#

unto us," etc. In this place we meet with another 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 commission.

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 Saviour, 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 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 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 "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 essence 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 com

mission.

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, and for the purposes already described? Let us see how this was provided for. We transcribe the account from his own statement of the address made to him by Ananias. Acts xxii. 14. "The God of our fathers

hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst

know his will, and SEE

that Just One, and shouldst hear the words of his mouth." That he had thus seen him, it is not necessary to prove. See 1 Cor. xv. 8; Acts ix. 5, 17. The inference which we here draw is, that he was permitted to see the Lord Jesus in an extraordinary manner, for the express purpose of qualifying him to be invested with the peculiarity of the apostleship. This inference, sufficiently clear from the very statement, we shall now proceed to put beyond the possibility of doubt.

We turn, then, to another account which Paul has given of his call to the apostleship, 1 Cor. ix. 1, 2: “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" We adduce this passage as proof that to have seen Jesus Christ, was considered as an indispensable qualification for the apostleship. So Paul regarded it in his own case. We adduce it also for another purpose, viz., to strengthen our main position, that the apostles was designated to their office specifically as witnesses to the character and resurrection of Christ. If this was not the design, we ask, why does Paul appeal to the fact that he had seen the Saviour, as proof that he was qualified to be an apostle? And we further ask, with emphasis, if the apostles, as Episcopalians pretend, did, in virtue of their office, possess "superiority in ministerial powers and rights," why did not Paul once hint at the fact in this passage? His express object was to vindicate his claim to the apostleship.

In doing this, he appeals to that which we maintain to have constituted the peculiarity of the office, his being "witness" to the Saviour. In this instance we have a circumstance, of which Paley would make much in an argument, if it fell in with the design of the "Hora Pauline." We claim the privilege of making as much of it, upon the question whether the peculiarity of the apostolic office was "superiority of ministerial powers and rights."

We have now examined all the passages of Scripture which state the design of the apostleship. And we have shown, if we mistake not, that the ground of the distinction between the "apostles and elders," "the apostles and elders, and brethren," was not that the former had superiority of "ministerial powers and rights." We might leave the argument here; for if the Episcopalians cannot make out this point to entire satisfaction, all that is said about successors in the apostolic office, and about perpetuating apostleship, must be nugatory and vain. But we have an independent topic of remark here; and one which bears on the subject, therefore, with all the force of a cumulative argument. To the consideration of this we are led by the next position of Dr. Onderdonk. This is stated in the following words: that "there was continued, as had begun in the apostles, an order of ministers superior to the elders." p. 16. This he attempts to prove, on the ground that "there is no scriptural evidence that mere elders (presbyters) ordained." pp. 16-23. And that "the above distinction between elders and a grade superior to them, in regard especially to the power of ordaining, was so persevered in as to indicate that it was a permanent arrangement, and not designed to be but temporary." pp. 23We shall reverse the order of this argument.

29.

In the inquiry, then, whether this distinction was continued or persevered in, we might insist on what has been already shown, as decisive. If the original distinction was what we

have proved it to be, it could not be persevered in, without (as in the case of Paul) a personal, direct manifestation of the ascended Saviour, to qualify every future incumbent for the apostleship. 1 Cor. ix. 1. No modern "bishop," we presume, will lay claim to this. The very supposition that any such revelation was necessary, would dethrone every prelate, and prostrate every mitre in Christendom.

But we have, as before remarked, an independent train of arguments on this point. It is evident that the whole burden of proof here lies on the Episcopalian. He maintains that such an original distinction existed, and that it was perpetuated. Both these positions we deny. The first we have shown to be unfounded, and have thus virtually destroyed the other. We proceed, however, to the comparatively needless task of showing that Dr. Onderdonk's second position is equally unfounded. His evidence we shall examine as we find it scattered throughout the tract before us.

The first argument is, that "some are named apostles in Scripture, who were not thus appointed, (i. e. by the Saviour himself,) as Matthias, Barnabas, and probably James, the brother of our Lord, all ordained by merely human ordainers. Silvanus also, and Timothy, are called apostles; and, besides Andronicus and Junia, others could be added to the list." p. 15.

The argument here is, that the name "apostle" is given to them, and that they held, therefore, the peculiar office in question. But the mere circumstance that they had this name, would not of itself establish this point. It is not necessary, we presume, to apprize our readers, that the word apostle means one who is sent, and may be applied to any person employed to deliver a message; and in a general sense, to any ministers of religion, or to any one sent to proclaim the message of life. Thus in John xiii. 16, it is applied to any messenger, sustaining the same relation to one who sends him,