28. When Paul addressed this same cnurch in an epistle, it was directed, not to the churches, but to the saints at Ephesus. Eph. i. 1. But where there were distinct churches organized, there is a specific mention of the fact of the plurality. They are mentioned as being many. Thus, Acts xv. 41: "Paul went through Syria confirming (i. e. strengthening, establishing,) the churches." Rom. xvi. 4: "the churches of the Gentiles." 1 Cor. xvi. 1; "the churches of Galatia." 19: "the churches of Asia. " 2 Cor. viii. 1: "the churches in Macedonia." See also, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; xi. 8; Gal. i. 22; Rev. i. 4. Now if it is neither proved that there was a body of "clergy at large, nor that there were separate churches, in each of those cities; we ask What is the force of the argument of Dr. Onderdonk from this case? How does it bear on the point at issue? What has it to do with the subject?

With one or two additional remarks, we shall dismiss this point. The first is, that it cannot be argued from the term angel, given to those ministers, that they were Episcopal bishops. That term, as is well known, has no such exclusive applicability to a prelate. It is no where else applied to the ministers of religion; and its original signification, a messenger," or its usual application to celestial spirits, has no special adaptedness to an Episcopal bishop. An ordinary pastor,-a messenger sent from God; a spiritual guide, and friend of the church, will as fully express its sense, as the application to

66

a prelate. Without invidiousness, we may observe, that prelates have not usually evinced any such extraordinary sanctity, or devotion, as to appropriate this title to themselves alone by prescriptive right. Our other remark is, that the supposition that these angels were pastors of the churches, presbyters on a parity with each other, and with all others, will fully meet every thing which is said of them in the book of Revelation. This supposition, too, will meet the addresses made to them, better than the assumption that they were prelates. Their union, as Dr. Onderdonk remarks, to the church, is intimate. "The angel is in each case identified with his church, and his church with him." Now to which does this remark best apply; to the tender, intimate, endearing relation of a pastor with his people; to the blending of their feelings, interests, and destiny, when he is with them continually; when he meets them each week in the sanctuary; when he administers to them the bread of life; goes into their abodes when they are afflicted, and attends their kindred to the grave? or does it best apply to the union subsisting between the people of an extended diocese,-to the formal, unfrequent, and, in many instances, stately and pompous visitations of a diocesan bishop; to the kind of connection formed between a people scattered into many churches, who are visited at intervals of a year, or more, by one claiming "a superiority in ministerial rights and powers," robed in lawn, and perhaps with the crosier and mitre, as emblematical

of office, state, and power; who must be a stranger to the ten thousand tender ties of endearment, which bind as one the hearts of a pastor and his people? To our minds, it seems clear that the account which Dr. Onderdonk has given of the "identity" of the angel and the church, applies to the former, and not to the latter. It speaks the sentiments of our heart, as respects the union of a pastor and people. And while we would not allow ourselves to speak with disrespect of the Episcopal office, we still feel that the language of the Saviour, by the mild and gentle* John, to the churches of Asia, breathes far more of the endearing "identity" of the pastoral relation, than it does of the comparatively cold, and distant functions of one, who, in all other lands but this, has been invested with his office by the imposing ceremony of enthroning, and who was borne, less as badges of affection than of authority, the crosier and the mitre.

We have now gone entirely through with the argument of Dr. Onderdonk, in proof that there is an order of men superior "in ministerial rank and powers." We have intended to do justice to his proofs, and we have presented the whole of them.

Our readers have all that Episcopalians rely on from the scriptures, in vindication of the existence of such an order of men. It will be remembered that the burden of proof lies on them. They advance a claim which is indispensable to the existence of their ecclesiastical polity. These are the arguments

on which they rely. Whether their arguments justify the language of assumption which we sometimes hear; whether they are such as to render appropriate the description of all people but the members of Episcopal churches, as left to "the uncovenanted mercies of God;"* whether they are such as to prompt, legitimately, to a very frequent reference to "the primitive and apostolic order" of the ministry; or to the modest use of the term "the church," with an exclusive reference to themselves, must now be left to the judgment of our readers.

It was our intention, originally, to have gone somewhat at length into a defense of the scripture doctrine of ministerial parity. But the unexpected length of our article admonishes us to close. We are the less dissatisfied with this admonition, because we conceive the point already made out. If Episcopalians, cannot make good their claims in reference

* We do not charge Dr. Onderdonk with having any such views and feelings. We have great pleasure in recording his dissent from the use of such language, and from such consequences, p. 6, "An apparently formidable, yet extraneous difficulty, often raised, is, that Episcopal claims unchurch all non-Epíscopal denominations. By the present writer this consequence is not allowed." We simply state this, with high gratification. We are happy also that we are not called upon to reconcile the admission with the claim set up in this tract, that "the authority of Episcopacy is permanent, down to the present age of the world;" (p. 40.) that the obligation of Christians to support bishops, i. e. to conform to Episcopacy, is not ended; (p. 40.) that of "any two ministries now existing, the former (Episcopacy) is obligatory, to the exclusion of the latter;" (parity, p. 39.) and that "the position cannot be evaded, that Episcopacy is permanently binding 'even to the end of the world.' p. 39.

to their bishop, it follows of course that ministers are on an equality. The whole argument is concentrated in their claim. We take our stand here. It is admitted on all hands, that there is somewhere in the church a right to ordain. Episcopalians, with singular boldness, in not a few instances with professed, and in all with real exclusiveness, maintain that this power lies only in the bishop. They advance a claim to certain rights and powers; and if that claim is not made out, the argument is at an end. The power of ordination must remain with those over whom they have set up the power of jurisdiction and control. This claim, as we have seen, is not made out. If from the authority of the New Testament, they cannot succeed in dividing the ministers of religion into various ranks and orders, it follows that the clergy remain on an equality.

On this point, also, they are compelled, as we conceive, to admit the whole of our argument. So manifest is it, that the sacred writers knew of no such distinction; that they regarded all ministers of the gospel as on a level; that they used the same name in describing the functions of all; that they addressed all as having the same Episcopal, or pastoral supervision, that the Episcopalians, after no small reluctance, are compelled at last to admit it. They are driven to the conclusion that the term bishop in the New Testament, does not in a single instance designate any such officer, as now claims exclusively that title. Thus Dr. Onderdonk says, that