called to investigate the claim of Episcopacy as TESTED BY SCRIPTURE: " and here, for an essential link in the chain of proof, we are referred to a writer in the fifth century! We reject this proof for several reasons: 1. Because it is not Scripture, and with that alone we have to do at present. 2. Because if this change of title had the sanction of Divine appointment, and if the rank which it represents had been regarded as a matter of so much importance as modern prelatists annex to it, we might, surely, expect to find in the New Testament some intimation of what was to take place. 3. Because no one doubts that, in the fifth century, when Theodoret lived, prelacy had crept into the Church, and was firmly established; and that the language which he employs fell in with the current claims and practice of his day. 4. Because, if the testimony of the fathers is to settle this point; (against which we enter our solemn protest; what cannot be found in the Bible is no law for Christians;) if an appeal must be made to the fathers at all; pray let us go to those who lived nearest to "the apostolic age," and who, of course, are the most competent witnesses of what took place immediately after that age, when this change of title is alleged by our author to have been brought in. Does Clemens Romanus, does Ignatius, does Polycarp, say any thing like what Theodoret is brought to testify? They lived at the very time when this transfer of titles is alleged to have taken place. Does any one of them speak of it? Not a word. But they say very much of an opposite import. Ignatius says, again and again, that the PRESBYTERS SUCCEED IN THE PLACE OF THE APOSTLES. Clemens, who was contemporary with the Apostle John, speaks familiarly of the presbyters in his day, as the rulers of the Church, very much in the language of the New Testament; and Irenæus, who flourished toward the latter part of the second century, repeatedly speaks of presbyters as being successors of the Apostles. Surely the representations of these men, though not constituting our rule either of faith or practice, are much more worthy of confidence than the language of those who lived several centuries afterward, when it is known that great corruption, growing out of ambition and worldliness, had found its way into the Church, and when an erroneous nomenclature, as well as practice, was notoriously prevalent.

Such is the result of our author's appeal to the "test of Scripture." If he has proved a single point peculiar to the Episcopal system, from the New Testament, then we know not what proof means. Surely if the inspired writers had been Episcopalians; and, especially, if they had been believers in its fundamental importance, as well as in its Divine appointment; they could not have left the subject in their writings-writings, be it remembered, expressly intended to guide the Church to the end of time-they could not, we repeat, have left the subject in so lean and doubtful a plight as it would appear from our author's statement. Bishop Onderdonk has evidently examined the Scriptures

with the most anxious vigilance, and with the aid of the best divines of his Church who have lived for three centuries; and he has evidently collected every fact, hint and allusion that was capable of being brought to bear witness, ever so minutely or remotely, in favor of his cause. And yet the fact is, that every impartial reader must see that he has not been able, in regard to any one point, to produce a single scripture, decided and "home to his purpose." Now, if Episcopacy had been meant to be taught in Scripture, as the only authorized model of church order; and if the New Testament had been intended to be a sure guide in this matter; can any reflecting man believe that the inspired writers would have written as they have done in relation to ecclesiastical order? We will venture to say, it is impossible! When they had occasion to speak so frequently concerning Christian character and hope; concerning the Church, its nature, foundation, head, laws, ministers, and interests; it is truly marvellous, if they had thought as the writer of this pamphlet does, that they should not have told us something more explicit respecting "orders of clergy;" the mischiefs of "parity;" the danger of departure from the regular "succession;" and the fundamental importance of contending for an "authorized priesthood." Had their opinions been those of the author of this Tract, they could not have been silent, or have spoken doubtfully respecting these points. They would have dwelt upon them in every connexion; have repeated them at every turn; and have made this subject clear, whatever else was left in the dark. Now, as it is granted, on all sides, that they HAVE NOT DONE THIS; as Episcopalians themselves acknowledge that NO ONE of the inspired writers has done it, or is at all EXPLICIT on the subject; it is as plain as any moral demonstration can be, that the principles and claims of this pamphlet were then unknown, and, consequently, have no Divine warrant.

ANSWER

TO A

REVIEW OF "EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE,"

In the Biblical Repertory for April, 1835.

SOME people are prompt, and some tardy; the same with periodicals; and the Biblical Repertory is of the latter classperhaps with good reason. By the Biblical Repertory we mean, of course, the author of the Review before us. He informs us that copy after copy" of "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture" was sent him, from about the time of its earliest appearance, yet without waking the energies of his tardy pen; nay without being honored with the perusal of more than "a fourth, or at most, a third part of its contents." The reason was, that it contained nothing with which he was not "familiar." At length, however, in time for the April number of the Repertory, and "within twenty-four hours" of the moment of penning his third paragraph, he vouchsafes it "a cursory perusal." Why, after leaving it so long unnoticed and unread, say some four years, why did the reviewer at length examine its pages, and even bend his powers to the labor of a reply? He informs us that it was because "the voice of exultation over its supposed unanswerable character seems to be, in the Episcopal camp, waxing louder and louder," and because "some of the less informed of [his] friends may misapprehend the reason of [his] silence." Only the "less informed, be it noticed; the Biblical Repertory, a thick and handsome Quarterly, is the vehicle of communication with the "less informed" of the Presbyterians! One might have supposed that the columns of one of their religious newspapers would be the more appropriate channel. Mark also the words, "misapprehend the reason of our silence;" the silence of this individual reviewer, for the Tract had been reviewed a year before, in the Christian Spectator. Such language, under such circumstances, indicates that this writer understood that himself was looked to, by more or fewer of the Christian public, whether "less" or better "informed," for a reply to this Episcopal essay. In other words, while the reviewer, for himself, deemed the Tract, for four years, unworthy of notice, there were those whose judgment, either made known to him or taken for granted, constrained him at length to give his well-trained faculties ("familiar" with the whole subject) to the task, and to issue his production in one of the choicest Presbyterian periodicals. If the author of the Tract were vain of it, he would not covet a greater compliment. ( 229 )

20

After extracting from the Review such a compliment, and with the more direct compliments there given us, it may seem unkind to say that the tone of the reviewer is that rather of a declaimer than of a reasoner. But as "less-informed" persons are often caught by positive language, and insinuations against the parties opposed, it is our duty to say, that this positiveness and these insinuations abound in the production before us. Let our timid readers then bear in mind, that it is easy to say that no man of sense thinks as Episcopalians do, and that our opinions have no countenance whatever in the holy volume; let them be informed, that men who reason are apt to regard such sayings, except as they occasionally escape an ardent debater, as mere sound, a lordly kind of scolding, resorted to when arguments are scarce, or when the current of argumentation is becoming stagnant. The author of the Tract, says the reviewer, is under the wonderful sway of prejudice "— certain of his inferences "would be driven away from any enlightened and impartial tribunal on earth: again, we confidently assert that there is no authority whatever in the Word of God" for bishops proper; the claim of deacons to be clergymen, "has no foundation whatever in the Word of God:" if this claim "had not been actually advanced, it would never have occurred to us as possible that it should enter the mind of any thinking man: again, "the claim advanced in behalf of Andronicus and Junia Lor Junias] as apostles, is not only unfounded, but really bordering on the ridiculous; yes, "ridiculous," although that claim is allowed by Calvin, by Diodati, by Aretius, by others in Poole's Synopsis, and is regarded as of equal probability, or more than equal, with the other construction, by Hammond* and Macknight; yet adds the reviewer, the contrary "is the general interpretation of intelligent and impartial commentators: " again, the manner in which Bishop Onderdonk undertakes to dispose of the plain record..... is one of the most singular examples of evasion and management that we remember ever to have seen:" again, the opinion that peoßureptov in 1 Timothy, means office, the presbyterate, is "fanciful and ridiculous:" the word seems a favorite one, "ridiculous;" though the opinion has, in the Tract, the names of Jerome and Ambrose, of Calvin † and Grotius, and, in the Answer to Mr. Barnes' second Review,

*Hammond allows this absolutely, on John xx. 21, note b. We here specify for this opinion, Menochius, Tirinus, Estius, Vorstius, and Paræus; see Poole's Synopsis. Add also, Parkhurst and Wolfius, and Whitby, as we understand him; who cites Chrysostom and Theodoret.

†The objection is repeated by this reviewer, that Calvin held a different view afterward. Not exactly true; but if it were, he still allowed this one to be reasonable. Dr. Bowden made this reply long ago, as the reviewer should have known. See also our second Answer to Mr. Barnes. Dr. Cooke, we now observe, has answered still more effectually. (Essay, p. 175; Answer, p. 21.) The Institutes, in which Calvin made this concession, were first published before his Commentary, in which he partly revokes it; but successive editions of the former, still making the concession were published till "five years before he died."