They alone received the commission to offer the eucharistic sacrifice of bread and wine."

We stay not to comment on the popish style of this passage. "Eucharistic sacrifice!" The scripture knows neither the name nor the thing, in reference to the commemoration of our Lord's death in the sacrament of the supper. The Layman's argument for the superiority of the twelve is, that they alone were authorized to administer this sacrament. Indeed! How, then, came it to be administered by the Episcopal priests who are not the successours of the apostles? Either this power does not prove superiority of rank, or else the hierarchy has transferred to an inferiour order, one of the peculiar functions of the superiour; and thus corrupted the institutions of Christ. The Layman has his option. It will not be possible to evade the alternative; because the Lord's supper is an ordinance of perpetual obligation, and could not be administered by the apostles till after his death; nor is there a shadow of proof that it was ever administered by them till after his ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Prove what it will, it cannot prove the superiority of the twelve above the seventy during his abode upon earth. And what is more, there is nothing in the institution of the supper to express the conveyance of authority to administer it. There is nothing but the appointment of it for the observation of the church. This do in re

membrance of me; for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. But all communicants" do this in remembrance of him," they all "show forth his death," in the holy supper, as much as did the apostles. The commission to administer the sacraments, and govern the church, was not given till the very moment of his departure from earth.

In the next place:

"To the twelve," says the Layman," were twelve thrones appointed, whereon they should sit, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." P. 154.

As this language is altogether symbolical, he should have fixed his meaning before he quoted it as a proof. This he has not done, and it is not our business to do it for him. But Cyprian has conceded that Christ held, in his own hands, the supreme authority while he was on earth; the Layman himself has told us, that the twelve during this period, had not the power of ordination; and men who had power, neither to govern nor to ordain, are not very fitly depicted by the symbols of men sitting upon thrones, and judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The Layman has again mistaken and misrepresented the passage, part of which he has cited. It stands thus, in Math. xix. 28. "Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,

"

judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It appears from Luke, ch. xxii. that this promise was addressed to the twelve just before our Lord's passion. Whatever then is meant by the "twelve thrones," and the "judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel," it was not, and could not be possessed by the apostles, till after their master's exaltation: till he should sit in the throne of his glory. He was to bestow it upon them after he should have “ascended up far above all heavens," and not before. This is the text on which the Layman relies for proof of the pre-eminence of the twelve during our Lord's humiliation, when he did not sit in the throne of his glory, and consequently they did not sit on their thrones.

But" on them,” viz. the twelve," 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." Rev. xxi. 14.

Another blunder, as usual. A symbolical representation of a state of the church which has not yet happened, is to prove that the twelve were superiour to the seventy in the days of their master's flesh, and before they had received any commission whatever to govern!

There is one argument more.

"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 inferiour to the twelve, being under their government." P. 154.

The elevation of Matthias to the apostleship took place after the eleven had received their commission from the risen Saviour, and after he had ascended to heaven: and this is to prove that they were superiour to the seventy before his passion. Truly the Layman has a right to make himself merry with the logic of his opponents! But did the seventy retain, after Christ's resurrection, the commission which they had before his death, or did they not? If they did not, the Layman's argument goes to the wall at once. If they did, then it is strange that their official character is never so much as mentioned, after the resurrection, in any part of the New Testament. And it is no less strange that the Layman should represent any of them as being promoted to the office of deacons. Lower they could not be, to be in the "priesthood" at all. And if they were next the apostles, as they were put in a preceding part of the discussion, their being made deacons, was a promotion downwards. They must have been, as belonging to the priesthood, either of the order of deacons, or of a superiour order: if deacons, their ordination to that office by the apostles was a farce; if of a superiour order, it degraded them. The Layman has again his choice. But whether

they were then degraded, or promoted, or neither, what has this to do with their own office or that of the apostles, during our Lord's abode upon earth?

So much for the Layman's proofs that the twelve were superiour to the seventy. He has not proved, nor can he, with the whole phalanx of the hierarchy to help him, prove, either from their commission, or from their acts, that the twelve exercised or possessed an atom of power over the seventy.

But our difficulties are not yet ended. We encounter a formidable one in the fact, that the Christian church was not organized at all during our Lord's residence on earth. The ministry of the baptist, his own ministry, and that of the apostles and the seventy, were all preparative. The church could not be organized under the new dispensation, till the Jewish form ceased; and that could not cease till the Messiah had "finished transgression, made an end of sin, and made reconciliation for iniquity," by the sacrifice of himself. Accordingly, he gave his apostles their high commission after his resurrection; and they did not so much as attempt to act upon it, till, as he had promised, they were "endued with power from on high," by the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Then they were able to speak in the name of a master who was "set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens." Then, and not till then, did the church put on her New Testament