One of the commonest and most comprehensive of these objections, is that which is advanced against the whole Doctrine of an Authoritative Ministry in the Church, though more especially against the notion of a Descended Priesthood; viz. That it is a going back to “beggarly elements,” a perpetuation of Judaism in the Church. They who urge this, do not scruple to deny all similarity of office between the Christian and the Jewish Priesthood, and they represent it as essentially Anti-christian in any man in these days to pretend to the Priestly office. “If,” say they, “it be even granted that a separate order of Ministers is sanctioned by the Gospel, still it is both arrogant and unscriptural to pretend to institute any sort of parallel between the Christian and the Jewish Ministries.” It is strange that any man can speak so thoughtlessly, who has had the advantage of reading even an English Testament. Not only is the principle of the necessity of a proper Ministry assumed throughout the Christian Scriptures, but the very analogy which is now denied between the Christian and the Jewish ministries is _throughout_ assumed, and sometimes expressly insisted on, and drawn out. If it were so dangerous and Anti-christian an error to pretend to a Priesthood in the Church, at all resembling that of the Temple, surely the Apostles would have been especially anxious to avoid using any expressions which should seem to imply any such thing. St. Paul’s language, if not to be taken simply as he employed it—that is, if it were not literally _true_—was calculated much to mislead. It could not have been safe, when the early Church had so strong a tendency to Judaize, to make use of what may be called “priestly terms” and allusions. And yet this is done continually in the New Testament, and even as a “matter of course.” Observe, for instance, that sentence of St. Paul, specially concerning the ancient Priesthood, but so widely expressed as to convey a general principle, assumed as known to be equally true now as of old—“No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of GOD as was Aaron.” (Heb. v. 1, 4). So the Holy Baptist at the beginning of the Gospel puts forth this as an Evangelical principle, concerning any Divine Ministry, not excepting Christ’s Own; “A man can _take unto himself_ nothing” [margin]. (John iii. 27, &c.) St. Paul likewise calls CHRIST Himself “the Apostle and High-priest,” linking the two ideas together—joining the Apostolical and the Priestly offices—but saying that even HE “glorified not Himself to be made an High-priest.” {88} The FATHER “sent” Him; and “as His FATHER sent HIM, so He sent His Apostles.” And what, again, might we not fairly conclude from such an allusion as the following, even if there were nothing more clear? “WE have an _altar_ whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle;” (Heb. xiii. 10.) which occurs immediately after the injunction concerning the Ministry, “remember THEM” (v.