and utterly alike; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word." There is some force in B. S.'s argument, that uninspired men may not be regarded as having like authority with those who were inspired. Our case for Episcopacy is, Is it accordant with scripture, or repugnant to it? If the latter, the debate is, of course, closed; if the former, it does not follow that all other methods are repugnant. Moreover, if, instead of simple accordance, there is direct example, their position is, at least, a responsible one who decide not to imitate the example, unless it can be shown to be unsuited to the "country, times, and men's manners." Again, one party to the debate, the Congregationalist, is "out of court" upon the Church and State question inasmuch as though an Establishment is impossible on Congregational, it is by no means necessary on Episcopal or Presbyterian principles. Further, the secularity and political bondage complained of are not consequences, but accidents. Once more, the question of cost is a manifest irrelevancy. You can no more settle a question of this kind by quoting church statistics, than determine Queen Victoria's title to the throne by examining the expenses of the Royal household. And, finally, we protest against employing the Papacy as an argument against Episcopacy. The habit of attributing the frightful evils of that system to the union of Church and State, or the Episcopal form of government, rather than to its origin, doctrines, and practices, is one of the most perilous for Protestantism that can be conceived. First, then, Is Episcopacy in harmony with the word of God? This is conceded by the able Congregational contributor-B. S., and analyzed in so masterly a manner by F. J. L., that it is difficult to add any thing to it. We take leave, however, to except to his inferential allusion to the analogy of high-priest, priests, and Levites, under the old dispensation. Christ himself is the only high-priest of the Christian system, and this, so far as the allusion had value, would only leave us two orders, and rather favour Presbyterianism. We certainly feel the Presbyterian case to be stronger on scriptural ground than the Congregational. (We somewhat envy our Presbyterian friends the compliments they gain from either side, as so much better than the opposite extreme.) But we confess our inability to reconcile this milder form of anti-Prelacy, with all its compact order and godly discipline, with the powers so plainly conferred by individual apostolic authority upon even young men; and still more the ultra view of independent churches with a direction to one person to "ordain elders in every city," -a direction which, if it were intended to furnish a model for imitation, would be fatal to Independency; and, if it were not, would leave its opponents on an invaluable vantage-ground. The passages referred to by J. N., in which ordinations are recorded, are very hastily assumed to include under the term presbyter none but equals in official rank-J. N. forgetting that we do not contend for the names, but the facts-namely, that the three gradations of (1), a superintending minister (who was not always, even in the apostles' own days, himself an apostle-we entreat the recollection of this circumstance, as, if Paul cannot be said to be a precedent, Timothy may): 2, & minister in more immediate charge of a particular body or congregation; 3, a deaconare clearly traceable in the sacred writings. If this latter office has become confused, Episcopalians, and not Episcopacy, are chargeable. This harmony with scripture being supposed, the abstract question, so eloquently argued by B. S., loses its force. If Christianity does not trammel the mind, its inspired exponents could certainly not have desired to do so, and a system of action which they adopted or sanctioned cannot fairly be charged with having that tendency. In this light, the argument on freedom of thought appears as inconclusive as, indeed, it is on its own merits. The reference to Paul's denunciation of an angel who should even preach another doctrine is singularly unfortunate; what can be more dogmatic or authoritative? Not less so is the illustration: "Let any man attempt to coerce himself into a conviction or belief that the sun will not rise to-morrow, and he will find his efforts vain and his will powerless." But supposing he did believe it, and that fifty others believed it; that belief would ipso facto be their creed, and how absurd would B. S. acknowledge it to be if, when constituted a community, they were denounced as illiberal, and seeking to impose burthens on the human mind, on refusing to admit a believer in sunrise to membership, or expelling a brother who had become perverted to the conventional delusion! How long would a congregation hold together which was resolved to admit every person to membership who professed his belief in the Godhead? The following general considerations, among others, may be urged for Episcopacy: -1. The systematic development of the principle of authority. It is just that organization, which, worked for evil, has proved in the hands of the Papacy so dangerous to mankind. No one would think of managing an army on Independent principles; and the most fanatical Republican has never attempted to construct a state upon them. But we believe that if we could furnish our non-Episcopal friends with an example of a perfect diocese, side by side with a perfect Presbytery and Congregational church, they would be so charmed with the former as to accept its principle at once. 2. The value of placing the most honoured, learned, and experienced pastors of the communion, in a position to benefit by their counsel and encouragement the younger and less experienced. We dare not, however, carry this to the extent of including the idea of stimulus and promotion, employed by another contributor, as we feel such motives to be inconsistent with the sanctity of the work. 3. The principle of National Churches is so clearly to be found in the word of God, that any system of church government which, like Congregationalism, is quite incompatible with it, appears to be ipso facto condemned. Few perhaps will question that the Episcopal is that form of ecclesiastical government which most perfectly harmonizes with that principle. 4. Congregationalism not only denies the right of the ministry to be "lords over God's heritage," but actually subordinates the former to the latter. In Episcopacy, clerical supremacy is complained of; in Presbytery, clergy and laity act more conjointly; in Congregationalism, the people govern. This we can find nowhere taught or sanctioned in scripture. tendency. It furnishes it. We want religious influence among all classes. It carries it there. We want voices for God in the senate. It provides them. We want that systematic action upon the masses of the population, by which alone we can hope to reform society. It is eminently adapted to that end. We want a warring agency against Popery, which, while it has the gospel, equally with others, to oppose to Romish corruptions, has also ancient and veritable catholic claims to oppose to Romish prejudices and scruples. It is such an agency. It is calculated to make, what Presbyterianism may in a lesser degree, what Congregationalism never can in any degree, a Church for the People. Which system is productive of the best results? We go fearlessly to the point, and affirm at once-Episcopacy. The Church of England has had her season of deadly spiritual lethargy. But in Scotland, also, Socrates long occupied the pulpit to the exclusion of Paul, nor did Paul regain it without considerable difficulty; and when he did so, the country manses still swarmed with the worldly and the cold. And in England and Ireland, a melancholy succession of sanctuaries and congregations deadened and slept,-the gospel stream has long ceased to flow, and Socinian Infidelity now broods over the stagnant waters. Episcopacy has kept together the humble churches of the Continent, whose kindred communions are now torn with the nationalistic heresy. It has given to the world the most devoted and useful of churches-the Moravians. It has maintained its vitality and activity, not without persecution, in Scotland; it has done a great work, and won the allegiance and love of growing multitudes, in republican America; and it is working in the British Colonies, amidst inconceivable disadvantages, with a zeal and effect worthy of apostolic days. It is winning souls, by tens of thousands, from Romish bondage, and is, in the form of the Established Church, the object of the bitterest hatred of the Papacy. Not to dwell on the priceless treasures it has contributed to theology, and the general services it has rendered to the vindication of the faith, it has nursed many of the most Its honoured and useful servants God ever saw fit to employ; nay, the greatest (which is synonymous with the earliest) names in the history of Nonconformity and of Methodism, Is Episcopacy suited to the times? compact, consolidated character makes it so. In these disintegrating, dissolving days we want a barrier against the schismatizing 66 received their nourishment at her breast, and became the stalwart beings they were, under her fostering guidance. There are a cloud of witnesses" for Episcopacy. If they do not establish its Divine origin, they prove it a fact too great to be ignored, a power too potent to be despised, an agency too noble to be scorned, and too useful to be abandoned. Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it." At 66 least, permit it a place in the machinery of PRESBYTERIANISM.-ARTICLE III. any man to put a minister into a charge without the consent of the congregation. The Independent polity is represented by every isolated congregation throughout the world: no tie binds them together; they are left to fight against the foe, alone and unaided; each congregation disposes of its own spiritual affairs, and lays down its own spiritual laws and its own doctrines: hence, these may be as varied as the congregations, THE subject of the present debate forms one of the most complicated that has yet been brought under the notice of the readers of this magazine: it presents, indeed, almost insuperable obstacles to the patient investigator, who is desirous of arriving at a true solution of the quæstio vexata; obstacles mainly arising from the triple nature of the question, and from the amount of scholasticism with which the question is obscured, and which obliges the supporters of either" and veer to every point of the compass." division of it to quote from the original text, thus preventing the bulk of the readers from being able to see their way clearly. Again, the number of sub-divisions into which some of these bodies are broken up, also presents a great obstacle; for example, the Episcopalian Church, or method of church government, is represented by the Anglican, the Roman, the Greek, and the Armenian Churches, all holding diverse views on some points of Christian doctrine, but all uniting in the maintenance of one doctrine common to all, viz., the government of the church by bishops, or patriarchs, met either in convocation or council. The Presbyterian is represented by the Established, Free, United, and Reformed Presbyterian Churches in Scotland. Of these, the most important body is the Free Church. Of equal numbers in Scotland with the Establishment, it has the advantage of being related to the English and Irish Presbyterian Churches, who hold the same views as the Free Church. The main difference amongst the Presbyterian churches, however, is slight; they all (with the exception of the United Presbyterian Church) hold that a State Church is scriptural, but it is as to the grounds of that connexion that they differ; they hold the same essential religious doctrines, but the Free Church refuses to allow the State to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs; nor will it permit The question under review naturally divides itself into two great divisions. First, Which is the most scriptural? Second, Which is the most beneficial and useful? 66 I. That the Presbyterian Church is the most scriptural we infer from the fact that, at the assembly held at Jerusalem, to consider the question of circumcision, the members all appeared as equal, no one usurping authority over another; all of equal standing, as co-presbyters. The apostle Peter, in his first epistle, inscribed to the scattered strangers, chap. v. ver. 1, says, “ The elders that are among you I exhort, who am also an elder;" or, as it should be more properly translated, Who also am a co-elder,—of the same power and the same authority; one with them; not a lord over the heritage. Paul prefers no claim for higher honours, or for superior standing; but is content to be reckoned equal to the humblest elder of the flock. Now within the Presbyterian Church the same polity prevails. Every minister or presbyter is armed with equal authority; all stand upon the same platform; there is no desire in the breast of any one to rule the church, but the highest aim of each is to promote the well-being of the church at large. Moreover, the lay portion of the church is pretty fully represented: in the lowest court of the Presbyterian Church, viz., the Session Court, there is only one grounds on which the Free Church would return within the pale of the Established Church; and he at the same time expressed his regret that such a division had taken place, as well as his own willingness to use what influence he had to obtain a satisfactory reunion. We have deemed this explanation necessary of that greatest calamity which has befallen the Scottish Kirk, and which threw beyond her walls many of her most honoured sons, as F. J. L. wishes to attach it entirely to the polity of the church. The blame is not necessarily attachable to Presbyterianism as a system, and we are much inclined to take up the words of the late lamented Lord Jeffrey, when informed that the act of disruption had actually taken place: "I am proud of my country: there is not another country under heaven where the same thing would have been done." Long, long will it be ere the rank festering of High-church Puseyism will leave the Episcopalian church, or be cut out and cast without the borders of the system by the real evangelical portion of that church: the days of the seven protesting bishops have apparently gone, or why is this party allowed to remain in a Protestant church, when all England is aware that they are acting as the emissaries of the Bishop of Rome? presbyter and from eight to twelve laymen; | venerable and illustrious Chalmers made his in the next court, the Presbytery, there is a last visit to London, he was closely queslayman for every presbyter; the Synod, tioned by Sir James Graham as to the again, is composed of the same elements, equat lay and equal clerical; in the highest court there is a slightly predominant clerical influence, but on the whole the lay and clerical are equally represented. The Episcopalian and the Congregational Churches go to the two extremes: the clergy of the first meet in a Convocation, at which no one is allowed to speak, but by the permission of Her Majesty's Government; in the second the lay influence has an overwhelming preponderance. This we consider to be another reason why the church which is governed by a Presbyterian polity is the most scriptural. The great indeed the only-argument advanced by F. J. L. against Presbyterianism is, the number of schisms that have occurred within its pale; the last of which he very characteristically denominates a secession, whilst he must know that those who left the General Assembly of 1843 were the majority of that assembly, so that disruption is the proper term. Moreover, the two bodies are now nearly equal in numbers. Although we cannot deny that there have been many schisms in the Scottish Church, yet it is worthy of notice that the Presbyterian Church at the same time contains within itself elements that will one day draw all these bodies once more into one great whole. The memorable epoch of the disruption, although it added another to the many outstanding churches in Scotland, was the first step for reconciling the various bodies again. Two minor divisions of Presbyterianism in Scotland have already joined the Free Church; and other two bodies have coalesced together, and are now known under the appellation of the United Presbyterian Church. These divisions, however, would never have occurred in the Scottish Kirk, had it not been for the illegal interference of the State in ecclesiastical affairs; indeed, Her Majesty's Government, who were the means of bringing about the disruption of 1843, have acknowledged their fault through the mouths of several of their number. The Earl of Aberdeen said, in his place in the House of Lords, at the time when the University Seats Bill was before that House, "The Free Church is the true representative of the ancient Scottish Kirk;" and when our 66 F. J. L. further reasons that the Episcopalian must necessarily be the most scriptural, because of the so-called apostolic succession" of its clergy. The bishops, he says, represent the apostles; the priests are equal to the bishops of apostolic times. Then it follows that, for reasons which best suited itself, the Anglican Church has abolished the office of the apostleship, and elevated the next order into their place, to fill their room; but in order to keep up the trifold balance they have brought in a new order, or rather revived an old one, which was rendered unnecessary at the death of Christ, viz., priests, so that, by F. J. L.'s own finding, the Episcopalian Church is not the same church as that which flourished in apostolic times: if his reasoning were correct, then the true church is not that of Prelacy, but the church founded by Edward Irving, which has resuscitated this very. apostleship. We intended to have followed | of persecution. This being the reason why F. J. L. into his reasoning on the meaning B. S. has thought it right to link the cause of the words episcopos and presbuteros; but of Episcopacy and Presbyterianism together, we opine that such is not necessary, seeing we are forced to object to it. On the same that our friend J. N. has completely driven grounds we might argue against Episcopacy F. J. L. from his positions. and Congregationalism, by referring to the relationship that must necessarily exist between them, because they both manifested an intolerant spirit. All the reasoning of B. S. we hold, therefore, applies solely to the Episcopalian Church; further, we can take up the sentiment penned by him on page 221, col. 1, and appropriate it as our own, because, in the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, with the exception of the Establishment, the people, or rather the congregation, have the right of choosing their own minister; so that thus Presbyterianism can say, as well as Congregationalism in this matter, that the electing of the spiritual head of each church is in the hands of the communicants forming that church. Turning from F. J. L., we meet an honoured champion, who has returned unscathed from many a hard-fought campaign, and who has covered himself with the laurel of fame. It is with diffidence on our part that we are prevailed upon to meet this Goliath amid the din and turmoil of the wordy, elemental war in which we are engaged; but grasping fervidly the sword, we hope to establish the truth of the Presbyterian polity in face of B. S. and his system of Congregational policy. That this will not be difficult on our part appears evident from the mode in which B. S. has treated Presbyterianism. When showing the fallacy of a church governed by the clergy, as is done in the Episcopalian communion, he has very considerately taken it for granted that the two churches are alike; and in support of his testimony quotes from Milton a passage in which he designates "the Presbyterian as the most intolerant of the two." Now we are aware that in Milton's troublous day the Presbyterian Church did exhibit an intolerant spirit; but we at the same time are aware that the very government which B. S. lauds so highly was as intolerant as any of the three. Has B. S. never read the history of New England? Has he never heard of the bigoted Puritan divines driving from the territory of New England those who happened to dissent from their opinions? and has he never heard how one branch of those thus driven by the extreme intolerance of these men formed a new settlement at Rhode Island? and how another branch took shelter in Catholic Maryland? Has he never heard of these same Puritan divines persecuting unoffending creatures for witchcraft, &c.? If he has not, we beg to inform him that such was the case. We do not thus mean to exculpate Presbyterianism for its intolerance; but we think that no man should hold up the failings of any particular body who may be opposed in principle to his own, whilst all the time his own church is as deep in the mire. We, for our own part, regret exceedingly that any professedly Protestant church should so far forget its high calling as to carry on the evil work II. We notice, briefly, the question which of these three churches is the most useful, or productive of the best results? And here, at the outset, we beg to return our warmest thanks to "Rolla," not only for this exposé of the defects of Episcopacy as a system, but also for his able defence of Presbyterianism. F. J. L., in his second paper, brings forward five reasons why Presbyterianism is not productive of the best results. Reason 1 is answered by our dissertation on the first division of this debate. Reason 2 is at least twelve years too late in seeing the light; it evidently applies to the two great factions in the Scottish Kirk, prior to the disruption. Reason 3 we simply query; for, having read the life of Dr. Chalmers, we have never seen the statement F. J. L. makes. Reason 4 is deniable: we have only to re-mention the name of Chalmers, as well as that of Dr. Gordon, whose work on "Christ as revealed to the Ancient Churches" proves that he is worthy of a place amongst persons of the highest range of intellect; and if he possesses that, then he is of the highest rank, for the man who is possessed of a high and lofty intellect is the real nobleman. The name of Dr. Candlish may be mentioned, in connexion with his very able and critical examination of "Maurice's Theological Essays"-a writer, by the way, whom F.J. L., if we may judge from his numerous quotations, is highly enamoured with. Reason 5 |