tion and obedience. With this object in view, he made use of the following analogical mode of reasoning. "To the HighPriest (said he) were allotted his proper offices; to the Priests, their proper place was assigned; and to the Levites, their services were appointed: and the Laymen were restrained within the precepts of Laymen." But, it may be asked, what had the members of the Christian Church, to whom St. Clemens was writing, to do with the High Priest, Priests, Levites, and Laymen of the Jewish temple, but in the way of allusion. If, then, no distinctions of order had been established in the Christian Church, corresponding with those in the Jewish Temple, the analogical mode of reasoning, here addressed to the Christians at Corinth, had been totally irrelevant; and the allusion, here made use of, incapable of application. What the professor says, that St. Clemens is speaking of the Jewish Priesthood and not of the Christian Ministry, is therefore not strictly true. St. Clemens, on this occasion, is not speaking of the Jewish Priesthood, as the subject under consideration; but of the Christian Ministry, by an al

lusion to the different orders in the Jewish Priesthood; an allusion which must, it is presumed, in the judgement of all impartial persons, go a great way towards establishing that very idea, which the Professor takes every opportunity to discountenance.

But more direct evidence on this subject still remains to be adduced, of which the Professor has not thought proper to take

notice.

St. Jerom, in his Epistle to Evagrius, wrote thus: "That we may know that the Apostolic Traditions and Institutions are taken from the Old Testament, what Aaron and his sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, that the Bishops, the Presbyters, and the Deacons claim to be in the Church." The Professor having made use of the authority of St. Jerom, it may be concluded, on the supposition that he quoted from the Original, that the above passage from the same authority could not have escaped his observation. On what principle then, it

*Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento: Quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levita in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi et Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesiâ.-Jerom. Epist. ad Evagr.

may

may be asked, has it been kept back? Did the Professor think that such decisive evidence on the point at issue, might lead his pupils to a conclusion more favorable to the form of the Episcopal Church, than to the Establishment to which they were attached? If so, the reader may be led to think, that the Professor's own observation has in this case been verified in himself; that "when once the controversial spirit has gotten possession of a man, his object is no longer truth but victory."

That a Professor in the Scotch Kirk should possess a very inadequate idea respecting the Priesthood of the Christian Church, when we consider the origin to which the Scotch Kirk is to be traced up, can be no subject for surprize. That he should therefore, as far as possible, keep the office of the Priesthood out of sight, as an office which, considered in reference to the exercise of it in the Church of England, belonged not, in his opinion, to the Constitution of the Church of Christ, is what was to be expected. The Professor would not have been a faithful member of the Scotch Kirk, had he thought or written otherwise.

F

otherwise.

But the method which the Professor has taken, for the purpose of impressing the same idea of the Christian Priesthood on the minds of his disciples, which appears to have taken possession of his own, is not what was to have been expected from a person of Dr. Campbell's character and abilities.

What the Professor has said on the subject of the Priesthood, as applied to our Saviour, will readily be admitted. But because our Saviour is, in the strictest sense, our only Priest, he alone having offered up the true propitiatory sacrifice for man; does it thence follow, that the office of the Priesthood was never exercised by any other person? Such a concession operates with no less strength against the Levitical, than against the Christian Priesthood; and consequently the Professor's argument in this case, applies with equal propriety to the Jewish as to the Christian Dispensation; the Priesthood under both being equally representative. Whilst the argument which the Professor has built on the allegorical style adopted in Scripture, “wherein Christians are represented as Priests, and

the

the whole community as an holy Priesthood," to prove that the office of Priesthood, under the Evangelical Dispensation, does not exclusively belong to any particular order of men, appears to be just as convincing; as would be an argument, to prove the abolition of the exclusive office of Kings, (all members of the Christian Church being Kings as well as Priests,) grounded on that allegorical language of the Apostle; when speaking of Jesus Christ, he says, that he hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and his Father."Rev. i. 5.

To give additional strength however to the ground he has here taken, the Professor brings forward the authority of Justin Martyr. The authority of the early Fathers, if fully and fairly deduced, would be most decisive against the Professor. His appeal to them therefore we are not surprized to find very limited. And even in the appeal he occasionally does make, limited as it is, he sometimes mutilates the evidence, and thereby misrepresents the meaning of its author.

On the present occasion, the Professor

quotes