of Saul of Tarsus to the apostolic office. But where is there a single syllable of any "superiority in min. isterial powers and rights," as constituting the peculiarity of his office? We respectfully ask the writer of this tract, and all other advocates of Epis. copacy, to point to us a "light or shadow of any such Episcopal investment. We think their argu

ment 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, 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 were 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 Paulina." 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 pow. ers 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 the 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. 23—29. We shall reverse the order of this argument.

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 in the apostleship. 1 Cor. ix. 1. No modern "bishop," we presume, will lay claim to this. The very supposition that any such revelation was ne. cessary, 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 apprise 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, that the servant does to his master. "The servant is not greater than his lord, [master] neither he that is sent, áñóσrodos, greater than he that sent him.” Thus it is applied. (Phil. ii. 25) to Epaphroditus, not as an apostle, in the specific sense of the term, but as a messenger, sent by the church at Philippi, to supply the wants of Paul. (Comp. Phil. iv. 18.) "Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labor, but your messenger,” úμæv dì àñóσrodov, your apostle. Thus also in 2 Cor. viii. 23, it is applied to the "brethren,"