the contrary; and then again a new version, or yet another quotation, shall give it a new aspect, and restore it to its former honors.* Thus the fathers

became a mere foot-ball between the contending parties; and thus in this controversy the weary searcher for truth finds no solid ground. Eminently here "he which is first in his cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him." Prov. xviii. 17. To this wearisome and unsatisfactory toil he is doomed, who will read all the older controversies on Episcopacy. There he,

"O'er bog, or steep, through strait, rough, dense or rare, With head, hands, wings or feet, pursues his way, And swims, or sinks, or wades, or creeps or flies."

Were we to adduce the most striking instance of the plastic nature of this kind of proof, we should refer to the epistles of Ignatius. To our eyes they seem to be a plain, straight-forward account of the existence of Presbyterianism in his time. They are substantially such a description as a man would give, writing in the inflated and exaggerated manner in which the orientals wrote, of Presbyterianism as it exists in the United States. Yet it is well known, that with the utmost pertinacity those letters have been adduced as proving the doctrine of Epis. copacy. And so confident have been the assertions on the subject, that not a few non-Episcopalians have given them up as unmanageable, and have

* See the Letters of Dr. Miller, and Dr. Bowden, on Episcopacy, passim.

stoutly contended, what may be very true, that no inconsiderable part of them are forgeries.

Any man can see what a hopeless task is before him, if he endeavors to settle this controversy by the authority of the fathers. The waste of time, and talent, and learning, on this subject, is fitted deeply to humble the heart. And even yet the passion has not ceased. Even now, men high in office and in rank, leave the New Testament and appeal to the fathers. Episcopacy is discarded, not principally because the New Testament is a stranger to it, but because Jerome was not a prelatist; it is rejected, not because it cannot be made out from the Bible, but because it is a matter of debate, whether the fathers teach it or not.

From this unprofitable and endless litigation, we are glad to turn to the true merits of the case. We rejoice sincerely that one man can be found who is willing to bring to this subject the great principle of the Protestant reformation, that all religious opinions are to be tested by the Scriptures. And we especially rejoice to see this principle so decisively advanced, by a man of the talents and official rank of Dr. Onderdonk; and that it is so prominently avowed by sending forth from the "Protestant Episcopal Press," a tract defending this principle. It indicates a healthy state of things in the Episcopal church in this country. It will save endless disputes about words, and much useless toil in endeavoring to give consistency and sense to the fathers. This

mode of reasoning, too, will soon decide the controversy. Long have we wished to see this matter brought to so obvious and so just an issue; and long have we expected that when this should be the case, the matter would be soon decided. Hereafter let it be held up as a great principle, from which, neither in spirit nor in form, we are ever to depart, that if the peculiar doctrines of Episcopacy are not found in the Scriptures, they are to be honestly abandoned, or held, as Cranmer held them, as matters of mere expediency. Let this truth go forth, never to be recalled; and let every man who attempts to defend the claims of bishops, appeal to the Bible alone. On this appeal, with confidence, we rest the issue of this case.

The great principle on which the argument in this tract is conducted, is indicated in its title; it is farther stated at length in the tract itself. Thus, in the opening sentence, "The claim of Episcopacy to be of divine institution, and therefore obligatory on the church, rests fundamentally on the one question -Has it the authority of Scripture? If it has not, it is not necessarily binding." Again, on the same page, "No argument is worth taking into the account, that has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic-the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." Having stated this principle, the writer proceeds to remark, that "the argument is obstructed with many extraneous and irrelevant difficulties, which, instead of aiding the mind in reaching the

truth on that great subject, tend only to divert it and occupy it with questions not affecting the main is sue. The first object of the "essay " is then stated to be, "to point out some of these extraneous questions and difficulties, and expose either their fallacy or their irrelevancy." "The next object will be, to state the scriptural argument."

A

In pursuing this plan, the writer introduces and discusses, as one of these extraneous difficulties, the objection that Episcopacy is inimical to a free government. He next notices, as "another of these extraneous considerations, the comparative standing in piety, as evinced by the usual tokens of moral and spiritual character, of the members respectively of the Episcopal and non-Episcopal churches." third "suggestion " noticed, is, "that the external arrangements of religion are but of inferior importance, and that therefore all scruple concerning the subject before us may be dispensed with." p. 5. A fourth" apparently formidable, yet extraneous difficulty, often raised, is, that Episcopal claims unchurch all non-Episcopal denominations." p. 6. This consequence, the author of the tract says is not by him allowed. "But granting it to the fullest extent," it is asked, "what bearing has it on the truth of the single proposition that Episcopacy is of divine ordinance ?" A fifth among these extraneous points, is "the practice of adducing the authority of individuals, who, although eminent in learning and piety, seem at least to have contradicted themselves or these public

standards on the subject of Episcopacy." p. 7. The last objection noticed, as not affecting the ultimate decision of the controversy, is, "that though the examples recorded in Scripture should be allowed to favor Episcopacy, still that regimen is not there explicitly commanded." p. 9.

To most of the observations under these several heads, we give our hearty assent. And it will be perceived, that the controversy is thus reduced to very narrow limits; and that, if these principles are correct, numberless tomes which have been written on both sides of the question are totally useless. We are glad that all this extraneous matter is struck off, and should rejoice if every consideration of this kind were hereafter to be laid out of view.

In discussing the second topic proposed, "the scriptural evidence relating to this controversy," (p. 11) the first object of Dr. Onderdonk is to state the precise point in debate. It is then observed, that "parity declares that there is but one order of men authorized to minister in sacred things, all of this order being of equal grade, and having inherently equal spiritual rights. Episcopacy declares that the Christian ministry was established in three orders, called ever since the apostolic age, bishops, presbyters, or elders, and deacons ; of which the highest only has a right to ordain and confirm, that of general supervision in a diocese, etc." p. 11. The main question is then stated, correctly, to be, that "concerning the superiority of bishops ;" and the object