any given time, are the highest efforts of thought possible in that age. To construct a perfect and absolute metaphysic requires:-1st. A perfect and absolute discernment of all the possible sources of human knowledge. 2nd. An adequate conception of the limits of the human intellect. 3rd. An exact and definite acquaintance with the whole possible sphere in which human reason may be advantageously employed. 4th. A clear and distinct differentiation between the subjective and the objective. In so far as any philosophy is wanting in the qualities definitively specified above, it is necessarily tentative and temporary, capable of further development and a nobler reconstruction. In which point, then, did the philosophy of Thales chiefly exhibit a deficiency? The chief defect, we apprehend, consisted in the possession of no clearly defined principle by which the subjective might be distinguished from the objective—the ideal from the real. The unity which was sought was not analyzed with sufficient care, and the analogy implied between the spirit of man and the soul of the universe was rashly, perhaps, overstrained. Here, in the first earnest struggle of mind with the mysteries it felt, it failed clearly to distinguish between itself and the phenomenal universe; and thus it clung to the tangible and visible in preference to the ideal. Everything changes and is metamorphosed, it is true; but by what power are these changes made-by what percipiency are these changes registered? Are all changes equally fatalistically determined? If not, why is not man differentiated from the material elements around him? But, in this era, when the perilous questioning of the mysteries around man are merely fashioning themselves, we ask, perhaps, too much. Has not much been done, when a new tract of thought is opened up? Truly, we dare not hesitate to exclaim, with Pliny, of those who thus enrich the realms of thought, “Hail to you, and to your genius! Interpreters of Heaven! Worthy recipients of the laws of the Universe! Authors of principles which connect Gods and men!" Keligion. WHICH SYSTEM IS MOST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURES, AND PRODUCTIVE OF THE BEST RESULTS-EPISCOPACY, PRESBYTERIANISM, OR CONGREGATIONALISM? EPISCOPACY.-ARTICLE IV. IN reading the papers which have been written on this subject, in the Controversialist, I have been much surprised to notice how each writer, as by common consent, has departed from the thesis given; for if we except the first article on Episcopacy, the real matter in dispute has scarcely even been approached.* The talent displayed by the various writers forbids the idea that they have purposely avoided the theme as one too difficult for discourse, since they have entered into another equally difficult; yet, if this be It is proper to state that this paper was sent to us when only two of the articles on each subject had appeared. not the case, they must have mistaken their way, either through inattention, or for want of a larger development of that somewhat metaphysical quality, the faculty of abstraction, which enables a man to distinguish clearly between a thing and its extrinsic adjuncts or accompaniments. The subject is clearly written-" Which system is most in accordance with the Scriptures, and productive of the best results — Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, or Congregationalism?" If, however, I had not seen this heading, I could have come to no other conclusion than that the subject in dispute was the propriety or impropriety of a State Religion or National Church. It is a departure from the real | Europe, especially under the first French subject into this which has led the Episco- Republic. palian to speak somewhat too disparagingly of his dissenting brethren;-which has led the Presbyterian to cite the non-endowed Papal church as a bad example of Congregationalism, and to attribute an apostolic foundation to the results of a "bad ambition." It is the same departure, too, which has induced the Congregationalist to look with such jaundiced eyes upon a God-honoured and time-honoured order of men; and in the warmth of his declamation, to load with undistinguishing vituperation and slander a whole race of bishops,-to some of whom, as I may have occasion to instance, he is actually indebted under God for the liberty he now enjoys, for the privilege he uses to such excess, of "speaking evil of dignities." Not less consistent indeed would the infidel be who denounced Christianity as an evil because it had produced such mad enthusiasts as the Scandinavian Anabaptists, such prelate-murdering fanatics as Balfour of Burley, or such demons in human form as the Spanish inquisitors, than are these writers, in attributing to different forms of church government all the evils which have accompanied those forms in the different phases of their chronological course. The wanderings of which I complain will render it necessary for me to devote a little time to clearing the way of the obstructions thus thrown upon it, and to treat the subject rather less in "order" than I could wish. First, then, let me intimate that Episcopacy is not necessarily a State religion, nor is a State religion necessarily Episcopal; though our Congregational advocates have treated the two as almost synonymous terms. Indeed, "Rolla," in his argument, seems to lose sight of the fact that there are any Episcopal churches in the world besides that of England, or any National or State churches but what are Episcopal; whereas, if he will look around him, he will find that, in addition to the Roman and the Eastern churches, there are unestablished Episcopal churches in Scotland, in America, yea, and even in England itself as witness that of the Moravian brethren, of whom more anon; and that on the other hand, Presbyterianism is the established religion of Scotland, while something like "Congregationalism" has been repeatedly "established" on the Continent of Secondly, let me say that the general developments of Episcopacy have been anything rather than the making of bishops "the subjects and minions of the State." There is a principle so strongly inherent in man, that even Christianity has, thus far, failed to eradicate it; and perhaps if we look beneath the surface of things, we may see therein a new evidence of the truth of our holy religion in the testimony that principle gives to one of the most controverted of its doctrines the fall of man,- proceeding, as it seems to do, from an instinctive consciousness of his fall, and an attempt to raise himself, I mean the principle of LAWLESSNESS, or political antinomianism. Christians are imperatively taught in the Holy Scriptures the duty of obedience to the laws, and the "authorities" or administrators of the laws, of the nation in which they dwell. Yet among Christians under every form of church government, this political antinomianism or lawlessness has, again and again, been manifest. Among Congregationalists, who are lacking in union, and consequently in power, this principle has generally displayed itself in resistance or disobedience to the law or its imposts. The "Independent" places himself above the law, his conscience being the sole judge of its propriety; and if he disapproves, he thinks it right to disobey. The Presbyterian and Episcopal churches being more like organised corporations, have displayed the same principle in a different manner. Theirs have not been individual acts of resistance or disobedience, but a combined effort to place the Church above the Throne. We have witnessed this latterly, as well as in former times, among the Presbyterians of North Britain; and numerous have been its manifestations among Episcopalians, that being the "sacerdotal element" which led to the corruption of the Greek and Latin churches: while in our own country, it has forced a pusillanimous monarch to do penance at the tomb of an arrogant archbishop; led another unfortunate king to the scaffold through foolish adherence to the teachings of Laudian ecclesiastics; and has latterly, under the Tractarian "conspiracy," attempted to "unprotestantize the Protestant church." Thus, then, by taking a wider gaze, we discover The that bishops are not usually the "subjects | everything except a little sediment. The and minions of the State." Nor will our Throne and Church fell together. own annals fail to furnish us with more glorious and illustrious examples of this fact, of which I will just instance one. England had been freed from Papal domination, and almost freed from Papal error, when, through the intrigues of Jesuits at home and abroad, a monarch was induced to attempt the restoration of both. He usurped the prerogatives alike of lay and clerical nobles and commoners. He issued his commands, which often were clearly adverse to the laws of the land; and usually enforced obedience. But at length he tried his autocratic experiments upon men who knew their duty to their country and their God, and were resolved to perform it. They were bishops: and seven bishops were committed to the Tower because they would not become "the subjects and minions of the State." They both resisted and suffered as Christians. They resisted, not the law, but the arbitrary will of one who was seeking to over-ride the law, and set it at defiance. And their resistance, instrumentally, was the cause of the overthrow of the Stuarts, and the glorious Revolution of 1688; and laid the foundation of the civil and religious liberties we now enjoy. 66 One more fallacy I must endeavour to explode. It is that of attributing the degeneracy of Evangelical Christianity into formalism or dull morality, to forms of church government, or even to the accidents of creed," endowment," or "establishment." That degeneracy has its origin in something deeper-the common degeneracy of man, his fall from original purity. I will cite a few examples which our own recent history will furnish. Any one at all acquainted with the literature of our English Reformers (and the labours of the "Parker Society" have put them within the reach of many who otherwise could not have access to them), will at once give them credit for evangelical principles, and for a depth of learning to which we moderns can make no approach, simply because we have too much to do, and have to live almost at railroad speed. Yet, in a few ages after, we see their successors, under Charles the First, making a retrograde movement, and attempting to seize hold of that papal cup of abomination which their forefathers had emptied of Episcopal clergy, good and bad alike, were I have thus, I think, made it manifest (as far as could easily be done in part only of a brief paper), that evils which have been attributed to various forms of church government have their root in something deeper; and consequently, that the bitterness with which each in turn has been assailed, is not | lished" doctrines or "articles" of belief; and only a breach of Christian charity, but really it used to be the practice, though I know ill-judged and misplaced. I have thus not not what it may be now, for men, quite as only somewhat "cleared the way," but, in a fallible as the inditers of the Episcopal sort of incidental manner, entered into the Church's creeds and formularies, to examine second branch of the subject proposed-the the proposed minister as to his belief in these comparative practical value of that form of before he received his "call" to preside over church government which I hold to be the the church. Where this is not practised, right one. the danger is only greater. Ministers and Induced, and almost forced, by the "wan-churches both have lapsed and may lapse. derings" of others thus to begin my observations at the wrong end, I will now proceed in the same direction, and endeavour briefly to show this practical value in a more direct form, before I turn to that which I consider its best foundation-scriptural authority. With no settled doctrines it is impossible to predicate on what point between evangelical truth and Atheism either the one or the other may eventually land; or to what extravagant abuse they may ultimately carry "the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free." Another fact on which the Congregational advocates lay much stress is the power they possess of choosing their own ministers. That serious evils have resulted from forcing upon parishes ministers to whom they were repugnant, I candidly acknowledge. But there are evils of an opposite character, when men "seek unto themselves teachers having itching ears." The numerous splittings and discords, the heart-burnings and divisions which result from this practice are patent to every one; but every one does not know, what I, who have been occasionally behind the scenes, do know,-the state of dependence in which the independent minister is usually kept, or the necessity he is under (unless wealth or extraordinary talents render him truly independent) of preaching to please his people, or ceasing to eat bread. Nor is it easy to conceive of anything resulting from B. S., the Congregational advocate, exults in his freedom from the restraint of creeds and formularies. He tells us, "it is in vain to frame creeds, to establish articles, and to publish canons of belief; no man can, no man ever did assent to them honestly and intelligently, because the governors of the religious community to which he belongs commanded him to do so. His mind must and will sit in judgment upon every thing which is offered for her belief; and unless she finds what she deems sufficient evidence she cannot (if she would) believe." To the latter part of this sentence I, as an Episcopalian, and a believer in creeds, cordially assent; but I deny that it is therefore in vain to "frame creeds, establish articles, and publish canons of belief." Creeds have been universal in Episcopal churches; and if a creed be in accordance with scripture-if it be a summary of scripture doctrine-it is true, and challenges the belief of a Chris-"church patronage" being more indecorous tian, yea, of every man who believes the Scriptures. And even the Congregationalist practically denies his own axiom. He rejects creeds, but he expects his minister to believe and preach certain doctrines, which he (as a better judge than Councils or Reformers, or a whole host of wise and learned men) deems in his own popeship to be essential; and his unfortunate, but far from "independent minister, has not, in most cases, the advantage of knowing by "creeds," and "articles," and canons of belief," what those doctrines are; but may chance to find, and in many instances has found, that what is deemed sound doctrine one year may be deemed error In most congregations the law is not thus lax. There are recognized if not "pub next. or antichristian than a scene which, some forty years since, occurred among a congregation in a Nottingham "chapel," where the officers of justice had to interfere on a Lord's day morning, to prevent a riot and an actual battle for possession of the pulpit, between the two parties into which the congregation was divided. To such evils both Presby"terian and Episcopal authority presents a check, though their institutions, like all other things in this fallen world, are not without their defects. The Presbyterian, on the other hand, exults in the equality of the ministers of his church, which, though it possesses its advantages, is not, I think, without its disadvantages also. "I demand," said a very repub lican citizen to Lycurgus, "a form of government in which all shall have equal power." "Begin it, friend," was the lawgiver's reply, "in thine own family." Were talents and mental acquirements equal, were moral character in all respects equal, then equality of power and privileges would be strict and proper; but such is not the case in any of God's providential arrangements in the universe around us. I defend no abuses. I plead for none of those excrescences which have grown around our venerable Church. I am far from defending the practice of giving the highest appointments, either civil or ecclesiastical, to the families of the rich and noble, holding as I do that for such offices mental capacity and moral worth form a far better patent of nobility. But I do hold that, apart from all abuses, inequality -a difference at once in position, influence, and emolument is really an advantage to a church, and calculated to raise the standard of her ministry. equality of office which is calculated to excite a laudable ambition,-a “provoking of one another to love and good works." If it has been alloyed by a greater number of corruptions than the other two, it is only perhaps because it has existed so much longer in a world of contamination and sin. And as existing among the "United Brethren" it has never exhibited either that lawlessness which disobeys the civil ruler, or attempts to place the church above the throne; that worldliness which induces secularity; or that quarrelling, splitting, and dividing, which has been the reproach of the Congregational churches: but shows to the world at the present time, as it has done through all the ages of Papal darkness, a picture of a church imbued with primitive simplicity, possessing all the ardour of a first love, and gifted with a missionary spirit which makes the whole world its sphere. I come now, in the last place, to that which is the first branch of the thesis-the scriptural evidence for Episcopacy; and here I need not be otherwise than brief, because the matter was well stated by F. J.L., in the first article. Indeed, after the Rev. J. A. James's admission that "no case occurs in inspired history where it is mentioned that a church elected its own pastors," I can well afford, not only to be brief, but generous. I can afford to give up the inference which may be legitimately drawn from the frequent use of the terms " bishop," "presbyter" or " elder," and "deacon," in the apostolic writings. I can afford to admit that the terms "bishop" and And now, in concluding this branch of the subject, I will just revert again to the impropriety of blaming any institution for evils which do not belong intrinsically to it, but are mere accidents of its existence. National establishments, whether right or wrong, have really nothing to do with this question. Were all the statements made and quoted by "Rolla" "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" (and many of them are mis-statements and half-statements, the deductions from which have been refuted again and again), still his burning eloquence would be wholly misapplied. The objections" elder" were somewhat indiscriminately used even of John Milton were against the prelacy of his day, with its State corruptions and Laudian and popish developments. Episcopacy, as an institution, has existed and still exists independent of them all. And not to mention some of the bishops of our own Church, against whom the said advocate seems so strangely prejudiced, a visit to any of the Moravian settlements in "this realm of England" might convince him, or any other man, that there are Episcopal clergy, and bishops ruling them, who partake more largely of the primitive simplicity of apostolic times than any other denomination in our most christian land. The Episcopal form of government, then, possesses all the advantages of combination, order, restraint, supervision, and that in as designations of the same person. I can afford to admit that we have no such clear revelation respecting matters of church government as respecting matters of faith or things essential to salvation. I can afford even to allow that in the earlier days of the apostles no regular system of church government was established, though I will not allow, either to the Congregationalist or to John Henry Newman, that they left only the germs of a system for man in his superior wisdom to develop. I will only now press my claim to the indisputable and incontrovertible facts, that one bishop or overseer was enjoined not to receive an accusation against an elder but before two or three witnesses (1 Tim. v. 19); thus showing him (though not an apostle) to be a judge or ruler |