was modified by superior natural parts or extraordinary zeal; influences which obtain everywhere, and among all orders of men. Bishop was used to mean oversight of people, not of ministers; for all who exercised the sacred functions of the ministry were on a level, were of one order, and without distinction of rank. The others who were associated with them in the management were not teaching elders, but men of good report, called to assist these in maintaining a supervision over the morals of the people, and to give effect to the discipline of the church: they assisted the deacons, also, in attending to the temporal affairs of the church, and in seeing that the poor were properly cared for. But, supposing for one moment that the ministry had consisted of three orders (as he contends for in his first paper, p. 209, and J. S. J. in the third paper, p. 286), gradational in rank and power, the existence of these cannot surely be accepted as a scripture warrant for all the orders which we find in the Church of England; viz., curate, chaplain, vicar, deacon, rector, incumbent, canon, archdeacon, subdean, dean, suffragan bishop, archbishop, primate, together with all the disparity of circumstances connected with these, the poverty of some, the pomp and glory and worldly consideration of others. The origin of all this may be shortly stated: the designation of bishop was the name occasionally used towards pastors of particular congregations in the first ages of the Christian Church, but more frequently given by way of courtesy to such as from their age, learning, or superior parts, were called upon to preside in the ecclesiastical courts. Subsequently the ambition of the clergy became inordinate, especially among those in the capital cities and large towns, who thirsted to be distinguished from those in rural districts, and thence devised that long array of offices, from metropolitans downwards-offices unheard of among the apostolical churches. These orders, with slight modifications, Henry VIII., through a spirit of rivalry, adopted in order that he might have something to pique himself upon in contemplating the gorgeous hierarchy which his quarrel with the Pope had left him in possession of, and of which he was now the supreme head. For our own part we have quite as much faith in the apostolical succession as we have in the pedigree of the knight of La Mancha. We beg F. J. L. to refer us to the genealogy of any one bishop carried up to any one of the apostles with indisputable authenticity, in order that we may take knowledge of the circumstance, and confess our error. kind, but forbears to mention it broadly; but until this is vouchsafed to us, we cannot do other than respectfully refuse to accept assurances where proof may be had. We would, however, direct attention to one or two particulars, which may serve to disabuse his mind of this cunningly devised fiction. He alludes to something of this There is no evidence in the Scriptures that the apostles transmitted the virtues of their own characters to successors; the fact that they did not keep up their own numbers by this means renders it extremely doubtful. Contemporaneous history is silent regarding an event of unspeakable importance to succeeding ages; it seems improbable that the numerous small communities of Christians, scattered over the wide-spread extent of the Roman dominions, should be each superintended by a pastor deriving episcopal authority from the apostles. It must be confessed that, during the decline of the Roman empire, the history of the Church is involved in considerable obscurity; and the occasional glimpses of fact discernible, tend rather to make the apostolical succession more mythical than before, from the irregularities occurring during these uncertain times. At the breaking up of the empire, when Christianity found its way into the partiallycivilized and wretchedly ill-governed countries of Europe, it is just possible that it did so by means of a chance-ordained ecclesiastic; but we can scarcely suppose the propagation to have been continued throughout a long series of years, during these unsettled ages, without some lapse or escape from the prescribed ordination, when temptations to assume the ecclesiastic habit for personal safety, or from lust of ease or luxury, were so strong. But if the mind can assent to it, let us even suppose all these mischances overcome, and the efficacy of the apostolic character safely transmitted by the strictest lineal descent to the churches of the middle ages,-what better are we? There exist heretical churches sprung from these which have the same claim to the episcopal character, and how are our bishops to prove that they do not derive their title to exercise | solemnity and strength to the discharge of the functions of their order from bishops of their functions;" and surely, the awful conan heretical persuasion; besides, wherein sciousness that they are watched over by consists the value or utility of the succes- bishops in alliance with the throne, bishops sion, if it may circulate in heretical churches, odorous with the sanctity of the successorand proves no safeguard or guarantee to ship preserved eighteen hundred years by sound doctrine? Turning from the stream strict lineal descent, for these latter days, of history, we cannot refrain from examining -surely, we say, in the words of F. J. L., the validity of the claim put forward to the "Presbyters and others of her ministers successorship, from the analogy which we are (will) do their duty," guided as they are by justified in supposing would exist between "established formularies and ceremonials," the cases: there, where we would expect to and "creeds," ""those inestimable safeguards find a similarity between the apostles and against error," ""found always in the comtheir successors, no such thing is discernible. pany of bishops." "That the perpetuation of The apostles made the preaching of the the apostolic office has been the means of word their business and delight: their pre- preserving the Church, and linking together tended successors have made this over to different ages and different countries in chains their inferior clergy. To teach and to of harmony and love," who can doubt? preach is too mean an office for Episcopal Church dignitaries; to govern is more consonant with their exalted notions, thence that which in a faithful Christian ministry should be esteemed the most honourable office holds but a secondary place. The apostles, in addition to this their principal work, gave a completed character to their ordinary ministrations by dispensing the sacraments, by exercising the functions of discipline and government, and by an occasional act of ordination—a prerogative which they exercised in common with the presbyters; these, however, they did not put forward as a pretext for exemption from the performance of their more humble though not less useful duties, as the bishops of the Anglican Establishment do. The offices of the apostles and bishops have no similarity thus far; the apostleship of the twelve was confirmed by their power of working miracles, and of imparting the same miraculous agency to others. But our modern bishops have neither the same extraordinary parts to perform, nor have they the same extraordinary means at command. In fact, as J. N. observes, "the men, the office, and the times, are changed;" there can be successorship in an office the duties of which have been superseded, and the powers for which have been withdrawn. Who can fail, then, to contemplate with profound satisfaction the influence which this "visible and undying representation of apostolical functions" exercises upon the clergy and the people of the Church of England. To be sure, "in her ordination of ministers (it must give) F. J. L. puts the political aspect of Episcopacy in a very taking light-the worst abuses are seldom beyond being supported with plausible arguments, and we confess to his adroitness in making the worse appear the better reason; but to one acquainted with the gradual development and multiplication of orders in the "venerable sister establishment," even his specious defence must fail to give satisfaction. The theory of a gradational clergy, as we apprehend it, is to have religion "mix throughout the whole mass of life, and blend with all classes of society," by means of accredited ministers of corresponding rank. We agree in thinking it an arrangement capable of being wisely applied to our state of civilization; but we decidedly object to the inversion which our provident Constitution has seen it necessary to make, by which the higher a clergyman rises in office, the more he has to do with temporal, and the less with spiritual concerns. So much is this the case, that the burden of spiritual care and instruction-the most difficult and important part of the work is confined to the poorer, well named the working clergy. One would have thought that a hierarchy, culminating in the apostles' successors, would have had the ministry of things secular in a subordinate part; and that those holding the most exalted position in the hierarchy, would have been the most emulous to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors. No supposition could be further from the mark. Had such been the case, we could then have given cordial compliance to the injunction of Paul:-" The elders who rule well," saith he, "count worthy of double honour, especially them who minister in the word and doctrine." It matters little to the bishops who are counted worthy of double honour, provided they enjoy the temporalities. No, we can never agree that these should abandon their proper duties to religion, for the purpose of enabling them to exalt her "mitred fronts in courts and parliaments." That Episcopacy is not politically useful, in the sense indicated by F. J. L. and J. S. J., of bringing the gospel effectively to bear on all classes of society, we have no hesitation in asserting, both from the duties attached to the respective dignities, and the manner in which these are distributed. A short review of the various clerical duties may not be out of place here. The spiritual care of the parishes is chiefly intrusted to curates, along with the vicars and rectors of the poorer sort; these statedly conduct the public services. Rectors in easy circumstances employ curates, and, of course, rank higher, while they do less. Somewhat superior to these are the rural deans, who exercise a degree of superintendence over a certain number of ministers. Next in order are the venerable and reverend archdeacons, who, in subordination to the bishop, charge themselves with the care and inspection of a division of the diocese, visiting the clergy triennially, and delivering to them, when assembled, charges, anent matters of discipline, or changes in ecclesiastical law. High above canons, honorary canons, and minor canons, is placed the very reverend dean; the most weighty part of whose duty is to inspect the church buildings once every three years, or cause the same to be done. This office is next in rank to that of bishop, and much more of a sinecure; for, with the duties devolving on him as a peer in parliament, as a diocesan maintaining strict discipline among his clergy, as an extensive landowner superintending his estate, he may always have his hands full of work if he chooses; and he possesses the power of doing much good, if his mind lie that way; but we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that, even if his Episcopal duties are faithfully performed, his mind is diverted from things spiritual and ecclesiastical, by things civil and temporal Not to make mention of the archbishops and primate, whose duties differ little from that of ordinary bishops, it is very evident, that as | these church dignitaries do not themselves officiate, the end is not served of leavening all ranks with the principles and practice of Christianity, which, according to the theory upheld by our opponents, the institution of a gradational clergy should serve. The Church of England derives no superiority, in point of usefulness, from the graduated rank and authority of her ministry, for her officiating clergymen do not hold an equal civil position with the ministers of the Scottish Kirk; and, therefore, according to the reasoning endorsed by F. J. L. and J. S. J., less likely of being listened to with sentiments of respect by the different classes of the commonwealth, especially those of aristocratic pretensions. Let no argument, then, be founded on the rank and wealth that prevails among the high ecclesiastics of the Episcopal Church, for they are not called upon by virtue of their office as clergymen, armed with "the word and doctrine," to mix with the class to which they belong, nor expected to exercise their prerogatives, and privileges, and inflrence, with those who, from their worldly position, esteem themselves superior to reproof, instruction, or edification. There is more warmth of sunshine in the valley than on the hill-top, and so it is in the hierarchy. There is more true godliness of character, and more zeal for the propagation of the gospel among the humble pastors, than among all the dignitaries by whom they are over-ridden and impoverished. The entire polity so defective, that there is no reasonable prospect of exhausting the exceptionable matter, and we therefore turn to Congregationalism. Congregationalism, unlike the other systems of church polity, does not represent any one code of doctrines-any one body of principles. Every handful of seceders constitute themselves into a congregation; under the same polity we find off-shoots from every church, connected with each other only by the name under which their distinctive principles are hidden. Congregationalism is so diversified in its phases, that it cannot be synoptically placed in any creed: its creeds are multiform; it embraces the accumulated defections of all the churches. B. S. seems to think this its chief claim to our suffrages. "The Universal Church," says he, "thus becomes a great firmament of thought, where star differs from star in 66 66 glory, and in distance' from the central light of God's absolute truth, but where each reflects some rays of Divine wisdom, as it moves in its own appointed path." Congregationalism gives full scope to each clergyman or layman to preach and teach as his own taste may direct," uncontrolled by any authority; it does not " legislate in matters of faith," or govern" its subject communities. In this, with all deference to B. S., we say it is opposed to human nature, for the majority of men do believe in established forms of belief; the mind has a tendency to epitomize its knowledge, that it may be the more easily recollected, or communicated to others with the greater certainty and effect. In this tendency, confessions of faith have their origin; they have a necessary and derivative authority, in proportion to the fidelity with which they render the great truths and principles of the sacred writings. This rejection of defined principles of belief is a serious defect in Congregational Churches. Authority in spiritual matters is the prerogative of the pastor, and, generally, no limitations are set as to the doctrines to be preached. Congregationalism is wanting in principles to test its clergymen by, in admitting them to orders; to guide them in their expositions of Divine truth; to aid the members in judging of their pastor's faithfulness; and to present, as it were, a partition-wall betwixt them and defection. There is in it no stability; in the course of years, or by a change of pastor, it may touch any point from high Calvinism to ultraLatitudinarianism. It presents no bulwark against the influx of error, and possesses no inherent self-sustaining principle; but, supposing the Congregationalism in view to be Evangelical, we feel persuaded that it does not possess that unity and compactness of constitution necessary to give it that aggressive character which a church ought to have, and without which its usefulness is certainly much abridged. It may subsist where true piety, and mutual forbearance, and respect, inspire its members; but it never could have made head-way as Presbyterianism has done, bringing within the courts of God's house the vagrant multitudes of practical heathens, that live without either the love or the fear of Heaven before their eyes. It may do good service as a supplementary institution, but cannot have vigorous life, independently of some more energetic instrumentality to pioneer the way for it. 66 "Such churches," in the words of one of the defenders of the system, can only prosper in proportion to the earnest Christianity of their members; a promiscuous mass of mere professors would never act upon purely spiritual laws, and an enlarged piety is absolutely necessary to counteract the tendency in man to turn freedom into licentiousness." Even looking at it in this mild light, Presbyterianism is preferable; seeing that while it proffers equal spiritual freedom to the believer, it at the same time guarantees an immunity from those distractions which this unlimited admission of the popular element renders almost unavoidable. In closing our defence of Presbyterianism we believe we cannot do better than give additional prominence to one or two points which have not, in our opinion, been sufficiently insisted on. Where the affairs of the Church are entirely in the hands of the clergy, they have ever been found chargeable with legislating for themselves; but the principle of having the management conducted by an equal number of laymen and clergymen renders this impossible. In the Presbyterian Church this system forms part of the constitution, and has been found to work to admiration in uniting the cordial sympathy of the people along with that of the ministry, in forwarding the interests of the church temporarily and spiritually; this arrangement gives the people to know that it is, indeed, their church, and that they are not called upon to take part in her counsels for the purpose of merely in name securing their concurrence to her measures. Both have an equal right and liberty to propose and object; and excepting the merely local and private transactions of the Kirk Sessions, the whole business, being supposed to be of public interest, is conducted in open court. It is impossible, under circumstances like these, for the clergy to acquire an undue amount of influence, or even to acquire powers unpalatable to her people; for the elders are elected by the people to represent them in these courts, on account of their superior intelligence, respectable standing in society, uprightness of character, and christian piety. With such men to mingle in her councils, and give the benefit of their large and various experiences in business and the world, we has, for many years, shown a strong disposition to settle vacant parishes in accordance with the wishes of the people, wherever there appears a general agreement or unanimity in their choice." can conceive of no assembly of men capable | the patronage vested in the Crown, which of more certainly giving well-advised and judicious decisions, nor any whose decisions should carry with them greater weight throughout the country at large. This certainly presents a favourable contrast with the Church of England, whose ecclesiastical courts have been in abeyance somewhere about a century and a half, and have at best no power to act without a mandate from the Sovereign. Let us now consider, for one moment, her alliance with the State, this feature that calls down such unmerited reprobation from our Congregational brethren. To our judginent, this is placed in a very satisfactory light by one circumstance, which seems to be very generally overlooked, viz.:-her standards of Christian doctrine-her books of discipline-her form of government-were all settled, existing, and in operation prior to her connection with the State; and that these underwent no modification, but were incorporated as a part of the institutions of the country, and remain to this day in all their original force. The connection would certainly have been censurable, had she bated one tittle of her spiritual independence; but as the case stands we look upon the connection with the State as an arrangement by which religion is honoured as it ought to be at the hands of the civil magistrate, and by which her ministers are enabled to carry out their important mission with greater faithfulness and effect. Exception is frequently taken to Presbyterianism because it admits of patronage; but patronage, as limited and contracted in Scotland, is a very different thing from the patronage practised in the appointments to livings in the English Church. "In general, patronage is held as a trust by a superior for the benefit of the parish in which he posseses a patrimonial interest; and the attachment which resident proprietors naturally feel towards the people among whom they dwell, together with the influence of public opinion, affords a security for the judicious and careful exercise of the right. This observation is especially applicable to Mark with what jealousy even this is guarded against the possibility of abuse:"By the existing law, objections of all kinds can be received; and the Presbytery, having regard to the character and number of the objectors, as well as all the circumstances of the case, are empowered, if they see fit, to stop the settlement. The presentee, of course, can appeal to the superior courts. But if the Assembly, the court of last review, homologates the decision, there the matter 'takes end,' and the presentee is set aside." In opposition to the insinuations of F.J.L. and his coadjutors, we feel persuaded that it is to the moderate yet competent provision made for our clergy that we are indebted for that zeal in the discharge of their duties which obtains among them. We feel a just national pride in contemplating their generally high intellectual and moral status; and are satisfied that, when all circumstances are considered, we need not hesitate to pronounce them a wise, honest, pious, and useful body, in whom are reflected the various excellencies of the system which we advocate. The Scottish people are pre-eminently a religious people, in all their ranks; and it is a glorious testimony to the evangelizing energy of the Presbyterian Church that they do possess this character. Had the benefices been more liberally endowed, it might have opened up the way for the admission of persons to holy orders that cared little for religion beyond her emoluments. It is, indeed, to us a matter of gratitude that the revenues of our Establishment are not such as to present a temptation to unsanctified ambition. We have no faith in the dramatic machinery of rank in the Episcopal Church, and can never be convinced that earthly dignities would have added effect to the eloquence of Paul, or to the teachings of Him who "spake as never man spake." CONGREGATIONALISM.-REPLY. A MOST interesting and important debate now draws to its close; and with mingled feelings we summon our energies for a final reply. The most striking features of ARISTIDES. the discussion are the maze of perplexity into which many of the writers have wandered, and the direct antagonism of advocates nominally ranged on the same side. There |