were chosen for the distinctive and peculiar work of ordaining to sacred offices? This the Episcopalian affirms. This we take the liberty of calling in question.

The Evangelists have given three separate and full accounts of the appointment of the apostles. One is recorded by Matthew, ch. x.; another by Mark, iii. 12, etc.; the third by Luke, ch. vi. They were selected from the other disciples, and set apart to their work with great solemnity. Luke vi. The act was performed in the presence of a great multitude, and after the Savior had passed the night in prayer to God. Luke vi. 12. The instructions given to them on the occasion occupy, in one part of the record, (Matt.) the entire chapter of forty-two verses. The directions are given with very great particularity, embracing a great variety of topics, evidently intended to guide them in all their ministry, and to furnish them with ample instruction as to the nature of their office. They refer to times which should follow the death of the Lord Jesus, and were designed to include the whole of their peculiar work. Matt. x. 17-23.

Now, on the supposition of the Episcopalian, that the peculiarity of their work was to ordain, or that "they were distinguished from the elders because they were superior to them in ministerial powers and rights," (p. 15.) we cannot but regard it as unaccountable, that we find not one word of this here. There is not the slightest allusion to any such distinguishing "power, and rights." There is nothing which can be tortured into any such claim. This is the more remarkable, as on another occasion he sent forth seventy disciples at one time, (Luke x. 1-16.) usually regarded by Episcopalians as the foundation of the second order of their ministers; (See "The Scholar Armed.") and there is not the slightest intimation given, that they were to be inferior to the apostles in the power of ordaining, or superintending the churches. We do not know what explanation the Episcopalian will give of this remarkable omission in the instructions of the primitive bishops.

This omission is not the less remarkable in the instructions which the Lord Jesus gave to these same apostles, after his resurrection from the dead. At that time, we should assuredly have expected an intimation of the existence of some such peculiar power. But, not the slightest hint occurs of any such exclusive authority and superintendence. Matthew, (xxviii. 18-20.) Mark, (xvi. 1518.) and Luke, (xxiv. 47-49.) have each recorded these parting instructions. They have told us that he directed them to remain in Jerusalem (Luke,) until they were endued with power from on high, and then to go forth, and preach the gospel to every creature but not a solitary syllable about any exclusive power of ordination; about their being a peculiar order of ministers; about their transmitting the peculiarity of the apostolic office to others.

We should have been glad to see some explanation of this fact. We wish to be apprised of the reason, if any exists, why, if the peculiarity of their office consisted in "superiority of ministerial powers and rights," neither at their election and ordination, nor in the departing charge of the Savior, nor in any intermediate time, we ever hear of it; that even the advocates for the powers of the bishop never pretend to adduce a solitary expression that can be construed into a reference to any such distinction.

We proceed now to observe, that there is not any where else, in the new testament, a statement that this was the peculiarity of their apostolic office. Of this any man may be satisfied, who will examine the new testament. Or, he may find the proof in a less laborious way, by simply looking at the fact, that neither Dr. Onderdonk, nor any of the advocates of Episcopacy, pretend to adduce any such declaration. The apostles often speak of themselves; the historian of their doings (Luke,) often mentions them; but the place remains yet to be designated, after this controversy has been carried on by keen-sighted disputants for several hundred years, which speaks of any such peculiarity of their office.

This point, then, we shall consider as settled, and shall feel at liberty to make as much of it as we possibly can, in the argument. And we might here insist on the strong presumption thus furnished, that this settles the case. We should be very apt to regard it as decisive in any other case. If two men go from a government to a foreign court, and one of them claims to be a plenipotentiary, and affirms that the other is a mere private secretary, or a consul, we expect that the claimant will sustain his pretensions by an appeal to his commission or instructions. If he maintains that this is the peculiarity of his office, though he may "enjoy all the powers of the other grades," (p. 11.) we expect to find this clearly proved in the documents which he brings. If he is mentioned by no name that designates his office, as the Episcopalian admits the bishop is not,-(pp. 12, 13.) if his commission contains no such appointment, and if we should learn, that specific instructions were given to him at his appointment, and again repeated in a solemn manner when he left his native shores; we should at least look with strong suspicions on these remarkable claims. Would not any foreign court decide at once that such pretensions, under such circumstances, were utterly unfounded?

We proceed now to inquire, whether it is possible to ascertain n the peculiarity of the apostolic office? for it must be conceded that there was something to distinguish the apostles from the other ministers of the new testament. Here, happily, we are in no way left in the dark. The Savior, and the apostles and sacred writers themselves, have given an account which cannot be easily mistaken; and our amazement is, that the writer of this tract has not adverted

The

to it. The first account which we adduce is from the lips of the Savior himself. In those solemn moments, when he was about t leave the world; when the work of atonement was finished; and when he gave the apostles their final commission, he indicated the na ture of their labors, and the peculiarity of their office, in these words (Luke xxiv. 48.) "And ye are WITNESSES of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you," etc. object of their special appointment, which he here specifies, was that they should be WITNESSES to all nations. (Comp. v. 47, and Matt. xxviii. 18, 19.) The "things" of which they were to bear witness, he specifies in the preceding verse. They were his sufferings in accordance with the predictions of the prophets: "thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer;" and his resurrection from the dead: "and to rise from the dead the third day." These were the points to bear "witness," to which they had been selected; and these were the points on which they, in fact, insisted in their ministry. See the Acts of the Apostles, passim.

from us,

We would next remark, this is expressly declared to be the "peculiarity" of the apostolic office. It was done so at the election of an apostle to fill up the vacated place of Judas. Here, if the peculiar design had been to confer "superiority in ministerial rights and powers," we should expect to be favored with some account of it. It was the very time when we should expect them to give an account of the reason why they filled up the vacancy in the college of apostles, and when they actually did make such a statement. Their words are these: (Acts i. 21, 22.) "Wherefore, of these men which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day when he was taken up must one be ordained to be a WITNESS WITH US of his resurrection." This passage we consider to be absolutely decisive on the point before us. It shows, first, for what purpose they ordained him; and, second, that they were ordained for the same purpose. Why do we hear nothing on this occasion, of their "superiority of ministerial rights and powers?" why nothing of their peculiar prerogative to ordain? why nothing of their "general superintendence" of the church? Plainly, because they had conceived of nothing of this kind, as entering into their original commission and peculiar design. For this purpose of bearing testimony to the world of the fact of the resurrection of the Messiah, they had been originally selected. For this they had been prepared, by a long, intimate acquaintance with the Savior. They had seen him ; had been with him in various scenes, fitted to instruct them more fully in his designs and character; had enjoy edan intimate personal friendship with him, (1 Johu i. 1.) and were thus qualified to

go forth as "witnesses" of what they had seen and heard; to confirm the great doctrine that the Messiah had come, had died, and had risen, according to the predictions of the prophets. We just add here, that these truths were of sufficient importance to demand the appointment of twelve honest men to give them confirmation. It has been shown, over and over again, that there was consummate wisdom in the appointment of witnesses enough to satisfy any reasonable mind, and yet not so many as to give it the appearance of tumult or popular excitement. The truth of the whole scheme of christianity rested on making out the fact, that the Lord Jesus had risen from the dead; and the importance of that religion to the welfare of mankind, demanded that this should be substantiated to the conviction of the world. Hence the anxiety of the eleven to complete the number of the original witnesses selected by the Savior, and that the person chosen should have the same acquaintance with the facts that they had themselves.

It is worthy, also, of remark, that in the account which the historian gives of their labors, this is the main idea which is presented. Acts ii. 32. "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. v. 32. "And we are witnesses of these things." x. 39-41. "And we are witnesses of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they slew and hanged on a tree." "Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto WITNESSES chosen before of God, even unto us," etc. In this place we meet with another explicit declaration, that this was the object of their original appointment. They were "chosen" for this, and set apart in the holy presence of God to this work. Why do we not hear any thing of their superiority in ministerial rights and powers?" Why not an intimation of the power of confirming, and of general superintendence? We repeat, that it is not possible to answer these questions, except on the supposition, that they did not regard any such powers as at all entering into the peculiarity of their com

mission.

Having disposed of all that is said in the new testament, so far as we know, of the original design of the appointment to the apostolic office, we proceed to another and somewhat independent source of evidence. The original number of the apostles was twelve. The design of their selection we have seen. For important purposes, however, it pleased God to add to their number, one, who had not been a personal attendant on the ministry of the Savior, and who was called to the apostleship four years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Now this is a case, evidently, which must throw very important light on our inquiries. It is independent of the others. And as he was not a personal observer of the life and death of Jesus; as he was not an original

"witness" in the case, we may expect in the record of his appointment, a full account of his "superiority in ministerial rights and powers.' If such superiority entered into the peculiarity of the apostolic office, this was the very case where we expect to find it. His conversion was subsequent to the resurrection. He was to be employed extensively in founding and organizing churches. He was to have intrusted to him almost the entire pagan world. Comp. Rom. xv. 16. His very business was one that seemed to call for some specific account of "superiority in ministerial rights," if any such rights were involved in the apostolic office. How natural to expect a statement of such rights; and an account of the "general superintendence" intrusted to him, as an apostle! Let us look, therefore, and see how the case stands. We have three distinct accounts of his conversion, and appointment to the apostleship, in each of which the design of his appointment is stated. Acts xxii. 14, 15. In his discourse before the Jews, he repeats the charge given to him by Ananias, at Damascus: "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, etc. For thou shalt be his WITNESS unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." Again, (Acts xxvi. 16.) in his speech before Agrippa, Paul repeats the words addressed to him by the Lord Jesus in his original commission: "I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister inpérny and a WITNESS of those things," etc. Again, (Acts xxiii. 11.) in the account which is given of his past and future work, it is said: "As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."

This is the account which is given of the call of Saul of Tarsus to the apostolic office. But, where is there a single syllable of any superiority in ministerial powers and rights," as constituting the peculiarity of his office? We respectfully ask the writer of this tract, and all other advocates of Episcopacy, to point to us a "light or shadow" of any such Episcopal investment. We think their argument demands it. And if there is no such account, neither in the original choice of the twelve, nor in the appointment of Matthias, nor in the selection of the apostle to the Gentiles; we take the liberty to insist with firmness on a satisfactory explanation of the causes which operated to produce the omission of the very gest of their office, according to Episcopacy. We insist on being told of some reasons, prudential or otherwise, which made it proper to pass over the very vitality of the original commission.

But we have not done with the apostle Paul. He is too important a 'witness' for us, as well as for the purpose for which he was appointed, to be dismissed without further attention. It has been remarked already, that he was not a personal follower of Jesus of Nazareth, and was not present at his death and ascension. It may be asked, then, how could he be a witness, in the sense,