of many popes is false also, and that Episcopacy is not one whit more scripturally orthodox than Papacy itself!

We turn now to our second class of propositions regarding the scriptural heterodoxy of Episcopacy, taken from the state of her actual organization. But we are not about to exercise our own ingenuity here, for we shall bring forward three strong grounds of scriptural opposition, urged by Milton against Prelatic Episcopacy and governance-valid objections, as history proves to our heart's content, as they have never been answered or removed, although the man who propounded them has lain in his tomb for nearly two hundred years!

They are as follows, and to the effect that -"Prelaty opposeth the reason and end of the gospel, three ways; and first, in her outward form." Under this head he asks: "Tell me, ye priests, wherefore this gold, wherefore these robes and surplices over the gospel? Is our religion guilty of the first trespass, and hath need of clothing to cover her nakedness? What does this else but cast an ignominy upon the perfection of Christ's ministry, by seeking to adorn it with that which was the poor remedy of our shame?" He elsewhere remarks, "that he who disdained not to be laid in a manger, disdains not to be preached in a barn," but Episcopacy does, ergo is Antichristian.

II. "That the ceremonious doctrine of Prelaty opposeth the reason and end of the gospel."

III. "That Prelatical jurisdiction opposeth the reason and end of the gospel and State." Our space forbids comment, our opponents will find this in Milton's logical article on "The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelaty."

Before we proceed to examine the second institution, we would state that we shall consider our opponents' articles to be evasions, unless they meet these Miltonic objections fairly in the open light of scriptural

argument.

What is Presbyterianism? "By their fruits ye shall know them." Reader, have you ever considered how vastly superior the masses of the Scotch nation are to the masses of the English in vital religion and intelligence? If not, you can but imperfectly apprehend the full force of our remarks. So palpable is the fact, that it is one of the first

grand characteristics of the people that strikes the mind of the traveller as he passes from England into Scotland, or as he meets from time to time with a Scotchman in English society. We are not about to enter into a minute detail of minor concurrent causes which may have had their relative weight and influence in thus moulding the Scottish national character. But we shall, passing them by, take this position,-that this palpable superiority in piety and intelligence is to be primarily and chiefly ascribed to the national religion of that happy country

Presbyterianism; because Presbyterianism is a nearer and fuller expression of Christianity than Episcopacy.

We have referred to the Reformation in England in the case of Episcopacy, let us also in the case of Presbyterianism. Presbyterianism was the result of the Reformation

the natural issue; the reverse was true as we have already shown in the case of Episcopacy in England.

Presbyterianism was introduced into Scotland by John Knox, who came from the Calvin school at Geneva. It gained ascendancy among the people rapidly, and ultimately became the national religion. How? Not by the imposition of a regal monsternot by the tyranny of a narrow-minded queen-not by an Act of Uniformity-not by the Satanic power of a Star Chamber! No! By no earthly influence or human patronage. It gained its true ascendancy over the nation by the potency of that divine truth which it had gathered from that divine book -the Bible-and by that only. Presbyterianism was not imposed upon the people; it was the voluntary choice of the nation: hence, under the divine blessing, that nation has become, to a far greater extent, wiser and holier than the English nation!

Scotland manifested her choice of Presbyterianism by rejecting Episcopacy when thrust upon her by English kings and popish prelates. How glorious is the memory of the Covenanters, who defied the ignoble house of Stuart to impose an ignoble religion upon their country! They counted not their lives dear to save their fatherland from Prelacy; and they perished on mountain top and in mountain pass, but not in vain! Episcopacy has never gained footing there. Our Episcopalian opponents may, however, ask where is the essential difference between

Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, seeing that the former is an ecclesiastical government by bishops, and the latter, one by presbyters? The question is not so much here involved in the terms bishop and presbyter as in the government by bishops and presbyters. What is the government itself? Now the most palpable thing is, that whereas Episcopacy is the subject and minion of the State, Presbyterianism is no such thing, it being distinct from the State, having the making of its own laws, and the regulation of its own internal affairs. This is the great difference, out of which arises its utility and beneficiality in matters of religious influence. We might, did our space permit, refer to other points of marked superiority in Presbyterianism; but we pass on, having laid down the one grand distinction. Let our Episcopalian opponents pause again, and answer us faithfully here. Admitting, for the sake of argument only, that it is possible to reform our State Church; does Episcopacy possess in herself the moral power to accomplish such an essential reformation? Does not the only power to reform Episcopacy reside in the State? Is she not what the State decrees? Does she not act in conformity to the State to secure her existence, irrespective of the principles of Christianity? We reply, necessarily so! Here, then, we see how vastly inferior, on scriptural grounds, Episcopacy as a religious system is to Presbyterianism; for the power to reform all ecclesiastical abuses, and, to a great extent, moral abuses, in her own jurisdiction, does belong to Presbyterianism. All her history attests it.

In conclusion. We have now to speak of Congregationalism as the system most in accordance with the New Testament. We believe it to be so, to a greater extent than Presbyterianism, which we have shown to be vastly more scriptural than Episcopacy, which has, in reality, no footing at all in the New Testament. We will state the grounds of our belief as briefly as possible.

I. Congregationalism is scriptural, inasmuch as it stands opposed to all hierarchical

domination and state government, so palpably manifest in Episcopacy;-or to synodical power, as in Presbyterianism. Christianity stands opposed to all ecclesiastical hierarchies, whether they be composed of bishops or presbyters. We learn this from Christ's teachings. "But be not ye called Rabbi (referring to the Pharisaic hierarchy); for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." Christ is the supreme and only Head of his Church, and he has delegated his divine prerogative to no man, or body of men.

II. Congregationalism is scriptural, inasmuch as it stands based on this fundamental principle, that every church, or organized body of believers, possesses an inalienable right to regulate its own affairs; and that, in matters of church government, beyond its own decision, there is no appeal between them and Christ its great Head. Episcopacy and Presbyterianism stand based on the opposite principle, and are therefore unscriptural.

III. Congregationalism is scriptural, inasmuch as it exercises this lawful power in claiming for every body of associated believers in Christ, the right to elect and reject its own minister, independent of any other body of men. This is not the case with Episcopacy or Presbyterianism, which have this power vested in corporate bodies, and which elect or reject the ministers of their respective jurisdictions regardless of the will or desire of the people. Of course, we shall be understood here to refer to the Kirk of Scotland, and not to the Free Church of Scotland, which, in 1843, cast off the unjust synodical power of the Kirk, and vindicated the truth of our present position, by claiming the right of electing their own ministers.

Thus have we urged our objections, on scriptural grounds, against Episcopacy and Presbyterianism; and briefly stated those on which we venture to assert, that Congregationalism is the system most in accordance with the Scriptures, and, therefore, productive of the best results. ROLLA.

WE really feel that there is scarcely need for a reply on our part. Counter statements and opinions have been advanced, but both T. U. and J. B. O. have carefully avoided trenching upon the real field of debate. We may be allowed briefly to advert to the general tone of our opponents' articles. T. U. is evidently ill at ease in his chosen position. Although he has laboured through thirteen columns of letter-press, he has failed to establish 66 a case." We opine that he ought to be on our side, and pity the choice or necessity which has placed him where he is. On glancing at the signature prior to perusal, we were glad to recognise one whose general opinions and mode of reasoning have afforded us much pleasure and instruction; but we must confess our grievous disappointment at the result. It may be characterized as an endeavour to entrench himself, as well as circumstances will allow, on the assumption that he felt his position to be assailable. We cannot but admire the caution which he displays; the evident fear of betrayal into some unlucky admission; the thankfulness with which he seizes the miserable bone of our "general admissions;" and his eager flight across the Atlantic, searching amid a pile of opposition for something, however scanty, to aid him in his dilemma. We would not deprive him of one iota of the consolation which he derives from these and similar recherché morsels; indeed, had we been aware of his destitute condition, we would gladly have administered in a greater degree to his necessities.

J. B. O., on the contrary, has no such feelings. His chivalry scorns the idea of being contained within his own ramparts, and burns to distinguish itself. Accordingly, he sallies forth to reconnoitre, and spying one or two outposts to all appearance but feebly guarded, ambles towards them in the full tide of enthusiastic bravery, and flatters himself that they are demolished; then, without waiting to secure his conquests

that, of course, is beneath his dignity-rushes on with increased self-importance to complete his victory by attacking our centre position. But here he meets with unexpected opposition. It is not so easily accomplished as he had anticipated. Thrice does he revert to the charge, and thrice is he repulsed. But he is not to be out-generalled; and seeks to create a diversion by pointing to the provocations which Napoleon had, then treats us to a delectable dissertation on the immediate and remote causes of the French Revolution and its consequent horrors. Meanwhile, he cannot complain if, during his absence, we endeavour to take him in the rear, and to occupy those positions which he left unguarded. But we dismiss him for the present, holding in reserve sundry matters concerning which we shall require a word or two; merely directing attention to the wretched jokes which once and again he has perpetrated, and the would-be sarcasm in the indulgence of which he has so signally failed.

T. U. prefaces his article with a statement of sundry principles on which this subject ought to be discussed; but to which we beg to demur in toto. We are well aware of the importance of divesting ourselves of national prejudice, and in penning our negative article endeavoured to realize this desirable consummation; but we do not perceive the necessity of placing "ourselves in the position of the French people; " because if, as we maintain, their opinions were founded in error, we should be liable to make the same mistakes. Rather we should occupy some elevated but neutral stand-point, and thence endeavour to form a correct estimate of the character before us. Neither can we judge "Napoleon's character by the standard which existed around him, and by the national character istics of the French;" for in that case the vilest criminal ought to be tried, not by the strict standard of justice, but by the opinions of his associates. We think that a satis

article to the act of the French people in electing him, first Consul, and afterwards Emperor; but T. U., instead of showing, as he ought to have done, that our assigned reason was insufficient, "burks" the real question at issue by attempting an analogy between Napoleon and our own Wellington, -an analogy so palpably defective that we will not insult the understanding of our readers by exposing it. He appears to stand aghast at the possibility of our condemning the French nation; and in another place (p. 98, col. 2) would fain accuse us of something akin to blasphemy. We did not say that "the French mind is so superficial and so weak that it is naturally led astray by gilded hypocrisy and by vain ambition in its rulers," and hence this pious protest of T. U. is wholly gratuitous; but we might have said, what we presume no reflective mind will deny, that two of their principal national characteristics are volatility and a thirst for glory; and this, without implying any censure, would sufficiently account for sundry otherwise inexplicable acts. We know not whether T. U. intends it, but the inference is perfectly warrantable, that because the general opinion of the French was in favour of Napoleon, therefore he was deserving of it, and that we have no right to place ourselves in opposition to the dictum of public opinion. But it so happens that we attach very little value to public opinion on any subject, knowing as we do the very questionable, and often the grossly unjust means whereby that opinion is formed; and that in many instances it has been not public opinion but that of the contemplative few which has ultimately proved correct; and therefore we must profess ourselves unaffected by the terror which appears to have seized T. U. on this subject.

We have not denied that Napoleon was possessed of great mental capacities; indeed we are as willing as either T. U. or J. B. O. can possibly be to accord to him all that justice demands. Hence we do not perceive the necessity for their proving what no one attempted to deny. T. U. surely knows that it is possible for "energy, will, and strength of character" to be devoted to a bad cause. The most notorious brigand may exhibit these characteristics, but not even T. U. would attempt to defend such an one. Had

objects, and counterbalanced by other and redeeming qualities, we believe that his career would have been far different, and productive of untold blessings to his race.

The question of personal ambition was raised in our introductory article, and T. U. devotes a considerable space to an attempted refutation. But here we notice that his ally deserts him. T. U. first of all denies that Napoleon was influenced by personal ambition, and then dubiously allows that he possibly might have been; ending by a dexterous attempt to enlist even this amiable failing on his own side. J. B. O., on the other hand, undisguisedly admits his "indisputable ambition," and has no wish to gloss it over; but he also signally fails in his repeated attempts to explain it away. T. U. again exhibits a deplorable state of weakness by the unfortunate analogy which he seeks to draw (p. 100, col. 2) between the official patronage of our statesmen, exercised, be it remembered, in their own country, and by means of that country's legitimate property, and the off-hand disposal of foreign territory acquired by force of arms, and without the consent of its inhabitants, among the members of his own family and his favourite generals. This part of the case so completely fails that we need not refer to it at greater length; but only request the favour of a re-perusal of our remarks at page 50, in connexion with the reply of T. U. at page 100. He then seeks to parry the charge by reasoning from the particular to the general, and descanting upon that universal and laudable ambition which is displayed in a greater or less degree by all public men. But we maintain that, to the question of personal ambition which we raised and substantiated, he has given no reply. Our friend "Walter" has, however, dealt with this part of the subject in so able and conclusive a manner as to render unnecessary further remarks from us. To the statements which he has made with reference to the commencement of the war, in opposition to those of T. U.-statements derived from the personal testimony of Napoleon himself-we may also safely refer J. B. O. for an answer to his imaginings on the subject.

We were curious to ascertain upon what ground Napoleon's aggressive wars would be defended, and although not in the least