of the essay is to prove, that, according to the New Testament, such an order existed, and was clothed with such peculiar powers. p. 11. Let it not be forgotten, that this is the main point in the case; and that if this is not made out, so as to be binding on the church every where, the claims of Episcopacy fall to the ground.

In endeavoring to establish this point, the author maintains, "that the apostles ordained," and denies that elders (presbyters) ever did. p. 14. In supporting this position, the plan of argument is to show, that "the apostles and elders had not equal power and rights." p. 14. An attempt is, therefore, made to prove that the difference between the two orders is, that the former had the power of ordination, the latter. not. In pursuing the reasoning, (p. 16.) the writer endeavors to show, that "there is no scriptu. ral evidence that mere elders (presbyters) ordain. ed." Under this branch of the argument, he examines the texts which have usually been adduced in favor of Presbyterian ordination. Having shown as he supposes, that these passages do not prove that they did thus ordain, Dr. O. next proceeds to the last branch of the subject, viz., that "this dis. tinction 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." p. 23.

This is the outline of the argument. It mani,

festly embraces the essential points of the case. And if these positions cannot be maintained, Episcopacy has no binding obligation on men, and such a claim should be at once abandoned. This argument we propose, with great respect, but with entire freedom, to examine. And we expect to show, that the point is not made out, that the New Testament has designated a superior rank of church officers, intrusted with the sole power of ordination, and general superintendence of the church.

In entering on this discussion, we shall first endeavor to ascertain the real point of the controversy, and to show that the Scripture authorities appealed to, do not establish the point maintained by Episcopalians. In pursuance of this, we remark, that the burden of proof lies wholly on the friends of Episcopacy. They set up a claim,-a claim which they affirm to be binding on all the churches of every age. It is a claim which is specific, and which must be made out, or their whole pretensions fall. In what predicament it may leave other churches, is not the question. It would not prove Episcopacy to be of divine origin, could its friends show that Presbyterianism is unfounded in the Scriptures; or that Congregationalism has no claims to support; or that Independency is unauthorized; or even that lay-ordination is destitute of direct support. The question after all might be, whether it was the design of the apostles to establish any particular form of church government, any more

than to establish a fixed mode of civil administration? This question we do not intend to examine now, neither do we design to express any opinion on it. We say only, that it is a question on which much may be said, and which should not be considered as settled in this controversy. The specific point to be made out is, that there is Scriptural authority for that which is claimed for the bishops. And we may remark further, that this is not a claim which can be defended by any doubtful passages of Scripture, or by any very circuitous mode of argumentation. As it is expected to affect the whole organization of the church; to constitute, in fact, the peculiarity of its organization; and to determine, to a great extent at least, the validity of all its ordinances, and its ministry; we have a right to demand that the proof should not be of a doubtful character, or of a nature which is not easily apprehended by the ordinary readers of the New Testament.

We repeat, now, as of essential importance in this controversy, that the burden of proof lies on the friends of Episcopacy. It is theirs to make out this specific claim. To decide whether they can do so, is the object of this inquiry.

The first question then, is, What is the claim; or, what is the essential point which is to be made out in the defence of Episcopacy? This claim is stated in the following words: (p. 11.) "Episcopacy declares, that the Christian ministry was established in three orders, called, ever since the apostolic age,

bishops, presbyters, or elders, [if so, why do they now call the second order priests ?] and deacons; of which the highest only has the right to ordain, and confirm, that of the chief administration in a diocese, and that of the chief administration of spiritual discipline, besides enjoying all the powers of the other grades." The main question, as thus stated, relates to the authority of bishops; and the writer adds, "If we cannot authenticate the claims of the Episcopal office, (the office of bishops,) we will surrender those of our deacons, and let all power be confined to the one office of presbyters." The same view of the main point of the controversy is given by Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity,-b. vii. § 2.

It will be seen that several claims are here set up in behalf of bishops. One is, the right of ordination; a second, that of confirmation; a third, that of general supervision; a fourth, that of the general administration of discipline. These are separate points to be made out; and a distinct argument might be entered into, to show that neither of them is founded on the authority of the Scriptures. To enter on this discussion, would require more time and space than we can now spare. Nor is it necessary, for we presume the Episcopalian would be willing to stake the whole cause on his being able to make out the authority of ordination to lie solely in the bishop. For, obviously, if that cannot be made out, all the other pretensions are good for nothing; and, as the writer of this tract limits his inquiries to

this single point, we shall confine our remarks to this also.

The question, then, is, Has a bishop the sole power of ordaining? Is setting apart to a sacred office, to the office of preaching, and administering the sacraments, confined in the New Testament exclusively to this order of ministers? The Episcopalian claims that it is. We deny it, and ask him for the explicit proof of a point so simple as this, and one which we have a right to expect he will make out, with very great clearness, from the sacred Scriptures.

The first proof adduced by the author is, that the apostles had the sole power of ordaining. This is a highly important point in the discussion, or rather, the very hinge of the controversy. We cannot, therefore, but express our surprise, that a writer who can see the value and bearing of an argument so clearly as Dr. Onderdonk, should not have thought himself called upon to devote more than two pages to its direct defence; and that, without adducing any explicit passages of the New Testament. The

argument stated in these two pages, or these parts of three pages, (14, 15, 16,) rests on the assumption that the apostles ordained. "That the apostles ordained, all agree." Now, if this means any thing to the purpose, it means that they ordained as apostles; or that they were set apart to the apostolic office for the purpose of ordaining. But this we shall take the liberty to deny, and to prove to be an