is something disheartening in finding so little of unity,‚—a sense of loneliness and oppressich weighs upon the mind; but we derive considerable encouragement in the belief that the confusion displayed arises entirely from a departure from principles and an appeal to expediency-a desertion of the spirit which quickeneth for the mere letter which killeth. Before proceeding farther I may remark, as a means of economizing much space, that the debate is neither a State Church* nor a party question. The Free Church of Scot land and the Episcopal churches of the New World are sufficient proofs that an alliance with the State forms no essential part of Presbyterianism or Episcopacy; and we believe that an Established Religion might co-exist with Congregational discipline;† we shall therefore treat all mere State Church reasoning as unconnected with the subject. Again, we no more intend to make any particular community the sole representative of Episcopacy or Presbyterianism, than to admit that Nottingham Chapel and its brawls (as related by T. R.) is a fair specimen of Congregationalism. We shall not discuss the claims of the Church of England to an apostolical origin, since Episcopacy may be corruption, seeing that many an indifferent character has come of good ancestry. We wish to answer Lutherans and Americans, as well as Anglicans. The English Church may serve as an illustration, but must not be treated as the only one. It is now three months since our opening article in favour of Congregationalism appeared in these pages. The question was then chiefly argued as one of abstract prin *When T. R., p. 327, accused the "Congregational advocates of treating Episcopacy and a State Church as synonymes, he had either never read or entirely forgotten the character of my opening article I never even alluded to "Establishments." + An Established Church would, of course, be impossible on Congregational principles; but surely the State might support all Independent congregations voluntarily acknowledging certain doctrines; or it might subsidize all creeds, without interfering with the internal organization of any congregation. The doctrines already established on either side of the Border are opposite in many respects; and, therefore, by extending the principle, we might everywhere have Calvinism and Arminianism established on opposite sides of the street, and Antinomianism at the corner. We hope Congregationalists never will accept State pay, but they might. 66 ciple, in respect of the nature of Christianity, and the necessary laws of the human mind. What replies have our six opponents made? F. J. L. and J. N. the second have not ventured on criticism. J..N. the first simply remarks, p. 252, that Presbyterianism "does not differ so widely" from Congregationalism as B. S. supposes." J. S. J., p. 286, admitting that there is "some force" in our abstract reasoning, attempts to evade it by pretending that we "concede" the harmony of Episcopacy with scripture.* He afterwards makes a foolish supposition about a congregation of believers in sunrise, as though denied the right of internal selfgovernment! In joining an association we of course submit to its necessary regulations: what we object to is external authority, and not internal consent. The true analogy to Episcopacy would have been a Bishop of Moonshine claiming to legislate on matters of astral science, and to govern every local association of astronomers throughout the kingdom. Walter," p. 290, instead of answering our arguments, from principle objects to an illustrative quotation from Milton; and flatly contradicts the testimony of Sir James Mackintosh, quoted in page 221! In reply to his tu quoque argument on persecution, we simply remark, that if the synod persecutes and causes convulsion and disruption through a whole country, it is merely exercising a power it claims; if the Congregationalist persecutes he denies the principles he holds, and ceases to be a Congregationalist. T. R., p. 329, can find no vulnerable point but our objection to creeds and articles. Now we expressly stated that "Congregationalism can adopt a creed for itself, but will not impose it on others." Let every man extract a creed from his Bible, and associate for mutual instruction with those whose belief is the same; but do not leave to bishops and synods the task of framing a creed to which he is to adapt his Bible. 66 And *We suppose that this is his version of the sentence," If the temporary officers of the churches in the days of the apostles were copied now, we should have a form of church government, different from all existent schemes, but probably nearest resembling Episcopacy." even these words are part of an argument that Episcopalianism has erred against the spirit of the Scriptures, by adopting a distorted copy of provisional and temporary institutions. Surely, after this, J. S. J. ought to be bound over to keep the peace by a strict use of quotation marks. "Every man shall give account for himself." May we not claim to have escaped "unscathed by harm"-to have passed the ordeal unhurt? Have not the predictions in which we ventured to indulge (p. 220, bottom of col. 1) been verified to the letter? We now propose to glance succinctly at the general reasoning of our opponents, replying to the Episcopalians first. We hope the reader will pass over F. J. L.'s fancy pictures of Congregationalism-mere schoolboy caricatures, whose only point lies in the name written beneath; and his taunts (p. 207) of self-importance, female intrigue, and general illiteracy. The liberality and good feeling displayed by J. S. J. and T. R. might be advantageously copied by their compeer. F. J. L. accuses Congregationalists of mere "negative teaching," and attributes it to the want of "universally recognized formularies of belief." This certainly is strange. Who is, of mere necessity, the most positive in his views, the man who forms his own opinions, or the man who takes them on trust in the shape of a creed or catechism? Have not "methodistical" and "puritanical" become cant terms of reproach, on account of the minute positivism of most Dissenters? Who wrote the book most read of all, save the Bible? Bunyan, when in Bedford Jail for his dissent. Who is admitted to have been the most eloquent of modern preachers? Robert Hall. Who is now the ablest defender of our common Christianity in the pages of the far-famed "Edinburgh Review"? Professor Rogers, of Spring Hill. Is the theology of Owen (the very prince of theo logians), Howe, Henry, Baxter, Adams, Charnock, Doddridge, Watts, Edwards, Dwight, and a host of others, their contemporaries and successors, mere negative teaching"? Who raised the first missionary society,-who now meet infidelity face to face wherever it rears its banner,-who established town missions and home missions, who have preached, for the last three centuries, by the wayside, at the market cross, in the schoolroom, and the cottage? On the other hand, Bishop Horsley actually preached against missionary enterprise, and the open-air preaching of a few Episcopal clergy is now chronicled in every paper of the day as some strange thing." 66 In pp. 208-9, F. J. L. argues that there are three distinct classes of church officers, "corresponding to High Priests, Priests, and Levites." We reply that the Jews had only a High Priest, and Paul tells us that Christ is our High Priest, so that F. J. L.'s own argument proves that there are only two orders of church officers. Again, he maintains that there is an order of Apostles, and that, though the names are altered, "the scriptural functions remain unchanged." Now the scriptural functions of the apostles were to preach "the_word with signs following;" and when F. J. L. can show us a company of Evangelist bishops gifted with inspiration and the power of working miracles, we will forthwith renounce Congregationalism. The argument from history, pp. 209-210, in no way establishes Episcopacy as apostolic; the mystery of iniquity began to work in the lifetime of the apostles, and a stream may be polluted very soon after it issues from the fountain. In his second article, p. 247, F. J. L. accuses Congregationalism of "antagonism" and "disunion."* Has he ever heard of the "Shore" and "Gorham" cases? Does he not know that the disciplinary power he claims for bishops is become a mere farce in his own community-that the Bishop of London considers the opinions of his oracle. Mr. Maurice, heterodox if taught in the Strand, but orthodox when preached in Lincoln's Inn? Is there no antagonism between Dr. Pusey and the Evangelicals; between Archdeacon Hare or Mr. Kingsley and Henry of Exeter? Is not Wilberforce preaching transubstantiation in a nominally Protestant church, and yet not a bishop dare rebuke him? The Church of England has all the names, orders, and evils of Episcopacy, while as regards the repression of heresies it is s mere congeries of Independent churches. F. J. L. objects to the dependence of our ministry, and rejoices that his church is suited to the richer classes. Did not Christ send forth the Seventy "without scrip or purse," to subsist on freewill offerings, adding that "the labourer is worthy of his hire"? Paul accepted the bounty of the Philippian church, Phil. iv. 16. Again, we remind him of the texts, to the poor the Gospel is preached;" "the common people heard him 66 *F. J. L. alludes to an Islington chapel. Has he ever heard of certain doings at St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and St. Barnabas, Pimlico? gladly;" and of a certain rich young man, whose Christianity was tested by a command to sell all that he had, and to take up his cross and follow Christ. To the reasons for Episcopacy, p. 248, we answer: (1) The public recognition of each individual minister by his people is surely as calculated to give "solemnity and strength" to his office as ordination by a bishop. (2) Is a spice of Anglicanism not Episcopacy? (3) If a priest requires the superintendence of a bishop, the bishops in turn must require supervision. "Search the scriptures," and 'try the spirits," is the Bible plan; and we prefer it to the dictum," Ask the bishop." 6. But lastly," says F. J. L., "I would ask, have reason and religion been utterly dormant for nearly two thousand years? Did a few poor men," &c. Is F. J. L. a Catholic? if not, how does he answer the query, "Where was your religion before Luther?" John Milton, John Owen, and the other "few poor men" alluded to, never pretended that bishops were utterly irrational animals, nor that Episcopalians were necessarily atheists. J. S. J.. pp. 285-8, raises the question whether church government is defined in the Scriptures; and inclining to the negative, simply argues for "example." Now it is quite evident that there are many precepts in the Scriptures which refer solely to the age of the apostles. Thus the Christians at Antioch were commanded to abstain from blood and things strangled; James directs the sick to be anointed with oil; and Paul dissuades from marriage. Can it be supposed that Protestants are justified in laying aside these direct precepts, but that they are bound to adopt an external organization, only casually and indirectly mentioned. May we not naturally conclude that a system only partially described, and evidently adopted to suit the exigencies of the times, was intended only to be temporary, and ought to be changed when the general spread of Christianity made it less suitable? The apostles could not instruct their converts in all the minutiae of Christianity, and therefore they appointed suitable ministers over each church (ecclesia, or congregation) to perform this duty, while they passed on to the next city to found new churches; but as inspired men and founders of the churches they exercised a general superintendence, re-visiting and "confirming the churches;" or directing epistles to them. The very same thing may be seen in our modern missions: the missionary goes forth from this land of Bibles, bearing the volume of inspired truth; he founds a number of "stations," places "native teachers" here and there, but in respect of his superior knowledge reserves a general superintendence to himself. Now the Congregationalist retains the two offices suited to the present day,-deacons to minister to the poor and "serve tables," and ministers to edify and build up the churches; but he rightly regards the Holy Scriptures as the true successor of the apostles, who, being dead, yet speak through its pages. The Bible, not the Bishop, represents the order of apostles. Christ promised to be with them unto the end of the world: and notwithstanding the fall of empires, the wreck of learning, and the long night of barbarism, the promise is fulfilled, and Paul and James, Peter and John, now stand in every house of Britain. The temporary nature of the early regimen may be seen still further by the manner in which the offices were interchanged. Stephen preached; Philip the deacon preached and baptized; Ananias, a private disciple, administered baptism, instruction, and " ordination" to Paul; Luke, a physician, wrote one of the Gospels.* To the four reasons in favour of Episcopacy, p. 287, we reply: (1) This is in direct opposition to Matt. xx. 25-7. (2) A Bishop of the kind described here may be found in such men as Wardlaw, James, Pye Smith, and other Congregationalist ministers. (3) Is a proscribed topic. (4) Is merely a reiteration of (1) in different words. Lastly, J.S.J. "fearlessly" declares Episcopacy to be productive of the best results. We deny not his courage Episcopacy in fifty years (1801-51), aided by the State, has built 2,698, while Nonconformity has raised 16,689, places of worship. (See the late "Census of Religious Worship.") In 1839 it was computed that there were, in the United States, " above 8,000 * I regret exceedingly to find "L'Ouvrier," p. 337, desiring "again to be in bondage," and turning to "the weak and beggarly elements" of Judaism, in order to prove Congregationalism to be a system of government" ordained by God. I look upon it as the only system accordant with the spirit of Christianity, and therefore the best system; but I cannot regard it as positively commanded by scripture, so that it is sinful to resist it. churches or religious societies; of which about 3,000 belonged to the Baptists, 2,000 to the Methodists, 1,200 to the Congregationalists, 900 to the Presbyterians, 600 to the Episcopalians, and a small number to other sects," Encyc. Brit., xxi. 481. Omitting the Methodists and smaller sects, the relative efficiency of the three great systems of church polity is represented by 4,200, 900, and 600, respectively! One fact more -in 1853 there were 137 Episcopal clergymen in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts; and 1,078 "Congregational Orthodox Churches." Which is the most efficient? 66 2 that Timothy was an apostle. In the same paragraph he "will not allow" that the apostles left "the germs of a system for man to develop;" and yet, within half a dozen lines, he takes "two facts" (germs?), and then refers them to "the succeeding age" for their development and explanation. Amiable suicide! We now turn to Presbyterianism. “Aristides" has "not space to enter on the comparative scripturalness of the systems," and this being the question, we shall follow the example of every other writer, in passing by his article without notice. J. N. the first divides his attention between State-churchism and Anti-episcopacy, and therefore may be as summarily dismissed. 66 'Walter," pp. 288–9, grapples with the subject. He cites 1 Pet. v. 1 as a proof of the equality of the clergy, describes the "Courts" of Presbyterianism, and endea In the article of T. R., pp. 326-31, there is really nothing to reply to. The former part merely "clears the way," and the latter part contains but little argument. T. R. seems to feel ashamed of his cause; he recounts abuse after abuse, and pleads that they are excrescences," "State-corrup-vours to justify them by referring to the tions," &c. The Episcopacy he defends is assembly at Jerusalem, Acts xv. Suppose in fact little more than Congregationalism; we admit this assembly to be a precedent his bishops are simply to be men holding a for the "Sessions Court," where is the scriphigher "position, influence, and emolument," ture authority for a Presbytery, and a Synod, than their brethren. Does he suppose that and a General Assembly? Where are the his fellow-townsman, the Rev. J. A. James, apostolic precepts as to the different proporhas no higher "position, influence, and emo- tions of laymen and presbyters in each lument" than the least educated of village court? Let us compare the action of this pastors? Merit, whether moral or intellec- imperium in imperio, these courts above tual, cannot fail to rise under the free or courts, with Congregationalism. In the one Congregational system; while the partiality case, a question arises in a given church, of a bishop may extinguish it for ever. Of and is decided by a full assembly of the course, if men were perfect, the question in members; the minority submit, and peace is debate would scarcely be worth raising; per- restored: or if, through the infirmity of hufect bishops would never err, and perfect man nature, division occasionally occurs, and congregations would never exhibit human some indeed preach Christ of envy and infirmities; but even then, bishops would be strife," may we not say with Paul-"Notuseless supernumeraries in the churches. withstanding, every way Christ is preached, While, however, perfection is unattainable, and I therein rejoice." But on the other we fall back upon the principles and reason- hand, a dissentient Presbyterian may appeal ings which T. R. has thus endeavoured to from court to court; the question is kept evade. There seem to be no arguments or open; the dispute is published abroad, and objections in his article which have not been extends its area to every congregation in the already met in our replies to F. J. L. and land; one court may reverse the decision of J. S. J.; we will, therefore, confine ourselves another, and thus new jealousies arise; and to noticing the naïve way in which he conwhen the final decree comes, what is the tradicts himself. In p. 330, he begins again? Alas! the same alternative of subparagraph by endorsing his approval of mission or division still presents itself as in F. J. L.'s arguments; he then " can afford" the former case. to give them up; and closes by directly opposing them, referring to 1 Tim. v. 19, as a proof that Timothy was not an apostle," whereas F. J. L. is at great pains to prove 66 66 But let us examine the narrative in Acts XV., referred to both by "Walter" and J. N. the second, as the scripture basis of Presbyterianism. The Christians of Antioch had 66 heard nothing of circumcision from Paul, and when certain Jewish teachers came down and preached its necessity, did they submit? No; as true Congregationalists, they denied the authority of these teachers, and having neither Gospels nor Epistles to consult, they made a voluntary reference to the inspired apostles-"they determined to go up to Jerusalem." Now when "Walter" can point to any existing body of inspired men, we shall be as willing as himself to refer difficult questions to their decision. But let us consider the nature of this assembly at Jerusalem." In verse 4 we read that when the messengers 66 were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders." "Certain of the Pharisees which believed" seem to have spoken as freely as Peter or James; and finally, we read in verse 22, that "it pleased the apostles, and elders, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH," to return a certain answer. If this be not pure Congregationalism, I know not what is. Where are the four courts, and the fine proportions of laymen and presbyters to which "Walter" pins his faith? Surely he will never quote Acts xv. as the basis of Presbyterianism on a second reading. J. N. the second, p. 333, attacks a sentence of "Rolla's" as vague, and "not peculiarly happy as descriptive of the basis of Congregationalism." Now, his own ideas must be very vague indeed; or he would have perceived that "Rolla's" words were simply descriptive of the grounds on which he proposed to argue the question; but supposing they were definitive of Congregationalism, why should he object to them, because "300 sects" might adopt them? Paul was ready to become all things to all men; and surely, if Congregationalism will suit 300 sects, and Presbyterianism only three, we have a strong argument in favour of the former. Again "Rolla" maintains the "perfect freedom of universal man;" and J. N. replies that Presbyterianism "is happily as free as any Independent Church. The Confession of Faith is not an enforced creed; it merely expresses the Church's opinion. Now, if the Confession may be accepted or rejected at will, it is surely useless; if every one is compelled to accept it or to leave the community, it certainly is " an enforced creed," and as such interferes with "mental independence and spiritual freedom." That the latter supposition is the true case, is evident from the talk of "church courts" and "general efficiency," which follows. In a subsequent paragraph, J. N. reiterates this contradiction in a perfectly ludicrous form, by telling us that his "church does not command, but it insists," &c.!! J. N. glories in the "simplicity" of Presbyterian worship (of which he gives us a programme), and exults in its opposition to "the carved work, the chanted liturgy, the many-voiced organ," &c. Now, in the first place, this "simplicity" is no part of Presbyterianism; it might co-exist with Episcopacy, and generally does characterize Congregationalism. But further, this austerity is, after all, a doubtful feature. God approved the gorgeousness of Solomon's temple, though it was far removed from the simplicity of the tabernacle. David entitles his closing psalm, "An exhortation to praise God with all kinds of instruments." There is no need to engrave "Ugliness to the Lord" on all our worship, and perversely to pride ourselves on baldness and plainness. Religion need not oppose all that is beautiful to the eye and harmonious to the ear: it cannot be right resolutely to stifle every. æsthetical emotion of the heart. True worship, we admit, is essentially spiritual, and may, therefore, be had on the highway or mountain side, in a cottage or a barn. Yet even apostles preached amid the classic grandeur of Mars' hill, and worshipped in the gate "which is called Beautiful." We cannot perceive any necessary connection between a Gothic arch and errors of doctrine; nor can we conceive why an inferior psalm-tune, sung with a nasal twang, should be more conducive to devotion than a solemn chant—a swelling anthem-an inspiration of Handel or Mozart. These matters are nonessentials, as is the use of set forms of prayer. The Congregationalist wisely leaves them to the discretion of each church. J. N. speaks of an educated ministry as peculiar to Presbyterianism, and asserts that Congregationalists, “by a vote of the Church, appoint any layman to the office" of teacher. Really, writers so grossly ignorant of the subject ought to keep silence. The Congregational ministry is as highly educated (probably more so) than any other body of |