the globe. We ourselves could live and labor in friendliness and love, in the bosom of the Episcopal Church. While we have an honest preference for another department of the great field of Christian action; while providential circumstances, and the suggestions of our own hearts and minds, have conducted us to a different field of labor; we have never doubted that many of the purest flames of devotion that rise from the earth, ascend from the altars of the Episcopal Church, and that many of the purest spirits that the earth contains, minister at those altars, or breathe forth their prayers and praises in language consecrated by the use of piety for centuries.

We have but one wish in regard to Episcopacy. We wish her not to assume arrogant claims. We wish her not to utter the language of denunciation. We wish her to follow the guidance of the distinguished minister of her Church, whose book we are reviewing, in not attempting to "unchurch" other denominations. We wish her to fall in with, or to go in advance of others, in the spirit of the age. Our desire is that she may become throughout, as we rejoice she is increasingly becoming, the warm, devoted friend of revivals, and missionary operations. She is consolidated; well marshalled; under an efficient system of laws; and pre-eminently fitted for powerful action in the field of Christian warfare, We desire to see her what the Macedonian phalanx was in the ancient army; with her dense, solid organization, with her unity of movement, with her power of maintaining the position which she takes; and with her eminent ability to advance the cause of sacred learning, and the love of order and of law, attending or leading all other churches in the conquests of redemption in an alienated world. We would even rejoice to see her who was first in the field at the Reformation in England, first, also, in the field, when the Son of God shall come to take to himself his great power; and whatever positions may be assigned to other denominations, we have no doubt that the Episcopal Church is destined yet to be, throughout, the warm friend of revivals, and to consecrate her wealth and power to the work of making a perpetual aggression on the territories of sin and of death.

ANSWER TO A REVIEW

OF

"EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE."

OUR readers will recollect that at various periods since this tract first appeared, now more than three years ago, we have reminded all concerned that it had not been answered. At length, however, a champion appears, to take up the gauntlet thrown down, and do battle for-really we cannot say for whatbut against the claims of Episcopacy. He advances to the field with the courtesy of a perfect knight, saying so many civil things of his opponent, that we regret that the withholding of his name deprives us of the opportunity of being personally courteous in return. This, however, we can see, though his armor is closed, and this we say with unfeigned gratification, that he is a gentleman of elevated feelings and honorable principles.

And now to the discussion. The Reviewer has fixed upon one point in the line of argument in the tract, and on it directed his main attack. Our reply must, of course, correspond. First, however, we offer some preliminary observations.

Because the author of the tract* rested the claims of Episcopacy finally on Scripture because he fills a high office in the Church-and because the tract is issued by so prominent an Episcopal institution as the "Press," the Reviewer seems to think that Episcopalians are now to abandon all arguments not drawn directly from the holy volume. Not at all. The author of the tract, in his sermon at the consecration of the four bishops in October, 1832, advocated Episcopacy, besides on other grounds, on that of there being several grades of office in the priesthoods of all religions, false as well as true, and in all civil magistracies and other official structures, and, in his late charge, he adverted to the evidence in its favor contained in the fathers. And the "Press," at the time it issued the tract, issued also with it, in the "Works on Episcopacy," those of Dr. Bowden and Dr. Cooke, which embrace the argument at large. There is no reason, therefore, for thinking that, however a single writer may use selected arguments in a single publication, either he or other Episcopalians will (or should) narrow the ground they

Bishop H. U. Onderdonk.

(93)

have usually occupied. The fathers are consulted on this subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they describe forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture. And general practice, in regard to distinct grades among officers, throws a heavier burden of disproof on those whose interpretations are adverse to Episcopacy: this latter topic we shall again notice before we close.

The reviewer thinks that, in discussing the exclusive claims of Episcopacy, "the burden of proof lies wholly on its friends." But the correctness of this assertion depends on the sense in which the phrase "burden of proof" is taken. In a loose way, it may be said that the burden of proof so far lies on him who advances a proposition, i. e. on him who happens to make the first assertion in any given discussion, as that he must adduce arguments for his opponents to reply to; and it is sometimes one of the arts of controvertists to manœuvre upon this rule. But the rule is only technical: it may further an orderly discussion, but it does nothing more toward the development of truth. We suppose the reviewer to mean this sense of the phrase, as he speaks of nothing more than the " specific assertion" of the tract; but, in this sense, the tract fulfilled its duty in giving proofs. The "burden of proof" has, however, a meaning far more important. It is the opposite of the "presumptive argument." In some cases, the presumptive argument is clear, and it holds its ground till disproved; and in such a controversy, the burden of proof is a burden indeed. In other cases, it is doubtful on which side the presumptive argument lies, and then it is a waste of time to talk about the burden of proof. Does the reviewer think that the presumptive argument is clearly against the exclusive claims of Episcopacy? Let him go to Ignatius, in the age next the apostolic, and read about the "bishop, presbyters, and deacons"-he puts on such language a Presbyterian construction-while Episcopalians put on it theirs; does this give him a clear presumption? Does it throw the burden of proof on us? Let him go to the period when the Reformation began then all the Christian world was Episcopal-he excepts, though we do not, the Waldenses; does this grand fact give a presumption against Episcopacy? Let him, again, look on Christendom now, and estimate the majority of Episcopalians as he pleases-a vast majority it is, by any estimate; does he find in such a state of things any clear consideration that throws the burden of proof on the exclusive advocates of the Episcopal ministry? We judge not. We rather think it would not be difficult to show that this "burden," so far as these topics may be allowed to decide it, lies upon the impugners of Episcopacy. We therefore most respectfully suggest to the reviewer, that it probably lies-on a minority in controversy with a majority, i. e. on Non-episcopalians-on those who left Episcopacy at the Reformation on those who, to make Ignatius interpret the Scriptures relating to the ministry as they do, adduce, not fact

or evidence, or even the historical chain of proof, but merely their own interpretation of those Scriptures, as the key to Ignatius.

We were much pleased to find the reviewer agreeing, in the main at least, to the exclusion of extraneous arguments from this controversy, as proposed and largely insisted on in the tract-" to most of the observations under these several heads, we give our hearty assent." Yet such is human forgetfulness, in even the best of men, that he strays once or oftener into every one of these extraneous or inconclusive arguments, as a few exemplifications, under the heads given in the tract, will show. 1. The notion that Episcopacy is adverse to civil freedom, is extraneous and irrelevant: does the reviewer assent" to excluding this notion? He says, "If the New Testament had been the only authority appealed to in other times, Episcopacy would long since have . sunk away with other dynasties and dominations, from the notice of mankind." 2. Another extraneous argument is the accusation that Episcopalians are not pious enough: does the reviewer "assent" to putting this imputation out of view? He says of Episcopacy, in certain former periods, "Even as a part of the Protestant religion, it has brought 'a numb and chill stupidity of soul, an inactive blindness of mind, upon the people, by its leaden doctrine;' we cannot forget the frozen captivity' of the Church, 'in the bondage of prelates.'" 3. That the external appointments of Christianity are of inferior moment, is, argues the tract, another irrelevant matter: does the reviewer "assent" to having this plea set aside? He says, "We regard it as a matter of very little moment, in what particular church the spirit is prepared for its eternal rest." 4. That some Episcopalians unchurch the Non-episcopalian denominations, is an extraneous argument: does the reviewer "assent" to keeping it out of the discussion? He says, "Whether their arguments 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 the modest use of the term 'the Church,' with an exclusive reference to themselves,* must now be left to the judgment of our readers." 5. Referring to authorities, on either side, who are thought to have contradicted themselves, is, according to the tract, irrelevant, extraneous, and even futile: does the reviewer assent?" He adduces the opinions of Cranmer, concerning "the original identity of bishops and presbyters," and that neither "consecration, nor any other solemnity," is essential to make a minister of CHRIST; while yet Cranmer sanctioned our Ordinal, which declares that GOD "appointed divers orders of ministers in the Church;" and which decrees that no man shall

6

*Twice, in his second paragraph, the reviewer uses the term "the Church," with, apparently, an exclusive reference to Presbyterians.