Imágenes de páginas



relate to her outward manifestation, and papal mimicry! Reader, is this Christianity? those which relate to her internal govern- | Is this common justice? Is it not priest

I. Episcopacy is unscriptural, inas- craft and injustice over unlawful wealth, much as it is founded on a principle of open setting aside altogether the scriptural teachinjustice. All injustice is unscriptural, for ing that these so-called apostolical succesthe guiding principle of Christianity is uni-sors have no right to one farthing from the versal justice to universal humanity, as it national treasury? regards all human conduct. “A government II. Episcopacy is unscriptural, since she cannot patronize one particular religion is the subject and the minion of the State, without punishing others. A state has no and recognises an earthly monarch as her wealth but the people's wealth; if it pay head. “ The Church, (says “Blackwood,") some, it impoverishes others. A state is no “as an establishment is the creature of the fountain of honour. If it declare one class State.” This, be it remembered, is Highfree, it thereby declares others slaves. If it church authority, and cannot be doubted by declare some noble, it thereby declares others Churchmen, seeing history demonstrates the ignoble. Whenever bestowed with partiality, fact. Yes, history attests this and far more, its generosity is injustice, and its favour is that Episcopacy has ever been her abettor oppression."

in injustice and deeds of darkness; that the The injustice is not only flagrant but Church lives so long as the State will smile enormous, as these two statements will prove: upon her and support her, and dies at her

- Ist. It costs more to support the Estab- frown or rejection. This is not the condition lishment in England only than all other on which the Church of Christ exists! It church establishments in the world, including seeks not earthly riches and temporal power Catholicism. Not many years ago, the ex- to sustain and perpetuate itself, but stands penditure of every church establishment in among men, stable as the everlasting bills, the world was reckoned at £9,000,500 sum and manifests in the sight of a lost world total, annually, England excepted. While that her“ kingdom is not of this world!” Episcopacy in England cost the nation not It heeds not the smile of Constantine, who less than £9,778,000!-a sum exceeding sought to degrade it, nor the frown of Nero, the former by £773,000!! The injustice who sought to destroy it! It trembles not becomes still more manifest, when we con- at the stake, the block, or the dungeon! Yet sider that the former sum was divided among is it to triumph over the kingdom of darkthe clergy who had more than 200,000,000 ness, and embrace a fallen race with its hearers to instruct, while the latter sum was benignant blessings. divided, after a mammonish fashion, among III. Episcopacy is unscriptural, because the clergy who ministered to about 5,000,000; she compels those who execrate her to supor if we remember that the Episcopal hier- port her, and if any refuse to do so, she casts archy cost ten times more in England than them into prison, or steals their property to the Papal hierarchy in Spain, or thirty-seven enrich herself and perpetuate her evils in the times more than in priest-ridden Italy! land! This point is too manifest to need

Reader, which is the priest-ridden nation, comment, but may be taken as one evidence England or Italy? Where holds the Syrian of her intolerance and cruelty, wbich inherits god Mammon bis shrine, in Papacy or Pre- the curse, not the sanction of heaven. lacy? 2nd. This vast amount of wealth is IV. Episcopacy is inherently unscriptural

, unjustly divided among the Episcopal clergy. because she is a vast system of priestcraft

, While, according to parliamentary returns, institutes lordlings and hirelings over the the bishops receive yearly from £30,000 people, and propagates doctrines opposed to down to £3,000 each, which has been shown Christianity! It has been wittily remarked, in some instances to be from £60,000 yearly, that in the leading point of Episcopacy and there are many far more deserving men who Papacy there is only this difference, that attempt to live respectably on £50, and even the former has many popes, while the latter less (!), men who in many cases do more has only one. Now as the Church of Eng. real work than ten bishops, with all their land is ever proclaiming to the world that

the doctrine of one pope is false, we must . W.J. Fox.

tell the Church of England that the doctrine

of many popes is false also, and that Episco- grand characteristics of the people that pacy is not one whit more scripturally ortho- strikes the mind of the traveller as he passes dox than Papacy itself!

from England into Scotland, or as he meets We turn now to our second class of pro- from time to time with a Scotchman in positions regarding the scriptural heterodoxy English society. We are not about to enter of Episcopacy, taken from the state of her into a minute detail of minor concurrent actual organization. But we are not about causes which may have had their relative to exercise our own ingenuity here, for we weight and influence in thus moulding the shall bring forward three strong grounds of Scottish national character. But we shall, scriptural opposition, urged by Milton against passing them by, take this position,—that Prelatic Episcopacy and governance---valid this palpable superiority in piety and intelliobjections, as history proves to our heart's gence is to be primarily and chiefly ascribed content, as they have never been answered to the national religion of that happy country or removed, although the man who pro- — Presbyterianism; because Presbyterianponnded them has Jain in his tomb for ism is a nearer and fuller expression of nearly two hundred years!

Christianity than Episcopacy. They are as follows, and to the effect that We have referred to the Reformation in -“Prelaty opposeth the reason and end of England in the case of Episcopacy, let us the gospel, three ways; and first, in her also in the case of Presbyterianism. Presoutward form.Under this head he asks: byterianism was the result of the Reformation “ Tell me, ye priests, wherefore this gold, --the natural issue; the reverse was true as wherefore these robes and surplices over the we have already shown in the case of Episgospel? Is our religion guilty of the first copacy in England. trespass, and hath need of clothing to cover Presbyterianism was introduced into Scother nakedness? What does this else but land by John Knox, who came from the cast an ignominy upon the perfection of Calvin school at Geneva. It gained ascenChrist's ministry, by seeking to adorn it dancy among the people rapidly, and ultiwith that which was the poor remedy of our mately became the national religion. How? shame?” He elsewhere remarks, “ that he Not by the imposition of a regal monsterwho disdained not to be laid in a manger, not by the tyranny of a narrow-minded disdains not to be preached in a barn,” but queen-not by an Act of Uniformity-not Episcopacy does, ergo is Antichristian. by the Satanic power of a Star Chamber!

II. “That the ceremonious doctrine of No! By no earthly influence or human patronPrelaty opposeth the reason and end of the age. It gained its true ascendancy over the gospel.

nation by the potency of that divine truth III. “That Prelatical jurisdiction opposeth which it had gathered from that divine book the reason and end of the gospel and State." -the Bible—and by that only. Presby

Our space forbids comment, our opponents terianism was not imposed upon the people; will find this in Milton's logical article on it was the voluntary choice of the nation: “The Reason of Church Government urged hence, under the divine blessing, that nation against Prelaty.”

has become, to a far greater extent, wiser Before we proceed to examine the second and holier than the English nation! institution, we would state that we shall Scotland manifested her choice of Presbyconsider our opponents' articles to be eva- terianism by rejecting Episcopacy when sions, unless they meet these Miltonic objec- thrust upon her by English kings and popish tions fairly in the open light of scriptural prelates. How glorious is the memory of argument.

the Covenanters, who defied the ignoble What is Presbyterianism? "By their house of Stuart to impose an ignoble religion fruits ye shall know them.” Reader, have upon their country! They counted not their you ever considered how vastly superior the lives dear to save their fatherland from Premasses of the Scotch nation are to the masses lacy; and they perished on mountain top of the English in vital religion and intelli- and in mountain pass, but not in vain! gence? If not, you can but imperfectly Episcopacy has never gained footing there. apprehend the full force of our remarks. So Our Episcopalian opponents may, however, palpable is the fact, that it is one of the first ask where is the essential difference between

[ocr errors]

Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, seeing that domination and state government, so palpably the furiner is an ecclesiastical government manifest in Episcopacy;—or to synodical by bishops, and the latter, one by presbyters? power, as in Presbyterianism. Christianity The question is not so much here involved stands opposed to all ecclesiastical hierin the terms bishop and presbyter as in the archies, whether they be composed of bishops government by bishops and presbyters. What or presbyters. We learn this from Christ's is the government itself? Now the most teachings. “But be not ye called Rabbi palpable thing is, that whereas Episcopacy (referring to the Pharisaic hierarchy); for is the subject and minion of the State, Pres- one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye byterianism is no such thing, it being dis- are brethren." Christ is the supreme and tinct from the State, having the making of only Head of his Church, and he has deleits own laws, and the regulation of its own gated his divine prerogative to no man, or internal affairs. This is the great difference, body of men. out of which arises its utility and beneficiality II. Congregationalism is scriptural, inasin matters of religious influence. We might, much as it stands based on this fundamental did our space permit, refer to other points principle, that every church, or organized of marked superiority in Presbyterianism; body of believers, possesses an inalienable but we pass on, having laid down the one right to regulate its own affairs; and that, grand distinction. Let our Episcopalian in matters of church government, beyond its opponents pause again, and answer us faith- own decision, there is no appeal between fully here. Admitting, for the sake of argu- them and Christ its great Head. Episcopacy ment only, that it is possible to reform our and Presbyterianism stand based on the State Church; does Episcopacy possess in opposite principle, and are therefore unscripherself the moral power to accomplish such tural. an essential reformation? Does not the only III. Congregationalism is scriptural, inaspower to reform Episcopacy reside in the much as it exercises this lawful power in State? Is she not what the State decrees? claiming for every body of associated believDoes she not act in conformity to the State ers in Christ, the right to elect and reject to secure her existence, irrespective of the its own minister, independent of any other principles of Christianity? We reply, neces- body of men. This is not the case with sarily so! Here, then, we see how vastly Episcopacy or Presbyterianism, which have inferior, on scriptural grounds, Episcopacy this power vested in corporate bodies, and as a religious system is to Presbyterianism; which elect or reject the ministers of their for the power to reform all ecclesiastical respective jurisdictions regardless of the will abuses, and, to a great extent, moral abuses, or desire of the people. Of course, we shall in her own jurisdiction, does belong to Pres- be understood here to refer to the Kirk of byterianism. All her history attests it. Scotland, and not to the Free Church of

In conclusion. We have now to speak of Scotland, which, in 1843, cast off the unjust Congregationalism as the system most in synodical power of the Kirk, and vindicated accordance with the New Testament. We the truth of our present position, by claiming believe it to be so; to a greater extent than the right of electing their own ministers. Presbyterianism, which we have shown to Thus have we urged our objections, on be vastly more scriptural than Episcopacy, scriptural grounds, against Episcopacy and which has, in reality, no footing at all in the Presbyterianism; and briefly stated those on New Testament. We will state the grounds which we venture to assert, that Congregaof our belief as briefly as possible.

tionalism is the system most in accordance I. Congregationalism is scriptural, inas- with the Scriptures, and, therefore, producmuch as it stands opposed to all hierarchical tive of the best results.


“Let not sleep fall upon thy eyes till thou hast thrice reviewed the transactions of the day. Where have I turned aside from rectitude? What have I been doing? What have I left undone that I ought to have done? Begin thus from the first act, and proceed; and in conclusion at the ill which thou hast done be troubled, and rejoice for the good.”Pythagoras.





We really feel that there is scarcely need that, of course, is beneath his dignity for a reply on our part. Counter statements rushes on with increased self-importance to and opinions have been advanced, but both complete his victory by attacking our centre T. U. and J. B. 0. have carefully avoided position. But here he meets with unextrenching upon the real field of debate. We pected opposition. It is not so easily accommay be allowed briefly to advert to the plished as he had anticipated. Thrice does general tone of our opponents' articles. T. U. he revert to the charge, and thrice is he is evidently ill at ease in his chosen position. repulsed. But he is not to be out-generalled ; Although he has laboured through thirteen and seeks to create a diversion by pointing columns of letter-press, he has failed to to the provocations which Napoleon had, then establish a case." We opine that he ought treats us to a delectable dissertation on the to be on our side, and pity the choice or immediate and remote causes of the French necessity which has placed him where he is. Revolution and its consequent horrors. On glancing at the signature prior to perusal, Meanwhile, he cannot complain if, during we were glad to recognise one whose general bis absence, we endeavour to take him in the opinions and mode of reasoning have afforded rear, and to occupy those positions which he us much pleasure and instruction; but we left unguarded. "But we dismiss him for must confess our grievous disappointment at the present, holding in reserve sundry matters the result. It may be characterized as an concerning which we shall require a word endeavour to entrench himself, as well as or two; merely directing attention to the circumstances will allow, on the assumption wretched jokes which once and again he has that he felt his position to be assailable. perpetrated, and the would-be sarcasm in We cannot but admire the caution which he the indulgence of which he has so signally displays; the evident fear of betrayal into failed. some unlucky admission; the thankfulness T. U. prefaces his article with a statement with which he seizes the miserable bone of of sundry principles on which this subject our “general admissions;" and his eager ought to be discussed; but to which we beg flight across the Atlantic, searching amid a to demur in toto. We are well aware of the pile of opposition for something, however importance of divesting ourselves of national scanty, to aid him in his dilemma. We prejudice, and in penning our negative article would not deprive him of one iota of the endeavoured to realize this desirable consumconsolation which he derives from these and mation; but we do not perceive the necessity similar recherché morsels; indeed, had we of placing “ourselves in the position of the been aware of his destitute condition, we French people;” because if, as we maintain, would gladly have administered in a greater their opinions were founded in error, we degree to his necessities.

should be liable to make the same mistakes. J. B. O., on the contrary, has no such Rather we should occupy some elevated buti feelings. His chivalry scorns the idea of neutral stand-point, and thence endeavour being contained within his own ramparts, to form a correct estimate of the character and burns to distinguish itself. Accordingly, before us. Neither can we judge “ Napoleon's he sallies forth to reconnoitre, and spying character by the standard which existed one or two outposts to all appearance but around him, and by the national character-feebly guarded, ambles towards them in the istics of the French;" for in that case the full tide of enthusiastic bravery, and flatters vilest criminal ought to be tried, not by the himself that they are demolished; then, strict standard of justice, but by the opinions without waiting to secure his conquests of his associates. We think that a sati


factory solution was afforded in our opening | Napoleon's powers been directed to nobler article to the act of the French people in objects, and counterbalanced by other and electing him, first Consul, and afterwards redeeming qualities, we believe that his Emperor; but T. U., instead of showing, as career would have been far different, and he ought to have done, that our assigned productive of untold blessings to bis race. reason was insufficient, “burks" the real The question of personal ambition was question at issue by attempting an analogy raised in our introductory article, and T. U. between Napoleon and our own Wellington, devotes a considerable space to an attempted -an analogy so palpably defective that we refutation. But here we notice that his ally will not insult the understanding of our deserts him. T. U. first of all denies that Naporeaders by exposing it. He appears to stand leon was influenced by personal ambition, aghast at the possibility of our condemning and then dubiously allows that he possibly the French nation; and in another place might have been; ending by a dexterous (p. 98, col. 2) would fain accuse us of some attempt to enlist even this amiable failing thing akin to blasphemy. We did not say on his own side. J. B. 0., on the other that “the French mind is so superficial and hand, undisguisedly admits his “indisputable so weak that it is naturally led astray by ambition," and has no wish to gloss it over; gilded hypocrisy and by vain ambition in its but he also signally fails in his repeated rulers," and hence this pious protest of T.U. attempts to explain it away. T. U. again is wholly gratuitous; but we might have exhibits a deplorable state of weakness by said, what we presume no reflective mind the unfortunate analogy which he seeks to will deny, that two of their principal national draw (p. 100, col. 2) between the official characteristics are volatility and a thirst for patronage of our statesmen, exercised, be it glory; and this, without implying any cen- remembered, in their own country, and by sure, would sufficiently account for sundry means of that country's legitimate property, otherwise inexplicable acts. We know not and the off-hand disposal of foreign territory whether T. U. intends it, but the inference acquired by force of arms, and without the is perfectly warrantable, that because the consent of its inhabitants, among the memgeneral opinion of the French was in favour bers of his own family and his favourite of Napoleon, therefore he was deserving of generals. This part of the case so comit, and that we have no right to place our- pletely fails that we need not refer to it at selves in opposition to the dictum of public greater length; but only request the favour opinion. But it so happens that we attach of a re-perusal of our remarks at page 50, very little value to public opinion on any in connexion with the reply of T. U. at page subject, knowing as we do the very question- 100. He then seeks to parry the charge by able, and often the grossly unjust means reasoning from the particular to the general

, whereby that opinion is formed; and that in and descanting upon that universal and many instances it has been not public opinion laudable ambition which is displayed in & but that of the contemplative few which has greater or less degree by all public men. ultimately proved correct; and therefore we But we maintain that, to the question of must profess ourselves unaffected by the personal ambition which we raised and subterror which appears to have seized T. U. on stantiated, he has given no reply. Our this subject.

friend “Walter” has, however, dealt with We have not denied that Napoleon was this part of the subject in so able and conpossessed of great mental capacities; indeed clusive a manner as to render unnecessary we are as willing as either T. U. or J. B. 0. further remarks from us. To the statements can possibly be to accord to him all that which he has made with reference to the justice demands. Hence we do not perceive commencement of the war, in opposition to the necessity for their proving what no one those of T. U.-statements derived from the attempted to deny. T. Ü. surely knows that personal testimony of Napoleon himself we it is possible for energy, will, and strength may also safely refer J. B. O. for an answer of character" to be devoted to a bad cause. to his imaginings on the subject. The most notorious brigand may exhibit We were curious to ascertain upon these characteristics

, but not even T. U. ground Napoleon's aggressive wars would be would attempt to defend such an one. Had defended, and although not in the least


« AnteriorContinuar »