at leisure to contribute to theological and other literature. And we cease to wonder that the ministry of the Kirk is mainly recruited from the lowest and most indigent classes; and that, in spite of all its church accommodation, it exercises little or no influence over the better educated; when we consider the general poverty of its ministers, and the drudgery they are expected to go through. And can we hope for a better state of things in England, if she should ever trust wholly to the "voluntary principle" for the service of her altars? Passing now to a consideration of the Congregationalist articles, we see that their writers have certain principles in common which may be most easily evaporated. While charging those who differ from them with "spiritual bondage-the subjection of religious belief to human authority," with intolerance and bigotry, they display themselves strong signs of that rationalism which is a feature of their class, and the true spiritual bondage, and of that want of charity towards any system but their own, which is the true intolerance and bigotry; and some of their theories, when carried out to their full extent, lead to the most erroneous consequences. Is not B. S.'s view of religion really one-sided, when considered impartially? Does he not, like most of his class, appear to regard it as consisting chiefly in mere outward impressions on the feelings and imagination? For though, rather inconsistently, he can worship "in an upper room,” “in deserts and caves," and loves "the storied windows richly dight," he yet admits of no denominational form or practical procedure. In questions of practice B. S. would profess to be indifferent; let us then see to what his Congregationalist principles lead. These consist in "Spiritual independence, the subjection of religious belief to God in Christ, and his revelation alone." Now, wherein does this consist? Is it consistent with any kind of spiritual communion (of which B. S.'s class talk so much) between man and man? Does it admit, when closely followed out, of joining in the prayers and praises of any one church or denomination? Does it not thrust out of view the characteristics of members of a really spiritual communion-faith, charity, and the essence of obedience-humility? Each person must adopt a creed for himself, and the number of such creeds which may be, and in past ages have been, extracted from "God's revelation alone," must be legion-revolving at various distances, and in ever-changing orbits, between the two opposite poles of truth and error. Each Congregationalist, then, of B. S.'s views, being resolved on spiritual independence, each being attached to no denominational form or practical procedure whatever, but as to all outward acts of worship wholly isolated from every other being; where lies, I would ask,-in what consists the "external brotherhood" he speaks of? Of what kind is it? "In itself, and by itself, soul has no bonds of communion. The Spiritualist, therefore, needs to have nothing to do with any other but God himself-nothing with living rational beings-nothing with angels or men. But he sees the utter unreasonableness of his position, and therefore, to hide the deformity of his denial of a bodily unity and its principles, he loudly proclaims a spiritual unity. How antagonistic to such a view is the proper notion we should be led to entertain from scripture of the bodily abode of our Lord in heaven, of our own bodily state in the world to come, of our bodily condition in this world. Thus, scripture assures us that as members of the Church we are members one of another; that God gives to each member his peculiar gift; that we must beware of giving offence to one another, of interfering with one another's province; must be careful to be of the same mind, in all lowliness and meekness, paying all attention to our social duties."* spiritual independence "injures faith, by bringing things unseen into sight through assurance; damages scripture, by admitting equal truth in the interpretation of all that open it (for of course the ignorant peasant has as much right to judge of a difficult passage as the well-trained minister); it is unfavourable to the development of pure religious feeling, by making light of appointed channels for its exercise; contributes to the spread of infidelity by means of rationalism; and tends to the dissolution of good government in a country, by favouring the sovereignty of the will of the individual, by casting a slight on antiquity, and by allowing the introduction of novelties."+ 252. This R. W. Evans's "Ministry of the Body," p. + Idem, p. 456. Now B. S. may object that the foregoing is informal, and introduces new matter. I answer that the loose and obscure language he has employed with respect to "external brotherhood" and "spiritual independence," has rendered it necessary to examine how far they are compatible with each other, and that I have strictly confined myself to carrying out his theories to their consequences. In conformity with his principles - -or rather, want of principles-B. S. proceeds to arraign creeds and articles of faith, on the assumption that a man cannot be brought to adopt any belief at the will of his fellows. Now, firstly, I remark, that this assumption is only partially true. Outward circumstances, which depend in a measure on men, have a deal to do with the inner life. How came B. S. not to be a Brahmin or a Mahommedan? Had education nothing to do with the matter? This assumption savours of fatalism, and would strike at the root of Christianity as well as what the Church from the earliest time has recognized as a true expression of Christianity's fundamental doctrines, the creeds. To a half-educated person, disposed to gloomy views of God and nature, the difficulties in the Bible would appear more inexplicable and weighty than the arguments for its truth. To such a person, endowed with some knowledge, suppose, of the natural sciences, of astronomy, geology, natural history, &c., belief would be difficult; unless, as in the case Butler has supposed, a long statement of arguments, all tending to conviction, were carefully and discreetly laid before him; which even then, Butler thinks, only would "appear of very great weight to a considerate, reasonable person."* And children may be educated in this or that set of habits and opinions, and their religious faith and feelings moulded by the forms under which they are brought up; wherefore articles of faith and creeds are not so utterly futile as disciples of B. S.'s school would have us believe. Our Lord himself, as every reader of the New Testament knows, proclaimed in the strongest language the necessity of faith to salvation, and that faith must have been capable of being put into a form of words. There is every reason to believe that the apostles themselves used a short form or profession * 66 'Analogy of Religion," Part II., chap. 7. of belief before admitting converts to baptism; and it is certain that the use of creeds was general in the Church from the very earliest times. Now, having disposed of B. S.'s illogical assumption, let us next consider the superstructure he has built upon it. He says-Episcopacy, in claiming authority in matters of faith, and yet avowing that it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's written word, takes up a position of puerile absurdity. How so? Does the judge, who claims authority in the settling of criminal questions, and yet proclaims that he may not give sentence contrary to the laws, act absurdly? Rather B. S. acts absurdly in denying the existence of any power because that power has its limits; and not the Church in claiming that authority which Christ himself has given her, and yet disclaiming all right to act contrary to His will, as revealed in His word. When our Lord said, "If he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican," he gave the Church authority, and commanded its employment, though of course, not against the very charter and title-deeds in which it was secured to her. We find that this "authority in controversies of faith" was actually exercised, not only by apostles, but by bishops in very early times; for one of the complaints of St. John against the Bishops of Pergamos and Thyatira was that they suffered false doctrines in their churches.* And this gives some degree of probability to the opinion that the Apostles' Creed, if not actually drawn up, as some have supposed, by apostles themselves, dates from apostolic times. It may at least account for the fact that the apostolic order of Episcopacy has almost invariably been accompanied by set forms of belief, as well as of prayer. The necessity for such an authority is evident. From want of the two concomitants - the disciplinary order and the creeds, embodying the authority of scripture, and the consentient voice of the Church Catholic, which early recognized them as the necessary and sufficient safeguards of sound and vital faith to those who cannot-as very few out of the great masses of society can-study or inquire diligently for themselves what to believe;-from want of these have arisen the most fearful perver * Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. sions of scripture, the most revolting forms of bigotry and superstition, and the most bloody persecutions in all ages. Episcopacy, however, which B. S. most illogically attacks through the medium of creeds and articles, could do without them. Its fundamental principle, which he and others have prudently overlooked, is its corrective, regulative, and combinative power. The fact is, it is easy to perceive, this is one of the principal stumbling-blocks in the way of, at least, many of its opponents. Antipathy to being governed-as in the family or state, so in the Church-leads, through the spirit of lawlessness, on which T. R. has so judiciously commented, to questioning the right of the governor. This feeling leads us to expect demonstrative evidence where none but probable can be offered. Strongly and decidedly as the general tone of scripture, (as must be known to all readers,) militates against the extreme views of B. S. and "L'Ouvrier," they have not hesitated to array against Episcopacy a variety of texts, carefully picked out, many of which, on a close examination, would be found positively adverse to their cause, while others refer not at all to the question in hand, but to personal charity among Christians, as the quotations from scripture in my opening article would be alone sufficient to prove; and the views the latter would naturally lead us to entertain of church government in apostolic times are fully borne out by other passages, so numerous that with truth it may be said, "to transcribe all were to copy no small part of the New Testament." A few, however, must suffice; compare with B. S.'s texts and his views of spiritual independence the following:-First, as regards authority in the Church, Christ says to his apostles, and as even Mr. Alford, whose views are not favourable to Episcopacy, allows, to all who by legitimate appointment are set to minister in the Church, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," Matt. xviii. 18; and compare John xx. 23, "Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained;" and Matt xvi. 19, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Compare with these words of our Lord, the following: -2 Cor. x. 8, "Our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification." St. Paul, addressing Titus as a bishop, says, ii. 15, "These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority; let no man despise thee." And compare iii. 1, "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work;" and Rom. xiii. 1—5. Secondly, as regards authority "in controversies of faith," see 2 Tim. iii. 14, "Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;" and iv. 3, "The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lust shall they heap to themselves, teachers having itching ears." By the "itching ears" is meant a constant and eager desire, like the men of Athens in Paul's time, "to hear something new." Tit. iii. 10, 11, "A man' that is an heretick (i. e., not a heathen, or denier of Christianity, but who, as a Christian, held unsound doctrine) after the first and second admonition, reject," i. e., cast out from the church's communion, excommunicate. St. Paul gave this advice, not to a congregation, nor to a mixed presbytery, but to a single man,-to Titus, as bishop or overseer. 1 Cor. xvi. 13, 16, "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith; submit yourselves unto such," &c. 2 Pet. i. 20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation; "-here is a refutation of the spiritual-independence theory; and see ii. 1, "There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies;" 1 Tim. vi. 2, 3, 4, "These things teach and exhort; if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing," &c. Now, comparing some of these texts, which are only a few out of many having the same tendency, with those quoted by B. S., especially from Rom. xiv., one is struck at first sight with the apparent discrepancy; but on examination it proves to be only apparent, for on looking closely at that chapter (Rom. xiv.) we find it refers primarily to the disputed question of Jewish meats and drinks, which excited much heartburning between Jewish and Gentile converts in the first ages of the Church. On such trifles, St. Paul exhorts them to mutual | religions almost as odious as infidelity itself. forbearance; but on matters of greater con- "In 1643, Episcopacy was abolished; in sequence his tone is more decided: "Him 1644, three thousand clergy were ejected that is an heretick, after the first and second admonitions, reject," and that advice, too, as observed, given to a single bishop. How clearly does scripture oppose the vaunted right of private judgment-of spiritual independence! And how clear and indisputable is the right of the Church to decide in controversies of faith, while yet it is equally clear she may not ordain anything contrary to God's word; and how just is the language of our scriptural church, in proclaiming the great truth that "Whatsoever is not read in Holy Scripture, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man as an article of the faith, or thought requisite or necessary to salvation."-Art. vi. It has been said, Episcopacy was intended to be temporary. What proof have we of this? None whatever. Rather, the fact of its having been kept up, and transmitted to others by those who were disciples of the apostles, as by Clement, Polycarp, &c. (see the quotation from Chillingworth, given by T. R.), proves their opinion to have been that it was meant to continue. And this objection might equally be urged, be it observed, against the Lord's day, the holy communion, against religious meetings of all kinds, in fact, against Christianity itself. Here I could wish to have closed; but I cannot overlook the charges B. S. and แ 'L'Ouvrier" have made against Episcopacy, that "its spirit is persecuting; that it enforces subscription to its articles," &c. Now, I deny the charge in toto. Does Episcopacy in England, or Scotland, actively interfere with Dissenters? But if B. S. must refer to transactions of two centuries back to show what Episcopacy is, I may follow the same course to show what Congregationalism is; for on B. S.'s own showing it knows no variations; to modify it is to destroy it." On such a subject, also, it is the easiest thing in the world for those who have the will but not the power to persecute, to complain of intolerance; but the question is, if the tables were turned, how would they behave? for 66 men vested with unlimited powers are generally the same in all communions." Now, during the Cromwellian usurpation, we know that both Presbyterians and Dissenters considered toleration of other from their benefices; in 1645, the Prayer Book was suppressed. Under Cromwell's administration, the Royalist clergy were severely persecuted by the Puritans, no one being suffered to receive them as instructors of their children, while those who still retained an affection for the recently abolished ritual, were prohibited from using, either in public or in their families, the Book of Common Prayer. And the London clergy, at a meeting at Sion College (Dec. 18th, 1645), in a letter to the Westminster assembly, say, 'We cannot dissemble how, upon the forementioned grounds, we detest and abhor this much endeavoured toleration.' And in accordance with such sentiments all the clergy of Wales were ejected as malignants."* Can anything worse than this, or even equal to this, be alleged against the Established Church? Does she not allow those conscientiously differing from her to worship in the way they deem most scriptural? Would Nonconformists, if they had equal powers, act with the same moderation? I believe not. From speeches I recently heard, of an highly inflammatory and offensive nature, made by leading members of the Congregationalist ministry, I am firmly convinced that Nonconformists still have among them spirits nearly as intolerant as those of their Puritan forefathers. Was it not, during the usurpation, the very principles of Independency which mainly contributed to the death of Charles the First-to "the grossest outrage on law, justice, loyalty, and religion that England has ever witnessed?" B. S should at least consider to what his Independent principles have conducted men, before he talks of the persecuting spirit of Episcopacy. The latter system has now, I think, been clearly proved to have a foundation in scripture, to possess an admirable suitability to the wants of man in all ages, under all circumstances and forms of government; and it has also been seen to have many negative merits, when viewed in apposition with other systems. But its merits and defects cannot stand upon anything here said. It must Hume's England," vol. vii., p. 203. 16 be judged by history alone. And already have twenty centuries given their verdict in its favour; and for anything I can see to the contrary, unless a fearful retrogression in civilization, of which there are no signs, is to take place, it may stand as much longer. In every quarter of the civilized world its banner is being steadily borne forward. And should the tempest of anarchy and infidelity ever rave over England-should we be destined to learn, by a long and tremendous discipline, the worth of those institutions, delivered to us by our forefathers, which bind men together as one society, and connect society with its Divine Author-Episcopacy may rise as a beacon amidst the storm, and be recognized by men once more as the pioneer of order and civilization-the restorer of paths to dwell in!" At present, if it is not doing all that it might, or that its adversaries require, it is yet fulfilling a loftier mission than any other church system under heaven. It is planting the seeds of future churches in every quarter of the globe, in the gold regions of Australia, in China, in India, in Africa, and the isles of the sea. Let those, then, who view it through the false medium of sectarian prejudices, beware of hastily or inconsiderately raising their hands against it. And let us all, looking beyond the present times and circumstances, and considering the numerous and powerful enemies that may ere long stand up against religion and the Bible, and the many and tremendous conflicts that the church militant of the future may be called on to wage against superstition, anarchy, and infidelity,-let us beware of destroying her compactness and strength by refusing support to those who, in her hour of trial, must be her captains and generals, the guardians of order and discipline, the true overseers of the Church of God. And let us, when reviewing this discussion throughout, bear in mind our own weakness and fallibility of judgment, and endeavour to follow the advice of an ancient apologist for Christianity (Octavius of Minucius Felix; Holden, p. 89):— Now, as every discussion is carried on with great trouble, and as, on the one hand, the truth is generally obscure, and on the other, there is a wonderful acuteness, which sometimes, by profusion of language, gains credit, and looks like conclusive demonstration, let us, suspending our judgments awhile, weigh all arguments with the utmost diligence; that while commending shrewdness, we may select, approve, and retain those only which are just." Beach-street, Deal, Kent. PRESBYTERIANISM.-REPLY. HAD it been left to our own choice we would have willingly rested the issue of this debate on the representations of Presbyterianism already made, and on the examination of the other systems, in the course of which so many salient points have been indicated and successfully assailed; but some of the writers so manifestly overstep the boundaries of discretion in stating their claims for Episcopacy and Congregationalism, that we cannot allow silence on our part to be construed into concurrence, and therefore join issue with them regarding the claims which they have so extravagantly set for! ward. F. J. L. sees in the Church of England an establishment free from the remotest taint of error. Scriptural in her doctrines, offices, and orders, perfect in her connection with the State, subserving high political ends without derogating from her still higher religious mission—the embodied mas F. J. L. terpiece of human sagacity in this connection, and enjoying withal the superlative virtue of apostolical succession. Surely F. J. L. conceals a jest under his very grave defence of Episcopacy, for few indeed of its defenders have seen in its constitution matter for such unqualified admiration ; we will, however, suppose all in good faith, and reply accordingly. The Episcopacy, or the government of the body of ecclesiastics by bishops, is without countenance in New Testament times. pastors of the congregations, or synagogues, were called bishops also; but then they were bishops only in their own synagogues, bishop answering to the office of teaching elder or presbyter, and not having that extended signification given to it in the English Church of ecclesiastical jurisdiction throughout a diocese-no such thing, in fact, existed; a perfect parity of rank and authority having prevailed, except in so far as that |