form of civil government, however specious and popular, is purely ad invidiam, or ad ignorantiam, or ad captandum. It is calculated to mislead, deceive and mystify. Thus, nearly all the sects in our country maintain, that their own respective forms or systems are the most strictly republican, or most congenial to republican or democratic institutions. The Roman Catholic, the Episcopalian, the Independent, the Methodist, the Baptist, are equally positive and dogmatic on this subject, and in this behalf. Presbyterians also are prone to glorify their own timehonoured polity on the same score and in similar fashion; -whether with or without good reason, we leave others to decide.

It is enough for us to stand on scriptural ground. We are able to demonstrate, against all political cavillers and gainsayers, that the genius of Presbyterianism is admirably suited to the genius of the purest Republicanism: while history also teaches that Presbyterianism may be, as it has been, loyal to any and every form of civil government. Witness Germany, France, Holland, Geneva, Scotland, Ireland, America-to say nothing of its infancy under imperial Roman despotism.

Who ever heard of Presbyterians rebelling against a government, because it was monarchical, for instance? Even the American Revolution was not a war against monarchy at the outset. It did not originate in any determined hostility to monarchy as such. Our patriotic sires were conservative in their principles and intentions. They appealed to arms, not to destroy and overturn, but to assert, maintain and preserve their inherited, char

tered, constitutional, indefeasible rights, as free-born Eng lishmen. In such a crisis, and for such a cause, assuredly our Presbyterian ancestors were not behind the boldest and bravest, either in the council hall or on the battlefield.

"No bishop, no king," was the oracular and wily utterance of the British Solomon, (James I.,) and ought never to have obtained currency as an axiom or political aphorism. His own Scottish countrymen and subjects proclaimed its falsity then by their conduct, as they have done ever since. They never opposed their king, as the rightful sovereign of the realm, but because he endeav oured to usurp the headship or kingship of the Church also. James soon discovered that neither force nor cunning would avail, so long as the sturdy Scots continued familiar with kirk sessions, presbyteries, synods and general assemblies: and amenable, in spiritual matters, to no human tribunal or authority. He wished to be Pope in Scotland, as well as in England. And had his motto been, "no bishop, no Pope," it would have exhibited more truth and candour, though less of the politic duplicity and kingcraft for which he was distinguished, and of which he was somewhat boastful

No subjects of the British crown have hitherto been, or are now, more faithful and devoted to their constitutional civil government, than the Scottish Presbyterians. Illegal, violent, arbitrary, vexatious, persecuting tyranny, they have manfully and successfully resisted. But to a constitutional monarchy, equitably administered, they manifest not only no aversion, but the strongest attach

ment.

Where were their sympathies, and how did they act, during the American and French Revolutions?

The entire history of the Scottish Presbyterian Church, during the reign of the despotic and unprincipled Stuarts, is singularly eventful, suggestive, edifying, pathetic :· and is worthy of profound study. Can the world present a parallel case? or an example of equal suffering, privation, sacrifice, endurance? of indomitable adherence to the simple faith and worship of the gospel? and of that primitive martyr spirit which no terrors nor tortures could crush or extinguish?

We might also, in this connexion, cite the tragic story of the Presbyterian Huguenots in France. They, too, were loyal, high-minded, honourable, true-hearted subjects of an almost unlimited monarchy. They pleaded and contended only for the inalienable rights of conscience.

In aristocratic Geneva and Holland, Presbyterianism has hitherto been the creature of the State. Thus, too, has it been, to large extent, in Scotland, since the accession of William and Mary to the British throne, and more especially since the restoration of church patronage [in 1712] under Queen Anne. It is due to the Established Church of Scotland to add, that she has uniformly resisted and protested against all ambitious and Erastian encroachments of the civil power. While the seceding, voluntary and free churches act without dictation or restraint from any external or secular source whatever.

Here mark the difference between real unfettered Presbyterianism, and the same system mixed up with, or sup

ported by, the civil government. The latter never protects, but to control; never touches, but to soil; never gives, but to receive ten, thirty or a hundred fold in return.

14. Church officers, at the beginning, were designated as: Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Presbyters or Elders, Bishops, Pastors, Teachers, Ministers, Helps, Govern

ments.

The peculiar official attributes and functions of the apostles entitled them to the pre-eminence: and this pre-eminence appears not to have been denied or questioned by their contemporaries. They had no equals or successors, in several most important respects. While, as ministers and preachers of the gospel, all faithful preachers and ministers, of every age and country, have been or are their legitimate and only successors. The apostleship was a temporary office. There were only thirteen apostles-including Paul. Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Silas, Junias, Andronicus, etc. were not apostles. Except as teachers, the Prophets had no successors. Evangelists appear at first to have possessed and exercised extraordinary powers. They were, however, laborious travelling missionaries: and, in this capacity, they are as much needed as ever. Timothy and Titus were evangelists.

The Angels of the seven churches in Asia were probably simple pastors, or chief presbyters among their brethren in the churches specified.

Presbyters and Bishops were identical in meaning: convertible or interchangeable: mere pastors of congre

gations or of churches or parishes: parochial, not diocesan, bishops. There were hundreds of such bishops in Asia Minor, Italy, Greece, Northern Africa, etc., where one modern prelate would amply suffice.

15. We may next notice Apostolic succession in the prelatic sense: High Church claims: Episcopal ordination: Laud's tyranny and innovations in England and Scotland: Modern Puseyism: the nature, grounds and dogmas of jure divino prelatists or churchmen.

Prelatists maintain: 1. That there was instituted by Christ an order of clergy superior to presbyters, called, first, apostles, then bishops, to whom alone was committed the power to ordain others, and to govern the church. 2. That there has existed a lineal, unbroken succession, from the apostles down to the present bishops of Episcopal churches.*

"There is not a bishop, priest or deacon, among us, who cannot, if he please, trace his own spiritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul."+

On the contrary, Archbishop Whately, in his "Kingdom of Christ," (p. 182,) asserts that: "There is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up with any approach to certainty, his own spiritual pedigree," (ie. to any of the apostles.)

* *

*

"The High Church generally have an ugly trick of unchurching other people, and consigning them to what, in their slang, they call uncovenanted mercy. We have heard the question asked, how such pretensions

* See Presb. Tracts, vol. iv. p. 302.

So says the Rev. Dr. Hook. See Shimeall, p. 248.