translation of the Gospels; more to support particular prejudices, and to serve, it would seem, party purposes, than to promote the general interests of Christianity.

The unsoundness of the materials, of which the Professor's foundation is composed, having now been laid open; the superstructure raised upon it may be left to its fate. Where premisses are false, the conclusion drawn from them cannot be true. The detection of the former renders therefore the disproval of the latter but a waste of time.

Thus much I have judged necessary to say, with the view of guarding those who may be strangers to the subject before us, from paying more deference to the authority of Dr. Campbell, than, on this occasion he is entitled to challenge. His publication appears to me, to contain one of the most hostile, most illiberal, and most unsupported attacks upon the Episcopacy of the Church of Christ, that ever has been made. Those who would enter more at large into his subject, from the complete satisfaction to be found, in one or other

other of the publications mentioned in the margin,* on every prominent feature of the Professor's argument; will be surprized that a man of the Professor's acknowledged abilities, should commit himself in the maintenance of points, which have been repeatedly and decidedly disproved.

But though I do not profess to follow the learned Professor through all the ground over which he has travelled; there are however two parts of his publication, which wear too strong marks of illiberality towards the Episcopal Churches of England and Scotland, to be passed over wholly unnoticed. We are prepared to

* "Dr. Maurice on Diocesan Episcopacy."-" The Principles of the Cyprianic Age, together with its Vindication against Gilbert Rule, by Bishop Sage, of the Scotch Episcopal Church. Anno. 1695."-" An Original Draught of the Primitive Church, in Answer to a Discourse entitled an Enquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primitive Church, within the first three hundred years after Christ. Anno 1717." To which may be added the excellent Review of Dr. Campbell's Ecclesiastical History, that has lately appeared in the Anti-Jacobin Numbers for February 1801, et seq.

make all due allowance for those prejudices generated by different habits of education, which lead others to an opinion different from our own on the subject of Ecclesiastical government: at the same time that we lament the existence of that difference, because it necessarily tends to the destruction of that Unity, which under God, constitutes the surest preservative of the Christian Faith. For the promotion of this Unity, that "with one heart and one mouth God" might be glorified; and Division, the parent of Heresy, prevented; the Christian Church, with its appropriate government was originally established. From the evidence furnished by the Sacred Writings and primitive practice of the Church, if fairly appreciated, it appears evident almost to demonstration, that the government of the Church of England is built on the foundation laid by the Apostles, in conformity with the directions they received. And when we consider the various divisions that unfortunately took place among Christians on subjects of inferior moment; more particularly when we advert to that notorious attempt

to

to raise the office of the Deacon above that of the Presbyter, which called forth most pointed animadversions from St. Jerom; we think it next to an impossibility, (admitting Presbyters to be of like passions with other men,) that there should not be found in the History of the Church, the least trace of any remonstrance on the part of the Presbyter, against the superior authority of his Bishop; supposing the Episcopal authority really to have been, what the Professor has studiously represented it, "an unwarrantable usurpation and encroachment on the original Presbyterian form of Church government."-But we are not reduced to the necessity of depending on this argument; on what strong ground soever it may appear to stand; being furnished with the most decisive evidence to prove, that the direction of the affairs of the Church was originally carried on by three distinct Ministers; who, according to their respective degrees of office, became, towards the end of the Apostolic age, distinguished from each other, by the appropriate titles of Bishop, Presbyter, and

Deacon;

Deacon; in conformity with a similar distinction in the Jewish Church, of High Priest, Priest, and Levite. That such a correspondence between the Jewish and Christian Church should be preserved, is what will be expected by every one who considers, that the one was designed to be the Type of the other; and that the same Divine Being was the founder of both.

It is admitted by the Professor himself, "that the outward form of Church polity, though not of the essentials of Religion, is not to be considered as a matter absolutely indifferent; for though the house in which a man lodges makes no part of his person, either of his body or his soul; one house may prove a very comfortable and convenient lodging, and another so incommodious as to be scarcely habitable. And certain it is (continues the Professor) that one model of Church government may be much better calculated for promoting the belief and obedience of the Gospel than another." P. 249. The rational conclusion from which premisses appears to be, that such model of government in this case was prescribed and adopted; it not being

to