and authority for the bishops on Old Testament grounds. Ignatius brings forward the idea of the unity of the church as represented by the bishop, whom he distinguishes from the presbyters, and for whom he claims divine power, although the idea of apostolic succession is quite strange to him. In Hermas, we meet with the idea of the unity of the church; out of her there is no salvation. She is to be a holy church; but her holiness is to be the result of the holiness of her members, which is to be effected by penances and moral discipline. We have thus, in these three apostolical fathers, the individual features from the combination of which proceeds that which constitutes the essential peculiarity of the Roman Catholic system.

In an article, "If you can only have Unity or Truth, which of the two?" Tholuck addresses words of warning to those who, esteeming unity to be of greater importance than truth, go to Rome,-showing that its much-boasted-of unity exists only in its official confession, in consequence of its organised hierarchy and strict discipline; and also to those Protestants who, imagining that they have the absolute truth in their individual churches, contemptuously look down upon those differing from them, and stigmatise them by the appellation of heretics.

The article, "On the Origin of the Symbols of the Lutheran Church," shows that the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and the Smalkalden Articles, were not written with a view to their being symbolical books, but that they became so in the hand of God. After the first love had cooled down, the schoolmen began to quarrel; and from their controversies the Formula Concordiæ proceeded. It did not build up the Lutheran Church; it was not even received everywhere; and can hence not be in the way of a union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.

Besides these articles, the September number contains exegetical remarks by the late Dr Schneckenburger on Phil. ii. 12, 13, 14, 18; and the beginning of a review of Auberten's book on Daniel, and on the Revelation of John.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN

EVANGELICAL REVIEW.

APRIL 1856.

* ART. I.—An Address delivered before the Presbyterian Historical Society at their Anniversary Meeting in the Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, May 1st, 1855. By the Rev. CHARLES HODGE, D.D., Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J.

Of course we have no fault to find with Professor Hodge for discussing, on the above occasion, the question, "What is Presbyterianism?" For, holding, as he does, that Presbyterianism is "not a skilful product of human wisdom, but a divine institution, founded on the Word of God, and the genuine product of the inward life of the church," we honour him the more for the honest, outspoken expression of his opinions. Neither would we fail to evince our hearty respect for that sturdy conservatism by which the Presbyterian body is so emphatically distinguished from the other non-Episcopal communions of our country. Neither, again, do we object at all to his going out of the way a little to pass in review the differing systems of Popery, Prelacy, and Independency, for the sake of comparing them with Presbyterianism, and so getting the light and shade for his picture. Only, the professor, having thrown down the glove with a somewhat confident air, will, we trust, find no cause of complaint if, so far as the "Prelatical theory" is concerned, he is held strictly responsible both for the correctness of his statements and the soundness of his arguments.

This first article is from the Church Review for October 1855, and consists chiefly of an extract from a sermon of Bishop M'Ilvaine's, occupying here p. 261-273. Our second article is Dr Hodge's reply to the Church Review and Bishop M'Ilvaine, published in the Princeton Review for January 1856. We have been induced, on this occasion, to give both sides of the question, because a discussion betwixt two such men as Bishop M'Ilvaine and Dr Hodge cannot but be interesting and useful. These two eminent men, whose labours have been so beneficial to the Church of Christ, were once, we believe, fellow-students at Princeton.-ED. B. & F. E. R.

VOL. V. NO. XVI.

R

Professor Hodge proposes to get rid of Prelacy on two grounds: first, because he maintains, that, according to the "Prelatical theory," "all church power" is vested exclusively in the clergy; and, of course, that in no department of its government,-legislative, executive, or administrative,-have the laity any thing to do. And, secondly, because the apostolic office, a higher grade of office than that of presbyters, was designed to be merely temporary in its duration, and actually ceased with the twelve apostles themselves. He says, "The apostles, the twelve, stand out just as conspicuous as an isolated body in the history of the church, without predecessors and without successors, as Christ himself does. They disappear from history. The title, the thing itself, the gifts, the functions, all ceased when John, the last of the twelve, ascended to heaven." The whole force of his argument to prove all this lies in the following syllogism: "If prelates are apostles, they must have apostolic gifts. They have not those gifts, therefore they are not apostles."

Now, this is, unquestionably, a very convenient method to dispose of the Prelatical theory. And it would be more satisfactory if there were not certain difficulties in the way, in the shape of stubborn facts and principles, which Professor Hodge seems to have, unfortunately, overlooked. Both the above positions of the professor we propose to examine,-the first, briefly; the other, more at length.

And, first, that in the "Prelatical theory" the rights of the people are thoroughly ignored, while by the Presbyterian system they are effectually secured. Now, we have been accustomed to suppose, judging from the Presbyterian "Form of Government," from the manner in which their Church-Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies are actually constituted, and from their practical working, that if there is one ecclesiastical system in our country from which the lay element is effectually excluded, that system is the Presbyterian. Professor Hodge must confess that it is the merest sophistry to pretend that the lay element is fairly represented by the ruling elders. For the ruling elder, in becoming such by ordination, ceases to be any longer a mere layman. His office of elder, or presbyter, is declared in their "Form of Government" to be "perpetual," and one of which, while he lives, he cannot possibly be divested, save by deposition. To maintain that an office possessing thus perpetuity, indelibility in the ordinary sense, and exclusive power, represents the people, because its possessors were originally chosen from among the people, is a sort of logic which, in our college days, used to be called the ignoratio elenchi. Indeed, there is not a confessedly despotic ecclesiastical system in our country,

Popery not excepted, which might not use this argument as well as Presbyterians. Nor is it quite so satisfactory even among his own sect as the learned professor seems to suppose. If we have read the history of Presbyterianism in this country aright for the last twenty years, here has been one of the sharpest weapons in the hands of the so-called "New School;" to wit, that Old School Presbyterianism of the Princeton stamp persists in ordaining the ruling elders (or presbyters), and in regarding them as an inferior yet a real and permanent order of the ministry, and in concentrating all ecclesiastical power in the hands of the Presbytery. Certain it is, that the tendency towards a more popular system of administration which has of late rent that body in twain, and which was never more vigorous than now, has taken hold of the mass of the people on the express ground, that in old-fashioned Presbyterianism the lay element is as completely ignored as it is in the system of Popery or Methodism. Even the New School Presbyterians in their General Assemblies, where the question has more than once been up, have never yet been quite ready to deny that ruling elders are indeed a part and portion of the ministry. The question, however, is evidently a sore one with them.

Still more are we surprised at language which Professor Hodge has ventured to use on this point concerning what he terms the "Prelatical theory." He could not have read a page of our ecclesiastical history, he could not have looked at our General or Diocesan Constitutions, nor opened one of the journals of our General or Diocesan Conventions, nor have noticed at all the operations of one of our parochial organizations, without discovering in them all the existence of the lay element, having every opportunity for vigorous, healthy action. It is a system representative, and so faithful to all,-of subordination, and so effective to the end in view, and yet so guarded by checks and counter-checks as to be oppressive to none. Indeed, if it were now proposed for the first time to frame an ecclesiastical system which, in its constituent elements of power, and their well-balanced distribution, should correspond exactly with the first and model council at Jerusalem, where "the apostles, and presbyters, and brethren," should each have their appropriate place, it would not be possible to conceive of one more exactly in harmony with that scriptural pattern than the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country. This feature has so often been the theme of praise with those not of her communion, that we marvel that it escaped the eye of the Princeton professor. But really, to prefer old-fashioned, rigid Presbyterianism above Episcopacy, because the former cherishes such tender regard for the

"rights of the people!" must, we think, have staggered the credulity even of a "Presbyterian Historical Society." Presbyterianism is nothing more or less than a close oligarchy, and, as such, can never become a widely influential religion in our country. Popery is an absolute despotism. Independency is what its name implies. It is without form or order. It is not even a system. It hardly deserves to be called an ism. It is rather the prolific mother of isms. If it is any thing more than this, if it can be called a system of ecclesiastical government, then, just so far as it is any thing of this sort, it is in spirit, if not in form, one of the most thoroughpaced ecclesiastical despotisms in our country. Indeed, their people are beginning to find out that the "little finger" of these irresponsible lords brethren," is thicker than the "loins" of a well-regulated constitutional Episcopacy. Nor is it the first time that the sins of men have found them out in kind as well as in reality. At the late General Association of Connecticut, the question of admitting laymen to membership was thoroughly discussed and negatived, apparently unanimously. Episcopacy, as a mode of government, approaches more nearly than any other ecclesiastical system in this country to a constitutional republic, and is better fitted than any other existing religious system to work in perfect harmony with the genius and spirit of our free institutions.

The main argument of Professor Hodge, however, against Episcopacy, and that on which he chiefly depends, is his second position, i. e., the temporary character of the apostolic office; and this point he elaborates at considerable length. Here, of course, is the real question between us. Was there to be through all time, and has there actually been thus far in the church, an order of men succeeding to the apostles, and superior to the presbyters in the ministry of the church? Here we, and Churchmen generally, affirm; while Presbyterians deny. On this fundamental point Professor Hodge's main reliance is on the bare supposition, that if the apostolic office was to be continued, the miraculous gifts originally appertaining to that office would have been continued also. Aside from this, his whole argument is a mere petitio principii, a begging of the question. To meet this position, we cannot do better than present an argument which has already, and in a different form, though to a limited extent only, been given to the public, and which deserves to have the widest possible circulation and influence. If there is a flaw in the argument, we believe it has never yet been pointed out. Our readers will be glad to preserve it, both for the perspicuity of its statements and the irresistible force of its conclusions. They who can deny them,

* Independent for June 28, 1855.