Churches, must be, however. named, a higher order of ministers than simple elders, and therefore equivalent to those whom we call Bishops.

They reasonably infer that the constitution of a Church, framed on this Scriptural Apostolic model, suggested by a wisdom more than human, must not only be admissible, but the wisest and the best, and, as proved by experience, the most enduring.

Such has been the view of most moderate, and I will add, the soundest members of the Church of England. Our Church sanctions it (Art. xxiii.), though it has not refused membership to Non-jurors and others who have maintained the former view.

A prelate of our own day has even asserted that Episcopacy was adopted by the Apostles merely as most expedient, as corresponding most nearly to Jewish institutions, as thereby giving the less shock to Jewish prejudices, and offering the less obstruction to the progress of Christianity. (Archbishop Whately on the Kingdom of Christ.)

The second view of Episcopacy was, that it was unscriptural. The Swiss and French Reformers, from whom Scotch Presbyterians and English Puritans were off-shoots, from the promiscuous use of the words Bishop and Elder, conceived that the New Testament recognised the equality of all ministers of the Gospel; and believing that Scripture example is equivalent to Divine command, inferred that Prelacy is unscriptural, bracketing Popery and Prelacy" as the joint offspring of corrupt human

nature.

A third view is that the word of God was only given to teach what is essential to man's salvation, which forms of Church government are not, and therefore they are among things indifferent, as proved by the absence of direct command on the subject; arguments on either side resting on inference merely, by the indistinctness in which the constitution of the primitive Church has been left enshrouded, and by the plausibility of the arguments adduced by the adherents and the opponents of Episcopacy. This seemed to be the opinion of the Lutheran Reformers. Which of these three views should give its own impress to the progress of Reformation, depended probably on attendant cir

cumstances.

In democratic movements, popular passions and levelling tendencies find scope; and from the real, though often repudiated connection between politics and religion, political and religious views often, nay almost inevitably, sympathize. In Switzerland, the Reformation was adopted by Republican governments: in France, it fought its way onward in face of opposition from one of the most powerful monarchies of Europe; and as Romanism swayed the Government, and was patronised by it, Protestantism was the religion of the people and of the oppressed, though not of the State while the Episcopal Church was associated, in idea,

:

with the despotism of the king, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, the dragonnades, and the decline of commercial and of national prosperity. In Scotland a similar state of things existed. The French Court was transferred to Edinburgh, and the religious persecuting policy of the house of Guise swayed the Queen and her nobles. The Reformation, therefore, fought its way upwards from the masses of the people, who hated "the tyranny of Rome, and all her detestable enormities," and recoiled from "black prelacy," as "a rag of Popery." We wonder not, then, that in Switzerland, in France and in Scotland, where the Reformation escaped the suppression it underwent elsewhere, as in Spain and Italy, it should have assumed a sturdy Presbyterian form.

Had a religious Reformation in any case arisen within the Church, conducted by the heads of the Church, the State not interfering, the power and privileges of Bishops, and the theory of Divine right, would have remained probably intact. Had it arisen solely from and been entirely managed by the State, the Ecclesiastical constitution would have probably preserved its previous outward form, as a convenient machinery of civil government, and, of course, under its entire control; and on the whole, it would have meddled with ccclesiastical to the neglect of doctrinal questions.

In England, however, both were associated. The prelates who guided the Reformation were men whose convictions had brought them out of Romanism, while their measures were sanctioned and assisted by a king and councillors of Protestant principles. Hence Scripture purity of doctrine was established in the first place; and in the second Episcopacy was re-established, invested with its lawful influence, but shorn of its usurped power.

The Lutheran Reformation was mainly doctrinal; for though its immediate cause was the abuse of indulgences by the Church of Rome, the mind of Luther had long been prepared for his work by his own religious experience and study of the word of God in the monastery of Erfurth. His strong convictions were imparted to the Elector of Saxony and the other German princes who espoused his cause; and aided by the powerful, resolute character of its great leader, the Reformation received its religious tone from him in a degree which its subsequent history could not easily efface.

The supremacy of the word of God in matters of faith, and the doctrine of "Justification by Faith only," that " Articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiæ," were the centres round which Lutheranism revolved. As might be expected, therefore, it did not dogmatize in matters of order, but allowed a certain latitude or variety, according to circumstances. Ecclesiastical changes were of secondary importance, and Episcopacy or Non-episcopacy was admissible.

The established position, however, acquired by the Lutheran Church at the Treaty of Passau in 1555, made some form of Church government necessary, and in determining the question CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 209.

2 Q

We

which was preferable, the spirit of order and the supremacy of Scripture, as they understood it, prevailed. A Scriptural model was sought for, and a safe path between opposite errors. are therefore prepared to find that in Germany the idea should have prevailed, that Scripture left it to each Church to fix on its own order of government, and that in steering between the iron despotism of Popery on the one hand, and the wild excesses of the Anabaptists on the other, they should avoid direct Episcopacy, which might lead back to the former, and downright Presbyterianism, which might possibly lead forward to the latter.

In Denmark and Sweden, the Reformation movement and the Reformed Church were both Lutheran. For in the former, the queen of Christian II., and in the latter, the king Gustavus Vasa, had drawn their religious convictions from Germany, and brought teachers and professors home from the Lutheran Universities to propagate and maintain the Reformed faith in their own dominions. But the fact that the movement originated with the sovereign of each kingdom, upheld by the power of the respective governments, and was not driven forward by the masses of the people, accounts for the retention of the Episcopal form; while the pertinacious opposition to the progress of the Reformation offered by the Swedish and Danish prelates may have induced these sovereigns to set aside the Succession theory; so that their influence and importance are reduced, they are shorn of political power, and depend simply on the will of the Government for their existence. Under this modified form, the tolerance of Lutheranism in Ecclesiastical matters can recognise Episcopacy in Denmark and Sweden, though declining to adopt it in Germany.

Such is the way in which I have endeavoured to account for the variable constitution of Lutheranism, and at this point I beg to leave the question, venturing to hope that three inferences will be drawn from these facts: first, that we have much reason to be grateful for our own Ecclesiastical Constitution; next, that we have strong motives for kindness and sympathy with our Lutheran brethren; and thirdly, that it is a primary duty for them and for us to hold fast the privileges which a kind Providence has bestowed on us. R. J. R.

"THE KNOT OF THE DAY."*

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR,-I have just laid down your Review of "the Knot of the Day, and a Hand to undo it." I entirely concur in your remarks on the good design of the Author, and on the impracti

*[The subject of the claims of " the Evangelical Alliance" is anything but new to the pages of the "Christian Observer." And we have by no means such pleasant recollections of the controversy as to feel the slightest disposition to

cability of his schemes for accomplishing his design, as regards the recovering of Dissenters to the ministry and communion of the Church of England.

Pardon the expression of no small regret, however, that in reviewing the Author's scheme for "Church Revival," or "Conservative Reformation," with a view to "the healing of our unhappy divisions," you should have entirely ignored the practical efforts which have been made of late years by men eminently endowed with the excellent qualities of "wisdom, simplicity, faithfulness, and love," which you justly state to be requisite for any undertaking of that nature.

The first of those efforts in point of time and magnitude, was "the Evangelical Alliance." It embraced many revered names among the Clergy. It brought together in holy fellowship men of every Evangelical communion, at home and abroad; and few who entered those assemblies failed to be charmed and edified by the spectacle of men meeting for the first time as brethren, rendering willing homage to each other's Christian profession, recognising the true features of their common Master reflected in each other, and realizing for the time the description once earned by the universal Christian body, "See how these Christians love one another." Then was witnessed

such a softening of prejudice among men of different Evangelical sects, and such a recognition of principles common to all, as promised, if not to unite them in one Ecclesiastical communion, to produce in all the one distinctive characteristic of Christ's disciples. (John xiii. 35.)

The cause of pure and undefiled religion would suffer no damage were I to cite the names of some of the eminent Dissenting ministers of all denominations in England, and of the Evangelical bodies in Scotland, Ireland, and foreign countries, who were numbered in that effort for the establishment of substantive Evangelical union; or those of the many earnest laymen of all those bodies, and of our own Church, who par

invite any fresh warriors to fight out the battle. We have, however, in this instance, thought it right to allow a single advocate, who speaks in a truly Christian tone, to say a word in praise of the Alliance, and we would allow another single advocate to send in a vindication of the charge here brought against the Evangelical Clergy. For ourselves, without feeling inclined to enrol our own names on the list of the Society, we cannot but do honour, both to its leading object and to the spirit of many of its members. Shall we be thought irreverent, if we say, that the image presented to our minds by one of the General Conventions of the Society, is that of a considerable body of good and wise men sitting with their tongues half cut out and their hands fastened behind them, first deliberating, and then going forth for the conquest of the world. We heartily wish them success; but feel it difficult to put any great confidence in Cabinet Councils, which are able to co-operate only by the suppression of one half of their leading opinions. The conclusion is, we admit, a melancholy one: that in the present state of the world different bodies of religionists must, except in the single instance of distributing the word of God, be satisfied to do good singlehanded, though, we hope, without the smallest division of heart.-EDITOR.]

ticipated in the proceedings, and hailed with profound delight and thankfulness scenes so new and so full of hope for the cause of real Christianity in the world.

It was about a year after the Evangelical Alliance was formed that I asked the opinion of a person whom if I were to name your readers would at once recognize as the individual who of all others possesses the largest means of information on subjects of this nature as to the results of the Alliance. He remarked in reply, while adverting to the causes of its imperfect success, that he saw the good effect every hour he lived, in the altered and greatly improved tone of sentiment and feeling on the part of Dissenters towards Churchmen and Church questions. Among the causes of the imperfect success of that effort-for that it has been a complete failure, no one, I think, with any extensive knowledge of the facts, pretends-the chief was this, namely, the refusal of the great body of the Evangelical Clergy to oin the Alliance. I do not presume to question the motives which actuated them. The fact is unquestionable; and years of subsequent observation have confirmed an opinion very early formed, that few circumstances more disastrous to the cause of Protestant Evangelical Christianity could have happened. The Clergy of the Church of England never, in my judgment, took a position more favourable to themselves than in that Society. The utmost honour was there rendered to them, and their presence would have assisted to prevent the mistakes in the proceedings of the Alliance, which tended to injure the character of the movement, and to impair its usefulness. Their presence would also have assisted to bring in the most distinguished members of other Protestant communities, and so to create an united force to resist an united enemy.

2. A more recent effort at union for a specific purpose, irrespective of any attempt at ecclesiastical or religious fusion, has been made by the "Protestant Alliance." It is working apparently with energy against Popery. And such union against a common danger can hardly fail to beget friendly feelings among the parties engaged in that design. But in reference to the main question under review, it wants the larger character and higher objects contemplated by the Evangelical Alliance.

3. The "Conference" held at the National Club on various questions of common interest to all the Protestant bodies, and the excellent spirit that has marked those proceedings, must have a genial effect on both the Churchmen and Dissenters who have been thus brought into contact, and have exchanged ideas, though on topics foreign to the design of the work referred to, as respects our "Home divisions."

I forbear to do more than draw your attention to these several efforts to bring together, for purposes of brotherly union and for objects of common interest, the members of all the Evangelical bodies. Those efforts were all of a practical character, and they cannot have been inoperative in removing