They do not greatly differ from those which confuted the opponents of the dominant party fifteen years ago. Then, the New Englander was Abolitionist, Incendiary, Disunionist. As it may not care now to be saluted as Disloyal, Secessionist, Johnsonite, Copperhead, or, more hideous than all, British Free-Trader, and cast out into the companionship of Vallandigham and Fernando Wood, we shall refrain from the financial impieties which are near our lips. But however we may choose to keep silence upon the errors or the crimes of the party under whose auspices, nevertheless, the nation was saved from death, the time is coming, we sometimes almost fancy that it now is, when the good name of that great body can no longer be made a cloak for contrivances to strangle the national life; when true men may proclaim their truths, whether economical, or political, or moral, free from bewildering fear that they may be embarrassing their country or strengthening its enemies. And if that day of emancipation shall come, it may safely be assumed that a sufficient impetus to the study of financial principles exists in the pressure of our present debts and expenditures, without the need of enhancing them so rapidly as the party now dominant seems to deem advisable. It is common to compare our public debt with those of other countries, and especially with the British, with a result which is positively humiliating to that class of statesmen who believe that "a national debt is a national blessing." But a little arithmetic will cheer such patriots into the assurance that we are not so far behind our cousins, after all. The British debt is in round numbers $4,000,000,000, which amounts, among 30,000,000 of people, to $133 a head. Our own national debt is $2,600,000,000 or only $82 a head among 32,000,000. So far, we are sadly behind. But it is overlooking a prodigious advantage to lose sight of our innumerable public debts of a kind unknown abroad. The eight hundred millions sterling is all the British debt. There are no States; counties do not exist as bodies politic; while municipal corporations are usually great proprietors, seldom or never borrowers. See, on the other hand, the rate per capita of public indebtedness of the inhabitants of a single American city, se lected merely for convenience of access to the facts. The county of Monroe, population 104,000, has a debt of $1,500,000, of which his share is The city of Rochester, population 51,000, has a debt of $1,001,000. His share of this is Making his proportion of the entire public debt, The citi$82.00 13.70 14.42 19.62 $129.74 or within $3.59 of the per capita share of the more favored British subject. Perhaps even this slight inferiority may disappear in localities with whose balance-sheets we are less acquainted. When such is the aggregate burden upon the citizen, does it not become the dominant power to consider, we do not say, whether that burden should be lavishly increased, for that topic is expressly excluded from our discussion, but, whether it can afford to collect the revenue necessary for meeting these debts and the expenses of the government in any way other than that which will produce that revenue with impartial justice and exact economy? And yet this very moment is the one chosen by those who claim to be leaders of the ruling party for casting aside every maxim, not only of frugality in the expenditure, but of equity in the levy, of the public revenue, and for enforcing, in the interest now of this and now of that class of producers, a system of spoliation of consumers, the iniquity of which is palliated, if at all, only by its universality. There have been times in history when the name of tax-gatherer concentrated all that was most atrocious in the popular mind. It was no less shameful for Jesus to consort with publicans than with harlots. When Voltaire was called upon for some story that should thrill his hearers by its compact recital of horrors, he began, "There was once a FarmerGeneral of the Revenue," and stopped; for no detail could heighten the picture which that single word suggested. We may be sure that in this country taxation cannot be so distorted into tyranny as to produce effects like these. But it may do no harm to remind the politicians, of whatever creed, who are binding heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and laying them upon men's shoulders, that endurance may be exhausted. An inhabitant of the city we have already mentioned, if he happens to own anything, will pay this year in taxes levied under State authority, besides all that he contributes in any form to the national revenue, eight per cent. upon the assessed value of his property. If he has real estate, an arbitrary undervaluation will reduce this rate to little more than three per cent. upon its actual value; if certain other possessions, they will entirely escape assessment; but if his wealth is in the form of certain evidences of debt, which the law subjects to taxation, but which cannot be assessed at less than their nominal value, the tax-gatherer will take from him the whole seven per cent. which they bring him, and one per cent. besides; unless, indeed, he ventures to counteract this public pillage by a private fraud, and withdraws his property from the knowledge of the public officers. It cannot be wrong nor unpatriotic, in the face of such facts as these, to remind the makers of our laws that, while we expect to be taxed, and heavily taxed, we object to being plundered. We are willing, every honest man is willing, to pay his just share toward the support of good government and the sustenance of the burden imposed by rebellion; but no intelligent man can consent to pay the share that belongs to another, or to pay one dollar for that purpose and another which lodges in the hands of useless officials, or is diverted into the pockets of other citizens without ever reaching the public chest. We think, and say, with Joseph Hume, that an inequitable tax "is in fact, as far as the inequality goes, a confiscation. A partial, an unequal, or an uncertain tax unsettles the security of property and paralyzes industry;" it "will diffuse a general sense of insecurity in the minds of all persons possessing property, as no one can see how far a system which violates the principle of equitable taxation may be carried; * * * * and no trouble or efforts to render the system of taxation equitable can be too great for the sake of justice." ARTICLE IV.-THE RISE OF THE EPISCOPATE AS A DISTINCT OFFICE IN THE CHURCH. THERE are two theories as to the origin of the office of Bishop, as distinct from that of Elder, in the Christian Church. One makes the office coeval with the Church, of Apostolic institution, and therefore, as it is claimed, though this is by no means a logical consequence,*-an essential part of the church organization. The other supposes an original parity in the ministry, and that the Episcopal order grew up by degrees out of the Presbyterial, after the death of the Apostles. It will be the main object of this Article, to weigh the evidence between these two views. This evidence must, from the nature of the case, be purely historical, and is to be sought in the New Testament and in the writings of the early Fathers. In the New Testament we find both the words bishop and presbyterἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος-frequently used. It is now agreed by all that these terms are there used interchangeably-being applied to the class who were afterward called presbyters only. In the Episcopalian view, the Apostles themselves at this time filled the place of bishops, the title ἐπίσκοπος not being applied to them. All agree that the Apostles did exercise a general supervision and control over the whole Church. The question is, did they appoint successors to themselves in this authority, who were to appoint their successors, and so render the office a permanent *If the Apostles did appoint bishops, why does it follow that they intended the office to be perpetual? In the latter part of this Article, we have tried to show that the Episcopal system grew up rapidly and spread widely, because it met the wants and feelings of the age in several important respects-in giving a concentration of power which the dangers from persecutions and heresies seemed to require, etc. That, under these circumstances, the generation after the Apostles established Episcopacy, seems no reason at all why that form is binding on us now and here. Suppose it was established by the contemporaries of the Apos tles-by the Apostles themselves? Did they not establish it, if at all, for the same reason for which we have supposed that their successors did-because it suited the time? We see no more evidence for its necessary permanence in this case than in the other. one-or was this authority peculiar to themselves personally, as the founders of the Church, and was their office thus to terminate with their own lives? In support of the former position, is urged the fact, which is shown by some of the New Testament epistles, that there were certain men,-Timothy, Titus, and others,-who were empowered by the Apostles to ordain elders, and in other respects exercise an authority similar to their own. This indeed proves that the exercise of these functions was not strictly confined to the thirteen Apostles. But its extension to Timothy and others may have been due to the same temporary necessity by which we account for the official position of the Apostles themselves. Besides, it is important to observe that Timothy and Titus were not local officers, as were the earliest bishops of whom we have distinct mention afterward,-but traveling missionaries. This is evident from such passages as that (2 Tim. iv. 5) where Timothy is bidden to "do the work of an evangelist”—i. e. of a traveling preacher. So it is said (Tit. i. 5), that Titus was left in Crete to "set in order the things that [were] wanting, and ordain elders in every city,"—Crete being an island 120 miles long, and thickly populated. Clearly, neither of these men was a "bishop," as the word was used in the second century. Next, the first chapters of Revelation are appealed to, on the ground that the seven angels of the seven churches must represent the bishops of those churches. This interpretation seems unnatural, as giving an unaccountable prominence to seven individuals not otherwise known. John says that he saw "One like unto the Son of Man, in the midst of seven golden candlesticks," and "having in his right hand seven stars." He is told "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches." The message proceeds, "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; these things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the, midst of the seven golden candlesticks." Is not this image of the seven stars too exalted to be referred merely to the seven men presiding over the churches? There seems no occasion in the context for this personal reference. And what is addressed to the "angels" in the second person, is applicable only to the churches themselves-" I will |