But further: what St. Paul meant by being “sent,” or “apostolically commissioned,” as well as the high importance which he attached to it, may be gathered from the extreme anxiety with which, at the opening of his Epistles to the Churches, he repeats, and dwells on, the fact of his own apostolical character; which is so conspicuous, that the want of such a preface has sometimes been urged as an argument against his authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. {8} “Paul an APOSTLE of JESUS CHRIST;” “Paul CALLED to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of GOD;” “Paul an APOSTLE not of men, neither by man,” but “by the will of GOD.” Such are the beginnings of his Epistles. Nor was such an anxiety at all unnatural in him; because his apostolical character was not so regularly derived as that of others, and had been greatly disputed in some churches, and so needed constant vindication: of which the Apostle seemed to be well aware. But, on modern principles, this self-vindicating anxiety is quite unintelligible. It never could have been manifested by St. Paul, if he had only thought, “that every man has a right to be a Christian teacher, whether he has a mission or not, provided he is persuaded of his own ability, and can persuade others of it too.” To one unacquainted with this notion, there certainly would seem to be some powerful difficulty (which others would not see) in this question, “How shall they preach except they be SENT?” And therefore in the next chapter to this which contains these questionings, St. Paul again glances at this topic, and says, “Inasmuch as I am the Apostle (the SENT one) of the Gentiles, I magnify mine OFFICE.” Now, as we have said, it is very easy to reply to all this, that St. Paul’s circumstances were different, and that that will account for the difference of his feelings and language. For even granting this, is it either consistent with a cautious reason, or a Christian humility, to assume in this way, that we are right in differing from St. Paul, provided we can “account for the difference?” Or, supposing that our altered times do account for the difference (as in some sense they do), does it follow that they justify it? Perhaps we may “account for” most of man’s transgressions against GOD’S law, but does that _justify_ them? But let us keep to the case before us. How can we be so sure, that if in the apostolic days the common people had possessed Bibles, and were able to read them, and, in a word, were outwardly circumstanced in all respects as we are, then St. Paul’s principles, and St. Paul’s exhortations, would have been such as ours now are? Have we any right to say, without proof, that St. Paul assigned such an importance to the teaching of a living ministry, _solely_ because Bibles were not plentiful? Might there not have been other reasons? Consider: is it not very conceivable that there might have been that in Christianity which could only be perfectly conveyed by