted here and there throughout the Church, and selected for this service on account of their official pre-eminence. They were all, at the time, connected with the Christian community assembling in the city which was the scene of the inauguration. It does not appear that any individual amongst them claimed the precedence; all engaged on equal terms in the performance of this interesting ceremony. We cannot mistake the official standing of these brethren if we only mark the nature of the duties in which they were ordinarily occupied. They were "prophets and teachers;" they were sound scriptural expositors; some of them, perhaps, were endowed with the gift of prophetic interpretation; and they were all employed in imparting theological instruction. Though the name is not here expressly given to them, they were, at least virtually, "the elders who laboured in the word and doctrine."* Paul, therefore, was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery of Antioch.t

If the narrative of Luke was designed to illustrate the question of ministerial ordination, it plainly suggests that the power of Church rulers is very circumscribed. They have no right to refuse the laying on of hands to those whom God has called to the work of the gospel, and who, by their gifts and graces, give credible evidences of their holy vocation; and they are not at liberty to admit the irreligious or incompetent to ecclesiastical offices. In the sight of the Most High the ordination to the pastorate of

* 1 Tim. v. 17.

+ This portion of the apostolic history may illustrate 1 Tim. iv. 14, for Paul had official authority conferred on him "by prophecy," or in consequence of a revelation made, perhaps, through one of the prophets of Antioch, "with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." Something similar, probably, occurred in the case of Timothy. But, in ordinary circumstances, the rulers of the Church must judge of a divine call to the ministry from the gifts and graces of the candidate for ordination.

an individual morally and mentally disqualified is invalid and impious.

Immediately after their ordination Paul and Barnabas entered on their apostolic mission. Leaving Antioch they quickly reached Seleucia*a city distant about twelve miles and from thence passed on to Cyprus,† the native country of Barnabas. They probably spent a considerable time in that large island. It contained several towns of note; it was the residence of great numbers of Jews; and the degraded state of its heathen inhabitants may be inferred from the fact that Venus was their tutelary goddess. The preaching of the apostles in this place appears to have created an immense sensation; their fame at length attracted the attention of persons of the highest distinction; and the heart of Paul was cheered by the accession of no less illustrious a convert than Sergius Paulus,§ the Roman proconsul. Departing from Cyprus, Paul and Barnabas now set sail for Asia Minor, where they landed at Perga in Pamphylia. Here John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, by whom they had been hitherto accompanied, refused to proceed further. He seems to have been intimidated by the prospect of accumulating difficulties. From many, on religious grounds, they had reason to anticipate a most discouraging reception; and the land journey now before them was otherwise beset with dangers. Whilst engaged in it, Paul seems to have experienced those "perils of waters," or of "rivers,"|| and "perils of robbers," which he afterwards mentions; for the highlands of Asia Minor were infested with banditti, and the mountain streams often rose with frightful rapidity, and swept away the unwary stranger. John Mark now returned

* Acts xiii. 4.

+ Acts xiii. 4.

Acts iv. 36.

§ Until this date we read of "Barnabas and Saul," now of "Paul and Barnabas." Paul was the Roman, and Saul the Hebrew name of the great apostle. * His superior qualifications had now full scope for development, and accordingly, as he takes the lead, he is henceforth generally named before Barnabas. || 2 Cor. xi. 26,—ποταμών.

to Jerusalem, and, at a subsequent period, we find Paul refusing, in consequence, to receive him as a travelling companion.* But though Barnabas was then dissatisfied because the apostle continued to be distrustful of his relative, and though "the contention was so sharp" between these two eminent heralds of the cross that "they departed asunder one from the other," the return of this young minister from Perga appears to have led to no change in their present arrangements. Continuing their journey into the interior of the country, they now preached in Antioch of Pisidia, in Iconium, in "Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia," and in "the region that lieth round about." When they had proceeded thus far, they began to retrace their steps, and again visited the places where they had previously succeeded in collecting congregations. They now supplied their converts with a settled ministry. When they had presided in every church at an appointment of elders,§ in which the choice was determined by popular suffrage, and when they had prayed with fasting, they laid their hands on the elected office-bearers, and in this form "commended them to the Lord on whom they believed." Having thus planted the gospel in many districts which had never before been trodden by the feet of a Christian missionary, they returned to Antioch in Syria to rehearse "all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles."T

Paul and Barnabas spent about six years in this first tour;** and, occasionally, when their ministrations were

+ Acts xv. 39. + Acts xiv. 6.

* Acts xv. 38. § Acts xiv. 23. || Χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ ̓ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους.—The interpretation given in the text is sanctioned by the highest authorities. See Rothe's "Anfange der Christlichen Kirche," p. 150; Alford on Acts xiv. 23; Burton's "Lectures," i. 150; Baumgarten's "Acts of the Apostles," Acts xiv. 23; Litton's "Church of Christ," p. 595. T Acts xiv. 27.

**They set out on the mission probably in A.D. 44, and returned to Antioch in A.D. 50. The Council of Jerusalem took place the year following.