must be permitted to believe that their authority belongs to the "extraneous considerations," as well as that of the opinion of Cranmer, (Answer, p. 5,) which, by common consent, it had been agreed to lay out of the controversy. (See Tract, pp. 3-10.) Our wonder is, that, after the disclaimer of relying on these extraneous considerations, in the Tract, the author of the Answer should have occupied nearly two pages with the statements of these distinguished men. (3) Their authority, even when adduced, does not bear on the point before us. The question is, whether the apostles were superior to other ministers of the gospel in ministerial power and rights; that is, the power of ordination, confirmation, discipline, and general superintendence. Their authorities adduced prove only that, in the judgment of these venerable men, they were superior, in some respects, to evangelists and teachers; or, that there was a distinction between them-a point on which we make no denial. On the only question in debate, they make no affirmation. On the claim set up by Episcopalians, that the apostles were superior in ordination, etc., they concede nothing, nor did they believe a word of it.

Having thus noticed the "Answer" on this part of our argument, we shall dismiss it. We do it by simply reminding our readers, that the solitary text, which undisputed learning, talents, and zeal have discovered, during a period of more than four years, since the discussion first commenced, -the lonely Scripture proof of the sweeping claims that the apostles only had the power of ordination, and that this was the peculiarity of the office,—stands forth in the Tract and in the Answer: "the apostles and elders," "apostles, and elders, and brethren !"

But the author of the "Answer" complains, (p. 11,) that we did not give the "whole" of his argument on the subject; and he refers to a note on p. 12 of the Tract, designed to show that the apostles had the power of administering discipline,

and that, therefore, they were superior to the presbyters, or held a more elevated grade of office. The note is this:

"That the apostles alone ordained, will be proved. In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21; v. 3-5; 2 Cor. ii. 6; vii. 12; x. 8; xiii. 2, 10; and 1 Tim. i. 20, are recorded inflictions and remissions of discipline performed by an apostle, or threatenings on his part, although there must have been elders in Corinth, and certainly were in Ephesus."

This note he expands into an argument, which constitutes the most material part of the "Answer." It is incumbent upon us to examine it, and to ascertain how far it goes to settle the point under discussion. Before examining the particular cases referred to, we would remind our readers, that the purpose for which they are adduced, is to show that the apostles were superior to presbyters in powers and rights; and the alleged proof is, that they administered discipline. To bear on the case, therefore, the passages must prove not only that they exercised discipline, but (1) that they did it as apostles, or in the virtue of the apostolic office; (2) that they did it in churches where there were presbyters; and (3) that presbyters never administered discipline themselves. The second point here adverted to, is all that the author of the "Answer" feels himself called upon to make out. (Answer, pp. 11-13.) Now in regard to this point of the proof, we make the following general remarks: (1.) There were certainly, in all, fourteen apostles; and, if we may credit the writer of these pamphlets and reckon Timothy, and Barnabas, and Sylvanus, and Apollos, and Andronicus, and Junia, and Titus, and perhaps half-a-dozen others, there were somewhat more than a score invested with this office; yet it is remarkable that the only cases of discipline referred to, as going to prove the superiority of the whole college of apostles, are cases in which the Apostle Paul only was concerned. (2.) There are accounts in the New Testament of perhaps some hundreds of churches; and yet we meet with no instance of the kind

of discipline relied on, except in the single churches of Corinth and Ephesus. It is incredible that there should have been no other cases of discipline in these churches. But if there were, the presumption is, that they were settled without the intervention of an apostle. (3.) These very cases, as we shall presently show, were cases in which Paul administered the rod of discipline in the churches where Titus and Timothy— apostles also and bishops-were present, by the showing of the author of the "Answer," and thus were acts of manifest disrespect for the authority of those prelates. And if the fact that the discipline was administered where there were presbyters, (Answer, pp. 11, 12,) proves that the apostle was superior to them, the same fact proves that he was superior to Timothy and Titus. The course of the argument urged by the author of the "Answer," would be, that Paul was disposed to assume the whole power into his own hands, and to set aside the claims alike of bishops and presbyters. It has a very undesirable looking toward the authority claimed by the Papacy.

The two cases alleged as proof that the apostles only had the power of administering discipline, are those at Corinth and at Ephesus. Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and wrote them to eight churches. In all these epistles, and in all the numerous churches of which he had the charge, (2 Cor. xi. 28, "the care of all the churches,") these are the only instances in which he was called, so far as appears, to exercise discipline. We now inquire, whether he did it for the purpose of showing that the apostles only had this power.

The first case alleged is that at Corinth. "In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21, etc., are recorded inflictions and remissions of discipline performed by an apostle, or threatenings on his part; although there must have been elders at Corinth.” (Note %, Tract, p. 12.) The argument here is, that there must have been elders at Corinth, and yet that Paul interposed over

their heads to inflict discipline. This is the whole of the argument. (See Answer, p. 11.)

In reply to these we observe: That there were elders, teachers, ministers, instructors in Corinth, we think it placed beyond a question, by the argument of the "Answer" and by the nature of the case. This fact we do not intend to call in question. The argument of the “Answer" from this fact, we state in the author's own words:

"Yet, without noticing these elders in the matter, so far as the epistles show-though they doubtless were noticed and consulted, as much as courtesy and their pastoral standing made properwithout putting the matter into their hands, or even passing it through their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits discipline among the people of their charge. This is a 'ministerial act.' And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to the elders, shows that he, an apostle, was 'superior to them in ministerial power and rights.'" p. 11.

Further, if there were elders there, there was an "apostle;" a prelatical bishop, according to the Tract, there also. This is shown by a quotation from the Epistle itself, relating to this very time, and in immediate connection with the case of discipline. (1 Cor. iv. 17.) "For this cause, [that is, on account of your divided and contending state,] have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church." Now, as it will not be pretended by Episcopalians that Timothy was not an "apostle," and, as it is undeniable that he was at that time at Corinth, the argument will as well apply to set aside his right to administer discipline in the case, as that of the elders. Borrowing, then, the words of the Answer, we would say: "Yet without noticing" this apostle "in the matter, so far as the epistles show-though" he was "doubtless noticed and consulted, as much as courtesy and his" apostolical

"standing made proper, without putting the matter into" his "hands, or even passing it through" his "hands,—Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits discipline. This is a 'ministerial' act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to" Timothy, "shows, that he, an apostle, was superior to" him "in ministerial power and rights." Now no Episcopalian will fail to be at once deeply impressed with the fallacy of this reasoning, in regard to the "apostle" and "bishop" Timothy. And yet, it is manifestly just as pertinent and forcible in his case, as it is for the purpose of the Answer in regard to the elders of Corinth. It cannot be pretended that a difference existed, because the "elders" were permanently located there, and Timothy not; for the argument of the "Tract" and the "Answer" is, that the apostles were superior, as apostles, and, therefore, it made no difference on this point, whether they were at Corinth, or at Crete, or at Antioch; they were invested with the apostolic office everywhere. Our conclusion, from this instance, and from the fact which we have now stated, is, that there was some peculiarity in the case at Corinth, which rendered the ordinary exercise of discipline by presbyters difficult; which operated equally against any interference by Timothy; and which called peculiarly for the interposition of the founder of the church, and of an inspired apostle, for one clothed with authority to inflict a heavy judgment, here denominated "delivering unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh," (1 Cor. v. 5,)—a power which could be exercised by none then in Corinth. Our next inquiry is, whether there are any reasons for this opinion. The following we believe satisfactory:-

(1.) Paul had founded that church, (Acts xviii. 1-11,) and his interference in cases of discipline would be regarded as peculiarly proper. There would be a natural and obvious deference to the founder of the church, which would render