has not," it is not necessarily binding." (p. 3.) The principle of interpretation, which in the Answer is introduced, to guide us in this inquiry, is that "the fathers are consulted on the subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they describe, forms an historical basis of interpreting scripture." (Answer, p. 3.) In order to understand the bearing of this rule of interpretation, it is necessary to know what it means. A "basis" is defined to be "the foundation of a thing; that on which a thing stands or lies; that on which it rests; the ground-work or first principle; that which supports." Webster. An historical basis" must mean, therefore, that the opinions, or facts of history, that is, in this case, the testimony of the fathers, constitute the foundation, the ground-work, or first principle, of the interpretation of the Bible; or that on which such an interpretation rests, or by which it is supported. It would seem to follow, therefore, that, unless we first become acquainted with this "historical basis," we are wholly in the dark about the proper interpretation of the Bible, and that our interpretation is destitute of any true support and authority. To this principle of interpretation, in this case, and in all others, the objections are obvious and numerous. (1.) Our first objection lies against the supposed necessity of having any such previously ascertained basis, in order to a just interpretation of the oracles of God. We object wholly to the doctrine, that the scriptures are to be interpreted by historical facts to be de

veloped long after the book was written. The great mass of men are wholly incompetent to enter into any such "historical" inquiry; but the great mass of men are not unqualified to understand the general drift and tenor of the New Testament. (2.) The statement is, that "the fabric of the ministry which they describe," is to be the basis of such interpretation. But who knows what the fabric of the ministry which they describe is? It is to be remembered, that the question is not respecting the ministry in the fourth century and onwards. But the inquiry, and the only one of material value in any supposition,-pertains to the fathers previous to that period. And there every thing is unsettled. Prelacy claims the fathers in that unknown age. The papacy claims the fathers there. Presbyterianism claims the fathers there. Congregationalism and Independency too, claim them there. Every thing is unsettled and chaotic. And this is the very point which has been the interminable subject of contention in this whole inquiry, and from which we hoped we had escaped, by the principles laid down in the Tract. Yet the position now advanced, would lead us again into all the difficulties, and controversies, and jostling elements, and contradictory statements, which have always attended the appeal to the fathers. If we are to wait until we have ascertained "the fabric of the ministry" which these fathers describe, before we have a "basis" for interpreting scripture, we may close the New Testament

in despair. (3.) This canon of interpretation is contrary to the rule which Dr. Onderdonk has himself laid down in the Tract itself. (p. 3.) In that instance, the authority of the scriptures was declared to be ample, and final. And throughout the Tract, there is a manifest indication of a belief, that the Bible is susceptible of interpretation, on the acknowledged rules of language, and the principles of common sense. We hailed such a manifestation, not only as auspicious to the cause of truth in regard to the claims of Episcopacy, but because it evinced the spirit to which the church must come,—of a direct, unqualified, and final appeal to the word of God,to determine religious doctrine. To that standard, we mean to adhere. And, as far as in us lies, we intend to hold it up to the view of men, and to insist on the great truth from which nothing shall ever divert us, and from which we fervently pray the church may never be diverted, that we are not to look for the discovery of truth, by ascertaining first an "historical basis," or, a set of instruments by which we are to measure and adjust the proportions of truth which we find in the revelation of God. Without any design to disparage or undervalue the fathers, whom we sincerely reverence, as having been holy, bold, and venerable men; without any blindness, as we believe, to the living lustre of that piety which led many of them to the stake; without any apprehension, that their testimony, when examined, would be found to be on the side of Episcopacy,—for it re

mains yet to be seen, that the fathers of the first two centuries ever dreamed of the pride and domination which subsequently crept into the church, and as. sumed the form of prelacy and popery: without any thing to influence us, so far as we know, from any of these "extraneous" sources, we intend to do all in our power to extend and perpetuate the doctrine, that the ultimate appeal in all religious inquiry, is to be the Bible, and the Bible only. "The Bible," said Chillingworth, "is the religion of the Protestants." We rejoice, to hear this sentiment echoed from the assistant bishop of Pennsylvania. And without meaning to insinuate, that this sentiment is not as honestly acted on by Episcopalians, as by any other denomination of Christians, we may add, that we deem the first sentence of the Tract worthy to be written in letters of gold, on the posts of every Episcopal sanctuary, and over every altar, and on the cover of every "Book of Common Prayer." "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." (4.) Our fourth objection to this rule of interpretation is, that it is, substantially, that on which rests the papal hierarchy. We do not know, that the papist would wish to express his principles of interpretation in stronger language, than that "the fathers are consulted on this subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they describe, forms an historical basis

for interpreting scripture." To us it seems, that this would express all that they ask; and as we doubt not, that Dr. Onderdonk would shrink from-any approximation to the papacy, quite as firmly as ourselves, we deem it necessary merely to suggest the consideration, to render the objection at once satisfactory to his own mind.

We object, also, to the principle of interpretation advanced on p. 18, of the Answer, which we have already quoted. The fact there assumed, is, that various orders of men are observable in civil government, etc.; and hence, that there is presumptive evidence, that such orders are to be found in the scriptures. We are not ignorant of the purpose for which this fact is adduced. It is to show, that the "burden of proof" does not lie so entirely on the Episcopalian, as we had affirmed in the review. We admit, to some extent, the modifying force of the circumstances, so far as the "burden of proof” is concerned. But it merely lightens the burden; it does not remove it. Presumption, in such a case, is not proof. When the fact affirmed relates to a doctrine of the Bible, it is not sufficient to say, that that fact occurred elsewhere, and therefore it must occur in the Bible. It is still the business of the Episcopalian, to prove his affirmation from the New Testament itself, that bishops are superior to other ministers of the gospel, in ministerial power and rights. This is his affirmation; this is the point which he urges ; this is to be made out from the Bible only; and assu