viour directing his disciples to pray to God to send labourers into the harvest. We find him continuing himself a whole night in prayer. In the inauguration of the seventy, there was nothing of all this solemnity.

The Apostles were, likewise, superior in power.

They alone received the commission to offer the eucharistic sacrifice of bread and wine. To them were twelve thrones appointed, whereon they should sit, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. On them was to rest the fabric of the Church; "the wall of the city having twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." Revelation xxi. 14. Upon the happening of a vacancy, by the apostacy of Judas, Matthias was raised to his Bishoprick, being numbered with the eleven Apostles, and taking a part of their Ministry. Acts i. Matthias had been one of the seventy. For this we have the testimony of Eusebius, of Jerome, of Epiphanius. Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, with other Evangelists, as also the seven Deacons, were of the seventy, if the primitive Fathers of the Church be at all to be relied upon as witnesses of facts. And these persons, even after their promotion, were still inferior to the twelve, being under their government.

The twelve Apostles, and the seventy disciples, then, were distinct orders, whether we have respect to their dignity or their power.

Let us proceed to consider the situation of the Church, under the government of the Apostles, their Master having ascended to heaven.

The eleven met our Saviour, on a mountain in Galilee, according to his express appointment. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me, in heaven, and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matt. xxviii. 18, 19, 20.

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." John xx. 21, 22, 23.

Our Saviour, then, constituted the Apostles Governors of his Church, authorizing them to exercise the powers necessary to regulate its affairs, and to provide for its continuance. This, of course, involved the right of ordaining such inferior officers as might appear to them to be requisite. Indeed, the commission expressly says, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.' Jesus was sent by the Father, with power to send others; and, of course, the Apostles were sent with a similar authority. In pursuance of their commission, they ordained the two inferior orders of Elders and Deacons; and, before their departure from the world, they created a higher order, investing it with their own Apostolic authority of ordaining Ministers, and of governing the Church. Into all this let us briefly inquire.

Were the Apostles invested with spiritual authority over lay Christians?

Did they possess any control over the Ministers whom they or dained?

Was their office an extraordinary one, or was it designed for permanent continuance in the Church? in other words, have they had Successors?

It cannot be necessary to say much to prove that lay Christians were subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Apostles. Did any of the laws of Christ require explanation, recourse was had to the Apostles, and their sentence every where obeyed. They, likewise, prescribed such rules as were necessary to the peace of the Church, or the order and decency of divine worship. In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians we find laws, many of which were never expressly enjoined by Christ, and to some of which the Apostle requires obedience on the avowed principle of his own authority. "And the rest will I set in order when I come." "And so ordain I in all Churches." In the same style Paul addresses the Thessalo nians, "We have confidence that ye both do, and will do the things which we command you.”—“ When we were with you, we commanded you." "" Now we command you brethren." 2 Thes. iii. It would be easy to produce a great variety of passages on this point; but it cannot be necessary. Let it also be remarked, that the power of prescribing rules was accompanied with the power of enforcing their execution by suitable punishments. In his Epistles to the Corinthians, Paul threatens to use sharpness, to come with a rod, and to revenge all disobedience. The same Apostle delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. He condemned, even in his absence, the incestuous Corinthian; requiring strictly that his sentence be put in execution. With the power of inflicting punishment was connected that of pardoning the condemned; a power exercised by St. Paul in the case of the Corinthian, which has just been mentioned.

We have seen that the commission which Christ gave to his Apostles invested them with power to ordain Ministers in his Church.

This power they accordingly exercised.

The twelve together ordained the seven Deacons. Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every city. As the Apostles were subject to Christ, so were the Ministers whom the Apostles ordained subject to them. Whilst our Saviour was upon earth, the Apostles were his attendants, and were sent forth by him to preach. And after his ascension, the Apostles received a similar attendance and obedience from the inferior officers whom they appointed. For example, Mark was Minister to Paul and Barnabas; afterwards to Barnabas alone. At Ephesus, St. Paul was attended by Timotheus and Erastus, whom he sent, before him, into Macedonia. But cases showing the superior authority of the Apostles occur continually in the New Testament: I can enumerate but a few of them. Paul calls the Elders of Ephesus to Miletus, and gives them a most solemn charge. This shows clearly that they were under his government. At Corinth, the same Apostle, although absent, excom

municates, absolves, enacts laws. Some of these laws too were binding upon Ministers who had been endued even with supernatural gifts. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the rest judge."-" If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." 1 Corinth. xiv. Ministers who refused to pay due obedience and respect to the Apostles, are censured as hereticks, and as disturbers of the peace of the Church. An example of this kind occurred in Diotrephes, who resisted the authority of St. John, representing him, no doubt, as "a Lord in God's heritage." The Apostle threatened to punish his contumacy. The Apostles, then, were the supreme governors of the Church. Both Clergy and Laity were subject to their jurisdiction. They alone exercised the power of ordination, by which the sacerdotal authority was continued and preserved. I am not going to enter into the case of Timothy, about which the advocates of parity so obstinately dispute. We know that the Apostles ordained, for we are expressly told so in different parts of scripture; and ecclesiastical history attests the fact as perfectly as any fact that it records. Let our opponents prove that the term Presbytery, that term on which they build so much wretched sophistry, designates an assembly of Elders like those of Ephesus. This they can never prove; and until they prove it, the passage avails them nothing.

Now, let us inquire whether the apostolic office was purely extraordinary and personal to the twelve; or whether it was designed for permanent continuance in the Church.

"Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." How will those who contend that the Apostles have had no successors reconcile this passage with their doctrine! The individuals whom Jesus addressed, continued not beyond the ordinary term of human life. The promise is intelligible only when considered as embracing those who should throughout all time succeed to the apostolic office. But I forbear to dwell on this passage, since we have evidence on the point amounting to absolute demonstration. The apostolic office was not personal to the twelve. It did not cease with them. It was extended to others. If these positions be not correct, then is there no truth in the New Testament.

Upon the apostacy of Judas, did his office expire? No; Matthias was put in his place, being numbered with the eleven Apostles. "And his Bishoprick let another take." Acts i. 20.

Barnabas was an Apostle. He exercised the powers of an Apostle, and the name is expressly applied to him. He is even placed, in the history of the Acts, before St. Paul.

Epaphroditus, Andronicus, and Junius, are called Apostles. The translation, it is true, is messenger; but the Greek term is the very one which in other places is rendered Apostle, and why it is not rendered so in these cases, no sufficient reason can be given. But leave out of the question the examples of Epaphroditus, Andronicus, Junius. The cases of Barnabas and Matthias most clearly prove that the apostolic office was not personal to the twelve. If it had been personal to the twelve, it would have ceased with them. They could not have presumed to bestow it on others.

If from scripture we go to the primitive Fathers, we find them bearing the most decisive testimony against the principle for which our opponents contend.

Ireneus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, all speak expressly of. Bishops as the successors of the Apostles.

How, then, do the advocates of parity support their doctrine in this point?

They talk to us of the miracles which the Apostles performed, of the prophecies which they uttered, of their being inspired writers, and witnesses of the transactions of Jesus. It is true, the power of miracles has ceased, so also of prophecy. The scriptures being composed, there could be no further necessity for inspired penmen; and none but the cotemporaries of Jesus could be witnesses of his acts. But did these things make up the apostolic office? Surely not: if they did, then Apostles existed in every congregation. Supernatural gifts were very common among the primitive Christians; being bestowed even upon women, but surely not making them Apostles. The Apostles governed the Church, they preached, they baptised, they administered the eucharist, they ordained, they confirmed. In all this they exercised powers of perpetual necessity in the Church. Where, then, is the pretext for representing them as officers purely extraordinary? Was preaching an extraordinary act? was baptising, was the administration of the Holy Supper, was ordaining? No; the Apostles were stated and regular officers of the Church. To talk about the supernatural gifts bestowed upon them is perfectly idle. You might as well say that the women on whom the Holy Spirit was effused, on the day of Pentecost, were all Apostles.

The Apostles, then, were regular officers of the Church of Christ. They have had successors, and they will continue to have successors until the end of the world. The Elders and the Deacons were subject to their control. They alone exercised the high powers of ordination and government.

We proceed to observe that, before their departure from the world, they constituted an order of Ministers, in whom they invested these powers, giving them authority to rule the other Clergy, and making them the channel through which the sacerdotal office was to be conveyed to future generations.

This is completely proved by the cases of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, of Timothy, of Titus, of Epaphroditus, of the seven Angels of pro-consular Asia. Primitive history most completely establishes the fact. Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireneus, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, all prove it in the most unequivocal manner. Look for one moment at Eusebius. He composed his history in the beginning of the fourth century, about two hundred years after the death of the Apostle John. All the necessary records of the churches were put into his hands by the order of the Emperor Constantine, and from these he compiled his work. Does he give any account of a change from Presbyterianism to Episcopacy? So far from it, that he has inserted the names of all the Bishops who had succeeded each other, in the principal churches, beginning with the individuals whom the Apostles appointed, and descending, regularly,

to his own time. Let the advocates of parity produce a single primitive historian who yields this sort of evidence to the apostolic institution of their system. They cannot produce a single writer. This I aver positively. They try to make Clemens Romanus speak in their favour; but it is by the old and miserable sophistry of names. This Father sometimes speaks of Bishops and Deacons; which circumstance, say the advocates of parity, proves that there were but two orders. They might as well prove that there were but two orders under the Jewish dispensation, because they are called Priests and Levites. Clemens Romanus was Bishop of Rome, and ruled the inferior Clergy. This we are expressly told by Ireneus, Tertullian, Eusebius, St. Jerome. Clemens of Alexandria styles him Clement the Apostle.

But I forbear. This paper has already been extended to too great a length; and I am now obliged to leave the controversy. It had been my intention to go regularly through the evidences of the divine institution of Episcopacy; but a voyage to Europe, which I have been some time contemplating, and which I am now compelled to take for the benefit of my health, renders this impossible. I regret the circumstance the less, however, since the able writer, under the signature of Cyprian, promises to do full justice to the subject. Expecting to sail in a few days, I cheerfully commit to him the future management of the discussion.

A serious examination of the subject of Episcopacy had convinced me, in opposition to the prejudices and habits of education, of its divine origin; and a sincere desire to defend what I esteem the cause of truth led me to engage in this controversy.

While I believe those who have departed from Episcopacy to be in a great error, and would entreat them, in the most urgent manner, to examine the principles on which they stand, I can sincerely say that I feel disposed to put the best construction on their conduct. There are excellent men of all denominations; and great allowance, we humbly hope, will be made for error by the righ teous Judge of the earth. Let it be recollected, however, that error is venial only in proportion as it is involuntary. How then shall that man excuse himself who, having been warned of the defect of the ministry at whose hands he receives the ordinances of the gospel, neglects, nevertheless, to give attention to the subject, and to examine dispassionately those works which prove the necessity of union with that Church, the validity of whose ministrations, even its most inveterate opponents are obliged to acknowledge. In the Episcopal Church there is certainty of being in covenant with God. Its Priesthood has a valid authority to act in the name of Christ; and I do believe that almost all who shall engage in the examination of this subject, with a determination to seek only for truth, will come to the conclusion, that those who have laid aside the divinely instituted government of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, must rely upon uncovenanted mercy.

I cannot but regret that there should be so strong a disposition in the Miscellaneous writer to descend to low wit, and to sneering and contemptuous expressions. He is greatly deceived if he sup poses they will give force or success to his cause. The serious inquirer after truth cannot fail to be disgusted with such conduct.