//. "1% ,oS 
 
 Stom t^e £i6t*ari? of 
 (profeBBor ^amuef (giiffer 
 
 in (gtemori? of 
 3ubge ^amuef (gttffer (jBrecfttnrtbge 
 
 (presented 6^ 
 
 ^dmuef (ttltffer QSrecftinribge feong 
 
 fo f ^ feifirati? of 
 
 ^ sec #11,113 
 Mitchell, Patrick. 
 
 Presbyterian letters addressed to Bishop 
 Skinner of Aberdeen : on his vindication c 
 
PRESBYTERIAN LETTERS, 
 
 &c. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 BISHOP SKINNER, OF ABERDEEN, 
 
 OK HIS 
 
 YINJMCATION 
 
 OP 
 
 PRIMITIVE TRUTH AND ORDER. 
 
 TO WHICH IS PREFIXED, 
 
 a p^elimmari) Discourse 
 
 PRESENT STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING 
 ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 By PATRICK MITCHELL, D.D. 
 
 MINISTER OF KEMNAY, ABERDEENSHIRE. 
 
 " I am satisfied, that no form of polity can plead such an exclusive 
 *' charter, as the phrase jus dl'uinum in its present acceptation is under- 
 " stood to imply. The claim is clearly the offspring of sectarian higotry 
 " and ignorance." Dr. Campbell, 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED FOR J. JOHNSON, ST. PAUl's CIIURCH-YARD J 
 AND A. BROWN, ABERDEEN. 
 
 1809. 
 
J. ehalmen & Co. Printera, ? 
 Aberdien. $ 
 
ADVERTISEMETsT. 
 
 THE most violent adversaries of Presby- 
 tery, in the present times, are the Scotch Episco- 
 palians and the Independents. These two parties 
 seem to be at war with each other ; for, like the 
 Jews and Samaritans two thousand years ago, each 
 uses the name of the other as a term of reproach. — 
 But whatever mutual dislike they may appear to en- 
 tertain, they are, in reality, faithful allies. In their 
 polemical writings, they both pursue the same grand 
 objedt with equal ardor, I mean, the degradation, 
 in the public opinion, of the established religion of 
 the country ; and for the accomplishment of this 
 laudable obje6t, the very same means are employed 
 by both. Both lay claim to a.;z/.9 diviimm in favour 
 of their respedive forms of ecclesiastical polity, to 
 the entire exclusion of Presbytery ; and both found 
 their claim on the scriptures, and the writings of the 
 christian Fathers. Both afFe£t to represent the Esta- 
 blished Church as nearly allied, in several respeds, 
 
 A 3 to 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 jto the Church of Rome; and the Independents scru- 
 ple not to maintain, that our ecclesiastical poHty, for 
 the establishment of which on the ruins of anti-chris- 
 tian tyranny many of our fathers bled, and died, is 
 itself, anti-christian in its form, and tyrannical in its 
 administration. Where shall we find two sedts, 
 which appear to be on terms of hostility with each 
 other, and which yet agree so cordially in principles 
 and pradiice, as the High Church party and the Hal- 
 danites? If Mr. Hume, instead of assuming, that 
 Priests of all religions are the same, had said, that 
 bigots of all denominations are the same, whether 
 diey be Priests or not, his candor would not have 
 been so generally called in question. 
 
 But there is one point, of no inconsiderable mo» 
 ,inent, about which our potent adversaries differ in 
 opinion. High Church contends, that Presbytery 
 is too democratical in its constitution to have any 
 pretensions to a divine origin. It seems, indeed, to 
 be one of that church's theological axioms, that no 
 form of government, civil or ecclesiastical, is of God, 
 but absolute monarchy alone; an axiom, on which 
 she has, always, most religiously, formed her own 
 conduct. The modern advocates of the congrega- 
 tional scheme, on the other hand, oppose Presbytery 
 on the ground, that it is aristocratic at in its consti- 
 tution, and despotic in its administration ; for, accor- 
 ding to this party, no ecclesiastical government has 
 the sandion of scripture, but the government of the 
 mob, or sovereign people. 
 
 Be 
 
(7) 
 
 Between High Church and the Haldanites, we are 
 placed in the unfortunate situation of Procrustes' 
 captives, and must be destroyed, whether we be long 
 or shorty whether our constitution be democratic or 
 aristocratical. In this dilemma, which is sufficiently 
 perplexing, our spirits are not a little supported by 
 the obvious consideration, that, though our two re- 
 doubtable adversaries both assert with equal bold- 
 ness and confidence, they cannot both be in the 
 right, and that, therefore, it is at least possible, that 
 they are both in the wrong. 
 
 It is the bold assertions and lofty claims of one of 
 them, only, that I mean to oppose in the following 
 pages. 
 
 But, though I have given my Epistles to Bishop 
 Skinner the title of Presbyteinan Letters, it is very 
 far from being my intention to imitate our adversa- 
 ries, by claiming apostolic honours for Presbytery, 
 as it is established in Scotland. I leave ihejus divi- 
 num to be scrambled for by senseless and arrogant 
 bigots of all denominations, praying heaven to send 
 them, in its own good time, a Httle more judgment 
 and candor, and a reasonable portion of humility, 
 
 I am sensible that scarcely any thing iieiv can be 
 suggested, on the subje<5t of controversy between 
 the deceased Author of Lectures on Ecclesiastical 
 History^ and his posthumous adversaries. I have 
 therefore confined myself to the few stridures on 
 
 A 4 the 
 
(8) 
 
 the present state of the controversy, which will be 
 found in what I have called The Preliminary Dis- 
 course. 
 
 I am sorry to observe that High Church, a Very 
 ancient Lady by her own account ! exhibits strong 
 symptoms of that peevish fretfulness and irritability, 
 which are sometimes seen to attend old age^ and the 
 decline of our faculties^ and that the more candor 
 and forbearance she experiences from her adversa- 
 ries, the more her courage rises, and the more blus- 
 tering and overbearing she becomes. I feel a degree 
 of veneration almost oriental for hoary hairs. But 
 I feel no reverence for bad temper and malevolence 
 at any stage of life. Hence I am nowise sparing in 
 the use of the figure, which the Greeks called Parr- 
 hesia, in my exposrulation with the Vindicator of 
 Primitive Truth • and Order^ concerning the pidure, 
 which that Prelate has, in defence of the orders of 
 his own churchy been pleased to exhibit to the world, 
 of his Presbyterian countrymen in general, and of 
 the deceased Author of Lectures on Eccksiastical 
 History in particular. This expostulation is the sub- 
 ject of the First Part of Presbyterian Letters. 
 
 The Lecturer's opponents are pleased to call the 
 small body of Scottish dissenters, whose orders and 
 ecclesiastical polity they defend. The Scotch Episco- 
 ■pal Churchy while the Primate of this same Scotch 
 Episcopal Church honours Presbytery with the de- 
 signation, not of the Estahliihed Church, but of the 
 
 E>:^ 
 
(9) 
 
 Esfablishmeiif^ thus unchurching all the Inhabitants 
 of this land, excepting only his own little party ^ which 
 alone, it would seem, is the church of Christ in Scot- 
 land ! The high pretensions of this small number of 
 the elect are built, not merely on the divine institu- 
 tion of their ecclesiastical polity, but also on the ca- 
 nonical derivation of the ecclesiastical authority of 
 their clergy. This suggested the propriety of an 
 humble enquiry into the validih/ of the orders of the 
 Scotch Episcopal Church on its own princip:e-^ which 
 is attempted in Part 11. of the following Letters. 
 
 CON- 
 
COJVTEJYTS. 
 
 PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE 
 
 Page. 
 THE advocates of Diocesan Episcopacy have 
 not demonstrated the unrivalled excellence of that plan of 
 ecclesiastical polity, 1 
 
 But the controversy between High Church and her op- 
 ponents turns on a matter of fact, ........ 28 
 
 What testimony can prove this fact, 32 
 
 In their interpretation of scripture, and of the writings 
 of the apostolic Fathers, the advocates of proper Episco- 
 pacy are at variance among themselves, 35 
 
 Their doctrine of the necessity of a hierarchy to salva- 
 tion is not reconcileable with the general principles and fun- 
 damental doctrines of the christian religion, and derives no 
 support from the particular passages to which they refer, 42 
 
 The doctrine itself, in reality, given up by the most stre- 
 puous advocates of the hierarchy, who make several con- 
 cessions entirely subversive of it, 48 
 
 Supposing that the mode of church government adopted 
 by the apostles could be precisely ascertained, it would 
 
 not 
 
12 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page, 
 not follow that all christians are bound to adopt it, unless 
 
 it were prescribed to all, 68 
 
 High Church obstinately perseveres in confounding the 
 divine model, that was set in the church for the propaga- 
 tion of Christianity, with the apostolical model, which was 
 adopted for the transmission of the gospel to future ages, 72 
 
 The case of the apocalyptic angels considered, , . . 75 
 
 Perfect parity established among the apostles, ... 79 
 
 The case of James, called the first Bishop of Jerusalem, 80 
 
 It does not appear that, in apostolic times, any order of 
 ecclesiastics exercised dominion over another, .... 83 
 
 High Church's selection of standing orders from 1 Cor. xii. 85 
 Parochial Episcopacy shewn by the Lecturer, and admit- 
 ted by some of his opponents, to have preceded Diocesan 
 Episcopacy in the church, . . . . , 93 
 
 The chicane by which the Lecturer's opponents endea- 
 vour to overthrow his scheme of Parochial Episcopacy ex- 
 amined, and freely commented on, ....... 100 
 
 €0N^ 
 
COJVTEJ^TS. 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN LETTERS, 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Page, 
 OUR obligations to Bishop Skinner acknow- 
 ledged, for the distinct enumeration of some important 
 facts and doctrines, not generally known to christians, who 
 
 are not of Mr. Hutchinson's school, 113 
 
 The character, which the Bishop publishes of his coun- 
 trymen, whom he calls infidels and hypocrites, considered, 121 
 
 The account he gives of our ecclesiastical judicatories, 
 and of the authority of our mininisters examined, . . 131 
 
 General purpose of our remarks on the account that Bi- 
 shop Skinner has published of Dr. Campbell, . . . 139 
 
 The Bishop accuses our Lecturer, 1, of hypocrisy, which 
 in the Lecturer's case, consisted in hating Presbytery, 
 while he was bigottedlj^ attached to it, - 143 
 
 The Lecturer charged, 2, with Popery, to which all 
 
 Presbyterians are inclined, # 143 
 
 The 
 
I4f CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 The Lecturer charged, 3, with bitter animosity to the 
 
 Church of England, 145 
 
 The Lecturer accused, 4, of impiety, 148 
 
 o, of too great regard to infidels, 149 
 
 6, of indelicacy, or obscenity, 154 
 
 7, of duplicity, 167 
 
 8, of misquotation, misinterpre- 
 tation, misrepresentation, un- 
 founded invective, and false- 
 hood, . , 161 
 
 9, of plagiarism, 164 
 
 10, of vulgarity of abuse, . . 167 
 
 11, of having taught his pupils 
 what he knew he could not 
 defend, 176 
 
 The Lecturer acknowledged, after all, to have been a 
 man of great personal worth, of unsulHed purity of morals, 
 and of an amiable temper ! 177- 
 
 Some inferences deduced from this acknowledgement, 178 
 
COJfTEJ^TS. 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN LETTERS, 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Page 
 HIGH Church's doctrine of the uninterrupted suc- 
 cession unexampled, save in Abyssinia ; its connexion with 
 the efficacy of the means of salvation never mentioned in holy 
 writ, either explicitly, or by implication, and totally unknown 
 in primitive times, 186 
 
 Bishop Skinner produces no registers, and no historical re- 
 cords of any kind, in proof of his lineal descent from the apostles 192 
 
 He thinks this want supplied by what he calls " a clear sa- 
 *' tisfactory train of reasoning," 193 
 
 This " train of reasoning" produced and commented on, 194 
 
 Canons relating to ordination, 201 
 
 Those canons have been frequently violated. 
 
 L Many Bishops not consecrated by two or ntore Bishops, . 208 
 
 2. Many Bishops not ordained by imposition of hands ; and 
 the doctrine on which that rite is founded, not always equally 
 believed, . . 218 
 
 3. Many Bishops in the churcli not episcopally baptized, 222 
 
 4. Many Bishops lay under canonical incapacities, and there- 
 fore could not transmit the Episcopal succession, 224 
 
 5. Many 
 
16 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 5. Many Bishops not duly elected, and therefore no Bishops, 236 
 
 6. Many Bishops, having climbed into Episcopal thrones by 
 (he influence of prostitutes, by Simony, and other uncanonical 
 means, therefore were not in the apostolic succession, . . . 250 
 
 7. Many Bishops ordained into a full see ; and several schisms 
 in the papacy, which have disordered the succession in all parts 
 
 of the western church, 262 
 
 Bishop Skinner rests the proof of his unbroken Episcopal suc- 
 cession on the incorruptible chastity of the Jewish High Priests* 
 wives, during the subsistence of the Mosaic economy, . . . 266 
 
 The Episcopal succession failed entirely and indisputably in 
 England, in the time of Henry VIII 274 
 
 As the temporal sovereigns, at that time, became the source 
 ©f all Episcopal authority, the deprived Bishops, after the Revo- 
 lution, were no longer Bishops, till they were elected to the 
 charge of particular dioceses. A little expostulation with Mr. 
 Daub'^ny on this subject, 281 
 
 The Episcopal succe«sion having failed in England at the Re- 
 formation, could not be thence transmitted to Scotland in I6l0, 
 nor at any time thereafter. The Scottish Bishops of 1610 shewn 
 to be, on Scotch Episcopal principles, incapable of consecration, 296 
 
 The succession in Scotland, which High Church calls, face- 
 tiously, Episcopal succession, having failed during the civil 
 wars, was not restored in 1661, 301 
 
 It failed once more after the Revolution, since which time, 
 no measures, that have the least pretensions to be accounted 
 canonical, have been resorted to for restoring it. High Church's 
 reasoning, in answer to Dr. Campbell on this subject, shewn to 
 be both inconclusive and ridiculous, 308 
 
 The spirit and tendency of Bishop Skinner's Vindication of 
 Primitive Truth and Order freely examined, and shewn to be 
 unfavoura,ble tp the siiccess of revealed religion, . . . » . 381 
 
 PRE- 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. 
 
 >6®©®®6*< 
 
 JLn ftudying the controverfy between the advocates o£ 
 the hierarchy and their opponents, one cannot help obferv- 
 ing, with fome degree of furprize, that when High Church 
 touches on the expediency of her ecclefiaftical model, it is 
 with evident reludlance, and great referve. Even the limi- 
 ted faculties of man can difcover the wifdom of many parts 
 of the Divine plan of redemption. Why, then, does not High 
 Church inftru£t us clearly and fully in the caufes and grounds 
 of that fuperiority in point of excellence, which renders a 
 hierarchy preferable to every other form of Ecclefiaftical 
 Government ? The fuperior excellence of any fcheme o£ 
 church polity muft, I prefume, refult from its fuperior ef- 
 ficacy in promoting the great end of the chriftian religion, 
 the fan6lification of the fouls of men ; or, at leaft, from 
 its manifeftly unrivalled tendency to promote that impor- 
 tant end. But, in what refpeds, and for what reafons, 
 Epifcopacy is peculiarly fuited to make chriftians zealous of 
 ^ood ivorks^ its advocates have not, as yet, diftindly inform- 
 ed us. What particular clerical gift is conveyed to a pref- 
 byter by tfee laying on of the hands of a Bifhop, which the 
 laying on of the hands of a Prefbytcry cannot convey ? Is 
 the Epifcopal gift different from the other in kindi or is 
 it only fuperior in degree ? Does it take pofleflion of the 
 
 B man's 
 
18 PRELIMINARY 
 
 man's head, and guide him, without the labour of much flu- 
 dy, unto all neceifary truth, and infpire a divine eloquence in 
 preaching Chrift crucified ? Does the perfon ordained by a 
 Bifiiop find himfelf endowed with more of the graces of the 
 Spirit, with more profound knowledge of the Chriftian 
 doctrine, or with greater talents for communicating that 
 knowledge, than the fame perfon would do, if he were or- 
 dained by a Prefbytery ? Or does the whole virtue of the 
 gift, conferred by the laying on of the hands of a Bi{hop, 
 confift in the efhcacy which it gives to the miniftrations of 
 the perfon who receives it? How, then, does it operate to the 
 fan£lification of the word and ordinances, to the people a- 
 mong whom he minifters ? Do we obferve a manifeft fupe- 
 riority in the efFecls produced by the miniftrations of thofe 
 who were Epifcopaliy ordained ? Do we learn from experi- 
 ence, that, when the facraments are adminiftered, and the 
 word preached, by thofe who have not received the Epif- 
 copal gift, God withholdeth the increafe ? There are fome 
 paflages in the New Teftament, which would lead a perfon 
 of ordinary underftanding, who wlflies for all poflible fecu- 
 rity in the choice of his religious teacher, to confider the 
 effects produced by the teaching as the principal, if not the 
 fole, criterion of the value of the gift, of which the teacher 
 pretends to be poflefled. " By their fruits ye fhall know 
 ** them," fays our Lord concerning religious teachers. But 
 this is a teft, which is too eafily underftood and applied ;. 
 and for that reafon, probably, it is overlooked by the advo- 
 cates of " the facred hierarchy." Yet, if they would condef- 
 cend to give us any reafons at all for the fuperiority, in 
 point of excellence, which they afcribe to their own eccle- 
 fiaftical polity ; I mean, reafons that we can, in any mea- 
 fure, comprehend, it would be fome fatisfa6i:ion to us. — 
 But perhaps there may be fome myftery here, bearing this 
 infcription, «* Odi profanum yulgus et arceo." I have heard 
 
 that 
 
DISCOURSE. 19 
 
 that when the Pope officiates at high mafs in St. Peter's, the 
 efficacy of that magnificent aft of devotion depends much 
 on the changing of his Holinefs' flippers at certain parts of 
 the fervice ; and we all know how eflential it once was to 
 the falvation of chriftians, both in the Wed and in the 
 Eaft, that the clergy fhould fubmit to the canonical tonfure, 
 which reprefents the crown of thorns. But the railonaky in 
 toth cafes, is kept, to this day, a profound fecret by the 
 initiated ; and fo alfo is that of the unrivalled efficacy of 
 the word and facraments, under the miniftry of a Biffiop or 
 Prieft of High Church. If the advocates of the hierarchy 
 would only be pleafed to demonftrate, that the divine mo- 
 del of an Epifcopal Church, and the x'*^i<rfcx. which is tranf- 
 mitted to its clergy from the apoftles, render the fanftifica- 
 tion of the fouls of men unneceflary, by faving them with- 
 out fanftification, we fhould then ceafe to interrogate 
 them concerning the caufes of the unparalleled efficacy of 
 thofe means of grace, and, acknowledging that they are me^ 
 chanical hrftruments of falvation, of fupreme excellence, 
 like Noah's ark, or a modern life-boat, we fhould fay no 
 more about the matter. 
 
 " But," fays the Vindicator of Primitive Truth and Or- 
 der,* " is not the happy tendency of a hierarchy in the 
 " church difcoverable, without much refearch, by all man- 
 *'' kind } Is it not, in particular, a thing fo plain, that it 
 ** needs no proof, and therefore I have not been at the trou- 
 «' ble of proving it, that Epifcopacy is the guard of chrifti" 
 " an unity, and therefore the bond of peace .'"* 
 
 What does the Right Reverend Gentleman mean by 
 
 unity .' Is it that union of hearts, which refults from the 
 
 general prevalence of chvlftian charity, and which leads the 
 
 B 2 follower* 
 
 * Pages 468, 501. 
 
20 PRELIMINARY 
 
 followers of Chrlft to realize, in their difpofitions and con- 
 du6l toward one another, the beautiful defcription of the 
 blefTed efFeds of Love, which the writings of St. Paul pre- 
 fent to us?* Not at all. Of all conceivable kinds of unity, 
 this is what the Bi(hop feems to value the lead j for he re- 
 bukes Doctor Campbell for the regard that he betrays for it 
 in his Leciures, telling all the world, in terms of fovereign 
 contempt for the judgment of the Lecturer, that " the 
 " wounding of charity is his unceafing cry."f 
 
 If I underfland our Vindicator's multiplication of words 
 on the Church, on Charity, and on Schismjl^ he means to 
 teach us, that charity cannot exift among chriftians, who 
 are not all of the fame church, and do not fee every thing 
 connected with religion, with precifely the fame eyes. — 
 According to him, the evil of fchifm does not fo much con- 
 fift in its I" wounding of charity," and thus educating 
 chriftians for the future fociety of none but malicious fpi- 
 rits, as in its dividing of them about modes and forms, and 
 fending one to the church, and another to a conventicle ; 
 one to a Biihop, with his Priefts and Deacons, and another 
 to " a Parfon and his Elders." By unity, therefore, I ap- 
 prehend, he means uniformity in doctrine and worlhip, go- 
 vernment and difcipline, — that fort of unity, which the fa- 
 mous Bartholomew A6t was moft wifely intended to efta- 
 blifh. And if fo, I muft requeft his attention to a fact, 
 which, in the ardour of his zeal againft fchifm, he feems 
 to have quite overlooked — I mean, that from the beginning 
 to this hour, there never was unity among chriftians upon 
 earth. The Apoftles themfelves were not " all of one 
 " mind,'' upon all fubjects, and at all times ; for Paul with- 
 ftood Peter to the face, on a point of greater moment, || than 
 
 many 
 
 '^' 1 Cor; xiii. f Yindicat. p. 434. ± Id, p.p. 434, 435, et seqq. 
 II GaU ii. 10. 
 
DISCOURSE. 21 
 
 many of thofe fubjects of difputatlon, which, after their 
 day, were fufficient to fet the world on flame* At the on- 
 ly great convention of Chriftians, that could ever fay with 
 truth, " It feemed good to the Holy Ghofl: and to us,'' we 
 are exprefsly told,* that there was much difputing ; which is 
 a prefumption, that when the deliberation upon the quef- 
 tion from Antioch began, they were not quite unanimous. 
 And who does not know, that when Chriftians were a fmali 
 body in comparifon of the infidels around them every where; 
 when they were all alike expofed to perfecution for their 
 common faith, and when the Apoftles were fet over them 
 wFth at leaft Epifcopal authority, there were fchifms and 
 herefies, that is, divifions and fects, among them ? — Epif- 
 copacy the guard of unity ! Did not that form of ecclefiaf- 
 tical polity prevail univerfally, before the firft of the CEcu- 
 menical Councils was convened? What made it neceflary to 
 convene thofe great affemblies, which, by the way, gene- 
 rally aggravated the diforders which they were called to 
 cure ? Was it not herefies and fchifms, which Epifcopacy 
 could neither prevent nor fupprefs ? Nay, is it not well 
 known, that contefts among ambitious churchmen about 
 dignified ftations in the hierarchy, gave rife to herefies and 
 fchifms, and fometimes to mafTacres, and to whatever was 
 moft fuited to bring difgrace on the clerical character, and 
 the chriftian name ? 
 
 The moft perfe£l: chriftian hierarchy, the moft vigorous 
 facerdotal monarchy that the world ever faw, is the Papal 
 Supremacy. And yet even this monftrous power was ne- 
 ver able to « guard unity," no, not when prieftly domina- 
 tion was fupported by the moft potent auxiliaries of fpiri. 
 tual tyranny, ignorance, fuperftition, and barbarifm. 
 
 B3 How 
 
 * Acts XV. 7. 
 
22 PRELIMINARY 
 
 How has Epifcopacy fucceeded as a guard of uniformity 
 in England ? In no country in the Chriftian world, except- 
 ing Ireland, does the number of dilTenters bear a higher 
 proportion to the fens of the church ; they have multiplied, 
 as it were, in mockery of the eftablifhed hierarchy, the all- 
 powerful guard of unity. To what is this to be imputed ? 
 To the inefficacy of all forms of ecclefiaflical government 
 for the purpofe of preferving uniformity, and to the proud 
 intolerance of Epifcopacy in the reigns of Elizabeth, and the 
 Houfe of Stuart. The church clamoured for entire unifor- 
 mity j it was liftened to by the fecular power •, and true 
 chriftian unity was deftroyed. The great Lord Bacon pro- 
 phefied to his fovereign (James VI.) that the firft violent 
 attempt that fhould be made to eftablifli uniformity, would 
 prove fatal to unity, and rend the church in pieces ; and 
 the prediction was fignally verified in the reign of that 
 prince's grandfon, when two thoufand minifters, and the 
 greater number of their people along with them, were dri- 
 ven out of the church " at one fell fwoop." 
 
 "Who does not know, that High Church and Low Church 
 at prefent divide between them the Epifcopal Bench, and 
 the whole body of the Clergy and Laity ? What an edifying 
 pattern of unanimity and divine concord did the two Houfes 
 of Convocation exhibit to the people, while thofe venerable 
 afTemblies were, for the punilhment of their fins, allowed 
 to meet .? And how pleafing a contemplation to every chrif- 
 ftian heart, is the controverfy at prefent carried on, with 
 exemplary meeknefs and candour, between the Arminian 
 and Calviniftic interpreters of the Thirty-nine Articles F 
 
 As for Scotch Epifcopacy, which has little elfe to do but 
 to " guard unity," and fpeak and v/rite againft herefy and 
 fchifm, it cannot fecure the orthodoxy even of all its cler- 
 gy 
 
DISCOURSE. 23 
 
 gy, who are not all of one mind on fome articles of faith, 
 about which the greater number of Chriftians are agreed. 
 
 But, in truth, to fpeak of afjy fcheme of ecclefiaftical go- 
 vernment as " the guard of unity," in Bifhop Skinner's 
 fenfe of the word, is to fpeak unreafonably. Whence has 
 the Biftiop difcovered it to be the will of God, that all his 
 rational creatures fhould be of one mind concerning every 
 thing elTential and not eiTential in religion? concerning 
 ^very thing clearly and fully, and every thing partially and 
 obfcurely revealed ? Has their Creator given to them all the 
 fame conftitution both of body and mind, and the fame ta- 
 lents and opportunities ? Has he placed them all in precife- 
 ly the fame fituation in every refpeft ? Did he intend that, 
 in what concerns religion alone, collifion of fentiment 
 {liould not give occafion to inquiry and difcuffion, and that 
 there (hould be no fcope for the exercife of humility and 
 candor, and mutual forbearance ?*" So long as there fliall 
 continue to be variety of mind, of talents, of education, of 
 circumflances and fituation, among mankind, fo long will 
 there be difference of opinion in religion, as well as in 
 philofophy and politics, and in every thing elfe that is a 
 fubjedl of human fpeculation. This is the law of our na- 
 ture, and of our condition ; and no ecclefiaftical polity can 
 fufpend its operation for a fingle day. 
 
 And what are thofe tremendous evils, which necejfarily flow 
 from diverfity of religious opinions, and profefHons, and 
 juflify the Vwdicator of Primitive Truth and Order, in call- 
 ing it " one of the heaviejl calamities with which mankind 
 " have ever been vifited ?'*f For my part, I cannot think it 
 quite fo heavy a calamity as the Fall, which " brought 
 \ <« death 
 
 / 
 * See 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. t Page 7. 
 
24) PRELIMINARY 
 
 ** death into the world and all our woe/* or as the idolatry 
 which once overfpread the whole earth, fave one little cor- 
 ner ; or as the fplritual ufurpation and defpotifm of the 
 Pope, or 33 the ignorance of the dark ages, or even as the 
 late triumphs of Atheifm on the Continent of Europe. I 
 acknowledge, indeed, that as the Vindicator fays * in the 
 forrow of his heart, the endlefs variety of religious profef- 
 fions puzzles one to find names for them all. This, it muft 
 be confefTed, is a hardfhip, to thofe, efpecially, who have 
 not learned what this means, " What is that to t/:ee ? fol- 
 *' low thou me." But it happens, very fortunately, that 
 our falvation in no meafure depends on our finding names 
 for all the religious profeffions that ftart up around us. — 
 Hence, if new feds are not at the trouble of finding names 
 for themfelves, even let them be '* fedls without a name." 
 Thus we get pretty eafily over one of the evils arifing from 
 diverfity of religious opinions. Our Vindicator^ however, 
 calls our attention to another evil, which is a little more 
 ferious. According to him, " the dangerous and deadly 
 *« thing called Schifm is a cutting off, or feparating, from 
 *« that ecclefiafl:ical body, of which Chrift is the Head, and 
 <« therefore incurs a deprivation of that nourifhment and 
 *< flrength, which he affords to all his faithful members.""t 
 Really ? This Is fufficiently alarming to all who are not of the 
 true Church in Scotland j for it implies, that they have placed 
 themfelves in fuch an unfortunate fituation, with refpe£t 
 to the Divine Head of the church univerfal, that it is not 
 even in his power to convey to them that fpiritual nourlfh- 
 ment and ftrength, of which they ftand in need ! Nay, it 
 is alarming to all chriftians under the' fun, fave only thofe 
 who adhere to the church of which Chrift is the Head ; and 
 what or where that one church is, has not yet been dcter- 
 inined, nor is there any general confent upon the matter. As 
 
 tg 
 f Vindication, p. 463. f Page 44Q. 
 
DISCOURSE. 25 
 
 10 the Proteftant churches, it is certain, that they are all, 
 without exception, fchifmatical *, and Bifhop Skinner is, 
 « by the grace of God," primate of a church, which is a 
 fchifmatic;of fchifmatics ; for it feparated from usy after we 
 had feparated from Rome. Can any " cutting off or fepa- 
 " ration" be more complete, than that which took place at 
 the Reformation, when fo many nations obeyed the voice 
 from on high, " Come out of her, my people ?" Hence, I 
 apprehend, our Vindicator will be obliged to admit one or 
 other of the pofitions which follow : either there was no 
 church, of which Chrift was the Head, in the Weft of Eu- 
 rope, for many centuries before the reformation ; or, all 
 proteftants are in fuch a ftate of fchifm, as " deprives them 
 " of the nourifliment and ftrength, which Chrift affords 
 « to all his faithful members j" or, finally, his own defi- 
 nition of fchifm is all nonfenfe. We (hall fee afterwards, 
 that the Bifhop's argument in fupport of the validity of his 
 orders is as much concerned as the falvation of his foul, in 
 his admitting of the laft of thefe pofitions, to the exclufion 
 of the other two. Let me add, that his character as a Bibli- 
 cal Critic would, by no means, have fuffered in the public 
 efteem, by the entire fupprefiion of his explanation of the 
 fcriptural fenfe of the word Schifm. Has he produced a 
 fingle paffage of the New Teftament, in which it occurs, 
 in the horrid fenfe that he impofes upon it,— a fenfe, in 
 which it renders the hope of falvation, through Jefus 
 Chrift, precarious and uncertain to all chriftians equally, be 
 their attainments in faith and righteoufnefs what they may ? 
 Not one ! But I readily cxcufe this. No fuch paffage is 
 to be found. 
 
 The horror which feems to be excited in the breafts of 
 fome churchmen of all profeffions, by " diverfity of reiigi- 
 " ous opinions," or what they call Schifm, cannot, in my 
 
 opinion, 
 
26 PRELIiMINARY 
 
 opinion, be accounted for on any principle that is reputable 
 to the clerical character. To a liberal and truly chriftian 
 mind, diverfity of opinions and profeflions in religion, pre- 
 fents a contemplation not lefs pleafing, than the beautiful 
 variety which adorns the face of nature in the material 
 world. Why is a dull monotonous uniformity of fentiment 
 on a fubje£l: of deep and univerfal concern, to be preferred 
 to that variety of opinions, which ever did, and ever will, 
 prevail among mankind ? Why fhould diverfity of fenti- 
 ments in religion give difpleafure to any human being? Ba- 
 nifti pride and bigotry from the hearts of Chriftians, and 
 efpecially of the clergy, of all denominations, and that di- 
 verfity of opinions, which Biihop Skinner deplores as 
 *< one of the heavieft calamities'* that ever befel mankind, 
 would be, not merely one of the moft harmlefs things in the 
 world, but a fource of much good. But, at any rate, the 
 mind of man fcorns all the reftraints, that any fcheme of 
 ecclefiaftical government can impofe upon it ; and in fpite 
 of Epifcopacy, or even Popery, there has ever been " diver- 
 *« fity of religious opinions" among Chriftians, and there 
 will be to the end of the world. 
 
 It is, I fufpe£l:^ in jeft, that a late ingenious dignitary of 
 the Church of England,* mentions it as one of the advanta- 
 ges of a hierarchy in the church, that it furnifties fuitable 
 companions from among the clergy, to chriftians of all 
 ranks and conditions in human life. If there be much in 
 this, fociety in general, wherever proper Epifcopacy is ef- 
 tablifned, (hould be diftinguiflied by peculiar fandity of 
 manners. But what fays experience ? Do you perceive, 
 when you pafs the Tweed, and turn your back on this 
 country of poor presbyterian parity, that you breathe a 
 purer and more devout air, with whatever ranks of men 
 
 you 
 * Archdeacon Paley. 
 
DISCOURSE. 27 
 
 you aflbciate, than you breathed at home ? The chance 
 is, that, if the clergy be much in the world, they will be- 
 come like their ordinary companions, rather than that their 
 ordinary companions will become what the clergy ought to 
 be. " There fhall be like people, like prieft."* But, in 
 reality, it is the livings of the clergy, and not their ecclefi- 
 aftical degrees, that make them *« worfhipful company" for 
 the different orders of fociety. Give a prieft fome thoufands 
 a-year, and he is admiflible into the higheft circles, as well 
 as a bifhop. Give him fuch a paltry provifion, as fome of 
 the Englifli inferior clergy are condemned to ftarvc upon, 
 and no genteel perfon can be fuppofcd to know him. And 
 it is by no means clear, that the nearer the loweft ranks 
 approach to their clergyman in point of worldly circum- 
 ftances, they will be the more edified by his converfation, 
 efpecially in an age and country, wherein ivealth is almoft 
 univerfally idolized. 
 
 I recolle£t nothing farther that has been urged in illuftra- 
 tion of the unrivalled excellence of Epifcopacy as a plan of 
 ecclefiaftical polity, but what regards chiefly, if not folely, 
 the comfort of the minifters of religion. Bifhop Skinner 
 has informed us, after Hooker, that it is a great encourage- 
 ment to the inferior clergy, <' that they can look up for 
 <* prote<Slion to their biftiops from the intolerable contempts 
 " and indignities of the people." But, where there are no 
 inferior clergy, as in the Church of Scotland, they can need 
 no protection. But do the inferior clergy in an Eplfcopal 
 Church really meet with " intolerable contempts and in- 
 *' dignities," merely becaufe they are inferior clergy ? This 
 is one of the bed reafons that can be conceived for ahoUJlnng 
 the feveral orders of inferior clergy (as being placed in fuch 
 an unfortunate fituation, that they can neither enjoy pri- 
 vate 
 * Hos. iv, 9. 
 
28 PRELIMINARY 
 
 vate comfort, nor be of any public utility), and for efta- 
 blifhing all the minifters of religion on the fame footing of 
 parity, on which our Lord's apoftles were placed. If they 
 meet with thofe " contempts and indignities," which the 
 union of vice and poverty is fuited to incur, not purely on 
 account of the inferiority of their ftation, but chiefly for 
 the worthleflhefs of their characters, they well deferve 
 them ; and their bifhops a61: as the enemies of religion and 
 of mankind, when they afford them protection. Let it be 
 obferved, that, in a prefbyterian church, the ecclefiaftical 
 judicatories afford as effeClual protection and fupport to a 
 miniller in the faithful difcharge of his duty, as can be af- 
 forded by the molt potent dignitary in a hierarchy. And 
 " for the maintenance of ecclefiaftical order and difcipline," 
 efpecially in what regards the good conduCt of the parochial 
 clergy, " and the fupport of that mutual harmony and 
 <« good will, which ought ever to fubfift between paftor 
 <« people," our judicatories, in cafe of complaints, are as 
 acceffible as a bifliop, and as powerful too. [Aj 
 
 To Archdeacon Paley's remark, that a hierarchy gives a 
 dignity to the miniftry itfelf, and the clergy (hare in the re- 
 fpeCt paid to their fuperiors, I beg leave to anfwer, with 
 Cowper the poet ; " The dignity a parfon derives from the 
 " lawn fleeves, and the fquare cap of his diocefan, will 
 « never endanger his humility.'* 
 
 § 2. But it may be urged, that we are not warranted to 
 rejeCt Epifcopacy, merely becaufe lue cannot difcover the 
 fuperior utility of that ecclefiaftical model. This I readily 
 admit. There are fome thing* in creation, whofe final 
 caufes have not yet been developed by man ; but we are 
 not hence warranted to deny that they are the work of an 
 
 infinitely 
 £A] See Notes. 
 
DISCOURSE. 29 
 
 infinitely wife Being, or to pronounce them altogether 
 ufelefs. If, then, it can be proved, that Epifcopacy is of 
 divine inftitution, our rejection of it would be abfolutely 
 without excufe ; although we ftiould never, in time, difco- 
 ver that it is good for any thing. Jefus Chrift, who pur- 
 chafed his church with his own blood, had an unqueftion- 
 able title, to prefcribe the form of its government, without 
 inftrucSting us in the reafons on which he acted ; and we 
 may well believe, that what He prefcribed is the fitted for 
 us, and the beft. The controverfy, then, between High 
 Church and us, turns on a matter of fa61:, which can be 
 afcertained by credible teftimony only. Behold the jugulum 
 caufr. Now, what teftimony is credible, what teftimony 
 is decifive, but that of Holy Writ ? No man fhall ever per- 
 fuade me to believe, that what is not to be found in fcrip-. 
 ture as a condition of falvation, is one of the terms of ac- 
 ceptance with God, through Jefus Chrift. If I were to be 
 convinced by reafoning, that any one condition of falvation 
 is either omitted by the facred penmen, or fo darkly reveal- 
 ed, that it is difcoverable by the learned only, after long 
 and deep refearch into the chriftian antiquities, I muft ceafe 
 to be a chriftian the moment after. Did not our Lord him- 
 felf thank his Father, who had hidden the myfteries of the 
 kingdom from the wife and prudent ^ and revealed them unto 
 lobes ? If I can depend on any dedu£lion of reafon, I am 
 fure that the fame goodnefs, which difpofed the Father of 
 mercies to make known his will to his ignorant and bewil- 
 dered creatures, muft certainly difpofe him to reveal it both 
 fully and clearly. Nay, the fcrlptures profefs to be zfull and 
 clear revelation of the will of God for the falvation of men. 
 What then fhall we think of them, if, notwithftanding all 
 this, it can be proved, that " they nowhere mention in 
 " exprefs and pofitive terms," one of the eflentiai condi- 
 tions of our acceptance with God ? Nay, that they do not 
 
 fo 
 
to PRELIMINARY 
 
 fo much as delineate the form " of that fociety, which was 
 " founded by the Son of God for the falvation of mankind ?" 
 Can I, after this, believe one fentence that they contain ? 
 If they contradi£l: themfelves on a fubje£t of ineffable im- 
 portance, (hall 1 be brought into judgment for rejecting 
 their teftimony on every thing elfe ? I cannot do otherwife. 
 I am obliged, by the very conftitution of that nature which 
 God hath given me, to diftruft, on all fubje£ls, the tefti- 
 mony of the perfon who has deceived me on cne. 
 
 It is, then, with me, and I fuppofe with every rational 
 chriftian, a fundamental principle, that the fcriptures re- 
 veal whatfoever it is neccffary for us to believe, and to do, 
 that we may inherit eternal life, and that they reveal it 
 clearly ; for, otherwife, it would be no revelation, any more 
 than the dark and ambiguous refponfes of the Delphic Ora- 
 cle. The Church of Rome contends, that Holy Writ is il- 
 luftrated, and its defe£ls fupplied, by Tradition ; and fome 
 of the Proteftant advocates of the hierarchy feem to agree 
 with that church, in as far, at leaft, as the divine inftitu- 
 tion of Epifcopacy is concerned.* But I have given my 
 reafons for differing from both. 
 
 In regard to fuch of the fathers, whofe writings are ac- 
 knowledged by all to be unadulterated, I have no objedion 
 to admit their teftimony concerning the external form of 
 the church, or any thing elfe, which they relate as what 
 they Jaw. As for their opinions upon controverted fub- 
 je61:s, I pay the fame refpeft to them, that I pay to the 
 opinions of other uninfpired men of equal judgment and 
 candour. When they report alleged fa(9:s, which they heard 
 fram others, I refledl, that they were as liable to be mifin- 
 
 formed? 
 
 ■■^ See Vindicat. p. 210. 
 
DISCOURSE. 31 
 
 formed, and perhaps, fully as credulous, as we are at this 
 day. 
 
 Hence, with the exception of Clement of Rome, and 
 Polycarp of Smyrna, much regard is not due to the tefti- 
 mony of the fathers refpe6ling the form of ecclefiaftical go- 
 vernment, that obtained in apoftolic times. Clement and 
 Polycarp were contemporary with the apoflles. All fucceed- 
 ing teftimony, refpedling the apoftolic form of polity, is 
 naught in comparifon of theirs ; for they were eye witnef- 
 es of what fuccceding writers reported only upon hearfay. 
 The fubjed of Clement's firft epiftle, I mean the infurrec- 
 tion of the chriftians at Corinth againft their paftors, na- 
 turally led him to fpeak of all the orders of ecclefiaftical 
 officers which were appointed by the apoftles; and he 
 exacts from the people of Corinth, refpedful fubmiffion 
 to their fpiritual rulers, from this very confideration, that 
 bifhops and deacons were of apoftolic appointment, and 
 that the apoftles, in the inftitution of thefe two orders, ful- 
 filled ancient prophecy. Polycarp, in his Epiftle to the 
 Philippians, the only writing of his now extant, recom- 
 mends fubmiflion to the same orders of ecclefiaftical officers, 
 and tells them, that they ought to be fubje£l: to their pref- 
 byters * and deacons, as unto God and Chrift. He does not 
 mention an order fuperior to prefbyters ; and, indeed, his 
 meafures of fubje£tion abfolutely exclude the idea of fuch 
 an order. We know of none higher than God and Chrift, 
 
 With regard to Ignatius, another apoftolic father •, it is 
 certain there was a man of that name, biffiop of Antiocb, 
 and a martyr. It is admitted, on all hands, that Ignatius 
 of Antioch wrote cpiRks. But whether one entire fentence 
 
 of 
 
 * Bishop and Prfi§bvtv r were, in apostolic times, two titles fw 
 the same officer. 
 
S2 PHELIMINARY 
 
 of what he wrote is to be found in the colle£lion that paflcs 
 under his name, is exceedingly doubtful. No writer, of 
 an'^ party, denies that the Ignatian epiftles have been inter- 
 polated. Their very number has rifen and fallen. And 
 the ftrongeft argument that has been urged in favour of the 
 genuinenefs of the lateft and mofl feverely caftigated edi- 
 tion, is, that, in the opinion of the editor and tranflator, 
 they contain nothing that an apoftolic father may not be fup- 
 pofed to have written. Is, then, the abfolute impoffibility 
 of writing feven or eight letters, which contain nothing 
 that an apoftolic father may not be fuppofed to have writ- 
 ten, and of giving them to the world, under the name of 
 a primitive faint and martyr, fome time after his death ; is 
 the abfolute impoffibility of fuch an achievement as this, fo 
 clear and ir^difputable, that it may, very warrantably, be 
 taken for granted ? — But the juftnefs of the aflertion, that 
 the epiftles afcribed to Ignatius, and edited by Vofiius, 
 contain nothing that the bifhop of Antioch, the contempo- 
 rary of the Apoftles, may not be fuppofed to have written, 
 is at leaft doubtful ; and the reafoning of thofe who have 
 called it in queftion, has not been fatisfadtorily anfwer- 
 ed by the Vindicator of Primitive Truth and Order.* — 
 Hence it is almoft as childifh to remark, that the Ignatian 
 epiftles cannot be appealed to as decifive authority on any 
 controverted point, as it is adually to appeal to them. 
 
 The only teftimony, then, to which we can reafonably 
 appeal in this controverfy, is that of the facred writers, and 
 Clement and Polycarp. Where (hall we find other wit- 
 nefles, on whofe teftimony we can depend ? Are we to 
 truft pofterior writers, who differ from Clement and Poly- 
 carp ? Is it on the teftimony of Mr. Hume, who lived and 
 
 wrote 
 
 * Comp. Lect. on Eccles. Hist. yoI. 1, p. 184, et sequ. with Vin- 
 ilicat. p. 224, 225, &c. 
 
DISCOURSE. 33 
 
 •wrote fome centuries after Henry VII. and not on the tef- 
 tlmony of that Prince's contemporaries, that we believe, 
 that Henry landed on a certain day, and at a certain place 
 in England, and erected his ftandard againft Richard III. 
 and afterwards conquered and flew the bloody ufurper in 
 Bofworth field ? If there were any material difcrepancy be- 
 tween Hume'fj account of thofe fa6ls, and the account which 
 is found in the records that were drawn up, and left by Hen- 
 ry's contemporaries, who were eye-witnefles of what they re- 
 corded ; who would not reje6t the /ater teftimony, and receive 
 the earlier as alone authentic ? To antiquity I pay the mod 
 profound refpe£t on the fubje6l of primitive ecclefiaftical go- 
 vernment. But what antiquity? Undoubtedly the higheft. Is 
 not this rational ? Is it not what every candid and impartial 
 enquirer would do ? Who knew fo well what their mafter and 
 themfelves did and taught, as the apoftles and evangelifts ? 
 Unlefs you can prove that their contemporaries, whofc 
 writings have come down to us, were men of no character, 
 and therefore deferve no credit •,* or that the writings af- 
 cribed to them are unqueftionably fpurious ; where is the 
 teftimony, refpedling what the apoftles did, that can be 
 equalized, in point of credibility, to the testimony of those, 
 who saw what they relate ^ 
 
 I readily admit, that the hierarchy is ancient. That the 
 paftors, who came after our Lord's apoftles, ceafed, at a 
 very early period, to breathe the lowly unafluming fpirit of 
 Jefus and his immediate difciples, " it is moft true :" and 
 the advocates of epifcopacy are at full liberty to draw all the 
 fupport to their caufe, that can be drawn from the antiquity 
 
 c and 
 
 * Proofs of this sort are sometimes attempted by High Church, 
 tl50ugh not in the cases of Clement and Polycarp. See, for instance, 
 collected concejning Aerius in Vindic. p. 274, 275. 
 
34 PRELINHNARY 
 
 and univeriality of clerical ambition, and prelatical pride. 
 They afFe£t to think the early introduction of epifcopacy 
 into the church, on the fuppofition that it is not a divine 
 inftitution, morally impoflible. By the very fame argu- 
 mcntsi which they urge on this fubje£t, if thofe arguments 
 be good for any thing, they may prove, that the Italian 
 prieft, who has for ages monopolized the title of Pope,* 
 never either claimed the fpiritual dominion of the whole 
 earth, nor had that modeft claim allowed in the churches 
 of the weft. Can a faO: more improbable be imagined, 
 tKan that a christian paftor, the fucceflbr of one of the fifh- 
 crmen of Galilee, as the Pope claims to be accounted, 
 (hould have permitted the very thought of an ufurpation, fo 
 arrogant, fo daring, fo abhorrent from the fpirit of chrifti- 
 anity, to dwell in his breaft for a fingle moment ? And what 
 do you fay of the ftupidity, the fupinenefs, the bafe pufil- 
 lanimity of hisfe/ZowSy which Induced them to yield to this 
 monftroMS ufurpation ? This is quite inconceivable, and 
 cannot have been ! Yet, if there is any truth in hiftory, nay, 
 if we may truft the evidence of our fenfes, this unparallel- 
 ed, improbable, inconceivable fa£t, this mora/ impossibility ^ 
 did happen. Nay, the Bifjiop of Rome, having afcended the 
 throne of univerfal fpiritual dominion, fet his foot on the 
 necks of temporal princes, and difpofed of the kingdoms of 
 the earth at his pleafure ; and, in particular, he divided be- 
 tween His Mod Catholic Majefty of Spain, and His Moft 
 Faithful Majefty of Portugal, immenfe countries in the 
 New World, of which neither he nor they knew fo much 
 as the geographical boundaries, the extent, the names, or 
 the inhabitants I 
 
 That 
 
 ♦ Till the Bishop of Rome became the fountain of all ecclesiastical 
 power and dignity in the west, other Bishops were caHed Popes, «r 
 Fathers, and were a<}dressed, " Your Hohness,'* 
 
DISCOURSE. 55 
 
 That Parochial Epifcopacy, that is, the fupcriority of one 
 elder in a particular church to all the reft, gradually and 
 imperceptibly arofe from the refpecSl: which, in primitive 
 times, was paid to age, to charadier, to fuperi-or endow- 
 ments, and efpecially to priority in point of ordination ; or 
 that, as Jerome maintains, it was inftltuted as a remedy o£ 
 fchifm, and (when the difciples multiplied in a city, and 
 the adjoining territory, and rendered the erection of tiiult^ 
 or chapels, in places at a diflancc from the pari{h church, 
 abfolutely neceflary) led to Diocefan Epifcopacy ; either of 
 thefe fuppofitions is infinitely lefs improbable, than that 
 Diocefan Epifcopacy paved the way for the Papal Supre- 
 macy, which, all the world knows, Is the fa£l:. And here 
 let me remark by the way, that if Diocefan Epifcopacy had 
 not crept in, to the fubverfion of Parochial Epifcopacy, the 
 Papal Supremacy had never exifted. Who would dream 
 of rifing to the Papacy in the Church of Scotland ? 
 
 The arguments, which our opponents urge in fupport of 
 the divine origin of Epifcopacy, from its high antiquity, 
 leaves the controverfy preclfely where it found it. As rea- 
 foning cannot be oppofed to fa6l:s ; fo, in a matter of tef- 
 timony, it cannot render the inveftigation of facls unnecef- 
 fary. Still, therefore, as the New Teftament, and the wri- 
 tings of the apoftolic fathers, are the moft ancient and the 
 moft authentic fources of information refpeiSling the apofto- 
 lic model of church government, the queftion is, ** What 
 <♦ is written In them P How readeft thou ?" 
 
 § 3. Before I proceed to make remarks on ths mode of 
 interpretation and of reafoning, by which the hierarchy is 
 fupported from fcripture, and the uninfpired writings o£ 
 antiquity, I cannot help calling the attention of the reader 
 to a remarkable h€t ', I mean, that the moft ftrcnuous ad- 
 
 € ^ vocates 
 
36 PRELIMINARY 
 
 vocates of the hierarchy do not agree among themfelvcs in 
 their interpretation of Scripture, and of the writings of the 
 apoftolic fathers* 
 
 The author of the Ignatlan Epiftles had, it would appear, 
 learned from fome of the apoftles, or difcovered from holy 
 writ, that the BiHiop pre fides in the place of God^ and the 
 Prefbyters in the place of the Sanhedrim of the apoftles, 
 and that to the Deacons is entrufted the Miniftry or Dea- 
 conship {hicKovix) of Jesus Chrift.* If Ignatius be right, 
 Bifhops are not the fucceflbrs of the apoftles, but God's 
 vicars upon earth ; the Prefbyters in an Epifcopal Church 
 fucceed the apoftles ; and the Deacons, the servers of tables ^ 
 are the vifible reprefentatives and fucceflbrs of the Redee- 
 mer of Mankind. But the Anti- Jacobin, and confequently 
 his Metropolitan, do not agree with the Martyr of Antioch. 
 They make Jefus Chrift himfelf, while he was in the flefh, 
 the chief governor of his church, having under him the 
 apoftles and the feventy as his Prefbyters and Deacons ; 
 and they teach us, that, after our Lord's crucifixion, the 
 apoftles mounted up into his place, leaving their original 
 office open to the seventy^ who, in the Diaconate, were 
 fucceeded by the sevejt. 
 
 This modern arrangement is confiderably more refpe£l- 
 ful to our Saviour, than that of Ignatius ; for it confers 
 upon him the honour of having been a Bifhop, which is no 
 fmall glory ! ay, and a univerfal Bifhop too ; in which dig- 
 nity, if we take the word of High Church, whofe regard to 
 hereditary indefeasible right is uniform and inflexible. He was 
 fucceeded by J^ames the Lefs, whom Paul calls the Lord's 
 brother. 
 
 But, 
 
 •* Ep. ad. Mag. cap. 6. 
 
DISCOURSE. J57 
 
 But, unfortunately, BIfhop Sage differs as far from the 
 Anti-jacobin, as the Anti-jacobin differs from Ignatius*, 
 for he contends that, as the church was founded on the re- 
 furreftion of Chrifl, it could not well be formed before his 
 crucifixion and death : and, to fpeak freely, it would have 
 been fomewhat fingular, if that facred edifice had been 
 built before the foundation was laid. 
 
 Mr. Dodwell partly agrees with Sage, but differs, 
 ioto coeloy from the Literary Cenfor. He is fo far from ad- 
 mitting, that the church was founded while our Lord 
 " dwelt amongfl us," that, according to him, it did not 
 affume that permanent form, under which alone it can now 
 fave finners, till after the death of the laft of the apoftles. i 
 
 " Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites." ^ 
 
 Let me obferve here, that Mr. Dodwell, whofe pro- 
 found and extenfive erudition, the Monthly Cenfor places 
 far above the literary attainments of Docflor Campbell, faw 
 it to be of effential confequence to his caufe, to thrufl the 
 fcriptures altogether out of the controverfy about ccclefi- 
 aftical government. His followers are either lefs learned, 
 or lefs fagacious, or lefs candid ; for what Dodwell could 
 find no trace of in holy writ, they find clearly exhibited 
 there. When we call upon thofe bold and ftrenuous de- 
 fenders of proper Epifcopacy, to produce to us, from fcrip- 
 ture, fome examples of churches, in which that form of 
 polity was a<Slually eftablifhed in apoftolic times, we are 
 triumphantly alked, " Was not James the diocefan Bifhop 
 <* of Jerufalem ? Were not the Apocalyptic angels the Bi- 
 *' {hops of Afia Minor ? Were not Timothy and Titus ihc 
 ^< fixed diocefan Bifhops of Ephefus and Crete ?" 
 
 <^3 
 
38 PRELIMINARY 
 
 To the two firft of thefe examples, I fhall have occafion 
 to advert in another place. In regard to the third, it is a 
 fubjefb of debate among Epifcopalians themfelves; for 
 fome df them, and thofe not the lead refpedtable, admit 
 that Timothy and Titus were fent to Ephefus and Crete, 
 merely for an occafional and temporary purpofe, and left 
 thofe places, when the purpofe of their miflion was accom- 
 pliflied : and they treat with juft contempt the pretended 
 proof of their Epifcopal chara6i:er, which has been urged 
 from the poftfcripts of Paul's epiftlcs to thofe milTionaries ; 
 poftfcripts, which are not to be found in any ancient manu- 
 fcript, and one of which, by calling Timothy xSxz firft Bi- 
 {hop of Ephefus, cxprefsly contradi£ls the facred hiftorian,* 
 from whom we learn, that there were Bijhops at Ephefus 
 before Paul befought Timothy to abide therefor fome time. 
 Thus we have, as the great defender of prefbytery in the 
 beginning of the laft century exprefles it, " a civil war a- 
 *' mong the Epifcopal authors,'* about Timothy and Titus ; 
 Dr. Hammond, who makes them metropolitans, Bifliop 
 Skinner, the iVnti-jacobin, &c. who make them only Bifliops, 
 ranged on the one fide, and Mr. Dodwell, Dr. Whitby, 
 &c. on the other. " What can ive do, in the mean time," 
 obferves our " champion,'* " but gather the fpoil ?" 
 
 The tedimony of Clemens Romanus, and Polycarp, re- 
 fpeding the form of ecclefiaftical government fet up'by the 
 apoftles, are as much a ground of conteft among Epifcopa- 
 lians, as the teftimony of fcripture. 
 
 « There was not a Bifhop in the world,*' cries Mr Dod- 
 well, " fave James at Jerufalcm, who was a univerfal Bi- 
 *« (hop, at the time that Clement and Polycarp wrote their 
 ** epifties.'* " You are in a grofs error,'* replies Dr Ham- 
 mond 5 
 * Acts XX. 28. 
 
DISCOURSE. S^ 
 
 mond i « Clement's Prejbyters were all Bifhops ; but I ac- 
 " knowledge that there was no middle order of Prefbytcrs 
 ^« in the church at that time/' « You talk nonfenfe,'* ex- 
 claims Dr. Burnet, whom fome of his contemporaries of 
 High Church ftigmatizcd as a true dijpnting zealot^ " Clc- 
 « ment mentions Bifhops ^WPrefbyters, and he means Pref- 
 " byters by Deacons." To put an end to this " Epifcopal 
 « fcuffle,'* which cannot but grieve the heart of a genuine 
 Pigh Churchman, our Primate fteps in between the two 
 combatants laft named, and, with true archiepifcopal gra- 
 vity, fpeaketh on this wife. " What ! gentlemen, do you 
 « fall out about a thing fo plain ? No doubt, Clement 
 ** fpeaks of only two orders of ecclefiaftical officers at Co- 
 " rinth, and calls them one while Biihops and Deacons. 
 " and another while Presbyters and Deacons. — But 
 " do you not obferve, that, to fhame the Corinthians, 
 <* who had raifed a fedition againft their paftors, he calls 
 « upon them to contemplate the quiet fubordinatiou that 
 *< reigned in the Jewifh church at Jerufalem ? How could 
 " he have urged that to their (hame, if there had not been 
 « juft as many orders in the church at Corinth, as there 
 ** were in the church at Jerufalem, and not one more nor 
 <* fewer ? Unlcfs this had been the cafe, the allufton luould 
 *• not have been proper^ nor the inference jujl.^^* This fettles 
 the difpute at once between Hammond and Burnet. It 
 does more. It teaches ^us, that, if Clement had been re- 
 commending domeftic harmony to a family confiding of 
 three perfons, it would have been quite abfurd and incon- 
 clufive, to urge the example of peace and love exhibited by 
 another family confiding of four, ♦* The allufion would 
 " not have been proper, nor the inference juft." I wonder 
 that our learned Vindicator, who is fo correal a judge of 
 propriety of allufion, and juftnefs of inference, has done 
 fuch manifeft injuftice to his argument, as to overlook Cle- 
 
 c 4 ment'$ 
 
 5 Vind, p. 213, 214. 
 
40 PRELIMINARY 
 
 ment's allufion to the fpirit of fubordination, which perva- 
 ded a Roman army ; from which, as well as from the ex- 
 ample of the Jewifh church at Jerufalem, the fellow-la- 
 bourer of Paul takes occafion to recommend to the Chrifti- 
 ans at Corinth, to be in fubje61:ion to their Bifhops and 
 Deacons. This alluftoti would have furnifhed him, if he 
 had had occafion for them, with a few more orders of ec- 
 clefiaftics at Corinth, than ever exifted in the Jewifti church. 
 But, perhaps, in this cafe, the allufion was not proper, nor 
 the inference jufi, 
 
 Polycarp's Epiftle to the Philippians, it is acknowledged 
 by all learned and candid advocates of the hierarchy, leaves 
 no reafon to doubt, that, when that famous letter was fent 
 to Phiiippi, there were no ecclefiaftics there, but Presbyters 
 and Deacons. But the Vindicator of Primitive Truth and 
 Order differs from them. Though Polycarp does not al- 
 lude to any Biftiop at Phiiippi, paft, prefent, or to come, 
 our Vindicator thinks it quite fuppofable, that there was 
 then a vacancy in the See.* And we may go on to fuppofe, 
 may we not ? that Polycarp fcorned to mention the former 
 Bifhop, becaufe, like James VI.'s Scottifti Bifhops of 1610, 
 he was a pagan, not having received Epifcopal baptifm, 
 nor Epifcopal ordination as a Pricft and Deacon : for there 
 is no end to fuppofing. But if the fuppofition of a vacancy 
 fliould not anfwer the Vindicator's purpofe, he has another 
 refource — a refource, that can never fail, when the Bifliop 
 of an apoftolic church happens to be miflaid, and cannot 
 be found cleverly : the apcfiles were the Bifliops of all the 
 churches which they planted, and whofe clergy they or- 
 dained. f If this be true, the conduct of the apoftles, it 
 muft be owned, was not quite canonical ; for they were 
 moft unconfcionable pluralifts, efpecially the apoftle of the 
 
 Gentiles 5 
 * Vind. p. 217. f lb. pp. 214, 215, 
 
DISCOURSE. 41 
 
 Gentiles ; and they very feldom refided in any of their dio- 
 cefes. They did not, indeed, fpend much of their time at 
 court, nor at watering places. But, when they were not 
 in prifon, they were almoft inceflantly on their travels ;— 
 and like our travellers of falhion in modern times, they 
 kept company chiefly with infidels. 
 
 But the Vindicator and his modern allies have a third re- 
 fource, when they are pinched by a famine of Bifhops in 
 the apoftolic church ; a refource unknown to Dr. Ham- 
 mond and the Englifli tranflators of the New Teftament, 
 who were all zealous Epifcopalians. They convert the mef- 
 fengers of the churches (^xTcogoXci ray iKKXvttnav) who were fent 
 to Rome with gifts to fupply the neceflities of Paul while 
 he was in bonds, — into apojiles of Chrifl ! and, without ce- 
 remony, place them on the Epifcopal thrones of their re- 
 fpe£l:ive churches. If our learned controvertifts be corre£l 
 in this, may we not infer that their fupreme governors were 
 the perfons whom the churches, in apoftolic times, could 
 moft conveniently fpare for carrying their meflages to dif- 
 tant cities and countries ? 
 
 To the difcordant Epifcopal interpretations both of fcrip- 
 ture and of the writings of the earlieft fathers, which I have 
 now mentioned, many more, of the fame defcription, might 
 be added. But the examples, which I have produced, are 
 fufhcient to juftify Dr. Campbell's refledlcn,* " It is a 
 " {hrewd prefumption, that a fyftem is ill-founded, when 
 " its moft intelligent friends are fo much divided about it j" 
 and they (hew that the divine inftltutlon of Epifcopacy is 
 not fo very clear from fcrlpture and the apoftolic fathers, as 
 its modern advocates affedl to reprefent it. And thefe in- 
 ferences are illuftrated and confirmed by a curious fa6t, to 
 
 which 
 ^ Lee. Vol. I. p. 243. 
 
42 PRELIMINARY 
 
 which « the great champion of Prefbytery" does not fail t» 
 call the attention of his readers •,* I mean, that, while Epif- 
 copacy was the eftablifhed religion in Scotland, its defen- 
 ders afpired to nothing higher than a proof of its laivfulnefs ; 
 whereas, when it was pulled down, they found out, lome- 
 how, that it is apoftoltcaly and therefore divine ,• a difcovery, 
 which the Upper Houfe of Convocation in^ England, al- 
 though the Lower Houfe was at infinite pains to en- 
 lighten the bench of Bifhops on the fubjedt, could not com- 
 prehend in the year 1702. 
 
 Having (hewn that the champions of the hierarchy, be- 
 fore they fally forth againft the common enemy, would be 
 wifely employed in fettling articles of peace among them- 
 felves, and afcertaining precifely what they fight for j I 
 beg leave to make fome remarks on their mode of warfare. 
 
 § 4. In their appeals to holy writ in fupport of their be- 
 loved hierarchy, our opponents overlook all the leading prin- 
 ciples, and general declarations of the divine word, which 
 High Church finds it difficult to reconcile to her exclufive 
 monopoly of all the benefits of the gofpel covenant ; and 
 they write, as if they were totally ignorant of the mod ob- 
 vious diftin£lions. 
 
 If there is any one principle fully eftablilhed by the gofpel 
 of Chrift, it is, that Chriftians (hall be judged at the laft great 
 day, not according to the church to which they belong, but 
 according to the deeds done in the body. You find nothing in 
 fcripture, that is not, in its obvious and natural fignifica^ 
 tion, perfedlly reconcileable to this grand and leading prin- 
 ciple ; nay, the general tenor of holy writ is ftrikingly il- 
 luftrative of it. If you fay that, of the deeds done in the 
 
 body, 
 
 * See Anderson's Defence, p. 188. 
 
DISCOURSE. 43 
 
 body, the choice wc make of our Church is one of which we 
 muft give an account, I call upon you to produce the paf- 
 fage of fcripture, that tells me fo in plain and unequivocal 
 terms. I am perfectly aware, that we are accountable for 
 the ufe that we make of our underftanding in the concerns 
 of religion and virtue ; and that if, in the choice of our re- 
 ligious profefTion, we make confcience yield to intereft and 
 convenience, or are determined by any motive unconnected 
 with that finccre convi£lion, which is the refult of ferious 
 enquiry, and of deliberation in finglenefs of heart, weinfult 
 Omnifcience, and proftitute facred things. But where, in 
 holy writ, are we taught, that a man*s religious profefTion, 
 from whatever motives of confcience he prefers it to all o- 
 thers, and however fteadily he endeavours to conform to its 
 laws, is fufficient, of itfelf, to dcflroy him for ever ? Is it 
 any where in the whole facred volume, either exprefled or 
 underftood, that, if we hope to inherit the kingdom of hea- 
 ven, we muft be fubjeO: to a Bifhop in an Epifcopal 
 Church on earth ? If this be a chrlftian duty, why is it not 
 explicitly enjoined in the chriflian fcriptures ? Is there any 
 other duty omitted ? The fcriptures profefs that they unfold 
 all that we owe to God and man. But on the duty of ad- 
 hering to a church of a particular conftru£tion, they are en- 
 tirely filent. According to them, ftncerity in our profef- 
 fion, be it what it may, and purity of heart and life, are 
 all in all. [BJ Who will dare to controvert this truth } It 
 is a truth as honourable to our religion, as it is confoling to 
 the heart of every humble and fmcere chriflian. And be- 
 fore ity all the trifling difputes about modes and forms, and 
 fubordlnation and parity, which have, from time to time, 
 agitated the chriftian world, fmk into utter infignificance ; 
 and, like the contefts of children about the refpeCtive ex- 
 cellence of their rattles and toys, excite only a fmile of ridi- 
 cule 
 [B] See Note. 
 
44 PRELIMINARY 
 
 cule or contempt. The explicit admiffion, on the part of 
 High Church, of this truth, which, indeed, (he dares not 
 implicitly deny, would for ever put an end to the controver- 
 fy about Ecclefiaftical Government, and convert all the quef- 
 tions, which have been agitated with keennefs, and even 
 rancour, about the form of the apoftolic church, into fpe- 
 culations of not much deeper intereft to chriftians, than the 
 queftion, whether the primitive church ate leavened bread 
 or unleavened in the eucharift. But if her controverfy with 
 us be not perfectly nonfenfical, a controverfy without a 
 fubje^t, the falvation of chriftians is, in her opinion, fully 
 as *< dependent on their minifter, and the form of his mi- 
 <* niftry," as on fincerity in their religious profeflion, and 
 purity in heart and life. 
 
 I cannot fay, that Bifhop Skinner ftates the diftinguifli- 
 ing tenet of his church with uncommon clearnefs and accu- 
 racy ; for he informs us,* that ** the inftitutions of religion 
 ** derive all their efficacy and importance from Chrift's blef- 
 " (ing and fanflification of them;" from which one is tempt- 
 ed to infer, that nothing depends on the minifter : but no \ 
 The efficacy and importance of baptifm and the eucharift, 
 though they depend altogether on Chrift's bleffing and fanC- 
 tification of them, yet, after all, depend on the hand of 
 the adminiftrator ; — who, that Chrift may blefs his own 
 ordinances, ** muft be a perfon duly authorized to blefs in 
 '^ the name of the Lord." And who is duly authorized ^ 
 What a fimple queftion ! Who can be duly authorized to 
 blefs orcurfe in the name of the Lord, but a minifter, in 
 an Epifcopal church, who can trace the canonical deriva- 
 tion of his orders up to the apoftles of Chrift .? If "this doc- 
 trine be at all fuited to anfwer the purpofe for which it is 
 advanced, it muft imply, that our Lord cannot blefs and 
 
 fanc- 
 * Vind. p. 103. 
 
DISCOURSE, 45 
 
 (znOii^Y his own inftitutions, unlefs the " adminiftrator be 
 " a perfon duly authorized." 
 
 We have all heard of the Dejhy of the ancient heathen 
 fatalifts, by which Jupiter, and all the dii/uperhznd dii in- 
 feri were fad bound to everlalling, as by a chain of ada- 
 mant. There is nothing new under the fun. The doc- 
 trine of the Scotch Epifcopal Church is nothing but the 
 heathen tenet new (lamped, and, I cannot forbear to fay, 
 rendered infinitely more ridiculous and indefenfible, than 
 ever it was in the hands of the Gentiles who " knew not 
 " the law." For the Pagans did not maintain, as our fata- 
 lifts do, that Jupiter himfelf forged the chain, in which he 
 was bound, and then committed the cuftody of it to a cer- 
 tain order of his own creatures, authorized, in a certain 
 way, to hold it in their hands ! [C] 
 
 Such is the obftinate blindnefs of us Prefbyterian fchif- 
 matics, that, notwithftanding all that High Church has 
 yet written for our illumination, we fondly indulge our fa- 
 vourite inclination to believe, that Jefus Chrift, inftead of 
 committing the power of blefling and fan£lifying his own 
 ordinances to the Epifcopal Clergy exclufively, and thus 
 raifing them above himfelf, has referved it in his own hands, 
 and can fliew mercy to a fincere believer, who is not a 
 member of High Church. But if High Church can prove 
 that this is our error^ however obftinately we are attached 
 to it, — an error that muft ruin us in the end ; we muft fut- 
 mit to our fate, and fay, with the public LecSlor, who read, 
 in his edition of the New Teftament, Wejhall not all Jleepy 
 but wejhall all be hanged^ " The will of the Lord be done." 
 Let her, then, produce her " proofs of holy writ." — 
 What declaration of fcripture does he bring forward to con- 
 found 
 
 [C] See Note. 
 
46 PRELIMINARY 
 
 found all her enemies and rivals, and to prove ih:^t JJje is 
 the churchy to whofe Clergy alone are committed the power 
 of binding and loofing, and bkffing and curfing, and all 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven ? I knovtr of no dire£t 
 proof from ,fcripture, that (he urges, but this, ** He that 
 " believeth, and is baptized, fhall be faved !'* 
 
 " To laugh, were want of manners and of grace; 
 ** And to be grave, exceeds all power of face." 
 
 " He that believeth, and is baptized^ (hall be faved.*' Ob- 
 ferve that the proof ail depends upon one emphatical word, 
 which is therefore drefled in Italics ; Baptized. But does 
 this fingle word, drefs it how you will, clearly and irrc- 
 fragably prove, that Jefus Chrift came into the world to 
 fave Epifcopalians only, — and yet not all Epifcopalians nei- 
 ther; for from the deprivation of the nonjuring Bifhopc, and 
 other Clergy in England, to the year 1792, there was nei- 
 ther Prelate, nor Pricft, nor Deacon in the Church of Eng- 
 land, of whom it could bejuftly faid, " This man is BAP- 
 *« TIZED !" But by what wonderful mode of explica- 
 tion is the verfe, cited above, made to fupport the preten- 
 fions of High Church ? ** He that believeth and is baptized^ 
 " {hall be faved,*' furely implies his being baptized " after 
 •* the Jhrm and manner pointed out in the commiflion which 
 ** Chrift gave his apoftles, at the very time when he made 
 " this declaration. If bapiifm then muft be confidered as 
 *^ one of the terms, or conditions of falvation, how can iff 
 " be faid to have no dependance on the miniftcr, or nO' 
 *' connection with the form of his miniftry ? Are we to un- 
 ** derftand our Lecturer's words, as meaning, that our 
 " Lord-s apoftles acquired no particular authority from the 
 •* commiflion which he gave them, for making all nations 
 « his difciples, by baptizing them/* (the commiflion was 
 
 firft 
 
DISCOURSE. 47 
 
 firft to make difciples oiF all nations, and then to baptize 
 them) " and that the form of baptifm laid down in that 
 *' commiffion, was not more valid, or more neceflary to be 
 *' obferved, than any other form, which might be adopted 
 *' for the fame purpofe ? Then, to be fure, the external 
 *« form of government in the church is a matter of no confe- 
 " j^uence ;"* and fo forth. Behold a fpecimen of the critic 
 eal acumen of High Churchmen ! If I was diverted with our 
 Vindicator's application of Mark xvi. i6. I did not find the 
 commentary much failed to reftore my gravity. — Who 
 would fufpe6t that any more is revealed to us in the 
 words fo often referred to, than that faith in Chrift, which, 
 in fcripture language, includes repentance and reform ation^ 
 becaufe it produces them, along with baptifm, which im- 
 plies the public profellion of chriftianity, will fave every 
 man ? Nothing more than this, I will venture to affirm, had 
 been difcovered, by Proteftants, in thofe words of our 
 Lord, if fome unpleafant ena6lments of the Legiflature, 
 foon after the Revolution, had not thrown quite a new light 
 upon them. 
 
 But if our Vindicator and his allies do not choofe to bring 
 forward, in fupport of the pretenfions of High Church, an 
 f xplicit declaration of holy writ, 1 will take the liberty of 
 bringing forward a paflage, that ihews thofe pretenfions to 
 be abfolutely without foundation ; a paflage as little fufcep- 
 tible of various expofitions, or of being prefled into the fer- 
 vice of High Church, as " Abraham begat Ifaac, and Ifaac 
 «« begat Jacob." « Who, then," exclaims the apoftle of 
 the Gentiles, « Who, then, is Paul ? and who is Apollos, 
 ** but minifters by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave 
 " to every one ? I have planted, Apollos watered ; but God 
 *< gave the increafe. So then neither is he that planteth any 
 
 « thing, 
 * Vindiv. pp. 153, 154, 
 
48 PRELIiMINARY 
 
 " thitigy neither he that ivatereth ; but God that giveth the 
 *' increafe.* If thefe words do not declare it to be the 
 mind of the Spirit, that, neither on the orders or degrees 
 of chriftian Minifters, nor on the external model of the 
 church to which they belong, nor on their perfonal quali- 
 fications, any farther than as they are the inflruments of 
 Chrift in promoting the faith and obedience of his gofpei, 
 the efficacy of God's word and facraments depends ; I muft 
 difclalm all comprehenfion of any part of facred writ, and 
 leave it to the explanation of thofe, who have fpent their 
 lives in learning to folve riddles, and expound myfteries. 
 
 I muft do High Church the juftice to acknowledge here, 
 that fome of her keenefl: modern advocates, though they 
 fight with the Author of Lecf tires on Ecclefiaftical Hijloryy 
 and abufe him, through many pages of virulent inve61:ive, 
 do, neverthelefs, I fuppofe, out of pure generofity, yield 
 to him all that he contends for. In reality, they make con- 
 ceffions that are decifive of the controverfy. 
 
 Mr. Daubeny, who is fevere on the Lecturer's character, 
 as well as his kirky (hews the mod magnanimous forbear- 
 ance to his arguments. He condefcends to receive, in a cer.- 
 tain qualified fenfe^ the Lecturer's principal pofition, that 
 <* the terms of the gofpei covenant are no where in fcrip,- 
 " ture connected with, or made to depend on, the minifter 
 " and the form of his miniflry,'' although both Mr. Dau- 
 beny, and his copier, the Vindicator, are much offended 
 by the Lecturer's aflerting this m plain unqualified language, 
 that is, by his writing fo as to be underftood ! The certain 
 qualified sense in which Mr. Daubeny receives the declara- 
 tion of a fa£t, which he cannot controvert, he takes care 
 not to communicate to the younger clergy, for whofe in- 
 
 ftru6lion 
 * 1 Cor. iii. 5, 6, 7. 
 
DISCOURSE. 49 
 
 ftiru<£tion he entered the lifts with Dr. Campbell * He may, 
 perhaps, have been thus cautious and guarded, left an. 
 explanation (hould not have exalted High Church principles 
 in the efteem of fuch of the younger clergy, as read the 
 fcriptures, and prefume to think for themfelves. 
 
 The Monthly Political and Literary Cenfor oj Great Britain 
 is not lefs kind to the Lecturer's reafoning, than his admi- 
 rer the Archdeacon ; although he treats his character, both 
 as a fcholar and a chriftian divine, with greater petulance 
 and fcurrility. Out of the overflowing ?bundance of his 
 x:ompaflion to Presbyterians and Independents, who are 
 floating around him on the ftormy waves of the ocean of 
 life, while he fits fafe and fnug in Mr. Jones' ark, he ad- 
 mits, that they may, on a certain condition, be faved with- 
 out Bifhop, Prieft, or Deacon, in a right line from the 
 apoftles. And the condition is as merciful, as the com- 
 paflion.of this great Cenfor is endearing. We need nothing, 
 according to him, in addition to faith and good intention, 
 hut merely ignorance, provided only « our ignorance be 
 " not wilful, but unavoidable ;" our belief that falvatiori 
 depends not on Priefts duly authorized, but on God 
 and ourfelves, " being the refult of real refearch in 
 *< thofe who are capable of it, and not the ofl^spring of in- 
 *< difference and modern liberality." And left we fhould 
 fufpe£l him of undue partiality to Presbyterians, becaufe, 
 in compliment to His Majefty, he has bound himfelf to 
 lend his aid to thofe, who think themfelves obliged to pro- 
 tect and fupport the Scottifti Kirk^ he tells us, where he 
 has found a doftrine fo confoling to us. " From the 
 " maxim," fays he, " that whatfoever is not of faith is fin, 
 <* \tfeems to follow (alas ! that he could not be quite fure !) 
 " that in matters merely pofitive, what is of faith is inno- 
 
 D « cent." 
 
 * Daubeny's Prelim. Disc. p. 79, 80. 
 
^O PRELIMINARY 
 
 " cent." From this maxim he infers, that *' though thou- 
 " fands of perfons receive the facraments daily from men, 
 " whom he believes to have no authority to adminifter 
 ** them, yet if they be, (as he has no doubt of their being) 
 " adminiftered and received in faith, they will certainly be 
 ** available in the fight of Him, who prefers good intcn- 
 " tion to every thing elfe.'' He adds, " Such Presbyteri- 
 " ans and Independents, therefore, as really believe, after 
 ** due and impartial enquiry, that their minifters are duly 
 " authorized by Chrift to difpenfe his facraments, are, in 
 *« the opinion of this writer, as fafe with Presbyterian or 
 " Independent baptifm, as they would be, had they been 
 ** baptized by the Archbifhop of Canterbury."* 
 
 The Monthly Cenfor, (long may he criticife our writings, 
 our religion, and our politics !) has put an end f to the 
 controverfy between High Church and us, much more ef- 
 fediually, than if he had proved (a thing that he defpairs 
 of ever Ikeing accomplifhed), that St. James, who is called 
 the firft Bilhop of Jerufalem, was not the apoftle James, 
 who was ftyled the Lefs, but a private difciple, of that 
 name, raifed to the Epifcopate. He gracioufly permits 
 (and is it not Angularly gracious in fo a redoubtable a cham- 
 pion of High Church, to permit ! ) the divine mercy to ac- 
 cept of faith and good intention, under the miniftry of a 
 Presbyterian or Independent •* Parfon," in lieu of the po- 
 tent efficacy of the miniftry of a Prieft, duly authorized ; 
 which laft, I prefume, fuperfedes tke neceflity of faith and 
 good intention ; otherwife why (hould it be more efficacious 
 
 than 
 
 * It is but of late that the Scotch Episcopals hare admitted even 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury to be authorized to baptize, &c. But 
 *' Tempora mutantur;" and so are principles. 
 
 t See his altercation with Dr. CampbelFs Biographer. 
 
DISCOURSE. 51 
 
 than its rival ? And what can be more eafy than the condi- 
 tion, — a quantum fufficit of unavoidable ignorance ? I fuf- 
 pecb, however, that " more is meant than meets the ear ;" 
 and that the Anti-jacobin's belief Is, that none but Presby- 
 terian and Independent blockheads are likely to be faved. 
 
 But be this as it may ; we are content to gather up the 
 crumbs of mercy, that are thrown to us by fuch great men 
 as the Anti- jacobin Reviewer of Leclures on Eccleftajlical 
 Hl/Jory. We accept the conceflions he makes, and believe 
 them to be tantamount to this, " That God hath left it to 
 ** every chriftlan, to choofe his own church, and to put 
 " himfelf under the miniftry of thofe, whom, after ferious 
 " deliberation, he thinks bed qualified to promote his im- 
 ** provement in true piety and virtue, be the form of their 
 " miniftry, and the derivation of their orders, what they 
 
 We fee then, that the modern advocates of the hierarchy 
 give up the main-point in our controverfy with them. They 
 acknowledge, that whatever the form of the apoftolic 
 church was, and however far we depart from it, yet, if we 
 acl in faith and with good Intention, the ecclefiaftical mo- 
 del which we adopt and adhere to, will not deprive us of the 
 benefits of our Lord's manifcftation in the flefli. Then 
 what fignifies it w^hether they or we come neareft to the 
 form of Ecclefiaftical Government, fet up by the apoftles, 
 or what interpretation the writings of the fathers, on the 
 fubje^l, are fulceptible of? After the conceflions made by 
 the advocates of Epifcopacy, I can fee no reafon why they 
 and we fhould not (hake hands and' be friends, faying to 
 one another, '< Take your own road to the end of our com- 
 
 D 2 " mon 
 
 * See Vind. p. 132, 133, 13-5, 
 
52 PRELIMINARY 
 
 '* mon faith and hope, till we meet again, to be feparatcd 
 <* by modes and forms no more." To do them juftice, 
 they feem to defire this amicable termination of our contro- 
 verfy ; for they concede flill more to us than I have yet 
 mentioned. 
 
 § 5. Our opponents are very far from pretending, that 
 any fpeclfic fcheme of ecclefiaftical polity is authoritatively 
 prefcribed, in holy writ, under awful fan6^ions. Nay, 
 they admit,* that the model, which they are pleafed to 
 call " apoftolical, and therefore divine," is not fo much as 
 ** mentioned, in cxprefs and pofitive terms," from begin* 
 ning to end of the New Teftamcnt. Can the adoption of 
 it, then, be eflential to the falvation of all chriftians ? Did 
 the apoftles and evangelifls think it *' unnecejjary to men- 
 « tion in exprefs and pofitive terms," one of the indifpen- 
 fible conditions of our falvation through Jefus Chrift ? How 
 could this be ? In what manner, or by what means, did 
 they fuppofe that we were to find it out } Can the religion 
 of nature, as it is called, infl:ru(St us fufhclently on this mo- 
 mentous fubje^t ? Does reafon teach us, that, if we be not 
 Epifcopally baptized, confirmed, fD] and fo forth, we can- 
 not be faved ? Sound reafon does not only not inftrudl: us 
 in this article of belief, but has even treated it with the ut- 
 moft fcorn and contempt, as, in this country, at leaft, 
 fince the Revolution, the favourite dodrine of difappoint- 
 ment, chagrin, and clerical revenge. I pray heaven, that 
 if the apoftles and evangelifts may not " have thought it 
 " tmneceffary to mention, in ,exprefs and pofitive terms,'* 
 fome other things " of high importance in the chriftian 
 " fcheme of revelation," befides " the divine plan of the fo- 
 * ciety which they founded on the model laid down by 
 
 " their 
 
 * Anti-jac. Vol. IX. p. 106, 107. £D] See Note. 
 
DISCOURSE. 53 
 
 " their blefled Mafter.^* The omlfTion of this " divine 
 *< plan" does not look well ! Itbefpeaks a carelcfTnefs about 
 the everlafting welfare of millions, for whom, they tell us, 
 their Mafter fufFered and died, of which I (hall not ralhly 
 accufe them, left I fhould hear of it again. And let me ob- 
 ferve, that to negledl to mention " an inftitution merely 
 " pofitive," on the ftricSl obfervance of which our falvation 
 depends, is more blame-worthy, than if they had pafted 
 over in filence fome of the moral duties of chriftianlty : for 
 the former can be learned by revelation only -, whereas the 
 latter might be found out in fome page or other of the law 
 written on our hearts, or of the municipal law of our coun- 
 try. 
 
 "What if the facred penmen had accounted it unneceflary 
 to mention, in exprefs terms, the pofitive Inftitutions of 
 baptifm and the eucharift ? What fliould have hindered 
 daily pra£lice and tradition to be as proper and fafe vehi- 
 cles of thofe inftitutions, as of the divine plan " of the fo- 
 " ciety founded by the Son of God for the falvation of 
 « mankind?" [E] When the church, in the age of the apof- 
 tles, faw thofe firft miflionaries, or the perfons to whom 
 ** they delegated their authority," tojjlng converts into a ri^ 
 very as the Literary Cenfor exprefles himfelf with pious re- 
 verence, they could never forget the genuine apoftolic 
 **yor»3 and manner" of this ftriking ceremony; and they 
 would remember it the better, becaufe, if the Anti-jacobin's 
 mode was really pradifed, it probably happened, that fcve- 
 ral were drowned in the very article of their introdudioa 
 into the^church. 
 
 But if we confider what has actually happened in regard 
 D3 to 
 
 [E] See Notes. 
 
.54 PRELIMINARY 
 
 to the mode of adminiflering baptifm and the eucharilt, 
 and in regard to the varying notions of chriftians concern- 
 ing their nature and defign, even although they are « men- 
 *^ tioned in exprefs and pofitive terms," and particularly 
 defcribed in holy vi^rit ; we have no reafon to doubt, that, 
 if it had pleafed the facred writers to omit mentioning 
 them in the fcriptures, and to entruft the conveyance of 
 them, from age to age, to tradition, after they v/ere, for 
 a certain time, " daily exhibited in pradice," they might 
 have confidently depended on their accurate tranfmilTion 
 to future generations, in all their primitive purity and 
 fimplicity ! 
 
 There are more churches than one, in which the words 
 of our Lord, " Do this in remembrance of me," are confi- 
 dered to mean, " Offer this as a facrifice for the remiffion of 
 " your fins," — and in which, " Take, eat, drink ye all of 
 " it,'* are converted into " Give this bread and wine unto 
 <» God in facrifice, elevating and waving it before his altar ; 
 <« and then confume it yourfelves, as a commemorative fa- 
 " crifice, or an expiatory facrifice, or a feaft upon a fa- 
 « crifice, or any kind of facrifice that you pleafe ; only it 
 " is, and muft be, a facrifice of fome kind or other." And 
 in the church of Rome, the euchariftic bread and wine, 
 nearly ten centuries ago, but not earlier, became the real 
 body and blood of Chrift ; [Fj and flrange to tell ! in pro- 
 cefs of time, both, by a wonderful metamorphofis, dwin- 
 dled into a dry wafer, which the Priefh lays upon the tip 
 of the communicant's tongue ! the adminiftrator himfelf, 
 for a vaft variety of reafons, being the only difclple who 
 has the privilege of partaking in the euchariftic cup ; the 
 wafer conveying the wine, as well as the bread, to all but 
 
 him ! 
 
 Bap- 
 
 [F] See Note.] 
 
DISCOURSE. 63 
 
 Baptlfm, alfo, has (hared much the fame fate. It confifted 
 originally in immerfion in water, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. Whether trim 
 immerfion, that is, a diftinft immerfion, when the admi- 
 niftrator pronounces the name of each of the perfons of the 
 blefled Trinity, was the apoftolic practice, T do not certain- 
 ly know ; only it is mentioned by Tertullian as the prac- 
 tice in his time,* and the fiftieth apoftolic canon exprefsly 
 enjoins it under a heavy penalty : it is yet pra6lifed by the 
 Copts, according to Father du Bernat. But, in addition to 
 the fimple rite of immerfion in the name of the Creator, 
 and Redeemer, and San£i:ifier of Mankind, the church, at 
 an early period, difcovered an improvement upon our Lord's 
 inftitution, and appointed god-fathers and god mothers ; 
 an innovation which Tertullian difliked,-f- and which, it 
 would appear from Juftin Martyr's fecond apology, was 
 not known in his time. To god-fathers and god-mothers 
 exorcifm was foon added. This, again, confiiled in the 
 Prieft's breathing in the face of the perfon to be baptized, 
 on which the devil, who it would appear, has an antipathy 
 to a Prieft's breath, or a dread of it, took fright, and run 
 off in great hafte. When Satan was thus diflodged, the 
 baptifmal water was confecrated,f and then the convert, or 
 infant, was baptized. Sprinkling, though it is not bap- 
 tifm, was not accounted unlawful, in the cafe of fickly in- 
 fants, or of adults who were confined by difeafe. The 
 Chrifm, or undion, was, in very early times, adminiiter- 
 ed at baptifm, and the fign of the crofs adopted ; and then 
 
 D 4 came 
 
 * DeCoron. Milit. etadv. Prax.^ f De Baptism. 
 
 + I am curious to know, whether John the Baptist consecrated the 
 river Jordan, or Ph. lip ** the certain water," in which he baptized 
 the Ethiopian Convert. Does High Church know any thing about 
 it? 
 
56 PRELIMINARY 
 
 came impofition of hands, or confirmation, as a neceflary 
 appendage of the initiatory right. Nor was this all. For 
 Tertulllan * informs us, that fo early as his time (about 
 the end of the fecond century) baptifm was not confidered 
 to be complete, till the neophyte^had folemnly eaten ho- 
 ney and milk jis a religious banquet, and abftained from 
 the bath a full week : and in the time of Cyprian, it was 
 accounted neceflary, in order to fecure the full benefit of 
 baptifm, that the baptized fhould very foon partake in the 
 eucharifh. Accordingly he tells us,f that even infants were 
 carried to that facred inftitution, and, in fome cafes, had 
 the euchariftic wine poured down their throats by force ; — 
 an operation at which, he fays, he was once prefent him- 
 felf. The practice among the Copts, of the Priefl dipping 
 his finger in the chalice, and putting it to the mouth of the 
 infant, whom he has juft baptized, appears to me to be an 
 improvement upon the ancient cuftoms. I fay nothing of 
 the torches, the candles, the fait, and other wares of the 
 ivhore ef Babylon^ as our firft reformers in Scotland would 
 have called them, with which the church of Rome has been 
 long in ufe to disfigure the rite of baptifm, and to make it 
 a ceremony very different from that which Philip made it, 
 when he baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. 
 
 And now I beg leave to put the following queftions to our 
 Vindicator, and the Anti-jacobin. If chriftians departed fo 
 early from the original fimplicity of thofe pofitive inftitu- 
 tions-of our religion, which are explicitly enjoined, and 
 minutely defcribed, in the New Teftament : could the a- 
 poftles and evangelifts, without being unfaithful to their 
 Mailer, and both unjuftand cruel to the fouls of men, and 
 thus incurring the moft aggravated guilt, have trufted, to 
 
 mere 
 
 * De Coron. Milit. f De Lapsfs, 
 
DISCOURSE. 57 
 
 mere tradition, the conveyance of an inftitutlon, fully as 
 cflential to the falvation of chriftians, in the opinion of 
 High Church, as baptifni and the cucharift ; nay, without 
 vrhich baptifm and the eucharift cannot be blefled and fanc- 
 tified ? Were the apolUes, or was the Spirit, that defcend- 
 ed upon them in tongues of fire, ignorant of the tendency, 
 which there is in human nature toward fuperftitlon and 
 will-worfliip ? Did they not know, that, without fome 
 written rule, to which reference may be had, from time 
 to time, for rectifying the abufes and corruptions, where- 
 with the folly and depravity of man infenfibly pervert the 
 inftitutions of God, thofe abufes and corruptions might be 
 perpetuated to the end of the world ? Had it not been for 
 the fcriptures, which the church of Rome was permitted to 
 •withdraw from the unlearned, but not to deftroy ; whence 
 fliould we have been blefled with the Reformation, which 
 we hail as the fecond rifing of the Sun of Rightcoufnefs upon 
 the earth ? Did not an apoftle prophefy, that it was to the 
 fcriptures that a benighted world fhould owe that glorious 
 and beneficial change ?* and was not the prophecy verified 
 at the Reformation ? 
 
 Let me alk farther ; Had not the chriftlan clergy, in ear- 
 ly times, a ftronger temptation to depart from the modeft 
 and humble fimplicity of the apoftolic plan of church polity, 
 and to fet up a more fplendid and magnificent model, thaii 
 to load the facraments with fopperies of their own inven- 
 tion ? Might they not have done fo with greater fafety to 
 their own reputation, and better fuccefs, fince, as it is al- 
 lowed by all, the fcriptures neither clearly and exprefsly 
 delineate any model of ecclefiaftical government, nor re- 
 commend one as more acceptable to God than another? 
 
 And 
 
 t 2 Thess. ii. 8. 
 
58 PRELIMINARY 
 
 And would not fuch of them who were authors, and oc- 
 cupied highjlations in the church, take care to juftify, in 
 their writings, thofe innovations, in confequence of which 
 they had been raifed to the pinnacle of dear ecclefiaftical 
 power ? Obferve how coolly Tertullian, Origen, Aerius, 
 Jerom, Hilary, and other Priefts and Deacons among the 
 Fathers, write in favour of the hierarchy, in comparifon of 
 thofe Fathers, who had rifen to the acme of clerical ambi- 
 tion, the Epifcopate. Not one of the five juft named fpeaks 
 of the hierarchy as having been from the beginning. And 
 who can tell what unfair means may have been ufed, by 
 dignified and ambitious ecclefiaftics, to fupprefs all the tef- 
 timonies of early writers againfh Epifcopal ufurpation ? How 
 foon did ecclefiaftics begin, and how long have they conti- 
 nued, to refer to apoftolic inftitution what the apoftles ne- 
 ver inftituted, and never thought of? The extravagant 
 pitch of Impudence to which the church of Rome carried 
 this daring impofition, is well known. You cannot men- 
 tion one papal ufurpation, which has not ftrenuous and un- 
 bluthing advocates in the papal church, and fcarcely one, 
 that has not been pronounced, es^ cathedra^ " apoftolical, 
 « and therefore divine." 
 
 Nothing can be conceived more futile than the reafoning 
 by v/hich fome of the keeneft defenders of Epifcopacy pre- 
 tend to account for the acknowledged filence of holy writ 
 on the fubjc6t of the government of the church, as well as 
 of that of the ftate. " It feems," fays Bifhop Skinner, as 
 the humble plagiary of the Anti-jacobin, " to be altogether 
 " inexpedient to delineate in theory, what is daily exhibited 
 " in practice." — Indeed ! Mofes was of another mind. 
 When the Jewifh hierarchy and worfiiip were fet up, they 
 became vifible to all, being " daily exhibited in pradlice." 
 Did the great Legiflator of the feed of Abraham think this 
 
 enough 
 
DISCOURSE. 39 
 
 enough ? No. He delineated the theory of the Jewifh hie- 
 rarchy and worfliip in writing, by divine dire^ion ; (indeed, 
 it has been fuppofed by fome, that, for the accomplifli- 
 ment of this very purpofe, the art of writing was revealed 
 to Mofes) and fo minute and accurate is his delineation, 
 that not fo much as a pin in the tabernacle is overlooked or 
 forgotten ; although Mofes by no means hangs the falva- 
 tion of the Jews on the pins of the tabernacle, as High 
 Church makes the falvation of chriftians dependent on 
 *^the carved woxkoi her fanfluary.'* — Our Vindicator (etvns 
 to be {hocked vvith^the impiety of the Le6l:urer on Eccleft- 
 ajlical Hijlory calling the chriftian religion " a more rational 
 •* and divine difpenfation than the Jewifti."* I truft it will 
 not give offence, if I prefume to call the chriftian religion a 
 difpenfation net lefs rational and divine than the Jewiih. I 
 beg, theuj to know, how it came to pafs, that the Chrif- 
 tian Legiflator, and his firft minifters, exerted lefs care for 
 the prefervation and tranfmiflion of their fcheme, than Mo- 
 fes exerted for the prefervation and tranfmiffion of his. My 
 curiofity to be inftruded on this point is the greater, be- 
 caufe the Jewifli difpenfation was not, like the Chriftian, 
 intended for all men in all nations and ages, to the end of 
 the world. 
 
 We are farther informed, in illuftration of '' the inex- 
 " pediency of delineating in theory what is daily exhibited 
 " in pradice,'* that '* the conftitution of the chriftian 
 «' church, however important in itfelf, did not require to 
 ** be particularly infifted on in the writings of the New 
 " Teftament •," — why ? " Becaufe it muft have been eafily 
 " known, and well underftood by the perfons, for whofe 
 " immediate ufe thofe writings were originally intended. "f 
 
 Really ? 
 
 * Vir.dic. p. 134. \ Id. 133. 
 
60 PRELIMINARY 
 
 Really ? Then I fee no reafon for the apoflles and evaiige- 
 lifts writing any thing at all. If they meant to confine the 
 benefits of the gofpel to their own converts and contempora- 
 ries, it was eafy to make them acquainted with it without 
 writing a word. If, on the other hand, they wifhed this 
 evangelical inftitution to furvive their own age ; and, for 
 that purpofe, committed it to " faithful" writings, as well 
 as to " faithful men," I cannot account for their omitting 
 any one matter, of eflential importance, more than any 
 other : nay, I cannot account for their omitting any thing, 
 in the leaft degree conducive to the falvation of chriftians, 
 which they had heard from their Mafter, without afcribing 
 the omiflion either to treachery, or to a criminal indiffer- 
 ence to the fuccefs of the chrifhian religion in faving them 
 that believe j or, finally, to their not having been under 
 the direction of that unerring Spirit, whom their Mafter 
 had promifed to fend, and by whofe influence they preten- 
 ded to be guided. 
 
 But, why was it " unnecelTary'* to defcribe the hierarchy 
 to the immediate difciples of the apoftles ? " Becaufe thofc 
 " difciples were converted Jews, and converted heathens." 
 They were fo, indeed ; and I do not well know where the'a- 
 poftles could have found difciples, but among Jews and Hea- 
 thens; for there were no Mahometans in thofe days. But the 
 circumftance of their being converts from Judaifm, and pa- 
 gan idolatry, I (hould think as good a reafon for delineating 
 to them in writing, the " divine model" of the church, as for 
 committing any thing elfe to writing for their ufe ; not to 
 mention, that the facred penmen probably expected, that 
 their writings might furvive their own times, and be of 
 fome fervice to chriftians, who might come after their 
 " immediate difciples." No. "Their converts had learn- 
 ** ed all that was neceffary on the fubjedl of church govern- 
 
 " ment 
 
DISCOURSE 61 
 
 " ment before their converfion.'" Indeed ? How came 
 this ? " A great majority,'' fays the Anti-jacobin, *' of 
 *« the people, for whofe immediate ufe the writings of the 
 ** apoftles and evangelifts were originally intended, were 
 *^ either Jews by defcent, or profelytes to the Jewifh reli- 
 " gion, before they became chriftians." Stop a little, Mr. 
 Anti-jacobin, and let us know who told you this fine tale. 
 Were a great majority of the Roman, Corinthian, Galatian, 
 Ephefian, Philippian, ColofTian, Theflalonian, converts, 
 cither Jews by defcent, or profelytes to Judaifm ? If they 
 were, be pleafed to explain to us, why Paul was called the 
 apoftle of the Gentiles, as Peter was named the apoftle of 
 the circumcifion. Tell us alfo, if you pleafe, for whofe 
 *' particular ufe'' tlie gofpel written by Luke, one of Paul's 
 fellow-labourers, and ordinary companions in the miniftry, 
 the A£lsof the Apoftles, the gofpel according to John, the 
 three Epiftles of John, and the Apocalypfe, were original- 
 ly intended. The gofpel according to Matthew, which is 
 commonly believed to have been written in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage, the gofpel written by Mark, whom Papias calls the 
 interpreter of the apoftle of the circumcifion, the Epiftle to 
 the Hebrews, the Epiftle of James, and the Firft Epiftle of 
 Peter, were, no doubt, originally intended for the immedi- 
 ate ufe of the Jews and Jewifti profelytes : But I know of 
 no more of the books of the New Teftament that were in- 
 tended for the ufe of converts from Judaifm. 
 
 But how came Jews, and profelytes to Judaifm, to be 
 fo well inftruded concerning the conftitution of thechrifti- 
 an church, that they had no ufe for any written documents 
 upon the fubje£l ? " Becaufe to them the form and order 
 " of the Priefthood were as familiar as the performance of 
 « the daily fervice of the fan£luary." I grant, that the 
 form and order of the Jeu^i/Jj Priefthood were quite familiar 
 
 to 
 
62 PRELIMINARY 
 
 to Jews, and profelytes to their religion. But what had 
 this to do with the Jbrm and order of the chriftian miniftry" ? 
 " The fervices of the temple, and the form and order of the 
 " Pricflhood, they knew, were to be confidered as types and 
 " fhadows of the good things to come under the gofpel." 
 Did they fo ? Pray, who dcmonftrated to them, that a hie- 
 rarchy under the gofpel is a good thing P This is a demon- 
 ftration which, I am furprized that High Church did not 
 proclaim long ago to the ends of the earth, to the confu- 
 fion of all gainfayers like Corah. But we are here concern- 
 ed with a fadt, and not with a demonftration. Did the 
 Jews, converted by the apoftles, fee the model of the Jew- 
 ifti Priefthood actually fet up in the chriftian church .'' If 
 they did, is it not natural to look in the New Teftament, 
 for fomc allufions to the immutability and perpetual dura- 
 tion of that form, to fay nothing of an explicit declaration 
 that it was never to be altered or abolifhed ? But neither 
 the allufion nor the declaration can be found. The fcrip- 
 tures have left it to the Rev. Charles Daubeny, author of 
 A Guide to the Church, to infer the immutability and ever- 
 lafting duration of the Jbrm of the Jewifli Priefthood, from 
 the unchangeablenefs of the divine nature ; with which, 
 however, he muft admit, that the entire abolition [of the 
 Jewifti religion itfelf is quite inconfiftent : for it was 'actual- 
 ly abolifhed. If Mr. Daubeny reafons conclufively, we 
 may infer, that the metamorphofis of a human body into 
 the (hape of a camel or an elephant, implies no fufpenfion 
 of any law of nature, for the continuance of which we de- 
 pend on the divine immutability, provided only the exter- 
 nal form of the houfe, in which the creature was wont to 
 lodge, be not altered ! It is an indifputable fa£t, that not 
 fo much as one name of office in the apoftollc church, 
 borrowed from the Jewifh Priefthood, is to be met with 
 in the whole New Teftament, fave only that of " the 
 
 " High 
 
DISCOURSE. 65 
 
 " HighPriefl of our profeiTion, who is paflcd into the hea- 
 « vens.'tG:: This fole High Prielt of Chriflians is de- 
 clared in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, which explains the 
 prophecy concerning him which wc find in the CX. Pfalm, 
 to be " an High Pried for ever," not after the order of 
 Aaron, but " after the order of Melchizcdeck," — two or- 
 ders, which the apoftle employs a whole chapter * in prov:- 
 ing to be unlike each other in every refpe61: -, a chapter, 
 wherein he aflerts, that the Priefthood was changed, which 
 inferred the necefTity of changing the law relating to it.f 
 
 Our adverfaries acknowledge all this. But they deduce 
 from it a conclufion the mod extraordinary that is, I fup- 
 pofe, to be met with in any controverfy that ever was agi- 
 tated. " Viewing J:he religion of their fathers in this light, 
 " as nothing elfe hi faSi but chrijl'iamty under a ve'il^ [H] thefe 
 ** converted Jews, or Jewilh profelytes, would naturally m- 
 " fer, from the little that was faid on the fubjedt, that the 
 '* fame orders of Priefthood were to be retained under the 
 " gofpel, that had been eftablifhed under the law." 
 
 What ! would they naturally infer this from the apoftles 
 and evangelifts never once mentioning the continuance of 
 thefe orders, dire6lly or indire£lly, exprefsly, or inciden- 
 tally, and never borrowing fo much as a name of ofRce 
 from the Jewifli Priefthood ? From the filence of the fcrip- 
 tures on the fubje<5l of the Chriftian Priefthood, the con- 
 verted Jews would naturally infer, if they were in their 
 fenfes, that no order, much lefs different orders, of Prieft- 
 hood, were ever meant to be fet up in the chriftian church, 
 whofe only Prieft, " by one offering, hath for ever perfecSt- 
 " ed them that are fandified," andean have neither fuccef- 
 
 for 
 
 [G] See Note. * lleb. vii. f v. 12. [H] See Note. 
 
64 ?RELL\iINARY 
 
 for nor delegate, " feeing he ever llveth to make continuai 
 " interceffion for us." If the apoftles inftituted a Chriftiail 
 Hierarchy fimilar to the Jewifli, by not only concealing their 
 intention to do fo, but induftrioufly avoiding, in the mi- 
 niftry they actually eftablifhed, the ufe of all the names of 
 office in the Jewifh Priefthood ; it muft be acknowledged 
 that they adopted a mode of legiflation altogether unexam- 
 pled, either in ancient or modern times, and departed, as 
 far as they could, from the example fet them by the Law- 
 giver of the Jews -, for which, it is probable, they had 
 fome refpeft, although they did not think proper to Ihew 
 it on this occafion. 
 
 But a fhort word with our Vindicator and the Monthly 
 Cenfor. Can either of you. Gentlemen, inform me, who 
 or where " thofe Chriftians" were, " who perilhed in the 
 " gainfaying of Corah ?"* and by whofe direful end, you 
 infinuate, the converts from Judaifm were frightened into 
 a ftri£i: adherence to the orders of their ancient Priefthood, 
 as a child, when it is feared, " clings the clofer to its mo- 
 <* ther'sbreaft ?'' I have a great defire to know fomething of 
 their hiftory, of which, I am afhamed to fay, I am intirely 
 ignorant. No perfon can fufpecl the Anti^acobin of bring- 
 ing forward, in argument, a fa6:, which he is not prepared 
 to explain and fubftantiate, nor would Primus have borrow- 
 ed a doubtful faft from him, however much he is in the 
 praftice of borrowing reafons. It would be great conde- 
 fcenfion in either of thefe learned Gentlemen, to let us 
 know in what part of the world their gainfaying chriftians 
 perilhed, and alfo upon what occafion ; whether they peri- 
 (hed in a fedition raifed againft the civil powers (an occur- 
 rence by no means rare among the Jews), to which Jude 
 
 feems 
 
 * Viml, p. 138, 
 
DISCOURSE. 65 
 
 ficms to refer in the eighth verfe of his Epiflle ; or in the 
 fury of fchifmatical infurre6lion againfl: ccclefiaftical digni- 
 ties ; whether they fell by the edge of the fword in an 
 *< apoftolical, and therefore divine'' crufade, that was pro- 
 claimed againfl them, or were fwallowed up alive, Hke Co- 
 rah and his company ? — Tell me this, great Political and 
 Literary Cenfor, 
 
 *' Et cris mihi magnus Apollo." 
 
 This part of our adverfaries' reafoning is only laughable. 
 What follows is extravagant, and makes one (tare. 
 
 Having, as they prefume, accounted fatisfa£lorily, for 
 the apoftles and evangelifts thinking it unnecefTary to give 
 the converts from Judaifm any delineatioai, in writing, o£ 
 <^ the plan of that fociety, which was founded by their Maf- 
 " ter i'* they next proceed to {hew, that this was equally 
 unnecefTary for the information of the converts from hea- 
 thenifm. Whence, then, did they learn the indifpenfable 
 necefTity of three orders of ecclefiaflics in the chriflian 
 church, rifing above one another in rank, like the fleps of a 
 ladder ? Whence — but from the higher and lower orders, 
 which they had been fo long accuflomed to, among the 
 men and nuometty who were appointed to direct the idola- 
 trous fervices of heathenifm ? whence, — but *' from their 
 " having been fo long accuftomed to look up to a Poniifex 
 «• Maxiwuj P'^ fays the erudite and fagacious Anti-jacobin. 
 
 After fuch an education as they had received in their 
 unconverted flate, it would, I own, have been a work of 
 fupererogation to give the converts from heathenifm any 
 inftrudion, either by word or writing, concerning the 
 " divine mcdel of the church." And hence it appears, that 
 pagan idolatry, as well ao the law of Mofes, was <^ a ichool- 
 *^ mafler to bring men unto Chrift." I never knew any of 
 
 E its 
 
66 PRELIMINARY 
 
 its facred ufes before ; and the apoflle Paul feems to have 
 been fully as ignorant of them, as I was till the year of our 
 Lord 1803. In his fir ft chapter to the Romans, the apof- 
 tle prefents to us a catalogue of the bad effe£ls of heathen 
 idolatry, and truly, a frightful catalogue it is. But of its 
 good efFedls, or facred ufes, fpeaks he not a word ; very 
 probably, becaufe, as I faid juft now, he knew nothing a- 
 bout them. — But this is not all. 
 
 The converts from heathenifm, who had been accuftom- 
 ed to higher and lower degrees among the Priefts of Saturn 
 and Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, Apis, Ifis, and fo on 
 through the whole Pantheon ; and alfo had been ufed to 
 look up to a Pontifex Maximus ; <« when they /aw the wor- 
 <* fhip and difcipline of the church condu6led by the three 
 ** orders of Apoilles, Presbyters and Deacons," (for there 
 was, unqueftionably, an apoftle for ^wrj; individual church!) 
 •^ could not fail to believe, that this plan of polity would 
 " be permanent under the gofpel :" why ? Becaufe it had 
 been inftituted, long before, for the purpofe of conducting 
 the difcipline of heathen idolatry, and the worfhip of Jupi- 
 ter, and the other abdicated deities ? One (hould think this 
 the only reafon that the converts from heathenifm could 
 have for thinking that a hierarchy would be eftabliftied, and 
 be permanent, under the gofpel. But no ! They had quite 
 another reafon ; and it was, that " a fimilar eftablifhment 
 " had been under the law, while it remained in force." — 
 Admirable ! What did converts from heathen idolatry 
 know about the law, or its eftabliihment of Priefts ? Were 
 the heathen of all ranks, and in every part of the Roman 
 empire, thoroughly acquainted with the law of the Jews ? 
 or were they fuch ardent admirers of that fmgular people, 
 that they eagerly ftudied their ecclefiaftical poUty .' Were 
 not the Jews and their religion equally and generally def- 
 N . pifed 
 
DISCOURSE. 6T 
 
 plfed and dctcfted ? But, admit that a few of the converts 
 to chriflianlty among the heathen did know fomething a- 
 bout the Jewifli law ; when the purpofes of Providence in 
 giving it to the Jews were accomplifhed, and its fervices a- 
 boHflicd, was it not natural to conclude, that the offices, 
 which were inflitutcd for conducting thofe fervices, were 
 intended to be abolifhed alfo ; and that it would have been 
 downright abfurdity to perpetuate an eftabllfhrnent of offi- 
 cers, after their functions were dond away, and nothing was 
 left for them to do ? No, " This the heathen converts 
 *' could not believe to be acceptable to that God of order, 
 " from whom both the law and the gofpel proceeded." — 
 More and more admirable ! The law itfelf might be abo- 
 liffied ; the Priefts might be obliged to turn their hacks up- 
 on the altar ; the altar itfelf, its facrifices and its obla- 
 tions, might be annihilated ; and the temple might be de- 
 moliffied, never to be rebuilt again, without any departure 
 from that innfGrmity in the plan of man's redemption, of 
 which High Church fpeaks fo often, without knowing what 
 ^i\^ fays : but the form of the minillry could not be altered, 
 without introducing into the plan of man's redemption, a 
 confufion and difconformity, of which the God of order 
 cannot be foppofed to be the author ; and we mufl for ever 
 IiaveHigh Priefts, ox pontifices maximty ordinary Priefts and 
 Levites, although we have neither temple, nor altar,* nor 
 lacrifice, nor any one religious office, which requires a 
 Priefc {h^iXi or facerdotem) or Levite to perform it. This 
 is order. 
 
 It is by the reafoning upon which we have taken the li- 
 berty of animadverting, that the modern advocates of Epif- 
 copacy attempt to remove the objection to their fyftem, 
 
 E 2 which 
 
 ^' The Christian Altar i^ Ihc Cro^s of Christ. See Heb. xiir. 
 
6S PRELIMINARY 
 
 which arifes from the fa£t, a h£i not denied by themfelves, 
 that the facred writers nowhere prefcribe any fpecific plan 
 of ecclefiaftical polity, and do not fo much as " mention, 
 " in exprefs and pofitive terms," the plan which they them- 
 felves adapted in their own age. — Before I quit this part of 
 our fub]e61:, I muft beg leave to afk High Church, fmce fhe 
 ivil/ have her clergy to be Priefts, for what reafon fhe does- 
 not take the Priefthood of Chrifl as her model, inftead of 
 the Jewifli Priefthood, which was only typical of that of 
 our Lord ? What more congruous and reafonable, than 
 that chriftians (hould form their Priefthood on the Prieft- 
 hood of Chrift ? Is there common fenfe in continuing the 
 type or figure, after the perfon or thing typified and prefi- 
 gured has aftually appeared ? Jefus Chrift, who was typi- 
 fied in the Priefthood of Aaron, and prefigured in the le- 
 gal facrifices, came in the flefh eighteen hundred years a- 
 go, and accomplifhed all that was foretold of him by the 
 prophets, and prefigured in the law. He thus verified the 
 prophecies, that men might believe in him, and difmifTed 
 the law, as a difpenfation which had fulfilled the grand 
 purpofe of its inftitution, and was, therefore, of no farther 
 ufe to mankind. Nay, Providence has fo ordered, that the 
 fervices of the law, which were typical of Him, have been 
 difcontinued, over all the earth, for more than feventeen 
 centuries. Does High Church fay, that the Aaronic Prieft- 
 hood /ha/I live, in fpite of the full accomplifhment of the 
 chief purpofe of its inftitution, and in fpite of the Jiai of e- 
 ternal Providence, by which it is abolifhed, without alking 
 the confent of High Church ? Let her have her Priefthood, 
 fince it muft be fo. But let that Priefthood be Chrifiian, 
 and not Jewifh; fubftantial, like that of Chrift, and not 
 a fhadow, like the Priefthood of Aaron. The Sun of Righ- 
 teoufnefs (liines in the full blaze of his meridian fplen- 
 dor. Have we any ufe for the morning twilight to fore= 
 
 bode 
 
DISCOURSEJ 6d 
 
 bode his coming ? If the minifters of High Church be re- 
 fblved, in fpite of common fcnfe, to be Chriftian Priefts, 
 let them remember, that the ahar, on which Chritl oiFered 
 facrifice, was his crofs^ and that he was h'unfelf \.\ic vtdlim. 
 
 § 6. It is a curious fa£l in the hiftory of theological con- 
 troverfy, that, though the advocates of the hierarchy ac- 
 knowledge, as we have feen, that our only infallible teach- 
 ers, in things pertaining to the kingdom of God, do not 
 mention, " in exprefs and pofitive terms," the plan of ec- 
 clefiaftical polity which they themfelves formed ; yet thofc 
 controvertifts pretend to find, what they are pleafed to call,. 
 ** the apoftolic, and therefore divine" model in the New 
 Teftament. To find an inftitution in a book, wherein it 
 is not " mentioned in exprefs and pofitive terms," mani- 
 fefts no common degree of fagacity. But admit the apoftolic 
 model to be, not only mentioned, but fully and clearly de- 
 lineated by the facred penmen. Does it hence follow, that 
 the univerfal adoption of that model is eflential to the fal- 
 vation of chriftians ? No furely, unlefs the adoption of it 
 were clearly and authoritatively prefcribed as a chriftian 
 duty. The law publifhed by the apoftles, in the name of 
 Chrift, is one thing ; their pra(3:ice is quite another. The 
 apoftles held communion wdth the Jewifh church, till, by a 
 fentence of excommunication, they v^ere compelled to de- 
 fift. They were, indeed, commanded by their Mafter to 
 do fo. But do modern Blftiops think themfelves concerned 
 either in the command or the example ? They do not attend 
 the fynagogue every fabbath day, nor do whatfoever the 
 Scribes and Pharifees, who fit in Mofes' feat, enjoin them, 
 although they have never been caft out of the fynagogue. 
 The apoftles were univerfal Bi(hops, and their office was 
 ambulatory : " Go and teach all nations^ But from the 
 days of the apoftles to this time, the dignitaries of High 
 
 E 3 Church, 
 
70 PRELIMINARY 
 
 Church, with the exception only of the famous College Bi- 
 fjops of Scotland, have never been confidered to be BIfhops 
 of all the world : and as for fetting out, without purfe or 
 fcrip, or change of apparel, to preach the gofpel to uncon- 
 verted nations, they have not been fufpecSled, fo far as I 
 know, of any violent inclination to fuch Quixotifm, and 
 have left thofe apoftolic labours to be borne by fuch heroes 
 as Olaus Frigueffon, king of Norway. The apoftles were 
 all circumcifed Bi{hops. Yet their fucceffors do not think 
 it their duty to fubmit to that operation. The apoftles not 
 only fubmitted themfelves to a military defpotifm, which 
 was the form of civil government In the Roman empire in 
 their day, but alfo commanded all their difciples to fubmit 
 to the powers that then were. Has this been confidered as 
 ftamping the divine fandlion on that form of civil govern- 
 ment, and obliging all chriftlan minifters, in all ages, to 
 prefer a military defpotifm to every other kind of regimen ? 
 But, if I were to point out ail the difcrepancies between 
 the practice of the apoftles, and that of the Biftiops of High 
 Church, who pretend to be their fucceflbrs in office, I 
 fhould fill a volume fully as large as Primitive Truth and Or- 
 der Vindicated. Thofe prelates conform to the example of 
 their illuftrious predeceffors, juft as much as they find it 
 convenient for themfelves, and fuitabie to the prefent ftate 
 of the church, and no more : and yet they will not allow 
 others, who happen not to be of their mind on every fub- 
 jeft, the fame liberty ! Where there is no explicit com- 
 mand, the practice of the apoftles, in matters of order, is 
 entitled to the moft profound refpedl ; for we may well be- 
 lieve, that it was wifely fulted to the fituation of the church 
 in their time. But the church is not now, in all places, in 
 the fame circumftances in which it was in the days of the 
 apoftles. Therefore, the plan of ecclefiaftical polity which 
 they adopted in their own times, and adopted, as we ftiall 
 
 fee 
 
DISCOURSE. 71 
 
 fee by and by, from motives of expediency, they might not 
 think expedient, in every inftance, in the prefent day. It 
 is, for example, not at all unlikely, that, in no city or vil- 
 lage of this ifland, they would find a plurality of Bifbops fo 
 expedient in the nineteenth century, as they found it at E- 
 phefus before Paul finally left Afia Minor ; and whether 
 they would do fo or not, it is certain that High Church, 
 who fpeaks as if ftie had been of their privy council, fees no 
 nccelfity for fuch an eftablifliment. And, upon the whole, 
 if the apoftles had known, that one particular plan of go- 
 vernment is not only fuited to the circumftances of the 
 church in all ages, and in all pofTible fituations, but abfo- 
 lutely eflential to the falvation of chriflians ; they would 
 undoubtedly have both delineated it, and enjoined the a- 
 doption of it as the will of God. To deny this, is to call in 
 queftion the credibility of the gofpel. In reaHty, though 
 High Church " meaneth not fo, neither doth her heart think 
 ** fo ;" by maintaining that her minifters, and the forni of 
 their miniftry, can alone fecure to chriflians the benefit of 
 what Chrift purchafed for them with his blood, while, at 
 the fame time, (he acknowledges that her hierarchy is, no- 
 where in fcripture, either prefcribed to all Chrlftians, or fo 
 much as ** mentioned in exprefs and pofitive terms ;" (he 
 lays the axe to the root of the credibility of holy writ, and 
 fupports the caufe of infidelity with vigour and efledl. This 
 confideration could not fall to have great weight with the 
 deceafed Ledurer on Ecclefiaftlcal Hiftory It was, in all 
 probability, his chief, if not his only reafon, for combating 
 the peculiar doctrines of High Churchmen. And it became 
 the victorious defender of the credibility of the gofpel mi- 
 racles againll the infidel Hume, to defend the credibility of 
 the gofpel hiflory in general, againft that philofopher's felf- 
 deluded auxiliaries. 
 
 E 4 § 7. Ill 
 
7'i PRELLMINARY 
 
 § 7. In Searching for the apoftollc model of church go- 
 vernment in the New Teftament, where, they admit, it is 
 not " mentioned in exprel^ and pofitive terms," our oppo- 
 nents overlook a very obvious di{lin£tion, and confound the 
 offices, which Chrift eftabliftied in his church for the con- 
 verfion of Jews and Gentiles, with thofe offices, which the 
 apoftles eftablifhed in the church for the prefervation of the 
 evangelical inftitution, and its tranfmiffion to future ages. 
 Were both the eftablifhments, now mentioned, the very 
 fame ? or were they intended to be equally permanent ? 
 That they were not the fame eftabUlhment, is manifefl: from 
 the confideration, that their refpe£tive ends were very difFe- 
 rent, and required, for the accomplifliment of them, very 
 different qualifications in the officers. And that they were 
 jiot intended to be equally permanent appears, not only from 
 their refpc^tive ends and purpofes, but from this indifputa- 
 ble fa£l, that they did not both continue. Of all the officers 
 named by Paul * as having been y^/ in the church, and given 
 to it by Almighty God, there was not one, whofe powers 
 and endowments (which the apofllc declares to have been 
 fupernaturalf) nay, whofe very name, furvlved the firfl 
 age. Does High Church tell me, after Theodoret, that 
 Biftiops, who were the fucceflbrs of the apoftles, abftained 
 from the aflumption of the name out of humility f Did the 
 humility of Biffiops increafe, as the church advanced in 
 years? What fays ecclefiaftical hiftory ? Liften to Eufe- 
 bius.J Nay, hear Origen, an earlier writer than Theodo- 
 ret, or even Eufebius. Look into his Commentary on the 
 Twentieth Chapter of the Gofpel of Matthew j and if he 
 was not as vile a calumniator as he was efteemed a heretic 
 
 by 
 
 * 1 Cor. xii. Eph, iv. -[ 1 Cor. xii. 1—11, 
 
 I ^is^. Eccl. Lib. ^iii. Cap. 1. 
 
DISCOURSE. 7S 
 
 by Jerom, and fome of Jeromes contemporaries, you will 
 allow, that prehtlcal pride and tyranny, did, fo early as his 
 time, exceed the infolence and tyranny of the word princes 
 of the Gentiles. Yet with all this Epifcopal pride and ar- 
 rogance, Bifhops, according to Theodoret, were fo humble^ 
 as not to fuffer themfelves to be diftinguilhed by a name of 
 office, to which they had an unqueftionable title ! It would 
 feem that the humility of the inferior clergy, in the fecond 
 and third centuries, had been equally exemplary ; for, 
 though we hear of Presbyters, Deacons, Exorcifts, Le6tors, 
 Acolyths, &c. we find no fuch names of office as Prophets, 
 Evangelifts, Teachers, miracles, gifts of healing, helps, 
 governments, diverfities of tongues. Admirable humility ! 
 Yet the humble fpirit of the church rofc gradually after- 
 wards, till, in procefs of time, ecclefiaftics could fuffi^r 
 themfelves to be addrefTed, " Holy Father, Your Holinefs, 
 <* Your Lordlhip, Your Grace, Your Eminence," and fo 
 forth. And thus came things to be " placed on that de- 
 " cent and regular footing," on which they now fland. 
 
 The officers, fet in the church by the apoflles, were el- 
 ders or Bifhops (for both titles are given in the New Tef- 
 tament, to the fame officers) and Deacons. So far as we 
 can learn from fcripture, and from the Epiftles of Clemens 
 Romanusand Polycarp, the contemporaries of the apoftles, 
 thefe were the only orders, which the firft publifliers of the 
 gofpel appointed for its prefervation and tranfmiffion to pof- 
 terity. DeaconefTes were not of a different order, but of a 
 different fex, from Deacons. The office of an Evangelift, 
 as the name imports, was to preach the gofpel where it had 
 never been preached before. Evangelifts were next in de- 
 gree to the apoftles, and their funftion was nearly allied to 
 theirs. None of them could have a local charge among 
 chriftians, as Elders or Biftiops hud, without ceafing to be 
 
 Evan- 
 
74 PRELIMINARY 
 
 Evangelifls. They generally attended the apoftles in their 
 journies into heatlien countries, and were fent by them to 
 various places to preach the gofpel, and to fome, where the 
 apoftles had preached themfelves, to finifli the work which 
 they had begun, *^ and fet in order the things that were 
 « wanting," particularly in what regarded the ordaining of 
 ecclefiaftical officers. Thus fpeak the New Teftament and 
 the Fathers, concerning the office of Evangelifts. Their 
 title fliews that their offi.ce was extraordinary, and, fo far 
 as we can difcover, their fupernatural powers ceafed much 
 about the fame time with thofe originally beftowed on the 
 apoftles. That they were given to the church by Jefus 
 Chrift, and were not of apoitolic appointment, is exprefsly 
 declared in one of the paffages last referred to in the mar- 
 gin,* We hear of only one Evangelift, who received ordina- 
 tion from men ; but, for aught we know, they rnay all have 
 been '* feparated," in this manner, to their evangelical 
 work. Timothy, the only Evangelift, of whofe ordination 
 exprefs mention is made in fcripture, was ordained, not 
 by an apoftle,.who, by no figure of fpeechthafc we know of, 
 could be called " the Presbytery ;" nor by any number of 
 the apoftles, of whofe formation into a presbytery we have 
 no intimation (and much do we lament it !) but by a clafe 
 or college of Presbyters in a chriftian church. [I] 
 
 As to the apoftles, they did not fet one another in the 
 church ; nor, when any of them died, did they appoint a 
 fucceflbr to him. Indeed, we hear of only one of them 
 who had a fucceflbr, I mean Judas. Our Vindicator informs 
 us, for the edification of the catholic church, that the fuc- 
 ceflbr of Judas was ele6l:ed by the eleven, " who alfo pre- 
 f' fcribed feveral rites to be obferved by the members of their 
 
 fpiritual 
 
 * Eph. iv. [I] See Notes. 
 
DISCOURSE. 75 
 
 « fpiritual fociety."* Of the "rites'* I know nothing, ha- 
 ving never heard of them before I read Skinner's Vindica- 
 tion. The information about the prefcription of " feveral 
 " rites" is only ridiculous. But Bifliop Skinner's account 
 of the election of Judas' fucceflbr, is an infult to his readers. 
 What is written in the firfh chapter of the book of Ad;s? That 
 the eleven were the eledors of Matthias? No! but that Juda»' 
 fucceflbr was elected by all the difciples who were prefent, 
 (the number of the names together was about a hundred 
 and twenty) the choice between Matthias and Barfabas hav- 
 ing been, by cailing of lots and by prayer, referred to Je- 
 fus Chrift himfelf, who called all the reft of the apof- 
 tles. [J] 
 
 Of the apocalyptic angels, High Church may make what- 
 ever (he pleafcs to make. Any church, that refts the truth 
 of a^do(Sbrine, the pracStical belief of which (he accounts ef- 
 fential to falvation, on the fymbolical phrafeology of a book 
 fo myfterious as the Apocalypfe, is much at a lofs for 
 " proofs of holy writ !" My creed refpe6ling the clearnefs 
 of the law, by which we fliall be judged, is the creed of 
 Mofes, and of the apoftle of the Gentile3,f and if it differ 
 from that of Blfhop Skinner and his allies, I cannot help it. 
 <' For this commandment, which I command thee this day, 
 <' it is not hidden from thee" (wrapt up in myftery) " nei- 
 " ther is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou fliouldll 
 ♦' fay, Who fliall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto 
 " us, that we may hear it and do it \ Neither is it beyond 
 " the fea, that thou (houldft fay, Who (hall go over the 
 " fea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and 
 *' do it ? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, 
 
 * Vindic. p. 125. 
 [J] See Note. i Deuleron. xxx. 11—14. Rom. x. 8. 
 
76 PRELIMINARY 
 
 « and in thy heart, that thou mayeft do it." — The Apoca- 
 lyptic angels may, for ought I certainly know, have been 
 moderators of their refpe(5live confiftories, ox collegia presby^ 
 teroruniy or prolocutors, or parochial Bifhops, or diocefan 
 Bifliops, or even Deans and Chapters ; — for though our 
 Vindicator denies it, nothing is more notorious, than that 
 they are fometimes addrefled in the plural number :* Nay, 
 if anyone (hould infift, with Mr. Dodwell, that they were 
 Legates fent by Pope James, or his fucceflbr, from Jerufa- 
 lem, and anfwered in number, as well as office, to the/e- 
 ven fpir its, thai are the eyes of the Lerdy luhich run to and fro 
 through the luhole earthy T have no inclination to bring the 
 matter to " mortal arbitriment" with him. But this I will 
 take upon me to aflert pofitively, that, till it fhall be prov- 
 ed beyond difpute, that thofe angels of the churches were 
 a£lually either diocefan Bifhops, or Moderators of ecclefi- 
 aftical courts, neither Epifcopacy, nor Presbytery, nor any 
 form of ecclefiaftical polity that ever was, can derive fo 
 much as the fhadow of fupport from the " Epiflles to the 
 " Seven Churches." Nay, admit that the angels were the 
 Bifhops of thofe churches ; this would only prove that E- 
 pifcopacy obtained in fome churches in Afia Minor, at the 
 time the Epiflles were written ; but it would not prove, 
 that it was of. apoftolic inflitution. 
 
 To urge, with Mr. Rhind, that the Seven Epiflles do not 
 exprefs difapprobation of the authority, which the angels of 
 the church exercifed, is to urge nothing to the purpofe.— 
 We are not told what authority thofe men exercifed. And 
 let it be remarked, that the mere hlence of the Epiflles with 
 refped to the authority exercifed by the angelsy by no means 
 dcraonflrates that their office was of divine appointment : 
 
 it 
 
 ■* See Rev. ii. iii. 
 
t 
 
 DISCOURSE. 77 
 
 it might have been a human inftitution, and yet not dlfap- 
 proved by the Spirit of God : which, we hope, is true of 
 feveral human inftitutions, both ecclefiaftical and civil. The 
 truth is, there is no ful)je£l of great intereft to mankind, 
 on which we are furni(hed with lefs in(lru£tIon in fcriptAire, 
 than on forms of government in church and ftate. Here 
 we are left to our own choice. But our Vindicator ventures 
 to implicate the very jufticc of God in the Epifcopal charac- 
 ter of the angels of the feven churches ! <* If,*' fays he, 
 *« they had not been clothed with the Epifcopal character, 
 •' it would be dilTicult to reconcile the charges given to 
 " them by St. John, in the name of Chrift, with the divine 
 ** equity."* This is to pufli the argument in favour of E- 
 pifcopacy to the utmoft pofllble degree of abfurdity. If it 
 imply any thing to our Vindicator's purpofe, it muft mean, 
 that a Bifhop may fairly arrogate to himfelf the merit of 
 all the faith and obedience to be found among the people, 
 be they few or many, who are under his Epifcopal charge ; 
 and that he is refponfible for all the infidelity, the herefy, 
 the evil aftions, both fecret and open, with which the dif- 
 ferent members of his flock are chargeable ; and if this be 
 found do£trine, what reafon has our Vindicator to rejoice, 
 that he has been faved from the dreadful misfortune of be- 
 ing Biftiop of London ! I always thought, that we puny 
 Blfhops (for we are really Biftiops) of the Church of Scot- 
 land, had " a right, in virtue oi our apoftolic commiflion, 
 " to check herefy, and if the heretic be obftinate, to ex- 
 ** communicate him ; a right to reprove what is wrong, to 
 «* rebuke the wicked, and expel the incorrigible ; a right to 
 ** ordain Presbyters and Deacons, to appoint their fervices, 
 ** infpe£l their condu£l, and fee that every thing be done 
 " decently and for edification " and that it is our indif- 
 
 pcnfabie 
 
 ^ -kI p. 203. 
 
78 PRELIMINARY 
 
 penfable duty to exercife all thofe rights with faithfulnefs 
 and diligence. But whether thofe rights really belong to 
 us Of not, we do exercife them ; not fo faithfully as we 
 ought, I confefs, for we all come (hort of our duty ; but, 
 perhaps, much about as faithfully as our brethren of High 
 Church. Therefore "ffleep critic and antiquary of the Thir- 
 iy-fixth Century y when he fhall read our Condones ad Clerum^ 
 and our charges at ordinations, which have been publifhed, 
 and are likely to be immortal, will be well warranted in 
 contending, that in the Nineteenth Century there were be- 
 tween nine hundred and a thoufand diocefan Bifhops in 
 Scotland ! 
 
 Thus we have feen, that, for any thing that has yet been 
 advanced to the contrary, the only ecclefiaftical officers that 
 were ever conftituted by the apoftles, are Bifhops and Pref- 
 byters, and Deacons, the latter of which orders were fe- 
 parated by prayer and impofition of hands, for the fole 
 work of managing the concerns of the poor.* 
 
 Now let me ask, on which of the eftablifhments of ec- 
 clefiaftics in the apoftolic church, that which was fet in it, 
 and given to it by our Lord, or the eftablifhment fet up by 
 the apoftles, does common fenfe tell us that we ought to 
 fix as the apoftolic model ? Is it not unqueftionably the lat- 
 ter ? And is it not to be prefumed, that thofe orders of ec- 
 clefiaftics, which the apoftles appointed, in times of peril, 
 difficulty, and diftrefs, for the prcfcrvation and tranfmif- 
 fion of the evangelical inftitution, are quite fufHcient for 
 the purpofe, in times of peace and fecurity ? Which of us, 
 the Presbyterian church of Scotland, which is fatisfied with 
 parochial Bifhops and Deacons, or our Epifcopal Church, 
 
 that 
 
 * Acts vi. 1— a 
 
DISCOURSE. 75^ 
 
 that adds diocefan Bifhops to the apodolic orders, is mod 
 juflly chargeable with the guilt of vioUting Primitive 'Iruih 
 and Order ? 
 
 § 8. There are feme fac^s, which Pligh Church feems to 
 have overlooked in reading the fcriptures ; and to which, I 
 know, {he will thank me for calling her attention. — The a- 
 poftles were, for fome time after the effufion of the Holy 
 Ghoft, the only officers in the chriftian church. Of they^- 
 venfy we hear not a word, after they returned from the on- 
 ly mifhon on which they were ever fent, and gave an account 
 of their fuccefs to their mafter ;* and Deacons were not or- 
 dained, nor feem they to have been thought of, till the 
 number of the difciples became fo great, that the apoftles 
 could not pay due attention to the concerns of the poor, 
 and to the more nccefiary duty of preaching the word. — 
 Hence it is manifeft, that the inftitation of the Diaconate 
 was a meafure of expediency, fuggefted by the exigency of 
 the moment, and that, if it had not been necelTary, at the 
 time of its inftitution, it had not been inftituted. From 
 tliis, it is a clear and undeniable inference, that, as the a- 
 poftles a£led, in the appointment of ecclefiaftical officers, 
 on principles of expediency, every chriftian church is fully 
 warranted by their example, to make fuch alterations in its 
 ecclefiaftical conftitution, as to its rulers and people {hall 
 feem expedient for promoting the ends of the chriftian reli- 
 gion. Hence alfo, as, in modem Epifcopal churches, the 
 bufinefs of Deacon is turned over to other officers -, it is 
 very unlike apoftolic practice to continue the order; and it 
 
 is 
 
 * Bishop Sage, long before our Vindicator and Anti-jacobin were 
 born, proved, that the commission given to the Seventy during the 
 lite of our Lord oil eailh, was merely temporary, and that it was not 
 renewed afler Christ's ro-MMe< tiou. See Princ. of Cypr, Age. — 
 Ch. VI. 
 
BO PRELIMINARY 
 
 is indeed, fully as ridiculous, as it would be to have an or- 
 der of Levites for killing vidtims, where no animal facrifi- 
 ces are offered. 
 
 It is admitted by all, excepting the defenders of the pa- 
 pal fupremacy, that, among the firft and moft illuftrious 
 officers who ever were in the church, the moft complete pa- 
 rity reigned. And this is no more than their Mafter had 
 exprefsly commanded.* Nay, fo far was He from fetting 
 up a hierarchy among them, that he commanded each to be 
 the fervant of all, moft pathetically urging his own great 
 example ;f and he forbade them either to affiime, or to ac- 
 cept, titles, which imply fuperiority to their brethren, or a 
 right to diSfate to them.ij: But why do I mention ihefe 
 laws ? They fell into defuetude full fixteen centuries ago. 
 
 It is matter of difpute, whether the perfon, whom eccle- 
 fiaftlcal hiftorlans call xhtjirji Bijhop of Jerufalem, which, 
 there is reafon to think, fignlfies nothing more than \\\<tfirjl 
 perfon who ivas ordained to a paftoral charge in that city, (whe- 
 ther this perfon) was James the Lefs, an apoftle, and call- 
 ed by Paul " the brother of our Lord -" or a different man, 
 perhaps one of the feventy, and furnamed the Juft. 
 
 That the firft perfon ordained to " feed the flock of 
 « Chrift" in Jerufalein, was James an apoftle, is to the laft 
 degree improbable ; for it implies one of two things, either 
 that he had renounced the apoftolate, which was inconfif- 
 tent with a local charge, or that he had been degraded from 
 that high office into a local Bifhop. Is either of thefe fup- 
 pofitions admiffible ? I cannot think it. But be he apoftle, 
 
 or 
 
 * Matthew xx. 28. f Luke xxii. 26, 27= 
 
 X Matthew xxiii. 7. 8. 
 
DISCOURSE. 81 
 
 or be he one of the feventy, or neither the one nor the other ; 
 Itrufl the advocates of the hierarchy do not mean to prove, 
 that the apoftles raifed him above themfelves, and made 
 him their patriarch or Pope ! Yet, it is remarkable, and 
 (hew3 to what miferabic fliifts they are reduced for the pur- 
 pofe of propping up their beloved ecclefiaftical model, that 
 they do not produce one inftance of refpe£lful deference 
 paid to James, M^hich was not paid by the apoflles, and none 
 clfe ;* unlefs, indeed, the circumftance of afl the " elders" 
 at Jerufalem being found at the houfe of James, by Paul, 
 (when he went thither, after his return to Jerufalem from 
 preaching among the Gentiles) be a proof of the fubjec- 
 tion of thofe elders to James, as their diocefan ; — an evi- 
 dence of fubje£tion as fatal to the independence of Paul, as 
 to that of the elders -, for he joined them in fitting or (land- 
 ing at the foot of the firfl: Epifcopal throne, and, very pro- 
 bably, has received, on his knees, the blefling of his eccle- 
 fiaftical fuperior ! — The refpedt, which the other apoflles 
 paid to James, can be eafily accounted for, without our 
 fuppofing, that they fubje6i:ed themfelves to his authority. 
 What can be more natural than to think, that the connexion 
 of James the Lefs with our Lord, was fufiicient to procure 
 to him all the veneration and attachment which, the fcrip- 
 tures inform us, the other apoflles (hewed ? Of the ardent 
 love and profound reverence, which they felt for their cru- 
 cified Mafter, who " dwelt among them, and {hewed them 
 ** his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Fa- 
 '* ther, full of grace and truth ;" and who died for them, 
 and all mankind, we can form little conception. Can we 
 v/onder that they felt the warmeft attachment to every per- 
 ion connected with one, whom they admired, and loved, 
 and adored ? efpecially to a perfuii, wlinfe connexion was 
 
 ^ See Viiid. p, 246, ?47, 248. 
 
82 PRELIMINARY 
 
 fo near, that Paul calls him " the Lord's brother ?" Was not 
 this natural ?* Was it not unavoidable, where there was a 
 heart ? Does it hence follow that, in diredl: violation of their 
 Lord's commands, either they would be difpofed to make 
 James their Pope, or that he would accept that dignity ? 
 To fay that he dictated the decree of the Afiembly at Jeru- 
 falem, by which the difpute about circumcifion was termi- 
 nated, merely becaufe he was the lad who fpoke upon the 
 uibje6t, is fo childiflily abfurd, that one is almoft afhamed 
 to take notice of it. Was James' opinion different from 
 that of the other fpeakers ? Not at all. He only confirmed, 
 by an appeal to ancient prophecy, the conclufions which his 
 brethren had drawn from miracles, and other recent fafts. 
 Then he did not influence or over-rule their deliberation, 
 much lefs did he " clofe it with a decifive fentence.'' Did 
 he put his own name only at the head of the decree, when 
 it was fent to Antiodi ? The decree runs in the name of 
 no perfon ^in particular, but in the name of all who were 
 prefent at the difcufTion of the queftion that gave occafion to 
 it, the breihretiy as well as the apoftles and elders. " The 
 " apoftles, and elders, and brethren, fend greeting to the 
 <« brethren which are of the Gentiles at Antioch, and in Sy- 
 " ria, and Ciiicia.f" From this addrefs it would follow, 
 that, if James had " clofed the debate" about circumcifion, 
 with " a decifive fentence," he was the firft, Biftiop, not 
 merely of Jerufalem, but of Antioch, and all Syria, and 
 Cilicia in Afia Minor. But, indeed, if he had authority to 
 didlate to the other apoftles, and to pronounce decrees 
 
 which 
 
 * May we not, on the same principle, account for the veneration, 
 which was so early paid to the memory of our Lord's mother, and 
 which soon ended in idolatry? 
 
 t Acts XV. 23. 
 
DISCOURSE. 83 
 
 which bound them and all the chriftians then in the world, 
 he was, of courfc, the Bifhop of the whole earth : a doc- 
 trine, which the Pope of Rome himfelf would anathema- 
 tize as anti-chriftian. The abfurdity of aflerting, that the 
 decifive fentence of James [K] put an end to the controver- 
 fy, appears fo complete, that mthiiig can be added to it, 
 when we confider, that the decree itfelf bears, that it was 
 didtated by the Holy Ghoft, [L] which fell on all the apof- 
 ties alike. 
 
 As yet, then, we have found no fubordination whatever 
 in the apoftolic church, nor any reafon to believe, that our 
 Lord intended, that there ftiould ever be any fubordination 
 among the minifters of his gofpel. — *« What !" exclaims an 
 Epifcopalian, "do you place Apoftles and Deacons, or even 
 " Presbyters and Deacons, on a footing in point of rank 
 " and authority V^ I do not well know, what Epifcopalians 
 mean by rank and authority. But I (hall explain, in a 
 moment, what, I think, every rational and impartial en- 
 quirer muft difcovcr in fcripture on the fubje61:. I fay, then, 
 that as the apoftles were not conftituted by themfelves, 
 their ofhce made no part of the apoftolic model j and there- 
 fore, they are out of the queftion. I fay, farther, in the 
 fpirit of the apoftolic declaration, " It is not reafon that we 
 »* fhould leave the word of God, and fcrve tables,"* that 
 the oflice of thofe ecclefiaftics, in the apoftolic church, who 
 were employed folely in preaching the word, was more dig- 
 nified, becaufe it was more important, than the oflice of 
 thofe to whom the management of the concerns of the poor 
 was committed. But it does not hence follow, that the for- 
 mer either claimed or exercifed authority over the latter. 
 
 F 2 Where, 
 
 [K] See Notes. [L] See Note=. 
 
 * Acti vi. -?. 
 
S* PRELIMINARY 
 
 Where, In the wliole New Teftament, do you find, that 
 any ordinary ecclefiaftical officer was veiled with dominion 
 over other ordinary ecclefiaftical officers ? No where, I 
 venture to affirm with confidence. It was too early to for- 
 get, or trample underfoot, the commands of Him, "who 
 « was meek and lowly in heart," or to fet at nought his ex- 
 ample, before the facred canon was clofed. It is, indeed, 
 an apoftolic precept, which our Vindicator does not fufFer us 
 to forget, " Obey them that have rule over you, and fub- 
 " mit yourfelves ; for they watch for your fouls, as they 
 •' that muft give an account."* But the obedience and 
 fubmiffion here enjoined, of whatever nature they may be, 
 are exacted from the people to their paftors, not from one 
 order of ecclefiafties to another. Nay, I can produce fome 
 pafiagesj-j- in which all chriftians, both paftors and people, 
 are commanded to " be fubjedl to one another," and to 
 **« fubmit tkemfelves one to another, in the fear of God." 
 But I have not met with a parage, which fays either expli- 
 citly, or by implication, " Presbyters and Deacons, ol^ey 
 *< them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your 
 " fouls. [Ml When High Church fhall fhew me a pafTage 
 to this piirpofe, I (hall acknowledge that her divine model, 
 like the image of the great goddefs Diana, arid the Palladi- 
 um of Troy, undoubtedly fell down from Jupiter. 
 
 § 9. We have feen that apoftolic pradice, without an ex* 
 plicit divine command, and without even fo much as a de- 
 lineation of the form of government adopted by the apoftles, 
 is not a fufficient foundation, on which any church, howe- 
 ver exactly it may conform to what it believes to be apoftolic 
 
 practice, 
 
 * Heb. xiii. 17. f Eph. v. 21. 1 Pet. v. 5. 
 
 [M] See Notes. 
 
DISCOURSE. 85 
 
 practice, can rcfl: its claim to ijus divinum. But the ad- 
 vocates of the hierarchy cannot plead even apoftolic praEJice 
 in defence of their ecclefiaftical polity. They cannot prove 
 that any fubordination, implying authority on the one hand, 
 and fubjecSlion on the other, exifted among chriftian mini- 
 ftersin the apoftolic church ; nor can they find their three 
 orders among the ofTices inftituted by the apoftles. Hence, 
 left the exhibition of the three orders, confifting of our 
 Lord himfelf ! his apoftles, and the feveuiy^ fliould not put 
 to filence all gainfaycrs, they have recourfe to the following 
 curious ftratagem. They fix upon a paflage,* in u^hicli 
 Paul enumerates eight different orders of ecclefiaftical offi- 
 cers, who were all fupernaturally endowed zw^fet in the 
 church, not by the apoftles, who were themfelves one of 
 the eight orders, but by Jcfus Chrift. Without deigning 
 to give a reafon for their rejection of five of thofe orders, 
 as not making part of the apojlolic model, they do, without 
 any ceremony, feize upon three, and then hollow in the 
 ears of Presbyterians, " Thefe SEEM to be all the ftanding 
 •' orders eftablifhed in the church. -j- Behold the divine mo- 
 del of the * facred hierarchy.' Adopt it andbe.faved; or "Jre- 
 ** je£t it, and go to perdition, as you pleafe !'' The three or- 
 ders that mufl ftand, are, firft apoftles, fecondarily prophets, 
 and thirdly teachers. Even the cool Anti-jacobin, very much 
 unlike himfelf, grows a little warm in defence of part of this 
 rational and modeft fele6lion. That the apoftolate was one 
 of the ftanding orders eftabliftied in the church, he proves 
 thus ; " And lo ! I am with you alu-ays unto the end of the 
 " world ; with Tou, not as private cbriftians, but as apof- 
 " ties. If this be not fo, then it muft be granted, that wa- 
 " ter baptifm itfelf was meant to have a temporary dura- 
 ** tion •, for our Lord does not fay, I will be with the ex- 
 
 F 3 ** ternal 
 
 " 1 Cor. xii. QB. t Vindtc. p. 126, 1^7. 
 
86 PRELIMINARY 
 
 " ternal right, however performed,''* (But he does not fay the 
 contrary, Mr. Anti-jacobin, nor is the contrary ever fo 
 much as infinuated in fcripture.) " Such being the cafe, 
 " it muji have been the intention of the divine Head of the 
 <* church, that the higheft of the three original orders," 
 (there having been not one order at all till the apoftles re- 
 ceived their commiffion after their Lord's refurredion, [N] 
 as is proved by Sage, a Bifhop of High Church !) " (hould 
 *' be continued always unto the end of the world."* 
 
 Admirably reafoned ! This (hews fome acquaintance with 
 «* treaiifes of logic y'' does it not ? But what becomes of the 
 two original orders, that were inferior to the higheft? 
 Were they confidered to be in " the loins'' of the apoftles, 
 when the commillion, " Go ye, and teach all nations," was 
 jffiied? Or does the Anti-jacobin contend, that the title of 
 Apoftles, which our Lord gave to the firft minifters of his 
 gofpel, implies Bifliops, Priefts, and Deacons ? for this, I 
 fuppofe, no body contends. Then the Anti-jacobin admits, 
 that it was not the intention of the divine Head of the 
 church ; or at leaft, that no fuch intention is any where re- 
 corded in fcripture, that " the two lower orders (hould be 
 " continued always unto the end of the world." Hence, I 
 think, we may, without fear of " periftiing in the gainfay- 
 " ing of Corah," fubjedt ourfelves to the higheft order only. 
 This will do with us. As for names, w^do not fight a- 
 boU:t them. Call our minifters ApcftJes, or Bifliops, or 
 Presbyters, or what you will ; provided we are obliged to 
 have no more orders of clergy, than there were in the 
 church for fome time after the apoftolic commiflion was giv- 
 en, and all equal in rank and authority, as the apoftles 
 were; we are well fatis fie d. 
 
 But 
 
 [N] See Notes. ' '"^ Anti-jac. v. IX. p. 111. 
 
DISCOURSE. ^7 
 
 But may we not infer from the Anti-jacobin*s ingenious 
 demonftraUon^ quoted above, that, in his mind, the chrifli- 
 an inftitution itfelf, what we call the elTence of the religion, 
 of which the degrees of ecclefiaftics do not feem to be a 
 part, is but a fecondary objc6t of the divine care and fup- 
 port, if it be any, farther than it is neceflary for keeping up 
 the order of Bifhops, an object at all ? I have been fomc- 
 times difpofed to think, that " Lo, I am with you always 
 *« unto -the end of the world," means " I will never ceafe 
 *' to fupport the religion which I have commiflioned you to 
 *« publifh ;" and that it is parallel to the promife which 
 follows *, " On this rock will I build my church, and the 
 " gates of hell fhall not prevail againft it ;" and that both 
 promifes refer rather to the liability and duration of the reli- 
 gion itfelf, than to thofeof the higheft order of its minifters. 
 I was the more confirmed in this opinion, by having heard, 
 that chridianity has fubfifled in fome places, and even flou- 
 rifhed, independently of diocefan Bifhops. But it feems I 
 have been in a miftake. Both the paflages referred to, 
 mujl relate to the duration of Epifcopacy till the heavens and 
 the earth fly away : fo that, " On this rock will I build my 
 " church" mufl fignify, " On this rock will I build the E- 
 ** pifcopate ;" and Presbyterians and Independents " fliall 
 -** not prevail againft it." 
 
 Is not this Reviewer a notable interpreter of the facred 
 pages ? If thofe pages were really fufceptible of fuch inter- 
 pretations as he fometimes gives us in his conteft with the 
 LtElurcr on Ecckfiafiical Hijloryy the greater number of men 
 of fenfe would be rather tempted to fmile at their preten- 
 fions to infpiration, than perfuaded to believe. Yet on the 
 ftrength of his onvn interpretation of our Lord's promife to 
 fupport his religion, this profound Biblical Critic breaks 
 
 F 4 forth 
 
SS PRELIMINARY 
 
 forth into an apoftrophe * to the Le£l:urer, the infolencc of 
 which can be exceeded by nothing but its incomparable ab- 
 furdity In that apoflrophe, he feems to admit, that the 
 orders of ecclefiaftics are of much the fame importance in 
 the chriftian difpenfation, that the carved work in the fanc- 
 tuary was in the Jewifh. He feems to admit, that the 
 Le<Sturer*s exclufion of Bilhops from the fucceffion to our 
 Lord's apoftles, is a crime of not much deeper guilt than 
 the daubing of a wall with untempered mortar. Yet by 
 way of parody on the Do£tor's animated apoftrophe to Mr. 
 Dodwell, a champion of High Church, who confined the 
 favour of God, and the benefits of Chrifl:'s incarnation, 
 to his own party exclufively, and ftrove to degrade our 
 Lord, the Redeemer of all men, into the head of an incon- 
 liderable and defperate fa£lion, — he vociferates, — " Arro- 
 " gant and vain man ! What are you, who fo boldly pre- 
 ** fume to make your Saviour fpeak whatever fuits your 
 *• purpofe ? Do you [venture, a worm of the earth ! Can 
 " you think yourfelf warranted to exclude from the church 
 " that {)rder, with which the Son of God declared that he 
 <« would be always unto the end of the world ?" and fo 
 forth. It muft be confeffed, that for Mr. Dodwell to place 
 a few hundreds of the adherents of a Popiih bigot^and defpot 
 in heaven, and to fend all the reft of the Proteftant inhabi- 
 tants of Britain and Ireland to hell and the devil, is not, in 
 the leaft degree, more fuited to excite the indignation of e- 
 very enlightened and truly chriftian mind, than to argue a- 
 gaiaft the divine origin of Epifcopacy. 
 
 But to do the Reviewer juftice, he no fooner expedorates 
 the Ciceronian effufion, of which I have quoted the moft 
 fpirited paflages, than he repents of it, and hints that he 
 
 was 
 
 * Anti-jac. V. IX. p, 112. 
 
DISCOURSE. 89 
 
 was drunk when he wrote it ; for he promlfes henceforth to 
 plead the caufe of his church in the words of fohernefi. I 
 agree with Bifhop Skinner, in thinking this Tifuitable apo- 
 logy ;* for that the gentleman was drunk, when he com- 
 mitted the offence, does not admit of a doubt. 
 
 We have examined the Monthly Cenfor's proof from 
 fcripture, that the Apoftolate was one of the three (landing 
 offices eftablifhed in the church in primitive times. That 
 Critic gives himfelf no trouble about the other two. But 
 no matter ; they are in good hands. The Vindicator takes 
 them under his patronage,f and informs us, that by " pro- 
 " phets and teachers," the apoftle to the Corinthians meant 
 " Priefts and Deacons, two orders with which the church 
 " was always furnilhed from the beginning," although 
 there were no orders at all but apoftles for fome time. 
 
 But if by "prophets" the apoftles had meant Elders, or 
 Priefts, why did he not call them elders ? Was not that 
 name of office in ufe before the Epiftles to the Corinthians 
 were written ^. 1 prefume it was. Were not prophets and 
 propheteiTes an order in the apoftolic church diftin£l from 
 that of Presbyters, and did they not foretell future events .? 
 Moft undoubtedly. That Paul, then, when he meant el- 
 dersy (hould {^xy prophets, is as unaccountable, as if, when 
 he meant Peter, he had faid Bartholomew. Why did not 
 our Vindicator prefent to us a pafTage of the New Tefta- 
 ment, wherein Presbyters are denominated prophets, or a 
 fmgle perfon, who is known to have been nothing but an 
 ordinary Presbyter, is called a prophet ? He defines a pro- 
 phet to be " a perfon a£ting under a divine commiflion, 
 " and employed in God's immediate fervice.'* The defini- 
 tion 
 
 * Vindic. Note, p. 4l4. f Id. p, 126, 127. 
 
90 PRELIMINARY 
 
 tion is corre«fi enough, fo far as it goes. But it anfwers as 
 well to king vSaul, marching at the head of his army againft 
 the Amalekites, and extirpating that devoted people, as to a 
 Presbyter ordained by the apoftles. 
 
 Equally flrong objeflions lie againft the opinion, that by 
 Teachers Paul meant Deacons. Deacons are never called 
 «< teachers'* in the New Teilament ; nor is teaching ever 
 defcribed to be any part of their ecclefiaftical fundion. [O] 
 If you examine the direftions given to Timothy and Titus, 
 refpeding the qualifications of Deacons, you will not find 
 that aptitude to teach is of the number. [Pj I know that 
 Deacons preached and baptized in apoftolic times ; and fo 
 alfo did private difciples ; and if they had not, it is diffi- 
 cult to difcover, for what important purpofe fo many pri- 
 vate chriftians received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy 
 Ghoft by tne putting on of the apoftles' hands. Ananias 
 baptized Paul. The brethren who accompanied Peter from 
 Joppa to Csefarea, baptized Cornelius and his houfiiold. — 
 The difciples who were fcattered abroad by the perfecution, 
 that commenced with the martyrdom of Stephen, went eve- 
 ry where preaching the word. ( Q^] The impulfe of the 
 Spirit was their warrant, and his enlightening influences 
 their qualiHcation, for the funcStion : fo that here, you fee 
 the fpirit himfelf breaking, what High Church is pleafed to 
 call, one of his own inviolable laws. But although Dea- 
 cons preached and baptized in apoftolic times, thofe func- 
 tions no more belonged to their oftice as Deacons, than they 
 were the ordinary duties of every lay chriftian. 
 
 Upon the whole of this matter, I fufpecl: our Vindicator, 
 when he next fets out in fearch of his " three ftanding or- 
 ders 
 
 [O] See Notes. [P] See Notes. [Q] See Notes. 
 
DISCOURSE. 91 
 
 " ders eftablifhed in the apoftolic church," will find it expe- 
 dient to pafs over the twelfth chapter of the Firft Epiftle to 
 the Corinthians, and look fomewhere elfe ; for in that 
 chapter they are not to be found. There, indeed, we fee 
 the divine model of the church, ftrid^ly fpeaking ; but not 
 the apojlolical ; for the apoftles had no hand in the eftablifli- 
 ment. The truth is, that he who reads the two Epiftles to 
 the Corinthians with attention, will find fome reafon to 
 doubt, whether there were any ordinary and fixed paftors 
 at all at Corinth, when the Epiftles were written. 
 
 § 10. I think it altogether unneceflary to enter farther 
 into the controverfy between our deceafed Lecturer slnd 
 High Church. Nothing has been faid by the advocates of 
 the latter, to induce us to conclude a priori y that proper E- 
 pifcopacy is likely to be the form of polity, which was a- 
 dopted by the apoftles, by divine dire<£^ion, in preference 
 to every other form ; for they have not demonftrated its un- 
 rivalled excellence. "When they appeal to fa£ts, which are 
 recorded in fcripture, and the writings of the apoftolic Fa- 
 thers, they not only difagree among themfelves about the 
 interpretation of thofe fa6ls, but are obliged to make con- 
 ceflions, which fubvert their whole fyftem from the foun- 
 dation. They admit that no form of ecclefiaftical govern- 
 ment is declared, in holy writ, to be eflential, or even more 
 conducive than another, to the falvation of chriftians ; and, 
 indeed, how could any man of reafon expert to find modes 
 'An^forvis declared to be of high importance in a fyftem of 
 religion, of which the author of it himfelf fays, that it is 
 Spirit and Truth ? Nay, our adverfaries admit, that, fo far 
 is any particular plan of church polity from h^'ing prefiribed 
 in the facred books, that the fcheme adopted by the apoftles 
 is not delineated, nor even fo much as " mentioned in ex- 
 ♦* prefs and pofitive terms ;'* and the reafoning, by which 
 
 they 
 
92 PRELIMINARY 
 
 they account for the filence of the facred penmen on this 
 momentous fubje(9:, is, as we have feen, by no means the 
 mod fatisfa^tory that can be defired. After admitting, that 
 the apoftolic model is no where delineated in holy writ, 
 they flrenuoufly, though not very confiftently, contend, 
 that it is clearly exhibited there. Admit, what I think I 
 have difproved, that their favourite model is precifely 
 what the apoftles fet up. This would evince, that that 
 model was expedient in apoftolic times, and that it is lawful 
 at all times *, but it would not prove, that the adoption of 
 it, in all poffible fituations of the chriftian church, is eflen- 
 tial to falvation. It is the law of Chrift that is our rule, 
 and not the praElke of his apoftles, unlefs where we are ex- 
 prefsly commanded to tread in their fteps, which, in what 
 regards ecclefiaftical government, is no where enjoined in 
 holy writ. But it happens, unfortunately for the honour 
 of High Church, that her modern Vindicator not only fails 
 in attempting to prove, that we are bound, under the mofl: 
 tremendous pains and penalties, to adopt the apoftolic mo- 
 del, but that he has not perfpicuity enough to difcover, 
 •where, in the whole New Teftament, that model is exhibi- 
 ted to us I That zealous advocate of " tht facred hierarchy" 
 has failed in another undertaking of no inconfiderable im- 
 portance. He has not proved, that there was any fubordi- 
 nation among the ecclefiaftical officers of the apoftolic 
 church ; no*order of its minifters, fo far as we can difcover 
 from holy writ, having been commanded to be in fubje£l:ion 
 to another. He takes it for granted, that firft " apoftles, 
 « fecondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, workers of mira- 
 « cles, Sec." muft be underftood to mean, that " prophets, 
 « teachers, workers of miracles," and fo forth, were fub- 
 jefted to the apoftles, and obeyed them. What if I were 
 to contend, that " firft, fecondarily, thirdly, after that," 
 relate to time, and not to dignity or authority of office ^ Is 
 
 the 
 
DISCOURSE. 93 
 
 the Vindicator prepared to conteft. this point with me ? Can 
 he deny, that it is true of the apoftks, that they were the 
 firft facred olhcers, whom God fet in the church ? B^fides, 
 does not Paul tell us,* " Now there are diverfities of gifts, 
 *« but the fame fpirit P'' Does the Vindicator contend, that 
 the Spirit which endowed prophets, teachers, ** workers of 
 ** miracles," &c. with their refpe£live gifts, was fubjecl 
 to the Spirit who infpired the apoftles ; that is, that the 
 Holy Ghoft was fubje6l to himfelf ? He who comprehends 
 what the apoftle is recommending in the chapter fo often 
 referred to, and attends to the principles on which he rea- 
 fons, will be convinced, that, though the different gifts of 
 the various ecclefiaftical ofiicers, whom he enumerates, 
 were given by the fume Spirit, and for the promotion of 
 one great end, the advancement of the kingdom of Chrift ; 
 yet in the exercife of thofe gifts, the feveral officers on 
 whom they were conferred, were entirely independent of 
 one another ; and that it was the apoftle's obje£l to difTuade 
 them from envying and encroaching upon the provinces of 
 each other. 
 
 I account it of very little confequence in our controverfy 
 with High Church, whether the LeBurer\ fcheme of Paro- 
 chial Epifcopacy, as the intermediate form between Pres- 
 byterian Parity, and Diocefan Epifcopacy, be well or ill 
 founded. For my part, I think, he has clearly demonftrat- 
 ed its exiflence in the chriflian church at an early period ; 
 whether with the help of Lord King or not, is a matter of 
 no moment. [R] Nothing appears to me more unaccoun- 
 table, than that the advocates of the hierarchy, fome of 
 whom fpeak, as if they only read and underfland the writ- 
 ings of Ignatius and Cy-^rian, (liould deny that thofe two 
 
 cc- 
 
 ^^ 1 Cor. .\U. H. [R] See Notes. 
 
94 PRELIiMINARY 
 
 ^cclefiaftics, in particular, were parochial Bifhops. Do 
 they ever mention an arrangement, which is eflential to dio- 
 cefan Epifcopacy, the divifion of their refpe£live charges 
 into fixed Presbyteral cures ? Do they call their charges did- 
 ccfes ? Do they ever write, as if the Presbyters and Dea- 
 cons of their times, lived apart from their Bifhops, and 
 were not conftantly with them, to affift with their counfels, 
 and perform whatever parochial duties their Biftiops fent 
 them upon ? Does not Cyprian afiert,* that he celebrated 
 the eucharift, all the brethren^ that is, his whole flock, being 
 prefent ; that it is lawful for the Bifhop only to baptize,f 
 which would have created infupportable labour, even in a 
 diocefe of no more than eight parifties or congregations, fcat- 
 tered as they v/ere, in thofe days, over a vaft tra£t of coun- 
 try, unlefs, indeed, infants and catechumens were baptiz- 
 ed by hundreds, in one place, at certain fixed times of the 
 year j — that (fuitable to the advice of Ignatius to Polycarp,| 
 to make himfelf acquainted with the names of all his flock, 
 not excepting the flaves, male and female) he knew every 
 one of his people perfonally -,11 and that, according to ano- 
 ther admonition of the Bifliop of Antioch, in the fame E- 
 piftle, and fame chapter, he was the common curator and 
 guardian of all the widows, and all the indigent under his 
 paftoral carej§ fuffering mihifig, as Ignatius recommended 
 to Polycarp, to be done without his knowledge and con- 
 fent? — If Cyprian's charge comprehended eight parifties, as 
 our opponents contend ; and if he vi^as not the paftor of 
 one fingle flock only, which, when the difciples multiplied, 
 may have been divided, after ''the empire became chrifti- 
 an, into eight Presbyteral Cures ; we may venture to af- 
 firm, that fcarcely one of the aflTertions, above referred to, 
 
 either 
 
 * Ep. 63, Cap. 12. t Ep. 73. Cap. 6. 
 
 + Ep. ad Polyc. Cap. 4. 1| Ep. 58. Cap. 1. § Ibid. 
 
DISCOURSE. ^5 
 
 cither is, or can be, true •, for this obvious teafon, that the 
 fai^s aflerted are phyfically impoflible. And what does 
 High Church make of Cyprian's declaration, that he cele- 
 brated the eucharift with all under his Epifcopal charge a- 
 bout him ? Is this reconcilcable with the exiftence, in his 
 time, of what we now call diocefan Epifcopacy ? Cyprian's 
 unity of the Epifcopate, whatever it may mean (and, to tell 
 the truth, I do not underftand him on the fubjeCl) is here 
 out of the queftion. He does not fay that the eucharift was 
 celebrated in all pariflies in his diocefe, at their refpedive 
 altars, which as there was but om Bifhop, were to be con- 
 fidered as one altar. What he affirms, is, that he, the Bi- 
 ihop of Carthage in the third century, celebrated the eucha- 
 rift, all the breihrtin htnig prefent. 
 
 This afiertlon of Cyprian, which can admit but of one 
 interpretation, explains the fa6t, which is mentioned by 
 early chriftian writers, that as, in primitive times, there 
 was but one BiJJjop to a paftoral charge, fo there was but 
 one altar or communion table ;** and that the fetting up 
 of another altar ( aliud aliare) was confidered to bs the 
 grand criterion of fchifm. I fay, Cyprian's alTertion, quoted 
 above, explains this fa6i:, and fixes its meaning, in fpite of 
 all the " contemptible quibbling'' of High Church, which de- 
 prives it of all meaning. What can be more arrant quib- 
 bling, than to tell me, that, in the Jirji member of the fa- 
 mous fentence, h S-uc-<««-*jg<ev, u^ Ug iTi<rx.07r<^ (one altar, as 
 one Biftiop) a myftical unity is indicated, and a numerical 
 unity in the laft ? Admit this mode of interpretation, and 
 you niay make the language of antiquity the vehicles of 
 whatever fentiments or fads a controvertift lut/ljes it to con- 
 vey •, and, if fuch arbitrary interpretations are to be per- 
 mitted, no controverfy, (^'T the decifion of which we ap- 
 peal 
 
 c : N-ttes, 
 
96 PRELIMINARY 
 
 peal to fcripture, or the writings of the chriftian Fathers, 
 can ever be terminated on earth. What if there were, as 
 our Vindicator fuggefts there is,* a twofold unity; the 
 one myftical, [and the other numerical, denoted in our 
 Lord's petition for his feledl: difciples, " that they may be 
 <« one, even as we are one ?" Does it hence follow, that 
 there is a twofold unity denoted in " one altar, as one 
 <« Bifhop ?" Is it poflible to bring forward two fentences, 
 for mutual illuftration, that are, in every view, more com- 
 pletely unconne£l:ed, than the two jufl now quoted ? But 
 I deny that a twofold unity is denoted in the petition of our 
 Lord. Can he be underftood to have prayed to his heaven- 
 ly Father, «' May thefe, whom thou haft given me out of 
 «' the world, he one in mind and hearty even as thou. Father, 
 " and I, are one infuhjlancey powevy and eternity P'* I cannot 
 think it. 
 
 But if any thing more were needed to afcertain the mean- 
 ing of Iv B-v<rietTV}^iov, a? «$ i7ri<rK67r<^, than merely Cyprian's 
 praHice appealed to above, we have only to recur to the paf- 
 fage in the Ignatian Epiftles, where the fentence occurs, 
 which is in the Epiftle to the Philadelphians. 
 
 The Epiftle to the Philadelphians begins with an enco- 
 mium on the exemplary taciturnity of their Bifliop ; and, 
 indeed, the author feems to have admired that quality in a 
 Biftiop, above all other Epifcopal qualifications whatever ; 
 for he obferves, in his Epiftle to the Ephefians,f that a Bi- 
 fhop is to be revered in proportion to his filence ; from which 
 it would feera to follow, that if a Bifhop had been deaf 
 
 and 
 
 * Vind. p. 257, 258. 
 
 t Cap. 6.- What ! a dumb preacher the subject of panegyric » 
 Who can believe that Ignatius of Antioch ever wrote such nonsense >■ 
 
DISCOURSE. 97 
 
 and dumb, It would have been the duty of his flock to wor- 
 (hip him, a kind of reverence which the deaf and dumb had 
 received long before. After an eulogy on the taciturnity of 
 their Bifliop, of whom he obferves, in a favourite phrafe 
 of his, that he was fitted to the commands, as a harp to its 
 firings, the martyr of Antioch proceeds to exhort the Phi- 
 ladelphians, as if they had been a fociety of Quakers, to 
 flee divifions, and to ftick to their Blfhop, no doubt that 
 they might be trained for heaven by his edifying filence. 
 " Where your fliepherd is, there follow ye as (beep."* — 
 This condemns the flock to fdence as profound as that of 
 their paflor; for ftieep are not fAUTxtx >i«a»»t2?, or vain-talkers, 
 no more than the Blfhop of Philadelphia. Then, after a 
 few remarks on the bleflTmgs of uniiyy and the mifchiefs of 
 fchifm, and fome fuitable exhortations, Ignatius admoni- 
 (hes them thus : " Take heed, therefore, that ye partake of 
 « one eucharift. For there is one flefh of our Lord Jefus 
 «« Chrilt, and one cup in the unity of his blood, one altar as 
 " one Blihop, together with his Presbyters and deacons, my 
 " fellow-fervants."-]' If all thefe cnes^ of which there is a 
 comfortable number, be not numerical unities, the cogency 
 of Ignatius' argument in recommendation of Unity, or con- 
 cord, efpecially in adhc-Ing to the BiiTiop, exceeds my 
 comprehenfion. The whole force of it abfolutely depends 
 on all the ones being underCcood to be numerical unities. — 
 Suppofe them to be partly numerical, and partly myflical, 
 and you convert an argument, which, at bcft, is not the 
 moft powerful that could be urged, into downright non- 
 fenfe ; and you tempt Mr Anti-jacobin to fend Ignatius to 
 fchool, along with Dr. Campbell, to learn a little logic. 
 
 Confidering the tre:tment that the Lcdurer's fchcme of 
 
 G Pa- 
 
 * Ep. ad. Philad. cap. C. f Ead. cap. 4. 
 
98 PRELIMINARY 
 
 Parochial Epifcopacy has met with from all the modern de- 
 fenders of the principles of High Church, it is a ftrikingly 
 curious fa6l, that fome Epifcopalians, highly refpe£table 
 for their talents and learning, and others, who havie diftin- 
 guifhed themfelves by nothing but their violent attachment 
 to Epifcopacy, join explicitly with the Lecturer on the fub- 
 je6t. He himfelf appeals to the writings of Burn, who was 
 an Englifh divine, and a celebrated Jurifl. and antiquary. 
 The author of Letters on the Eccleftajiical Htjiory of Scotland, 
 informs us, that fo late as the time of Columbanus, a Scot- 
 tifh miffionary, who was fent to take the charge of the Nor- 
 thumbrians, " there were no Presbyteral Cures *, all under 
 •* a Bifhop's charge were his parifli, and belonged to his 
 ^* church ; and the inferior clergy went out from him, and 
 *< by his orders, to preach, baptize, vifit the fick, and take 
 " care of the people's fouls, and returned again at his call.'*''^ 
 This teftimony, which is, indeed, little elfe but a tranfla- 
 tion of Bede's account of primitive Britifli Epifcopacy, 
 (this teftimony) in favour of parochial, as the predeceflbr 
 of diocefan Epifcopacy, is fully more than could have been 
 txpeded from the quarter whence it comes. But I have 
 fomething ftill more curious to mention. The Vindicator of 
 Primitive Truth and Order concurs with the writer laft quo- 
 ted, of whom he was both the father and the fon, in ftamp- 
 ing his fandion on the Le^urer's fcheme, while at the fame 
 time he ftrives to demolilh it with fuch implements of de- 
 ftrudion as he could borrow. 
 
 The Lediurer compares the Parochial Epifcopacy of early 
 times, to " the cafe of fome highland pariflies in the nor- 
 " them part of this ifland, wherein, by reafon of their ter- 
 " ritorial extent, the paftor is under the rtecefhty of having 
 
 « or- 
 
 * Skinner's Eccles. Hist. VoL L p. 150. 
 
DISCOURSE. 99 
 
 " ordained itinerant afTiftants, whom he can fend, as occa- 
 " fion requires, to fupply his place in the remote parts of 
 " his charge."* 
 
 If this be Diocefan Epifcopacy, no body will deny thaC 
 that form of ecclefiadical government is of very high anti- 
 quity ; and for us, wc rejoice that, where it is neceflary, 
 from the territorial extent of a pariQi, we have confcien- 
 tioufly adopted it, although we do not think ourftlves o- 
 bliged in confcience to adopt it where it is not neceffary, — 
 and where it might rather be burdcnfome than advantage- 
 ous ; on which, I prefumc, we have the fan£tion of the 
 pradice of the ancients, who, perhaps, had fome fmall por- 
 tion of common prudence as well as we. 
 
 Now it is this form of Epifcopacy that our Vindicator of 
 the divine origin of Diocefan Epifcopacy, pronounces to be 
 primitive! Of the Ledurer's comparifon he fays, "ihe 
 <« fitnefs of this analogy we (hall in part admit, as it corref- 
 " ponds pretty nearly with the ideas, which lue have keen 
 ** iaughf* (by our Revereiidifflmus Pat.ry I fuppofe) " to 
 ** form of primitive Epifcopacy ; conceiving it to be ahno/l 
 " in the Doctor's own words, * One ordained pallor having 
 ** * power toytWfS] out ordained afliftants to fupply his 
 *« * place, as occafion requires ." Indeed ? Then primitive 
 Epifcopacy is no where, fo far as I know, to be found in 
 this iiland, but in the highlands of Scotland j and the Se- 
 nior Bifhop of the Scotch Epifcopal church has publilhed a 
 hook of five hundred and forty. five pages, exclufive of the 
 title- page, dedication, contents, and a page of errata^ to 
 prove that proper or Diocefan Epifcopacy, \%priimtive order^ 
 
 G 2 though 
 
 •^ Vol. I. p. 130. [S] See Notes. 
 
100 PRELIMINARY 
 
 though he folemnly acknowledges at his two hundred and 
 fixty-third page, which Is not far from the centre of the 
 book, that Parochial Epifcopacy only Is primitive order ! An 
 important concefTion ! I Jfuppofe it is to early paternal in- 
 {lru£lIon that we owe it : " We have been taught." This, 
 it muft be acknowledged, is/ome fign of grace. And when 
 we meet with a perfonage raifed to the very higheft ftation 
 in the church militant, and yet (hewing that he has not for- 
 gotten the wholefome lefTons which he learned in his youth ; 
 how highly muft we admire the wifdom of the man, to 
 whom we owe the falutary admonition, " Train up a child 
 " in the way that he fhould go, and when he is old he will 
 «« not depart from it.'' After all, one cannot help being 
 furprized, that our well educated Vindicator has covered fo 
 many pages with the mifrcprefentations, inved^ives, and 
 chicane of the Guide to the Churchy and the Monthly Cenfor^ 
 all directed to the overthrow of a fcheme, which he himfelf 
 embraces, having been taught to do fo. This can be accoun- 
 ted for only on the fuppofition, that he has alfo been taught 
 the art of book-making, after the neivefi and mofl approved 
 method ; which art confifts in borrowing, till you have e- 
 nough, without a very fcrupulous regard to propriety of fe- 
 le^Hon. 
 
 § II. The inveclives oi the Vindicator's auxiliaries may, 
 probably, be adverted to, occafionally, hereafter. I beg 
 leave to conclude my ftriftures on the prefent ftate of the 
 controverfy between Us and High Church, with a fpeci- 
 men or two of the mifreprefentation and chicane^ which thofe 
 Gentlemen employ, and the Vindicator retails, in endea- 
 vouring to fubvert the Le5iurer's fcheme of Parochial Epif- 
 copacy. 
 
 The LeBurery trufting to the veracity of Jullin Martyr, 
 
 and 
 
DISCOURSE. 101 
 
 3Jid other writers of high antiquity, urges, that, in their 
 time, ail the chrillians under a Bifhop's infpe£lion, met on 
 the Lord's day in one place, t-xi to ccvto^ as Juftin and Ig- 
 natius exprefs it. In order to elude the force of the argu- 
 ment hence arifing in favour of Parochial, as the prcdecef- 
 for of Diocefan Epifcopacy, the Leclurer is accufed by Mr. 
 Daubeny * of having not only copied from King, but of 
 having, in imitation of King's prudence^ mutilated the ex- 
 tra61: from Juftin Martyr, by fupprefling thefe words, " All 
 " throughout cities and countries," of whom Juftin fays, 
 they met e^r; ro ccvro. — Who can believe that Mr. Daubeny 
 ever read Lord King's Inquiry, which he accufes the Lec- 
 turer of following with all the exaclnefs of a fervile plagi- 
 ary ? Does King, verily and indeed, fupprefs the expref- 
 fion, which Mr. Daubeny tranflates " All throughout cities 
 " and countries ?" Not at all. Pie does not quote it, 
 where it is not required by his argument if but where he 
 found it neceflary to prove the fa61:, which he prefents to 
 his reader'G attention, there you have it in Greek on the 
 margin, and in Englifli in the text4 Scarcely any thing 
 can be conceived more ludicrous, than our Vindicator's co- 
 pying, moft faithfully, Mr. Daubeny's ftrange charge a- 
 gainft King ; then gravely laying King's controverfial crime 
 to the Le8ur€t''s charge; and finally acknowledging in a 
 note, 11 that King was not guilty ! [Tj Had not the LeBu- 
 rer good reafon to ftand in awe of fuch caftigators as Mr. 
 Daubeny and Biftiop Skinner ; and that he might efcape 
 the tremendous effeds of their wrath, which is armed with 
 fuch prodigious ftores of accurate and well digefted learn- 
 ing, to leave the publication of his Le6lurcs to his execu- 
 tors ^ He a£ted in this affair with his ufual prudence. 
 
 But 
 
 * Prelim. Disc, p 00. f P. 17. " X I*- ^-^ 
 
 11 Vind. p. 254. [T] Sec Notes, 
 
102 PRELIMINARY 
 
 But who taught the Archdeacon of Salisbury and the 
 Primate of Scotland, that Kotra, froXm »» «y§»$ figniiies 
 " throughout cities and countries?" Much labour mtift have 
 been loft upon them, i£ they do not both know, that «yg»j 
 fignifies, not countries^ as they render it, but the country 
 (agros or rus) in contradiftindion to the town : fo that the 
 literal Engliih of kutcc TroXng u uy^ng is, *' in city or country.'* 
 One does not know what to make of Mr. Daubeny's and 
 Bifhop Skinner's mif-tranflation of this expreflion ; I mean, 
 one does not know to what to impute it. Shall we afcribe 
 it to ignorance ? However they may feel on fuch an imputa- 
 tion, I would certainly, in my own cafe, feel much more 
 eafy under ity than under the imputation of deftgn. But de- 
 figti cannot be fufpefted in the cafe before us, unlefs they 
 fuppofed that our Ledlurer left no knowledge of the Greek 
 language behind him in this world, but what is pofleffed by 
 Mr. Daubeny and Bifhop Skinner. 
 
 Our Vindicator is very anxious to fliew, that ancient 
 writers, when they inform us that it was the practice of all 
 the chriftiins under a Bifhop's infpedion to meet on Sun- 
 day iTFi 70 ecvTA, [U] meant to fay, that they met, not in 
 one place, but for one purpofe ; and the Literary Cenfor 
 asks Dr. Campbeirs admirers, how the myriads of convert- 
 ed Jews, who were under the paftoral care of James and 
 the Elders, and could not be below ten thoufand, could 
 meet, for the purpofes of public worfhip, in the houfe of 
 even the vi^ealthieft difciple in Jerufalem ?* I ask this Cri- 
 tic, in my turn. When did Dr. Campbell acknowledge, 
 and who has proved that James was, " during term of life,'* 
 the fole Bilhop of Jerufalem ? I ask, alfo, why the fcrip- 
 tures never mention James as the fole Bifhop of Jerufalem, 
 
 .^U] Sec ^[otc. * Anti-]ac. v. ix. p. 237. 
 
DISCOURSE. 103 
 
 if it be really true, that the apoftles raifed either James, tht- 
 Lord's brother, or James, a private difciple, to the fupcr- 
 intendence of the whole church at Jerufalem ? Was this a 
 fa£t, that, in the opinion of High Churchmen, who think 
 it of fuch confequence to afcertain the apoftollc model, 
 (was it a fa£t) that was not worth recording ? The prc- 
 fumption is, that there was no fuch faft to be recorded. It 
 is a tradition, that a certain man named James, was the firft 
 Bifliop of Jerufalem ; but whether the foundation of this 
 tradition be truth or falfehood, we cannot tell. But ad- 
 mitting that a man of the name of James was the firft who 
 was ordained to a paftoral charge in Jerufalem ; does it 
 hence follow, that he never had colleagues ? Nay, admit- 
 ting that he became, in time, primus inter pares, this , I ap- 
 prehend, will not prove that he had no equals ! What were 
 all the Elders of Jerufalem, who are fo often mentioned in 
 the book of ACts ? Did not the Lefturer know, and does 
 not High Church acknowledge, that in the age of the a- 
 poftles. Elders were called BiJhopSy and BiJJjopSy nay Apojlles^ 
 were called Elders ? For aught we know, there were an 
 hundred apoftolic Bifhops in Jerufalem, during the time of 
 James, although he may have been the firft whom the apof- 
 tles ordained there. Why do the advocates of the hierarchy 
 talk away, as if they had done what they have never perr 
 formed, and never can perform ? As if they had proved that 
 till James the Juft was murdered by the Jews, there was 
 no other Bifhop in the holy city ? Such a bold and confi- 
 dent aflertion of fads, of which they know little or nothing, 
 may be fuited to keep the mobile of their little party in this 
 country firm to their Bifliops and Priefts, becaufe their peo- 
 ple are taught, as it would fecm, to receive whatever comes 
 from their clergy, as the oracles of God. But in men of 
 fenfe, who think for tliemfelvcs, it can excite only coutempt 
 aod difguft. 
 
 c-4 But 
 
104 PRELIMINARY 
 
 But the Political and Literary Cenfor of Great Britain has 
 fomething yet in ftore, which is ftill more fatal to our Lec- 
 turer's fcheme of Parochial Epifcopacy, than even his my- 
 riads at Jerufalem, all meeting in one houfe to hear their 
 Bifhop : and when he has fired off this decifive volley, he 
 cries out " Vidtory !'** 
 
 The Le6i:urer remarks, that " it is not fo much by the 
 <« meafure of the ground, as by the number of the people, 
 '' that the extent of a paftoral charge is to be reckoned." — 
 He adds that, if we meafure a Biftiop's charge in the church 
 cf the firft three centuries, by the number of the people, 
 and not by the extent of the ground, we will find that, in 
 general, it did not exceed a modern parilh, if it did not fall 
 f}iort of it. He obferves that, for more than a century, the 
 belt accommodation for public worfliip, that chriftians had, 
 was the private houfes of the wealthieft difciples, which 
 could not receive very numerous congregations. But he 
 contends that, in moft cafes, this accommodation was fuf- 
 ficient, becaufe then^ it was but a fmall part of the people 
 of a city or village, with its environs, which compofed the 
 church ; fo that the extent of territory, which was neceffa- 
 ry to fupply a paftor with one fufficient congregation, muft 
 have been very great. To illuftrate this, and merely, as he 
 fays, by ivay of illuftrationy hcfuppofesy that, at the time the 
 churches were firft planted by the apoftles, the chriftians, 
 at a medium, were one thirtieth part of the people, though 
 in fuch populous cities as Rome and Alexandria, not, pro- 
 bably, one hundredth part. Unfortunately for his fcheme 
 of Parochial Epifcopacy, h&fuppofes farther, not only that 
 the Chriftians over all Afia Minor might be about the thir- 
 tieth part of the inhabitants, but that that country might be 
 equal, theriy in point of populoufnefs, to what Great Bri- 
 tain is at prefent. The conclufion that he draws from all 
 
 thefe 
 
DISCOURSE. 103 
 
 thefe hypothetical pofitions, and which, itfelf, mufl: of 
 courfe be underilood to be hypothetical, (the conclufion) 
 is, that one of the Bilhoprics in Afia Mioor, in order to af- 
 ford a congregation equal to that of a middling pariih, ought 
 to have been equal in extent to thirty pariflics in this ifland. 
 *« Yet,*' adds he, (laying afide fuppofitions, and coming to 
 fa£ls) ** take them at an average^ and they will be found t6 
 •* have been Jcarcely equal to one third of that number f"*^ that is, 
 to TEN pariflies in Great Britain. And he inftances in 
 one blflioprlc in Afia Minor, that of Neocefarea, which, 
 even in the middle of the third century, contained no more 
 xhTSin feventeen chriftians.* 
 
 Upon this the Anti-jacobin takes up the pen of the arith- 
 metician. But left his enfuing triumph (hould be /co humi- 
 liating to the LeBurer\ admirers, " the true G;mpbelllans," 
 as ht is pleafed to call them,f he generoufly throws away 
 fome millions of the prefent population of Great Britain, 
 and ftates it fo low as fevcn ; in imitation, I fuppofc, of 
 thofe mighty profeflbrs of the pugiliftic art, who fometlmes 
 undertake to box an antagonift, whom they defplfe, with 
 one of their hands tied up. Thofe feven millions he di- 
 vides by 30, in order to afcertain the number of chriftians 
 in Afia Minor, and the quotient is preclfely 233,333 chrif- 
 tians, and one-third of a chriftlan. But, as he has thrown 
 jome millions o\it of his eftimate, he does not ftand higgling 
 with us about the fraction. He next proceeds to divide his 
 quotient, when difencumbered of the fra6lion juft mention- 
 ed, by 7, the number of angels fpoken of in the book of 
 Revelation as having fome office or other, the Anti-jaco- 
 bin calls It the Epifcopate, in the feven churches of Afia, 
 
 named 
 
 * Lcct. OP Eccl. Hist. V. I. p. 215, 216. 
 t In revenge, I ween. 
 
106 PRELIMINARY 
 
 named in that book The refult of the operation is 33)333 
 fouls to each Epifcopal charge, to fay nothing of two-fe- 
 Tenths of a foul at the end. All this our learned Cenfor 
 demonftrates by figures ', and then — how he crows ! <* If 
 •* it be impoffible that fuch a multitude as this, (to wit, 
 33,333) " could aflemble under one roof to hear the fcrip- 
 « tures read, to receive fpiritual exhortation, and to par- 
 •* ticipate together at the Lord's fupper, our author's fchemc 
 ** of congregational Epifcopacy falls to the ground at 
 ** once.''* The Vindicator alfo claps his wings, and par- 
 takes in the triumph.f 
 
 Ah ! Mr. Anti- jacobin, how clever you are ! I wifli 
 moft fmcerely, that you were as honcft ! I acknowledge, 
 that it would have been injurious to your argument to have 
 taken the Lecturer's y^^j- into your calculation. His/up' 
 pofitionsj which are corrected by his fa6bs, do, it muft be 
 confeffed, anfwer your purpofe better. But, you know, 
 common honefty requires that we do juftice to the reason' 
 itig of an adverfary, as well as that we give him his due, 
 ■^here meum and tuum are concerned.J Why did you not 
 divide your laft quotient by 3 ? Does not the Lecturer af- 
 fert that, in point of fa£l:, the bifhoprics of Afia Minor, 
 taken at an average, were fcarcely equal in extent to one- 
 third of thirty parilhcs in this ifland .? an(i does he not men- 
 tion one of thofe biflioprics, whieh, about the middle of 
 the third century, contained only seventeen chriftians ? If 
 you had done the LecSlurer common juftice, each bifliopric, 
 even according to your mode of calculation, would have 
 
 been 
 
 * Anti-jac. v. IX. p. 238. f Vind. Note p. 253. 
 
 X If you had got your hands on the Lecturer's MS, and published 
 the Lecture as your own, I would have pardoned it as readily, as 
 your wilfully mis-stating his arguments. 
 
DISCOURSE. J 07 
 
 beeft found to contain no more than ii,iii difclples. — 
 This is a reduftion of only 22,222 on each Epifcopal 
 charge !~But you will probably triumph ftill, and ask, 
 ** Could even 1 1,1 11 meet txi ro avro, in the Le6burer*s ac- 
 <* ceptation of that exprefTion, for the purpofes of public 
 ** worlhip and religious inftru6lion ?'* To corjfefs the truth, 
 the congregation would have been fomewhat too numerous 
 for a private houfe, or even for a cathedral. 
 
 But is it an indifputable fadb, that, " at the time the 
 <' churches were firfl: planted by the apoftles," there were 
 no independent churches, each governed by its own Bifhop. 
 in all Afia Minor, but the feven named in the Apocalypfe ? 
 Where did the Anti-jacobin learn this fa6l ? It was noC 
 from the New Teftament, nor from the Ignatian Epiftles. 
 Perhaps it has been from fome ecclefiaftical records of high 
 antiquity, to which none but the clergy of H^h Church 
 have accefs j or rather, which none but they can under- 
 ftand. [Vj Did Paul, and thofe whom he em.ployed in 
 preaching the gofpel in Afia Minor, labour at leaft three 
 years [Wj in that country, and yet reap a harveft fo fcanty, 
 as the feven apocalyptic churches only ? Thofe feven 
 churches were all fituated in Ionia, Lydia, Myfia, and 
 Phrygia Major. But there are at lead other fixteen coun- 
 tries in Afia Minor, to-wit, Troas, jEolia, Galatia, Caria, 
 Phrygia Minor, Bithynia, PamphyJia, Lycia, Paphlagonia, 
 Pontus, Armenia Minor, Lycaonia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, 
 Pifidia, Ifauria, not to mention the iflands of the jHare yg"- 
 geum. Is it a point fully afcertained, that Paul and his 
 fellow-labourers made no converts, and planted no churches 
 in the lafl: named extenfive and populous countries of Afia 
 Minor ? In that region of the earth there were from a 
 
 hundred 
 
 [V] See Note.^ ^W] See Notes. 
 
108 PRELIMINARY 
 
 hundred and thirty to a hundred and forty cities and villa- 
 ges, exclufive of thofe of the dependent iflands, all fo con- 
 fiderable, that they are named in claffical hiftory or poetry. 
 Paul refided in the country for fome years, preaching the 
 gofpel, and planting churches ; and, from time to time, 
 fending out miffionaries, who planted churches, which he 
 never had an opportunity of vifiting.* Peter, we have fome 
 reafon to infer, from his addreffing of his firft Epiftle to the 
 Jewifh converts in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Afia,f 
 and Bithynia, had publifhed the good news there, and foun- 
 ded churches. John, there is no queftion, refided aconfi- 
 derable time, and preached, in Afia Minor, which makes 
 it probable at leaft, that he alfo founded churches there, f Xj 
 And yet, according to the Anti-jacobin, in all that coun- 
 try, which contained fo many large cities and confiderable 
 villages, there were no churches in the apoftolic age, but 
 the feven apocalyptic churches, and no Bifhops but the fe- 
 ven angels ! Is it not fomewhat unaccountable, that while 
 there were three Epifcopal Sees in Lydia, there was only 
 one in all Myfia, one in Phyrgia Major, and no more thaa 
 two in the maritime, and therefore very populous country 
 of Ionia, where both the apoftles Paul and John refided fo 
 long ? 
 
 But can we really believe, that the Anti-jacobin never 
 heard of chiiftians, (in the age of the apoftles) in Antioch 
 of Pifidia, Derbe, Lyftra, Iconium, Miletus, ColofTe, Per- 
 ga, Tarfus, Attalia, Hierapolis ? nor of " the churches of 
 " Galatia ?" nor of the Jewifti converts, whom Peter calls 
 
 the 
 
 * See Coloss. ii. 1. 
 f Is this the city of Lydia, which Stephen Byzant. mentions a« 
 
 [X] See Notes. 
 
DISCOURSE. 109 
 
 « the ftrangers," in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Afia, 
 and Bithynia ? Thefe are all mentioned in the New Tefta- 
 ment, and, therefore, we muft, in pure civility, prefume, 
 that a learned divine, of fo learned a church as that which 
 the Anti-jacobin Reviewer of LeBures on Ecclejiajlical Hif- 
 iory belongs to and adorns, has read of them even in Greek, 
 and is geographer enough to know, that they were all, in 
 time part, in Afia Minor. I fhould likewife prefume, that 
 he had read of Tralles and Magnefia, two towns of Lydia, 
 where were two chrillian churches in apoftolic times, each 
 having its own Bilhop, with a proper ellabliQiment of Pref- 
 byters and Deacons, all of whom Ignatius remembers kind- 
 ly in his lipiftles to the Tralliansand Magnefians. 
 
 If, in the arithmetical calculation, which the Primate of 
 Scotland admires fo ardently, tlie author had taken the fa£ls 
 and confiderations, now urged, into the account, and af- 
 fumed fuch divifion, as a writer, who has any the leail re- 
 gard to truth, or even the femblance of it, would not have 
 failed to affume, his tremendous congregations of 33i333 
 each, had been brought into fome reafonable compafs. — 
 We have good reafon to believe, that in Afia Minor, there 
 were, in the fir ft century, feveral hundreds of thofe Bi- 
 fliops, whom the Holy Ghoft was wont to make, when He 
 took concern in Epifcopal ordinations. The Anti-jacobin 
 himfelf would not dare to ajfert direBlyy that at the time the 
 churches were planted by the apoiUes, there were none in 
 Afia Minor, which were not under the Epifcopal govern- 
 ment of the feven angels (fuppofing them to have been Bi- 
 (hops) all whofe Epifcopal refidences, fave one, were fitu- 
 ated, I may fay, in a corner of that extenfive and populous 
 country, and near the craft. Yet, although he has not di- 
 redlly aflerted this, the reafoning by which, as he pretends, 
 he has demoliftied the L.xturcr's fcheme of Parochial Epif- 
 
 copacy, 
 
no PHEUMINARY DISCOURSE. 
 
 copacy, refts upon it as its fole foundation ; of whieh, k 
 is impoflible to believe that he was not fully aware. 
 
 I can make allowance for keennefs in argument. I can 
 even admire the controvertift, who, perfuaded in his own 
 mind, that he is defending the caufe of truth, not only 
 writes with warmth, but makes the mod of every thing 
 that can be fairly urged : and I can pardon his difcovering 
 great force in arguments, which his antagonift regards as 
 trifling and inconclufive. But downright and bare-faced 
 diihonefty, €ven in controverfy, efpecially in theological 
 controverfy, no man of any integrity can away with, par- 
 ticularly when it is over-bearing, and triumphs infolently in 
 the pretended fuccefs of its own chicane. 
 
 It gives one pain to fee the Head of a chriftian church, in 
 defending its conftitution and its orders, laying his hands 
 about him, on all fides, for arguments, and availing him- 
 felf of fuch contemptible traih, as that which we have been 
 laft examining. It puts one in mind of a humiliating fpec* 
 tacle, which I have fometimes beheld in large and populottj 
 towns. I allude to thofe miferable vidims of penury, who 
 are compelled by want at home, to rake into dunghills in 
 the ftreets and lanes, for all the ofFal and garbage, which 
 have been thrown out by their richer neighbours. 
 
 tRES^ 
 
PRESBYTERIAN LETTERS, 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 BISHOP SKINNER, 8(c. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 " TANTJENE ANIMIS CSLESTIBITS IR« ? 
 
LETTER I. 
 
 >®®'®®^89< 
 
 Sir, 
 
 IN the following Epiftles, itjis my purpofe, Flrft, 
 to examine the picture, which you have exhibited to the 
 world, in a late publication, of your Presbyterian country- 
 men in general, and of the deceafed Ledlurer on Ecclefiaf- 
 tical Hiftory in particular ; and. Secondly, to enquire into 
 the validity, on your own principleSy of the boafted orders of 
 your church. 
 
 You may be aflured that, with whatever freedom I ad- 
 drefs you, I " fet not down aught in malice." It is my 
 earnefl: wifh, that all chriftians, of every denomination, in 
 this land, may be brought to dwell together in «;///y, by 
 which I mean peace and love. For my part, I do not cherifii 
 the lead hatred, or even fufpicion, of any man, merely be- 
 caufe he belongs to one church, and I to another ; nor do I 
 think any perfon a juft objed of reprehenfion and fatire, 
 merely becaufe he cannot, on fome fubjec^s, be entirely of 
 my opinion. I know nothing to which the rule of the Poet 
 can be more properly applied, than to diverfity of opinions 
 in regard to forms and ceremonies in religion, 
 
 " Scimus, ct hanc veniam petimiisque damusque vicissim." 
 
 In order to convince you of my catholic fpirit, I be^jiA 
 «ur correfpondence with making my acknowledgments for 
 
 H fame 
 
Il4f LETTER!. 
 
 fome valuable articles of information, which I have found 
 in your rindication of Primitive Truth and Order, more ef- 
 pecially in tlie firfl: chapter ; which is full of curious mat- 
 ter. 
 
 I have already, on fome occafion or other, made my bow 
 for the difcovery, that mankind owe their redemption, not 
 to the labours and fufFerings of the Son of God, but to his 
 eftablifliment of a fociety of a certain form or model, com- 
 monly called the church, which, as we fliall fee afterwards, 
 you define with clearnefs and accuracy ; and which the 
 deceafed LeElitrer, as you remark, " moft unworthily com- 
 " pares to a knot of artifts or philofophers,** meaning, it is 
 probable, peruke-makers, and free-thinkers. 
 
 If I underftand the principal object of your Firjl Chapter 
 (which I fhall not pofitively fay that I do, fince fome pro- 
 found Critics confefs, that you fometimes are beyond even 
 their depth) it is to prove, that the Patriarchal, Jewifli, and 
 Chrifliian, religions differ very little from one another, un- 
 lefs in point of form ;Jeach of them inftru£l:ing mankind in 
 whatever it concerns them to know, that they may attain 
 falvation, as fully as the other two ; from which fome 
 <« perverfe difputers of this world," would, probably, infer, 
 that only one of them was neceflary. In profecuting this 
 grand obje£l, amidft a vaft variety of curious hiformation, 
 all of which I cannot here detail, you inform us,* that the 
 firft: man and woman were as well inftruded chriflians as 
 the bench of Bifhops in England ; the firft prophecy of a 
 Redeemer, «^ as it came Jtom God" having, undoubtedly, 
 been explained to them with the utmoft clearnefs, and at 
 great length 5 though Mofes' narrative of that tranfadion 
 
 is 
 
 * P. ae. 
 
LETTER I. 115 
 
 is very enigmatical and concife •, in other words, that God 
 poured the full blaze of the light of revelation on the minds 
 of his creatures all at once, and long before they were pre- 
 pared to receive it. 
 
 You alfo teach us,* that the covenant recorded in Gc- 
 nefis f as having been entered into with Noah after the de- 
 luge, and with his feed after him, and with every living 
 thing, fowl, cattle, and every bead of the earth, (fifh are 
 not mentioned, not being fo liable to perifh by drowning 
 as land animals are) of which the only promife is, that all 
 flefli fhall never be again deftroyed by water, (that this co- 
 venant) " was the fame everlafting covenant, through the 
 <* blood of which life was to be reftored to man, and which 
 « had been of longjlanding before the flood y and was only re- 
 « newed and ratified after it ;" that is, the Creator of the 
 world, (if we are to be fatisfied with ^cwr expofition of his 
 word .and work) aflured his creatures, long before the de- 
 luge, that there (hould never be another deluge ; and then, 
 in Noah's time, drowned them all, except a few, by the 
 only deluge that ever was or will be. This curious facl, fo 
 honourable to the divine mercy and faithfulnefs, you fecni 
 to have collected, chiefly from a careful comparifon of the 
 rain-bow in our clouds, with the rain-bow which John 
 faw '* round about the throne in heaven, in fight like unto 
 *' an emerald. "J — You farther inform us,[| that the Jews, 
 among whom our Lord appeared in the flefh, were lefs en- 
 lightened on the fubjciSt of our redemption by Jefus Chrift, 
 than Abraham, the founder of the nation, '* from whofe 
 ** faith they had departed ;'' having, probably, been blind - 
 
 H 2 ed, 
 
 ^ P. 40, 41. t Ch. ix. 9— 17. + Rev. ir. *, 
 
 § Vind. p. 44, 
 
116 LETTER I. 
 
 ed, and led aftray from Abraham's faith, by the law, their 
 fchoolmafter, and by the increafing clearnefs of the prophe- 
 cies, as the time of our Lord's coming drew nearer, and, 
 it may be, by the inftitution of fynagogues, where Mofes 
 and the prophets were read and expounded every fabbath 
 day. Connedied with this article of your belief, is that 
 which follows, I mean that, "though chriftianity is called 
 " the new covenant or teftament, yet it differs in nothing 
 ** from the old covenant or teftament, except in fo far as rc- 
 " lates to the way and manner in which the fcheme of man's 
 " redemption was exhibited to the world," and that the ttew 
 is " only the interpreter of the old."* If your do£trine 
 harmonize with that of Paul,f who fays of the new cove- 
 nant, that it is better than the old, and eftabliflied on better 
 promifes^ then it will follow, that, in apoftolic language, 
 better and nvorfe fignify the fame thing : a difcovery in criti- 
 cifm which throws quite a new light on many paflages of 
 fcripture. 
 
 I am enlightened by your firft chapter, on ftill another 
 fubjecS: of great importance. You write % as if you were 
 firmly perfuaded, that the nature of Chrift's kingdom, and 
 immortal life, were as clearly revealed by Mofes and the 
 prophets, as by our Lord and his apoftles, Jefus Chrift 
 himfelf referring the Jews and his difciples to no more clear 
 and convincing evidence of a future ftate, than what the 
 Old Teftament affords *, and Paul never having urged any 
 thing on the nature of chriftianity, and the profpeds it 
 holds up to man, but what he colle6led from Mofes and the 
 prophets. This, I confefs, is quite new to me. As I 
 have been accuftomed to believe, that the prophecies were 
 
 not 
 
 * Vind. p. 64, 66, 87. t Heb. viii. 6. 
 
 X Vind. p. 6C, 63, 64, ^t>. 
 
LETTER I. 117 
 
 not intended to make all men prophets, but only to create 
 a general expectation of certain events, of which a diftinft 
 and particular view is given in very few inftances, this being 
 refcrved for the period at which they come to pafs ; fo I 
 have been ufed to think, that the law taught that Chrift 
 was to fufFer and rife again, and conveyed the tidings of 
 immortality, only by figures and emblems, whofe real 
 meaning was comprehended by them alone, a fmall number 
 in every age ! " with whom is the fecret of the Lord," the 
 truly pious and reflecting. I have alfo been induced to 
 think, that Paul, in preaching Chrift, and the dodrine of 
 immortality, announced, not merely what he drew from 
 the law and the prophets, but what he received by imme- 
 diate revelation from his mafter ; and that he confidered 
 Chrift's refurredtion from the dead to be a more convincing 
 proof of life and immortality, or at leaft a proof more eafi- 
 ly comprehended and more (triking, than any that can be 
 extracted from the writings of Mofcs and the prophets ; and 
 that " hence it is an obvious and neceflary inference," that 
 there is Ibme difference between the preaching of Mofes 
 and the prophets, and that of an apoftlc of Chrift, bejidei 
 the difference that you point out ; I mean, that " the/or- 
 ** mer points to the promifed Saviour as yet to come, the 
 " latter exhibits him as already come." Thus I was wont 
 to think in the days of my ignorance ; but I am enlighten- 
 ed. "I was once blind ; but now I fee." 
 
 We are not yet at the end of your difcovcries, or at 
 leaft, of your illuftrations of difcoveries already adverted 
 to. You inform us,*' that " the /aiu bore the fame refem- 
 *< blance to the gofpel, that the infant bears to the man ; 
 ** the body in both being formed after the fame model (con- 
 
 H 3 fcquently 
 
 * Vind. p. 119, \20, 
 
1 1 S LETTER L 
 
 fequently your ecclefiaflical model /Jjould be Jewifli, other- 
 wife it is monjlrous !) " and having a fimilarity of features 
 •* and lineaments, fuch as is obferved in the progreflive ad- 
 " vancement of our own bodies from infancy to manhood ;" 
 that the infant was his own fchoolm after,* and, under his 
 own tuition, became, in procefs of time, a well inftrudled 
 fenfible man ; — and that this wonderful child was, in his 
 infancy, the fhadow of what he became, when he arrived 
 at manhood ;-|- to which we may add, on the authority of a 
 fafer Guide to the Church than Mr. Daubeny, that when he 
 did arrive at manhood, his infancy " decayed, and waxed 
 « old, and was ready to vanifti av/ay.'':j: V/e farther learn, 
 that though the apoftle, juft now quoted, joins cordially 
 with the fpirit of prophecy in declaring, that Chrift is a 
 High Prieft for ever, after the order of Melchizedeck (which 
 you admit, II is to be the rule and model of the Chriftian 
 Priefthood for ever) and proves,§ that this order was efTen- 
 tially different, in every refpe^t, from the Aaronic ; yet the 
 Aaronic muft be the rule and model of the Chriftian Prieft- 
 hood after all, becaufe, fince the law was, in all things, 
 a type or Ihadow of the gofpel, the fubftance muft corref- 
 pond to the fiiadow in every iota and tittle, not excepting 
 the names and rank of the fervants employed in the typical 
 difpenfation j^ whence it follows, that the law was typical 
 of Chrift's minifters, as well as of himfelf and the means by 
 which he effected our falvation, — a dodlrine on which the 
 New Teftament obferves the moft profound filence. 
 
 In your firft chapter, we meet with the following doc- 
 trine, announced, I acknowledge, in terms fufficiently 
 ftroug and lively : I mean that, although feme naturalifts 
 
 are 
 
 * Vind. p. 55. t Id. p. 120. % Heb. viii. 13. H Vind. p. 93. 
 § Heb vii. H Vind. p. 93, 94. 
 
LETTER I. 119 
 
 are a little bold and aiTuming, none of them have, as yet y 
 attempted to invert the feafons, to make it day after fun- 
 fct, or night after that luminary is rifen, or to ftop the 
 planets in their courfe, or keep the winds in the hollow of 
 their hands,* or even to alter the circulation of the blood 
 in the human body, turning it into new channcls,f into 
 pipes (fuppofe) of their own making, and placed in the 
 outfide of the skin : but that even fuch bold, and afluming, 
 and defperate naturalifts, would not be more bold, aflum- 
 ing, and defperate, than " they who propofe to divert the 
 " progrefs o f the divine grace from the channels appointed 
 " for conveying it through the myflical body of Chrift •" 
 which channels, or pipes, or arteries and veins are, I pre- 
 fume, Bifhops, Priefts, and Deacons, duly ordained. — 
 From this we learn, that God has fixed the channels of di- 
 vine grace, and confined them to Epifcopal churches, as in- 
 variably, as he has fixed the ordinary and ftated laws of na- 
 ture : and that the falvation of a chriftian, in any church, 
 but one of an Epifcopal conftru^tion, would be fully as mi- 
 raculous as the " (landing ftill of the fun upon Gibeon, 
 " and the flaying of the moon in the valley of Ajalon," or 
 the rapid flight of a {lone, which we lift, up to the clouds, 
 inftead of its taking a direction towards the centre of the 
 earth. The comfort, as well as illumination, which I have 
 derived from this dodrine, is quite inexpreffible. 
 
 I believe I (hould acknowledge, that we are under parti- 
 cular obligations to you and the Rev. C. C. Church-re^or 
 of Gosforth, and Minifter of Trinity, Whitehaven, for 
 giving us to underftand, that the commiffion to teacli the 
 chridian religion and adminifler the facraments, mud be 
 conveyed down, through hands duly authorized, in a di- 
 
 H 4 red 
 
 * Viud. p, ii. \ Id. p. 9o 93. 
 
120 LETTER I. 
 
 re£l unbroken line from the apoftles, left, being a river, 
 commonly called t^e Stream of Succefflon, if it were not con- 
 fined to its own proper channel, but fufFered to overflow its 
 banks, it fhould ceafe to be a river,* and become a deluge, 
 and fo drown all flefh once more ; left we fhould be accuf- 
 ed of forfaking the fountain of living waters ^ that is, of regu- 
 lar Epifcopal orders, which our Lord declared himfelf to be 
 at Jacob's well,f the church being the cijlern for holding 
 thofe living waters, — a hewn out ciftern, and yet made of 
 earth, and a chofen veflel, not a veflel that chofe itfelf.J 
 
 The difcoveries enumerated in this Epiftle, are, as I have 
 faid, entirely new to me 5 and every reader muft acknow- 
 ledge, that they are llluftrated by a great variety of apt fi- 
 militudes, without either mixture of metaphors, confufion 
 of ideas, or contradi£lion in terms. But I fear you begin 
 to think that this Letter approaches towards adulation. So 
 I (hall conclude with expreffing my earneft wifti, that all of 
 us, Presbyterians, may be duly thankful for the inftru^ion 
 that we have received. 
 
 * Vind. p. 95. f Id. p. 96. % Id. p. m, 97. 
 
 LETTER 
 
LETTER II 
 
 THE orders of your church arc, I prefume, nci- 
 iher more nor lefs valid, and its conftitution neither more 
 nor lefs apoflolical, merely becaufe, as you think, our or- 
 ders are naught, and our ecclefiaftical polity too dcmocrati- 
 cal to be divine. It is at lead conceivable, that you are not 
 authorized, by fcripture and found reafon, to pronounce 
 our orders invalid, and our conftitution in no degree apofto- 
 lical ; at any rate, you have not yet anfwered fully all that 
 we have advanced in defence of both. But, admitting that 
 our church falls fhort of yours in primitive purity ; our ec- 
 clefiaftical conftitution is a thing quite diftindt from the mo- 
 ral and religious charaiSler of " a great majority of the inha- 
 *< bitants of the land in which we live." No form of religion, 
 nor indeed, any mode of faith, that we have heard of, make 
 all, who adhere to them, what we all ought to be. There is, 
 I have been credibly informed, a mixture of good and bad 
 men in the Epifcopal kingdoms of England and Ireland, as 
 well as in our country, where presbytery is the ejl ah I'lJJ) merit. 
 Nay, notwithftanding the purifying tendency of your divine 
 model, nothing is more certain, than that it has been part of 
 of my profeftional duty to inflict cenfures, the very nearcfl: 
 to excommunication, on fome that were under v^wr Epifco- 
 pal charge. Hence, in aflerting the claiin of your church 
 
 to 
 
122 LETTER iL 
 
 to a divine origin, I cannot fee how our general charader 
 ■was concerned in the argument, any more than the general 
 chara(3:er of the Abyflinians, the Laplanders, or the Efqui- 
 maux. Perhaps you wiflied to make ours a foil, for the 
 purpofe of fetting off, to greater advantage, the fplendor of 
 your own. But, in reality, this is unworthy of fo acute a 
 philofopher and cafuift ; who cannot overlook a confidera- 
 tion fo obvious, as that a white thing is not really whiter, 
 though it may look better, merely becaufe a black thing is 
 placed near it, and that a pick-pocket is not an amiable cha- 
 racter, becaufe he who takes a man^s life along with his 
 purfe, is a greater criminal. Hence, I cannot fuppofe, 
 that it is to your conceit aod vanity, that we owe the certi- 
 ficate of characlei you have given us, in your Vindicaiion ef 
 Primitive Truth and Order, 
 
 But, be your motives what they will, it is a fa£l:, that 
 you inform all the world,* that we are no better than the 
 Sadducees and Pharifees of our Saviour's day ; having, to 
 prepare us, I fuppofe, for receiving this Epifcopal compli- 
 ment with a good grace, obferved before,f that we poffefs 
 an undoubted moral fuperiority to our neighbours , which 
 undoubted moral fuperiority, as it is defined by you, con- 
 fifts in our not abuGng thofc gifts of the divine goodnefs, 
 which the divine goodnefs has not been pleafed to beftow 
 upon us. 
 
 I do not pretend to deny the faO;, which is too well au- 
 thenticated, that we have, in this vile country, a commo- 
 dity, which is not to be met with where Epifcopacy is the 
 form of the national religion ; 1 mean, a comfortable por» 
 tion of Sadducees, nay, of downright and thorough paced 
 
 infideU, 
 
 * Vind, p. 18. '\ U.^,id, U, 
 
LETTER II. 1 23 
 
 iufidels, who do not, like the Sadducees bf old, receive the 
 five books of Mofes as a divine revelation. And, to tell the 
 truth, if we were to make adherence to a particular form of 
 ecclefiaflical polity an eflential condition of falvation, and 
 to infift that the apoftlcsof Chrift well knew it to be fuch, 
 and yet treacheroufly went out of the world without deline- 
 ating and prefcrlbing it to all chriftians, our Sadducees, I 
 fufpe6^, would increafe and multiply, and replenifh ** the 
 " land in which we live,'* and at laft fubdue it. 
 
 We have, it muft be confeflTed, our Pharifees alfo, as 
 well as Sadducees, ** in the land in which we live.'* They 
 are not, however, very numerous ; and mod of them be- 
 long to a church, which has never been on very friendly 
 terms with the eftablifliment. 
 
 The name of the famous fe6t which, according to you, 
 {hares a great majority of your countrymen with the fe6l of 
 the Sadducees, is derived from a word, which fignifies di- 
 vjfion oxfeparation. Now tell me, who, in this country, are 
 the oldeft fchifmatics, the moft obftinatc feparatifts from 
 our religious eftabliihment ? Are they not the Scotch Epif- 
 copalians ? Do you not explicitly, and even with fcorn,dif- 
 claim all fpiritual kindred with the compofers of the Con- 
 feflion ratified in 1567 ; and do you not admit the fa61:, 
 which was alleged in the Claim of Right at the Revolution, 
 that " this nation had reformed from Popery by Presby- 
 <« ters ?'*♦ You fay you a£l: on principles, which require 
 and juftify your feparation.f I give you joy of your prin- 
 ciples -, every fchifmatic, fince the beginning of the world, 
 has laid claim to fuch principles : and you may a£l on them 
 
 ♦ Vind. p. 173, et sequ. f lU. p. 18, 
 
124 LETTER IL 
 
 or not, as you pleafe. You are, and you do not deny it, 
 feparatifts, or fchifmatlcs, that is, Pharifees In fo far. 
 
 The Jewifli Pharifees looked with difdain on thofe who 
 prefumed to differ from them ; and the leaders of that fecSfc, 
 like the heathen Philofophers, regarded the ignoble vulgar 
 as creatures incapable of thinking or judging for themfelves 
 in the concerns of religion. ** Thou waft altogether born 
 ** in fin,*' faid they to a blind beggar, who reafoned better 
 than themfelves, and had the prefumption to urge argu- 
 ments which they could not anfwer, " and doft thou teach 
 " us ?*'* " This people," ^ried they, " who know not the 
 •* law, are curfed."f Look once more, into the feveral 
 anfwers to LeEiures on Ecclefiaftkal Hijiory^ which High 
 Church has condefcended to publifh, and confider with 
 what haughty and infolent difdain you and your Allies are 
 pleafed to treat Presbytery and Presbyterians. With Mr. 
 Daubeny, our national eftabllftiment is uniformly the Kirk, 
 the Profeflbr's Kirhy and nothing but the Kirk, With 
 youy Presbytery is neither Kirk nor Church. It is not 
 honoured with the appellation of a religion, eftablifhed 
 or not eftablifhed. ' It is, unlefs where you quote the 
 words of another, only the ejlahlijhment I And as for our 
 ecclefiaftical office-bearers, — they are — " the Parfon and 
 " his Elders." And who are they, who feem to be nowife 
 fond of, what we earneftly recommend, and fincerely re- 
 joice in, — the people reading their bible? who are they that 
 fpeak farcaftlcally of the people going to a bookfeller's (hop 
 for their religion \\ nay, and infinuate, that they are fo 
 mortally ftupid, that they cannot know whether they be 
 confcious that they believe in the Lord Jefus Chrift, whom 
 
 they 
 
 * John ix. 34. f Id.vii. 10. % Vind. p. 20. 
 
LETTIR IL 125 
 
 they love and fcrvc, till they go and ask their Bifliop or their 
 pariih Prieft ?* 
 
 The language of the Pharifees to other fe£l:s was, " Stand 
 <* by thyfelf ; come not near to me, for I am holier than 
 " thou." And is there not a body, (a fmall body indeed) 
 of Proteftants in this land, who rigidly abflain from com- 
 munion with their fellow chriftians of all profelTions but 
 their own, and are exhorted by their paftors to avoid fuch 
 communion, with thofe, efpecially, who differ from them 
 in fome things, but nearly agree with them in the form of 
 their worfhip ?f 
 
 The Pharifees compafTed fea and land to make one pro- 
 felyte. They baptized him, and they made him tenfold 
 worfe than themfelves. And there is a certain church in 
 Scotland, whofe clergy delight in making profelytes, but, 
 to be fure, not for the fame reafon that a lawyer is eager to 
 increafe the number of his clients ; they re>baptize them, 
 if they will fubmit to it, in which, no doubt, they are 
 warranted by the doctrine and practice of Cyprian, " the 
 " great unlocker of evangelical fecrets," as they themfelves 
 call him ; and whether they make their profelytes furious 
 bigots, I (hall not pretend to decide, but furious bigots- 
 fome of them do become, efpecially if they happen to gtt 
 into office. I have heard of one of the clergy of the church 
 I have in my eye, ("a convert he was from Presbytery) who, 
 left his father (hould be damned, in confequence of going 
 out of the world with nothing but Presbyterian baptifm, 
 himfelf re-baptized hiin ! To the perfon, who firftprefcnt- 
 ed him at the facred fount, he thus, with the moft exem- 
 plary 
 
 * Viiid. p. 109, 110. 
 
 t S^e Lectures in J.f^i.t by Bishop Skinner, p. G.>. 
 
126 'LETTER II. 
 
 plary filial piety, acquitted himfelf of a great obligation ! 
 Is it not with a good grace that the higheft dignitary of 
 this fame church, retails, with evident complacency, the 
 farcaftical title bcftowed by Jerom on Lucifer, Bifhop of 
 Cagliari, ** who, becaufe he infilled on the re-baptifm of 
 '< all, whofe baptifm had been. In any refpe£t, irregular," 
 was, by his irritable and farcaftic contemporary, ftyled 
 " the Deucalion of the world .?"* 
 
 The Pharifees devoted much of their time to the ftudy 
 of the ancients, and held all their nonfenfe facred ; and, by 
 the refpe£l: they paid to their fenfelefs traditions, rendered 
 void the law of God. Let any perfon, of judgment and 
 candour, ftudy the controverfy on Church Government, 
 and let him fay, whether one of the parties does not pay 
 more refpeft to the traditions (and they are mere traditions) 
 of the fathers, than to the oracles of truth ; nay, whether 
 fome f of the advocates of proper Epifcopacy do not reft its 
 claim to a jus divinum principally, if not folely, on the 
 writings of the Fathers •, virtually admitting, that the fcrip- 
 tures are not fo clear and decifive on the fubjeft, but that 
 wife and good men may difagree in their interpretation of 
 them. 
 
 The Scotch Epifcopal Church, like the Romanifts, is 
 ever boafting of the antiquity and univerfality of her reli- 
 gion, of which (he accounts herecclefiaftical polity an eflen- 
 tial part. And Rabbi Abraham Ben David Halleri (a moft 
 refpe£lable author, if we may judge of him by the fize of 
 his name) fupports the fe£t of the Pharifees againft Alpha- 
 rag, a Spanifti Rabbi of the fe6l of the Sadducees, by 
 the very fame arguments, their antiquity and univerfali- 
 
 * Vind. Note, p. 163. f See Vind. p. 210- 
 
LEITER IL 127 
 
 tj. He proves their aniiquiiy by a continued fuccefTion, 
 which he traces all the way from Adam down to the year 
 of our Lord 1167; and their univerfality from their being, 
 as it has been faid of Scotchmen, to be found every where 
 all the world over. If antiquity and univerfality be admit- 
 ted to be a fufTicient proof of the divine origin of a religi- 
 ous inftitution, the religion of the Pharifees is by far the 
 mod formidable rival of Scottilh Epifcopacy, that we have 
 yet heard of; and the fooner that fome of your " great 
 ** champions" enter the lifts with Rabbi Abraham Ben 
 David Halleri, the better. 
 
 In what regards " the vile hypocrify of the Pharifees/' 
 I decline ftating a comparifon between them and any body 
 of men upon earth. I am not a fearcher of hearts, nor am 
 I thoroughly acquainted with the whole external condud of 
 any body of men ; and I do not think myfelf at liberty to 
 invade the province of Him who is. 
 
 Let me now ask what there is, in the general chara£ler 
 of" a great majority of the inhabitants of the land in which 
 " we live," thatanfwers to the defcription of the Pharifees 
 of our Saviour's day, which we find in holy writ ? 
 
 Are we great pretenders to ftrid fan6lrty ? Do you, in 
 your Epifcopal perambulations, obferve fome of us, at eve- 
 ry corner of the itreet, turning up a pair of white eyes (for 
 the Pharifees did not read their prayers, nor fing them) and 
 pouring forth thankfgivings and petitions to catch the admi- 
 ration of the multitude '- I am afraid our fault is the reverfe 
 of this, and that many of us are aftiamed to appear fo feri- 
 ous as they really are : fo getiteel are we become. 
 
 Are we fuperftitioufly atU'ic^cd to a complicated and bur- 
 
 denfome 
 
128 LETTER It 
 
 denfome ceremonial in religion ? You call our worfliip na- 
 ked and meagre, too fpiritual and refined for the prefent 
 embodied ftate of man. 
 
 Are we peculiarly oflentatlous in our alms-givings, al- 
 ways founding a trumpet when we do a kind a£i:ion ? I 
 have not heard this laid to our charge, and I prefume, you 
 will not deny, that we, as well as our Scotch Epifcepals, 
 can fometimes enjoy the blefiednefs of giving, " without 
 ^' letting our left hand know what our right hand doth." 
 
 Do we pay too great refpe£t to ancient traditions, and 
 the commandments of men, in the concerns of religion ? 
 We pay little or no refpe£l to them at all, as we are, or 
 think ourfelves chriftians, but only in matters of order, 
 which the Spirit of God has left to the adjuftment of human 
 difcretion. 
 
 You are pleafed to mention, fpecifically, one thing, in 
 which we refemble the Pharifees of old, and it is " our zea- 
 " lous ignorance of the righteoufnefs of God."* It is not 
 your fault, that we are not profoundly ignorant of ** the 
 " righteoufnefs of God," and of every thing elfe, which it 
 highly imports man to know. For you afcribe our infideli- 
 ty, our diverfity of religious opinions, our inclination to 
 debauchery and riot, in which our circumftances do not 
 permit us to indulge pra£l:Ically j in a word, every thing 
 that is bad in the land wherein we live, to — " the advanta- 
 " ges which we have long enjoyed In the way of literature, 
 « and the eafy accefs, thus afforded, to the general acqui- 
 ** fition of knowledge,*' and particularly to the acquifition 
 of the dangerous art of reading, by which we are almoft all 
 
 enabled 
 
 * Vind. p. 19. 
 
LETTER II. 129 
 
 enabled to perufe the works of Thomas Panic, if we pleafe.* 
 Hence we may infer, that if our advantages in the way of 
 literature were under your controul, they would foon dif- 
 appear ; and that as Mr. Paine boafted that he had gone 
 through Lebanon with his axe, and foiled all the cedars 
 thereof ; fo you would think it great glory, to apply your 
 axe to the tree of knoivlcdge^ and bring it to the ground. 
 
 I fay nothing of your mifapplication, to our " zealous 
 " ignorance,'' of a paiTagc of holy writ.f I have pleafure 
 in thinking, that you do not underftand the words of the 
 apoftle ; for it is much lefs difgraceful, even in a Bifhop of 
 Bifliops, to be ignorant of the meaning of fcripture, than 
 wilfully to pervert or mifapply it. But wherein does our 
 ** zealous ignorance of the righteoufnefs of God" confift } 
 I am not fure that I thoroughly comprehend what you write 
 on this part of the defcription yon give of us -, and, indeed, 
 the moft friendly Critics :|: remark, that you are fometimes 
 unintelligible, which may be owing, perhaps to your imper- 
 fect comprehenfion of your fubjei^, and to the load of 
 words under which your ideas are prefTed down, till they 
 difappear. But, if I underftand what you fayj|| in illuftra- 
 tion of our zealous ignorance, you mean to inform your 
 readers, that it confifts in our not blindly fubje£ting our 
 underftanding to Prie/ls duly authorized to lead the 
 blind ; and in our being fo very fenfelefs as to imagine, 
 that the.chriftian religion is to be learned in " the Bible, 
 " a copy of which we buy in a bookfeller's (hop, and car- 
 " ry home, and read at our leifure, and interpret as we 
 <* think fit ;" that is to fay, as we can. This, I confefs, 
 
 I betrays 
 
 * Vind. p. l-\ t Rom. X. 23. 
 
 X The Anti-jacobin and British Critic. " Vj-.l p, jo, 2% 
 
130 LETTER II. 
 
 betrays grofs ignorance of the righteoufnefs of God ; and the 
 Pope, with his army of Priefts, thinks fo as well as you. 
 But in this ignorance, (would to God it were more zealous 
 than it is !) we live ; in this ignorance our clergy exhort 
 their people to live ; and in this ignorance all of us, cler- 
 gy and people, are firmly refolved to die, come after what 
 will : fo, it is quite unneceflary for the Senior Bl/hop of the 
 Scotch Epijcopal Churchy to give himfelf any farther trouble 
 about \}:it matter. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 131 ) 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 IT is a goodly portrait of " a great majority of 
 " your countrymen," is it not ? which you hold up to the 
 world. And that we may rcHlh it the more, you contrafl: 
 it with a pi£lure of the people of your own communion, 
 fomewhat more flattering. •< We, of the Epifcopal commu- 
 " nion, have the credit and comfort of refle£l:ing, that no- 
 " thing has been faid or done, on our part, to promote or 
 ** encourage wild deviation from the paths of true religion, 
 « the ways of unity, peace, and love, which our blefled 
 « Redeemer marked out for all his faithful followers.''* In 
 the oldeft proteftant feparatifts in Scotland, this is fufficient- 
 ly modeft ! — Tf we may interpret it by the context before 
 and behind, the fentence I have quoted gives us to under- 
 fland, that you have done every thing in your power to 
 check the fuccefs of our home miflionaries. It may be 
 fo, for ought I know. But your exertions for this purpofe, 
 nobody, who reads your account of the home mi{rionaries,f 
 will impute to the mod difmterefted motives ; for, it fcems 
 they have the prefumption to rival High Church, in her 
 modefl: pretenfions to an exclufive miflion from heaven to 
 preach the gofpcl. li is not, then, for the true religion, 
 
 I 2 nor 
 
 * Vind, p. 17, ]8. t Id. p. 16. 
 
1S2 LETTER III. 
 
 nor the ways of unity, peace, and love, that you contend, 
 when you oppofe the miflionaries for propagating the gof- 
 pel at home. It is pro arts etfocis that you fight. 
 
 You infinuate, with a degree of hefitation that is not of- 
 ten obferved to accompany your decifions, that the efta- 
 blifliment has little reafon to hope for fuccefs in endeavour- 
 ing to keep its ground againft this new and prefumptuous 
 fe£l, which is the more formidable, becaufe it is under the 
 impulfe of a fort of phrenzy, a difeafe, whofe nature pref- 
 byterians, being hit themfelves, do not underftand, and 
 which, of confequence, they are not able to cure ; to fay 
 nothing of our church government having, even in its 
 higheft judicatory, only fomething like ecclefiaflical authority^ 
 the grand panacea for religious diforders.f But you gradu- 
 ally become bolder, and inform us, that we cannot have ec- 
 clefiaftical authority, the miniftry of our clergy having been 
 derived from a contempt of a regular apoftolic miflion.f — 
 You afterwards fpeak out ftill more plainly, and tell us to 
 our face, that our minifters are " bold intruders, and" (as 
 if ufurpation were warrantable in /ow^ cafes) " unwarranted 
 *« ufurpers."t 
 
 Behold the firft fruits of that gratitude, " which you 
 «< thought it your bounden duty to exprefs to all in the efta- 
 <* bliflied church, who had any hand in procuring for you 
 " the toleration, which you now happily enjoy !"I| — the 
 firft fruits of that gratitude, which you owe to all the loyal 
 inhabitants of this land, who, in 1 792, (hewed that they 
 heartily forgave, and were willing to forget for ever, the 
 various attempts of your party, to bring this free and hap- 
 
 py 
 
 * Vind. p. 17. \ Ibid. 
 
 X Id. p. 101, 103, 104. II Id. p. 449. 
 
LETTER Iir. 133 
 
 py country once more under the dominion of a Popifti def- 
 pot, and, confequently to fubvert the conftitution in church 
 and ftate I From the gratitude of High Church, " good 
 " Lord deliver us !" Her enmity we can bear ; we have 
 borne it long without repining ; but her love is intolerable:;. 
 
 Contemplate, for a moment, the pi£lure of us, which 
 you exhibit to the world ; and then fay, whether it be not 
 miraculous, that fociety has fubfifted in this country for 
 folong as fmce 1803, when your Vindication was publifhed ? 
 A great majority of the nation either unprincipled infidels 
 or vile hypocrites •, — our ecclefiaftical government as little 
 entitled to the obedience of the people, as it is unfit to en- 
 fure their reverence ; our clergy all intruders and ufurpers, 
 without miflion from heaven, and without right to the 
 place they hold I 
 
 That High Church fliould have degraded herfelf, and con- 
 taminated her hitherto unfuUied purity, by the acceptance 
 of any obligation, of any kind, from fuch a mafs of cor- 
 ruption, at once an obje£l: of contempt and of deteftation, 
 would furprize us not a little, if we did not know, that 
 great pride and great meannefs are often united, and that 
 the haughtieft and mod infolent of mankind, when they 
 can pick up fomething that is good for them, are fometimes 
 feen to (loop, even to the ground. 
 
 When, in defence of your Jus divinumy you put us in 
 mind, that it is in your church only, or in churches of the 
 fame conftru£lion, that men can be faved, we only fmile. 
 We know that an intolerant bigot feels no more of the 
 " compunctious vifitings of nature," after he has con- 
 figned millions to everlafting burning with a finglc da(h of 
 bis pen, than anotncr man feels upon cutting up an oyfter 
 
 13 or 
 
134 LETTER III. 
 
 or a boiled muflel : it is the nature of the being. Why 
 were not you fatisfied with telling your readers, that all, 
 except Epifcopallans, go to deftrudlion ? This would have 
 rendered your Epifcopal zeal fufficiently illuftrious *, and it 
 could not poffibly hurt any body but yourfelf. But you do 
 fomething worfe. You found the toc/tn of rebellion in the 
 ears of our people, telling them, that they are under the 
 fpiritual government of men, who neither have, nor have 
 a right to, any authority over them whatever. You in- 
 form them that our higheft judicatory poflelTes only the (ha- 
 dow of ecclefiaftical authority, and that even that ihadow is 
 an ufurpation. You hold up our clergy to their flocks, as a 
 body of pretenders to a commilTion from our Lord, who 
 occupy the places, and enjoy the rights, of other men, at 
 the manifeft rifque of the everlafting ruin both of them- 
 felves and their people. 
 
 Quae mens tarn dira, miserrime 
 
 Impulit his cingi telis ? 
 
 I do not fay, that you meant to imitate the infidel philofo- 
 phifts of France, who lately fubverted the eftablifhed reli- 
 gion of their country, by reprefenting it to their country- 
 men as founded on facerdotal impofture and ufurpation, 
 and an affront to their underftanding : but you have, in 
 fad, imitated them. I do not fay that you have the fame 
 objeft in view, which is aimed at by our miffionaries for 
 propagating the gofpel at home. If their leaders be not ac- 
 tuated by fanaticifm, the objea which they purfue, is too 
 nefarious for you. But you tread in their fteps. And 
 though the profefled principle on which they a£l: be differ- 
 ent from yours, the refult to us would be the fame, if either 
 of you fhould gain credit with our people. They maintain, 
 that we cither cannot, or will not, preach the everlafting 
 
 gof- 
 
LETTER UL 135 
 
 gofpel to our people, and that our ecclefiafticil conftitution 
 is anti-chviftian, and therefore ruinous to the fouls of men. 
 Tour dodrine is, not only that our conftitution is unfcrip- 
 tural, but that our clergy have no right, no call from Iiea- 
 ven, to preach the gofpel, and, therefore, that the blefhng 
 of God cannot be expected to accompany their labours. 
 
 Is it not ftrange, to behold High Church fraternizing 
 with infidels and Haldanite Independents ? No provoca- 
 tion, that you could receive from Dr. Campbell, or any in- 
 dividual, or indeed, any number of our clergy or laity, can 
 juftify this unnatural alliance. It is utterly irreconcileable 
 with fincerity in your profefTions of loyalty, and of a re- 
 gard to the peace and welfare of your country, by whofe 
 government you are protected, and have been recently re- 
 lieved from the preflure of every legal reflraint and difabi- 
 lity, which your former difafFedtion brought you under. — 
 Presbytery, whatever be its merits as a form of ecclefiafli- 
 cal polity, (and I (hould ** think foul fcoru" to defend 
 them againft fuch afl'ailants as you and the Anti-jacobin j 
 presbytery) is the eftablifhed religion of the country : it is 
 conneOied with the State, and, I will add, affords it no 
 feeble fupport : and the Sovereign is bound, by his corona- 
 tion oath, to defend and maintain it. It is abfurdly, and 
 it is contrary to fa6t, that you call your church the ancient 
 eftablifhment of the country, unlefs you mean to identify 
 your religious profefTion with Popery. Did not the nation 
 of Scotland " reform from Popery by Presbyters ?" Do 
 not you cordially acquiefce in this allegation of the Claim 
 of Right ? Has not Presbytery then, an unqueftionable 
 title to the defignation of the ancient^ as well as of the /r^- 
 fent, eftablifhment of the country ? It has every right to 
 the place it holds, that can refult from prior occupancy, 
 and from long and legal poflcfTion. It is ftrange, that, 
 
 I 4 while 
 
136 LETTER III. 
 
 while you are loud, and rather more tedious than fome of 
 your friends think necefTary,* in your profefllons of loyal- 
 ty, you endeavour to fabvert an important part of the con- 
 ftitution of your country, by labouring to bring the efta- 
 blifhed religion, and its minifters, under general contempt. 
 Has your loyalty no other objects but merely the perfon 
 and prerogative of the Sovereign ? He is, what Sir William 
 Temple advifed the Second Charles to be, " The man of his 
 *' people ;'* and therefore is he the greateft king in the 
 world. His greatnefs refts on his inviolable regard to the 
 conftitution of his country. Do you think that the Sultan of 
 the Britifh Ifles would be a great King ? Imagine not, that 
 you can flatter a Sovereign of Britain, by feparating, in 
 your profeffions of loyalty, the perfon and the prerogative 
 of the Prince from the conftitution of the country.' Your 
 church boafts of her attachment to monarchy. She has Jgi- 
 ven better proof of her attachment to defpotifm, which is 
 quite a different thing. Every man to his mind. If you 
 are in love with the defpotifm of James II. you may go to 
 France after him, where you will enjoy the comforts of 
 that fort of government in their full perfe(3:ion. As for 
 us, of the Eftablifhed Church, who have given fully as un- 
 equivocal and fubftantial proofs of loyalty as you, we will 
 flay at home, and enjoy the bleffings of a government, 
 whofe iiluftrious Chief rules over meriy by fixed and known 
 laws, and not oxer Jlaves fubjeded to the capricious tyran- 
 ny of an arbitrary defpot ; — a Chief who reigns in the hearts 
 of his people. We abhor and deteft Jacobinifm, and we 
 have refifted it with vigour and efFedl. But we do not the 
 more, for that reafon, admire Anti-jacobinifm run mad. 
 
 Although I have addrefled you with great freedom, and 
 
 fome 
 
 * See Anti-jac. V. xvii. p. 133. 
 
LETTER III. 137 
 
 lome degree of indignation, on the nature and tendency of 
 your attack on our national charadler and national church ; 
 that attack, you may be allured, excites no alarm : for 
 why ? The Anti-jacobin Reviewer of Leclures on Ecclefiafli- 
 cal HiJIoryy however meanly he may think of Knox or of 
 Calvin, has, in the face of the fun, pledged himfelf to pro- 
 teft the Kirhy " becaufe the King is bound, by his corona- 
 ** tion oath, to afford it protedlion and fupport :" — the ge- 
 nerous and loyal gentleman might have added, " becaufe it 
 " is protected by law.'* In confequence of the affiirance, 
 that the King and the law may depend on fuch powerful 
 aid, to enable His Majefty to fulfil the obligations of his 
 coronation oath, and the law to protecSl and fupport its 
 own eftablifhment, wc fhal) all, henceforth, feel quite fe- 
 cure, and mock at fear. The Anti-jacobin, that, if there 
 be fenfe or gratitude in us, we may be taught to refped 
 the church to which he belongs, a little more than Dr. 
 Campbell's Editor feems to have done, when he publiflied 
 Le£lures fo offenfive to High Church, calls upon us to take 
 notice, (for he does not give without upbraiding) that he 
 has already done effential fervice to the Kirk^ and confc- 
 quently to the King and the law. He fays,* that he has 
 waged war with the Haldanites and Burgher Seceders, and 
 abfolutely written to death the Edinburgh Clerical Review 
 of infamous memory, — and all for the fecurity of the King's 
 honour, and of our exlftence ; for, from Haldanites, 
 Burgher Seceders, and Clerical Reviewers, his church, it 
 would feem, has nothing to apprehend, which is owing, I 
 prcfume, to the fublime origin of its ecclefiaftical authority'; 
 an authority, which (Irikes its head againfl: the ftars, as 
 fings the poet — 
 
 ** Sublimi/eno sidcra vcrtice." 
 
 Was 
 
 * See his altercation witli Dr. Campbell's Biographer. 
 
358 LETTER III- 
 
 Was ever any thing heard of, out of Bedlam, more ludi- 
 croufly infolent than the whim, that has feized this man's 
 brain ? A national church, eftabliflied on the firm founda- 
 tion of law, under a legal government, and including in its 
 bofom aim oft all that is great in rank, and learning, and 
 wealth, and power, in this ancient kingdom, depending for 
 protedion and fupport on an anonymous fcribbler in a pe- 
 riodical pamphlet ! 
 
 *« The Sultan and I would never have permitted Charles 
 XII. to add fo vaft a country as Ruffia to his dominions." 
 « The Sultan and you ?" « Yes, the Sultan and I. Do 
 ** you know me, Sir ? I am the Cham of Tartary.'' 
 
 The Anti-jacobin thinks, there is no polTibility of defend- 
 ing Epifcopacy, but at the expence of Presbytery. This, 
 with the folemn pledge that he has given, to protect and 
 fupport Presbytery " againft all deadly," places him, on 
 fome occafions (as when he is reviewing latitudinarian per- 
 formances) in a very awkward predicament. But if he can- 
 not defend Epifcopacy on the only rational grounds, on 
 which any fyftem of ecclefiaftical polity in exiftence can be 
 defended, I mean lawfulnefs, and expediency in certain 
 circumftances, let him give up the protection and fupport 
 of the Kirk. It is probable, that he will have His Majef- 
 ty's moft gracious pardon ; and as for the Kirk, (he does, 
 I can affure the gentleman, regard his protedion and his 
 hoftility with equal contempt. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 139) 
 
 I.ETTER IV 
 
 THE Works of the Leaurer on EccUfiaJlkal HtJ- 
 tory are before the tribunal of the public ; and the public 
 will judge for itfelf concerning his literary merit, without 
 paying much regard to your verdi6t or mine. His charac- 
 ter alfo, as a chriftian and a divine, is fufficiently known ; 
 for he was no anchoret, nor did he live feventy-feven years 
 in an obfcure corner. Hence, in addrefling you on the pic- 
 ture of him, that you have exhibited to the world, I, by no 
 means, wifh to be confidered as afluming the office either 
 of his vindicator or his panegyrift : happily his memory 
 Hands not in need of this fervice. My objed, in this part 
 of Presbyterian Letters, is twofold ; — Firfty To call attention 
 to the Spirit which High Church breathes, and to induce the 
 reflefting and candid reader to judge for himfelf, whether the 
 principles which cherifh that fpirit, be truly chriftian princi- 
 ples, or not-, — and, Secondly, To illuftrate the propofitions 
 which follow ; " He is not the worfe arguer, who puts his 
 " antagonifl: in a violent paflion/' and, '* when a'controvcr- 
 " tift lofes his temper, and is full of that kind of matter, which 
 " pours itfelf forth in virulent reflections, it is a flirewd 
 " prefumption that he has little confidence, either in the 
 *' goodncfs of his caufe, or in his own ability to defend it." 
 Indeed, when I meet with palhonate invedlives, fent to the 
 grave after a deceafed writer of learning and talents, it puts 
 me always in mind of the fable, which fpeaks of a living 
 afs kicking a dead lion. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( i-to) 
 
 LETTER v. 
 
 THE LiBures on Eccleftajlical Hiftoryf''yo\x in Gnu- 
 ate,* are ill digefted. It may be fo. Perhaps the bad ar- 
 rangement may have been owing to a certain confufion of 
 ideas, and a narrownefs of comprehenfion, which were na- 
 tural to the author ; and you muft admit, that every pro- 
 fefTor of Theology in Scotland is not obliged to have fo clear 
 a head, and fo large a compafs of mind, as a dignitary, 
 who fills fo high a ftation as the primacy. The Le£lurer, 
 it is probable, out of regard to the improvement of his pu- 
 pils, and out of refpe£l to the public, did his beft j and, 
 you know, Ariftotle, Longinus, and Biftiop Skinner, did 
 no more. You excufe the Lecturer's heady on the fubje£t 
 of his faulty arrangement, but alas I it is at the expence of 
 his heart ; for you tell us,t that " fuch ill digefted Lec- 
 " tures could come only from a perfon, who found it ne- 
 " ceflary to touch the true nature and conftltution of the 
 ** church very tenderly, becaufe the ground on which he 
 " ftood in his official capacity, was not fufficiently firm to 
 <* bear him up in any other language than that of the falfe 
 *' prophets of old, who fpoke fmooth things, and prophe- 
 ** fied deceits, becaufe the people loved to have it fo." [Y] 
 Right ! The LeCturer has been afraid left he Ihould forfeit 
 his double gown, if he ventured to fpeak out, clearly and 
 methodically^ what he knew about the true nature and con- 
 ftltution 
 
 * Vind. p. 21. t ^^- p. 2). [Y] See Notes. 
 
LETfER V. 141 
 
 ftitution of the church. Therefore, to procure a fubfif- 
 tence, " he fpoke fmooth things, and prophefied deceits, 
 «« becaufe the people among whom he miniftered, loved to 
 ** have it fo/' You very properly contraft his condu6l 
 with that of a man of another stamps Dr. Home, who, be- 
 ing a Bifliop in the church of England, wrote clearly in fa- 
 vour of Epifcopacy, and fet the fear of deprivation at de- 
 fiance. Tet, ftrange to tell! our author of /// digested 
 Le6lures, notwithftanding the tendernefs of the ground on 
 which he ftood in his official capacity, " fupports and re- 
 «' commends a fyftem of ecclefiaftical order and difcipline, 
 " almoft as different from that which is eftabliflied in Scot- 
 ** land, as it is oppofite to every thing of the kind to be met 
 «* with in the primitive church." From this borrowed ca- 
 lumny you take occafion to infer, with a candour and be- 
 nignity truly worthy of a chriftian paflor, that he would 
 have exerted his utmoft ability to fubvert his own church, 
 if it had not taken care to purchafe his fervices at a hand- 
 feme price. [Z] 
 
 To tell the truth, the Kirk, [Aa] to ufe, once more, the 
 refpe£lful and elegant modern phrafe, in which Mr. Dau- 
 bcny delights fo much (the Kirk) bribes high. It gave our 
 Ledurer a theological chair in Marifchal College, and a 
 Le£lurerfliip, on neither of which fingly, can a clergyman 
 live decently, even in Scotland, where there is no contigu- 
 ous Epifcopal pomp to fliame the frugal fimpiicity of the 
 humble Presbyter's mode of living : this is the caufe that 
 they arc always united. As to the Principality of the Col- 
 lege, it is not an ecclefiaftical office, nor did the Lecturer 
 owe it, in any fenfe, to tlic Kirk, That he ftuck firmly, 
 then, to an eftablifliment, which, though he hated it in his 
 
 heart, 
 
 [Z] Viud. p. 44 -^ [Aa] See Notes. 
 
142 LETTER \ . 
 
 heart, rewarded his adherence fo munificently, we cannot 
 wonder. Could he have carried his abilities to a better 
 market ? 
 
 By and by, however, with a confiftency, which {hews 
 how well your ideas are " digefted," and how ftrong arc 
 your powers of recolledtion, you reprefent the Le£lurer as 
 a bigot to his own church, and as delighting in an oppor- 
 tunity, which he created to himfelf on purpofe, of giving 
 a favourable view of its difcipline, and of mifreprefenting 
 the polity and difcipline of the Church of England* — 
 Strange ! Hating his own church at heart, but afraid to 
 fpeak what he knew of the nature and conftitution of the 
 holy catholic church, left he (hould be turned out of of- 
 fice ;^but fpeaking out boldly, and reprefenting the pri- 
 mitive order and difcipline to be totally different from thofc 
 of the eftablifhment ; yet enthufiaftically attached to the 
 difcipline of his own church after all ! The difcord that 
 reigned in Chaos, when 
 
 *' Obstabatque aliis aliud, quiacorpore in uno 
 
 '* Frigida pugnabant calidis, humentia siccis, &c." 
 
 muft have been harmony in comparifon of the uproar of 
 jarring fentiments, that agitated Dr. Campbell's mind ! 
 But this is not all. 
 
 Though a bigot to his own church, which he hated, and 
 in order to make way for the Independent fcheme, would 
 have exerted his whole might to fubvert, if he had not 
 been generoufly rewarded for living quietly, you fhrewdly 
 fufpe£l, that he was, at bottom, not a little inclined to 
 Popery ; — why ? He coincides in opinion with Bellarmine, 
 who maintained, that none of the apoftles, but Peter, had 
 
 fuc- 
 * Vind. p. 149, 
 
LETTER V. 148 
 
 fucceffors f*— It is, I muft confefs, quite indifputable, that 
 no man can agree with a Roman Cardinal, on any point, 
 either of ecclefiaftical hiftory or divinity, without being 
 more than half prepared for the ceremony of proftration at 
 his Holinefs' feet. Unfortunately for the reputation of the 
 Kirkt its " great champion** goes a ftcp farther than the 
 Le<Slurer, and explicitly acknowledges, that there have 
 been perfons, not a few, of the Romi(h communion, who 
 had common fenfe, and fome portion of learning \ " wife 
 " and great men,'* he calls them. " From thefe, and o- 
 " ther inftancesof a fimilar nature,'* you infer, that " be- 
 ** tween Popery and Presbytery, the difference, in many 
 ** things, is not fo great as is generally imagined. "f This 
 inference is striBly logical! For, to fay nothing of the 
 names of the two religious profcfTions, which both begin 
 with the very fame letter of the alphabet, — not to mention 
 the hackneyed obfervation, that extremes are apt to meet ; 
 it is unqueflionable, that the opinions of learned men on a 
 controverted fubje£l, which has no connexion with the 
 grand and fundamental truths of our religion, are quite de- 
 cifive of the genius and chara6ler of that form of chriftia- 
 nity, to which they adhere ! 
 
 The clergy of your church are blefled with extraordinary 
 fagacity in difcovering points of likenefs between Popery 
 and Presbytery. In this quality High Church fecms to 
 
 have 
 
 * You ask where the Lecturer could have learned this? Ian 
 swer, Does he not prove it from the New Testament by arguments, 
 which you in vain atten^pt to refute? I answer farther, that it is 
 shameful in a dignitary of Hgh Church, to ask a question, which 
 betrays ignorance ©f the wri ings of Dodwell, Whitby, and many 
 other Episcopal authors of chaiacter. all of whom coincide with tht 
 KomaQ Cardinal. 
 
 i \in.l. p. 19P. 
 
144 LETTER V. 
 
 have improved greatly, fince the era of the pious and libe- 
 ral author of A Tale of a Tub ; for that author thought, and 
 alfo ventured to aflert firmly, that Bald Jack, alias Knock- 
 ing John of the North, tore his patrimonial coat with too 
 strong a hand ; that is, being interpreted, that Presbytery de- 
 parted /^d?y^r from Popery. But, perhaps the fagacity, of 
 which I am fpeaking, like the keen fcent, with which fome 
 fpecies of dogs are endowed, may be a family quality. For 
 the Author of Letters on the Eccleftastical History of Scotland 
 makes much the fame difcovery that you have made •, and 
 he communicates it to the Catholic Church in thofe Letters, 
 juft at the end of the firfl volume. This reverend gentle- 
 man, who was educated a Presbyterian, and, therefore, 
 knew well what fpirit Presbytery is of, takes occafion to 
 remark, that " the fame era produced two of the greateft, 
 " enemies, that ever primitive Epifcopacy had to grapple 
 " with, Loyola and Calvin. The followers of the latter,'' 
 he fays, " have been the bittereft revilers and oppofers of 
 " the y^^r^i hierarchy •, thofe of the former boldly and o- 
 « penly impugn the independence and authority of the 
 « Epifcopal order," " Here,'* he adds, " the Calvinifts 
 *« and Jefuits, whatever antipathy may be thought to fub- 
 « fifl: between them in other articles, feem to agree as 
 <« friends, like Herod and Pontius Pilate on another occa- 
 «« fion.*' Juft fo, Mr. Skinner. The two cafes, that of 
 the coalition between Calvinifts and Jefuits in oppofing the 
 facred hierarchy, and that of Herod and Pontius Pilate, 
 who laid afide their former enmity, and joined together 
 againft the Son of God, are quite parallel, with this differ- 
 ence only, that, to oppofe the aggrandizement of thtfer- 
 vants, or ftrive to check their unbounded ambition, is, it 
 muft be confefled, a much more atrocious crime, than to 
 confign the Master to ihame and death ! — Thus do High 
 Churchmen think and write. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( us ) 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 THE diiference between Pbpery and Presbytery 
 being very inconfiderable, it was natural for the Le£lurer to 
 hate the Church of England, which is equally hoftile to 
 both. The argument is confirmed by the fa£l. He aflures 
 his hearers, that nothing was farther from his defign, in 
 tracing the apoftolic model of government, than to difpute 
 the lawfulnefs of Epifcopacy, or even its expediency in cer- 
 tain circumrtances. He explicitly bears his teftimony to 
 the refpedlability of the Church of England ; and he calls 
 upon his pupils to obferve, that his remarks on the confu- 
 fion of fpiritual and fecular jurifdi(Slion in that church, by 
 no means affc£l " the dodrine taught, the morals inculca- 
 « ted, or the worlhip praclifed." He does not, indeed, 
 fpeak in terms of approbation, of what he thought faulty ifi 
 the difcipline and polity of the Church of England, nor has 
 he given that proof of his reverence for any church on earth. 
 This he left to fenfelefs bigots, and hireling fcribblers, and 
 periodical pamphleteers, who have engaged to defend all 
 exifting eilabli{hments through right and through wrong, 
 and to refill all changes for the better, however modeftly 
 propofed, and tempe/attly purfued. 
 
 Such 
 
146 LETTER YI. 
 
 Such are the proofs of hoftillty to the Epifcopacy beyond 
 the Tweed, which Dr. Campbeirs Le£i:ures exhibit •, and 
 they, indifputably, juflify you and The Literary Cenfor in 
 aflerting, that the Le£lurer " mifreprcfents, belies, and 
 " « attachy with the mojl rancorous violence^ the conjlitution of 
 « Uhe Church of England;'' [Bb] and publilhed his Lec- 
 tures for the evident purpofe of bringing the Epifcopal 
 Church of Scotland into utter and everlafting contempt !* 
 
 But his antipathy to thofe two churches is nothing in it- 
 felf, in comparifon of fome of its efFe£ls •, for, it feems, it 
 was an aSiive principle in the Le£lurer's breaft. You grave- 
 ly inform us,f that he infidioufly attempted to fet the 
 Church of England diflenters in this country, and the 
 Scotch Epifcopals, by the ears together, that he might (land 
 by, and fee his enemies avenge, on one another, his quar- 
 rel with both. And by what means does he labour to ac- 
 complifh this chriftian purpofe ? Why, he calls the Church 
 of England diffenters " moderate and reafonable !" There 
 is a time for every thing under the fun. At any period be- 
 fore the year 1800, the Lefturer's ill-natured attempt to 
 fow diflention between the Scotch and Englifh Epifcopacy, 
 would have been quite harmlefs. But to make it at the 
 very feafon, when you, who are at the head of one, defire 
 earneftly for the advancement of religion, to be at the head 
 of both, was malicious in the extreme. 
 
 There are fome captious and uncandid refle£i:ions, which 
 it requires rather more than human patience to bear with 
 coolnefs ; and this feems to me to be one of them. Did 
 you ever perufe the works of a clergyman, who belongs to 
 the Scotch Epifcopacy, and publifhed Lectures for Lent 
 
 juft 
 
 [Bb] See Notes. * Vind. p. 450, t Id. p. 356. 
 
LETTER Vf. 147 
 
 juft fourteen years before the publication of Leclures on Ec- 
 cleftajlical Hiftoryy and at the fixty-third page of that work, 
 calls the meetings of the Englifh diflenters In this country 
 Jchifmaiical ajpmbliesy and earncftly admoniflies the young 
 chrlftians under his charge, to avoid all communion, in re- 
 ligious worflilp, with thofe damnable fchifmatlcs, garbling 
 and perverting the words of a holy and Infpired apoflle, 
 and proftituting them to his unchrlftlan purpofe ? Which o£ 
 the two, that clergyman, or Dr. Campbell, has done mod 
 " to keep up that unneceflary diftin6lion, between the 
 " Scotch and Englifh Epifcopacy, which has fubfifted too 
 " long ?" Who but muft feel indignant difdain, when he Is 
 told, that the clergyman I allude to, 'Is that very dignitary, 
 who now dares, in the face of the world, to rebuke Dr. 
 Campbell, for what ? For calling the Church of England 
 Diflenters " moderate and reafonable ?'* 
 
 Quis tulerlt Gracchos de seditione querentes ? 
 
 So much for the liberality and candor, which you difcovcr 
 in the Le^ures en Eccleftastical History. 
 
 K 2 LETTER 
 
( 148 ) 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 LET US now enquire, whether our Lecturer's 
 piely be not as liable to Epifcopal reprehenfion, as his cha- 
 rity toward thofe who differ from him. 
 
 To fay nothing of his calling the Chriftian religion a 
 more rational and divine difpcnfation than the Jewilh, for 
 which, 1 muft own, he has no better warrant than the de- 
 clarations of the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of prophets and 
 apoftles •,* to fay nothing of his ** degrading the facred 
 " character of Philip," by calling him, after Luke, only a 
 truftee for the poor, at the time he baptized the Ethiopi- 
 aii eunuch ; — to pafs over " the unworthy," that is, the 
 impious comparifon, which he ufes, when he aflerts, that 
 the chriftian church, in the beginning, no more trenched 
 on the prerogative of the civil power, when it expelled or 
 re-admitted members, than a knot of artifts or philofophers 
 does, when it exercifes the fame privilege *, — to pafs over 
 
 all 
 
 * See Ezek. xx. 25. Acts xv 10. Gal. iv. 9, & passim. Heb. viii. 0* 
 & passim, &c. &c. 
 
LETTER VII. 149 
 
 all this, though, to confefs the truth, it looks ill ; you call 
 our attention to fome fads, which bring the Lecturer's 
 piety, and even his belief of our religion, under ftill greater 
 fufpicion ; I mean his extreme civility to infidels of talent, 
 " his coincidence with them, in fentiment, rcfpedling fome 
 «* obfcurc points in the chriftian antiquities,'' nay, and in 
 general, " the favourable opinion he entertains of the fenti- 
 •* ments profefled by one of the mod infidious and invete- 
 " rate enemies of Chriflianity ;"— and his quoting the fame 
 hiftorical fads from the fame authorities with the infidel 
 Gibbon.* 
 
 It mud be acknowledged, (for I will defend the Ledu- 
 rer only where I can do it with decency) that if he had 
 been a real chriftian, like Biftiop Skinner and the Anti ja- 
 cobin, he would have been fo far from quoting the fame 
 fad, and " almoft in the fame words," with Gibbon, that 
 he would have rejeded, with a mixture of horror and dis- 
 dain, fi^fr^ hiftorical fad, without exception, that has been 
 contaminated by the pen of an infidel, and every difcovery 
 <« with regard to obfcure points in the chriftian antiquities," 
 which he himfelf had made in common with learned unbe- 
 lievers. This would have rendered his faith unqneftionable, 
 and as illuftrious in the Catholic Church, as is the faith of 
 Biftiop Skinner. Yet true it is, and of verity, that he did 
 believe and quote Bafil and Gregory of Nyffa, (though 
 quoted by Gibbon, through Tillemont) as relating, that, 
 when Gregory Thaumaturgus was made Biftiop of Neoce- 
 farea, he found no more than feventccn chrlftians in his 
 whole diocefe ; profanely omitting to mention, doubtlcfs 
 becaufc Gibbon does not mention it, that Gregory left, 
 
 K 3 at 
 
 * Vin^l. p. 263, Note, p. 432, 43J. 
 
150 LETTER VII. 
 
 at his death, only fevenieen pagans y in all that extenfive 
 diocefe. 
 
 You do not fail to apprize your readers, that, v/hen the 
 Ledliurer had the fairefl opportunity, in a private letter to 
 Mr Strahan, of reprobating the infidel hiftorian of the Ro- 
 man empire, and his hiftory, he applauded the hiftory as 
 well written, and the hiftorian as a man of learning and 
 penetration. 
 
 Far be it from me to deny, that, with regard to infidels, 
 Dr. Campbell had a ftrange way of thinking and of a£ting. 
 If an infidel wrote well ; — if his work manifefted penetra- 
 tion, refearch, or metaphyfical acutenefs, the Leflurer ne- 
 ver detracted from the applaufe which the public voice be- 
 flowed, and never arraigned that ftyle and manner, in an 
 infidel writer, as low or execrable, which he would have 
 commended in a chriftian. If he 4id not think it meet to 
 defend the facred caufe of religion by mifreprefentation, 
 calumny, and detraction ; weapons, which he feems to 
 h^ve thought, the Mafter of us all does not require us to 
 employ in his fervice ; weapons, which are worfe than 
 carnal, for they are devillfh. But, though he did not de- 
 tract from the merits of infidels, nor calumniate their cha- 
 racters, he fhewed no mercy to their arguments. Indeed, 
 he appears to have thought, whether juftly or not, I leave 
 to the judicious to decide, that though, in his wrath, he 
 had torn the reputation of a free thinker quite to pieces, 
 this operation would not have confuted his reafoning. — 
 Hence he never murdered the charader of an infidel, and 
 then put off the refutation of his arguments to another 
 time. This he left to the contemptible rabble of contro- 
 vertifts, or rather fcribblers, who can ftain paper with per- 
 fonal abufe, but cannot reafon. 
 
 As 
 
LETTER VII. 151 
 
 As a farther proof of the Le<Slurer's partiality to hifidels, 
 you call the attention of your readers to his civility to the 
 infidel Hume,* (whofe EJfay on Miracles^ by the bye, he 
 was uncivil enough to refute, which is more than the whole 
 Epifcopal Church of Scotland ever did in defence of chrifli- 
 anity ;) and you contraft it with his incivility to the ancient 
 eftablifliment of the country. 
 
 It is plain, that, if he had been difpofed to be as liberal 
 and polite to you, as, at the requeft of a literary friend, he 
 was to the fceptical philofopher, he would have fent you 
 his manufcript before publication, and paid refpecSl to 
 your corredlions. But his Lectures may very warrantably 
 be fuppofed to be fomewhat ofFenfive to more bodies of 
 men, " profeffing to be chriflians," than the head and 
 members of the Scotch Epifcopal Church. They are not 
 all, I fufpe^b, quite palatable at the Vatican ; no, nor per- 
 haps in England ; at lead, Mr. Daubeny docs not feem to 
 relifh them much. The manufcript, therefore, ihould have 
 been fent to Rome firft. His Uolinefs there has an unquef- 
 tionable title to that compliment ; for he is no obfcure pre- 
 late, and his chair is not of yefterday, being the identical 
 chair, with the twelve labours of Hercules engraven on it, 
 in which St. Peter, the prince of the apoftles, and the Firft 
 of the Popes, was wont to fit in the midft of their Emlnen- 
 cies, his Cardinals. From Rome, the manufcript fhould 
 have returned to His Grace at Canterbury, and finally lan- 
 ded with my Lord Primus at Aberdeen. As the Ledures 
 will not, it is probable, be foon tranflated into modern 
 Greek, and Coptic, and the Afiatlc languages, there could 
 be no particular occafion for fending them to Conftantino- 
 
 K4 pie, 
 
 *ViDd.p. 451. 
 
132 LETTER VIL 
 
 pie, before publication, nor to Alexandria, Jerufalem, Da- 
 mafcus, &c. But by the time they had made the grand 
 iotir in Europe, and been fubje£led to all the neceflary ex^ 
 purgations^ " every expreffion that is fevere, or even deemed 
 <* ofFenfive, having been expunged or foftened -,"* it is a 
 thoufand to one, if the Lecturer v^^ould have recognized 
 his own vi^ork ; which, in all probability, would have been 
 in the fituation of the man, who had the misfortune to 
 have two nieces, the one of whom took a diflike to his grey 
 hairs, and plucked them up by the roots ; and the other, 
 for the fame caufe, ferved his black hairs in the fame man- 
 ner. The confideration, now fuggefted, does, I prcfume, 
 fufficiently account, without bringing the fincerity of the 
 Lefturer's belief in Chrift under fufpicion, for his not ha- 
 ving fent his manufcript to you. As the whole of the ar- 
 tillery played off in the Le6lures, is not pointed, exclufivc- 
 3y, againft the Venerable Ruin^ of which you are the Com- 
 mandant; and, as it would have been troublefome, and, 
 perhaps dangerous to the manufcript itfelf, to fend it 
 over all Europe ; the author was obliged to withhold it 
 from Your Church in particular, left he fliould have 
 given offence to other ** bodies of men,'' rather more nu- 
 merous than our Scotch Epifcopals, and not lefs refpec- 
 Jtable, " profefling to be chriftians." 
 
 It is not unworthy of remark, by the way, that you take 
 no notice of the applaufe, which Dr. Campbell lavifties 
 upon Hume, nor of the obligations which he acknowledges 
 to that gentleman's metaphyfical writings ; and that the 
 
 , fame 
 
 * Dr. Campbell himself says, that he paid respect to Mr. Hume*s 
 corrections, only where they did not ajj'tct his argument, which was 
 the utmost extent of the compliment that he paid to the Sceptic. — ■ 
 See Pref. Dissertation ©a Miracles, last edition. 
 
LETTER II. 153 
 
 fame violent indignation does not appear, when you fpeak 
 of his liberality to the Sceptical Philofopher, which burfts 
 forth, when you advert to his applaufe of Gibbon- From 
 this flatteiing diftindion, Mr. Hume, who fpent almoft 
 his whole life, and exerted his grand talents to the lad, in 
 labouring to fubvert the faith in Chrifl;, and to tear from 
 the human heart its firmeft fupport and fvveeteft confola- 
 tion, amid the fears and forrows of mortality, is, perhaps, 
 indebted to his poiitiial principles ^ which, like charity, " co- 
 ** ver a multitude of fins." 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 1-3* ) 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 I Cannot fay, whether we arc to refer to the 
 Le6):urer's impiety, or to his InfufFerable indelicacy, the 
 comparifon that he ftates between ordination and marriage. 
 You reprehend it * with great gravity, and that profound 
 regard to the to cr^eTrof, which befits the Head of a Chriftian 
 Church. Yet, if I do not miftake, the marriage fervice of 
 your mother church in England, which, for ought I know, 
 may be ufed in your church, calls the union of husband 
 and wife, " holy matrimony," and alfo fays, that " holy 
 " matrimony doth fignify unto us the myftical union that 
 « is between Chrifl and hi6 church." Why, then, (hould 
 it be '' indelicate" in z preshyterian, and " inconfiftent with 
 " the character, which ought to be maintained by every 
 « profeflbr of chriftian divinity," to compare the relation 
 that fubfifls between a Biftiop and his charge, to the union 
 of husband and wife ^ Is that relation more facred than the 
 ** myftical union that is between Chrift and his church ?" 
 How many hundred faints could I name, befides the com- 
 pilers of the Englilh Liturgy, who all compare ordination 
 
 to 
 
 r 
 
 « Vind. p. 362. 
 
LETTER VIII. 15.'> 
 
 to marriage, and marriage to the relation that fubfifts be- 
 tween Chrift and his church ? But your reprehenfion of the 
 Lc£lurer's indelicacy cuts deeper, and wounds in a place, 
 to which we ought all to look with the utmoft dread of of- 
 fending. Are you really fcrious in it ? Then I begin to 
 tremble for the facred penmen themfelves, who, if the 
 comparifon of ordination with marriage fhould, during 
 your primacy, come before the Council of Laurencekirk, 
 cannot efcape being condemned and anathematized, " with 
 " torches burning." What a multitude of paflages of holy 
 writ * might I refer to, where the relation between Chrift, 
 the Bifliop of Souls, and his people, (which is at leaft as 
 " holy'* as the relation of a Scottifh Bifliop to his diocefe) 
 is likened to « holy matrimony !" 
 
 It was ImpofTible to rcfcue the nonfenlical dodrine of 
 the " myftical and indelible character imprefled at ordina- 
 " tion," from the ridicule fixed upon it by the Le£lurer's 
 (that is in reality the facred writers'^ " ftrained analogy,'* 
 as you are pleafed to call it. It was, therefore, neceflarv, 
 either to be filent on the fubjedl, or to reflect acrimoniouf- 
 ly on the Lecturer. You have, with almoft unexampled 
 inconfideration, ftumbled upon the latter plan. Hence 
 you have been betrayed into a reprehenfion of the Spirit 
 himfelf ; which, I fufpe61:, a perfon lefs indulgent to you, 
 than I am difpofed to be, would call blafphemy. Confider 
 only, for a moment, into what an enormous offence either 
 pruriency of imagination, or violent anger, or both, have 
 feduced you. You are in a dilemma the moft perplexing 
 imaginable. You tnu/l cither acquit the Le£l:urer, or con- 
 demn the facred writers. A certain French Curate, in a 
 like fituation, tcok h'lmfclfojfm the following manner: But 
 
 I 
 
 * Take for one, Eph. v. 2^^Z2. 
 
156 LETTER VIII. 
 
 I do not recommend his example to your imitation. The 
 Curate had been declaiming furioufly from the pulpit a- 
 gainft public weddings, of which he faid many things as 
 harfh as they were fenfelefs ; and particularly, that public 
 weddings were invented by the devil. A gentleman, who 
 was one of the hearers, happening to meet the preacher 
 the next day, took the liberty of faying, that he had fpo- 
 ken raftily of public weddings. " Do not you know, fa- 
 ** ther," faid he, «< that our Saviour went to a public wed- 
 <* ding in Cana, and there wrought his firft miracle, to pro- 
 <« long the harmlefs feflivity of the day ? Would He^ do 
 « you think, give countenance to an invention of the devil ?" 
 The Curate not being fo well acquainted with the New 
 Teftament as with his Breviary, was ftruck with this re- 
 monftrance. But after a moment's filence, he muttered, 
 (for you know he durft not fpeak aloud, left the Virgin, 
 who was alfo at the wedding in Cana, fhould hear him ;) 
 <« It may be fo ; but that was not the beji thing that he did." 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 157) 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 I HAVE taken notice of a few of the fymptoms of 
 impiety and infidelity, which you difcern in the LeBures on 
 Ecclejtajlical Hijlory. I have not overlooked the deceafed 
 author's bigotted attachment to his own church, which you 
 infinuate plainly enough, he would have laboured to fub- 
 vert, if he could have lived as comfortably by oppofing, as 
 he did by ferving it ; while, all along, he fecretly favoured 
 the congregational fcheme, and, like all other prefbyteri- 
 ans, fincere and not fincere, he had fome inclination to 
 popery. Put all thefe together, and they compofe a cha- 
 racter, in what regards religion, as uncommon as it is efti- 
 mable. I fcarcely think we can find its " like again" in a 
 divinity chair, or anywhere elfe, either in ancient or mo- 
 dem times. — The traits that follow, though black enough, 
 dwindle into mere fpecks, fcarcely noticeable, when they 
 are brought near to the great blot that ftains his memory, 
 his religious hypocrify. 
 
 If, as you labour to convince your readers, the late Dr. 
 Campbell trifled with Omnifcience, by ferving a church for 
 bread, which, if he could have carried his talents to a bet- 
 ter 
 
1,58 LETTER IX. 
 
 ter market, he would have had pleafure in underminining 
 and. deftroying ; it can excite no furprize to learn, that he 
 was in the practice of trying to impofe upon men. Though 
 he cordially hated the Church of England, which manifeft- 
 ly appears from his not approving every thing, in the polity 
 and difcipline of that church, whether he thought it right 
 or wrong ; yet, you fail not to take notice, he dedicated 
 his Tranflation of the Gofpels to an Englifh Bifliop !* — 
 But to crown his character at once, and in few words, in 
 what regards duplicity, you bring forward to public no- 
 tice, within a few pages of the end of your Findicaiion, a 
 moft extraordinary fa£t, and you endeavour to prove it too, 
 or, at leaft, to give it an air of probability ; fuch an air as 
 will enfure the firm belief of all true Scotch Epifcopalians. 
 You fay you have fome veafon tofufpeEly that the Lecturers 
 motive in adling a friendly part for procuring to your 
 church the toleration, which it happily enjoys, was not 
 that liberal and enlarged charity, which he fo earneftly re- 
 commends, but — what ? The hope of annihilating the 
 Scotch Epifcopal Church altogether, by giving it peace 
 with the ftate ; that is, by withdrawing the fupporting 
 hand of perfecution, and thus leaving it, unprotected, as 
 it now is, by reftriclions and difabilitles, to be beaten 
 down by the artillery of the Prefs ! — If your fufplclon be 
 well-founded, (and you feem to think it Is fo) we may next 
 proceed to JufpeBy that, if ever the Ledurer gave alms in 
 all his life, it was in hope that the perfon, on whom he be- 
 llowed It, would go ftraight to the tavern, get drunk, and 
 break his neck in his way home, and trouble hhn no more. 
 
 It 
 
 * Vind. Note, p. 223. With all his hatred to Dr. Douglas* 
 church, I scarcely believe that the Lecturer was inclined to hurt 
 the Bishop in his body, bis reputation, or his estate. But this is on- 
 ly rtvj opinion. 
 
LETTER IX. 159 
 
 It IS ihus that High Church difcharges her obligations to 
 Presbyterians ! If they do her a kindnefs, (and (he is not 
 above accepting a kindnefs, even from Presbyterians) fhe 
 thanks them, and then, in the next breath, fends them to 
 the devil, telling them, as they depart, that (he " has rea- 
 ** fon to fufpecSl" they never tn^atit her any favour, but the 
 reverfe. It would feem, the peculiar favourites of heaven 
 have not only the privilege of breaking Jaith with heretics, 
 but alfo that of repaying, to theniy all obligations, with a 
 fort of coin, in which any man may be rich, who can con- 
 trive to difmifs the candid and charitable fpirit of a chrifti- 
 an, and the manners of a gentleman. 
 
 But, being difpofed to put the mod favourable conftruc- 
 tion on all that you write, I will explain what you would 
 be at in this flrange attack on the memory of the Le£l:urer, 
 (and it is flrange indeed !) without fuppofing that you are 
 fo ungrateful, in reality^ to your deceafed benefadtor, as 
 vou are in appearance. The toleration which " he recom- 
 *« mended as reafonable, and what, he thought, would be 
 " agreeable to the Eftabliftied Church of Scotland," is not 
 complete, and yet might have been made fo, if it had fo 
 pleafed the Ledlurer. It has, indeed, difarmed the law ; 
 but alas ! it does not reftrain the prefs^ a blow from which 
 you do not deny * to be ** feverer than any efFe£l of fines 
 " and imprifonments." All is out ! Your peculiarities in 
 religion are not founded in argument: or, at leaft, however 
 ftrong you affedb to think your arguments, you exprefs your 
 want of confidence in the ability of thofe, whofe bufinefs it 
 is to urge them. Alraoil: the only chance that your com- 
 munion has for prolonged exiftence, refts on the truth of 
 the ancient adage aclually reduced to practice, <* The blood 
 
 •* of 
 
 ^ ^ . ^ ;>, 449; 43r>, 
 
160 LETTER IX, 
 
 " of the martyrs is the feed of the church." What hindered 
 you then, to get your jus divinum ratified and confirmed 
 by the fame kOt 1792, which extended to you your happy 
 toleration ? The Commons of Great Britain and Ireland 
 lately gave their fan^lion to the do£trine of the indelible cha^ 
 vaBer* Your Jus divinum is only the next ftep in abfurdity ; 
 and the Legiflature of 1792 was fully as competent to rati- 
 fy ity as the Parliament of Edward VI. was to ena6l, that 
 the firft reformed Liturgy ** was compofed by the aid of 
 " the Holy Ghoft.*' But, at any rate, what hinders the 
 Legiflature, even now, to forbid, under the pain of death, 
 without benefit of clergy ^ the publication of any bool^ or 
 pamphlet, in any language, not excepting that of the Hot- 
 tentots and CafFrees, in which " your fpiritual charaQer, and 
 *' the validity of your clerical orders," are called in quef- 
 tion ? You may be afliired, that the Ellablifhed Church of 
 Scotland will not petition to be heard by Counfel againft 
 this enaftment. Our church will undoubtedly be protedt- 
 ed by the State on principles of economy ; for it cofts lefs 
 than would be a break/a/l to a hierarchy, even though, like 
 the clergy of Rome in the time of Ammianus Marcellinus, 
 the faid hierarchy were to faft three days in the week. Be- 
 fides, we have fome confidence in our own ability to defend 
 our Church by reafoning •, a confidence, which you fecm to 
 have loft.f 
 
 * In the case of Home Tooke. f Vind. p. 450. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 161 ) 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 IF we admit your reprefentation of the Lecturer's 
 hypocrify and duplicity to be juft, we (hall not be back- 
 ward to believe, that he could degrade his chara£ter by 
 all the little chicane in arguing, to which little men have 
 recourfe, in order to make " the worfe appear the better 
 <* reafon." His unfairnefs you carefully expofe. When 
 we look into your rmdiraiion, and particularly, when we 
 glance our eye over the Index, where the Lecturer's whole 
 infamy is, as it were, concentrated,* that the reader, with- 
 out fubjeding himfelf to the labour of travelling through a 
 ponderous volume, may fee it at one view; we are given 
 to underftand, that he either mifquotes, or mifinterprets, 
 almofl: every writing to which he appeals ; that he mifre- 
 prefents the difcipline of the Primitive Church, and belies 
 the Church and State of England, as well as the Epifcopal 
 Church of Scotland: in one word, that neither the fidelity 
 of his quotations, nor the exa6tnefs of his tranllations from 
 Greek and Latin, nor his application of paflages fromfcrip- 
 
 h ture, 
 
 * Dr. Campbell is accused of misrepresentation, unfairness, &c. 
 at least sixteen times in the Index. 
 
162 LETTER X. 
 
 ture, and the writings of the Fathers, can be at all trufted, 
 fince he bends, and twifts, and tortures> every thing to his 
 own purpofe ! 
 
 Dr, Campbell, who was Principal and Profeflbr of Theo- 
 logy in a Univerfity of feme name, and had been long a 
 minifter of Chrift, and was the author of feveral Works, 
 on which the public voice, both at home and abroad, had 
 bellowed applaufe, had, it muft be acknowledged, Jome 
 character at ftake, when he left his lad work for publica- 
 tion. Is it natural to fuppofe, that, when he was juft ftep- 
 ping out of the world, he had loft all fenfibility to the 
 charms of honeft fame ? The defire of leaving fuch a cha- 
 ra61:er behind us, as that our friends (hall not be condem- 
 ned to blufh, whenever cur names are mentioned in their 
 prefence, is a paffion that, in moft inftances, ** is ftrong 
 «' in death." The truth is, we all, whether finners or 
 faints, wifh to be remembered for good after we fhall be 
 gone hence ; and, if the heart be not in the very laft ftage 
 of corruption, nothing can add more to the bitteniefs of 
 death, than the profpe^t of leaving a name loaded with in- 
 famy. Hence I cannot pofTibly account for the Ledlurer's 
 bequeathing to the world a collection of mifquotations, 
 mifreprefentations, mifinterpretations, lies, and unfound- 
 ed invectives, fo " grofs and palpable to fenfe," that even 
 Bifliop Skinner and Mr. Daubeny are able to fee through 
 them, and hold up the author to public fcorn and detefta- 
 tion. You will not allow me to account for this, by refer- 
 ring it to ignorance and ftupidij:y ; for you pay him many 
 high compliments on his genius and learning, and acknow- 
 ledge your own inferiority to him in thofe refpe<5ts ;* an 
 acknowledgment, which, I venture to prophefy, the lite- 
 rary 
 
 * Vind, p. 136, 137. 
 
LETTER X. 163 
 
 rary world will not be fo unpollte as to contradict. Shall 
 we fay, then, that the Lectures were the child of his old 
 age, when his faculties were beginning to decline ? This 
 would not be true. They were compofed when his mental 
 powers were in full vigour ; they were reviewed, and im- 
 proved, from time to time, during a courfe of years , and 
 they were left by himfelf for the prefs. What (hall we 
 fay, then ? Nothing, but to entreat the intelligent and 
 learned reader of your work, to perufe the Lectures with 
 equal candour ; and to put you in mind, that there is ano- 
 ther tribunal, befides that of the learned, at which the 
 Lecturer and you (hall foon (land, and where entire juftice 
 (hall be done to you both. 
 
 L a LETTER 
 
(164 ) 
 
 LETTER Xr. 
 
 YOU accufe our Profeflbr of dill another fort of 
 difhonefty ; I mean, borrowing, without fpeaking to the 
 owners of the property, or to any body elfe, a fingle fyl- 
 lable about the matter. This, in my opinion, is fcarcely 
 diftinguifhable from theft. In reality, it is juft what 
 thieves do. They only borrow things, without fpeaking 
 to any perfon about it, or acknowledging their obligations 
 to the owners of the property. 
 
 The Ledurer's offences of this nature, difcovered by you 
 (who, for a reafon to be afterwards mentioned, arc an ex- 
 cellent thief- catcher) are very numerous ; and fome of 
 them, it feems, are very heinous ; for you accufe him of 
 dealing from the poor^ who have but little to fpare ; or, to 
 ufe your own words, from " the meaneji publications, 
 " which the two laft centuries produced againft the apofto- 
 « lie inftitution of Epifcopacy."* ** The meaneji publica- 
 *< tions 'svhich the two laft centuries produced againft E- 
 " pifcopacy.'*— Such is the charader, that you are pleafed 
 
 to 
 
 -♦ S^eViiid. p. 187. taken in connexion with Note, p. 187, tS8. 
 
LETTER XI. 165 
 
 to give of Mr. Anderfon's defence, while you do us the ho- 
 nour of calling the author our " great champion"* 
 
 I am not afliamed to fay, that " any church might be- 
 " proud" of fuch a champion. His work difplays great 
 learning, by far too much to have been thrown away in re- 
 futing the performance of his contemptible antagonifl: : but 
 it was intended to anfwer a more important purpofe. His 
 reafoning is acute and found, while at the fame time his 
 arguments are couched in terms equally concife and ener- 
 getic. His language is clear, and never unintelligible, nor 
 ungrammatical, which is more than the Critics have ven- 
 tured, however much fome of them were difpofed, to pre- 
 dicate of the language of your Vindication. If there be any 
 thing coarfe, and uncouth in his manner, it is the fault of 
 the times, and of the country, in which he lived and wrote. 
 Our champion ! He is fo indeed. And he is a champion, 
 who ftands ere6l in the field of battle, amidft the empty 
 skulls and fcattered bones of his contemporary antagonifts, 
 and ftill keeps their descendants in awe. Which of you all 
 has dared to refcue Mr. Rhind from his furious grafp } He 
 fent you many challenges. Who has accepted them .'* But 
 I beg your pardon. Probably in your di£tionary of contro- 
 verfial terms, mean fignifies unanfiuerable, 
 
 I might, if it were worth while, anfwer the petulant re- 
 marks that are made by Mr. Daubeny and you,f upon Dr. 
 Campbell's obligations to other writers, by obferving, that 
 fimilarity offentiment, and even of arrangement, does not 
 
 L 3 al- 
 
 * Vind. Note, p. 177. 
 
 f Is it not an emi»loyment highly reputable to a Primate and an 
 Arch-deacon, to be constantly hunting, like a pair of raw students of 
 divinity, after literary thefts? 
 
16^ LETTER XL 
 
 always imply plagiarifm j and, at any rate, that fuch re-» 
 marks are impertinent, unlefs it be a fufficient refutation of 
 an argument, to fay that it has been urged before. But I 
 ihall only obferve, that, if your head had not been diftur- 
 bed by the fumes of paflion, you would have perceived, 
 that a charge of plagiarifm could not come, with a worfe 
 grace, from any writer that ever pubUihed, than from you, 
 who have borrowed (and much do fome of the Critics in 
 alliance with you complain of it) ail that is worth notice 
 in your book, and at lealt a hundred pages more. The 
 Anti-jacobin * comes forward, and claims his own, which 
 he perfectly knov/s (and well he may 1) and he tells the 
 public, that you have taken all the controverfial part of his 
 obfervations on the " LeElures'^ without leaving out a fyl- 
 lable 5 which he politely declares, he efteems an honour, of 
 which he is not a little proud : and, to be furc, while the 
 gentleman afled as journeyman to his Primate, humbly pre- 
 fenting his work, that it might receive the laft polilh from 
 the hand of the Majler, he was very honourably employed. 
 If Dr. Home, Meflrs. Daubeny, Jones, Leflie, and a few 
 more defenders of the facred hierarchy, were to be as polite 
 as the Anti-jacobin, you would be abfolutely beggared by 
 their extreme civility. Perhaps this may be the reafon why 
 the Britijh Critic tells the world, in his oracular way, that 
 " Bifhop Skinner is a writer, of whom any church may be 
 " proud.'' You not only vindicate primitive order, under 
 which " the difciples had all things in common^" but alfo en- 
 deavour to re-eflabli(h it, in thefe latter days, by the in- 
 iluence of your high example. 
 
 * Anti-jac. V. xvii. p. 17- 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 167) 
 
 LETTER XII 
 
 IT may feem too deep a plunge, from the dignity 
 of the high and momentous fubjeas of Eplfcopal reprehen- 
 fion, on which we have been defcanting, to defcend to the 
 Leaurer's frequent violations of the eftabliihcd rules of po- 
 litenefs. High Church is particularly well-bred-, which is 
 owing, probably, to her attachment to monarchy, and to 
 her being permitted < to lift up her mitred front in courts 
 < and palaces/ It is long fince Prefbytery had any interfe- 
 rence with courts-, and, to confefs the truth, when it en- 
 joyed that honour, it did not profit by it very much. 
 Hence, if the manners, the drefs and addrefs, of a prelby- 
 terian profeffor of theology near the Ultima Thule, be not 
 fuch as Lord Cheflerfield, the arbiter of politcnefs, and 
 the great maftcr of ceremonies to the human race, would 
 have pronounced quite unexceptionable, no perfon of re- 
 fle£bion can be much furprized. I acknowledge, however, 
 that ill-breeding, when it breaks forth in « coarfe vulgari- 
 «« ty of abufe," which you lay to Dr. Campbell's charge 
 repeatedly, is not altogether free from moral turpitude. It 
 proceeds from harfhnefs and infolence of temper; and it 
 is exceffively pro^^oking to every man of fpirit, cfpecially if 
 he occupy " a high ftatioii in the church :'' for the church 
 
 L 4 ^*s 
 
26S LETTER XII. 
 
 has neither dram nor fcruple more of patience, than (he 
 Jhould have. While, therefore, I humbly exprefs my ad- 
 miration of the unparalleled good temper and chriftian cour- 
 tefy of the Lecturer's Epifcopal caftigators, I will not prc- 
 fume to offer the lead apology for his ill-breeding, unlefs 
 when I think that the gentlemen, who criticife his Leftures, 
 miftake the irrefiltible force of his reafoning, the juftnefs 
 of his fentiments, the truth of his ftatements, and the 
 poignancy of his wit, for " vulgar abufe ;" a miftake, into 
 which fome controvertifts are liable to fall. 
 
 The Lecturer remarks,* that Dr. Hickes feems to regret 
 exceedingly, that we have now no fuch fine words and high 
 founding titles as '' hierophant, hieromyft, myftagogue.** 
 This coarse vulgar remark I will by no means defend. For 
 what combinations of letters and fyllables could have a more 
 commanding and awful found than Hierophant Skinner, 
 J^ieromyft Glegg, Myftagogue Daubeny ? — The Le£turer 
 proceeds, in the fame vulgar ftrain, to obferve, that, in 
 ancient times, fome odd fpirit or other, no matter what, 
 prompted, in chriftian paftors, the afFeCtation of epithets 
 added to their names, fuch as " moft holy, moft blefled, 
 << moft religious, moft worthy of God, beloved of God, 
 « reverend, venerable." This is the flafti. The tremen- 
 dous roar comes after. " Yet, fuch are the manners which, 
 " even in thefe more enlightened times, the ^neftly /)ride 
 " of fome ^relatical />reachers has inftigated them to write 
 « whole volumes to revive." What ! No fewer than four 
 opprobrious pr% hurled at High Church in one fliort fen- 
 tence ! This is m.ore than any prelatical fon of Adam can 
 bear. Accordingly, with a fpirit becoming your " high 
 " ftation in the churchy* you hurl back at the LeiSturer a/ir 
 
 fbr 
 
 '^ Vol. L p. 318 
 
LETl^ER Xir. 169 
 
 for every one of hi<?/>ys, and one more for victory. *«The 
 "pride of /rCvshytery is much more predominant in thefe 
 " />rele£lions, than could have been expelled in a ^rofef- 
 " for."* Admirable ! But how long did you take to col- 
 lc6l and arrange this charming firing of />rs, fo like a neck- 
 lace of orient pearls ? For my part, I would not undertake 
 the task myfelf, unlefs I had leifure to read fome work be- 
 fpangled with alliterations, at leafl as often as Demofthenes 
 read the works of Thucydides ; or as our Buchanan read 
 thofe of Livy. I prefume it has not coft you fo much la- 
 bour ; for 
 
 " Furor arma ministrat." 
 
 The Lecturer is fo unpolite f as to fay of the XXIIId Article 
 of the Church of England, that " it has fomcthing the ap- 
 ** pearance of an identical propofition," like fome of the 
 definitions, for which we are indebted to the genius of the 
 immortal Sancho Pan9a. This is a pretty certain proof, 
 that he had not had the honour of being much in good com- 
 pany. It is true, indeed, that the Article feems to inform 
 us, that it is the fincere belief of the Church of England, 
 that ^^ ihey ^xt law fully called, who are called lawfully;" 
 to difcover which, does not, I apprehend, require extraor- 
 dinary genius.:}: What then } No man of breeding in this 
 polite age, would tell the Church of England to her face, 
 that one of her Articles appears to . fay, that " lawful is, 
 " jufl: as if a man would fay, lawful;" an affront, which 
 her " great and good ally" in Scotland now finds it her du- 
 ty to refent, although (he would have laughed at it, hearti- 
 ly, in the year of our Lord 1 786. 
 
 But 
 
 * Vind. p. 134, 135. f Id. p. 167. 
 
 X The Vindicator^ after Mr. Anti-jacobir, calls the remark in- 
 genious 2Lnd polite. 
 
170 LETTER XII. 
 
 But the Lefturer does not fpare the Church of England 
 on other matters, befide her XXIIId Article. He coarjely* 
 denominates the Teft A£t *' a coarfe implement of human 
 ** policy, to compel a thing fo delicate as true religion.'' — 
 Now, whatever the framers of that At^ expected from the 
 execution of it, it was very wrong in Dr. Campbell fo much 
 as to infinuate, that it ever had the efFe61:, which they wiih- 
 ed it to produce, that is, the forcing of a thing fo delicate 
 as tiue religion. The Hiftory of England, down from the 
 time of Charles II. when the Teft hSt v/as pafled, to the 
 prefent year of the vulgar era, does not prefent to us a 
 (ingle inftance, wherein the faid Teft KOl ccmpel/ed any 
 man to be a true chriftian, or a true Epifcopalian, which 
 is the fame thing. The AB: does, indeed, hold forth a 
 ftrong temptation to hypocrify, and the profanation of the 
 Eucharift, the chief end of which it is, as the Lecturer 
 obferves, adrr/irably c*aicuiated to defeat. But never, fay 
 Dr Campbell what he will, did it ahjolutely force any man 
 to accept a lucrative office at the expence of profaning a fa- 
 crament of Chrift, and to make an affront to Omnifciencc 
 a ftep to promotion. 
 
 It is not, I acknowledge, lefs uncivil in the Ledurer, 
 •* to endeavour to eftablifh an unnatural aflbciation between 
 <« the doOrine of the Church of England, and that of the 
 " Weftminjler Confeffion of Faith,'* fince it is notorious, that 
 the authors of the confeffion, " at the very time of com- 
 « piling it, had fworn the extirpation of Prelacy, with all 
 •* its ecclefiaftical officers.'*f 
 
 In the articles quoted by the Lecturer, the confeffions'of 
 the two hoftile churches do, in facSl, " equally avoid limi- 
 
 " ting 
 
 * Vind. p. 151. f 1(3. p. 17J, 
 
LETTER XIL 171 
 
 " ting the chriftlan miniflry to one particular model." But 
 confidering the mortal enmity that raged between them, at 
 the time the Weftminftcr Confeflion was drawn up ; to 
 fuppofe, that Prelacy would degrade itfelf by agreeing with 
 Presbytery in any thing, even the belief and worfhip of the 
 tame God, is an afiVont to the Church of England ; a 
 church, which after a war of more than a century, you 
 now find it more for your intereft to flatter than to fight. 
 
 I cannot deny, that it is very petulant and ill-bred, to 
 call the attention of the public to the ohJoUte term Nonju- 
 rors,* even by faying, that we have now no fuch men a- 
 mongftus; for the very mention of the term. Nonjurors, 
 ferves the malignant purpofe of bringing their former cxif- 
 tence to recoUedtion. 
 
 The Scotch Epifcopal Church had been nonjurant, that 
 is, as hoftile to the State, as it flill is to the Eftabliftied 
 Church, for a complete century, or thereabouts. But at 
 laft, when it could no longer expedl the reftoration of the 
 King over the luatery his Majefly having taken a route very 
 diftant from the Englifli Channel, and gone over Styx ; it 
 had no objedion to accept the good offices of the Eftablifh- 
 ment " in procuring for it the toleration which it happily 
 *< enjoys-," wifely confidering, that <* fmall fifhes are better 
 <* than no fiih at all ;" and that, fince the profpedi: of a 
 triumphant re-eftablifhment of Prelacy had completely va- 
 ni(hed, it was prudent to take what, probably, might be 
 obtained, the indulgence that is extended to other difTen- 
 ters. In hope of obtaining this, the Scotch Epifcopal 
 Church became quite loyal all at once in fpring 1788, and 
 began to pray for the King and royal family with all her 
 
 might. 
 
 * Vind. p. 173, 176. 
 
172 LETTER XIL 
 
 might. From this fhort detail, it appears, that your loyal- 
 ty had been long tried by the time that the LeEiures on Ec» 
 clejtajiical Hiflory were publiftied, for it had continued un- 
 fliaken for twelve years ! Hence the very recollection of the 
 hiftorical faft, that we once had nonjurors, or public and 
 avowed enemies of the exifting government, (hould, before 
 1 800, have been obliterated from the minds of men : and, as 
 the Anti-jacobin, with his ufual diffidence and modefty, ob- 
 ferves, " it is likely that it would have been fo for ever, but 
 *' for the occafional petulant application of that o^/o/*?/^ term 
 « by the Leaurer/'* 
 
 Here, let me remark, how poor fpirited a man St. Paul 
 muft have been, in comparifon of his fucceflbr, Bifhop 
 Skinner. The apoftle faved others the pain of reminding 
 him of the fins of his unconverted (late, by accufing him- 
 felf of having been <* a perfecutor, a blafphemer, and in- 
 " jurious." But mark the noble fpirit of the Biihop. His 
 church had been nonjurant for a century. But this, — as it 
 had been gracioufly pleafed to be reconciled to George III. 
 muft be forgotten in a dozen years ! Let no man dare to 
 bring it to remembrance on pain of anEpifcopal,! (hould fay, 
 an Archiepifcopal anathema ! It may be convenient to be 
 accounted an apoftle's fuccefibr in office, provided one be 
 exempted from the moft laborious and dangerous part of an 
 apoftle's duty ; for it throws a certain air of facrednefs and 
 awful authority around the Epifcopal chara£ter, in the 
 eyes of the vulgar. But to inherit his mantle^ and to breathe 
 his lowly, mortified, and gentle fpirit ; — this was requifite 
 only in primitive and very early times, but would not be 
 commodious in the prefent day. 
 
 If 
 
 * Are you not nonjurors still ? at least your clergy ? 
 
LETTER XIL 179 
 
 If I decline apologizing for the Ledurer's mention of a 
 defignation, in which you lately gloried, and even yet think 
 yourfelves juftificd in having defervcd, [Cc] you will readi- 
 ly believe, that I (hall not make any apology for his calling 
 your church a party.* It is neither a partyy nor a pari, 
 but the nuhole of the holy catholic church, that is now left 
 in this land of Sadducees and Pharifees, no other church 
 that I have heard of, fo much as pretending to be built on 
 the foundation of the Jewifh Priefthood, which was abo- 
 lifhed by Jefus Chrift, and yet, fince Mr. Daubeny and you 
 will have it fo, muft endure to the end of the world. 
 
 I alfo decline the Le£lurer*s defence in what regard his 
 ufe of the term " Prelacy ;"f for fince in what conerns t(rms, 
 you are as the poet fays, 
 
 •* ■ ■ tremblingly alive all o'er, 
 
 " And smart and agonize at every pore/' 
 
 the Lefturer, who knew this, fliould have (hewn a great 
 deal more tendernefs to your feelings, than the Ledlures 
 manifeft. 
 
 It is well known, that the ftupid vulgar of this country, 
 like the children of Athens, cry when they are beaten. 
 Nay, they feel pain when they are dabbed, and would ra- 
 ther die in their beds, in the quiet polTcflion of " that li- 
 «« berty wherewith Chrift hath made them free," than pe- 
 rifti on a gibbet, or at a ftake. Hence, this fame ftupid 
 vulgar, having, in the reigns of the two laft of the Stuarts, 
 found Prelacy fully as domineering and cruel as Popery, 
 generally, as you obferve, coupled them together, like a 
 pair of blood-hounds as they were, in their ordinary dif-. 
 
 courfe ; 
 
 [Cc] See Notes. * \ ind. p. 357. f H.p. 309. 
 
174 LETTER Xll. 
 
 courfe ; and the figure of fpeech, with which you find 
 fault, they bequeathed to their pofterity -, feme of whom 
 ufe it at this day. — I acknowledge, that you fairly turn the 
 chace upon the Lecturer on this fubje^t, by letting him 
 know that, if there be any thing opprobrious in the title 
 Prelate, (praelatus) it is as applicable to hitriy who was a 
 Parochial Bifhop, as it is to You, who are a Diocefan and 
 a Primus. And I may add, that the term Prelate^ if we 
 attend to its etymology only, is as applicable to a king of 
 the Gypfies, to the captain of a piratical ihip of war, or 
 the chief of a band of thieves, as to either of you. But I 
 am of opinion, that good ufe does not warrant our calling 
 any of the laft named officers a prelate. It might be urged 
 in the Lecturer's excufe, that the term is in general ufe 
 among High Churchmen. But thig, I own, does not juf- 
 tify the ufe of it by a Scottifli Profeflbr, who cannot but be 
 aware of the bad company it keeps in the mouths of the 
 Presbyterian vulgar. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 175) 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 
 1 HAVE, in the laft nine Epiftles, endeavoured to 
 colleO: the prominent features and lineaments of that por- 
 trait of the late Dr. Campbell, which you have thought it 
 neceflary, for the defence of the apoftolic model of your 
 church, and of the validity of the orders of its miniftcrs, to 
 prefent to the public. 
 
 The French were wont to call the great ftatcfman, wha 
 fo long adminiftered the affairs of this kingdom in the moft 
 difficult and perilous times, The MonjUr Pitt ; and by do* 
 ing fo, I fuppofe their rulers infpired the women and chil- 
 dren, and the ignorant vulgar, with the utmoft hatred of 
 the illuftrious fon of Chatham. And, very probably, yea 
 may fucceed in infpiring the fame clalTcs in your own com- 
 munion, with the utmoft hatred of T[he Monster Campbelt, 
 I give you joy of this triumph. It will anfwer fully a$ 
 well with you, as the refutation of the LecSlurer's reafon- 
 ing, which, although you were capable of it, would not 
 be fo well underftood by a majority of your people, as per- 
 fonal abufe. With the ijuclUgent, fuch perfonal refledions 
 as we have been revit^wing, ferve only one purpofc, that 
 
 of 
 
1*76 LETTER Xlir. 
 
 of infpirlng a fufpicion, that the author is puzzled and per- 
 plexed, and finds it neceflary to compenfate, by the flrength 
 of his calumnies, for the weaknefs of his arguments. But 
 with the ignorant, perfonal abufe is equivalent to demon- 
 ftration ; for they infer, that it muft be a bad causey whofe 
 defence is undertaken by a bad man ; and if you boldly 
 charge with mifreprefentation and falfehood, a writer, 
 whom you have painted, before, as a hypocrite, who made 
 his religious profcffion fubvervient to his intereft, and 
 could make all religious profefTions fit equally eafy on his 
 confcience j you tell your readers no more than a great ma- 
 jority of them were well prepared to believe on your word, 
 without farther enquiry. 
 
 In one of the paflages,* which, in the courfc of compi- 
 lation, you glean from the modern Englifh apoftle of High 
 Church, you infinuate, that you would have attacked the 
 LeElures on Ecchftastical History as boldly in the author's life 
 time, if they had been then publifhed, as you have done, 
 now that he is no longer able to defend his character and 
 his work. Credat Judaus Apella ! It, certainly, will not be 
 believed by thofe who are acquainted with the writings of 
 you both. To excufe your big looks and great words, 
 (which, by the bye, you were fure your antagonift could 
 not fee nor hear) you farther infinuate, that he did not 
 publifli his Ledures in his life time ; — why ? becaufe he 
 had occafion for them as a theological Profeflbr till very 
 near his death, which is the fa6t ? No ; — but becaufe he 
 was afraid of a tremendous " recoil" from the champions 
 of High Church. What ! He,— Dr. George Campbell,— 
 the author of the Differtation on MiracleSi^ the author of the 
 Philosophy of Rhetoric, and of the Preliminary Differiaiions 
 
 pre- 
 
 * Vijid. p. 451, etsequ. 
 
LETTER XIII. 177 
 
 prefixed to his Tranjlation of the Gospeff,--he afraid to en- 
 counter High Church, on a fubje6t, which profeflional du- 
 ty made it neceflary for him to ftudy with care and dili- 
 gence ! rvt/$i c-i«yT»». 
 
 I can fcarcely figure to myfelf a more fevere reflection 
 on the Le£lurer's character, than the reflexion which this 
 laft infinuation carries in its bofom. For it in reality fays, 
 that Dr. Campbell delivered from his profeflional chair, to 
 the youth, whofe education for the minifl:ry was commit- 
 ted to him, facts and dodrines, which, he was confcious, 
 the learning and penetration of thofe who oppofe them, 
 would prove, to the fatisfadlion of the world, to be un- 
 founded and erroneous ! 
 
 After holding up the Lecturer to the contempt and de- 
 tefl:ation of all good men, you add,* " Far be it from us to 
 " fay any thing, that could be fuppofed to detract from the 
 " perfonal worth and purity of morals, which difl:inguifli- 
 " ed the character of Dr. Campbell. We know him to 
 " have been, in general, as his biographer jufl:ly defcribes 
 " him, a man of a mild difpofition, and even temper, and 
 *< who was not much fubje61: to paflion." To confefs the 
 truth, you have accufed him of nothing but hypocrify, dif- 
 honefl:y, impiety, lying, and wilful mifreprefentation, mu- 
 tilation of extracls, difguifed Popery, (a thing common to 
 him with all Presbyterians) fome inclination to infidelity, 
 or at leafl: a great liking to the writings of infidels, and to 
 fome of their fentiments, — virulent enmity to the Church of 
 England, — active liberality to your church, while, by re- 
 ftraining the law, and letting loofc the prefs, which was 
 ;7ever bound up, he meditated the entire deflru£lion of 
 
 M Scottifli 
 
 * Vlnd. p 443. 
 
lis LETTER Xlfl. 
 
 Scottifli Epifcopacy, — indelicacy, by which, I prefume, we 
 are to underii?ind ohcenity, — coarfe vulgarity of abufe, — and 
 the inflrudlion of his pupils in falfe tenets and fa£ls, which 
 he durft not publiOi to the world, till the (hame of detec- 
 tion could not reach him. All thefe, which compofe one 
 of the moft infamous and (hocking characters that ever dif- 
 graced human nature, are, in the opinion of the Head 
 (which, if it be like other heads, we may prefume, is the 
 oracle) of the Scotch Epifcopal Church, perfe6lly confif- 
 tent with the highefl " perfonal worth," and the moft un- 
 impeachable " purity of morals," as well as with " amia- 
 *' blenefs of difpofition and temper." May we not draw 
 an inference or two from this ? Particularly, may we not 
 infer, without breach of charity, that you confider no 
 crime, which a controvertift may commit in defending his 
 own church, and attacking other churches, to imply a de- 
 fe£i: in '« perfonal worth and purity of morals ?" ' May we 
 not go a little farther, on fafe ground, and exprefs our 
 fufpicion, that your conduct in the controverfy with Dr. 
 Campbell has been formed on the principle that you here 
 avov/ ? That you do not, in your heart, believe one word 
 of the foul imputations, which in the necejfary defence of 
 your church, you have caft upon his memory ? that, in 
 your quotations from fcripture, and the writings of the 
 fathers, and in your interpretation of them, you have had 
 the caufe of truth as little at heart, as you endeavour to per- 
 fuade your readers, the Le6i:urer had ? Do not let thefe 
 queftions ruffle the natural fmoothnefs of your temper. 
 They rife, without any force, out of the tout enjemhle of 
 the chara£ter you have been pleafed to exhibit to the pub- 
 lic of the late Dr. Campbell. 
 
 After all, one, who is converfant with the hiftory of the 
 church, and has marked the spirit of dignified ccclefiaftics, 
 
 when 
 
LETTER Xlir. 179 
 
 when they were contradicted and oppofed with firmnefs, 
 will be furprized, rather that the Le£lurer's character has 
 come (o well ofF in this controvcrfy, than^that it has been 
 treated as we have feen. For my part, I am ailoniftied, 
 that you have not difcovered him to have been unlearned 
 and ftupid, to a degree that would difgrace even Presbytery 
 itfelf, as well as guilty of almofl: all praQicable fins as a 
 controverfial divine. When we attend to what the patrons 
 of image-worfhip, in the eighth century, poured forth a- 
 gainft the Iconoclafl: Greek Emperors, we cannot but ad- 
 mire the lenity with which you have adminiftered chaf- 
 tifcment to the memory of our LeClurer. For was not he 
 an Iconoclafl:, as well as Leo the Ifaurian, and Confl:antinc 
 Copronymus ? Did he not apply the hammer with vigour 
 to your image, your moft beloved and adored idol, which 
 all men are commanded to fall down and worfliip ; — your 
 ecclefiaftical model ? And do not you profefs to believe your 
 model the work of Chrift ? Tf you do not believe this, as 
 firmly, at leajiy as the Roman vulgar believe the Veronica 
 to be the identical handkerchief, on which our Lord, in 
 his way to Calvary, imprinted his likenefs, — you have, I 
 cannot help faying, a very comfortable portion of that hy- 
 pocrify, with which you charge Dr. Campbell. 
 
 Now, to bid adieu to the character you give of our Pref- 
 byterian Profeflbr, I challenge you to jufl:ify, even on the 
 unchrifl:ian principle of the lex ialionls^ the account of the 
 Lecturer, which you firft give us in the courfe of your 
 Vindication^ and which you contradict explicitly at the end. 
 Only point out one fingle inftancc of perfonal abufe, which 
 is to be found from beginning to end of that part of his 
 Lectures, which pafl'cs under your review. Do you ask, 
 »' What fay you of the liberties he takes with the pious and 
 '* eminently le.uned Rlr. Dodwell and Dr. Hickes ?" I an- 
 
 M 2 fwer, 
 
180 [LETTER XUI. 
 
 fwer, he takes no liberties at all with the perfonal charac- 
 ters of thofe pious and learned men. He calls them nei- 
 ther hypocrites y nor liars ^ nor infidels, nor Papists in disguise ; 
 nor does he accufe them of duplicity^ nor of rancorous vio- 
 lence, nor of obscenity y nor of insolent vulgarity of manners y 
 nor of teaching to others what they themselves knew to be false. 
 His remarks are confined to their tenets and their reasonings 
 but never fo much as glance at their chara^er. Dr. Hickes 
 he candidly acquits of bad meaning,* even where he deems 
 his language mod unguarded and ofFenfive to pious ears. 
 In his apoftrophe to Mr. Dodvi^ell, It was Impoffible to ex- 
 prefs indignation againft the tenet, without reprehending 
 the man \ a tenet, that needs only to be mentioned, to ex- 
 cite the horror of every benevolent and truly ehriftian mind; 
 — a tenet, which the author of it himfelf does not pretend 
 to found on the fcriptures of truth ; — a tenet, utterly ab- 
 horrent from every fentiment, which fcripture and reafon 
 teach us to entertain of the equity and mercy of the Divine 
 Nature, and of the grand purpofes of Chrift's manifefta- 
 
 tion 
 
 * The Anti-jacobin says, that the Lecturer's candour, or as his 
 biographer expresses it, *' his generosity to Dr. Hickes," constitutes 
 ** the very sting of the accusation." From this it appears, that the 
 very charity of Presbyterians, which disposes them to acquit High 
 Churchmen of bad meaning, when they express themselves in lan- 
 guage, which every sober and rational christian accounts almost 
 blasphemous, is injurious and insolent 1 If we accuse High Church- 
 men of impiety, the offence is nothing. We may take". what liberties 
 we please with the hearts. But we must take no liberties with their 
 headSf which must be alvrays considered to be as full of judgment as 
 they can hold ! J am curious to know what stuff this Anti-jacobin — 
 this 50/1 of the morning, who so lately arose on our benighted island, 
 is made of. He places the advocates of the hierarchy above the can- 
 dor and charity of such worms of the earth as Presbyterian Professors 
 of Theology. Who can this be? " This is no being that the earth 
 *' owns." 
 
LETTER Xl'ir. 181 
 
 tion in the flefh ! Could a perfon, who judged and felt, as 
 Dr. Campbell judged and felt on the fubjecb of his apoftro- 
 phe to Mr..Dodwell (and may the numbers of thofc who 
 fo judge and fo feel, incrcafe more and more, and may 
 their confolations abound ! could the perfon who judged 
 and felt like Dr. Campbell) avoid reprehending the daring 
 prefumption of the man, who could publi(h to the world a 
 tenet, which, if it were really chriftian, would drive all ra- 
 tional and good men out of the church of Chrift ? 
 
 Why did not you imitate the Lecturer's example ? What 
 hindered you to fpare his charadler, and demolifh his rea- 
 foning ? You have attempted the reverfe ; and this affords 
 the ftrongeft prefumption, that you confidered his reafon- 
 ing to be *' impregnable to argument." And, indeed, eve- 
 ry intelligent reader will obferve, that almoft all your con- 
 tefts with him, on material points, after a few flouriflies 
 in the way of contradiction and fatirc^^^r the honour of your 
 churchy end in your conceding whatever he demands. 
 
 M ^ PRES- 
 
niESBYTERlAN LETTERS, 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 BISHOP SKINNER, S(c. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 COELUM IPSUM PETIMUS STULTITIA. 
 
 HOJ?. 
 
i 
 
LETTER XIV. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 THERE are two doftrincs, the belief of whicli 
 it feems to be the grand purpofe of your Vindication of Pti- 
 mitive Truth and Order to inculcate ; Firft, That no fcheme 
 of ecclefiaftical polity can conduct chriftians to falvation, 
 but Diocefan Epifcopacy, although you admit, as we have 
 feen, that the Parochial Epifcopacy, which obtains In fomc 
 parlfhes in the highlands of Scotland, is Primitive Epifco- 
 pacy j and, Secondly, That, to render even Diocefan Epif- 
 copacy efFedual for the purpofes of falvation, it is necefla- 
 ry that the apoftolic commiflion be tranfmltted through an 
 uninterrupted fucceffion of Biftiops, regularly and epifco- 
 pally baptized and ordained, from the day on which our 
 Lord was taken up to heaven, even unto the end of the 
 world. I have offered a few remarks * on the evidence on 
 which you reft the truth of thtjirft of thofe dodtrlnes, and 
 have taken fome notice f of the means you employ to bring 
 difcredit on them who oppofe it, and your other peculia- 
 rities. 
 
 As to i\it fecond ^Q^XxmQ dated above, it is, in one Im- 
 portant 
 
 * Prelimin. Disc. t Presbyt. Lett, part I. 
 
186 LETTER XIV. 
 
 portant refpecl:, entirely on a footing with the firft ; it is 
 nowhere, in holy writ, " mentioned in expreCs and pofitive 
 '* terms;" which I cannot help thinking a great misfortune 
 to any doctrine claiming to be received as divine. Nay, it 
 is remarkable, that the chriftian revelation never either ex- 
 plicitly unfolds, or incidentally alludes to, the means, by 
 which a believer may afcertain indubitably, that hisBiftiop 
 or his pari{hPrieft derives his orders, through an unbroken 
 line of fucceflion, from the apoftles of Chrift. Hence, al- 
 though he can, on the brink of eternity, fay, with the a- 
 poftle Paul, " The time of my departure is at hand : I have 
 *' fought a good fight, I have finifhed my courfe, I have 
 " kept the faith," he dares not, on your principles, to draw 
 the conclufion which the apoftle drew, " Henceforth is laid 
 << up for me a crown of righteoufnefs, which the Lord, 
 «< the righteous Judge, (hall give me at that day," unlefs 
 his confcience can bear him witnefs, that, in addition to 
 living in the faith and obedience of the gofpel, he has fully 
 afcertained the apoftolic origin and canonical derivation of 
 his minifters orders ! And as your hierarchy is formed on 
 the Jewifti model, I fliould think it equally neceflary to the 
 faith of aflurance in your church, and to the peace of a dy- 
 ing Epifcopal, that the faid Epifcopalhas aflured himfelf,by 
 ocular infpedion, that his Prieft is free from all the ble- 
 mifhes, enumerated Levit. xxi. i6 — 23, as incapacitating 
 a m.an for ferving at the altar. 
 
 Your do£l:rIne of the Epifcopal fucceflion implies^ that 
 you believe the poflibility of tracing your orders, in an un- 
 interrupted line, to the apoftles. To this article of your 
 creed, there is, fo far as I have keard or read, no parallel 
 on earth, fave in Abyflinia alone. The enlightened and 
 highly polifhed inhabitants of that country think, that they 
 derive their origin from Ham, the fon of Noah ; and it is 
 
 by 
 
LETTER XIV. 187 
 
 by no means improbable, that they are the defccndants of 
 that ancient patriarch. They maintain that, from Ham's 
 time until now, the legal fuccefTion of their kings has never 
 been interrupted, (a do6lrine much favoured at court) and 
 that the fupreme power has always continued in the fame 
 family. They thus anfwer for the incorruptible chaftity of 
 all the royal females, that ever fat upon the throne of Abyf- 
 fmia, as you anfwer for the immaculate purity of all the 
 wives of the Jewifli high priefts, from Aaron's time to the 
 diflblution of their ecclefiaftical polity. Father Lobo's re- 
 mark upon this African do£trine is (hrewd enough, and it 
 is not altogether inapplicable to the fimilar dodrine of the 
 Scotch Epifcopal Church. ** An authentic genealogy tra- 
 ** ced up fo high, could not but be extremely curious ; and 
 *' with good reafon might the Emperors of AbyfTmia boatt 
 ** themfelves the mod illuftrious and ancient family in the 
 *' world." Father Lobo was, however, of opinion, that 
 there was no poflibility of getting pofleflion of fuch a rare 
 curiofity as an authentic genealogy traced up fo high : for he 
 adds, " But there are no real grounds for imagining, that 
 *' Providence has vouchfafed to them fo diftinguilhing a 
 <« prote£i:ion ; and we have reafon to believe, that the fuc- 
 " ceflion of the Abyffinian kings, like all other fucceffions, 
 <* has fufFered its revolutions.* 
 
 Though your do6lrIne of the uninterrupted fucceflion of 
 your Bifhops from the apoftles be not altogether unexam- 
 pled, being kept in countenance by a like dodlrine of the 
 learned antiquaries and genealogifts of Abyflinia ; yet, fo 
 far as I have been able to difcover, the conne<flion between 
 this uninterrupted fucceflion of Bifhops and the falvation of 
 chriftians, is an article of faith quite novel in the church ; 
 
 and 
 
 * See Lobo's voyage to Abyssinia, translated by Johnson. 
 
188 LETTER XIV. 
 
 and, confidering its incomprehenfible importance, it is a 
 difcovery furprlzingly late, in comparifon of all the other 
 articles of faith, that have been revealed from heaven to 
 men. 
 
 Irenseus and Tertullian did, as you affirm, appeal, in 
 their contefts with heretics, to the do6trine received in 
 ihofe churches, virhich could trace the regular fucceffion of 
 their paftors from the apoftles. But for what purpofe ? 
 Was it to prove, that, in thofc churches only the blefling of 
 Chrifl accompanied the miniftration of his word and ordi- 
 nances ? Not at all. It was to disprove feme of thofe doc- 
 trines of heretics, which, though not to be found in the 
 New Teftament, the heretics infifted, had been commu- 
 nicated orally, (as in the cafe referred to on the margin*) 
 by the apoftles, to fome highly enlightened difciples, whom 
 heretics called the perjeEl. In arguing with fuch men, 
 what could be more conclufive, than an appeal to the faith 
 of thofe churches, which were indifputably planted by the 
 apoftles, and could fhew a lift of Bilhops in uninterrupted 
 fucceffion from thofe firft minifters of the gofpel ? Where 
 could the pretended myfteries, of which heretics fpake, be 
 fo certainly found, as in the churches which could exhibit 
 fuch lifts ? If an apoftle had any myftery to reveal, which 
 it was not feafonable or fit to communicate to the vulgar in 
 his own age, but yet was necefTary to be known in the 
 church, to whom would he rather impart it, than to thofe 
 men, whom he accounted worthy of being ordained paf- 
 tors in the churches which he founded ? Who were fo like- 
 ly to be of the number of the perfeBy as they, on whom 
 the apoftles, who were difcerners of fpirits, had Jaid their 
 
 hands? 
 
 * 2 Thess. ii 5, 6. 
 
LETTER XIV. ] 89 
 
 hands ? I know not what Marcion, and other myftery-mon- 
 gers of early times, could have replied to this. 
 
 Thus did Iren?eus and Tertullian reafon with heretics. 
 But that the fiream of fuccefflon alone could convey that au- 
 thority " to minifter in God's word and facraments," 
 without which it is prefumptuous to expe6l his blefling on 
 his own means of grace ; — this is a conceit, which, amidfl 
 all his paradoxes and errors in opinion, the famous presbyter 
 of Carthage feems never to have once thought of, nor do 
 we know that it ever occurred to the Bifhop of Lyons. 
 
 Neverthelefs, we ihall, for argument's fake, admit, that 
 High Church's dodrine upon the fubje6t, is the do6trine of 
 fcripture, and firmly believed by all the Fathers, paradoxical 
 and not paradoxical. You will not find, that your church 
 will gain much by this admiOlon. For, you cannot prove 
 the uninterrupted fucceflion of your Bilhops from the apoU 
 tles ; and I prefume to hope, that I fliall be able to point 
 out more than one breach in your fucceflion, in addition to 
 the breach, by the mention of which our deceafed LsBurer 
 on Ecclefiajlical Hijlory has brought the dread vengeance of 
 High Church on his memory. 
 
 LErrER 
 
( 190) 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 YOU feem to think, that if you can trace yoar 
 lineal fuccefllon to the Reformation, and prove, that, from 
 the beginning to that illuftrious era, the Church of Rome 
 was a proper channel for tranfmitting the apoftolic com- 
 miflion, you thereby prove, beyond difpute, vi^hat you are 
 pleafed to call the validity of your orders. Here I mud dif- 
 fer from you toio ccelo, I infift, with Father Lobo in the 
 cafe of the Abyflinian monarchs, on the production of an 
 authentic fpiritual genealogy, traced from Peter or Paul, 
 or whomfoever of the apoftles you choofe to make the firft 
 of your ecclefiaftical anceftors, down to the Pontificate of 
 Leo X. Not only would this authentic genealogy be ex- 
 tremely curious ; it is abfolutely necejfary for the eftablifli- 
 raent of the lofty claims which you advance. Why fliould 
 an appeal to authentic regifters, or credible teftimony, be 
 lefs requifite to prove a fpiritual extraction, than to prove a 
 perfon's defcent from the man, whofe heir he pretends to 
 be ? Without fuch a proof of your defcent in the way of 
 natural generation, your laying claim to fuch a trifling he- 
 reditary pofleffion as Aceldama, would expofe you to the 
 lidicule of all the world. Do you flatter yourfelf, then, that, 
 
 though 
 
LETTER XV. 191 
 
 though you produce no authentic reglfter, and no proof 
 whatever from teflimony, of your^/V/V//a/defcent, by fuc- 
 cefTive generation, from the apoftles, we will admit your 
 claim to a monopoly of all the benefits of the gofpel cove- 
 nant ? Would not you have reafon to regard us with con- 
 tempt, if we were fo fimple ? I may fay, indeed, you tell 
 us as much yourfclf. For, you inform your readers,* that 
 in 1789, Bifliop Seabury of Connefticut, who had, fome 
 years before, been confecrated by the Bifhops in Scotland, 
 requefted his ordainers to procure for him an attefted ex- 
 tra£l of the confecration of the Scotch Bifhops in 1661 by 
 a canonical number of the Bifliops of England ; and that 
 you actually procured it for him, from the regifter-book of 
 Archbifhop Juxon. Why did Bilhop Seabury defire this 
 extract ? Why did you apply for it at his defire ? And for 
 what reafon do you publifli it in your Vwdicaticriy that all 
 the world may fee it if they pleafe ? Why do you publifh a 
 long regiftcrof your Epifcopal ordinations, in the Appendix 
 to the work juft named ? I can conceive no rational motive 
 for your fubmitting to all this trouble, and for your increa- 
 fmg the fize of your book by the addition of matters, that 
 few readers will think very entertaining, but your convic- 
 tion of the neceffity of producing authentic regiflers, to 
 prove the canonical derivation of your orders. If it was 
 neceflary to prove, in this manner, that you can trace your 
 fucceflion from the prefent time up to the year after the 
 Relloration, why fhould it be unnccefTary, to prove, in 
 the like mannery that you can trace it fixteen centuries 
 higher .' What (hall fill up the mighty void, in your fpirit- 
 ual genealogy, from the ordination of your *^ firft authors 
 " and prcdeceflbrs" to the Reformation, or at lead: to the 
 feparation of the Englilh Church from the Church of Romei* 
 
 You 
 
 ' ^■^nd. p. 351. 
 
192 LETTER XIV. 
 
 You can produce no reglfters. But can you appeal to fuch 
 teftimonies, from age to age, as Tertullian bears to the re- 
 gular trail fmiflion of orders in the Church of Rome from 
 Peter's epifcopaiey to the end of the fecond century ? No ; 
 you cannot do even this ; which, let me remark, though 
 you could do it, would afford but a lame proof of your 
 uninterrupted fucccffion ; for ancient teftimonies, concern- 
 ing the fucceflion of Bifliops even in the principal churches, 
 do not always accord with one another ; and they fay not a 
 word of the Epifcopal baptifm, and the canonical ordina- 
 tion, of every individual Bifliop in the fucceflion. With 
 what is it, that you fupply the want of authentic regifters, 
 and credible teflimony, for nearly fixteen hundred years ? 
 What, I may rather ask, can fupply this want ? I know of 
 nothing but fupernatural teftimony from heaven. But you 
 have not, as yet, pretended to work miracles. In this you 
 differ from the Church of Rome, who advances pretty 
 much the fame do^lrine- with you, refpeding the authority 
 which her clergy derive from Epifcopal fucceflion ; but 
 who, in order to eftablifli it, lays claim to that mark of 
 a true church, which, if her wonders were not all lying 
 wonders, is, of all marks, the mofl: decifive. But without 
 regifl:ers, without teftimony, without miracles, on which 
 to found your claim, you maintain, as ftoutly as the Church 
 of Rome can maintain, that your church is " the gate of 
 " heaven," to all, at leafty who go from Scotland 5. for that 
 your clergy are the only clergy duly authorized, in all this 
 ill-fated country — ill-fated, indeed, in being fo fcantily 
 provided in a commodity indlfpenfably neceffary to falva- 
 tion ! 
 
 But do you refl: the credit of your Epifcopal fucceflion 
 purely on your own aflertion, that you are the lineal proge- 
 ny of the apoflles ? Oh ! no. You prove it, by what you 
 
 face- 
 
LETTER XV. 193 
 
 facetioufly call " a clear fatisfa£lory train of reafonlng."- 
 — a clear fatisfa£i:ory train of reafoning ! Can any train of 
 reafoning fuperfede the necefTity of proving facts in ths 
 hiftory of man, by that which alone can prove them, cre- 
 dible teflimony ? You may demonftrate truths by reafon- 
 ing. But I never heard that reafoning can prove hiftorical 
 fa£ls ; though I know, that, in the courfe of human af- 
 fairs, many fa£ls occur, that baffle all reafoning a priori, 
 and fet even the conjectures of the mod profound wifdom 
 at defiance. Surely, you mean to jeft with us, when you 
 fpcak of proving fa£ls by "a clear fatisfa£lory train of rea- 
 ** foning." Yet, as you have nothing but this fame train 
 of reafoning, to urge in fupport of your unbroken fiiccef- 
 fion, it is not abfolutely inconceivable, that you urge it fe- 
 rioufly, and in good earneft. Let us, at any rate, fee 
 what it i?. Wc have it in your extracl from Mr, Law's 
 Second Letter to the capital enemy of the principles and 
 practices of the Nonjurors. 
 
 * Vmd. p. 328, 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 194 ) 
 
 LEITER XVI. 
 
 " NOW, is It not morally impofTible,'* fays Mr. 
 Law, '* that in our church any one fliould be made a Bi- 
 " (hop, without Epifcopal ordination ? Is there any poffibi- 
 " lity of forging orders, or ftealing a biftiopric by any o- 
 ** ther ftratagem ? No : it is morally impoflible, becaufe it 
 " is an acknowledged do£lrine among us, that a Bifliop can 
 " only be ordained by Bifliops. Now as this dodrine mufi: 
 " neceflarlly prevent any one being made a Bilhop without 
 " Epifcopal ordination in our age, fo it muft have the fame 
 ** efFe£t in every other age as well as ours ; and, confe- 
 *< quently, it is as reafonable to believe, that the fucceffion 
 " of Bifliops was not broke, in any age fince the apoflles, 
 " as that It was not broke in our own kingdom within thefc 
 « forty years. For the fame dodrine which preferves it 
 « forty years, may as well preferve it forty hundred years, 
 " if it was equally believed in all that fpace of time. And 
 « that this has been the conftant dodrine of the church, 
 <* we have the mod undoubted evidence. We believe the 
 <« fcriptures are not corrupted, becaufe it was always a re- 
 " ceived dodrine in the church, that they were the itand- 
 « ing rule of faith, and becaufe the Providence of God 
 
 •« may 
 
LETTER XVI. 103 
 
 " may well be fuppofed to preferve fuch books, as were to 
 ** convey to every age the means of falvatlon. The fame 
 ** reafons prove the great improbability, that this fuccef- 
 ** fion fhould ever be broke, both becaufe it was always 
 " againrt: a received doiSlrine to break it, and becaufe we 
 " may juftly hope the Providence of God would keep up 
 " its own inflitution." 
 
 This you pronounce * " a clear fatisfa£l:ory train of rea- 
 " foning, by which a decifive anfwer is at once afforded to 
 '* all the dark and critical qucftions, that can poiTibly arife, 
 *' even in fuch a fertile mind as that of our late learned 
 ** Le£lurer, about the import of names and titles, and the 
 *' authenticity of endlefs genealogies.'* Indeed it fuper- 
 fedes the neceffity of looking into any genealogies at all, 
 endlefs, or not endlefs; of enquiring into any documents 
 whatever; and, above all, of examining their authenticity. 
 It is, in reality, one of the mod aftonifhing inventions that 
 we have heard of; one of the greateft efforts of human ge- 
 nius, and of mod extcnfive application. It would enable 
 you to write the hiftory of the church, or of a particular 
 nation, or of all nations, without fearching a fingle record, 
 or enquiring for any ancient document of fadb of any 
 kind. To call it merely " a univerfal receipt for writing 
 " hiftory,'* would be doing it manifeft injuftice. It both 
 furniflies you with fads, and enables you to drefs them en- 
 tirely to your tafte. It is, I may fay, both caterer and 
 cook. Let me employ it for a month or two, and I will do 
 wonders. In particular, I undertake to prove c/ejr/y and 
 fatiijaciorilyy that no man in his fenfes can believe a word 
 of the accounts we have received of France from 1789 to 
 
 N 2 thi§ 
 
 * Viud, p, 328. 
 
196 LEITERXVI. 
 
 this moment, and that it // morally impojftble that its real 
 hijlotj is fuch as we have heard. 
 
 I can eafily guefs, what it was that fuggefled to Mr. 
 Law the idea of the curious and ufeful invention, whofe 
 eulogium I have been attempting to write. It has been a 
 profound contempt, and rooted diflike, of fome notorious 
 and well authenticated fa£ls 'in ecclefiaftical hiftory, which 
 are not very compatible with his fuecejjion fcheme. 
 
 It may, probablyj be accounted " vulgar abufe," if I 
 venture to produce thofe fa£ts, in oppofition to " the clear 
 <^ fatisfa£tory train of reafoning of a writer, whofe Letters 
 <* are incomparable for truth of argument, brightnefs of 
 " wit, and purity of Englifh, and were honoured with the 
 " higheft approbation at their firil appearance, though 
 ** they be now forgotten.^'' But I am content to bear my 
 fliare of that burden, which High Church thinks it proper 
 to lay upon all her opponents, and ihail, without ceremo- 
 ny, enquire, whether Mr. Law's reafoning be in unifon, 
 or at variance, with fa(3.s. And for this purpofe, let us 
 take a view of his axioms or firft principles, about which, 
 I apprehend, every reafoner (hould be fomewhat more nice 
 than Mr. Law feems to have been. And, 
 
 I. Mr. Law's fundamental axiom appears to be, that 
 Epifcopacy, including the neceffity of preferving the fuc- 
 cefTion of Biftiops, is the ordinance of God : from which 
 he infers, that Providence is as much concerned to preferve 
 zV, as to preferve the facred books from corruption. — 
 
 That Jefus Chrifl: is as much concerned to preferve the ex^ 
 iernalform of " the earthen veflel," as to preferve the irea- 
 Jure which it conveys, from ont generation of chriftians to 
 
 another 
 
LETTEll XVL 197 
 
 another, would be a bold inference from the divine injlitu- 
 tion of Epifcopacy, even though the divine inftitutlon of 
 that model were proved beyond difpute, which we Ivave 
 endeavoured to fliew * is not the cafe : for in religion, there 
 are things of greater, and things of lefs importance in the 
 fight of God y\ and I cannot think that the external form 
 of the church is of fuch importance with him as the di- 
 rme word, of which the church isj the depofitary. But 
 Mr. Law's inference from a firfl principle, which, itfelf, 
 needs to be proved, happens to be contradi£led by a fact, 
 which is the obje6l of fenfe ; for we fee, that the Scotch 
 Epifcopal Church feels, that, in fome parts of the chrifti- 
 an world, Providence has actually preferved the fcriptures, 
 In as great purity as they are enjoyed by Epifcopals, where 
 it has not preferved Epifcopacy and the unbroken fuccef- 
 fion. If I were to adopt Mr. Law's " fatisfadory mode of 
 " reafoning," 1 would contend, that Epifcopacy cannot be 
 of divine inftitution, fince the fcriptures, which are un- 
 queftionably the divine word, have been preferved from 
 corruption, while Epifcopacy has been greatly disfigured 
 and corrupted, and, in fome places, abfolutely deftroyed. 
 
 2. It is a firft principle with Mr. Law, that there is 
 " no pofilbillty of forging orders," nor ** of flealing a 
 *' bifliopric by any other flratagem." I hope to prove, 
 that " the forging of orders" Is certainly within the verge 
 of polTibility, and that, if there is any truth in what the 
 fcriptures fay4 " He that entereth not by the door into 
 " the fheep-fold, but climbeth up fome other way, the 
 <' fame is a ihief^nd a robber j" bifhoprics /jave been ftolen 
 by various ftratagems. 
 
 N 3 3. Mr. 
 
 * See Prelinrnary Discourse. | See Mattbew xxiii, ^3. 
 
 X John X. 1. 
 
198 LETTER XVL 
 
 3. Mr. Law aflumes it as an axiom';, nay, he fays, 
 M we have the moft undoubted evidence, that the doctrine 
 « on which the canons refpe£ling ordination is founded, 
 ?' was the conftant dodlrine of the church, and always e- 
 " qually believed." 
 
 It is to be regretted, that Mr. Law did not favour us with 
 his " undoubted evidence*' of this fad ; for, as I (hall pro- 
 duce undoubted evidence of the contrary, we fhould have 
 "witnefled an amufing rencounter. It is alfo to be regret- 
 ted, that that gentleman did not think of informing us at 
 nvhat iime, on what occnjion^ and through tuboniy the do£trine, 
 on which the canons relating to ordination are founded, was 
 revealed from heaven, and what church is now the depo- 
 fitary of that do6lrine. We, who look for revelation no- 
 where but in the fcriptures, can find only a part of the 
 « dodrine" there, and that part only, which is moft fa- 
 tal, as we fhall fee hereafter, to the pretenfions of High 
 Church : and we are much furprized, that in the three 
 epiftles to Timothy and Titus, where the apoftle had fo 
 fair an opportunity of explaining the whole do£lrine, on 
 ■which the canons, relating to ordination, are founded, we 
 find little or nothing upon a fubjed of fuch high impor- 
 tance. But the apoftle has overlooked liy forfome reafon or 
 pther, that we cannot explore at this diftance of time. 
 
 But the production of Mr. Law's <' undoubted evidence 
 <« of the conjlant belief oi the Catholic Church," would, by 
 no means, have been fufficient to cftablifh his point. Still 
 it would have been necefFary for him to prove, that the 
 church uniformly praEliJed according to her belief never 
 « holding the truth in unrighteoufnefs," never, in any in- 
 ftance, violating the canon. It requires, I acknowledge, 
 r.o ordinary degree of faith, to get over the improbahilityy 
 
 that 
 
LETTER XVL 199 
 
 ♦hat the do(flriiie on which the canons are founded, was 
 generally believed, or even generally known, amidft the 
 grofs ignorance and barbarifm, that overfpread the wefterii 
 church for ages, during which there were many Bifliops, 
 and other dignitaries, who could neither read nor write, 
 and were as ignorant of the religion which they were or- 
 dained to teach, as modern Bifliops are " of the prophe- 
 « cies of Enoch, the feventh from Adam." But we (hall 
 fet this confideration afide, and believe, with Mr. Law, as 
 well as we can, that the dodrine refpeding the canons was 
 always known, and always the objeft of faith univerfally *, 
 and proceed to ask, Were, or were not, the canons ever 
 violated in fad ? We fliall fee, by and by, that they were. 
 Probably Mr. Law, and his admirer, the Bifliop of Aber- 
 deen, have made it a rule to read no ecclefiaftical hiftory, 
 which mentions fuch violations. But can I believe, that 
 neither of you ever heard of the aflumption and exercife of 
 the Pope's difpenfmg power r Did you never read of the 
 FonJiuloy De plenitudine potejlatis, and the claufe, NoTwb/la?i' 
 tibusy by which his Holinefs, whofe difpenfmg power, as 
 Fra Paolo fays, could admit of no ftain, dlflblved all the 
 canons and ecclefiaflical conftitutions, whenfoever, or for 
 whatever purpofe, his Holinefs thought proper to violate 
 them ? If you and Mr. Law were ignorant of this, when 
 you wrote your refpedive defences of the modeft preten- 
 fions of High Church, I muft fay, that you had not gone 
 deep enough in ecclefiaftical hiftory, to be able to contend 
 with Biftiop Hoadly and Dr. Campbell. The formula 
 " De plenitudine poteftatis," and the Claufe, " Non ob- 
 « ftantibus,*' with which every fmatterer in the hiftory of 
 the church is acquainted, knock all " Mr. Law's clear fi- 
 <« tisfa£tory train of reafoning" to pieces at one blow ; 
 unlefs, indeed, you can prove the dotlrine of the Church 
 of Rome to be true, that the exercife of the Pope's difpen- 
 
 N 4 fing 
 
5>00 LETTER XVL 
 
 fmg pouter renders that lawful and canonical, -which is, in 
 itfelf, unlawful and uncanonical : an achievement, which, 
 I prefume, you will not attempt. 
 ]> 
 Perhaps (he bare mention of the Pope's difpenfmg power 
 is a fufficient anfwer to Mr. Law's whole train of reafon- 
 ing, in fupport of the unbroken Epifcopal fucceflion. The 
 affumption and frequent exercife of that power are undeni- 
 able j and neither you, nor any body elfe, can prove, that 
 it did not affe6l the derivation oi your orders from the apof- 
 tles. But as you reft the whole evidence, on which you 
 claim to be accounted a modern apoftle, on Mr. Law's 
 train of reafoning, and, on the ftrength of it prefume to 
 call other men, who are not lefs apoftolic Bifliops than 
 yourfelf, to/d intruders into the church of Chrift, and ««- 
 warranted ufurpersy there may be fome propriety in exa- 
 mining particularly, how far Mr. Law's reafoning accords 
 with the moft ftubborn unbending things in nature : it will 
 readily occur to you, that I mean, FACTS. I (hall begin 
 OUT enquiry, with putting you in mind, in my next, of 
 thofe canons relating to ordination, which, Mr. Law fays, 
 were never violated in any age. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 201 ) 
 
 LETTER XVII. 
 
 IT is only thofe canons relating to ordination, 
 which are agreeable to the profefTcd do£lrine of your 
 church, to which I think it necelTary to call your attention, 
 or, at any rate, to thofe only, in addition to your favourite 
 canons, that are indifputably fcriptural. I truft, then, 
 that 1 have no reafon to apprehend obflinate difagrecment 
 between us on the propofitions which follow. 
 
 1. A Bifhop mufl be ordained by two or three Bifhops. 
 
 2. Ordination muft be performed by impofition of hands. 
 
 3. That impofition of hands, by two or three Bifliops, 
 may be valid ordination, the regular baptifm of the perfon 
 fo ordained is abfolutely neceflary ; becaufe a man mufl: be 
 made a chriftian, before he can be made a chrifl:ian Bifhop. 
 This is perfedlly agreeable to the dodrlne of your Vindi- 
 cation.* It is agreeable to the pradlice of your church ; 
 for, I fuppofe, you would not re-baptize heretics and fchif- 
 
 matics, 
 
 * Seep. 99, 100, 101, etsequ. 
 
202 LETTER XVII. 
 
 matics, fuch as Presbyterians, if you confidered them to 
 be chriftians previoufly to your baptifm. It is agreeable to 
 the doftrine and practice of Cyprian. The Nineteenth 
 Canon of the Firft Council of Nice appoints the Paulianift 
 clergy to be re-baptized, and then ordained. The apoflo- 
 lical Canons are full of the fame dotStrine •,* and they ap- 
 point the Bilhop or Presbyter, who does not re-baptize a 
 Prieft, that has been polluted by the baptifm of the ungodly, 
 to be deprived, becaufe he does not diftinguifh between real 
 Priefts and coutiierfelt ones : and they declare, that thofe 
 who are baptized by heretics, can neither be chriftians nor 
 clergymen. 
 
 4. A difqualification, in a candidate for orders, arifing 
 from age, fex, condition in life, faith; or rather want of 
 faith, from perfonal character, renders that perfon*s ordi- 
 nation to a bifhopric null and void. You will not contend, 
 I pre fume, that impofition of hands, by two or three Bi- 
 (hops, is fufEcient to make chriftian Biftiops of women and 
 children, or of atheifts, deifts, Jews, pagans, Mahome- 
 tans, or even of chriftian laymen. 
 
 5. A Biftiop's ele6lion or nomination muft be canonical, 
 otherwife his ordination is void. He may, without lawful 
 ele£lion, be a biftiop de faBo^ that is, he may perform all 
 Epifcopal fundlions ; but he is not a Bifhop de jurcy unlefs 
 he be duly elected ; and confequently, whatever poiver he 
 may have, he has no authority. I (hould be forry, for your 
 own fake, if you difputed this. It would betray an incon- 
 fiftency, by no means honourable to the charaEieVy to con- 
 tend, or even admit, that William the Third, and the fuc- 
 ceflbrs of the deprived Bifliops in England, who were ru- 
 lers, 
 
 * See Can. 46, 47, 68. 
 
LETTER XMI. 20^ 
 
 krs, fpiritual and temporal, de/acio, were alfo rulers of the 
 church and (late dejure. 
 
 6. There are two forts of Simony, at lead, there arc 
 two ccclefiaftical crimes, wlilch are fo named ; both of 
 which, I prefume, invalidate ordination, and interrupt the 
 fuccefllon. The one confifts in purchafing a title to a be- 
 nefice, or the revenue of a bilhopric, with money, or pro- 
 curing it by flattery, fervices, or by any infamous means ; 
 the other confifts in purchafing ordination itfelf. 
 
 I am fully aware, that a benefice is not a fpirituality. 
 But it docs not hence follow, that the purchafe of it is not 
 Simony, and does not render ordination void. By pur- 
 chafing the benefice, the purchafer buys ordination alfo, 
 without which he cannot be put in poflefliion of the bene- 
 fice. A man may be ordained without a benefice, and 
 without a charge, that is, he may be made a nominal 
 Bifhop or Presbyter. But in no well-governed church can a 
 perfon enjoy a benefice without ordination. Hence the 
 purchafe of a benefice is virtually the purchafe of holy orders. 
 
 But fome ftrenuous defenders of the Epifcopal fuccef- 
 fion maintain, that even the dire£l purchafe of ordination 
 itfelf, is neither Simony, nor an ad, that, in any meafure, 
 invalidates orders. It was referved for thofe profound cri- 
 tics to difcover, in thefe latter times, that, till t/:ey appeared 
 to enlighten the chrifi.ian world, all men, in all ages of the 
 church, have been under a grofs mifapprehenfion in think- 
 ing, that the purchafe of orders with money, is the crime 
 that bears the detefted name of Simon the forcerer. No- 
 thing can be more facred than holy orders in the eyes of 
 High Church on feme occafions, and when fhe has /otne 
 purpofes to ferve^by exalting them. Upon ot/jer occafions, 
 
 when 
 
204 LETTER XVII. 
 
 when o/^^r purpofes are to be ferved, holy orders are by no 
 means fo facred a thing. They are fometimes the unfpeak- 
 able gift of Chrift,* which no man dares to take to him- 
 felf. At other times they are fcarcely a fpirituality, being 
 nothing but a commiffion to minifter in Chrift's fpiritual 
 kingdom,f which a Bifhop or Bifhops may give to whom 
 they pleafe, and precifely fuch another thing as a commif- 
 fion, which the king gives to a common foldier, by which 
 he is made a general, whether he be fit for the office or 
 not. From this, I (hould think, it follows, that impofi- 
 tion of hands by two or three Bifhops, would confecrate 
 Satan himfelf, and make a chriftian Bifhop of the Great 
 *< Accufer of the brethren.*' And this is the very inference 
 which the writer lafl referred to on the margin, draws from 
 the premifcs ; only he inflances in one perfonage, and I in 
 another \ which cannot afFecSl the conclufion, becaufe we 
 have reafon to believe, Satan is fully as good a chriftian, 
 in refpe6t oi faith % at leafl, as ever Simon Magus was. — 
 « r have no difficulty in affirming," fays he, <* that by Ju- 
 <« das' ordination" (for, it feems, one apoftle could do the 
 work of two or thtee Bifliops !) ** Simon Magus would 
 <* have been as lawful a Bifhop, as Hophni and Phineas, 
 « fons of Eli, were lawful Priefts, or Judas himfelf a right- 
 <« ful apoftle." — What, Sir, — though Simon had paid for 
 his ordination, which your mention of Judas as the ordainer 
 feems to imply ? Did Jefus Chrift place the commiffion, 
 which he gave to his apoftles, on a footing vi^ith a licence 
 to retail wine and fpirits, by empowering them to fet it 
 to fale ? How could Judas' ordination have made a perfon 
 a chriftian Bifhop, who was not a chriftian man ? An athe- 
 ift, or a deift may, by means of a money tranfadion, or 
 other corrupt methods, climb up into the ftieepfold. Does 
 
 * See Home's Disc. vol. II. Disc. 6. 
 t Rebufifer rebuflfed, p. 29. % James ii. 19. 
 
LETTER XVir. 205 
 
 it follow that he Is ^fiephenl of the fitep, in the fcrlptural 
 fenfe of that title, and that he bears Chrift's commiflion ? 
 A luolfm-^^ climb up into a (heepfold But when or where 
 has it been proved that a wolf, when he gets into a flieep- 
 fold, is a (hepherd ? You fpeak of the commillion given to 
 the apoftles, as if Chrift had given it fo irrecoverably out 
 of his own hands, that it can neither be recalled, nor with- 
 held from any one, to whom two or three Bifliops (hall 
 agree to entruft it, be the candidate for holy orders of what 
 defcription, in point of chara(Ster, he may •, be he athcift, 
 deift, hypocrite, forcerer, or whatever you pleafe. If this 
 be found dodrine, it was not without reafon that the Ger- 
 man Orator proclaimed, that " Chrift fubjeds himfelf to 
 «< Priefts, and pays them the ftrideft obedience."* 
 
 It is admitted, that the crime of Simon the forcerer con- 
 fjftcd in his offering money to the apoftles, not for holy 
 orders, but for, what he efteemed, their magical art of 
 conveying the Holy Ghoft to thofe, on whom they laid 
 their hands. Does it hence follow, that there is no con- 
 nexion between his crime, and that which we ordinarily 
 call Simony ? Does the Holy Ghoft take no concern in 
 Epifcopal ordinations ? I cannot pofitively aflert that he 
 does. But if he do not, I Ihould be glad to know, what 
 your ordination fervice means, when it fays, " Receive 
 ^< thou the Holy Ghoft." By what figure of fpeech does 
 it call a bare commiflion to minifter in Chrift's kingdom, 
 " The Holy Ghoft ?" Is the ufe of that figure authorized 
 in fcripture ? or has any figure fimilar to it the fini61:ion of 
 good ufe in other writir.gs ? Could wc with any propriety 
 fiiy of the commiflion, by which the King raifes a com- 
 mon foldier to the comm:ind of an army, that " it is the; 
 '* King," or ** the fpirit vi the King ?" If your ordina- 
 tion 
 
 ^ SecProiir. . Disc. Note p. 4:'. 
 
206 LETTER XVII. 
 
 tlon fervice, at the mod folemn and awful part of it, be 
 intelligible, it implies by *' Receive thou the Holy Ghoil'' 
 fomething more than <* Be thou a minifter in Chrift's fpi- 
 " ritual kingdom." What it does, in reality, imply, writers 
 on the fide of High Church do not feem to know ; and, 
 happily, tue are not bound to inftru£l them on the fubje^b. 
 But it muft fignify the conveyance of fome gift or other, 
 that cannot well be likened to the commiffion to be a gene- 
 ral, which the King gives to a common foldler, if, in your 
 ordination fervice, " the Holy Ghoft" import, what that 
 facred title imports in fcripture. There it occurs in two 
 fenfes, only, fo far as I know. It either means the divine 
 Spirit, in whofe name we are baptized, or the gifts, both 
 ordinary and extraordinary, which he bellows for enlight- 
 ening the minds and fan£llfylng the fouls of men, or for 
 proving a divine commiffion. In neither of thefe fenfes 
 can we call a commiffion to minifter in God's word and 
 facraments " The Holy Ghoft." Hence, I apprehend, it 
 IS manifeft, that, in the mind of the compofers of your or- 
 dination fervices, there is a very clofe connexion between 
 the crime of the forcerer, and that which we call Simony. 
 In truth, the difference between them is not great. Simon 
 Magus defired to purchafe the art of conveying the Holy 
 Ghoft in his miraculous ^x^ic-f^o^rct, and Simoniacs at- 
 tempt to purchafe authority to convey the Holy Ghoft in 
 his ordinary ecclefiaftical gifts. Therefore the fentence, 
 which was pronounced on Simon the magician, is the fen- 
 tence of heaven, under which Simoniacs are laid at this 
 day ', " Thy money perifli with thee, becaufe thou haft 
 <« thought that the gift of God can he pur chafed with money. 
 « Thou haft neither part nor lot in this," call it « matter,*' 
 or " word,'* or " dodrlne," as you pleafe : for, fince we 
 are affured, that the gift of God cannot he purchafed with 
 money, it is of no confequence to my argument, whether 
 
LETTER XVII. 207 
 
 iv ta Xcyu tutcj refer to the Holy Ghoft, or to the chriftian 
 doctrine. — From all this, I apprehend, it is an obvious and 
 undeniable conciufion, that a Simoniac has no " comnnf- 
 " fion from the Spirit, the Vicegerent of Chrill," and that 
 wherever Simony has been pradifed, it has interrupted the 
 Epifcopal fuccefllon. 
 
 It would have been fufficient, in anfwer to Mr. Lavr, 
 barely to urge, that Simony is condemned by innumerable 
 canons of the church ; and then to call upon his admirers 
 to fay, whether thofe canons were ever violated by any 
 perfon, who (lands in the line between the prefent clergy 
 of High Church and the apoftles. But I prefume to think 
 that I have done fomewhat more than this, by fhewing, 
 that, if there be a meaning or fenfe in your ordination fer- 
 vice, Simony, according to a canon, of higher authority 
 than the canons of a// the general councils from the firfl: of 
 Nice downward, renders the ordination of the Simoniac ab~ 
 folutely null and void. — In the mean time, I cordially agree 
 with the writer, whofe opinions refpe£l:ing Simony, I have 
 been oppofing, that " that crime does not afFe£l: the falva- 
 " tion of any but the perfons who are guilty of it, and that 
 ** we have no reafon to fear, that millions of innocent peo- 
 " pic will be damned for the fecret crime of a few indivi- 
 " duals;"* for which, to be fure they are not more accoun- 
 table, than you and I are for the idolatry, into which kino- 
 Solomon was reduced by his wives in his old age. 
 
 Let us now appeal to ecclefiaftical hiftory, and fee whe- 
 ther the apoftolical ci mmilTion has been conveyed, from 
 age to age, by rules fo Itriclly canonical, that " the fuc- 
 <* ceflion of BiQiops has never been broke in any age fmce 
 *' the apoftles." 
 
 LETTER 
 
 * R«ri I... T rclniired, p, 2i. 
 
( 208 ) 
 
 LETTER XVIII 
 
 << IT was always a received doctrine in ever^ 
 " part of the church, that no ordination was valid, but 
 " that of Bifliops, and the earlieft canons required, that 
 « every Bifliop fhould be ordained or confecrated, by two 
 «* or three Bifliops."* 
 
 The apoftle Paul f informs us, that Timothy was or- 
 dained, and, according to you and Dr. Hammond, ordain- 
 ed either a Diocefan or Metropolitan, not by two or three 
 Bilhops, but by the Presbytery ; and, amidft the vafl pro- 
 fufion of deep criticifm, which you lavifh upon the cafe of 
 that dignitary, we do not find one authority produced, for 
 calling two or three Bifhops, or two or three apoftles, the 
 Presbytery. You complain, that the Lei^iurer fays, with- 
 out bringing forward any proof, that, <* all chriftian anti- 
 *< quity concurs in affixing this name (the presbytery) to 
 " what may be called the confiftory of a particular church, 
 " or the college of its paftors." But you do not deny the 
 fa6t 5 much lefs do you bring forward any document to 
 
 difprove 
 
 * Vind.p. Z%^. t iTim. iv. 14. 
 
LETTER XVlir. 209 
 
 difprove it. A writer, who would be thought an idolater 
 of chriftian antiquity, could not well venture to do either. 
 But look into the Ignatian Epiftles, and they will inform 
 you what antiquity meant by to Ts-^io-jivri^io*. 
 
 If we may trufl the Vindicator of Primiiive Truth and Or-^ 
 der, " prophets and teachers" were, in apoflolic times, 
 neither more nor lefs than Presbyters and Deacons in an 
 Epifcopal church. Now, is it not a curious confirmation 
 of the doftrine, which adorns the front of this epi(lle> that 
 " prophets and teachers," otherwife presbyters and dea- 
 cons, were the ordainers, by the exprefs command of the 
 Holy Ghoft, of Barnabas and Saul, two of the apoftles or 
 firfl: BiOiops ?* How came it to pafs, think you^ who 
 know all thofe things, that the Holy Ghoft ventured upon 
 fuch a grofs violation of thofe canons, which are founded 
 on a doctrine, " that was a/ivays received in every part of 
 " the church ^^ This appears to me to be quite unaccoun- 
 table, unlefs we fuppofe, that the Holy Ghoft did not dic- 
 tate all the do£lrines, without exception, which High 
 Church profefles to believe, and endeavours to fhelter un- 
 der His authority. 
 
 It would appear, that, fo late as the age of Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus, ecclefiaftics had been fo addicted to irre^ 
 gulari/y^ that tliey paid more refpecl to the example of the 
 Holy Ghoft, than to the canons of the church. If we may 
 believe Gregory of Nyfta, it is a facl, that Gregory Thau- 
 maturgus was ordained, not by two or three Bifliops laying 
 their hands on him, but by Phedimus, a neighbouring Bi- 
 Ihop, who, at the time of the ordination, happened to be 
 at the diftance of "hree days journey from the perfon or* 
 
 o dained. 
 
 ♦ Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. 
 
210 LETtER XVI IL 
 
 dalned. The truth is, Phedimus dedicated Gregory to the 
 fervice of God at Neocefarea, by his own folitary prayers, 
 in the abfence of Gregory, and without his confent either 
 asked, or given freely, or extorted : and yet Gregory un- 
 dertook the charge alTigned him, without farther ceremo- 
 ny, and performed all the parts of the Epifcopal function. 
 The impofition of hands, which you deem eflential to the 
 validity of ordination, was, in this cafe, abfolutely impof- 
 fibie, unlefs Phedimus* hands and arms were three days 
 journey in length, which, as I have not read any thing 
 that throws light on the length of that Bifhop's arms, I 
 will not take upon me to aiTert pofitively that they were. 
 If, indeed, Gregory had been the ordainer, we could eafi- 
 ly have got over this difficulty, without afluming that his 
 arms were quite half a day's journey longer than yours or 
 mine : for I have no doubt that the wonder-worker could, 
 at any time, have laid his hands on the head of a perfon, 
 \i^ho was at threefcore or fourfcore miles diftance from 
 him. But of Phedimus* wonder-working, we have heard 
 nothing. 
 
 After an ordination, in which almoft all the canons were 
 difregarded, I can fee no poffibility of accounting, on your 
 principles, for Gregory's wonderful fuccefsin his miniftry. 
 If thofe principles have any foundation in fcripture, or in 
 the nature of things, Thaumaturgus might more reafon- 
 ably have attempted to compel the fun and moon to ex- 
 change places, or to raife and lay ftorms like Macbeth's 
 witches, or to change the circulation of the blood in the 
 human body, by turning it into new channels, as have at- 
 tempted " to divert the progrefs of divine grace from the 
 . ** channels appointed for conveying it through the myfti- 
 « cal body of Chrift," without giving up all hope of prof- 
 pering in his miniftry. And yet, it happened, fomehow, 
 
 that. 
 
LETTER XVril. 211 
 
 that, " though he diverted the progrefs of divine grace'* 
 from its principal channel, the hands of the canonical num- 
 ber of Bifliops, he did prosper in his miniftry : and, though 
 he found ou\y feventeen chriflians in the extenfive diocefe of 
 Neocefarea, when, without regular ordination, he mount- 
 ed into the Epifcopal throne, he left no more, as you have 
 kindly put us in mind, than ]M{i /event en 'p^^zws at his 
 death. " In faith 'twas ftrange I 'twas pafTing ftrange !" 
 and it fets Mr. Law's reafoning and yours, on more fub- 
 je<5ls than one, in a light truly ridiculous. ' 
 
 But, I fufpe£l that your fpirltual progenitors, in this 
 ifland, were, in early times, fully as regardlefs of the uni- 
 verfally received dodrine refpeding ordination by Biftiops, 
 as ecclefiaflics in the Eaft were for the firfl: three centuries ; 
 for, when Epifcopacy failed in England, in the time of 
 Ofwald, king of the Northumbrians, it was reftored by 
 Scottifh Presbyters. 
 
 At what time, or by whom, chrlftianity was firfl: plan- 
 ted in Scotland, and a church organized, it is not eafy to 
 afcertain with precifion. But of this we are fure, that, in 
 the feventh century, [DdJ a chriftian church did exift in 
 Scotland, and that, in the ifland of Hy, now called Ico- 
 lumkill, there was a monaftery, whofe founder and firfl 
 governor was the famous Columba, who came to .Scotland 
 in 565, and whofe name is now incorporated with that of 
 the ifland of Hy. This eftablifhment appears to have been 
 a college, where clergy were educated for the facred mini- 
 llry. Accordingly we hear of three Bifhops, whom it 
 furni(hed to the kingdom of the Northumbrians, which 
 then, as we learii from U(her, comprehended the Scottifh 
 
 ' o 2 ter- 
 
 [Dd] See Notes, 
 
^12 LETTER XVIlf. 
 
 territory to the fouth of the Firth, and twenty (hires in 
 England. Bede informs us * of a curious circumftance 
 relating to the high authority of this feminary. Its prin- 
 cipal, or re£lor, as the hiftorian calls him, was only a pref- 
 byter Abbot ; and yet the whole province, and even the Bi- 
 Jhops themfelves, were fubje6t to his jurifdi£tion. Bede 
 calls this an unufual order (ordine inuftiato) which indicates 
 that he knew nothing fimilar to it, any where, in his own 
 time. What he means by the whole province (omnis pro- 
 vincia) is fomewhat doubtful. It feems to be explained at 
 the end of the preceding chapter, where the hiftorian 
 fpeaks of the jurifdi6tion of the monaftery of Hy, as ex- 
 tending over almofl: all the monafteries and all the people of 
 the northern Scots, and the whole Pidliih nation .f Our 
 ecclefiaftical hiftorian J explains Bede's 'Northern Scots as 
 <* having included the people in the north of Ireland, and the 
 «« north-weft parts of Britain." But, unfortunately, he 
 had forgotten, that, on another occafion,|I when he had a 
 particular purpofe to ferve, very different from vi6^ory in his 
 conteft with Uftier, he had confined the jurifdidtion of the 
 monaftery of Hy to all the monafteries only of Columba's 
 foundation, either in Britain or Ireland, excluding the peo^ 
 pie altogether. But this will not do. Bede exprefsly de- 
 clares, in the paflage laft referred to, that the jurifdiftion 
 of Hy extended over the people^ as well as the monafteries, 
 among almoft all the northern Scots and all the Pids. [Ee] 
 
 That «/>ro«y/w^"— means the charge either of an Arch- 
 biftiop or a Diocefan, cannot be fuppofed, for the word 
 
 never 
 
 * Lib. iii. c. 4. f Id. c. 3. 
 
 % Skinner's Letters, &c. v. L p. 108. [j Id. v. I. p. 96. 97, 
 
 [Ee] See N^tes. 
 
LETTER XVIII. 21:3 
 
 never occurs in this acceptation in Becle*shiflory, anc^ there 
 were neither provinces, in the modern ecclefiaftical fignifi- 
 cation of the word, nor diocefes, in Scotland, for feveral 
 centuries after the miflion of Aidanus to England. A Bi- 
 (liop's charge was his par'ifi in thofe days, as you,^ and 
 your ingenious relative explicitly admit.*J 
 
 I think it undeniable that, by the ipfi ctiam epifcopiy who, 
 iiccording to Bede, were fubjecSl to the jurifdiclion of the 
 Presbyter Abbot of Hy, the hiftorian means the IMihops of 
 moft of the northern Scots, and of all the Pids, becaufe 
 he exprefsly fays, as we have feen, that the monaflery of 
 Hy prefided in the government, not only of the monafte- 
 rles of almoft all the northern Scots, and of the whole Pic- 
 tifh nation, but alfo in the government of the people. I can- 
 not admit, that by ipfi eiiam epifcopi cf ike ivkole provincCy Bede 
 meant a fuccelTion of Bilhops, one after ^another, who had 
 the charge of ** the whole province, where Columba had 
 <» employed his labours," and which, according to Mr. 
 Skinner, included the northern Scots and Pids, and the 
 people in the north of Ireland. This would have made by 
 far too large a parifh for a Bifhop, in the days of the reign 
 of the monaflery of Hy. But what if we were to admit 
 what the author juft named contends for ? What would 
 it avail in fupport of the divine origin of proper Epifcopacy, 
 and in illuftration of your unbroken fucceilion ? It proves 
 nothing, but only that eleven centuries ago, Bifhops in 
 Scotland were fo far from being the kight/l order of ecclefi- 
 aftics, that, in one diftridb, they were fubje£l; to a Presby- 
 ter Monk. May we not thence very warrantably infer, 
 that they did not ordain Presbyter Monks, but were ordain- 
 ed by them, if it be, as an apoftle fays it is, ** beyond all 
 
 03 " con- 
 
 * See Prelim. Disc. p. 'JS. 
 
214 LETTER XVIH. 
 
 *' contradi<Sl:ion, that the lefs is blefled of the beiier .^"— 
 Why does Mr. Skinner call the relation, by Bede, of a 
 fa6t, which is not difputed, (why does he call it) " a 
 ^*' humiliating oh fey vation?^''* Mofes alfo makes ** a humi- 
 ** liating obfervation," when he tells us, tkat God created 
 man out of the dud of the earth, and that this fame lordly 
 animal, who, in fome inftances, rifes to the Epifcopate, 
 muft return to the duft again, and htfubj^Si to the jurijdic^ 
 ilcn of worms, who pay no more refpe£l to the carcafe of 
 a Bifliop, than to that of a Presbyter. I wifh that both 
 " obfervations," which, to be fure, are fujHiciently " hu- 
 «* miliating," may have a proper efFe6l:, in mortifying the 
 exceffive pride of Epifcopacy, which is always giving dif- 
 guft to fincere chriftians, by talking inceflantly about the 
 diiferent ranks and degrees, the fuperiority and inferiority 
 of the- different fervants of the lowly Jefus, the poor unin- 
 fpired fucceffors of the fifhermen of Galilee, — and can fo 
 ill bear the relation of humiliating fa£ts, that, when it dare 
 not contradict them, it attempts, by jefuitical quibbling, 
 and a fufficient number of gratuitous affumptions, to ftrip 
 them of all fenfe and meaning. To reafon, as Mr. Skiu- 
 3ier does in the cafe before us, from Bede's principles as an 
 Epifcopalian, is to acknowledge, in terms fufhciently plain, 
 that an Epifcopalian is not to be trufted as a relater of fadls, 
 if they happen to militate againft his principles ; and that if 
 he do relate a fa£l that bears hard upon the pretenfions of 
 Epifcopacy, it is, we may be fure, what he did not intend. 
 It was obliging in our modern ecclefiaftical hiftorian, to 
 give us this hint : it will prevent our giving too ready belief 
 to all his relations oj facls^ before we firft examine his au- 
 thorities. 
 
 But 
 
 * Letters on Eccl. Hist, of Scotland, v. L p. 97. 
 
IXriER XVIII. 215 
 
 But, for my part, I can fee no humilialion whatever in 
 the fubjecliou of Bifhops to a Presbyter ; for, in the fe- 
 venth century, Presbyters in Scotland made liiOiops : and 
 can it be any degradation to a cyenf\-e to be {wl);CAi to his 
 Creator ? Does not Bede exprefsly fay,* that AidanuS, who 
 was fentto England at the requeit of king Ofwald, was a 
 Presbyter Monk, whom a convtntus femorum^ (call them 
 Monks, or call them Parochial Bilhops, or Scotch High- 
 land Minifters, as you pleafe) ordained a Bithop ? What 
 can conventus feniorum mean, but a fynod of Presbyters? 
 How would you tranflate T^es-^SyTs^ex into Latin, but by fe- 
 moresy or majores natu^ botli which expreffions are ufed by 
 Bede, in fpeaking of thofe ecclefiaftics in Scotland, to whom 
 Ofwald applied for a Bifhop ? When he fpeaks of a Bifhop, 
 that is, a perfon who has the charge of a flock, he calls 
 him either Antiftesy or Epifcopus, or Poniifexy but never 
 Senior y or Major Naiu ; and a Bifliop's degree he calls Ep'is-' 
 ccpaius and PoniificatuSy but no where defignates it by a 
 word, that has any connexion with Profebyter. Is it for a 
 Senior or a Major Natu that he fays Ofwald fent to the 5^;;/'- 
 ores or Majores Natu in Scotland, that the nation which he 
 governed, might learn the chriftian faith from him, and 
 receive the facraments ? No — his requeit was, " ut fibi mit- 
 « teretur antiftes."f Was not Aidanus, before his confe- 
 cration, (if you pleafe to call it by that name) a member of 
 the conventus senioruniy [Ff ] which met to deliberate on 
 Ofwald's meflage ? Was he not a fpeaker on the occafion ? 
 If he had not been one of the seniores before his aflignation 
 to the Enghfh miflion, how could he have dared to open 
 his mouth in a conventus seniorum r Did noc his explanation 
 of the caufes, which had rendered a former mifTion unfuc- 
 cefsful, draw the eyes of the whole aflembly upon him, 
 
 o 4 and 
 
 * Lib. iii. c. 5. t Lib. iii. c. 3. [Ff] See Notes. 
 
216 LETTER XVIIl. 
 
 and imprefs them fo deeply with a convidion of his fingu- 
 lar fitnefs for the miffion, that they immediately appointed 
 him to it, and ordained him an Atitiftes ? " Quo audito," 
 fays Bede,* " omnium qui confedebant ora et oculi conver- 
 " fi diligenter quid diceret difcutiebant, et ipfum efle dig- 
 '« num epifcopatu, ipfum ad erudiendos incredulos et indoc- 
 " tos mitti debere decernunt ; qui gratia difcretionis, quae 
 ** virtutum mater eft, ante omnia probatur imbutus, fic- 
 " que ilium ordinantes ad prsedicandum miferunt." 
 
 I (hall not pretend to fay, what a writer of Bede's 
 f« principles intended" in this paffage. But, if it do not 
 mean, that the fame aflembly of presbyters, who pronoun- 
 ced Aidanus worthy of the Epifcopate and of the miffion 
 to England, ordained him alfo, Bede's five books of ec- 
 clefiaftical hiftory are of much the fame ufe to us, as a vo- 
 lume of blank paper of the fame fize would be ; with this 
 difference, that the latter could be applied to fome purpofe 
 pf utility to a man of ftudy, whereas the former would be 
 fit only for the paftry-cook. 
 
 But fuppofe our Venerable Hiftorian's relation of the 
 tranfatSlion before us to be fo loofe and inaccurate, that we 
 can coUecSl nothing from it with certainty, but that Aida- 
 nus was ordained a Biftiop previoufly to his being fent to 
 England *, ftill you muft admit, that the orders of the 
 Church of England in the feventh century were derived, 
 not from Diocefan, but from Parochial, Biftiops j Diocefes, 
 and confequently Diocefan Prelates, being utterly unknown 
 in Scotland at the time.f Wherein then, I beg leave to 
 
 ask, 
 
 * Lib. iii. 5. 
 
 f There were no dioceses in Scotland, till the time of Malcolm 
 II, about the beginning of the eleventh century, and, consequently 
 
LETTER XVIII. 21? 
 
 ask, confifts the difference between the orders, which the 
 Englifh derived from the Scottifh /mtijiites^ which were 
 fent thither by the Monaftery of Hy, and thofe orders, 
 which a clafs of Parocliial Bifhops in Scotland, efpecially in 
 the highlands, confers at the ordination of a minifler ? — 
 They were, unquellionably, Parochial Bifhops thcmfelves ; 
 arid what they had not received, they could not convey to 
 others. If there be any material difference between the or- 
 dinations of Aidanus, from the time he went to England, 
 till twelve days after the death of King Ofwald (when Ai- 
 danus died alfo) and the orders conferred by the prefent 
 eftablilhment in Scotland, it is manifeftly in favour of the 
 latter. Our ordinations are all performed by a clafs of Bi- 
 fhops, confiding of perhaps twenty or more, but never of 
 fewer than three. But who affifted Aidanus, at his firft 
 confecratiou of a Northumbrian Bilhop .»* His Presbyters ^ 
 Where could he have got other coadjutors ?* If he had 
 none other, was fuch confecratiou canonical, and a proper 
 channel for the conveyance of the apoftolical commiflion ? 
 Quite fufficient in my opinion. But you maintain the re- 
 verfe ; and your church muft take the confequenccs. 
 
 Thus we fee how untrue it is, that " every BIfhop, fincc 
 " the days of the apollles, has been ordained by two or 
 «* three" Diocefan « Bifhops.'* 
 
 LETTER 
 
 no Diocesan Bishops. This is not denied by Mr. Skinner, our ec- 
 clesiastical historian, though, as usual, he endeavours to give such 
 an explanation of it, as seems to him to suit his own purpose. Vol. I. 
 p. 212, et sequ. 
 
 * Aidanus' consecrations, with the assistance only of his Presby- 
 ters, were, insofar, as good as those of the apostles, wlio do not 
 seem to have convened the canonical number, at all their consecra- 
 tions of primitive Bishops ; and they were also on a footing with 
 those of Timothy and Titus, in Ephesus and Crete ; so that they 
 would do. 
 
( 218 ) 
 
 LETTER XIX. 
 
 EVERY Biftiop muft be ordained by impofitlon 
 of hands, without which your church ** knows no right, 
 *^ that any one can have, to be called a Prelate in the 
 " church,"* that is, I fuppofe, his ordination is null and 
 void. 
 
 This rite has the fandion of apoftoJic pra(Slice. Indeed, 
 in the very times of the apoftles, impofition of hands was a 
 periphrafis for ordination, as it appears from i Tim. v. 22. 
 But, was it uniformly pra6lifed in the earlieft ages ? And 
 has the do£Vrine, on which the canons relating to it were 
 founded, been the conjiant dodrine of the church ? There 
 is no doctrine., of which the neceffity of impofition of 
 hands at ordination is the fubje£i:, to be found in fcripture, 
 although the New Tefliament furnifhes many examples 
 of the practice. But were the apoftles ordained by im- 
 pofition of hands ? The fcveral hiftories of the ordina- 
 Uou of the twelve, which we find in the four gofpels, 
 
 give 
 
 5 Skinner's Eccl. Hist. v. L p. 414, Vindic p. 181, 182. 
 
LETTER XIX. 219 
 
 give us no account of tlie performance of this fme qud noti^ 
 though we are particularly informed, that " Barnabas and 
 " Saul were feparated for the work whereunto they werq 
 *' called, by fading and prayer, and the impofition of 
 " hands."* Was Ignatius, the 13ifliop of Antioch, ordain- 
 ed by the laying on of hands ? Dr. Wake fcems to doubt 
 of it much.f We have feen that Gregory Thaumaturgus 
 was not ordained to the charge of the feventeen by impofi- 
 tion of hands, no more than by two or three Bifhops, and 
 confequently was never ordained. Frumentius was the a- 
 poftle of the Indians ; and it was not till after he had been 
 employed in converting them, that Athanafius ordained 
 him The king of the Iberians was employed, with 
 fuccefs, in the converfion of his fubje£ls, before he was 
 fo much as baptized ; and his hiilory does not fay that 
 ever he was ordained X Olaus Frigueffon, king of Nor- 
 way, firft converted his own fubjedls, and then fitted out 
 (liips, and went on board, with a fufiicient number of lear- 
 ned men and difciplined troops, and, in the apoftolic cir- 
 cumnavigation, converted a great number of his pagan al- 
 lies and dependents, without ever thinking of being or- 
 dained by impofition of hands. || 
 
 I fhall leave It to Gregory Thaumaturgus, Frumentius, 
 his Majefly the king of the Iberians, and his Majefty Ola- 
 us Frigucflbn, king of Norway, to give their feveral an- 
 fwers, in perfon, to the following pertinent queflions, 
 when the Primate of Scotland and they fhall chance to meet. 
 " The meat, which the church is to receive from its rulers 
 
 " and 
 
 * Acts xiii. 2, 3. f Ep. ad. Edit. p. 44. 
 
 + Sec Burnett's XXXIX Articles, Art. XXIII. 
 
 II Barr)''s History of the Orkney Islands. 
 
220 LETTER XIX. 
 
 ** and ftewards, is the word of life, or the means of grace 
 ** and falvation, which are called God's myjieriesy being 
 «* that myftical provifion, which he has laid up in (lore, 
 " to be regularly dealt out for the fpiritual health and 
 «« ftrength of his faithful people. Who, then, caa have 
 <« any power to diftribute this provifion, but thofe to whom 
 « he has given authority for that purpofe ? Who can pre- 
 ** tend to meddle with the myfteries of God, or to admi- 
 <* nifter the blcffings of his holy and venerable facraments, 
 •* without a fufficient warrant for fo doing,'** that is, with- 
 out impofition of hands by two or three Bilhops. 
 
 But not only has impofition of hands been frequently 
 difpenfed with in prad^ice. The do6trine of its indifpen- 
 fable necefllty has not been the conftant doctrine of the 
 church. We learn from Fra Paolo, in his Hiftory of the 
 Council of Trent, that Gregory IX. calls impofition of 
 hands a rite " brought in," in other words, " a rite added 
 ** to thofe inflitutions, which have the fan£lion of divine 
 " prefcription :'* and he mentions, that the famous ca- 
 nonifts, Hortienfis, Joannes Andreas, Abbas, and others, 
 affirm that the Pope may ordain a Prieft with thefe words, 
 *< Be thou a Prieft." He quotes alfo Innocent IV. the Fa- 
 ther of the canon law, and the beft civilian of his age, as 
 teaching, that, if the forms had not been invented, it had 
 been fufficient if the ordainer had faid, " Be thou a Prieft," 
 or fome other words of the " like import.'* Fra Paolo 
 oppofes this do£trine, and I do not defend it. But it was 
 at one period, the dodlrine of the moft learned canonifts. 
 And that the pra^ice of the Weftern Church was fuitable 
 to it, while it was in vogue, is as probable, as that it was 
 
 a£led 
 
 * Vind. p. 100, 101. 
 
LETTER XiX. 221 
 
 a£lcd upon, In the middle of the third century, by fuch 
 ecclefiaftlcs as Phedimus, and Gregory of Neocefarea. 
 
 Hence, if impofition of hands be fo eflential to the va- 
 lidity of ordination, that, " in ftrifl: propriety of fpeech,'' 
 the luminaries of your church " know no right that any 
 <« one can have to be called a Prelate of the church without 
 " it," I am afraid your fucceffion has fufFered many 
 breaches, not one of which can be repaired till the refur- 
 redion. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 222 ) 
 
 LETTER XX. 
 
 I MENTIONED that Eplfcopal Baptifm is a ne- 
 ceflary requifite to ordination. Without it, a man is not 
 in your account, a chriftian, and, therefore, while he re- 
 mains unbaptized, cannot be made a chriftian Bilhop. 
 
 I (hall have occafion afterwards, to mention, by name, 
 fome of your fpiritual progenitors, who never received the 
 facrament of baptifm, from " men who had a right to meddle 
 *« with the myfteries of God, and were warranted to admi- 
 «« nifter the blcfTings of his holy and venerable facraments." 
 It is more than probable, however, that long before thefe 
 times, your fucceflion had fufFered interruption from the 
 invalid baptifm of many of your " authors and prede- 
 <* celTors.'* Wc do not certainly know, that any of the 
 twelve apoftles, who were firft called, were ever baptized. 
 But we certainly know, that Saul of Tarfus received no- 
 thing but lay-baptifm -, for, if we may give more credit to 
 the facred hiftorian, than to the advocates of the hierarchy 
 (which I think not very unreafonable) Ananias was neither 
 Prelate, nor Presbyter authorized by a Prelate, but " a 
 *• certain difciple" of that name. If you fay that the au- 
 thority of the Spirit, under which Ananias acled, when 
 he baptized Paul, was fully equal to Epifcopal authority, 
 
 if 
 
LETTER XX. 223 
 
 if not higher, I agree with you. But still it was not Epif- 
 copal authority ; for the man was not in orders. [Gg] 
 Hence, if you derive your apoftolic authority from Paul, 
 through Linus, or Clemens, which is not the mod impro- 
 bable of all fuppofitions *, your orders are, upon your own 
 principles, uncanonical in their very fountain : for Paul 
 was never baptized •, therefore he was no High Church- 
 man, and confequently, as we have it from very high au- 
 thority,* ** no churchman at all." Befides, the Church 
 of Rome, and the Church of England too, have been long 
 in the pra£l:ice of fuftaining, in certain cafes, the validity 
 of baptifm by midwives. Have midwives authority to ad- 
 minifter the facraments of Chrift .'' TertuUian fays,f that 
 anybody may baptize, when a clergyman is not at hand. 
 But I beg your pardon^ TertuUian was a paradoxical Fa- 
 iher^ unlefs where his principles agree with thofc of High 
 Church. Yet your mother Church of England is fully as pa- 
 radoxical in fultaining the validity of baptifm by midwives. 
 What fay you to this ? Is the C hurch of England in the 
 right } Unlefs you have facrificed fome of your diftinguifh- 
 ing principles to the treaty of friendfhip, into which you 
 have lately entered with that church, you muft maintain, 
 that baptifm by midwives, or any of the laity, male or fe- 
 male, is not vaitdy and that it leaves the perfon, to whom it 
 is adminiftered, as much a Jew or a Pagan, as it finds him. 
 Can you then prove, that none of your ecclefiaftical ancef- 
 4ors were introduced, firft into the world, and then into the 
 kingdom of heaven, by female profeflbrs of the obftetric 
 art ? There is only one way of proving this, which you 
 have, as yet, obflinately declined ; I mean, the production 
 of baptifmal regifters, of indifputable authenticity, from 
 the apoftolic age down to the prefent times. 
 
 LETTER 
 
 [Gg] See Notes. * Dr. llorsley. t De Baptism. 
 
( 224. ) 
 
 LETTER XXI, 
 
 BESIDES the radical defe£t of uncanonical bap- 
 tlfm, there may be other incapacities or difqualifications in 
 the perfon ordained, which render his orders invalid. He 
 may not, for example, be of the canonical age ; in which 
 cafe, if the canons be founded in fcripture, or the princi- 
 ples of reafon and common fenfe, he is unfit to continue 
 the fucceffion. 
 
 How old was Hugh, the fon of Count Herbert, when 
 his father procured his exaltation to the archiepifcopal See 
 of Rheims ? Juft five years of age *,* and yet his election 
 was confirmed by the infallible Pope John X. If Hugh was 
 an apoftolic Bifhop, I fuppofe no body will difpute the le- 
 gality and propriety of Caligula's appointment of his favou- 
 rite horfe to the Confulftiip at Rome. Whether the vene- 
 rable Archbifhop Hugh was ordained, and began to per- 
 form his archiepifcopal functions, " or adminifter the blef- 
 <* fings of the holy and venerable facraments,*' before his 
 Grace was thought by Madame la Comtejfe, his mamma, to 
 
 be 
 
 * Hodoardi Hist. Rem, Lib. iv. c. 20. 
 
LETTER XXL 'J25 
 
 be quite fit for quitting the nurfery •, or whether the Pope, 
 de plenitudine potejlaiisy permitted his Grace to enjoy the re- 
 venues of his See /// the nurfery, and allowed another, 
 fuch as the Arch-prieit of the church of Rheims, to per- 
 form the funftions, in quality of his Grace's Lieutenant ; 
 and among other things, to ordain, I will not pofitively 
 fay, only, to ufc Mr. Skinner's language on alike occa- 
 fion, " I have feen no account of his ordination by impo- 
 " fition of hands," till after he was firft expelled from his 
 See, and then reflored in his eighteenth year, which, from 
 every account that I have heard, is rather below the canoni- 
 cal age. 
 
 John XL the baftard of a former Pope, was placed in 
 the chair of St. Peter, before he was twenty years of age. 
 Beiiedi£l IX. was made Pope at the age of eleven^ accord- 
 ing to fome, 2ir\d oi eighteen, according toothers. This is 
 the holy Father^ whom Vidlor UL one of his fucceflbrs, 
 flyles the fucccflbr of Simon the Sorcerer, not of Simon 
 the apoftle :* and, if it had been agreeable to him, he 
 might have faid the fame thing of the very next Vicar of 
 Jcfus Chrift, Gregory VL who bought the Popedom from 
 Benedift, the illuftrious fucceflbr of the magician. 
 
 It were endlefs to mention, by name, all the (Iriplings, 
 the adolescentuliy as Baronius indignantly calls" them, who 
 were, at different periods of the Romilh hierarchy, and in 
 all the weftern nations of Europe, thruft into the highed 
 feats in the church. I cannot, however, pafs over two 
 inflances, which occurred in our own country, and fo 
 lately as the beginning of the fixtccnth century. The Duke 
 of Rofs, a younger brother of Knig James IV, ivA Alex- 
 
 ant! cr 
 
 Decider. Dialog. Lib. h'., 
 
226 LETTER XXL 
 
 andcr Stuart, James' natural fon, were fucceilively nomi- 
 nated to the Archbifhopric of St Andrews, the former be- 
 fore he was twenty, the latter when he was fourteen years 
 of age.* Mr Skinner obferves,f that <* it would have been 
 " better to have left the See vacant, all the time that thofe 
 " youths enjoyed it, than for the Pope to give his appro- 
 ** bation to two appointments, which have the fan6lion of 
 " no old canon, and of no laudable precedent." Very 
 right, Mr. Skinner. But, unfortunately for the canonical 
 derivation of the orders of your church from the apoftles, 
 the Popes did many things not in the lead degree more re- 
 gular. 
 
 * I do not know the character of the Duke of Ross. But, if we 
 may give credit to Erasmus, in Adagio, Spartam nactus es, htinc or- 
 na, Alexander was superior, in every thing but years, to the greater 
 number of the Prelates of that age. 
 
 t Lett. Eccles. Hist. vol. I. p. 414. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 227 ) 
 
 LETTER XXII. 
 
 ONE may be incapacitated by one's fex, as well 
 as by one's age, for ordination to a Bifliopric ; and it is not 
 beyond the bounds of rational belief, that you have fome 
 female " authors and predeceflbrs" between you and the 
 ipoftles. 
 
 It is a canon of the New Teflament,* that women fhall 
 not be ordained ecclefiaftics of fuch an order, as entitles 
 them to fpeak in the churches. Yet there are at lead fifty- 
 Latin authors, including Platina, and fome Greeks, who 
 relate, that a Lady, moft of them fay of Englifh extraction, 
 of the name of Jollana, or Joan, did flip, fomehow, into 
 the chair of St. Peter, and occupied it till fhe was brought 
 to bed. What efFecl this remarkable event had, during 
 the two years, five months, and four days, that Joan filled 
 tlie Papal See, on the Jlream of fucccfflofiy in fo far as the 
 
 p i va- 
 
 ^- 1 Cor. xiv. 34. This, by ilie bye, shews that Deacons were never 
 intended by the apostles to be preachers. — If they had, Deaconessn 
 would not have been prohibited, as they are in this passage, to 
 
228 LETTER XXir. 
 
 validity of your orders is concerned, I do not know, and I 
 prefume, you are alike ignorant. For ought any. body, 
 now alive, can tell, the crofier may have defcended to our 
 Scottifh Primus, from a hand, which nature and the New 
 Teftament appointed to hold no ftafF but the diftaff. 
 
 I am pcrfedly aware of the h£k (that Joan fucceeded 
 St. Peter) being difputed. It would be ftrange if it were 
 not, in the Church of Rome, which conceals, or denies, or 
 expunges from all records under her controul, what ftie 
 does not choofe to acknowledge. I am aware, alfo, that 
 fome Proteftants have fubmitted to the labour of invcftigat- 
 ing the evidence, on which the truth of this curious faft 
 reds, and have exprefled themfelves diflatisfied with it. — 
 Yet Fra Paolo, one of the mofl: learned and intelligent Ro- 
 man Catholic writers of his own or any other age, acknow- 
 ledges,* that it has never been difproved, and fays, that 
 though he is difpofed to believe it falfe, it is not on account 
 of its abfurdity, that age (the middle of the ninth century) 
 producing things as extraordinary as a lady being Pope.— 
 That the thing was poflibk at that time, no body pretends 
 to deny. Nay, it is believed to be not altogether unparal- 
 leled. It is faid, and generally credited, that there was 
 once a woman in pofleffion of the patriarchal See of Con- 
 flantinople. T\\t pcfflbilky of this fa6l, Leo IX. in an epif- 
 tle -j- to Michael of Conftantinople, though in civility to the 
 patriarch, he affects to disbelieve the facl itfelf, imputes to 
 the practice long in ufe at New Rome (a practice fane- 
 tioned by the apoftolical canons:]:) of promoting eunuchs to 
 the patriarchal See. — And if the ftory of the Popefs be not 
 true, why have all fucceeding Popes, in their folemn pro- 
 ceffion to the Church of Lateran, carefully avoided the 
 
 ftreet 
 * Letter quoted. Note Eccles, Bon. c. 19. 
 t Ep. I. % Canon XXI. 
 
LETTER XXII. 229 
 
 ftreet between Nero's CoIofTus and St Clement's, where her 
 Holinefs is faid to have died in childbirth ? and what is the 
 meaning of that part of the ceremony at the Pope's inRal- 
 lation, on performing which, the youngeft Deacon cries 
 aloud, Mas nobis dotjunus ejl ? It is aflerted, and fo far as I 
 can learn, it is not denied, that a marble ftatue, reprefent- 
 ing a woman and a child, was]|ere£led near the place where 
 Joan died, in deteflation, it isYaid, of a faQ fo monRrous, 
 as that of a Pope bearing a baflard child in the ftreet. That 
 there was a ftatue of Joan, in the cathedral of Sienna, with 
 this infcription, " Joan VIII. an Englifh woman," which, 
 at the requefl of Cardinal Tarugi, who applied to the Grand 
 Duke, was altered, to fuit the feature? of Pope Zachary, 
 feems to be proved by Page,* who gives an amufing ac- 
 count of the profound fecrefy, by which all his enquiries, 
 about the Popefs' ftatue, were refifted in 1677, by all the 
 ecclefiaftics at Sienna, excepting one old prebendary. That 
 the writers, who were contemporary with Joan, do not, in 
 the editions of their works which nve have, mention her. 
 pontificate, does not difprove the fa£l. There was a fta- 
 tue of a woman and child, to be feen in the place where 
 Joan was faid to die in child birth, fo lately as 14 13. At 
 any rate, the ftory of the flie Pope is of PopiJJj origin, not 
 of Protejlant manufa£lure ; and no account lias yet been 
 given of its origin, that can be called, in any mcafure, ra- 
 tional, but on the fuppofition that is true. That it was pof- 
 fible, as I obferved before, no perfon can deny. And if 
 the impofition of Joan was quite practicable, who would 
 rifque any thing the moft trifling, not to fpeak of the falva- 
 lion of his foul, on what Mr. Law and you would call the 
 moral iwpojffibility of — women <^ profaning," at one time or 
 other, during the lapfe of fifteen centuries, all the Epifco- 
 pal thrones in the Weft of Europe .? 
 
 p 3 LETTER 
 
 * Ad Ann. 9"^:^. 
 
, ( 230 ) 
 
 LETTER XXI] I. 
 
 EVERY perfon, who is acquainted with the 
 hiftory of the church, knows that feveral iPopes, and other 
 Bifhops, were ftrongly fufpeded of disbelieving the chrif- 
 tian religion, and even of atheifm. Indeed the flagitious 
 lives of many of them afford the ftrongeft grounds of fuf- 
 picion. But we have fomcthing more than fufpicion to 
 build on. Picus of Mirandula * fpeaks of a Pope, who was 
 ordained, and received as a true Pope, and yet confefled to 
 fome of his domeftics (fo honourable did he think atheifm 
 to his chara£ter !) while he was in the papal chair, that he 
 believed in no God. The fame writer fpeaks of another 
 Pope, who owned, to an intimate friend, that he did not 
 believe the foul of man to be immortal. Can wc have any 
 doubt, that when atheifm and infidelity occupied the chair 
 of St. Peter, foundnefs of faith would not be the very high- 
 eft recommendation that candidatesfor bifhoprics could car- 
 ry with them to Rome in queft of preferment ? When the 
 church was fo grofsly corrupt, that an atheift was placed at 
 the head of it, what opinion have we ground to entertain 
 
 of 
 
 * Theor. 4. 
 
LETTER XXIlf. 03 1 
 
 of the religious princlplt^s of Cardinals, Archbifhops, Bi- 
 (hops ? In the luxurious court of Leo X. who, as well as 
 fome other holy Fathers, is charged with (hocking impiety, 
 and even atheifm, and who threatened with excommunica- 
 tion all who fhould find fault with Ariofto's Orlando Furio- 
 fo, and delighted in the company of none fo much, as that of 
 poets who lived by their wits, of mimics, and of buffoons, 
 (in the luxurious diflipated court of fuch a fpiritual prince) 
 what refpe6t and veneration were likely to be paid to the 
 religion of the lowly Galilean ? Can we be accufed of un- 
 charitablenefs, if we are not very backward to believe, that 
 Leo was in reality, the author of the famous refle£lion, 
 attributed to him, about the profdahlenefs of the jahle of 
 Chrift, and that he well knew, that it would be relifhed by 
 the hearers ? 
 
 An author,* to whom I have had occafion repeatedly to 
 refer, thinks, that Chrifl's commiflion to his apoftles may 
 be bought and fold without injury to its validity. But will 
 any of that author's difciples and admirers deny, that in- 
 fidelity is a difqualification, that abfolutely bars the pofli- 
 bility of ordaining a perfon a chriftian Bifhop ? To be furc, 
 an infidel may become a chriftian, as you obferve, in a paf- 
 fage to be taken notice of afterwards. But while he re- 
 mains an infidel, you will find it as impoflible to make him 
 a chriftian Bilhop, by any manual operation, or any litur- 
 gical forms, as to convert a wolf into a (heep by the fame 
 means. Do, tell me in fobcr ferioufnefs, what you think 
 of an infallible atheift ? Of a man who was the fole judge 
 of all chriftian truth, and yet believed none of the truths of 
 Chriftianity, not even the exiftence of God .' Did ordina- 
 
 p 4 ^tioii 
 
 * Rebuffer Rebuffed. 
 
232 LETTER XXIII. 
 
 tionmake this man a chriftlan Blfhop, and a true fucceffor 
 of St. Peter ? When reafon and common fenfe fhall be ut- 
 terly extinguiflied among men, probably they may believe 
 that an arheift or a deift, fo foon as it is faid to him, amid 
 pra^^ers and impofition of hands, " Receive thou the Holy 
 ** Ghoft,'' becomes a chriftian Bifhop, — and that, though 
 he does not believe that ever Chrift gave a commiffion to 
 his apoftles, he is yet an unexceptionable depofitary of that 
 commiffion, and can tranfmit it to others ! 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 233 ) 
 
 LETTER XXIV. 
 
 A CANDIDATE for a Bifhoprlc may be difquali- 
 fiecl for confecration by his fituation in fociety ; and in 
 cafe of fuch difqualification, impofition of hands by two or 
 three Bifhops does not make him the depofitary of the a- 
 poftolic commiflion. A layman, for inftance, cannot, 
 without violation of the canons, be ordained a Bifliop, 
 without firft going through the inferior ecclefiaftical de- 
 grees. Yet, of the enormous irregularity of raifing lay- 
 men, perfaltum, as it was exprefled in ancient times, to the 
 Epifcopate, a multitude of indances occur in the hiftory of 
 the church. 
 
 When Conftantlne, the Antlpope, was compelled to 
 yield the apoftoljc chair to Stephen III. in 768, and was 
 dragged before a Council in the Lateran, (his eyes having 
 been mercifully torn out, that he might be exempted from 
 the pain of feeing his'fuccefsful competitor) he was fternly 
 asked, why he, a layman, had dared, in defiance of the 
 laws of the churchy to accept ordination as a Bifliop. Con- 
 ftantine anfwcred, that of fuch ordinations there were ma- 
 ny 
 
234 LETTER XXIV. 
 
 ny examples in the church ; of which he mentioned, par- 
 ticularly, till- caies of Sergius of Ravenna, and Stephen of 
 Naples, who of laymen were ordained metropolitans in^the 
 late pontificate. If pain and fear had not confounded his 
 recolle£i:ion, he might have mentioned many more inftan- 
 ces of the fame grofs irregularity, and produced a multi- 
 plicity of examples of men, who were confecrated high 
 Prieils without being Priefts. He might have named Cy- 
 prian, f» the apoftle of High Church,'' who, according to 
 Pontius his biographer, was only what was called a Neo- 
 phyte, or one newly converted and baptized, when he was 
 eleded and ordained Bifhop of Carthage ; and Ne£l:arius, 
 whom the fecond general council appointed to fucceed Gre- 
 gory Nazianzen, in the See of Conftantinople •* and Phi- 
 logonius, who was, without ceremony, taken from the 
 bench, on which he fat as a lay-judge, and placed on the 
 Epifcopal throne of Antioch ;f nay, and as great a faint as 
 any of them, Ambrofe of Milan, who was ele£led Bifhop 
 before he was baptized, and ordained a few days after.J — 
 No perfon who is converfant with ecclefiaftical hiftory, 
 needs to be informed, that, after the time of Conflantine 
 (the Antipope) fuch tranfgrelTions of the canons occurred 
 frequently. Some of them were fhockingly flagrant. — 
 Princes conferred benefices on the rude and barbarous fol- 
 diers, who had ferved them bravely in war,|| thus bringing 
 back beneficia to their original deftination ; and it is well 
 known, that Popes raifed fome of their menial fcrvants, 
 and fome whom they favoured for reafons the most infa- 
 mous and fhocking, [Hh] to high dignities in the church, 
 
 by 
 
 * Socrates. f Chrysost. Horn. 31. dePhilog. 
 
 + Paulin. Vit. Ambrose. |1 Fr. Paolo. Eccl. Ben. c. 19. 
 
 [Hh] See Notes. 
 
LETTER XXIV. 235 
 
 by their mcrejfiaL Thofe fpiritual monarchs could do any 
 thing that human power can cfFecl ; and they did whatever 
 they pleafed, without regard to " old canons, or laudable 
 ** precedents," to religion, or to common decency. 
 
 Nor are there wanting inftances of Popes themfelves, 
 the vifible heads of the church, and the great difpenfers, 
 for ages, of ecclefiaftical authority in the weft of Europe, 
 having been raifed to the chair of St. Peter, without having 
 been previoufly in orders, and becoming the great High 
 Priefts of the chriftian world, without having been either 
 Priefts or Deacons. Thus did John XIX. for example, 
 climb into the (heepfold by the help of a little money — be- 
 ing neither Prieft nor Deacon, but a very unworthy lay- 
 man, when he procured his eledtion. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 236 ) 
 
 LETTER XXV 
 
 A Bishop's eleHlon or nofnination mufl: be canoni- 
 cal, 'otherwife, I apprehend, his ordination Is null and 
 void ; he acquires no Epifcopal authority, and therefore 
 can tranfmit none to others. 
 
 Writers of High Church are very careful, in feafon and 
 out of feafon, to put us in mind of the apoftolic declara- 
 tion,* " No man taketh this honour unto himfelf, but he 
 <* that is called of God, as was Aaron : fo alfo Chrifl glo- 
 •* rified not himfelf to be made an HighPrieft, but he that 
 " fald unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have 1 be- 
 " gotten thee." 
 
 From this declaration, I muft beg leave to draw an infer- 
 ence, which, fo far as I have had occafion to obferve. 
 High Churchmen do not think themfelves concerned to 
 draw ; I mean, that he who feizes an Epifcopal throne, 
 
 that 
 
 ^ Heb. V. 4. 5. 
 
LETTER XXV. 257 
 
 that is, the Chridlan « High Priefthood," by force, or 
 acquires pofTefTion of it by bribery, intrigue, or by any other 
 means that are different from the means by which Aaron 
 and his divine Anti-type acquired pofleflTion of their High 
 Priefthood, is not a Bi(hop ; and that therefore, the fuc- 
 ceflion ftops at him. Would you dare to fay, that John 
 XIX. for example, or Benedict IX. or Gregory VI. were 
 called of God as was Aaron ? Or that the perfon who pro- 
 cures the Epifcopate by the intrigues of worthlefs men, or 
 of infamous proftitutes, or forces his way into one of the 
 feats of the apoftles (as you call Epifcopal thrones) by vi- 
 olence and outrage, blood and maflacre, is called of God ? 
 When the apoftle fays, that " Aaron was called of God," 
 is nothing more meant, than that Mofes confecrated him ^ 
 Did not God, by an exprefs flatute, appoint him and his 
 pofterity to be the High Pricfts of his chofen people unto 
 all generations .'' And did not this appointment, of courfe, 
 precede the confecration of Aaron ? Could any confecration 
 even by Mofes himfelf, after the ftatute juft now alluded 
 to, was promulged, have made a perfon who was not of 
 the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron, the legitimate 
 High Prieft of the Jews } Suppofe an intriguing politician 
 of the tribe of Reuben had looked to the High Priefthood 
 with defire, and had, either by corruption, or by raifirtf 
 an infurredlion, as Corah did, brought about his confecra- 
 tion to that high office \ I ask you, whether this would not 
 have broke the fuccelfion, as Mr. Law exprefTes it in his 
 pure Engl'ijh? You will not, I prefume, anfwer in the ne- 
 gative : for you cannot maintain, that this Reubenite High 
 Prieft did not « take the honour to himfelf, but was called 
 " of God as was Aaron," becaufe, in reality, he took it 
 unto himfelf, not merely iviihout a call, but in dired vio- 
 lation of a divine ftatute. This, in my opinion, would 
 Jiave been fully worfe, (if worfe could be) than if I were 
 
 for- 
 
238 LETTER XXV. 
 
 forcibly to take pofleflion of St. Andrew's Chapel and the 
 Primacy ; which, left I fhould come ofF like Corah and his 
 company, I wifh it to be underftood, I never mean to do. 
 
 It is the call, then, and not confecration, that conftitutes 
 a perfon either a legal High Prieft, or a true and rightful 
 Bifliop. And this has been the dodlrine of the chriftian 
 church, both in the beft and in the worft times. I do not 
 know whether in your church, every Bifliop's call is ftri6l- 
 ly canonical or not, becaufe, for ought I know, the canons 
 of the Scotch Epifcopal Church may appoint a Prelate to be 
 called by the clergy and people of a diocefe, who know no- 
 thing about him, and among whom it is not neceflary that 
 he (hould have his Epifcopal refidence. But this I know, 
 that, in ancient times, a regular call, by the clergy and 
 people of a church, was accounted effential to the validity 
 of confecration. About the middle of the fifth century, 
 Leo L Bifliop of Rome, in his XIL Letter to Anaftafius, 
 Biftiop of Theflalonica, infifts, that, where the election, 
 or call, was irregular, the confequent ordination was inva- 
 lid, that is, no ordination at all. In the time of Gregory 
 the Great, about the end of the fixth century, the do£lrine 
 of the church was the fame. For, when the clergy of the 
 church of Milan, in the abfence of the greater number of 
 the people, who had fled to Genoa to avoid the ravages of 
 the Lombards, made choice of Conftantius to be their Bi- 
 fliop, Gregory infifted, that Conftantius could not be con- 
 fecrated, without the confent and approbation of the peo- 
 ple, and that a mefiage fliould be fent to them at Genoa, 
 that their pleafure might be known.* In the beginning of 
 the eleventh century, we find a Pope, Leo IX. who had 
 been eleded by an aflembly of German Lords and Bifliops 
 
 at 
 
 ' * F. Paolo, Eccl Ben. Note c. vri. 
 
LETTER XXV. 239 
 
 at Worms, to whom the eleaion had been referred by the 
 Emperor, accepting the dignity, on condition only, that 
 the Roman people and clergy approved and confirmed his 
 eleaion : li] which (hews pretty clearly, that he confider- 
 ed ordination to be void, when it was not preceded by ca- 
 nonical eledion. That this was the doftrine of the church 
 of Rome, after the middle of the eleventli century, we 
 have undoubted evidence: for, in 1059, Nicolas II, and 
 the Lateran Council, which condemned the doctrine of Be- 
 rengarius refpeding the eucharift, decreed, that if the Bi- 
 fhop ele6i of Rome fliould be prevented from being confe- 
 crated and inthroned, by war or other cafualty, he might, 
 neverthelefs, exercife his authority as true and lawful Pope, 
 in governing his church, and difpofing of the goods of his 
 fee. [Jj]— If the XXIII. Article of the Church of England 
 have any meaning, and be not, as Dr. Campbell fufpecSts it 
 to be, " an identical propofition," it appears to me to a- 
 grec with the canon juft now referred to : " And thofe we 
 " ought to judge lawfully called and fent, which be chofen 
 " and called to this work by men, who have public autho- 
 " rity given unto them in the congregation, to call and 
 " fend minifters into the Lord's vineyard." Does not this 
 mean, that a lawful election and call conftitute lawful apof- 
 tlelhip, and that ordination adds nothing to the right of the 
 elect to exercife the functions of the facred miniitry, being 
 merely a_/orwfl/ introdu6tion to his office, and the folemu 
 dedication of the man, by prayer, and the impofition oi 
 hands, to the fervice of Chrift in the gofpel ? But be the 
 import of ordination what it will, laivful election mufl, in 
 the eye of fcripturc, ai.d of the church, I may fay, at all 
 times, precede it, othcrwife the ordained " takes this ho- 
 
 *' nom 
 
 pi] Wibert in Vit. S. Lc-or, Lib. ii. c. 2.— See Noles. 
 [Jj] Can. In iicinine Domini. — Sec Nolcs. 
 
240 LETTER XXV, 
 
 " nour to himfelf," or rather attempts to take it, « without 
 *< being called of God, as was Aaron j" and it would necef- 
 farily follow, that a fhepherd may <' climb up into the ftieep- 
 " fold" any way that he finds convenient for himfelf, with- 
 out being "a thief and a robber." 
 
 Now, without intending to reprobate any mode of elec- 
 tion to the facred miniftry, which has ever been pra6tifed 
 in any part of the chriftian church, I would ask the Vindi- 
 cator oi Primitive Order, what that mode is, which we may, 
 on his principles^ mod confidently pronounce to be lawful, 
 becaufe it is apoftoli'cal, and therefore divine ? Is it a con- 
 ge d'elire from a lay-fovereign, addrefied to the Dean and 
 Chapter of a cathedral church ? This was, for a very obvi- 
 ous reafon, utterly unknown in apoftolic times ; and it wtis 
 unknown for many centuries after. Is it nomination and 
 collation by the Bifhop of Rome, or the election of that Bi- 
 Ihop himfelf by the Conclave ? I do not find that Jefus 
 Chrift and his apoftlcs veiled in the Bifhop of Rome the 
 right of nominating all the clergy in the Weft of Europe, 
 although Gregory VII. claimed that right, and made his 
 claim good, about ten centuries and i half after our Lord 
 and his apoftles quitted the world, without fpeaking of 
 all the privileges, which the Popes have claimed. And as 
 for the conclave, which now eleds the head of that church, 
 through which you derive your orders from the apollles, it 
 is not older than 1274, nor more primitive than the other 
 inftitutions of the Council of Lyont, at which Gregory X. 
 contrived to get it inftituted, in fpite of all the Cardinals 
 prefent, who oppofed it all to a man. Is the ele£lion of a 
 Bifhop by the fufFrages of the clergy and people of a parti- 
 cular church, which cannot be followed by ordination, till 
 it be confirmed by the fecular power, a lawful call ? For this 
 alfo, which is, to be fure, very ancient, there is no prece- 
 dent 
 
LETTER XXV. 241 
 
 dent in apoftolic times. In how many ways can a Bifhop 
 be ele£led, (o that he can be faid to be called of God, as 
 were Aaron, the firft High Pried of the Jews, and Jefus 
 Chrift, the High Prielt of our profeOion ? I know of only 
 two; — I. When, as in the cafes of Aaron, and our Lord, 
 he is particularly nominated by a voice from heaven ; — and 
 Secondly, when, as in the cafe of the olHcers of the primi- 
 tive church, he is called by a mode of eleftlon, which had 
 the fandlion of the authority of the infpired mini Hers of 
 our Lord. Now, what was the mode of election in their 
 day, which was pra^tifed with their approbation ; nay, 
 which they themfelves adually pradifed ? Look into the 
 New Teftament. Look into the hiftory of the primitive 
 church for the firfl five centuries. Nay, obferve the mode 
 of cleding the Bifliops of Rome from the beginning, till 
 election by the Cardinals was eftablifhed, during all which 
 time the primitive mode of filling the chair of St. Peter 
 was, in point of form at leaft, adhered to. " It is cer- 
 <* tain,'' fays Fra Paolo (and who will dare to contradi6l 
 it.**) " that, at firft, all the faithful, in every chriftian 
 ** church, had a fliare in the election of the minifters of re- 
 " ligion.'' Barfabas and Matthias were named by the whole 
 church at Jerufalem, for the fucceffion to Judas, and the 
 choice between the two referred to Chrift himfelf, by caft- 
 ing of lots, and by prayer,* The feven deacons were elec- 
 ted by the whole multitude of the difciples.f Can you 
 produce an inftance, recorded in ecclefiaftical hiftory, of 
 the departure of any confiderable church from this apofto- 
 lic plan of eleclion, till princes were obliged to interfere 
 in the nomination of Biftiops, in defence of the peace of the 
 ftate, and of the honour of religion ? If the apoftolic con- 
 ftltutions may be confidcrcd to be of any weight on this 
 
 Q. fub- 
 
 * Acts i. 15. et seau. f Ul. c. vi. 
 
1^42, LETTER XXV. 
 
 fubje£^, (and I can fee no reafon to obje£l to the account 
 they give of the ecclefiaftical order, which prevailed at the 
 time they were written) they confirm the teilimony of hif- 
 tory, to which I have appealed ; for they appoint, that the 
 Bifliop to be ordained be firft chofen by the whole people, 
 vTTo TTxvro? Tit A«K ix.MXiyi^iv6v.^ And what fays Cyprian's fix- 
 ty-feventh Epiftle, to mention none other of his Letters,, 
 concerning the rights of the people in the nomination of 
 their pallors, by, what he calls elfewhere, very much, I 
 fuppofe to the difpleafure of the Anti-jacobin,f the people's 
 d'lvina fuffragia ? What are we to infer from the tumults 
 and maflacres that took place at the ele£lion of Damafus ? 
 I hope It is not, that the clergy and people of Rome had 
 no vote in the election of their Bifhop ! What do you fay of 
 the XIL Letter of Leo the Firft, to which I have already 
 referred ; and of the injun6lion which Gregory L fent to 
 the clergy of Milan, refpe£i:ing the nullity of Conftantius' 
 elcclion, unlefs the confent and approbation of the people 
 were obtained prevloufly to his ordination ? In truth, what 
 you and your controverfial allies, are pleafed to mention 
 farcaftically, under the invidious name of democratic influence 
 in the church, is no other than the influence, which the 
 infpired apoftles of Chrill eftablifhed in his church, and 
 what, after /^^/V day, multitudes of ecclefiaftics, of whom 
 the world vi- as not worthy, would have died, rather than 
 attempt to tear from the people. Do -jou fneer at any part 
 of that plan of polity, to which the firft minifters of Chrift 
 gave the fan<£lion of their high authority •, — Tou — the head 
 of an inconfiderable faction in the nineteenth century — and 
 yet erect your creft, and fay, " / am the Vindicator of 
 
 i< Pri- 
 
 * Lib. viii. § 66. 
 
 -f The Anti-jacobin will not suffer the j3eop/e, in ancient times, t* 
 have had concern in ecclesiastical transactions, but as spectators. 
 
LETTER XXV. 24.3 
 
 " Primitive Truth'and Order, from modern mifreprefenta- 
 <* tion." Are not You the author of modern mifreprefenta- 
 tlon oi primitive order, in the very face of the New Tefta-- 
 nient, and of the other aufhentlc documents of antiquity >. 
 Muft we diftruft the report of our fenfcs, and conclude, 
 that we do not comprehend a plain narrative of plain fafls, 
 whenever you and the Ami- jacobin choofe to raife the 
 fcnfelefs cry, « Behold ! how thefe men, in the bofom of 
 " the eftablifhment, fupport and recommend the Indepen- 
 « dent fcheme ?" Becaufe the polity of the Independents is, 
 or nppars to be, democratical, does it follow, that, in pri- 
 mitive times, the people had no influence in the govern- 
 ment of the church, and particularly, in the election of 
 their miniders ? Is the adoption of any principle or tenet 
 by the Independents, a fulhcient reafon for our rejecting 
 it ? and mud we fufier nothing to have the fandion of a- 
 poflolic practice, which they do ? The Independents pro - 
 fefs to believe in God, and in Jefus Chrift ; and they have 
 not expunged the eighth commandment from the decalogue. 
 Muft we turn atheifts, or deifts, or thieves and robbers, 
 in order to efcape the opprobrium of being called Indepen- 
 dents in dlfguife, by the candid and intelligent advocates of 
 the principles and pretenfions of High Church ? 
 
 We have feen what was the pradice of primitive times 
 in eleding the minifters of religion. The pradice of Lt- 
 ter times has been very different. Is it the more canonical 
 for that reafon ? Is your claim to be accounted a lineal fuc- 
 ceflbr of the apoftles the more admiflible, becaufe many of 
 your " authors and predeceflbrs" were " called and f nt 
 " into the Lord's vineyard,'' neither as Jefus Chrift and his 
 apollles, nor as the pallors of the primitive church, were 
 *' called and fent," but elected by emperors and kings, 
 counts, marquifles, and popes, fometimes with the confent 
 
 0^2 and 
 
244 LETTER XXV: 
 
 and approbation of the people, but oftener without it ? You 
 have, on the principles inculcated in your Vindication^ pret- 
 ty much the fame right to contend, that you were " called 
 " of God" to the Epifcopate, that the prefent Emperor o£ 
 France and King of Italy has to maintain, that he was 
 <* called of God" to the head of thofe great empires. He 
 is at the head of them, in the courfe of Providence j and 
 you are, in the courfe of Providence, at the head of the 
 Scotch Epifcopal Church ; and you have, both, the very 
 fame proofs of a divine million to produce. \i you were 
 confecrated by two or three Bifhops, Napoleon was anoint- 
 ed and crowned by the Pope of Rome — the Bifliop of all 
 Bifliops, the impofition of whofe hands is, at leafly worth 
 that of a hundred humble diocefans. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 245 ) 
 
 LETTER XXVI 
 
 THE firft interruption, fo tar as election is con- 
 cerned, that the Epifcopal SuccelFion met with, was occa- 
 fioned by the interpofition of the fecular power in the elec- 
 tion of minifters of the gofpel. 
 
 When the real meaning of Nolo Epifcopari came, in pro- 
 cefs of time, to be " Make me a Bifhop," princes found it 
 neceflary, for the peace of the church and ftate, to inter- 
 fere in the election of Prelates, and to prohibit their ordi- 
 nation, without the confent nnd approbation of the fove- 
 reign, or his civil reprefentative. This was no ufurpation ; 
 for princes were earneftly called upon, by pious men, to 
 interpofe, as the perfons under whofe protection God had 
 placed the interefts of religion : and, indeed, their interpo- 
 fition became evidently neceflary, to prevent religion from 
 falling into univerfal difcredit, and the ftate from being con- 
 vulfcd by violent contefts about " high ftations" among 
 ambitious and unprincipled churchmen. Thus the church 
 rendered herfelf altogether unworthy of that liberty, where- 
 with Chrift hath made her free ; and (he loft it. 
 
 CL3 The 
 
246 LETTER XXVI. 
 
 The Interpofition of princes in elections, and the nega- 
 tive on popular elections, which their right of confirma- 
 tion and inveftiture gave them, and which they found it for 
 the advantage of religion and the good of fociety to affume, 
 turned the Epifcopal fucceffion into quite a new channel. 
 Writers on the fide of High Church, I know, deny that 
 the right of confirmation and inveftiture is a fpirituality. 
 But if it was not confidered to be a fpirituality, [Kk] 
 by thofe, who underftood its nature fully as well as 
 we can be fuppofed to underftand it, how came it that the 
 EleElus^ as a Biftiop was called before confirmation of his 
 election, could not perform any Epifcopal fun6lion what- 
 ever ; all the Epifcopal functions, in his church, from the 
 time of his ele6iion, till it was confirmed, being perform- 
 ed by the Arch-prieft ? Befides, if ele<£tion itfeif be a fpi- 
 rituality, which, I fuppofe, nobody will deny, the confir- 
 mation of it muft, of neceflity, be a fpirituality too. — I 
 fay nothing of the various inftances that occur, in the ear- 
 ly periods of ecclefiaftical hiftory, of ^emperors and kings 
 mminaUng Bifhops, without confulting either the people, 
 or the clergy, when difturbances were apprehended at elec- 
 tions. But I infift, that if an tXtOi could neither be or- 
 dained, nor perform any Epifcopal function without con- 
 firmation by the lay fovereign, that confirmation was a fpi- 
 rituality. And if confirmation and inveftiture were not, 
 in ancient times, regarded as fpiritualities in fome fenfe or 
 other, what could be the meaning, intent, and purpofe, of 
 the ring and crofier, which the emperor, or other lay-fove- 
 reign, fent to the Bifliop ele6i: ? and what did thofe fove- 
 reigns mean, when they ordained their reprefeniatives^ by 
 whom they tranfmitted the fymbols of confirmation and 
 inveftiture, to aflTift at the confecration of the Biftiop elect ? 
 Did you ever hear of a vafl^al doing homage to his liege lord, 
 
 for 
 [Kk] See Notes, 
 
LEH ER XXVI. 247 
 
 for lands and othfr temporalities held of him, by accepting 
 from his hands a ring and a palloral ftaff? Of what could 
 the ring be a fymbol, but of the fpiritual marriage of a Bi- 
 (hop with his flock ? And if the crofier was not an emblem 
 of the palloral care, I look to the genius and rcfearch of 
 the critics and antiquaries of High Church, for a more juft 
 and fatisfadory explanation of it ; which wc have not, as 
 yet, feeii. Mr. Skinner * finds fault with the delivery of 
 the ring and crofier, " becaufe it may be thought to convey 
 " fomething of a facred charader, and give countenance to 
 " a dangerous miftake, as if one could not be a BiQiop, till 
 *« the king had married him to his charge, and committed 
 '* the feeding of the flock of Cluift to him " But Mr. Skin- 
 ner had not the ordering of that matter. And, whether 
 the " miftake," to which the delivery of the ring and cro- 
 fier " might give countenance," was " dangerous" or not, 
 it was a very ^^/;rr<i/miitake : and, indeed, if we attend to 
 the confiderations now urged, wc muft admit, that it could 
 fcarcely be avoided. That the clergy, in particular, fell 
 into it, appears from their infifting on the emperors, and 
 other lay fovereigns, difcontinuing the ceremony of deliver- 
 ing the ring and crofier to Bifliops eletl. The manner, in 
 which ourecclefiaftical hiftorian brings us acquainted with 
 this fa6l, deferves our attention. ** This particular cere- 
 «« mony" (the delivery of the ring and crofier) " as carry- 
 «« ing fuch an unfavourable afped to the fpiritual powers 
 " of the church, \vas, at laft, after much ivranglwg, dc- 
 *< parted from by the emperors and other lay fovereigns."f 
 It is, indeed, well known, that there was not a little ivratig- 
 Jing in the eleventh and twelfth centuries about the aflair of 
 the ring and the crofier ; and the clergy, as Mr. Skir.ner 
 
 0^4 tells 
 
 * Letters on Ecclesiastical History of Scotland; vol. I. p. ~3' 
 
 t I 'bi supra. 
 
248 LETTER XXVL 
 
 tells us, prevailed at la ft, after no more than feventy -eight 
 battles, which coft only a few millions of lives ; and at no 
 greater expence than excommunications and interdiias in- 
 numerable, and a countlefs multitude of enormous and un. 
 natural crimes, all which the clergy accounted to be as the 
 duft in the balance, when the queftion was about their ag- 
 grandifement. This is what High Churchmen, with moft 
 exemplary fang froid, call ivrangling. It was, indeed, a 
 kind of paltime to the Popes and their friends ; and as it 
 ended fo much to their advantage, it is no wonder that 
 thofe, who delight in magnifying the fpiritual power of the 
 church, and Its entire independence on the ftate, look back 
 to the nvrangl'mg about the inveftitures, as the pleafanteft 
 paftime in which the church ever engaged. Gregory VII. 
 began this prieftly fport. He did, indeed, moft humbly 
 accept confirmation of his own election from Henry IV. of 
 Germany. Nay, he, at firft, begged of Henry not to con- 
 firm his election, hypocritically pretending that he thought 
 himfelf unequal to the ofhce, and that he had been chofen 
 much againft his own inclination. Gregory, v^'ho was a 
 High Churchman, differed, you fee, from his fucceflbrs in 
 jmodern times ; for what they will not allow to be a fpiritu- 
 allty, he thought eflential to the validity of all Epifcopal 
 functions ; and he would not accept confecration without 
 it. But he was, all the while, perfectly fenfible, that it 
 would be for the honour and glory of his fee, and, proba- 
 bly, for the advantage of the apoftolic chamber, to feize the 
 tight of nominating and collating to all the biftioprlcs, 
 and other rich benefices, within the wide circuit of his fa- 
 cerdotal dominions. He feems to have formed the vaft de- 
 fign of adding all power on earth, to all power in heaven 
 and purgatory, before he afcended the papal throne j and 
 he no fooner found himfelf In full poireftion of his high 
 dignity, than he began to execute it. For the puniftiment 
 
 of 
 
LETTER XXVI. 249 
 
 of the corrupt and idolatrous church, of which the Bifhops 
 of Rome had ufurped the dominion, Gregory and his fuc- 
 cefTors were permitted to accomplifli this gigantic fcheme 
 of prieftly ambition. 
 
 Thus were emperors and kings, and other lay-patrons, 
 thruft out of the fuccefEon from the apoflles ; and the cler- 
 gy, as was mod fit, occupied their room. But the misfor- 
 tune is, that they had not been ktpt out f/om the begin- 
 ning, but had been permitted to nominate the clergy, and 
 " marry Biftiops to their charges," for feveral centuries. 
 And what adds to the misfortune, is, that kings, and other 
 lay-patrons, efpecially in proteftant countries, have afTum- 
 ed, and at this moment keep in their hands, the nomina- 
 tion of Bifhops, without giving themfelves any trouble a- 
 bout confulting, as was done in primitive times, (the times 
 when Bifhop Skinner's order was refpctled) either the peo- 
 ple or the clergy ; and in this ifland particularly, our kings 
 have made Bifhops their own Lieutenants^ as we (hall fee by 
 and by. — In all this I can fee nothing like the call which 
 Aaron receiT^d. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 250 ) 
 
 LETTER XXVII. 
 
 WE have feen that the "primitive (which, in 
 your opinion, is the only lawful) mode of election to ecr 
 clefiaftical offices, was very early encroached upon, by the 
 iieceffary interference of the fecular power, and was, at laft, 
 annihilated. I have now to add, that where the primitive 
 mode of election was adhered to in appearance, it was, in 
 many cafes, abandoned in reality. In moft of the great 
 churches, eledlions ceafed to be free at an early period. 
 
 Election by the free, unforced, unbiafled fufFrages of 
 the clergy and people -, this is what I call canonical elcOiion, 
 Of this the book of A£ls prefents you with fome inftances 
 under the diredion of the infpired apoftles of Chrift, — and, 
 therefore, I am not afraid to fay, that the ele£l were called 
 of God, as was Aaron. But though the form of this mode 
 of election was preferved for fomc ages, the fubftance was 
 long gone, before the (hadow was difmifled : the leiUr re- 
 mained, long after the/pirii had fled. In the fourth centu- 
 ry, the papal chairs, for example, became the fubje£l of 
 eager contention ; and how nefarious was the means, by 
 
 which 
 
LE'lTER XXVII. 251 
 
 which many of the BlQiops of Rome were exalted to the 
 Epifcopal throne of that great city ? The ambitus^ which the 
 Campus Martius had fo often witnefTed in the days of [the 
 Pagan Republic, was but a trifle to the corruption, that 
 was frequently praclifed for fecuring the fuccedion to the 
 fiftiermcn of Gahlee. How often did the intrigues and 
 bribery of unprincipled competitors for the chair of St. Pe- 
 ter, divide the clergy and people into two hoftile armies, 
 who thirlled for each others blood, and who fometimcs, led 
 on by the pretended vicar of the Lamb of God, maflacred 
 one another svith the ferocity of favages ! You remember 
 the contcit between Damafus and Urfinus, the confufion 
 which it fpread through the whole city of Rome, and the 
 blood with which the Bafilic of Liberius flowed. As the 
 church advanced in years, corruption increafed the more, 
 and fpread the farther, till at lail it infeded the general 
 mafs, and converted the whole body of the clergy into a 
 band of what our Lord calls ** thieves and robbers," who 
 " entered not into the flieepfold by the door, but climbed 
 " up another way." " How hideous," exclaims Baronius, 
 ** was the face of the Roman church, when filthy and im- 
 ** pudent whores governed all at R.ome, changed fees at 
 <* pleafure, (hfpojed cj bi/Jjcpncs^ and intruded their gallants 
 " and their bullies into the 8ee of St. Peter ! The ccpwns 
 *< were trodden under f cot ^* &c. This is not quite recon* 
 cilable to Mr. Law's *' clear fatisfa^lory train of reafoning;" 
 particularly in what regards the Uriel: and univerfal obfer. 
 vance, in every age, of the canons relating to ordination : 
 but it is matter ot facSl, related by a Roman Cardinal, who 
 had the honour of the church, and particularly of the Lpif- 
 copate, as much at heart as Mr. Law had. 
 
 Does 
 * Baron, ad ann. 900. 
 
252 XETTER XXVH, 
 
 Docs the Cardinal affe6t to deny, or conceal the inter- 
 ruption of the Epifcopal fucceflion, which was the neceffa- 
 ry confequence of the enormous irregularities that he be- 
 wails ? Not at all. Baronius was not, where the honour of 
 the church was concerned, the moft modefl: writer in the 
 world. But he does not appear to have been furnifhed, by 
 nature, with quite fo liberal a portion of effrontery, as Mr. 
 Law, and thofe who celebrate Mr. Law's ** clear fatisfac-* 
 *< tory train of reafoning," nor to have efteemed " thieves 
 " and robbers, the bullies and baftards of filthy and impu- 
 *' dent whores," the legitimate fuccefTors of our Lord's a- 
 poftles. The praife of this he left to the advocates of the 
 hierarchy in Great Britain in the eighteenth and nine- 
 teenth centuries. He acknowledges, with a candour 
 that is highly honourable to him, that the Epifcopal fuc- 
 celTion did actually fail in the ninth and tenth centuries ; 
 for he calls the Popes of thofe times ufurpers (invafores apofm 
 tolicafedis) and not apofloltc Bifhops, but apoftates. Nay, he 
 confefTes explicitly, that the church was, then^ for the moft 
 part without a Pope, though not without a head, its fpiri- 
 tual Head, Jefus Chriit, being in heaven. Platina joins 
 the Cardinal, and fays, that, when almoft all ^the Popes 
 were raifed to the throne by Simony, by violence ?^nd out- 
 rage, or by the intrigues of vile courtezans, the 8ee of St. 
 Peter was feized, not pojfejfed^ and feized by monfters^ not 
 Popes, And yet thofe holy ufurpers^ apojlates^ and monflerSy 
 and the apoftates and monfters, whom they y^/ in every part 
 of the weftern church, are your fpiritual progenitors ! I 
 congratulate you on your defcent from anceftors fo illuf- 
 trious. They feem to me to connecSl: you rather with He- 
 rod and Pontius Pilate, Nero and Caligula, than with 
 Chrift and his apoftles. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 253 ) 
 
 LETTER XXVIIl 
 
 IT has been already remarked, that one of your 
 mod ftrenuous controvertifts * Infifts, that Simony does 
 not invalidate the orders of the Simoniac. His arguments 
 equally prove, that no conceivable difqualification whatever, 
 not even abfolute atheifm, can unfit a man, who is ordain- 
 ed secundum ariem^ for tranfmitting the apoftolicai commif- 
 fion. It is a great fault of fome arguments, that they are 
 too vigorous, and prove too much ; which, I apprehend, is 
 the fault of fome of the arguments urged by this ingenious 
 author. 
 
 I cannot help believing, becaufe Jefus Chrift has faid it, 
 that " he, who entereth not by the door into the (heep- 
 «* fold, but climbeth up fome other way, is a thief and a 
 *' robber,*' and, therefore, cannot continue the fucceflion 
 from the apoftles ; who, though extremely poor in compa- 
 rifon of fome of their pretended fucceflbrs, were not " thieves 
 " and robbers." Now, to fay no more of " the intrigues 
 " of filthy and impudent proftitutes," nor of the violence 
 and outrage, blood and maflacre, by which many " climb- 
 
 " ed 
 
 * RebMfter Rebuffed. 
 
254 LETTER XXVIII 
 
 *^ ed up into the fheep-fold ;" I would ask you, whether 
 bribery (it does not figjnify whether it be properly called 
 Simony or not) be the door ? It is a door, which our Lord 
 and his apoflles never fet open , and I know of none other 
 who had a right to fet it open. And yet there is not, I 
 am firmly convinced, one Bifhop in the weft of Europe, at 
 this day, who does not derive his orders from the apoftles 
 through Simoniacs. The author, laft referred to, has 
 fhewn,* that in England particularly, which is the mother 
 country of your church. Simony was, for feven or eight 
 centuries, pradifed almoft univerfally. 
 
 The pretence for wrcfting, from laymen, the right of 
 nomination and inveftiture, which Gregory VH. amd his 
 fucceffors moft vehemently urged, was, that royal and other 
 lay-patrons derived profit from the exercife of their ywj- pa- 
 ironaius ; which they pronounced to be Simony, not know- 
 ing the nature of that crime fo exactly, as fome church- 
 men of the prefent day. The accufation was too well foun- 
 ded. But if a Bifhop purchafed a nomination to his See 
 from the Pope, was he lefs guilty of Simony, than if he 
 had purchafed the fame commodity from a fecular prince ? 
 Did Simony change its nature, and forfeit its name, fo foon 
 as it was pra(3:lfed for the moft holy purpofe of enriching 
 the apoftolic chamber ? I cannot think it. Sitnony, whe- 
 ther it be pra^ifed by a layman, or by the Pope, is ftill Si- 
 mony ; and if his holiness pra£l:ife it, he is, quoad hoc, the 
 greater finner of the two. 
 
 Need I urge any proofs, that the Popes praflifed Simo^v 
 ny without (hame, and without meafure ? Several of them- 
 felves bought the pontificate. Do you think the confcience 
 
 of 
 
 * Rebuffer Rebuffed, p. 2j^ 2f>. 
 
LETTER XXVIII. 255 
 
 of fuch worthies was fo very delicate, as not to permit them 
 to make the mod they could of their bargain ? Would thofc 
 who bought a Bifhopric, give away the Bifhoprics, which 
 were at their difpofal, for nothing ? It is altogether unne- 
 ceflary to produce particular examples of what all the 
 world knows to have been pra6tifed generally, without 
 concealment or fhame. I (hall therefore, mention only one 
 holy father^ who made the mofl: of his jus patronatitSy that 
 could be made. It is Boniface IX. Of this man, who fat 
 in the Papal chair from 1389 to 1404, all the hiftorians 
 fay, that he beftowed church preferments, as we beftow 
 goods at an au6tion, on the highefl. bidder. His infatiable 
 avarice, or rather rapacity, is imputed to nepotifm : for at 
 his death, there was found fcarcely a florin of gold in his 
 coffers. 
 
 Boniface IX. was not the only holy father, that was ever 
 affli(^ed with the difeafe of nepotifm. Many other Popes 
 had relations, fome of whom were not quite fo diftant as 
 nephews and nieces : and they were as ambitious of making 
 them princes and princeiTes, as Boniface was. That they 
 drew princely fortunes for them from the fame fources, is 
 well known. But though there had been no more Simonia- 
 c\\ Popes, from Linus to Leo X than Boniface IX. alone, 
 his corrupt reign of fifteen years was fufficient to convert, 
 in the end, almoft all the Bifhops in Europe, into fucceflbrs 
 of Simon Magus, 
 
 A di{lin£t:ion has been made between the miiiiftry of Je- 
 fus Chrift, which is committed to a Bifhop, and the tem- 
 poral pofTeflions annexed to that miniftry ; and I believe, 
 this diilinction was firft made by temporal princes, who 
 had the nomination of Blfliops, and could not perceive, 
 that "there was any thing rcprehenGble in afligning fome 
 
 part 
 
256 LETTER XXVIII. 
 
 part of the temporalities of Biflioprics to the fervicc of the 
 ftate ; that is, in making a candidate for the Eplfcopacy, 
 where benefices were not taxable like other pofTeflions, pay 
 for his nomination. " But," fays Fra Paolo, " this rea- 
 ** foning did not fatisfy learned and pious men ; for, though 
 *' the revenues of benefices are certainly temporalities, yet 
 *' the right or title, by which they are enjoyed, is a fpiritu- 
 *< ality. And fofar," adds he, " it was generally allow- 
 " ed, as it is at this day, that the Popes had reafon to 
 " condemn this pradice, and call it Simony."* 
 
 But, what if it can be proved, in illuftration of Mr» 
 Law's <* fatisfa61:ory train of reafoning," that ordination 
 itfelf, which all admit to be a fpirituality, has often, fince 
 the time of the apoflles, been purchafed with money, in 
 every part of the weftern church ? I cannot be perfuaded, 
 that the Holy Ghoft, either in his ^a^ia-f^xTx or his ^x^inqy 
 both which are " the gift of God,' could be purchafed 
 with money feveral centuries after the commencement of 
 the chriflian era, any more than at the time that Simon the 
 /2>r^^r^r attempted to make his bargain with Peter and Johno 
 Though churchmen foon became fo infatiably covetous, 
 that they would have fold for money all that is in heaven, 
 and on earth, and under the earth, yet they did not adu» 
 ally acquire the difpofal of all the gifts of divine grace •, 
 and they could no more fay with efFecl;, to the man who 
 had given them a valuable confideration for holy orders, 
 " Receive thou the Holy Ghoft,'' than I can fay with ef- 
 fe£t to you, ** Biihop Skinner, be thou the Grand Lama 
 « of Thibet, or the Senior Biihop of the moon." 
 
 How early the corrupt practice of purchafing, or rather 
 
 fsemjng 
 
 * Eccls. Ben. c. xxxviii. 
 
LETTER XXVIII. 257 
 
 feeming to purchafc, ordination, crept into the church, I 
 cannot afcertain precifely. But it is well known to have 
 prevailed very generally in the end of the fixth century. — 
 Gregory the Great, a zealous ecclefiaflic, and, C\{ we ex- 
 cept his pafTion for the aggrandizement of his See, which 
 feduced him into great errors) a very worthy man, was 
 much fcandalized and grieved at the Simoniacal pra61:ices, 
 which difgraced the clergy of his time ; and he forbade, 
 under heavy penalties, all the ecclefiaftics, who were im- 
 mediately fubje6t to the See of Rome, to cxa£t or accept 
 any price, reward, or acknowledgment, for ordination^ mar- 
 riages, chriftenings, or burials. This prohibition (hews, 
 that the violation, by the clergy, of the divine canon, 
 " Freely ye have received, freely give," was notorious and 
 general in Gregory's time : for prohibitory laws are not or- 
 dinarily iflued for the purpofe of putting mankind in mind 
 of crimes, which are not generally praclifed, but for the 
 purpofe of checking and extirpating thofe which are prac- 
 tifcd. But Gregory's own Letters eftablifh the fa6l beyond, 
 contradiftion, that, in the fixth century, the clergy, in 
 general, difgraced themfelves as much by Simony, as by 
 the licentioufnefs of their lives ; neither of which they 
 fhewed any anxiety to conceal or difguife. Thofe Letters 
 alfo inform us of the vigorous meafures which he purfued 
 for the purpofe of cleanfing the fan£luary from thofe two 
 grofs pollutions. To extirpate Simony, he ftridlily forbade 
 it, under heavy penalties, as I have already obferved, in 
 all the churches immediately fubje6l to his See ; he fet art 
 example of the pureftdlfintereftednefs, abfolutely to accept 
 on any occafion whatever, fo much as a trifling prefent 
 of wine, from any of his fufPragans : and to extirpate Si- 
 mony from the churches, that were not under the immedi- 
 ate jurifdiclion of his Sec, he wrote letters to BiOiops,- 
 Kings, and Princes, and to all men in power, entreating 
 
 R them 
 
258 LETTER XXVIII. 
 
 them to alTemble councils, and endeavour to root out a 
 practice, at once ignominious to the clergy, and hurtful 
 to the religion which they were commiflioned to teach.* 
 
 But whatever immediate efFe£ts Gregory's zeal may have 
 produced in his own time, we find, when we look forward 
 in the hiftory of the church, that they were tranficnt. The 
 truth is, I apprehend, that the vigorous meafures, to which 
 he reforted for the fuppreflion of Simony, compelled it to 
 put on difguifes, but by no means put a ftop to it. In 
 1049, ^^^ BiQiopof Langres was profecuted for felling ho- 
 ly orders, and fo were the numerous clergy of Milan, in 
 1059, for buying and felling the fame commodity. This 
 contraband trade appears to have flourifhed at Milan to an 
 a flonifhing degree. For, the legates of Nicolas II. in the 
 courfe of their inquifition into the extent of the traffic, 
 found that fcarcely one of the clergy of that church had 
 been ordained, for a confiderable number of years, with- 
 out paying for his ordination. This is related by one of 
 the legates themfelves.f And here I mud remark, that a 
 council of the Bifhops of all nations, which Nicolas called 
 to meet at the Lateran in 1059, differed in opinion from' a 
 controvertift (to whofe works we have referred before:):) 
 refpe^ting the validity of orders purchafed with money. — 
 That writer boldly affirms, as we have feen, that if Judas 
 Ifcariot had ordained Simon Magus for a little money, the 
 magician would have been as true and rightful a Biffiop, 
 as legitimate a fucceffor of the apoftles, as Clemens Ro- 
 '"roanus, or the prefent Primate of Scotland. On the other 
 hand, the council, convened by Nicolas II. at the Lateran, 
 decreed, that if any man ftiould accept ordination, even 
 
 with' 
 
 * See Gregory's Letters, Lib, iii. iv. v. ix. x. xi. 
 t Petr. Damian. Opusc. 5, % Rebufifer Rebufied. 
 
LETTER XXVIII. 259 
 
 without paying iox it, from the hand of a Simoniac, he ftiould 
 be turned out of the miniftry ; though they allowed thofe 
 who had been fo ordaiiied before the meeting of the Coun- 
 cil, to retain the orders they had received. Which of the 
 two, the council, or the author referred to above, is in the 
 right, in thinking that " the gift of God cannot be purchaf- 
 •' ed with money ?" I acknowledge, that although I am not 
 more difpofed to bow to the opinions of general councils 
 than the Church of England is, I coincide with the coun- 
 cil of the Lateran on this particular point, becaufe the 
 apoftle Peter was of the fame mind •, and I have fome re- 
 fpe£t to his opinion. 
 
 It reds with you to (hew, by the produ£Vion of authentic 
 documents, that not one of your fpiritual " authors and 
 " predeceflbrs," from the age of the apoftles down to the 
 reign of Henry VIII. of England, when our kings and 
 queens came into your line of fucceffion, purchafed his or- 
 dination or his benefice with money. When you fhall have 
 done this, you will probably bring over a confiderable num- 
 ber to your opinion, that Mr. Law's " train of reafoning,'* 
 on your unbroken fucceffion, is " clear and fatisfacl:ory." 
 But till this be done, you cannot fo much as make it pro^ 
 habUy that, in every age fmcc the apoftles, every Bifliop was 
 ordained by Bi/hops : for, if there be any thing in Peter's 
 declaration, that " the gift of God cannot be purchafed 
 «' with money," a man may wear a fquare cap and lawn 
 fleevcs, and be called my Lord, and live like a prince, and 
 yet be no more a Biftiop than Simon Magus or Kouli Khan. 
 
 R 2 LETTER 
 
( 260 ) 
 
 LETTER XXIX. 
 
 Mr. Law asks, whether " there be any pofiibi- 
 ** lity of forging orders, and thus ftealing a BKhopric ?" I 
 ^nfwer, nothing is more poflible, than to forge a certificate 
 of orders : and I ask you, in turn, whether you can think 
 this the only fpecies of forgery, that was never committed ? 
 Clergymen have forged wills, and other conveyances of pro- 
 perty, decretals, and canons ; nay they have even dared to 
 counterfeit the fcal of omnipotence by forging miracles. — 
 Was Mr. La^v ignorant of fadis fo notorious ? Impoflible ! 
 Yet he afFe£led to believe, that thofe confcientious and ho- 
 ly clerks, who could forge wills, decretals, and miracles, 
 were too pious to forge a certificate of orders, and to en- 
 joy the benefit of the forgery ! Let me farther ask, Was 
 there any thing more poflible, at certain periods, than to 
 carry a forged certificate of orders to Rome, in purfuit of 
 a benefice, and to get it fuftained there, provided only 
 there was " money in the purfe," and a recommendation to 
 the patronage of fome of the Pope's favourites, male or fe- 
 male ? Does not Bernard * tell Eugene IIL that that fink 
 
 o£ 
 
 * Consider, ad, Eugen. Lib. iv. c. 4. 
 
LETTER XXIX. 261 
 
 of corruption was the common rendezvous of the ambitious, 
 the covetous, the Simoniacal, the adulterous, the inceftu- 
 ous, who flocked thither from all parts of the world, that, 
 through the apofl:olic authority of the holy Father, they 
 might either get ecclefiaftical preferments, or be confirmed 
 in the ufurpcd pofleffion of them. That forged certificates 
 of ordination, or certificates of an ordination which had 
 been procured by means the mofl: irregular, and perhaps 
 infamous, were frequently prcfented, at Rome, by honeft 
 gentlemen (of the feveral claflxfs mentioned by Bernard) 
 who had feized, or fet their heart upon, fome part of the 
 patrimony of the church ; and that thofe certificates were 
 ("uftained on certain terms, without any very fcrupulous en- 
 quiry into their authenticity, it would be abfurd to doubt. 
 " Every thing was privileged at Rome,'' fays Fra Paolo, 
 " which no body dared to do any where elfe." 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 262 ) 
 
 LETTER XXX. 
 
 I HAVE called your attention to the arrogant af- 
 fumption, and the no lefs arrogant and indifcriminate ex- 
 ercife, of the Pope's difpenfing power, by which he dif- 
 folved all canons and ecclefiaftical conftitutions, whenever 
 it fuited his own corrupt views, or thofe of his unprinci- 
 pled favourites and retainers. I have fhewn, that the doc- 
 trine, on which the canons relating to ordination were 
 founded, was not always equally believed, and that the 
 canons themfelves were, in fad, often violated. I have 
 fhewn, that, though the Pope was long regarded, in the 
 Weft of Europe, as the only legitimate fource of all ecclefi- 
 aftical authority, whence it flowed, like ftreams from their 
 fountain, and was diftributed through the whole Papal vine- 
 yard : yet, in the opinion even of zealous Romanifts, the 
 very fpring itfelf was, I do not fay polluted, but abfolutc- 
 ly annihilated, many of the Popes having been, by the ac- 
 count of their fuccelTors, as well as of Cardinals and other 
 Romifti hiftorians, the reprefentatives and fucceflbrs, not of 
 Simon the apoftle, but of Simon the forcerer, and the vi- 
 <cars of Satan, not of Jefus Chrift. To this I might, if it 
 
 were 
 
LETTER XXX. 263 
 
 were neceflary for my purpofe, add the numerous inftances 
 of Popes, and other Bifhops, who were ordained into '* a 
 «< full See," that is, into a See which was legally pofleil- 
 cd by another ; — an irregularity, which fometimes occur- 
 red in England, whence you glory in having derived your 
 orders. This is a kind of ordination, which was always 
 confidercd by the church to be abfolutely null. It was, you 
 know, reprobated by Cyprian,* your favourite faint, and 
 by all your deprived Epifcopal faints in Britain after the 
 Revolution. Nay, we (hall fee, by and by, that you your- 
 felf complain of it bitterly, in fo far as the ejedlion from 
 their livings, in fome of your predeceflbrs, is concerned. — 
 The frequent occurrence of this grofs irregularity does, 1 
 apprehend, bear no favourable afped: to your unbroken fuc- 
 cclFion. You cannot prove, that the apollolic commilTion 
 has not been tranfmitted to you through many of thofe 
 men, who forced their ways into Epifcopal Sees, while 
 they were legally poflefled by others. 
 
 Let me call your attention to another fadl, equally hof- 
 lile to the high pretenfions which you advance. What think 
 you of the probable effed of the many fchifms in the Papa- 
 cy, with which ecclefiaflical hiilory brings us acquainted ? 
 There was a fchifm, carried on by four Anti-popes, in the 
 twelfth century, which lafted twenty-one years, and ended 
 in 1 178. The great weftern fchifm, as it is called, began 
 the 20th of September, 1378, and continued till the 26th 
 of July, 1429, having lafted nearly 31 years. During fo 
 long a period, it is probable that every Epifcopal See in 
 Europe had been occupied by two or three Bifhops in fuc- 
 cefTion, who owed their nomination and inveftiture, and, 
 perhaps, in various inftances, their confecration, to one or 
 
 R 4 other 
 
 , ^ See his Epistles on Novatian's Schism. 
 
264 LETTER XXX. 
 
 other of the contending Popes. And yet neither the Coun- 
 cil of Pifa, nor the Council of Conftance, nor any writer 
 of name in the Romifli communion for a confiderable time 
 after the fchifm was brought to an end, ventured to declare 
 any one of the pretenders the lawful fucceflbr of St. Peter. 
 The Council of Conftance, indeed, by depofing two of the 
 competitors, and accepting the refignation of the third, be- 
 fore they elected Martin V. feems to me to declare, that 
 the holy fathers there convened, confidered none of the 
 contending Popes to be lawful Pope. 
 
 From one or other of the competitors, it is next to cer- 
 tain, that your orders defcend. Nay, for aught we know, 
 they may all have had fome concern in tranfmitting your 
 apoftolical commifTion. Whether your orders are, on your 
 own principles, more or lefs valid, for having defcended to 
 you through the Anti-popes, the invafores apofiolic<zJedis^ I 
 leave you to decide* 
 
 Upon the whole, if it could be proved, or even fhewn 
 to be, in the leaft degree, probable, that, amid the chan- 
 ges and revolutions of ages, and amid the ruins of all that 
 12, chriftian in the worft times, your unbroheti fucceffion ftood 
 firm, 
 
 *' Like some tall cliff, that lifts its awful form, 
 
 ** Swells from the vale, and mid-way leaves the storm," 
 
 ■we (hould not be fo much difpofed to think that you rave, 
 when you tell your people, that it is the rock of their falvation. 
 But is this probable ? Do you dream, that the orders of the 
 Epifcopal Churches of this ifland are of fuch ineffable im- 
 portance in the eftimation of the Divine Head of thechurcli 
 univerfal, the Saviour of all men, that he preferved them in 
 <!• the wafte howling wildcrnefs, and kept them as the ap- 
 f,^ pie of his eye," while he permitted confufion to feize all 
 
LEFfER XXX. 
 
 265 
 
 eccleOailical concerns befides, and impoflure to trample 
 down the Greek, Afiatic, and African churches ? If your 
 orders efcaped, it muft have been by a fucceflion of mira- 
 cles- And yet we cannot difcover from fcripture, nor from 
 the light of nature, that the mere mode of tranfniitting the 
 apof:olic commiirion, is a thing of any importance at all in 
 the eftimation of Jefus Chrift, provided only his gofpel be 
 preached, and his ordinances adminiftered in purity. You 
 cannot figure to yourfelf one rational caufe for believing, 
 that eternal Providence is concerned to preferve your Epif- 
 copal fucceflion unbroken, no more than you can give a good 
 reafon for our Lord's preferring Epifcopacy, the regimen oi 
 fac^rdotal monarchs, to every other mode of governing his 
 church. And if the credit of your unbroken fuccefTion de- 
 pend, as Mr. Law admits that it does, on the ftricl obfer- 
 vance of the canons in every age of ihe church, your confi- 
 dence in it is like a houfe built upon the fand : for the ca- 
 nons have been all violated times without number, and 
 were never ftridlly obferved in any age. 
 
 So much for Mr. Law's " clear fatlsfacSlory train of 
 " reafoning," which is equally at variance with probability 
 and with fafts. Of what you advance in illuflration of 
 Mr. Law's reafoning, we (hall now take fomc tranfient no- 
 tice. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 266 ) 
 
 LETTER XXXI, 
 
 " NO order of men, exifting at prefcnt in the 
 « chriftian church," fays Dr. Campbell, " can give any 
 «* evidence of a divine right, compared with that of the 
 « tribe of Levi, and of the pofterity of Aaron, in the Jew- 
 « ifli.'* 
 
 Although it is evident, that you either ^do not, or will 
 not, underftand this propofition, you boldly undertake to 
 maintain the very reverfe. The Lecturer's meaning is as 
 plain as words can make it. What he fays is, that the 
 God of Ifrael, by an exprefs law, confined the Jewifh 
 Priefthood to the tribe of Levi, and the office of High 
 Prieft to the pofterity of Aaron, and thus conferred a divine 
 right on that tribe and family, which no order of men, exif- 
 ting at prefent in the chriftian church, can (hew that he has 
 conferred on them. Why did you pretend to difpute the 
 truth of this propofition, without having one fmgle fa6l or 
 argument to bring forth againft it ? If there be, in fcrip- 
 ture, an exprefs fiatute, appointing the chriftian altar to be 
 fervcd by a fuccelTion of Priefts, whofe fpiritual generation 
 goes on according to a fixed law, juft as natural generation 
 
 went 
 
LE1TER XXXI. 267 
 
 went on in the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron, you 
 have been guilty of great injuftice to your church, by con- 
 cealing that ftatute fo long. The production of it would 
 hav(' difproved the Lefturer's propofition at once. But, 
 inftead of this, you tell us — what ? " It would not be fo 
 ** cafily proved, that no fpurious child had ever been intro- 
 " duced into the family of the Jewifli High Pricft, as that 
 <* no unordained perfon had ever been admitted to the Epif- 
 *' copal office !" I (hould be delighted with a proof of either 
 of thefe propofitions ; but I do not ferioufly cxpe£t ever to 
 fee it. But what would it fignify to the fupport of your 
 fchemc, though it were proved irrefragably, that none of 
 the Jewifh High Priefts' wiVes were ever guilty of infideli- 
 ty to their husbands ? Would your uninterrupted fuccef- 
 fion be dcducible as a corollary from fuch a demonftration ? 
 Would the incorruptible chaftity of a fucceffion of ladies for 
 1500 years, prove that the canons had never been violated 
 in the ordination of chriftian Biftiops for the fucceeding fif- 
 teen centuries ? I cannot poffibly difcover, that there is fo 
 clofe a connexion between the chaftity of Jewilh wives, 
 and the knowledge and piety of chriftian Bifhops, that, if 
 the one be proved, the other may warrantably be inferred. 
 But you do not trouble yourfelf with proving either. You 
 ti^e both for granted, and fpeak of both as equally clear 
 and indifputable. « But indeed we have good reafon to 
 " believe, that in either cafe, nothing of this kind has ever 
 " happened,"* that is, we have good reafon to believe, that 
 there never was an illegitimate child in the family of a 
 Jewifti High Prieft, and never a Bilhop in the chriftian 
 church, who was not admitted to his high office agreeably 
 to the canons. 
 
 With regard to the laft of thefe propofitions, I have ur- 
 ged 
 
 * Viiid. p. 325. Z^Q. 
 
268 LETTER XXXL 
 
 ged fome h£ks, which do not afford the beft reafons in the 
 world for admitting it, becaufe — they flatly contradict it. 
 As to the firft, I fay nothing ; for I have not the honour of 
 being fo particularly acquainted with the fecret h/Iory of all 
 the Jewifli High Priefts' wives, as the editors of fome pe- 
 riodical works, in our times, feem to be with the i^U a Utes 
 of modern gentlemen and ladiss. But if the wives of the 
 High Priefts were never, in one inftance, guilty, or even 
 fufpedled, of gallantry, which you feem to believe was 
 their happy cafe, it is more than can be predicated of the 
 Priefts themfelves. Eli's fons, in particular, you know,^ 
 had fome affairs of this kind, now and then j and the cofts 
 and damages awarded againft them were very heavy. It is 
 obfervable too, that, like the fine gentlemen of the prefcnt 
 day, they were nowife afliamed of their gallantries, in con- 
 ducting which, they were very far from affeding conceal- 
 ment. They^^thus, in my opinion, fet rather a dangerous 
 example to their ladies. But to be plain, whatever you 
 choofe to do, I fliall not rifque my falvation on the ** good 
 «* reafon we have to believe," that not one, in fuch a long 
 iucceffion as the v/hole line of Jewifti High Priefts' wives, 
 ever defiled the bed of her husband. And yet on this flip- 
 pery ground do you reft the falvation of all true Epifcopals, 
 the whole Elect. For, to the eulogy of the Jewifti facer- 
 dotal ladies, you add, " The chriftian" (otherwife, the 
 member of High Church) " has at leaft equal ground to 
 ** be fatisfied, that the government of the church under the 
 " gofpel having been eftabliftied by the apoftles, in the way 
 ** of Epifcopal fucceffion, that fucceffion has never yet fail- 
 <* ed in the chriftian world" (equal ground to believe this) 
 " as that no doubt had ever been entertained of the family 
 «' of Aaron having been preferved pure from any illegiti- 
 *' mate mixture."* 
 
 It 
 f Ibid. 
 
LETTER XXXL 269 
 
 It muft be confefled, that this reafoning (hews, that all 
 who have the grace to adhere to High Church, are in the 
 moH: comfortable fituation that can be imagined. Your 
 docflrine, Sir, is refreQiing to the foul of an Epifcopal, as 
 " the dew of Hcrmon, the dew that defcended on the 
 •* mountains of Zion.'' He can fay, when he lays him 
 down to deep, " I have at lead as good reafon to be fatls- 
 ** fied, that I am in the road to heaven, and that High 
 •^ Church, if I implicitly follow her dire£tion, will guide 
 " me thither, as that the wives of the Jewifh High Priefls 
 ** never, in one fingle inftancc, committed z faux pas in the 
 ** courfe of fifteen centuries, although they were all Afia- 
 " tics I" This is nothing inferior, as a fource of comfort 
 and good hope, to the faith of aflurance. The man muft 
 reft foundly, " indifferent in his choice, to fleep or die !" 
 But alas ! how deeply is it to be lamented, that the fuccejfton 
 of fuch valuable matrons, a fucceflion of fully as great im- 
 portance to mankind as the Epifcopal succeffiotiy would feem, 
 by all accounts, to have failed I But this ineftimable blef- 
 fmg may, for ought I know, have defcended to High 
 Church, along with the Jewifh model of ecclefiaftical po- 
 lity. 
 
 You adopt the ftrangeft method that can be conceived, 
 of (hewing that the Church of Rome tranfmitted the apof- 
 tolic commiffion, through the canonical channels, down to 
 the prefent times. Firft, you inform us, that the corrup- 
 tions of that church did " not afFe£l: the validity of that com- 
 " milhon." This cant word of your party, " validity," I 
 cannot, for my life, underftand in the application juft quo- 
 ted. I have fome conception of what is meant by the 
 " validity of ordination," and " the validity of the facra- 
 ** ments," although my conception of it is fomewhat con- 
 fufcd, having never fcen any thing in fcripture, that throws 
 
 any 
 
270 LETTER XXXI. 
 
 any light on the term, or the idea which it conveys •, for 
 both are equally unknown to the facred penmen. But as 
 to the corruptions of any church affe6ling the validity of 
 Chrift's commiflion, of this I have not the leaft comprehen- 
 (ion. If you mean by it, that the papal corruptions were 
 hot permitted to extinguifti the light of the chriftian reli- 
 gion, by annihilating the fcriptures, and putting an end to 
 an evangelical miniftry, I agree with you. Our religion is 
 a rock which cannot be moved by man, and which, if it 
 fall upon its moft powerful enemies, will grind them to 
 powder. — But, if by " the corruptions of the Church of 
 <* Rome affecting the validity of the apoftolical commiflion,*' 
 you mean, that that church never did, nor could, become 
 fo corrupt, as to violate all the canons relating to ordina- 
 tion, you are, as we have feen, contradided by the moft 
 authentic hiftorical documents. I am not much inclined 
 to unchurch any body of chriftians, that is, (if there be any 
 meaning in that unfcriptural expreflion) to fend them te 
 the devil. Hence I fliall not difpute the point with you, 
 that " the Church of Rome, in her word (late, did not 
 •* ceafe to be a church," although your definition of th 
 church [LI] does not anfwer very exactly to the Church of 
 Rome, when all her abufes and corruptions clave to her. — 
 But what fignifies it to youy whether Rome ceafed to be a 
 church or not? What fignifies it, whether that church was 
 or was not, capable of tranfmitting the apoftolical commif- 
 fion with a ftri£l regard to the canons ? The queftion is 
 not about what (he could do, but about what (he did. And 
 of this hiftory only can inform us, to whofe voice I have 
 called your attention. 
 
 To prove, I fuppofe, that becaufe the clergy of Romc^ 
 
 when 
 
 [LI] Vind. p. 140, 141. See Notes. 
 
LETTER XXXI. 271 
 
 when mod corrupt, were not all (truck dead with light- 
 ning, or fwallowed up alive, therefore that church was a 
 true church ; you inform us, that, even in the mod cor- 
 rupt ftate of the Jewifli church, " God never inftituted a 
 ** new order of Priefts, nor authorized any but the fons of 
 «» Aaron to appear in his holy place."* But this is no- 
 thing to your purpofe. It only proves, that the wicked nefs 
 of the Jews was not fufficient to provoke their Divine Law- 
 giver to fubvert the economy, under which he had plac- 
 ed them, and to alter his laws whenever they were pleafed 
 to violate them. It does not prove that the illegitimacy, or 
 occafional idolatry of the Priefts, made no breach in the 
 fucceflion from Aaron, but only that God did not think it 
 proper to damn millions of Jews, merely becaufe their 
 High Pried might happen to be an adulterous baftard, for 
 which they were not to be blamed, or becaufe that facred 
 ofRcer defcended, quoad fpintualia^ from a perfon who had 
 been a Pried of Moloch, when the worfhip of that idol was 
 the order of the day. Nay, it is a fad, as fubverfive of 
 your doiStrine regarding the Epifcopal fucceffion, as it is 
 undeniable, tliat our Lord accepted the faith of the humble 
 and thankful Samaritan Leper, and celebrated the humani- 
 ty of another man who belonged to the fame church, al- 
 though the Priefts of the tribe of Levi had been, ages be- 
 fore, caft out of the Ifraelitifh church by Jeroboam, who 
 made Priefts of the loweft of the people : and, that, to make 
 his commendation of both as mortifying as poflible to gen- 
 tlemen like you, who contend, that men can be faved in 
 one church only, he contrafted the faith, humility, and gra- 
 titude of the one, and the compaflion and generous humani- 
 ty of the other, with the unrhankfulnefs and unbelief of the 
 Jewifti lepers, and the fcllifh unfeeling conduct of two fa- 
 cred 
 
 * Vind. p. 346. 
 
272 LtTfER XXXI. 
 
 cred officers of the tribe of Levi. To argue, then, that, 
 becaufe God did not inftitute a new order of Priefts, fet- 
 ting afide the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron, we 
 may conclude, that the order of fucceflion was never bro- 
 ken, is to argue againft the truth of fa6ls, recorded ia fcrip- 
 ture. For there we learn, that the order of fucceflion was 
 violated in the Ifraelitifh church ; nay, that the whole tribe 
 of Levi was thruft out from being Priefts ; and yet that the 
 faith and good difpoiitions of pious and charitable Samari- 
 tans were as acceptable to God, as if no fuch revolution in 
 their Priefthood had ever taken place. 
 
 Let me farther remark, that no man but a prophet, fcnt 
 from God, had authority to difpenfe with the divine law 
 relating to the Jewifti Priefthood. Yet it was often dif- 
 penfed with by men, who were no prophets. Had the Af- 
 monaean family a legal title to the High Priefthood ? Had 
 Antiochus Epiphancs, or Herod the Great, a right to give 
 it to whom they pleafed ? Had the Romans a divine com- 
 miflion to fet it to fale > Was Caiaphas a lineal defcendant 
 of Eleazar, or of Ithamar ? Could he be a legal High Prieft, 
 who was thruft into the office during the life of his prede- 
 ceflbr ? Do we hear one word from our Lord or his apoC- 
 tles, in reprehenfion of the notorious breaches of the sue- 
 ceffiouy which were well known to every Jew ? Do we hear 
 one word about the danger, to which thofe breaches ex- 
 pofed the fouls of the people ? Did Jefus difown the autho- 
 rity of Caiaphas, or call in queftion its legality, and thus, 
 by his example, authorife you to call the clergy of the cfta- 
 blifhed religion of your country, " bold intruders, and un- 
 « warranted ufurpers," who, notwithftanding their mo- 
 deft pretenfions, can trace their authority to the apoftles, 
 with, at leajly as great certainty, as you can trace yours ? 
 No, indeed ! Perhaps the reafon is, that our Lord and his 
 
 apoftles 
 
LETTER XXXr. 273 
 
 apoftles did not hold the doctrine of the necenity of an un- 
 broken fucccfTion in the Prieflhood to the falvation both of 
 Priefts and people, and were not High Churchmen. Whe- 
 tlier they " were no churchmen at ail," I leave to the de- 
 cifion of the admirers and difciples of his deceafed Lordfliip, 
 the late l^ifhop of St. Afaph, obferving only, with all pofli- 
 ble humility, that I think it a little dangerous to attempt 
 to juflle them out of the church altogether. 
 
 May I not now prefume to fay, that a breach or inter- 
 ruption of your Epifcopal fucceflion is fo far from being, 
 what Mr. Law calls it, a moral impoJftbUityy that if fuch a 
 breach be practicable by the violation of all the canons with- 
 out exception, it occurred, in numberlefs inflances, dur- 
 ing the fifteen hundred years that elapfed before thefe na- 
 tions threw off the papal yoke ? — But in reality, our inqui- 
 ry into the validity of the orders, which were tranfmitted 
 to you through the Church of Rome, now that we have 
 got to tlie end of it, is at beft, but a work of fupererogation. 
 For you do not derive your orders from that church, but 
 from the kings and queens of England, beginning with 
 Ilenrv VIU. who is the founder of your facred familv. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 274) 
 
 LETTER XXXII. 
 
 IT is well known, that the church in England, 
 in the time of Henry VIII. did not reform from the Rom- 
 ifli religion, but only renounced fubjedion to the Pope, 
 and exchanged one tyrant for another, a fpiritual defpot 
 for a temporal. Unfortunately for the church, and her 
 high spiritual powers, Henry was a moft ruthlefs defpot, 
 and fully more tyrannical than ever the Pope had been. I 
 do not allude to the church in England being compelled, by 
 AGt of Parliament, to believe whatever the king believed, 
 and to change the public creed, whenever his Majefty fliould 
 think proper to change his. This was no new hardfhip, 
 nor was it more inconvenient, than to be obliged to adopt 
 the varying creed of Rome, which was frequently changed, 
 and, indeed, never fixed by any public authoritative fym- 
 bol, before the meeting of the Council of Trent. But I 
 allude to the King's compelling all the Bijhops within his realm 
 to take out commijftons from him, by nvhich they acknowledged , 
 that all juris diction y civil and ecclejiajlical^ Jlowed from the king, 
 and that they exercised it only at the kin^s courtesy \ and that^ 
 as they had it of his bounty, so they would be ready to deliver it 
 up at his pleasure ; and therejore the king did empower them to 
 
 ordain^ 
 
LETTER XXXII. 27^ 
 
 ordaifi, give ifijlituiion, and do all the other parts oj the Episco- 
 pal JunB'ion* "Thus," as our author remarks, " were 
 " they made," not Chrifl's Bifliops, hut " the king's mi- 
 " niflcrs" or lieutenants. Does not this proceeding of 
 Henry, taken in conne£l:ion with your fcheme, prefent to 
 us a curious contemplation .'* A divine right eftabUflied by 
 human lanusy and fucceflbrs of the apoftles, not merely «<?- 
 minatedhy a lay fivereign, but commilFioned to^^ in his Jlead, 
 as his deputies or delegates, and removeable from their office, 
 as deputies ordinarily are, at his pleafure ? 
 
 " But Henry had no right to the authority he aflumed." 
 No matter ; he exercifed it : And you derive your orders 
 from Bifliops, whom he empowered to ordain, give in/iitu- 
 tion, and do all the other parts of the Epi/eopa I function, in his 
 name, and in his Jlead ; from Bifliops, who had no autho- 
 rity, temporal or fpiritual, but what King Henry gave 
 them. 
 
 I fliall notprefume to excufe, or even extenuate, the guilt 
 of Henry's tyrannical and facrilegious ufurpation of autho- 
 rity which did not belong to him ; nor fliall I offer any apo- 
 logy for the Bifliops who accepted the Epifcopate on his 
 terms. High Church, I have no doubt, is amazed at the 
 impunity with which thofe " fonsof Belial" efcaped ; and 
 wonders, that the Icprofy did not rife inflantaneoufly in the 
 forehead of the prcfumptuous monarch, or that he, and 
 his Epifcopal rebels did not go " down alive into the pit, 
 
 $ 2 " and 
 
 '^ See Biirnetl's History of the Reformation. With the indispu- 
 table historical fact, quoted above, staring you in the face ; and in 
 the full knowledge, I must jiresume, of what happened in the suc- 
 ceeding reign, you say, \'un\. p. Z^'2, that the Slate never pretend- 
 ed to exercise or claim the power of conveying anything whatever 
 •iiat may be truly cwW^^ spiritual ! 
 
276 ^LETTER XXXII. 
 
 *^ and perifli in the gainfaying of Corah, tremendous mo- 
 " numents, to all future ages, of the danger of facrilegi- 
 ** oufly intruding into a facred office, to which they were 
 *' not called of God, as was Aaron :" and, perhaps, if 
 High Church had had the management of the matter, all 
 this had happened. But they did not perifh, and I cannot 
 help it. Neither did the king ever complain of leprofy on 
 his forehead, although it is faid, he was fometimes afraid 
 of fomething as difgraceful making its appearance there. 
 In one word, his impious ufurpation, and the facrilegious 
 intrufion of his Bifliops, had no confequence more tragical, 
 that we have heard of, than the fnapping afunder of your 
 imhrohn line of Epifcopal fucceflion. 
 
 Thus it happens, for the everlaftlng honour and confo- 
 lation of all High Churchmen in this ifland, that Henry 
 VIII. and his delegates or lieutenants in the Epifcopal of- 
 fice, (land in the line of fucceffion between you and the 
 apoftles •, and there, unlefs you be all re- ordained by the 
 Pope, or fome patriarch of a Greek, Afiatic, or African 
 church, or by the Moderator of our General Aflembly, 
 who would do it as well as any of them, Henry VIII. and 
 his ecclefiaftical lieutenants will ftand to the end of the 
 world, though your flocks (liould all go to perdition, be- 
 caufe their Bifhops and Priefts are " intruders and ufur- 
 " pers.'' A mortifying truth to men, whofe pretenfions 
 are fo high ! But who can make that llraight, which has, 
 in the courfe of Providence, been long crooked ? 
 
 Doubtlefs, it minifters fome little eafe to your confcience 
 to reflect, that your " royal author and predeceflbr" (lu- 
 died divinity fo long, that he thought himfelf a match for 
 Luther at theological controverfy ; in which, if he did not 
 <iain fo decided a Yi6lorv as at the Battle of the S^urs, he 
 
 re- 
 
LETTER XXXII. 277 
 
 received the higheft applaufe from his Holinefs at Rome, 
 (who was, by the bye, a very forry divine) and was dig- 
 nified with the title of Defender of the Faith. It is alfo 
 comfortable to you to know, that this fpiritual progenitor 
 of. yours was intended for the church, and, if his brother 
 Arthur Ifad lived a little longer, might have been ;// orders^ 
 ay, and a Bifhop too ; for, it is probable that preferm.cnts 
 would have come " thick upon him." What pity, that 
 Arthurdid not live, till Henry was confecrated, and the 
 next day leave him his royal inheritance and his fpoufe ! 
 With the Pope's permifTion, he could have as eafily exchan- 
 ged the mitre, as Cafimir of Poland exchanged the cowl, 
 for an imperial crown : and, in that cafe, his Bifhops could 
 have taken out commiflions of Lieutenancy from him with 
 a fafe confcience, and without knocking to pieces the Jus 
 divinum, the idol of High Church. For, would he not have 
 been an apoftollc Bilhop, having the cbaraner tndciihly im- 
 prejfed ; fo that, though he had become a prince of darknefs, 
 inftead of afcending the throne of England, *' the great de- 
 ** vil of devils himfelf," as INIoliere fpeaks,* " with his 
 «* great iron claws red hot," could not have erazed it ^ — 
 Even if he had been like the Greek Emperors, ordained a 
 Deacon only, to which lowly order many of the Popes, your 
 predecefTors, belonged at their ele6lion, it would have been 
 fomething. But alas ! he was neither Deacon, nor Prieft, 
 nor Prelate, but a lay-ftudent of Divinity, and defender of 
 the Popifh faith and worfliip againfl: the Proteftants. Be- 
 hold the original fource of the apofiolk orders^ of which the 
 Proteftant Epifcopal churches of this ifland have to boaft. 
 
 You have the lefs caufe to regret that Henry was not in 
 orders, becaufe his fon Edward, another of your cctlefiaf- 
 
 s 3 tical 
 
 * See Molicrc's L'Avaif, 
 
2*78 LETTER XXXII. 
 
 tical progenitors, was never either ordained, or intended 
 for the church. 
 
 Edward VL and his clergy were, by all accounts, very 
 fuperior hands at a liturgy : and no wonder ; for, it feems, 
 they " were aided by the Holy Ghofl." [Mm] But on 
 the fubjeft of continuing the fucceflion, they would appear 
 to have been left to the uninfpired dictates of their own 
 minds ; and, accordingly, they went wrong. In what re- 
 gards church- fupremacy, Edward trode exadly in the foot- 
 ileps of his father. " He required all," the hiftorian of 
 the Reformation informs us, (all) who held offices civil or 
 ecclefiaftical, to " take out commiffions from him in the 
 ^^ firft year of his reign." No body difobeyed the royal 
 mandate. And, among the reft came the Bifhops, and 
 took out fuch commiffions as were granted in the former 
 reign, by which they were to hold their biftioprics during 
 pleafure, and were empowered, in the king's name, as his 
 delegates, to perform all the parts of the Epifcopal func- 
 tion. It was, therefore. King Edward's commiffion which 
 they bore. They were authorized to adminifter the affairs 
 of Chrift's kingdom, neither by an apoftle, nor by a fuc- 
 ceffor of the apoftles, neither by a prophet, nor a prophet's 
 fon, nor any perfon pretending to ecclefiaftical authority 
 from heaven -, but by a lay-fovereign of nine or ten years of 
 acre. If, by accepting commiffions of lieutenancy from a 
 boy, who fat upon the throne of England, they did not be- 
 come the king's minifters only, and did not thereby furren- 
 der the ftrong hold of divine inftitution, as the biographerf 
 of Edward expreffes it, we muft infer, that there is no pof- 
 fibility of furrendering theywi Jm««?«; which, it may be, 
 refembles the charaBer m this refpedi:, that, when it is 
 
 once 
 
 [Mm] See Nptes. ■\~ Heylin. 
 
LEITER XXXII. 279 
 
 once pofll-fled, it can never be forfeited, refigned, or 
 loft. 
 
 " On this footing," fays Mr. Anderfon,* " was prela- 
 " cy fettled, even in England, at the Reformation ; and I 
 *< challenge any man to produce documents, where, ever 
 " to this day, they have bettered its foundation, or fettled 
 " it upon fcripture authority, or divine inftitution." I am 
 not aware, that any perfon has accepted this challenge. — 
 Perhaps it is confidered to be one of the meanejl things in 
 the " mean performance," from which I have quoted it, 
 and therefore is regarded with filent contempt. But, to 
 tell the truth, a clear proof, that the Bifhops of the prefent 
 Epifcopal churches of this ifland are not the fpiritual de- 
 fcendants of thofe prelates, who received their commifli- 
 ons, empowering them to ordain, and perform all the 
 other parts of the Epifcopal function, from Henry VIII. 
 and Edward VI. " would," as Lobo fays of the Abyffinian 
 genealogy, ** be extremely curious," and very inftru6live 
 and interefting to all who ftudy matters of the kind. 
 
 But even this proof ^ come out when it will, could avail 
 ycu nothing 'in the defence of your orders. For, the Bi- 
 fhops of England, in 1661, when " they laft contributed 
 *' their friendly aid to preferve the Epifcopal fucceflion in 
 " Scotland,'' were as much the king's minifters, in every 
 refpecSl:, as were thofe prelates, who took out commifli- 
 ons from Henry and Edward. ** Had they not," fays the 
 moft unprincipled of all Englijh BiJ}jops^\ " upon their knees 
 »' folemnly and devoutly acknowledged, that they had, a?.d 
 
 s 4 " held 
 
 * Defence, p. 194. 
 
 f RebutVer RebiilTcd, p. 23, with exemplary meekness and cour- 
 tesy, thus characteri?eb Bishop Huadly, 
 
280 LETTER XXXII. 
 
 ** held their hifioprics^ and the pofleflions of the fame, en- 
 ** tirely, as well the fpiritualities as temporalities thereof, 
 ." 07ily of the king's majefty, and the imperial crown of his 
 <* majefty's realm ? This they had folemnly fworn."* This 
 their fucceflbrs have folemnly fworn to this day. 
 
 It appears, then, that the Prelates of your church, are 
 the lineal ecclefiaftical defcendants of all the fovereigns, 
 male and female, of the Houfe of Tudor, faveonly Henry 
 yil. and his grand daughter Mary, and of all the fove- 
 reigns of the family of Stuart, who fat on the throne of 
 of Britain. Whether you are afhamed of thofe illuftrious 
 progenitors, I cannot tell. But they do ftand in the line of 
 Epifcopal fuccefflon between you and our Lord's apoftles ; a 
 fact, of which writers of your party take much lefs notice 
 than it deferves. 
 
 In my next Epiftle, I (haU fuggeft an inference or two, 
 which are, I think, fairly deducible from the fadls now 
 ftated. 
 
 ^ Preservative, p. 3^. 
 
 I.ETTER 
 
( 281 ) 
 
 LETTER XXXI 
 
 IT is now herefy in the Church of Rome, and 
 docs not fcem to be relifhed in fome other churclies, to fay 
 that a clergyman may ccafctobe a clergyman, and become 
 a layman again : but It was not always fo. There was a 
 time, when, at Rome, and throughout the wliole chriftian 
 church, the Pried or Biftiop of to-day might be a layman 
 to-morrow ; and when this change was confidered to be 
 the efFeift of depofition. In 488, Felix II. required the cler- 
 gy in Africa, who, during the Vandalic perfecution, had 
 fufFered themfelves to be re-baptized by the Arians, to do 
 public penance fo long as they lived ; and he reduced them 
 to what was then called, lay-communion, which was not 
 to be adminiftered but only at the point of death. All the 
 ancient Councils, not excepting the firfl: Council of Nice, 
 decided, that a clergyman may ceafe to be a clergyman ; 
 for they fpeak of a depofed clergyman as removed out of 
 the order of the clergy,* — as turned out of ofiice,f as en- 
 tirely depofed,:): as fallen from his order, !| as ceafing to be 
 
 of 
 
 * Concil. Arlet. 1. Can. 13. 
 
 I Concil. Carthage. Sess. 4. Can. 48. + Concil. Antioch. Can :", 
 
 II Concil. Ephes. Can. 6. 
 
282 LETTER XXXIII 
 
 of the number of the clergy :* Indeed early antiquity made 
 no diftindion between a deprived clergyman and a layman, 
 but this, that, if a deprived clergyman, upon exhibiting 
 figns of penitence and reformation, was reflored to his fa- 
 cred office, he was admitted without ordination *, whereas 
 a layman having never been ordained, could perform no 
 facred fun6i:ion before ** impofition of hands." 'i bus fpake 
 early antiquity on the fubje£l: of the charaEier imprejfed ; and 
 as it fpake the language of reafon and common fenfe, there 
 is no caufe to wonder at our meeting with the fame fenti- 
 ments, even in the church of Rome, in later times : for 
 reafon and common fenfe are confined to no particular age 
 or church. Accordingly, a Spanilh Biftiop, at the Council 
 of Trent, maintained, that a Bifhopandhis church are ne» 
 cefTarily correlatives, like man and wife ; and that no foot- 
 fteps can be found in all antiquity, where Bifhops, who 
 quitted their bifhoprics, or were deprived of them, ever 
 pafl'ed afterwards for bifhops, no more than a man, who 
 had lofl his wife, pafled afterwards for a husband.f — This 
 Spaniard feems to have been fully as indelicate as our Pref- 
 byterian ProfefTor. But the Holy Council was not fhocked 
 with his indelicacy : nay, the Italian Bifhops admitted the 
 truth of what he flated. But they contended, that, in la- 
 ter times, it had been found for the fervice of God and the 
 church, that there fhould be Priefts without titles^ and Bi- 
 fhops without a diocefey who had only the power and virtue 
 of order in them ; that is, who could continue the order by 
 ordaining other Bifhops. By the way, it may have been from 
 this Tridentine docStrine, that your church, after the Re- 
 volution, caught the idea of your College Bifhops. But 
 far be it from me to infinuate, that you have any illicit con- 
 nexion 
 
 * Concil. Nicen. 1. Can. 6. 
 t See Fr. Paolo Hist. Concil. Trident. Lib, S. 
 
LETTER XXXIII. 283 
 
 nexion with the Old Lady of Babylon, although you may 
 have learnt fomc thuigs from her ! 
 
 We may, then, if we arc to pay any regard to the fcnfe 
 of antiquity, or to the common fenfe of mankind, confidcr 
 it to be indifputable, that a Bifliop, who is depofed, is no 
 longer a Bifhop, and that deprivation converts a clergyman 
 into a layman. From this, and from the incontrovertible 
 fafts, wliich were dated in my laft Letter, I infer, that, as 
 the Englifli and Scottifh Biftiops at the Revolution were the 
 lineal defcendants of the King's Biftiops in the reigns of 
 Henry VIIL and his fon, and not only derived, but had, 
 on their knees, folemnly fworn that they derived their 
 ** authority, civil and ecclejiajlical^' from the ** imperial 
 *' crown of thcfe realms," thofe of them who refufed to 
 take the oaths to William and Mary, the pofleflbrs, for the 
 time being, of the imperial crown of this realm, ceojed to 
 be Bijliops^ when they were deprived by xhc fecular power 
 their tnaker^ until they were again duly eledled by the cler- 
 gy and people of particular diocefes to be their Biihops. — 
 Here I fix my foot j and let the ftoutefl: champion of High 
 Church remove it, if he can. Hence I muft confider Mr. 
 Daubeny's reafoning, or rather his declamation, to be as 
 puerile as it is infolent and ungrateful, where he compares 
 the deprivation of the nonjuring clergy by the Legiflature of 
 the country, to " the attempt of a iaiulcfs bandittiy who 
 *' had made a forcible entry into his parfonage, and, by 
 *' violence, driven him from the charge of his parifli, to 
 " deprive him of his paltoral character, becaufe he had it 
 " no longer in his power to feed his particular flock." [NiiJ 
 
 That this is meant as a compliment to the Revolution 
 
 Par- 
 
 [Nn] Daub. Prelim. Di§s. p. 140. See Notes. 
 
284 LETTER XXXIII. 
 
 Parliament, and the government of William and Mary, 
 we cannot doubt, when we compare it with the reprehen- 
 lion of that government, by the fame zealous Jriend to the re- 
 iigious and civil liberties of his country, which we meet with 
 in the Appendix to his Guide to the Churchy as quoted by 
 you.* There we are affured, " that among the deprived 
 " clergy were to be found fome of the moft pious, the 
 ** moft learned, and moft confcientious divines, that ever 
 " adorned the Church of England ; that the offence, for 
 " which they were deprived, fcarcely deferves the harfh 
 *< name of an offence," (being only refiftance of " the 
 " powers that be, the ordinance of God") and that the 
 <« government did itfelf no honour by depriving them." 
 
 That the learning of feveral of thofe men, though it did 
 not confift in an acquaintance with the fpirit and defign 
 of chriftianity, and with the maxims of enlightened reafon 
 and found philofophy, was yet very great j — that they uu- 
 derftood Greek and -Latin, and fome of the Oriental Lan- 
 guages ; that they had read the writings of the Fathers, 
 and the hiftory of the church (to what truly beneficial pur- 
 pofe is not yet known) their worft enemies have not denied. 
 Whether their learning was never exceeded by the learning 
 of any of the divines, who have, at various periods, adorn- 
 ed the Church of England, may very fairly be queftioned. 
 That they adhered, with a moft confcientious obftinacy, to 
 the fortunes of a tyrannical and fenfelefs bigot to Popery, 
 the enemy alike of the liberties and the religion of his coun- 
 try, all the while longing for, and expecting, his reftora- 
 tion to a government, which he had fliewn himfelf inca- 
 pable of adminiftering (/^//"reftoration including theirs to 
 their former offices and dignities, and, perhaps, their ex- 
 altation 
 
 * Vind. p. 419, 420. 
 
LF.rrER XXXIII. 28.5 
 
 altation to fomething higher) this alfo will be admitted 
 without difHculty. And it will not be denied, that, if pie- 
 ty confifl: in confining the favour of God and the benefits 
 of Chrifl's manifeflation in the flefli to ihemfelves and their 
 little party, and in fhutting the gates of heaven againfl: all 
 Protedants, who differed from them ; in inventing and 
 embracing, with enthufiafm, a neiu doctrine, never heard 
 of before their time; I mean, that «'/:'^ir baptifm, and no 
 other baptifm, confers immortality on the fouls of men, 
 and (left their adverfaries fhould get off with annihilation, 
 and thus efcape the damnation of hell) that God, by an 
 a<Sl of omnipotence, confers immortality on all EngliH), 
 Irifh, and Scottifli Proteftants, who are not nonjurors, that 
 they may be damned to eternity :* if, I fay, piety confift 
 in broaching, publiQiing, and defending fuch doctrines as 
 thefe, which are enough to make " the cars of him that 
 " heareth them to tingle,'' and his hair to ftand on end : 
 then it will be univerfally allowed, that thofe learned and 
 confcientious divines were the moft pious men, that ever 
 lived in England, or any where elfe ; and that it is a great 
 flain on the memory of William and Mary, that they did 
 not cherifli and protect fuch ecclefiaftics as the apple of 
 their eye. But, in reality, we whigs of the old ftamp, who 
 are equally hoftile to defpotifm and to the " monftrous regi- 
 *< men'' of the mob, and do not much value learning and pie- 
 ty, when they are unconnected with charity and peaceful 
 fubmifTion to the powers that be, (we whigs) cannot but ad- 
 mire the gentlenefs and patience of the Britifli government, 
 in fuffering its public and avowed enemies to exift in the 
 country for a whole century, and to beget a fucceflion of 
 
 vipers 
 
 * Mr. Dodwfll, who first published this horrid tenet, was of the 
 nonjurant lait\, but was looked up to and adored by the clergy, as 
 the great champion of the parly, fur a considerable time, liispe- 
 culiurities are not rion; 1,0 v.ars)!y defended as they were heretofore. 
 
286 LETTER XXXIII. 
 
 vipers, who were ever watching for an opportunity of 
 flinging its religion and its liberties to the heart : and Mr. 
 Daubeny mufl excufe our calling upon him to produce ano- 
 ther inftance of fuch magnanimous forbearance, in the hif- 
 tory of any government, ancient or modern, where the 
 ruling power was fo far fuperior in ftrength to its domeftic 
 foes. 
 
 As to the pajloral charaEler^ or fpiritual commiffion of 
 thofe divines, whom the Archdeacon eulogizes in terms 
 fo hyperbolical, he is under a miftake in thinking, that it 
 was not taken away by their deprivation. It wTisfrom the 
 fecular power, as we have fhewn, that they received it % 
 and to the fecular power were they compelled to furrender 
 it. Hence, the pretended axiom, which writers on your 
 fide fo frequently bring forward en this fubje£l, that *« no 
 " government can take away what it did not give,'' is al. 
 together inapplicable to the cafe of your deprived clergy ; 
 for ever fince the reign of Henry VIII. the government of 
 England has given to the Bilhops of England their Epifco- 
 pal powers, and every Biftiop fwears, on his knees, that 
 <* he has and holds his bijhopricy and the pofTeffions of the 
 " fame, entirely, as well the fpiritualities as temporalities 
 " thereof," of the imperial crown of this realm. But your 
 favourite axiom is not only inapplicable, but untrue. No 
 government ever gave a man life; but every government 
 takes away the life of many, and lawfully too. It were 
 ftrange, then, if it could not degrade a clergyman, on 
 whom it had conferred clerical authority, into what it 
 found him at firft. And fo thought the Rev. William 
 Jones, who, in fpeaking of Dr. Dodd's untimely death, 
 not only complains of " the law, that puts a man to death 
 " for a fimple fraud, which threatened no man's life, nor 
 '* endangered any man's perfon or reputation,'* but alfo 
 
 « of 
 
LETTER XXXIir. 287 
 
 " of the application of that law, which put a clergyman to 
 " death, ivithout being divejled of his clerical charaBer:'* — 
 Here the indelibility of the charaEler is fairly given up by a 
 zealous and able advocate of High Church. And if a cler- 
 gyman can be divefled of his clerical character, furtly even 
 Mr. Jones could not have mentioned any power, civil, or 
 ecclefiaftical, which is better able to dived a clergyman of 
 his facred chara£ler, than the power which invefted him 
 with it. Hence thofe, who received ordination from the 
 deprived Bifhops in England and Scotland after their de- 
 privation, did not, in reality, receive Epifcopal ordination, 
 nor could they receive it from men fo circumftanced, till 
 the ordainers were re-ele£led the Bilhops of particular dio- 
 cefes ; which the government of the country, fo far as I 
 know, did not prohibit. 
 
 I cannot help obferving, by the way, that fome writers 
 of your party, as well as fome of its friends on the bench 
 of Bifhops in England, have made one of the mod ingeni- 
 ous difcoveries that I have met with •, for they have found 
 out a ftriking likenefs between your church after the Revo- 
 lution, and the chriftian church of the firft three centuries : 
 a difcovery, which I do not wonder that you extremely ad- 
 mire, and fometimes mention. 
 
 The church of the firft three centuries never enjoyed the 
 countenance and protection of the ftate, and never forfei- 
 ted them, by refilling the poivers that luere. It faw many 
 revolutions in the empire, many changes of the reigning fa- 
 milies, many fovereigns murdered, and their fuccclTors ap- 
 pointed by a banditti fully more lawlefs than even our revo- 
 lution Convention and Parliament, the Prsetorian bands. 
 
 Bu: 
 
 'onr^' r ••• of Dr. Hornf, p. rv. 
 
288 LETTER XXXIII. 
 
 But whoever they were who reigned, however flender or 
 unfounded their title, however profligate and abandoned 
 their character, however barbarous their treatment of the 
 difciples of Chrift, ftill the primitive church obeyed the 
 exifting powers as the ordinance of God, and regularly of- 
 fered up public fupplications for kings and governors, and 
 all who were a£lually in authority. Its clergy did not re- 
 ceive their commiflion from the fecular power, and confe- 
 quently, they could never forfeit it to that power. " They 
 ** had and held neither fpiritualities nor temporalities'' of 
 the Roman emperors, nor did they " perform their clerical 
 " functions in their name^ in their Jjead^ or as their dele- 
 « gates ;" and they did not become bound, as fome of 
 your ecclefiaftical predecefTors did, to abandon their cleri- 
 cal fundions at the pleafure of the emperor. 
 
 *' Look now on this picture, and on this r" 
 
 Did the Epifcopal Church of Scotland, from the Revolu* 
 tion to the year 1788, ever anfwer, in one tittle, to the de- 
 fcription now given of the fituation and character of the 
 primitive church ? No, never ! Did your Church take no 
 concern in the tranflation of the imperial crown of this 
 realm from one family to another ? Did it fubmit quietly, 
 amid all the revolutions of empire, to the exifting powers ? 
 Did it offer up fupplications for the fovereigns on the 
 throne, and for all in authority under them ? The very re- 
 verfe. If you were in purfuit of a contrast to the primitive 
 church, in almoft every point of comparifon, you need not 
 go from home; you will find it in your own church. — 
 Your church has, indeed, refembled the church of the firfl 
 three centuries in one thing, I mean poverty ; that is, its 
 clergy has not been maintained by the ftate, which main- 
 tains no Diocefan BiOiops in Scotland. But this places you 
 
 on 
 
LETTER XXXIII. 289 
 
 on no worfe footing, than other bodies of dllTcntcrs, v/ho 
 have deferved better of the (late. Your church has alfo 
 been depreflcd, though it can fcarcely be faid to have en- 
 joyed the honour of being perfecuted, like the primitive 
 church ; unlefs a church can be faid to be perfecuted, 
 which is reftrained from doing mifchief. But let me re- 
 mark, that its poverty and dcpreflion have not been borne 
 with the meeknefs and patience, and unconquerable charity 
 towards them who depreflcd it, which were the glory of 
 the poor and perfecuted church of the firft three centuries. 
 And its impatience and violent refentment, which, fo far 
 as we can difcover from the fpirlt that your Vindkaiioh 
 breathes, are never likely to fubfide, are the more inexcuf- 
 able, in thofe who profefs to be chriftians, becaufe its po« 
 verty, and the rcRraints impofed upon It by the ftate, were 
 the punifliment, (and, in the execution, a gentle punlfli- 
 ment they were) of its difloyalty; a difloyalty which was 
 never heard of in the primitive church, and was never ex- 
 ceeded in rancour and obdinacy, fince the beginning of the 
 world. Befides, the Epifcopacy of Scotland, unlike the 
 religion of the primitive church, was efl:abli{hed by the 
 moft unpardonable treachery and perfidy, which were fol- 
 lowed up by downright force ; and it was thus eftabliflied 
 on the ruins of a form of chriftianity, which had been, for 
 a confidcrable time, in legal and quiet pofl"enion of the place 
 it held in the country : and, finally, it was fupported by 
 fine and imprifonment, confifcatlon of goods, hanging, 
 burning, and fuch like ♦, arguments not quite fo chrlftian 
 as they are potent. The church, before the days of Con- 
 flantlne, was never eflablifhed by law, nor in violation of 
 law ; nor was it exalted above Its rivals by the means jufl 
 now mentioned, and afterwards thrown down into a (late 
 of poverty and deprcFiou. SulTcring was aiTnoft always its 
 portion, and faith and patience its only fupport. 
 
 T What 
 
290 ' LETTER XXXIII. 
 
 What fliould give your- church a better title, than belongs 
 to the other bodies of dlflenters in this land, to place itfelf 
 befide the primitive church on the current of time, and as 
 it is carried along, to cry out, Nos poma natamus ? I can- 
 not comprehend on what you found this exclufive right. — 
 But I can eafily account for your claiming it. This we may 
 very warrantably impute to that pride, which is obferved to 
 diftingulfh all great families^ that have fallen into poverty. If 
 you had had no rich dignitaries among you, and had not been 
 fet in high places in time paft, no more than our Seceders, 
 Independents, and fo forth, you would not be fo apt to 
 put us in mind of '^om great relations, — But this by the bye. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 291 ) 
 
 LETTER XXXIV. 
 
 " AFTER the reforming /ar/y in this country 
 ** had gone on, for a courfe of years, with much noife and 
 " tumult, eftabliftiing and altering their plans of church 
 " government, King James having fucceeded to the crown 
 " of England, was enabled to put matters on a more dtcent 
 " and regular footing." [Oo] You proceed to acquaint 
 us, that His Majefty did this favour to his ancient kingdom 
 by very decent means ; for that he prevailed, (without much 
 difficulty, I fuppofe) on three Presbyterian minillers, one 
 of whom was the fon of a fuperintendent, to renounce the 
 religion of their country, to which, after due deliberation, 
 they had folemnly engaged to adhere to the end of their 
 lives ; and to be inftrumental in compelling their country- 
 men to embrace the king's new religion, which, they knew, 
 a great majority of them detefted with all their heart, and 
 would rather die than profefs. The king, as you wifely 
 remark, was thus " enabled to put things on a more decent 
 " and regular footing -," for he kindled a flame in the coun- 
 try, which confumeu peace, and good order, and the vi- 
 
 T 2 tals 
 
 [Oo] Vind. p. 348, See Notes. 
 
1292 LETTER XXXIV. 
 
 tals of chrlftianity ; a fire which was not extinguiftied till 
 the final expulfion of his wretched grandfon, the laft male 
 of the Houfe of Stuart that reigned, or ever will reign in 
 Britain. 
 
 I confefs, with no little (hame and regret, that our re- 
 formation from Popery, and the final fettlement of our plan 
 of church government, were not effected without " noife 
 " and tumult." This, I apprehend, was owing, in fome 
 meafure, to the oppofition which our reforming party met 
 with, firft, from the adherents of the decent and regular ef- 
 tablifliment, from which, they had, like fchifmatics as 
 they were, prefumptuoufly departed -, and fecondly, from 
 thofe who defired to fubftitute a Proteftant hierarchy in the 
 room of the Popiih, which had been demolifhed. Many 
 untoward circumftances occurred to prevent the eftablifli- 
 ment of their favourite plan of ecclefiaftical polity all at 
 once. They were therefore content to approximate to it 
 gradually. But that they altered their plans often, is what 
 I never heard, till Ton arofe to inform us of the fa6l. — 
 Presbyterian parity was always what we would, in modern 
 language, call the principle of all their meafures refpedling 
 church government ; and, from our prefent model, I know 
 of no vefy material deviation, but the appointment of fu- 
 perintendents. And even this appointment did not trench 
 on parity in truth, fo much as in appearance. For our 
 fupcrintendents w^xtfubjeB to the ecclefiafticalcourts, and 
 accountable to them for their general condu6l as minifters, 
 and alfo their condud in their fuperintendency. 
 
 I have acknowledged, with due humility and felf-abafe- 
 ment, the difgraceful " noife and tumult," with which our 
 reformers eftablilhed their plan of church government. — 
 And the (hame which all ingenuous Presbyterians muft feel, 
 
 when 
 
LETTER XXXIV. 293 
 
 \vhen they think of that « noife and tumult," becomes 
 quite overwhelming, when we contraft; them with the 
 peace and quiet, the unanimity and concord, the llri£t re- 
 gard to truth and jultice, humanity and the natural rights 
 of men, and the feeling charity, with which Epifcopacy 
 was introduced, and fupported in this country, in 1610 
 and i66r, and particularly, from the latter period down 
 to the revolution. 
 
 I have no doubt that, from your pen, the chriftian 
 world may confidently expe£l a full proof of the fuperior 
 decency and regularity of the Epifcopal model, when compar- 
 ed with Presbytery, although no fuch demonftration has 
 ever yet appeared. But in hope that it will be publiflied 
 fpeedily, I (liall, by way of anticipation, admit, that 
 " King James was enabled to put matters upon a more de* 
 *< cent and regular footing." 
 
 Yet amidft all the important truths which you unfold in 
 the fentence, that adorns the beginning of this Presbyte- 
 rian Epiftle, there are fome truths, which do not feem to 
 have occurred to you, but which I muft bring to your re- 
 colledlion, in pure juftice to the memory of the firft mo- 
 narch of this ifland, who introduced proper Epifcopacy in- 
 to Scotland after the Reformation. 
 
 It is, then, as true as any thing you have ever fald of 
 King James in all your life, that his Majefty himfelf, fome- 
 time before his acceflion to the crown of England, was a 
 Presbyterian, nay, a bigotted Presbyterian, if he was not 
 as contemptible a liar as was ever to be found among thofe 
 borderer thieves y to whom, in the fuperabundance of his royal 
 courtefy, he likened fome of his fellow Presbyterians.* — 
 
 T 3 Did 
 
 * "^ See Basilicon Doron. 
 
294? LETTER XXXIV. 
 
 Did you ever fee the moft gracious fpeech, which his facred 
 Majefty delivered (I really cannot fay whether he read it or 
 not; in the firft General Affembly of the Kirky which was 
 holden'after his marriage of chivalrous memory ? It is well 
 worth tranfcribing, on account of its admirable eloquence 
 and ftrength of reafoning, and becaufe it contains his Ma- 
 jefty's eulogium, in 1590, on the Church of England, at 
 whofe head he was placed in 1603. If you look into Cal- 
 derwood's Hiftory, you will find the following oration re- 
 corded. " I praife God, that I was born in fuch a time, as 
 << in the time of the light of the gofpel, and that I am king 
 •« of a country, where there is fuch a kirk, the fincerell 
 « kirk in the world, Geneva not excepted 5 feeing they keep 
 <« Pafche and Yule : what have they for them ? They have 
 *' no inilitution for them. As for our neighbour kirk in 
 " England, their fervice is an ill mumbled mafs in Enghfiij 
 ** they want nothing of the mafs but the liftings.* I charge 
 « you, my good people, barons, gentlemen, minifters, el- 
 " ders, that you ftand to your purity ; and exhort the peo- 
 <* pie to do the fame : and /, forfooth, fo long as I bruik 
 " my life and crown, (hall maintain the fame agaitift all dead' 
 
 His Majefty faithfully kept this voluntary engagement, 
 which no perfon required of him at the time. Presbytery 
 having been eftablilhed by law -, for, he deprived « the fin- 
 « cereft kirk in the world, Geneva not excepted," a kirk 
 that fcorned to fymbolize with Popery even in keeping 
 Pafche and Yule, which were kept long before Popery ex- 
 ifted 5 (he deprived it) of its legal eftabliftiment, to which 
 himfelf had given his moft folemn fandion ; and in fpite of 
 
 his 
 
 * This is a defect, which the eucharistic service of the Scotch 
 Episcopal Church has supplied. See Skinner's Lectures in Lent, 
 Lect. 6. 
 
LEITER XXXIV. 29o 
 
 his " good people, barons, gentlemen, minifters, elders,'' 
 he endeavoured to fubvert the kirk from its foundation, and 
 contrary to law, to build Epifcopacy with " an ill mum- 
 ** bled mafs in Englifli" on its ruins. This truly chriftian 
 and royal conduO: of the Lord's Anointed, which was not 
 more obftinately than juftly oppofed, " put matters on a 
 •* decent and regular footing.'' It disjointed the whole 
 frame of his Majefty's government in Scotland, and brought 
 his perfon and authority under general contempt. 
 
 Exclufive of his breach of law, and his violation of 
 his own folemn engagements (which, you know, are 
 but peccadillos in fo great and potent a monarch, efpecial- 
 ly as they were committed for the extenfion and fupport 
 of the true church J King James committed only otie error in 
 his whole procedure in the introduction and eftabliflimcnt 
 of Epifcopacy in this country. To the error^ into which 
 this fecond Solomon was, fomehow, betrayed, I (hall have 
 the honour of directing your attention in my next. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 29jS ) 
 
 LETTER XXXV. 
 
 « THE friendly aid of the Church of England, 
 ** which it contributed for carrying on the apoftolical fuc- 
 " ceffion in Scotland," would have been, in 1610, as effec- 
 tual as it was charitable and fifterly, if both the King and 
 liis Englifh Bifhops had known as well, what is indifpenfa- 
 bly neceiTary to " the carrying on of the apoftolical fuc- 
 *' ceffion," as the Epifcopal Church of Scotland has known 
 it for fomething more than a century* But Spotifwood, 
 Hamilton, and Lamb, lay under more than one canonical 
 incapacity, which there was nothing done to remove ; and. 
 they could not, on your- principles, be made Bifhops, unlefs 
 they had previoufly undergone a great change.* And, 
 
 I. To 
 
 * The fact, that Spotiswood was called the Archbishop of Glas- 
 gow, and Hamilton, and Lamb, the Bishops of Galloway and Bre- 
 chin, befoi^e they were called to London to be consecrated, does not 
 in the least militate with my argument. By calling them to London 
 to be consecrated, the King acknowledged that, bffore that conse- 
 cration, they were no Bishops ; — and, indeed, he is made to say so, 
 in the speech, which he is reported to have delivered to them at their 
 ^rst introduction at Court. See Skinner's Eccles. Hist. Vol. H. 
 p. 251, and Crawford's Lives of the Chancellors of Scotland, p. 170. 
 
LETTER XXXV. 29? 
 
 I. To make them chrijl'mm appears to me to have been 
 indifpenfably rcquifite. How a perfon can be made a chrif- 
 tian Bifhop, who is not a chrillian man, far exceeds my^ 
 utmort comprehenfion. Though a wolf cannot be made a 
 (heep, as you wittily obferve, to the great admiration of 
 the Anti-jacobin, yet an infidel,* and even a Presbyterian, 
 may become a chrillian. But it is expedient, one (hould 
 think, to make a chrillian of him, before you attempt to 
 make him a Bifhop. Baptifm ought, unqueftionably, to 
 precede confecration. So thought Cyprian, and that 
 " great and refpe<Slable Council," the firfl Council of 
 Nice,f and the compofersof the Apoftolical Conltitutions ; 
 in a word, all that you account refpedlable in chrillian an- 
 tiquity. A chrillian mitre on a Pagan's head, would be 
 fully as ludicrous a fpe£lacle, as a certain butcher's dog 
 exhibited at one of the Theatres in London, while having 
 his head adorned with his maftcr's wig, [ Pp] he was grave- 
 ly looking at Garrick's inimitable reprefentation of Ham- 
 let ; a fpecTtacle, which " fet" both the audience and the 
 green-room " in a roar," at the molt afFedling part of a 
 deep tragedy. Yet, if your principles have any foundation 
 whatever in fcripture or reafon, the figures which Spotif- 
 wood, Hamilton, and Lamb, prefented to their country- 
 men, on their return from London in i6io, v/ere not lefs 
 grotefque. You cannot admit that they were chriftians, 
 without admitting alfo, that Presbyterian baptifm is valid j 
 
 an 
 
 * Dr. Campbell's analogy (V. L 358) is not made ridiculous by 
 your wit. For, although our whole Episcopal Church should join 
 tlie Primate in laughing at it, it is true, and it will ever be true, that 
 till inhdels become christians, they make no part of a Bishop's charge, 
 which is a christian church ; no more than wolves or foxes are pro- 
 perly the charge of a shepherd. 
 
 t See Can. 19. [Pp] See Notes. 
 
298 LETTER XXXV. 
 
 an admiffion which fhakes your whole fyftem to the foun- 
 dation. What became of thofe men, when they went to 
 the world of fpirits, it would have puzzled Mr. Dodwell 
 himfelf to determine. He would have been very unwilling 
 either to annihilate or to damn three men, who had laid 
 down their commiflion as Presbyters in the Church of Scot- 
 land (where they could not be baptized) and had, without 
 chriftian baptifm, taken out a commiffion of Epifcopacy 
 from King James. But how, on his onvn fcheme of falvaiion^ 
 could he have difpofed of them otherwife ? It is to be re- 
 gretted, that he did not take their cafe, in particular, into 
 confideration, and publifh the refult for the inltrudion of 
 the ignorant. 
 
 The confequences of fending down to Scotland three un- 
 baptized perfons, who pretended to ordain and confecrate 
 other unbaptized fmners like themfelves, are quite fearful. 
 Were not all the ordinances of religion, which thofe men 
 prefumed to adminifter, utterly invalid^ and confequently, 
 unaccompanied by the bleffing of God, for half a century ? 
 What multitudes, then, in this unfortunate country, muft 
 have gone to perdition, in the courfe of fifty long years, 
 the rulers, prieRs, and people, not knowing all the while, 
 till they went hence, that the Presbyterian baptifm of Spo- 
 tifwood, Hamilton, and Lamb, had ruined them all beyond 
 redemption ! But the moft terrible confequence of all, is, 
 that, when the prefent Epifcopal clergy of Scotland look 
 back to their fpiritual progenitors of the feventeenth cen- 
 tury, they can difcern nothing but a number of pagans 
 drefled in canonicals. If their anceftors after the flelh were 
 unbaptized perfons too, as all Presbyterians are ; (and, I 
 am much mifinformed, if feveral of them have not this 
 dreadful retrofped) then they have nothing hereditary to de- 
 pend on for their admifBon into heaven ; but muft be o- 
 
 bliged. 
 
Letter xxxv. 299t 
 
 bliged, like thofc, who call themfelves " clergy'' of the 
 cllablifhment, to truft to " repentance toward God, and 
 " faith towards our Lord Jefus Chrift." 
 
 2. It fignifies little that Spotifwood, Hamilton, and 
 Lamb, were not epifcopally ordained Deacons and Presby- 
 ters before their confccration. As they were not chriftians, 
 it would have been of no confequence, although they had 
 been re-ordained Presbyters and Deacons a thoufand times. 
 To be fure, Bilhop Andrews, who never thought of their 
 original fin in wanting chrijlian baptifm, did obje61: to their 
 confecration, on the ground that they had not been Epifco- 
 pally ordained Presbyters and Deacons. But he was over- 
 ruled. The other Bifliops thought that Presbyterian or- 
 dination would do. The truth is, churchmen were not 
 much enlightened upon the fubject at that time. They 
 came to underftand it better afterwards, in tlieir progrefs 
 from the manly and rational, the liberal and benevolent, fpi- 
 rit of the gofpel, to the narrownefs and haughty intole- 
 rance of that fe£i;arian fpirit, which arrived at its highell 
 pitch of virulence, when the " contemptuous epithets" of 
 High and Low Church came into ordinary ufe. King 
 James was of the fame mind with a majority of his Englilh 
 Bifhops. He would not venture on unchurching all thofe 
 chriftians, every where, who were not under the fpiritual 
 government of Bifhops. In confequence of the King's 
 fenfelefs delicacy, and the " modern liberality" of his £n- 
 glifli Bifhops, you muft either be filent, or acknowledge 
 that your own profefled principles are utterly fubverfive of 
 the lofty claims which you advance, when we tell you, that 
 you derive your orders from men, to the validity of whofe 
 baptifm y6u yourfelves objedl ; and who arrived at the E- 
 ^ikoipTite per /a/tuTT,y leaping all at once, without baptifm, 
 and without ordination, from paganifm into Epifcopal 
 
 thrones. 
 
300 LETTER XXXV. 
 
 thrones. If they were apoftolic Bifhops, in your fenfe of 
 the term, the principles maintained by your church are of 
 the mod flexible nature, and therefore the moil convenient 
 principles in the world. 
 
 The breach in your fucceffion, occafioned by the confe- 
 cration of three Presbyterian minifters, who had been nei- 
 ther Epifcopally baptized nor Epifcopally ordained, is too 
 manifeft to be concealed or difguifed, and too well authen- 
 ticated to be called in queftion. 
 
 And here, let me ask by the way, whether all the Epif- 
 copals in Scotland, for half a century, were fent to perdi- 
 tion, merely becaufe James VT. and his Biftiops, with the 
 exception of the excellent Bifliop Andrews, were ignorant 
 of the neceffity of re-baptizIng and re-ordaining Spotifwood, 
 Hamilton, and Lamb, or had too much idle delicacy or 
 " modern liberality" to infill upon it ? Do you believe in 
 your heart, that it depended on King James, whether the 
 means of grace fhould be efFedual for the purpofes of fal- 
 vation in his ancient kingdom of Scotland, or not ? Is the 
 conveyance of the benefits of Chrift's incarnation reftricSled 
 to a channel, which a fool, or a madman, or an infidel, 
 (any one of whom may be born to a throne) may choke up 
 when he plcafes r If it be, then we mud conclude with the 
 apoftle, " Our faith is vain : we are yet in our fins." 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 301 ) 
 
 LETTER XXXVl. 
 
 YOUR Church has been unfortunate in its ap- 
 plications abroad * for aid in preferving its apoftolical fuc- 
 ceflion. 
 
 We have feen that, in England itfelf, where thcfe appli- 
 cations were made, the fucceflion from the apoflles had 
 been interrupted more than once, — no man can tell how of- 
 ten. And you fent thither two corps to be converted into 
 Biftiops, which had more than one vitium tiaturay that no 
 means were ufed for correcting. We have examined the 
 corps of 1 6 10, and have found that, in the ftate in which it 
 was fent to London, and fubjeCled to Eplfcopal difcipllne, 
 it was utterly incapable of confecration ; for nothing furely 
 is more indifputable, than that the characler^ whether, 
 when tmprejjedy it be indelible or "not, mud have a proper 
 fubjed, otherwife impreffed it cannot be. Would you 
 prefs your feal on flint, or on boiling water, or on train 
 oil, and expert it to leave an imprelRon ? But this, I con- 
 tend, 
 
 "* We shall see, by and by, that it was as unfortunate in (he 
 means it employed for th^ -an;e purpose at home. 
 
302 LETTER XXXVI 
 
 tend, would not be, In any meafure, more fenfelefs, on 
 High Church principles, than to attempt to confecrate a 
 perfon a chriftian Biftiop, who has received nothing but 
 Presbyterian baptlfm, and Presbyterian ordination. This, 
 I have obferved repeatedly, was the fenfe of many of the 
 Fathers, and of the mod refpe£lable ancient councils. It 
 was the fenfe of the Church of England at the refloratlon, 
 and, I fuppofe, has been fo ever fince. And, if your prin- 
 ciples be well founded, it is reafon and common fenfe. 
 
 Of all the BIfliops in Scotland, who were confecrated be- 
 fore the civil wars and the triumph of the covenant, there 
 was only Sydferf tobe found in 1 66 1, when the reftoratlon 
 of Epifcopacy was refolved on. This man expelled to be 
 Primate of Scotland. His hopes were not extremely pre- 
 fumptuous ; but they were difappolnted. A certain Pres- 
 byterian " parfon" was preferred to that high ftatlon, no 
 doubt for reafons which Mr. Rhind, who ftyles him the 
 Venerable, exprefles fully in that one comprehenfive word. 
 While this truly venerable clergyman figured away at court, 
 at the expcnce of his Presbyterian countrymen, whofe a- 
 gent and folicitor he had been appointed, he managed the 
 interefts of his conftituents with fuch uprightnefs and ho- 
 nour, and exhibited, to the king and his mlnifters, fo ma- 
 ny proofs of his inflexible integrity and truth, that Charles 
 II. who, in beftowing pofts of dignity and other marks of 
 his royal favour, adhered moft facredly to the rule, " detur 
 •^ digni/Jtmo,'' could not but llften to his applications, — for 
 what ? For his Majefty's prote£lion and fupport of Presby^ 
 tery, which after the reftoratlon, the king had folemnly 
 promlfed to his Scottilh fubje£l:s, [Qjl] and Mr. Sharp 
 was fent to foHcit ? No I but — for the Primacy to himfelf, 
 
 and 
 
 [Qq] See Notes: 
 
LETTER XXXVI. 303 
 
 and- the benefits of Eplfcopacy to this highly favoured na- 
 tion. 
 
 After the Court had fully refolved to reftore " the an- 
 " cicnt eftflblininient, of which we now fee only the vene- 
 " rable remains," the firfl: difficulty which prefented itfelf, 
 was that of finding proper men to be the Epifcopal clergy. 
 This was a difficulty of no inconfiderable magnitude. It 
 occafioned long deliberation, and fome debate in the cabi- 
 net, and among public men elfewhere. Nay, if we may 
 judge from the fele£lion that was adually made, it was 
 not merely difficult to find proper men ; it was impoJJtbU, 
 At laft, however, Sydferf was nominated to the See of 
 Orkney ; and Sharp and Leighton, Hamilton and Fairfoul, 
 who were all Presbyterian minifters, and had been cove- 
 nanters in the day of the power of the covenant, were pitch- 
 ed upon for confecration. They were adlually confecrated 
 on the 15th day of December 166 1, and fent down, with 
 all convenient fpeed, to take pofTeffion of their refpe^live 
 Sees, to colonize this country with Bifhops, Priefts, and 
 Deacons, and thus " to put matters'' once more " on a 
 «« decent and regular footing. [Rr] 
 
 Sharp and Leighton had been Presbyterially baptized, 
 and ftridly educated Presbyterians, and alfo ordained Pres- 
 byterian minifters. 
 
 . Hamilton and Fairfoul had received, it is not improba- 
 ble, a kind of Epifcopal baptilm, unlefs, perchance, the 
 midwife had adminiilcred that ordinance to them ; and 
 they had received as good Epifcopal ordination, as Scot- 
 land could furnifli at the time ; which we have reen,f was 
 
 on 
 
 [Kr] Sec Notes. f Letter xxxv. 
 
304 LETTER XXXVI. 
 
 on your own principles, none of the bed. — While thefe 
 two men were on their way to their Epifcopal feats, ther 
 might well join the Trojan hero, and fay, 
 
 *' Per various casus, per tot dlscrimina rerum," 
 " Tendimus in Latium" 
 
 for they had firft been Epifcopal clergymen, then Presby- 
 terian minifters, who, as covenanters, diftingui(hed them- 
 felvcs by the pretended warmth of their zeal, even in a zea- 
 lous age : and, finally, 
 
 *'* As a hare, whom hounds and horns pursue, 
 
 " Pants to the place, from which at first she flew,** 
 
 they returned to where they fet out ; laid their heads oh 
 the foft and balmy bofom of Epifcopacy, and there laughed 
 at Presbytery and the covenant, or curfed them, and there 
 breathed their laft. Whatever reprehenfion the characters 
 of thofe men may have received in the writings of Presby- 
 terians, no perfon, that I have heard of, has accufed them 
 of cherifliing tht fpirii of martyrdom to exccfs. 
 
 Sheldon, and the other Englifli Bifliops in 1661, were 
 not fo well fatisfied about the validity of Presbyterian or- 
 ders, as were James VI. and his Bifhops in 16 10. The 
 truth is, though James hated the religion of his youth, 
 which he promifed and fwore to defend, and publicly ap- 
 plauded as the pureft in the world ; his antipathy, which 
 was occafioned chiefly by the fpirit of liberty which Pres- 
 bytery breaths, and the intra£lable charafler of the clergy 
 of his day, was not fo virulent as that which the Englifli 
 Blfhops entertained againfl it in the reign of his grandfon. 
 He did not love Presbytery, becaufe the Presbyterians (fuch 
 was the temper of that rough age) had not, on all occafions, 
 behaved to Him fuitably to his own notions of the reve- 
 
 xtnca 
 
LETTER XXXVI. 305 
 
 rence and fubmifTion due from' fubje£ls to their anointed 
 foverelgn, and becaufe " no Bifhop, no King'' was one 
 of his political axioms. But he never took it into his head 
 to confider Presbytery to be unlanvful ; and he did not think 
 it politic (for he was a great politician) to offend the refor- 
 med churc^ies abroad. On the other hand, the Englifli 
 Epifcopacy in 1661 was but newly recovered from the 
 ruin, in which Presbytery had involved it during the civil 
 wars. Who can be furprlzed then, that Sheldon and his 
 colleagues underftood the canons, relating to ordination, 
 in a fenfe fomewhatr different from the interpretation im- 
 pofed upon them by James VI. and his Bifhops in 1610 ? 
 We often fee, that policy and refentment have influence 
 in criticifm, as well as in the conduct of life. 
 
 But are not you aftonifhed, that the Enelifh Bifhops in 
 1661, who were enraged agninft Presbytery, overlooked 
 the flaw in the ordination of Hamilton and Fairfoul as 
 Priefts and Deacons ? Their orders were derived from men, 
 who, if any regard at all be due to the canons, or to the 
 opinion of Cyprian and of the church of which he is the 
 dpoftle, were never ordained themfelves ; and confequently, 
 if it be true that ex nihilo nihil fit^ could not ordain others, 
 no more than three blackfmiths can ordain a fourth black- 
 fmith a Bifhop. Their '* authors and predeceflbrs" of 1610 
 were neither chriflian Deacons, nor chrifbian Priefts, nor 
 chriftian men. How, then, in the name of common fenfe, 
 could they be chriftian Bifhops, and tranfmit the apoftolic 
 commifhon to Hamilton and Fairfoul, or to you ? Your 
 orders would have been as valid, in your own acceptation 
 of that unfcriptural term, if they had defcended to you from 
 the apoflles through Elagabalus or Malcolm Canmore. 
 
 The Englifh Bifliops infilled on the rc-ordination of Sharp 
 u and 
 
306 LETTER XXXVI 
 
 and Lelghton, but fpake nothing of chriftenlng them over 
 again. Leighton fubmitted, eafily, to this ; not becaufe 
 he was eager to put on a mitre, but becaufe he had good 
 fenfe enough, and a fufficient acquaintance with fcripture, 
 and the writings of early antiquity, to know, that it was a 
 matter of no confequence, whether he fubmitted to it or 
 not. [Ss] But — who would have thought it ? Sharp fub- 
 mitted to re-ordination with great reludance ! So fcrupu- 
 lous and delicate was his confcience, good upright man ! 
 that nothing, I prefume, but the Primacy alone, by his 
 acceptance of which he excluded ** fome hot man, whofe 
 *' violence mufl; have ruined religioti and the country," 
 could have overcome his relucSlance. His Epifcopal ordi- 
 nation, as a Prieft and a Deacon, was a bitter pill. But 
 there was no help ; fwallow it he muft. Without being 
 firft Deacon Sharp, and then Prieft Sharp, he could not be 
 Archbifhop Sharp. But he was foon revenged on Sheldon, 
 or rather, on the Epifcopal Church of Scotland, for cram- 
 ming this bolus down his throat. For, when^the new made 
 Bifliops came down to this country, they confecrated fix 
 covenanters, without fubjeiSling them to the new birth, 
 which Leighton and Sharp had been obliged to fubmit to. 
 As for re-baptizing thofe covenanters, the neceflity of that 
 operation to the falvation of the clergy and all under their 
 charge, was not known in Scotland, till after the Revolu- 
 tion : at any rate, no body chofe to incur the nick-name of 
 the Deucalion of the world, by re-baptizing heretics and 
 fchifmatics. Hence Sharp and Leighton, as well as the fix 
 Bifhops whom they and their colleagues confecrated foon 
 after their return from London, were nothing but Presby- 
 terian chriftians, other wife /«^^«j-, as your ecclefiaftical dic- 
 tionary has it, to the day of their death. 
 
 Upon 
 
 [Ss] See Notes. 
 
LETTER XXXVI. 307 
 
 Upon the whole fubje£l: of this eplftle and the lafl:, you 
 are concerned to prove, that the two confccrations of Scot- 
 ti(h Bifhops in i6ioand 1661, did, ipfofaclo, fupply every 
 defeat, and remove every incapacity in the perfons confe- 
 crated, virtually re-baptizing them, and ordaining tliem Pref- 
 byters and Deacons, agreeably to the canons. We (hall not, 
 I fufpeft, be foon confounded by the produ£tion of this 
 proof. But, till it be publifhed, you might fuffer us to 
 maintain, that, unlefs the violation of the canons, and a 
 manifeft departure, in practice, from the leading principles 
 of your church in what regards the conveyance of authority^ 
 imply no breach in your Epifcopal fucceflion, that fuccef- 
 fion has failed i and that your clergy arc the fuccefTors of the 
 apoftles, merely becaufe they have come after them in point 
 of time, and aft under the fame divine commiffion, " Go 
 ♦« ye, and teach all nations.'* 
 
 That of 1 66 1 is not, however, the loft interruption, 
 which has befallen your Epifcopal fucceflion. We have 
 Hill to take notice of the breach implied in our Leclurer's 
 argumentum ad hominem. And my obje£l is, not fo much 
 to defend that argument^ as to enquire whether You, and 
 your potent allies, have refuted it. 
 
 u 2 LETTER 
 
( 808 ) 
 
 LETTER XXXVII 
 
 THE Anti-jacobin afFe£ls to regard with great 
 contempt the Le£l:urer's argumentum ad homitiem. But, 
 whatever the feelings were, which that argument!, excited 
 in the learned Critic's bread, they were not, I will anfwer 
 for it, thofe of contempt. No controvertift is to be belie- 
 ved, who affeds to defpife an argument, which puts him in 
 a paflion. 
 
 ** That mafterly Critic," as the Editor of the Anti-jaco- 
 bin is pleafed to Call the Reviewer of Dr. Campbell's Lec- 
 tures, fays of the argumentum ad hominem^ that it is " a 
 ^' pitiful mixture oi fophiftry and ridicule, which breathes 
 ** the genuine fpirit of that licentious philofophy, which 
 " derives all authority, civil and ecclefiaftical, from the fuf- 
 " frages of the people, and has been fuccefsfuUy employed 
 " on the Continent, to fubvert chriftian churches." It is 
 here, I fuppofe, that the " Critic" fet you the example of 
 infinuating, that " Dr. Campbell entertained a favourable 
 •* opinion of the fentiments exprefled by fome of the moil 
 " infidious enemies of chriftianity." And, indeed, it can 
 admit of no doubt, that the writer can be no other than a 
 
 dif- 
 
LETTER XXXVII. 309 
 
 difciple of Voltaire, and one of the Illumifmti, who dare. 
 to hold up to ridicule the nonfenfe of High Church, and 
 to point the finger of fcorn at a ridiculous blunder, com- 
 mitted in a moment of confternation and perplexity, by a 
 defperate faction, whofe hopes of recovering the impor- 
 tance and the pofTeflions, which they had loft, were built 
 upon the probable fubverfion, by the reftoration of a furi- 
 ous Popifh bigot and tyrant, of the religion and liberties of 
 their country ! — It is true, that " modern philofophy derives 
 " all authority, civil and ecclefiaftical, from the fuffrages 
 ** of the people." But is this a diftin6bive mark of licentious 
 philofophy ? Or, is it a peculiar dodtrine of modern philofo- 
 phy ? I cannot think it. It was, as we have feen,"* in fo 
 far as the derivation of ecclefiaftical authority is concerned, 
 the philofophy of the apoftles of Chrift. It was the philo- 
 fophy of the primitive church for the firft fix centuries, and 
 the philofophy of the church of Rome till the inftitution of 
 the Conclave. It was, in civil concerns, the philofophy of 
 ancient Greece and Rome, and of the Convention Parlia- 
 ments of England and Scotland at the Revolution : and, if 
 I do not mifapprehend things egregioufly, it is that very 
 philofophy, on whofe principles the Britifli Conftitution is 
 founded, which is thought to be not the worft that ever 
 was framed. 
 
 Perhaps, in what follows, our Critic repeats the fame 
 invedive in different words, that he may fuit it to all taftes, 
 and make it level to all comprehenfions. He fays that the 
 " Lecl:urer's principles," as unfolded in his argumentum ad 
 hominem, " are thofe of the friends of the people, and other 
 " modern reformers in church and ftate." Superlatively 
 blefled are wc, who have a church and ftate, that tic^d no 
 
 u 3 re- 
 
 * Letter xxv. 
 
310 LETTER XXXVII. 
 
 reformation, having arrived at the very pinnacle of opti- 
 mifm I But ftill more blefled, if poflible, are the flavifh ado- 
 rers of civil and religious defpotifm *, for in the prefent age, 
 the madnefs and extravagant outrages of Jacobinifm have 
 furnifhed to thofe fenfelefs and fervile declaimers, a new 
 and popular argument in fupport of paffive obedience and 
 non-re fiftance in church and ftate ! 
 
 Next we hear, that the LeSiurer's reafoning " is fuch as 
 ** would difgrace a fchool-boy, who had ever looked into a 
 *< Treatife of Logic." This is iojine a criticifm, that you 
 cannot deny yourfelf the pleafure of quoting it at length, 
 and adopting it ;* which, in my opinion, you ought not 
 to have done, till you had given your readers fome flender 
 proof of your knowing what Logic is. 
 
 Finally, all the gentle readers of the Anti-jacobin are fo- 
 lemnly warned, on pain of being deceived, perhaps to their 
 ruin, to didruft the fidelity oiall the Lecturer's quotations, 
 whether againft Popery or Prelacy ; and thus this great 
 champion places his immortal -^gis, not only before his 
 immediate parent, but alfo before his great grandmother 
 of Rome : a fpedacle, that muft delight every pious 
 heart.f 
 
 What more natural than, after all this, to expedi an en- 
 tire and decifive refutation of an argument, at once fo con- 
 temptible in itfelf, and fo evidently the offspring of dif- 
 graceful ignorance and licentious principles ? It is, how- 
 ever, much eafier to load an argument with opprobrious 
 epithets, and its author with all kinds of abufe, than to 
 
 re- 
 
 * Vind. p. 403. 
 
 t Anti-jac. Vol. IX. p, 241, 242, 246, 247. 
 
LETIER XXXVII. 311 
 
 refute it. Let us fee how the logical A nti- jacobin and his 
 Primate get quit of the Ledurer's objedion to the orders 
 of the Scotch Epifcopal church. But let us begin with fair- 
 ly ftating the '^ contemptible" argument itfclf. 
 
 Dr. Campbell, in his Eleventh Ledure, calls the atten- 
 'tion of his pupils to the introduction, into the church, of 
 loofe or ahjolute ordinations, as they are denominated ; by 
 which fome perfons were ordained Presbyters, and others 
 Bifhops, without aflignment to a local charge. The Lec- 
 turer deemed fuch ordinations an abufe, unlefs in very rare 
 cafes i nay, he thought them farcical. And in this he 
 contends, he is not fingular. Accordingly he adverts to the 
 meafures, that were reforted to, for checking loofe ordina- 
 tions ; and he particularly mentions the Sixth Canon of the 
 Council of Chalcedon, which pronounces all fuch ordina- 
 tions not merely unlawful, but ablolutcly void and null, 
 that is, no ordinations at all. This Canon he illuftrates 
 and defends with his ufual ingenuity. And he appeals to 
 the earlieft chriftian pradice, to the writings of Cyprian, 
 to the decifions of Popes of high antiquity and great cha- 
 radter, and, finally, to the dictates of reafon and common 
 fenfe, two authorities, whi£h are fomewhat more ancient 
 than the earlieft Councils, and even the Fathers : and he 
 infifts that the language of them all is, that, as you cannot 
 make a man a husband, to whom you give no wife, fo you 
 cannot, by any liturgical forms, make a man a Bifhop, to 
 whom you give no flock to fuperintend and feed. Hence, he 
 takes occafion to remark, in a pallage which he firft read to 
 his pupils as a note, that on the principles of the Scotch 
 Epifcopal Church itlelf (principles, which he himfelfdif- 
 claims explicitly) the validity of the orders, which it de- 
 rives from its College Bifhops after the Revolution, is not 
 defenfible, becaufe not one member of your E^pifcopal Col- 
 
 u 4 lege 
 
312 LETTER XXXVIL 
 
 lege had a particular relation, as a Bifliop, to any diocefe 
 upon earth. Their confccration, therefore, by Biftiops, who 
 themfelves had no diocefes, [TtJ he confiders to be as far- 
 cical, as if their ordainers had pretended to make them 
 husbands without joining them to wives, or fhepherds, 
 without giving them the charge of flocks, or kings, without 
 fetting them over any fubje6ts. From this " pitiful mix- 
 " ture of fophiftry and ridicule," the Le£lurer infers, that 
 thofe College Bifhops, thofe nulla tenentes^ thofe Utopian 
 Prelates, as fpme of your own writers farcaftically denomi- 
 nate them, were only Presbyters after their pretended con- 
 fccration, as they were before it ; and, confequently, that 
 the prefent Scottifh Bifhops derive their orders, not from 
 fuch Presbyters as thofe of our church, who are Parochial 
 Biihops, but from Presbyters, to whom a part only of the 
 miniiterial powers is committed, which part does not in- 
 clude the power of ordaining. 
 
 This is, in fubflance, the Ledurer's argumentum ad ho- 
 minem. Let us, now, attend to the reafoning^ by which you 
 and the Literary Cenfor endeavour to repel this attack on 
 your orders. 
 
 [Tt] See Notes. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 313 ) 
 
 LiyiTER XXXVIII, 
 
 THE Anti-jacobin is a theological combatant, 
 who, notwithftanding his bold looks, and big words, and 
 menacing geftures, is, at bottom, I fufpc£t, fomewhat of 
 a coward. He is, manifeftly, afraid to enter the field alone 
 againft our deceafed Champion. Do but obferve, what a 
 number of formidable allies he fummons to his aid ; all the 
 Generals of Great Britain, with an IriHi Peer at their head, 
 armed Surgeons, Bifhops and Priefls from beyond the 
 Tweed, the whole eftabliflied Church of Scotland ; and to 
 make quite fure, he attempts to force the Lecturer himfelf 
 to turn his arms againft his own argument. Obferve, alfo, 
 how fliiy he endeavours, like his favourite hero, the prefcnt 
 difpcnfer of thrones and principalities in Europe, to per- 
 fuade all his auxiliaries, that it is their intereft to range 
 themfelves around his ftandard, for that he is engaged in 
 fighting t/:eir battles, as well as his own. 
 
 He firfl calls upon the Earl of Inchiquin, whofe Irifh 
 Peerage was created in 1654, when no part of Ireland was 
 fubjed to Charles II. " to look to himfelf, for Dr. Camp- 
 " bell has proved his patent to be a farcical deed." 
 
 Now, 
 
314 LETTER XXXVIII. 
 
 Now, this was done, before Mr. Anti-jacobin's kindly- 
 warning could have reached my Lord Inchiquin -, for that 
 noble Earl was, by George HI. to whom Ireland was fub- 
 ]cO: at the time, created Marquis of Thomond, in 1800; 
 whether before or after his Lordftiip read the " Lectures 
 " on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory," I will not prefume to fay ; 
 but, at any rate, it was before the Anti-jacobin publicly 
 admoniftied him of the imminent danger, to which his old 
 patent was expofed. It was a lucky thing for the moft no- 
 ble Marquis, and, I prefume has received the congratula- 
 tions of all his friends upon his good fortune, that he be- 
 came independent of Charles II.'s peerage at largey much 
 about the time that Dr. Campbell, with a licentioufnefs, 
 that threatened to reduce all the different orders in fociety 
 to a dead level, demonftrated his firfl patent to be " a far- 
 « cical deed." 
 
 The patent, which creates a gentleman a peer of the 
 realm, and gives him the name of fome place or other, 
 without office or relation to the place, or any authority o- 
 ver its inhabitants, or connection with them either fpiritual 
 or temporal,* — and the confecration of a Bilhop, which 
 empowers him to enter on the charge of a diocefe ; thefe 
 two are fo exactly fmiilar in their nature, ufes, and ends, 
 that I confefs myfelf unable to parry this dextrous thruft at 
 the Lecturer's argument ; and fo, we muft even let it pe- 
 rilh. 
 
 But lo ! here come <* the pride, pomp, and circumftance 
 " of glorious war." The whole body of Generals, Lieute- 
 
 nant- 
 
 * The titles of Peers were, originally, names of office or trust in 
 particular districts. The title, and the name of the place, are still 
 continued, though the office be no more. 
 
LETTER XXXVlll. 315 
 
 nant-Gencrals,andMajor-Generals inBrItain,are advancing, 
 «< pride in their port, defiance in their eye," to defend 
 their rank and titles ; for ♦« Dr. Campbell has proved that 
 " their fevcral promotions are no better than farcical deeds.'* 
 
 Now, I will not diflemble, I verily believe thofe gentle- 
 men were in the LecSlurer's view, when he brought forth 
 his unlucky argument. The analogy between a General, 
 Major-General, or Lieutenant- General, without an army 
 to command, and a Bifhop without a diocefe to overfee, is 
 fo obvious and ilriking, that it inuj} have occurred to fo 
 •^ complete an analogift." And who can deny, that it is as 
 expedient to raife eighty or a hundred EngliQi Priefts to the 
 Epifcopal dignity, to be ready to fupply vacancies in the na- 
 tional Epifcopate, and aflift the prefent bench, by taking the 
 command of different portions of their diocefes ; as it is 
 to beftow the rank and title of General on more ofTicers 
 than you have feparate armies to lead ? But, for fome 
 caufe or other, this plan has never been a£tually adopted 
 in England. Although, in that country, they have more 
 Generals than armies, yet they never have more Bifhops 
 than diocefes. This feems to me to be quite unaccounta- 
 ble. Could you inform us, why they have not always four 
 or five fcore Bifhops confecrated before hand, to reward 
 merit by at lead giving it rank, though it fhould not be 
 employed in actual fervice, and to have always a fupply of 
 Bifiiops ready, when any of their prefent Graces and Lord- 
 {hips fhall happen to become unfit for fervice, or have oc- 
 cafion for fending dignified milTionaries into diltant parts of 
 their provinces and diocefes .' In ancient times, churches 
 were not fo improvident as they are now become. At E- 
 phefus, in the days of the apollles, in the church which 
 the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews addrefles, and in 
 almoft all the othei churches named in the New Teftament, 
 
 they 
 
316 LETTER XXXVIIL 
 
 they had a plurality of Biftiops or leaders. — This flays the 
 Le£lurer's argumentum a fecond time, and evinces, beyond 
 difpute, the propriety of appointing (hepherds to no flock, 
 labourers to no work, overfeers to no overfight ; and of gi- 
 ving it in charge, amidft prayers and other religious offices, 
 to reverend gentlemen to be diligent in — doing nothing. 
 
 But here comes another formidable phalanx, I mean, the 
 profefl~ors of Medicine and Surgery, who have the credit of 
 killing, to a confiderable amout, as well as generals. The 
 diplomas of thofe profeffional gentlemen, when they re- 
 ceive academical degrees, do, it mufl be owned, come up 
 entirely to the point in difpute. 
 
 The Ledurer argues againfl loofe ordinations, urging, 
 that they were not known in the pureft andbeft times, that 
 they were condemned by councils, and Popes, and other 
 ecclefiaftics of great name, and that they are, in themfelves, 
 abfurd, implying a contradiction. Yet this fame Lecturer 
 himfclf, this vender of " contemptible mixtures of fophif- 
 " try and ridicule," did often put his fignature, as Gymna- 
 {iarch of Marifchal College, to the diplomas of furgeons 
 and phyficians, by which they were authorized, " if they 
 " kept out of London and Edinburgh," to cure patients at 
 largCy or to kill them, as it fhould happen ! i'his inconfif- 
 tency, of which the fmart Anti-jacobin clearly convids 
 him, is altogether indefenfible. Does not all the world 
 know, that as, both in ancient and modern times, Bifliops 
 have been ordinarily appointed to the charge of particular 
 parifhes or diocefes, fo phyficians and furgeons have been 
 ordinarily empowered, by their diplomas, to take charge 
 of the life and limbs of all the inhabitants of particular dif- 
 trids, which are fpecially named in thofe inflruments ; and 
 that it is as expedient to " tie a phyfician unto a particular 
 
 dif- 
 
LETTER XXXVIII. 317 
 
 " di(lrl£t, as to tie a Bifhop unto a particular flock ?" The 
 cafes are as like as a couple of eggs. 
 
 Behold the third coup de grace which our *' mafterly Crl- 
 " tic" gives the Lecturer's " contemptible" argument, in 
 imitation of the royal youth of Macedon, when he was 
 drunk ; 
 
 *' And thrice he slew the slain." 
 
 Yet ftill he appears to difcover fome figns of Hfe in the ar- 
 gument, and difpatches it again and again. He tells us, 
 that a Bifhop, tranflated from one See to another, is, in 
 iranfttd, Bifhop of neither, and therefore a Bifhop at large ; 
 the cafe of a Prelate paffing from one See to another, being 
 exaftly parallel to that of a Prelate, who is ordained to no 
 See at all. 
 
 After this we are given to underfland, that our LeClu- 
 rer has furnifhed to the Church of Rome, a new argument 
 againft the validity of all Englifh ordinations ; for, it is 
 well known that Parker, the firfl Proteftant Archbifhop of 
 Canterbury, in the reign of Elizabeth, whether he was 
 confecrated in the Nag's Head tavern or not, was confecra- 
 ted fomewhere, by four Bifhops, who had no diocefes at 
 the time.* 
 
 This, alfo, is a cafe in point ; for Parker, like your 
 
 Col- 
 
 * This is a humble attempt to repel an attack, which Dr. Camp- 
 bell does not make in his Lectures. He lakes no notice of the fact, 
 that the ordainers of the College Bishops had no dioceses. Yet the 
 Anti-jacobin, conscious that tlit- ordination of his College Bishops is 
 liable to this objection, strive> to obviate it, although it did not lie 
 iu his wav. 
 
318 LETTER XXXVIII. 
 
 College BIfhops, was ordained to no particular or local 
 charge, and his ordainers had not only been deprived, but 
 were defignated to no diocefes. But, to lell the truth, fo 
 obftinate a fchifmatic was the Lefhurer, that he would 
 have paid very flender regard to this potent argument. Like 
 the reft of us, <* wicked whigs," as Voltaire calls us, " he 
 " did not value a ftraw, v^^hether Parker was confecrated in 
 " a tavern or cathedral,'' and was very little concerned to 
 defend the validity of all Engli{h ordinations, knowing well, 
 as every intelligent man in the nation does, that Englifti 
 Bifhops derive their authority to "perform all parts of the 
 <* Epifcopal function" from the king and the law, and not 
 from the apoftles by Epifcopal fucceflion, and that, provi- 
 vided they be " called and fent by men having legal autho- 
 *^ rity in the congregation to fend minjfters into the Lord's 
 ** vineyard,'* their fucceflion can never fail. He would 
 have quietly permitted the Church of Rome to make what 
 ufe of his new argument (he pleafes, being aware, that if 
 fhe undertake to defend the validity of all her own ordina- 
 tions, (he will have employment for a longtime. 
 
 But pray, Mr. Anti-jacobin, is it one of your theologi- 
 cal axioms, that Parker's confecration was indifputably ca- 
 nonical ^. You have faid nothing to prove it fo, but only 
 that the confecrating Bifhops had no charges at the time, 
 that is, they were no Bifhops ; and that its regularity is ef- 
 fential to the validity of all Englifli ordinations down to the 
 prefent time. Is not this ftrange reafoning ? The regula- 
 rity of Parker's ordination is efTential to the validity of all 
 Englifti ordinations fmce the beginning of the reign of Eli- 
 zabeth ; ergOf Parker's ordination was regular ! Nothing 
 was done in England, that you may not prove to have been 
 done as it ought, by this mode of argumentation. — But 
 your defign here is eaCly penetrated. You find the Le£l:u- 
 
 rer's 
 
LETTER XXXVIII. 515 
 
 rer's argument a little unmanageable, and cannot repel it 
 yourfelf. Therefore you attempt to roufe againft it the in- 
 dignation of the whole body of clergy of the Church of En- 
 gland. This is artful enough : but it is not magnanimous nor 
 brave, 
 
 Sufpecling, that the tremendous multitude of Peers, Ge- 
 nerals, Surgeons, and Englifh fecular clergy, which he 
 draws up againft the argument^ may be defeated, the learn- 
 ed Critic has a corps de refervCy confifting of the greater 
 number, as he fays, of the Fellows of the Englifh Univer- 
 fities, whoj he informs us, muft, " by the ftatutes of ma- 
 " ny of the colleges, be in Prieflis' orders."— Have the 
 Fellows of the EngliOi Univerfities no charge of the reli- 
 gion and morals of the youth, who are educated at thofe 
 Univerfities ? and do they not confider them to be under 
 their infpe£lion as chriftians, as well as ftudents of philofo- 
 phy and mathematics ?— But what has the Ledurer to do 
 with the ftatutes of Englifti Colleges ? Did he ever under- 
 take to <• defend them againft all deadly ?" Can nothing 
 be abfurd, that is to be found in England ? The founders 
 of Colleges there may have had many good reafons for 
 committing the education of youth to clergymen. That 
 body of men has, in all ages, had no contemptible (hare 
 of the learning of the times ; in fome, they had almoft the 
 whole : and, if a public teacher be in holy orders, it forms 
 a fecurity for his neither daring, nor being difpofed, to 
 debauch the religious principles of his pupils. But at any 
 rate, it is ftrange reafoning, to defend loofe ordinations on 
 the plea, that, by the llatutes of feveral of the Colleges in 
 the Englifti Univerfities, the fellows there are ordained to 
 the charge of no flock ! You might as well infift on the pro- 
 priety of condcmring the Profeflbrs of all Colleges to celi- 
 bacy, 
 
320 LETTER XXXVIII. 
 
 bacy, becaufe, by the foundation of Wadham College, the 
 Profeflbr muft be a bachelor. 
 
 But the whole world is, in the end, roufed to arms a- 
 gainft the Ledurer's argumentum ad hominem. The very 
 church, to which himfelf belonged, is brought forward to 
 knock it on the head ! This, I acknowledge, is but fair, if 
 what you tell us be true, I mean, that he was at fecret 
 enmity with his own church all his life. But I fcarcely 
 think, that *« the fincereft kirk in the world, Geneva not 
 <* excepted," is in a ftate of hoftility with its Lecturer on 
 the fubje£t under confideration. It does, indeed, admit 
 perfons in orders to theological Profeflbrfhips ; nay, it does 
 not admit to fuch Profeflbrfhips any perfon who is not in 
 orders. What then ? Is it a mimjlertum vagum^ that our 
 church gives to Profeflbrs of divinity ? a minijlerium nee 
 loco fundatunty nee auEloritate munitum ? Does the Anti-jaco- 
 bin write under the imprefliion, that his readers are all idi- 
 ots ? Does not every body know, that, in this country a 
 Theological Profeflbrfhip is a facred office in a particular 
 Univerfityj and that the duties of it are the cura animarum 
 and the education for the miniftry, of all the youth in the 
 diflri£l:, who have a view to the pafloral care j and that 
 thofe duties embrace all the facred offices of the chrifllan 
 miniftry, excepting only the celebration of baptifm and the 
 eucharift ? And does not the Anti-jacobin know, that the 
 liter a format £y with which our ftudents leave the divinity 
 fchools, muft bear teftimony to their religious and moral 
 deportment, as well as to the progrefs they have made in 
 their ftudies, otherwife they would not be fuftained by 
 any of our ecclefiaftical courts ? Of all this, I have no 
 doubt, our Critic was perfedlly aware, when he reviewed 
 Dr. Campbell's Lectures • And yet he fays, that in ap- 
 pointing 
 
LETTER XXXVIII. 321 
 
 pointing ordained Profeffors of divinity to the theological 
 chairs, our " Church is guilty of all the abfurd conduft 
 " attributed by Dr. Campbell, to Dodlors Paterfon, Rofe, 
 ** and Douglas, foon after the Revolution !" 
 
 There remains yet one combatant more, whom the An- 
 ti-jacobin attempts to arm againft the Lecturer's terrific 
 argumentum ad hominemy — on whofe appearance in the field, 
 I (hall make fome remarks in my next. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 322 ) 
 
 LETTER XXXIX. 
 
 WHO would have expelled our Lecturer him- 
 felftobe prefled into the fervice of the Anti -jacobin and 
 his Primate, for the purpofe of deftroying his own ar- 
 gument ? This fhews wonderful addrefs \ but at the fame 
 time it betrays fome degree of fear. And, you muft both 
 pardon me for faying, it (hews unnatural cruelty, fully as 
 unnatural cruelty, as if the giants, who heaped Ofla upon 
 Pelion, had compelled Jupiter to point his thunder againft 
 Minerva. 
 
 There is a confideration which, in my opinion, fhould 
 have difluaded you from having recourfe to this rufe de 
 guerre. "What if neither the Lc£lurer himfelf, nor anybo- 
 dy elfe, be able to beat down his argumentum ad hominem ? 
 You have furely heard of a man raifing more evil fpirits 
 than he could lay. It is quite poffible to bring forward 
 an argument, which the author himfelf cannot refute. If 
 you deny this, you argue in fupport of univerfal fcepticifm. 
 And allow me to remark, that though a writer's reafoning 
 may rebuke his praOice, yet his pradice does not, in all 
 
 cafes, 
 
LETTER XXXIX. 323 
 
 cafes, invalidate his reafoning. Video meliora proboque^ Je* 
 tenor a feqiior. If the Ledurer's condu£t was not, in all 
 cafes, confiftent with his reafoning, his do£lrine is not 
 thereby proved to be falfc. All that is proved by this la- 
 mentable difcrepancy is, that he could preach better than he 
 praElifedy and reafon better than he aEled ; a cafe, probably, 
 not altogether unexampled in the Scotch Epifcopal Church, 
 nor among the fage Critics, who write in the Anti-jacobin 
 Review. Hence, what you are gracioufly pleafed to call 
 ** the Le£lurer's argumentum ad hotninem retorted on him- 
 " felf,"* is mere perfonality, without fo much as the flia- 
 dow of argument. 
 
 But by what mode of interpreting the Le£l:urer's con- 
 dud, can it be made to demonftrate, that ** he did not 
 " believe one word of the fatiiical declamation, which ha 
 ♦' poured forth againft the indelibility of the characler, and 
 ** the orders that you derive from your College Biftiops ?" 
 
 He refigned the theological chair, and the office of Lee- 
 iurer of Gray FriarSy (for he was only a Le£lurer, having 
 no charge but that of preaching •, a fa6l which you well 
 knew, although you have not thought fit to inform your 
 readers of it :) and, when he fent his refignation to the 
 Presbytery, he intimated, in a letter that drew tears from 
 every eye, that he was far from meaning to refign the cha- 
 Ta61:er of a minifter of the gofpel, and fervant of Chrifl: ; a 
 character in which he gloried ; a charaQcr which he would 
 never refign, but with his breath ; a charader, which he 
 did not intend to retain as a mere title ; for, if he (hould 
 be able to do any real fervice, either in defence, or in illuf- 
 tration, of the chriftian canfe, he (hould think it his ho- 
 
 X 2 nour, 
 
 * Vindic. Index, p. 534, 
 
324 LEITER X5:X1X. 
 
 nour, as well as his duty, and the higheft gratification 
 of which he was capable, to be fo employed. Is this a de- 
 claration, which men, fincerely profeffing godlinefs, could 
 make the fubjedl of jefuitical quibbling and petulant fa- 
 tire ?* 
 
 But quibbling and fatire were never more fenfelefsly, as 
 well as impioufly employed, than againft this declaration. 
 What is there in it inconfiftent with the ridicule, which our 
 liberal and enlightened profefTor pours on the idea of a Bi- 
 ihop ordained to the charge of no diocefe, a pallor fet a- 
 part to feed no flock ? Have you lived fo long, and written 
 fo much, without learning to diftinguifli between a mini- 
 nifter of the gofpel and fervant of Jefus, and a Bifhop or 
 paftor ? Every Bifhop is a minifter of the gofpel ; but eve- 
 ry minlfter of the gofpel is not a Bifhop. Apoftles, pro- 
 phets, evangelifts, teachers, workers of miracles, helps, 
 governments, interpreters, they who had the gifts of hea- 
 ling, and thofe who fpake with tongues, in the apoftolic 
 church, were all minifters of the gofpel 5 but there was not 
 a Bifhop among them. 
 
 I am not much furprlzed at your want of difcrimina- 
 tion ; you are well enough for a Scottlfh Bifhop. But a 
 perfon, like the Anti-jacobin, who, if I may fo fpeak, 
 keeps open (hop for the fale of philological and metaphyfi- 
 cal diflindions, (hould have known long ago, that a man 
 may be a minifter of the gofpel, who is not a paftor, and 
 that he may choofe to write in the charader of a fervant of 
 Ghrift, after he has laid down the chara£l:er of a Bifhop. 
 This, I fay, the Literary Qtn{oxjfjould have known, before 
 he fat down to criticife the works of fo learned a philolo- 
 
 gift, 
 
 * Ah ! theok)gIcal controversy ; what hast thou to answer for ? 
 
LETTER XXXIX. 325 
 
 gift, and fo acute a metaphyficlan, as the late Dr. Camp- 
 bell. But the man was in a paflion, and fo were you all. 
 No wonder ! The Ledlurer has, in few words, made the 
 idea of the validity of the orders you derive from your Col- 
 lege Bi(hops peviccWy ridiculous cf I your own principles i and 
 given it a blow, which it will never recover. 
 
 " If the Le£lurer had been aiive, you would have wifhed 
 " to ask him,'' (but it is fafer to catechize him, now that 
 he is dead ; J " what material difference there is between a 
 " man's retaining the title, after refigning the charge, and 
 " accepting of the title at firft without a charge ?"* 
 
 This, in reality, is not a que fl ion ad honnnem. When 
 Dr. Campbell refigned the paftoral charge as Le£lurcr of 
 Gray Friars, he alfo refigned the title of paftor. The title 
 he retained (and he would not have fpoken of retaining the 
 charaHery if he had confidered it to be indelible) belongs 
 equally to all who ferve the gofpel in any way whatever, 
 whether by preaching, writing in its defence or illullration, 
 teaching, &c. He is fo far from faying, in his Letter to 
 the Presbytery, that he meant to a6l as " a Bifliop at 
 " large," that he fays the very reverfe : for he informs his 
 brethren, that for the difcharge of paftoral duties, his 
 " decline, both in body and mind, had altogether unfitted. 
 " him." It was, therefore, the character of a minifter of 
 the gofpel, and fervant of Chrift, that he retained, not 
 that of a chriftian Biftiop or paftor. But there was this 
 material difference between our Lecturer, after he refigned 
 his charge, and year College Bifhops, who as College Bi- 
 Ihops, never had a charge, that he was ordalnedy and or- 
 dained by a clafs of Bifhops who had not been depofed ; where- 
 
 X 3 as 
 
 * Vind. p. 4lV 
 
326 LETTER XXXIX. 
 
 as ihey, if any regard be due to the fenfe of antiquity, or 
 to the principles of common fenfe, were never in Epifco- 
 pal orders, having been farcically ordained to no charge, 
 that is, appointed to do nothing, by men, who had no E- 
 pifcop'al powers whatever, having been depofed by the go- 
 vernment of the country, and therefore " put out of the 
 ** order of Bifhops." 
 
 You lay down a hypothefis, without pretending that it 
 has any the lead foundation in truth, and then you reafon 
 upon it again ft the Lecturer's argumentum ad homineniy and 
 draw your conclufions with as bold and didatorial an air, 
 as if the premifes were felf-evident, or had been clearly 
 proved. The decifive tone, alfo, in which you fix the 
 meaning of Dr. Campbell's words, defeives fome notice. — 
 You fay, that " his retaining the chara6ler of a minifter 
 *' of the gofpel, and his expreffing his willingnefs to be 
 •* employed in defending or illuftrating the chriftian caufe, 
 •* can only mean his ferving the gofpel as a minifter, biftiop, 
 *' or paftor." Now this is fo far from being its vuaning 
 (which no perfon knew better than the Lecturer) that there 
 have been millions of Bifhops or paftors, who were never 
 employed in defending or in illuftrating the chriftian caufe, 
 whatever fome of them have faid and written in defence or 
 illu ft ration of their oivn caufe y which they miftook for the 
 caufe of chriftianity. And has it not been already (hewn, 
 that one may be a minifter of the gofpel, without being a 
 Biftiop or paftor? And yet you ask, with the moft ridicu- 
 lous folemnity, " And what js all this" (defending or illuf- 
 trating the chriftian caufe) " but intending to adt as a Bi- 
 << ftiop ordained at large ;" (as if Dr. Campbell had been or- 
 dained at large !) *' to be a paftor ^yithout a flock, a mini' 
 ^^ Jler without having any people under his mimjlerial or 
 
 « fpi- 
 
LETTER XXXIX. 327 
 
 " fpiritual care,* and to continue a Biftiop, after he had 
 ** no charge to overfee or infpe6V .-"'f Give us patience, hea- 
 ven ! — Dr. Campbell laid down his ofTice as a Bifhop, be- 
 caufe he was no longer able to difcharge its fundions : yei 
 he meant ftill to continue a Bifhop ! The labours of the 
 paftoral care exceeded his (trength ; for this reafon he de- 
 pofed himfelf : yet, according to you, he intended to be a 
 paflor ftill, becaufe he wilhed to be confidered as a fervant 
 of Chrifl: ! And to crown all, you denominate his chara£ler 
 of paftor, of which you will not permit him to diveft him- 
 felf, though he actually did it without asking our Pri- 
 mate's leave, (you call it) an ajfumed character ! " If, in 
 ** this ojfumed character, he had pretended to baptize a 
 ** child, or adminifter the facrament of the Lord's fupper, 
 ** or aflift a clafs of Bifliops in ordaining a Bifliop, mud 
 •* not every thing of this kind, on his own principles, have 
 <* been no better than a farcical ceremony ?"t 
 
 Thefe ijs are the moft convenient things in arguing, that 
 can be conceived. I could write a long panegyric on their 
 various ufes in reafoning, to thofe perfons efpecially, who 
 have many words, but are diftreffed with a penury of ar- 
 guments. 
 
 The Lecturer declared to his Presbytery, that his reafon 
 for refigning his office as a paftor, was his inability to per- 
 form paftoral duties. Yet, like an Egyptian task-mafter, 
 you fet him on performing thofe duties, whether he was 
 able or not ! Without pretending to fay, that he did adu- 
 
 X 4 ally 
 
 * A minister, I presume to think, siguiiies a servant. Is it es- 
 sential to the oflice of a servant to have " people under his mini- 
 " sterial charge ?" Only to that of a steward or major-domo, who 
 tinder his master, is set over the whole houshold. 
 
 t Vind. p. 411. ; Vind. p. 412. 
 
S2S LETTER XXXIX. 
 
 ally perform any of them, you fuppofe that he might have 
 done it, although " his decline, both in body and mind, 
 " unfitted him for it.'' And then, you infer from his own 
 principles, that whatever he might have done in this way, 
 whether he was able to do it or not, was no better than a 
 farcical ceremony, although, at the fame time, you are ve- 
 ry certain, that, at bottom, he would have confidered the 
 ceremony to be perfectly valid, — why ? becaufe this man 
 of "duplicity, this profound hypocrite, who ferved a 
 " church, which he hated, during a long life,"* « would 
 *^ have fpurncd at the idea of aiding in a fiditious charac- 
 «< ter !"f 
 
 All this, as an anfwer to Dr. Campbell's argumentum ad 
 hominem^ is the moft egregious trifling. You do not allege 
 it as a fa£l:, that he did, after he refigned his charge, bap^ 
 tize, adminifter the eucharift, or alTift at ordination. — 
 Confequently, his condu6l was not adlually at variance 
 with his reafoning, and therefore, nothing can be more 
 puerile, than to fpeak of retorting his argumentum ad hom'i- 
 nem upon himfelf. 
 
 But I readily admit, (Jor fiat juflitia et mat caelum) that 
 if the Ledturer had, after his refignation of his paftoral 
 charge, performed one or all of the paftoral fundions, 
 which you name, his condu£l: would not have been unex- 
 ampled in our church. Many inftances may be alleged, 
 of m.inifters, who have refigned their charges, performing 
 thofe functions occafionally. And this I beg leave to vin- 
 dicate from the farcical abfurdity, which our LeiSturer im- 
 putes to the confecration of your College Biftiops, by my 
 argumentum ad hominemy which we (hall call argumentum th( 
 Third. 
 
 Among 
 
 * See Presbyt. Lett. Part L f Vind. p. 412. 
 
LErrER XXXIX. 329 
 
 Among us, no pcrfon, who has refigned his paftoral 
 charge, can baptize, adminifler the eucharift, or aflift at 
 ordination, unltTs he be requefted to do fo by one or more 
 Bilhops or paftors, which alone can give him authority to 
 perform, occafionally, thofe paftoral fun6lions. But if a 
 perfon be requefted to baptize, &c. by a paftor, or any 
 number of paftors, he is, on )>o«r principles, warranted to 
 baptize, &c. even though he had never been himfelf crdaimd ; 
 and the ceremonies would not be, in any degree, farcical. 
 
 By the time you advanced fo far, in the demolition of 
 Presbytery, as your attack on the Le£lurer's formidable 
 argumentum ad hominem^ it is probable, that you had entire- 
 ly forgotten the principles laid down, near the beginning 
 of your Vindication. But caft back your eye, if you pleafe, 
 a little more than two hundred pages ;* and you will find, 
 that, in your own judgment, a Biftiop can, without pray- 
 ers, or prophefying, or the laying on of hands, delegate 
 the authority^ which he himfelf has received from Chrift, to 
 whomfoevcr he thinks fit, whether of the laity, or of thofe 
 who have returned to that order from officiating in the 
 church. Do you not exprefsly aftert, what we all know be- 
 fore, that Peter did fo ? And did you not find it incumbent 
 upon you to jujiijy what he did ? for which that apoftle is 
 under very particular obligations. You contend, with irre- 
 ftifiblc force of reafoning, that " nobody can\doubt Peter's right 
 " to delegate authority to baptize, in confequence of the 
 *< commilhon which he himfelf had received from Chrift for 
 « that very purpofe.*' T, for my part, would not, for the 
 world, be guilty of douhiing it for a moment:. But I can- 
 not help fufpeding, that your church does not think Peter's 
 delegation of his authority to the brethren from Joppa, " the 
 
 '♦ very 
 
 ■^ To p. 158. 
 
S30 LETTER XXXIX 
 
 " very beft thing he ever did.** No matter. As you, and every 
 other geod Biihopf are the fuccefTors of the apoftles in their 
 ordinary, that is, their Epifcopal capacity, which certainly 
 comprehends the power of delegating authority to baptize > 
 it follows, unavoidably, that you may delegate your Epifco- 
 pal authority, to any perfon that you pleafe ; that, as Peter 
 commanded the brethren^ [UuJ who accompanied him from 
 Joppa to Cefarca, to baptize Cornelius and his houfliold ; 
 fo you may « command" your taylor or (hoemaker, for ex- 
 ample, to baptize, or affift a Bifliop or two at a confecra- 
 tion; and, whatever Epifcopal fundlion he performs as 
 your delegate, it is juft as valid, as was the baptifm of 
 Cornelius and his family. Hence, if Dr. Campbell, after 
 he refigned his paftoral charge, had been requefted by a 
 Bifhop, or a clafs of Bifliops of the Eftablifhed Church, to 
 perform any paftoral fundion, he might, undoubtedly, 
 have performed it as warrantably, as your taylor or (hoema- 
 ker, when you « command" himy may perform a like func- 
 tion. I am inclined to think that, if there be any differ- 
 ence between the two cafes, in point of authority^ the ad- 
 vantage was rather on the Ledurer s fide ; for he was once 
 ordained; and, if he had thought proper to refume the 
 paftoral office, he would have been admitted to the exer- 
 cife of its functions, without impofition of hands, agree- 
 ably to the canonical pradice both of ancient and modern 
 times; which your taylor or ihoemaker, would not, at 
 leaft among us, ever be. 
 
 So much for the aitacky which you and the Anti-jacobin 
 have made on the Ledurer's " contemptible" argumentum 
 adhominem, or rather, I (hould fay, on the charader of the 
 author ; for the argument itfelf hasnot been touched. 
 
 LETTER 
 
 [Uu] See Notes. 
 
( 331 ) 
 
 LETTER XL. 
 
 AFTER endeavouring to fhew, that tlie princi- 
 ples, from which the Le£lurer reafons, or rather, as tlie 
 Anti-jacobin fays, " declaims" againft the Epifcopal fuc- 
 ceflion in Scotland, are fubverfive of all the eftablifhed 
 rules of order in fociety, an attempt, by which you have 
 made yourfelves and your caufe equally ridiculous j you, 
 and your ally and prompter, begin to think of defending 
 loofe or abfolute ordinations in general, and the ordination of 
 your College Bifliops in particular. For this purpofe a fo- 
 lemn appeal is made to the conftitutlon and ends of the col- 
 lege of apoftles,— to the pradice of primitive times, to the 
 opinions of Epifcopal divines, and, finally, to the compaf- 
 fion and charity of all the world, who are entreated to con- 
 Cder the lamentable fituation of your church, when its E- 
 pifcopal college was ereded. I begin with the fecond ot 
 thefe topics of juftification, becaufe the Literary Cenfor 
 begins with it. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 332 ) 
 
 LETTER XLI. 
 
 THE Ami- jacobin boldly avers,* that " during 
 " the firft three centuries, diocefes" (there having, by his 
 own acknowledgment, as we (hall fee, been no diocefes in 
 the firft three centuries) " were but limits of convenience, 
 " neceflary indeed, for the prefervation of order, in times 
 *< of peace, but dijregarded entirely during the prevalence of 
 " herefy, when every Bilhop, confidering himfelf as a uni- 
 <* verfal paftor, felt the obligation of feeding his mailer's 
 " fheep, in whatever part of the world they were fcatter- 
 « ed.'' 
 
 Here we are informed of one of the moft curious fai^s, 
 that is to be met with in the hiftory of religion, 1 mean, 
 that in the eftimation of the primitive church, the prefer- 
 vation of order was necejfary in times of peace ; but that it 
 it was equally neceflary to difpenfe with it when herefy pre- 
 vailed : from which it follows, that, in the opinion of the 
 church of thofe times, nothing was fo fatal to herefy, as 
 
 that 
 
 * Vol. IX. p. 244. 
 
LETTER XLI. 333 
 
 that univcrfal confufiou and milVule, which muft have en- 
 fued, when the whole church became vacant, and every 
 Bifliop confidered himfelf to be obliged to invade the province 
 of every other ! Is not this a ftrange receipt for the extir- 
 pation of heretics, and other vermin of a like kind ? When 
 a Bifliop fet off from home, in order to oppofe herefy in a 
 diflant quarter, what became of the flock, which he left 
 behind him, and of which he had the overfight in " times 
 " of peace ? What hindered " grievous wolves to creep 
 " in,' and prowl among them at their own pleafure, and 
 without fear, when the ftiepherd was gone ? 
 
 But is the averment of the Anti-jacobin really founded 
 in tr'jrt> ' is it a fa£t, that, though the church of the firft 
 thice hundred years was divided, merely for the fake of conve- 
 inence (and, it mufl: be owned, that there would htfome in- 
 convenience m permitting all the chriftian clergy to be va- 
 grants) into diocefes,, to which their refpe6live Biftiops 
 confined their labours in times of peace ; no Bifliop paid 
 more attention to his own diocefe, during the prevalence of 
 herefy, than to any other ; but went over all the world to 
 feed the flock of Chrilt, whenever he could find herefy to 
 be extirpated ; jufl: like a horde of wandering Tartars, 
 which, when it has eaten up the pafture of one place, fhifts 
 to another ? Did the whole church become vacant on fuch 
 emergencies, as it happened to your pure and primitive 
 church, on the ordination of your Epifcopal College ? — 
 Where has this remarkable fa£l lien hid for ages and gene- 
 rations ? From what I can learn, it was never once heard 
 of, till July 1801, when it came out to enlighten the nine- 
 teenth century. The apoft:le Paul knew nothing about it, 
 as it appears from his ch irge to the Bifliops of his day, to 
 " feed the fuck of Chrilt over ivhich the Holy Ghofl. had 
 " made them overfeers," and to the people " to fubmit 
 
 " them- 
 
334 LETTER XLI. 
 
 ** themfelves to their own leaders/' whofe peculiar charge 
 they were. The Anti-jacobin and you write, as if you would 
 flake your falvation on the truth of the fa£l, that Timo- 
 thy and Titus were the j^xed Diocefan Bifhops of Ephefus 
 and Crete. Cyprian appears to have been fully a? ignorant 
 as the facred writers, of the fa61:, with which the Literary 
 Cenfor brings us acquainted in the fentence with which this 
 Epiftle begins; for he fays, "Singulis paftoribus porih 
 " gregis afcripta eft, quam regat unu/^uifque, rationem ac- 
 " tus fui Domino redditurus.'* Not a word here of every 
 individual Bifhop being called to account for the manner 
 in which he does his duty to the njoholefiock of Chrift, rwhich 
 would be but equitable, if the Anti-jacobin's allegation 
 were true. Nay, io particular was the relation that fubfifts 
 between a Bifhop and his church, his own portio gregis, ac- 
 counted In ancient times, that it was, for feveral ages, 
 thought to be indiflbluble, unlefs by the death of the Bi- 
 fhop •, and a removal from one See to another was repro- 
 bated as a kind of fpiritual adultery.* It is worthy of no- 
 tice, that Formofus, Bilhop of Porto, elected Pope in 891, 
 was the firft who was tranflated from another See, to the 
 high and mighty See of Rome. 
 
 No modern writer, either for, or againft the validity of 
 your orders, excepting the Anti-jacobin alone, feems to 
 think it true, that during the firft three centuries, *< dioce- 
 « fes were but limits of convenience during times of peace, 
 « but difregarded entirely during the prevalence of herefy." 
 One of your keeneft controvertifts pofitively denies the fa6t, 
 and aflerts, that for your collegiate form of governing 
 the church, there was no precedent from the age of the 
 
 apof- 
 
 * It was forbidden by the Councils of Aries, Nice, Alexandria, 
 Sardica, Chalcedon, Aiitioch. 
 
LETTER XLi. 335 
 
 apoftles.* And you confefs, that that form was equally 
 unacceptable to your clergy and people, " becaufe they 
 " were not accuflomed to It, and becaufe it was mi confor- 
 ** viable to the primitive model "\ 
 
 Yet, it mufl be acknowledged, after all, that the Month- 
 ly Cenfor did not " fpeak without book.'' He did, a£lual- 
 ly, difcover from a mod refpe^lable fource of information, 
 that during the firft three centuries, all the Bifhops in the 
 world were College Bi(hops, while herefy was abroad. — 
 But whence ? Not furely from Cyprian, who denies it as 
 explicitly and as fturdily, in the words quoted above, as It 
 is denied by you, and the fpirlted author of the Rebuffer 
 Rebuffed I From Cyprian unqueftionably. " Si quis ex 
 "-coUcgio noftro,'* faid the Bifliop of Carthage. From 
 this, and another lucky exprefhon, " copiofum corpus fa- 
 " ccrdotum," our " mafterly Critic" infers, that all the 
 Bifhops in the world were formed into one great college in 
 Cyprian's time, and for two centuries before, and were 
 " confidered," fays he, " as a grezt corporation, [VvJ foun- 
 « ded for the purpofe of propagating the faith through the 
 <« world, and preferving it in purity." He goes on to in- 
 form us, that " ordination by certain liturgical forms,'' 
 was not an aflignment to a particular charge, to which, it 
 feems, whatesrer the New Teftament and Cyprian may fay, 
 no BIfhop was confined in primitive rimes, but " admiflion 
 " into the corporation,^' or, as we exprefs it in Scotland, 
 the Trade " of Bifhops." By their admiffion into the fa- 
 cerdotal " corporation," we are farther informed, " they 
 " became immediately vcfted with all the powers and pri- 
 ** vileges of the corporation,":}: one of which privileges ap- 
 pears 
 
 * Rebuffer Rebuffed, j... 13. f ^i"^- P- ^93- 
 
 [Vv] See Notes. t Anti-jac. Y. IX, p. 244, 245. 
 
336 . LETTER XLf. 
 
 pears to have been, the right of fetting up, in the way of 
 their profeffion, in any place where they might happen to 
 be. [Ww] 
 
 But the truth is, the words of Cyprian, on which our 
 ingenious Critic builds the ftrange do6lrine, that I have 
 ftated above, give it no fupport nor countenance whatever. 
 " Idcirco copiofura eft corpus facerdotum, concordiae mu- 
 ** tU3e glutino et unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut fi quis ex 
 *' collegio noftro hasrefin facere, et gregem Chrifti lacerarc 
 " et vaftare tentaverit, fubveniant coeteri. — Nametfi pafto-^ 
 " res multi fumus, unum tamen gregem pafcimus, et oves 
 <' univerfas, quas Chriftus fanguine fuo et paffione qusefivit, 
 " colligere et fovere debemus." Who, but the Anti-jaco- 
 bin, would difcover in this paflage, the formation of all 
 the clergy in the world, into one great college or corpo- 
 ration ? 
 
 Cyprian is a florid writer (but extremely agreeable, and 
 even fafcinating) who prefents to his readers, on fome 
 fubje6ls, more well rounded periods than fentiments, and 
 more figurative expreffions than diftin£t ideas. I cannot, 
 for example, diftinguifh between his «* glutinum mutuse 
 " concordiae," and his " unitatis vinculum,'' (the glue of 
 mutual concord, and the bond of unity) and, I apprehend, 
 they fignify, in his application of them, precifely the fame 
 thing. What he meant by them, confidering the number- 
 lefs difagreements that took place among the clergy of his 
 day, it is not very eafy to afcertain : Perhaps it was a ge- 
 neral conformity in faith, refpe£ling all the important points 
 of the chriftian dodtrine. That copiefum corpus facerdotum 
 implies, that the clergy were, in Cyprian's time, formed 
 
 into 
 
 [Ww] See Notes, 
 
LETTER XLI. 337 
 
 into what we call a body corporate, I cannot admit, unlefs 
 the Anti-jacobin prove, that Cyprian ufes the exprefTion in a 
 fenfe, which has the fanftion of no clafTical authority what- 
 ever. As to the collegium tiojlrum of the Biihop of Carthage, 
 it evidently (ignifies partnerjlnp in affjccy an acceptation 
 in which it frequently occurs in the bed Roman writers, 
 and which is, indeed, the etymological fenfe of the word. 
 And are not all the chriftian clergy colleagues ? Does not 
 Cyprian fay, '< We all feed one flock ?'* 
 
 The import of the palTage, then, on which the Literary 
 Cenfor has built his paradoxical defence of your Epifcopal 
 College, will, to every impartial and intelligent reader, ap- 
 pear to be, — that, as the great body of the minifters of the 
 gofpel, fcattered over the world, are, generally, agreed a- 
 bout the great leading truths of chriftianlty, and have all one 
 end of their labours, the promotion of faith and obedience; 
 when any pernicious novelty or dangerous herefy appears 
 in any part of the church, a great majority will join in 
 checking and reprefling it ; and by doing fo, they by no 
 means aft without authority, nor do any more than their 
 duty : for they are all colleagues in office, and as fuch, feed 
 one flock, the flock of Chrift, of which every one has a 
 portion affigned to him as his peculiar charge. 
 
 Look into eccleflaftical hlftory. You will find that it 
 entirely juflifies the interpretation now given of the paflage 
 under confideration. Does hiftory inform us, that the Bi- 
 (hops of the firfl three centuries forfook their pariflies, and 
 ran about, like watermen with their fire engines, to extin- 
 guifli the flames of herefy, wherever they heard that they 
 were kindled ? Was it rot by Synods, that met periodical- 
 ly, or were called/;-; n nni.i, and which were compofed of 
 Bifliops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Laymen, that dange- 
 
 V rous 
 
S3S LETFER XLl 
 
 rous herefies were condemned, and the authors of them, if 
 they were of the clerical order, depofed, or otherwife pu- 
 nifhed ? 
 
 But though we were to admit the Anti-jacobin's explana- 
 nation of the paflage he quotes from Cyprian's Epiftles, and 
 the inferences he draws from it, to be perfectly juft ; ftill 
 we muft infift, they do not ferve his purpofe. For, fo far 
 were your College Biftiops from having Epifcopal authori- 
 ty over " all the flock of Chrift, in whatever part of the 
 <* world they were fcattered," that they themfelves joined 
 the clergy and people in thinking, and alfo in declaring, 
 that " they had no authority over any part of it, by any law 
 *' of God or his church ; that they could not, by any law, 
 •* human or divine, claim a title to any fpiritual jurifdic- 
 ** tion ; and that, confequently, every a6l and deed of 
 ** theirs, as a college, was ufurpation without right, and fo, 
 •* in the eye of God and all good men, void and null."* 
 
 Is it not a curious contemplation, to fee the Anti-jacobin 
 fighting for your College Bifhops, and yet at hot war with 
 them ; defending the orders of your church, by carrying 
 on hoftilities againft fome defenders of them fully as ftre- 
 nuous as himfelf ? What becomes of a kingdom divided a- 
 gainft itfelf ? Its external enemies have only to ftand by, 
 and fee their bufinefs done by the nation it/ejf which they 
 are ambitious to fubdue. 
 
 The fertility of the Anti-jacobin's controverfial refources 
 is inexhauftible j and no polemic can improve his refources 
 to better account than he. He makes Cyprian fay what he 
 pleafes : and, after compelling that Father to declare, that 
 
 [the 
 
 * Rebuffer Rebuffed, p. 13, 14. 
 
LETTER XLI. 339 
 
 the only purpofe of ordaining a numerous body of clergy, 
 and forming them into a corporation with excluftve powers 
 and privileges (none of which Cyprian reveals to us) was 
 to propagate the faith, and prefcrve it in purity \ or rather, 
 as the BiHiop of Carthage himfelf fays, to prevent heretical 
 Priefts from tearing and laying wafte the flock of Chrift ; 
 he infers, that this fame facerdotal corporation was from 
 the beginning ; for he fays, as we have feen, " During the 
 *' firft three centuries, diocefes were but limits of conveni- 
 " ence, 8cc." Yet there is not a fingle fentence, from be- 
 ginning to end of the New Teftament, from which we can 
 infer, that the numerous clergy of the apoftolic church were 
 formed into a body corporate, with exclufive powers and 
 privileges ; nor does any ecclefiaftical hiftory, that I have 
 feen, fo much as hint at the facl. If this order of things 
 really prevailed in the time of Cyprian, let me ask the Anti- 
 jacobin, at what time it was introduced ? And if I were 
 not afraid that the Gentleman may confider me to be trou- 
 blefome, I would farther enquire, " By whom, and upon 
 " what authority it was altered ?" That it came to an end 
 he acknowledges himfelf ; — for he fays, in the pafTage of 
 his work which was laft referred to, ** When countries indeed 
 *• nvere divided into diocefes^ and local Bijhops placed over thctn^ 
 <* thofc Bifhops were prohibited by canon, from imperti- 
 
 'nently interfering with each others condu6l ; but when 
 ** the faith or welfare of the church was in danger, thein- 
 <* tereft of the whole community, — of that epifcopatus, cu- 
 •* jus a fingulis in folidum pars tenetur — made them difre- 
 <* gard fuch canons ; becaufe no laws, ena6ted by human 
 *< authority, could tie up their hands," &c. — There is a 
 certain degree of confufion in the whole paragraph, from 
 which I have extracted this pafT\gc ; but whether that con- 
 fufion be ftudied or not, I will not pretend to fay. Yet, 
 notwithftanding its defeat in point of precifion and perfpl- 
 
 Y 2 culty. 
 
340 LETTER XLL 
 
 culty, it bears, in gremio, a very valuable conceflion to 
 your adverfarles. The Anti-jacobin does not, indeed, dif- 
 tin^lly name the particular period, at which countries were 
 divided into diocefes, and local Bifhops placed over each ; 
 I mean, he does not mention the year, nor the century. 
 He acknowledges, however, that this arrangement was not 
 from the beginning. Nay, his words imply, that it did 
 not take place, till after the apoftles were all dead ; for he 
 mentions the canons, which direct the conduft, and limit 
 the powers, of Diocefan Bifhops, as " laws enaBed by hu^ 
 *« man authority" and therefore not obligatory on Prelates 
 in certain cafes. As the facred college, then, enabled no 
 laws for regulating the condu£t, and defining the powers 
 of Diocefan Bilhops, we may warrantably infer, that the 
 apoftles knew nothing about Diocefan Epifcopacy. This is 
 a deduction, from what the Anti-jacobin himfelf admits, 
 to which, I fhould think it very extraordinary if he objedl. 
 Yet this man treats Dr. Campbell with the rudeft infolence, 
 for denying that Timothy and Titus were local Diocefan 
 Bilhops during the life of Paul, and for exprefling his 
 doubts about the authenticity of the tradition, which makes 
 James the Diocefan Biftiop of Jerufalem in apoftolic times! 
 Countries, he confeffes, were not divided into diocefes, 
 over which local Bifliops were placed, till thofe Bifhops 
 might, in certain cafes, warrantably difregard the canons, 
 as laws enabled by human authority ; and yet Diocefan E- 
 pifcopacy, with a local Bifhop placed over every diocefe, 
 was apoftolic order ! 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 341 ) 
 
 LETTER XLir 
 
 LEST Cyprian's formation of all the clergy in 
 the chriftian church into a corporation, with exclufive 
 powers and privileges, like the corporations of butchers and 
 hammermen in our great towns, (hould not bQ thought a 
 fufficient vindication of loofe ordinations, and of the con- 
 ftitution of your Epifcopal College, our Literary Cenfor 
 appeals to the condud; of Athanafius, and Eufebius of Sa- 
 mofata, who, in the time of the prevalence of the Arian 
 herefy, ordained Biftiops, Presbyters, and Deacons, at 
 large :* and he adds energetically^ " If the conduct of the 
 " two ancient prelates was proper, and the Bifliops, whom 
 " they confecrated at large, real Bifhops, fa£ls, which hi- 
 " therto, have never been qitejlioned, it is impoflible to blame 
 " the condud of the Scotch prelates," who ereded the E- 
 pifcopal College, " or to doubt the validity of the confe- 
 " crations performed by them." The amount of this argu- 
 ment is, that if loofe ordinations be valid in one inftance, 
 and at one jundure, they are valid in all inftances, and at all 
 
 Y 3 June- 
 
 * Anti-jac. Vol. IX. p. 245. 
 
342 LETTER XLII. 
 
 jundures. I cannot fay that I fliould be difpofed to admit 
 the conclufion, even although the premifes were indifputable. 
 But the premifes are not indifputable ; and all that the An- 
 ti-jacobin fays for them is, that they have not hitherto been 
 queftioned. "What ! never quellioned ? What can the 
 learned Critic mean ? Has he forgotten the Sixth Canon 
 of the Council of Chalcedon, w^hich, after Athanafius and 
 Eufebius vi^ere dead and gone, declared c// ordinations at 
 large null and void ? Nay, and pronounced the miniftra- 
 tions of men fo ordained, no miniflrations at all ? Has he 
 forgotten Leo L's reprehenfion of fuch ordinations in his 
 92d Epiftle ? Nay, has he forgotten the ridicule poured on 
 ordinations at large by writers of your own church, who 
 call your College Biftiops Utopian Prelates, and deny that 
 they had any authority either over the whole, or over any 
 part of, the flock of Chrill ? 
 
 But I muft take the liberty of exprelTing my doubts a- 
 bout the truth of the fa£l:, that Athanafius and Eufebius or- 
 dained Bilhops and Priefts, and Deacons at large, and fent 
 them forth againft the Arians. Why did not the Anti-ja- 
 cobin give us the ipjijjtma verbal in which the authors,* 
 to whom he refers, inform us of this facSl ? A writer,f of 
 whom he exprefles very high efteem, gives rather a diffe- 
 rent account of the matter. That writer, to whom the An- 
 ti-jacobin is under greater obligations than he has thought 
 it neceflary to acknowledge, fays, not that Athanafius or- 
 dained vagrant clergy, while Arianifm prevailed, but that 
 he ordained and confirmed cut of his oivn diccefe ; which 
 
 im- 
 
 * One of them, viz. Socrates, is accused of collecting whatevor 
 stories fell in his way. 
 
 t RebutrerRebuifed, p. 14, 15. 
 
LETIERXLII. 34S 
 
 implies only, that he granted orders to the orthodox candi- 
 dates for the miniftry, when they applied to him, to what- 
 ever diocefe they belonged. But be this as it may. Who 
 were Athanafius and Eufebius ? Apoftles divinely infpired ? 
 If they were not, who values what they did ? Is their con- 
 duit an infallible directory ? Is it certain, that, bccaufe 
 they lived fifteen centuries ago, they could not do a fenfe- 
 lefs or irregular thing, and that we may blindly tread in 
 their fteps .'* 
 
 7 4 LETTER 
 
( 344 ) 
 
 LETTER XLIII, 
 
 IF we may give credit to Cyprian himfelf, eve- 
 ry member of his " copiofum corpus facerdotum" had a 
 local charge, a ** portio gregis," committed to him, whe- 
 ther he was at liberty to run away from it in times of here- 
 fy, or not \ whereas your College Bifhops were rather 
 worfe provided in diocefes, that Captain Sir John FalftafF's 
 company were in (hirts ; for they had not a diocefe and a 
 half among them all. I am furprized, that this glaring 
 difcrepancy did not occur to the acute Anti-jacobin. But, 
 indeed, I fufpe(3t that he was aware of it. For he is evi- 
 dently afraid to reft the defence of your Collegiate form on 
 the Cyprianic corporation of clergy ; and therefore tells 
 us, that if Do£lors Paterfon, Rofe, and Doughs, were in 
 the wrong, Athanafius and Eufebius, who alfo dealt in the 
 manufa£l:ure of vagabond clerks, could not be in the right, 
 although no body has as yet called them to account. Still 
 he does not feem to be entirely fatisfied with his vindica- 
 tion of your college, and rummages his brain, till he finds 
 out at laft, that the College Bifhops of Scotland " muft be 
 « confidered as apoltles in the ftrideft fenfe of the word/'* 
 
 Is 
 
 * Anli-jac. ubi supra. 
 
LETTER XLITI. 345 
 
 Is it not furprlzlng, that the College Blfhops themfelves, 
 poor men ! never took it in their own heads, that they 
 were apoftles ? This puts one in mind of the perfon, who 
 fpoke profe all his life, without ever knowing it. 
 
 An apoftle is a meflenger ; and a meflenger mud be fent 
 fome whither, mufl: he not ? Whither, then, were your 
 new-fangled apoftles fcnt ? They were not fent to the hea- 
 then, nor to the Jews, fays the Anti-jacobin. No ? Then 
 they had, in fo far, a different commiflion from the firft 
 apoftles ; for their bufinefs lay chiefly among infidels, al- 
 though you feem to think, ^Xx] that, in their old age, 
 they grew tired of wandering, and fat down with bifliop- 
 rics. But whither were our nonjurant apoftles fent ? Here 
 is another point of difference ; for none of our Lord's apof- 
 tles were nonjurors : in politics, they were all Vicars of 
 Bray. But whither were our Scottifh apoftles fent ? They 
 were fent home ,• that is, it was no part of their mifTion, no 
 more than of that of the Haldanite mifTionaries, to ftir from 
 the country where they were ordained. But what were the 
 apoftles of Do£lors Paterfon, Rofe, and Douglas, commif- 
 honed to do at home ^ Was Scotland, in their time, pagan 
 all over, or had circumcifion begun to creep in amongft 
 us ? Not at all. Scotland w^as then fully as much a chrifti- 
 an country, as it is at prefent, if not more fo. What then, 
 in the name of common fenfe, were our College Apoftles 
 commiftioned to teach, or to do ? They were, fays the 
 Monthly Cenfor, commiftioned to teach orthodoxy, and to 
 build up the true church ; or, to ufe his own words, " they 
 <* were fent into a country, over-run with herefy and fchifm, 
 " from which it is equally the duty oi the churchy to reclaim 
 ** mankind, as to convert them from idolatry." Excellent ! 
 
 They 
 
 [Xx] Vind. p. 193, 194. SeeNo'.es. 
 
346 LETTER XLIIL 
 
 They were confccrated in Scotland, and then fent into 
 Scotland. 
 
 Really, Mr. Anti-jacobin, this is too much. As you of- 
 ten, with great freedom, and with a boldnefs that would 
 not difgrace Juvenal, a£l: the Cenfor Morum^ as well as the 
 Cenfor of our politics and literature, I am humbly of opi- 
 nion, that it would be but decent to begin at home. We 
 may fmile at your inconclufive reafoning, your ftrong words 
 and weak arguments, your vehemence, your ridiculous rage 
 on trifling occafions, and more efpecially on occafions 
 when your advierfaries leave you nothing fenfible to anfwerj 
 and we can divert ourfelves with the idea of a holy divine 
 of the true church writing furioufly againft fuch a fhocking 
 latltudinarian as our deceafed Lecturer, while his hand 
 trembles, and his lip quivers, and his noftrils are diftended, 
 and his whole body is convulfed, with anger, and perhaps, 
 the table or desk {hakes under his arm. But we feel indig- 
 nant fcorn, when we read your palpable violations of truth. 
 'All the world knows, and your party acknowledges •, nay, 
 in the page of his immortal work which I am reviewing at 
 this moment, your very Primus confeiTes, that " the prin- 
 *« cipal defign" (in reality, it was the fole defign) " of all 
 " the confecrations, which took place in Scotland, from 
 <* the Revolution in 1688, to the death of the laft furvivor 
 " of the eje£ted Bifliops in 1720," was, not " to reclaim 
 " mankind from herefy and fchifm,'YjF^«^ College Bifliops 
 reclaim mankind from herefy and fchifm ?) but, " to pre- 
 " ferve, through that dangerous and diftrefsful period, a 
 *< regular Epifcopal fucceflion in Scotland."* 
 
 If your College Bilhops were really apoftles, they were 
 
 apoftles 
 
 f Vind. p. 389. 
 
LETTER XUII. 347 
 
 apoftles flit generis. They did not obtain tKe crown of 
 martyrdom, as mod of our Lord's apoftles did ; I mean, 
 they did not fufFer death for their profefllon, but only the 
 privation of what the firft apoftles never enjoyed, and ne- 
 ver defired. But they were, in fome refpe£ts, much worfe 
 treated than their iiluftrious predeceflbrs. You are at 
 great pains to convince us,* that the firft apoftles exercifed 
 their Epifcopal authority with a high hand ; from which I 
 beg leave to enter my diflent. But it is true, that the au- 
 thority of the firft apoftles was never refifted, nor their 
 commands difobeyed, fo far as we can learn from holy 
 writ, either by chriftian paftors or their people. But the 
 clergy and people of your little communion refufed all 
 fubje£lion to your apoftles as apoftles ; nay your apoftles 
 themfelves confeiTed,! that no clergy nor people on earth 
 owedihcm fubjedtion : and every a£l and deed of theirs, as 
 apoftles, has been pronounced, not by your adverfaries, 
 who cannot fpeak with a grave face about the apoftolic 
 powers of thofe men, but by their friends and fpiritual pro- 
 geny, to be " ufurpation without right, and fo, in the eye 
 " of God and all good men, null and void." If they were 
 thus treated by the moft judicious members of their own 
 church, and if they themfelves acknowledged that they had 
 no right to be treated better, can you blame usy if we are 
 not fo much difpofed to equalize them to the firft minifters 
 of the gofpel, as the Literary Cenfor appears to be ; and if 
 we do not think the orders which you derive from Biftiops, 
 who themfelves confefted, that no chriftians on earth owed 
 them fubjedtion as Bifliops or governors of the church, are 
 the moft valid Epifcopal orders in the world ? If the Anti- 
 jacobin had equalized them to Paul, when before his con- 
 verfion, he wks fent to Damafcus, as the apoftlc of the 
 
 San- 
 
 * Vind. p. 147, 148. t Rebufifer Rebuffed, p. 13, 14. 
 
348 LETTER XLIII. 
 
 Sanhedrim, to reclaim the heretics and fchifmatics there, 
 perhaps we (hould not have quarrelled with him on the fub- 
 jedl of their apoftleihip. At that time, I believe, the apof- 
 tle was in fully as bad temper as they ; to mention no 
 other points of likenefs. 
 
 . But what was the fuccefs of our pofl-revolution apoftles, 
 whom, as the Anti-jacobin has authorized us by his exam- 
 ple, we fiiall call " milTionaries for propagating the gofpel 
 <* at home," (what was their fuccefs) in extirpating herefy 
 and fchifm from this peftilent region, — a region which, in 
 the laft age, produced fcarcely any thing but heretics and 
 fchifmatics ; and, in the prefent yields nothing, if we ex- 
 cept a handful of Epifcopals, but Sadducees and Pharifees ? 
 Did they adliually reclaim England and Scotland, which, 
 in their time, were both equally over-run with the fpiritual 
 plagues, that your College Bifhops were fent to extirpate ? 
 Their fuccefs was not quite equal to that of our Lord's a- 
 poftles in reclaiming mankind from idolatry. Docs not this 
 look as if there had been a flaw, fomething uncanonical, in 
 their ordination ? I acknowledge that their want of fuccefs 
 may have been, partly, owing to other caufes. The real 
 objecl: of their mijfion was never known till 1801 j confe- 
 quently the difcovery came too late, by a whole century, 
 for the apoftles themfelves. Then they had not the power 
 of working miracles, with which the firfl: apofl:les were en- 
 dowed. As to the gift of tongues, they had no ufe for it, 
 unlefs it had been to enable them to read the Fathers with- 
 out the help of Lexicons, and what Presbyterian clergymen 
 n^tdy faithful tranflations ; for their miflion did not fend 
 them, I may fay, from thcfrefde. And you know, they 
 depended chiefly for fuccefs on James VIL and James VIIL 
 and their friends ; whereas the firfl: apofl;les looked to hea- 
 ven infl:ead of France, and had the co-operation of Jefus 
 
 Chrifl:, 
 
LETTER XLIII. 349 
 
 Chrlft, a more powerful monarch than any of our exiled 
 princes, even when they were fupported by the might of 
 the whole French empire. 
 
 But is there no fruit of the miffion of our firefide apof- 
 tles to be fccu at this day ? Some of the feed, which they 
 fowed among the briars and thorns of this fchifmatical 
 country, lay a century and more in the ground -, and all 
 men were beginning to fear, that it was quite choked. But 
 it fprangup at laft, and now bears fruit, <* fair lo the eye, 
 " and good to you^ To fpeak without a figure, fchifm is, 
 in part, done away. But how ? By the converfion of the 
 fchifmatics ? No ; but by means fully as effectual. The 
 great apoftles of unityy who, for a hundred and fixteen 
 years, have been deafening U3 with the <• unceafing cry," 
 Schifm, Schifm, Join us, " or be ruined for ever," have 
 themfelves gone over to one part of the fchifmatics :* and 
 fo, here is one rent fewed up. In the courfe of another peri- 
 od of a hundred and fixteen years, it is prefumable, though 
 I do not expect to fee the event, that you will all come 
 over to U3 : and— then — inftead of being, as at prefent, on- 
 ly tlie ejlahl'ijh merit y and the Urh^ we (hall be the eftablifhed 
 church ; nay, *' the churchy a felecft fociety or number of 
 " people,! called out of, or from, the world that lieth in 
 " wickednefs.'' And this will not be unreafonable, not- 
 wlthftanding all that has happened between us and you.— 
 Who could require the mountain to go to Mahomet ? The 
 Arabian prophet was a fenfible man, although he did not 
 always fpeak the truth. He went to the mountain ; and io 
 will you at laft. LETTER 
 
 * By signing the XXX IX Articles, and stretching forth their 
 arms to embrace the Church of England dissenters in this country ; 
 whose meetings were, so late as 1786, " schismaticai assemblies," — 
 but who are nov:^ ** Dearly uc'nj\ed brethren." 
 
 t Is not a moh a number J. v.'-o^^W} It is, not, however, a society. 
 
( 350 ) 
 
 LETTER XLIV. 
 
 I HAVE no doubt, that you and the Anti-jacobin 
 are, at bottom, well convinced that you have failed in your 
 attempt to prove, either that your College Biftiops v^^ere 
 fuch ecclefiaftical officers as the Bifliops of the firft thre^ 
 centuries, or that they were " apoftles in the ftri^teft fenfe 
 *« of the word." But after equalizing them to Chrift's a- 
 poftles, I did not expecSl the Literary Cenfor to ftoop fo ve- 
 ry low, as to vindicate their claim to the honours of paro- 
 chial Epifcopacy, and to have the condefcenfion to prove, 
 that the orders which they pofTeiTed, and conferred on o- 
 thers, are, at lead, equal to the orders of the kirk. The 
 obje6l here is fo much beneath the ambition of a divine, fo 
 nearly allied to the primeval dignitaries of the chriftian 
 church, that his ftooping to grafp at it is a full proof, that 
 however much Dr. Campbell's argumentum ad hotninem has 
 irritated his temper, it has greatly improved his humility ; 
 in which, I truft, he will have reafon to rejoice, both now 
 and hereafter. 
 
 At this ftagc of the controverfy, the Anti-jacobin lofes 
 
 the 
 
LETTER XLIV. S51 
 
 the government of hi« temper altogether. Hence it is na- 
 tural to infer, that both his argument and his good breed- 
 ing mud fuffer not a little : and fo they do. To the lan- 
 guage he ufes, the remark that Charles II. the pious refto- 
 rer of your church, made upon the eftablifhed religion of 
 this country, that " it is not a religion for a gentleman,'' is 
 not at all inapplicable. For the Le£lurer is accufed of 
 ** confidence of afhrmation," by which, I fuppofe, the Cri- 
 tic means "impudent lying," of " du6lility of principles,^' 
 of ** reafoning like a fchool-boy, who had never looked in- 
 " to,a trcatife'of logic;" to fay nothing of the contemptuous 
 air with which the Ledurer is treated by this man of no 
 ceremony, and which it ill becomes the proudeft Priefl; of 
 High Church to alTume, in criticizing the works of the 
 author of The Differtation on Miracles. — So much for the 
 railing part of the bufinefs. Now for the reafoning. 
 
 "The ordination of our prefent Scotch Epifcopal clergy,'' 
 fays Dr. Campbell, " is folcly from Presbyters ; for it is 
 " allowed that thofe men, who came under the hands of 
 " Bifhop Rofe and others, had been regularly admitted 
 «* minifters or Presbyters, in particular congregations, be- 
 " fore the Revolution. And to that firft ordination, I 
 ** maintain, that their farcical confecration by Dr. Rofe 
 «* and others, when they were folemnly made the depofi- 
 " taries of no depofit, commanded to be diligent in doing 
 " no work, vigilant in the overfight of no flock, afTiduous 
 " in teaching and governing no people, and prefiding in no 
 " church, added nothing at all."* The Lefturer after- 
 wards obferves,f that " though the Scotch Epifcopal 
 " Church has a fort of Presbyterian ordination, he would 
 " by no means be undci 'lood as equalizing theirs to that 
 
 " which 
 
 ^ Eect. on F<' '"^'n^Hca' IT' •■:•. V. I, p .ivj •' Id, n V.f^, 
 
352 - LETTER XLIV, 
 
 " which obtains among us. For whoever is ordained a- 
 " mong us, is ordained a Bifhop by a clafs of Biftiops ; 
 *' whereas the ordination of our Epifcopal church proceeds 
 " from Presbyters, to whom a part only of the miniflerial 
 <f powers was committed, and from whom was withheld, 
 « in particular, the right of tranfmitting orders to others, 
 " When we fay that our orders are from Presbyters, we do 
 " not ufe the term in their acceptation ; but in that where- 
 " in we find it ufed in the Adls of the Apoftles, &c." — 
 
 If you, or the Anti-jacobin, had not felt this reafoning to 
 be unanfwerable, yOu would have immediately attempted to 
 fhew, that the confecration of your College Bifhops by Dr. 
 Rofe and others, did add fomething to the powers commit- 
 ted to thofe men before, and of which powers the right of 
 ordaining was not one. Unlefs you can accomplifli this, the 
 Le(Sl:urer's argument muft remain unanfwered. But, in- 
 ftead of fo much as attempting this, the Anti-jacobin only 
 infills that the confecration of your College Biftiops ** could 
 ** not deprive them of the overfight of thofe flocks, of which 
 *' they had previoufly the paftoral care, as Priefts of the fe- 
 " cond order." No body denies this ; but what is it to the 
 purpofe ? Their confecration did not commit to them the. 
 overfight of any flock whatever. Was it meant, does the 
 Anti-jacobin fay, to make them Parochial Biftiops of the 
 flocks,* which they had previoufly governed as Prieftis of 
 the fecond order ? Is he in earneft in wifliing them to be 
 confidered as primitive Parochial Biftiops ? If he be, witli 
 all my heart. I am glad to fee his tone fo much lowered. 
 But unfortunately this will not do. They were, in faEly 
 confecrated for the exprefs purpofe of continuing the Epif- 
 copal^ that is, the highejl order of Priefts in an Epifcopal 
 
 church, 
 
 * He '^ays it actually did so! p. 247. 
 
LETTER XLIV. 353 
 
 church, not for the purpofe of raifing them to the order 
 of parochial Bifliops. It does not fignify a ftraw luhat 
 the Lc£lurcr has written to prove, that parochial Epifco- 
 pacy was primitive, or next to primitive, order. Your 
 College Bifhops were not Parochial Bifliops before their con- 
 fecration, but Priefts in an Epifcopal church, who have not 
 fhe ** virtue of order in them ;" and, as they received no 
 local charge at their confecration, they were not Parochial 
 Bifliops after it. Is it a firft principle with you, that if an 
 Epifcopal church meant to convert all its Presbyters into 
 Parochial Bifliops, and confer on them " the virtue of or- 
 " der^^ all that is neceflary is, to depofe all the Diocefan 
 Bifliops? I cannot believe it. Thofe, therefore, on whom 
 Dr. Rofe and others laid their hands after the Revolution, 
 were not primitive Bifliops, either in the Lecturer's accep- 
 tation of that title, or in yours. A parifli Prlefl: in an E- 
 pifcopal church is a very different officer from a Parochial 
 Bifliop in primitive times. The latter had no fuperior in 
 the church ; the former is fubjedt to his diocefan. The 
 latter could ordain, the former has not that power commit- 
 ted to him. Can any thing be plainer, or more indifput- 
 able than this? Between the ordination of a minifter among 
 us, and the ordination of the Diocefan Bifliops of your 
 church by your Epifcopal College, there is this obvious and 
 ftriking difference — a difference, which no angry difputant 
 can, with all the chicane of a fpecial pleader, and all the 
 noife of palTionate inve£live, ever explain away or difguife ; 
 I mean, that our clergy are ordained by a clafs of men, who 
 have no fupeiiors in the church, and have, both in primi- 
 tive and latter times, had the power of ordaining ; where- 
 as, the members of your Epifcopal College?, having been 
 Presbyters only in an Epifcopal church after their farcical 
 confecration, as they were before it, belonged to an inferior 
 
 z or- 
 
354 LETTER XLIV. 
 
 order in the church, to whom the power of ordaining had, 
 for ages, ceafed to be committed. 
 
 You enquire, farcaftically, what clafs of Bifliops ordain- 
 ed Bifhop Calvin at Geneva, and Bifhop Knox in Scotland?* 
 The Anti-jacobin, likewife, that he may have his fling at 
 the derivation of our orders, asks, " Were not all the Pres- 
 «* byterian churches on earth founded either by the multi- 
 " tude, the civil power, or thofe who, at the Reformation, 
 " being Prieftsof the fecond order, had received no autho- 
 " rity to ordain, and were, according to our author, not 
 " originally in the church ?"f 
 
 You forget, gentlemen, that we argue with you upon 
 your own profelTed principles, and that it is but fair, that 
 you argue with us upon ours. — As to the channel, through 
 ■which cz/r orders have been tranfmitted to us from the apof- 
 tles, I can folemnly aflure you, that we give ourfelves very 
 little trouble about it. We believe that emergencies may 
 occur, and that fuch emergencies have actually occurred in 
 time pad, wherein any man, who feels himfelf difpofed to 
 proclaim the good news of falvation, and is qualified for 
 the office, may, very warrantably, confider our Lord's 
 commiflion, which is recorded for the inftrudion of all in 
 the New Teftament, " Go ye, and teach all nations," &c. 
 as addrefled to him^ and may take out a commiffion imme- 
 diately from Jefus Chrift. This was the way in apoftolic 
 times, as appears from various parts of fcripture, particu- 
 larly the eighth chapter of the book of Ads. It was the 
 way with Bifhop Calvin and Bifhop Knox, who, though 
 they were, 1 believe, in Priefls orders before they ceafed to 
 be Epifcopalians (Calvin was certainly a Prieft) rather 
 
 chofc 
 
 * Vind. p, 404, f Antl-jac. V. IX. p. 
 
 . 246. 
 
LETTER XLIV. ii55 
 
 chofe to take their commiiTion, as minifters of the Refor- 
 mation, from Jefus Chrifl:, than from a Popifh Bifhop. — 
 But what, in the name of wonder, have we to do with the 
 ordination of Bifhop Calvin at Geneva ? We have much the 
 fame concern in that ordination, as in the canonical cir- 
 cumcifion of the Grand Seignior, or of the chief magiftrate 
 of Tombu6loo. And what fignlfies it to the orders of your 
 church, that ours are from Presbyters in an Epifcopal 
 church, or that our ecclefiaftical polity was founded by the 
 multitude, or by the civil power, or both in conjunction ? 
 Say, if you pleafe, that like the ecclefiaftical authority of 
 our clergy, our orders are only the femblance, the mere {ha- 
 dow, nay the dream of a (hadow, of orders. Are yours 
 one jot better for all this, though it were proved ? You ar- 
 gue, as if the refpective orders of the Presbyterian and E- 
 pifcopal Churches of Scotland were like the two arms of a 
 balance, of which, while the one is down, the other mufl: 
 neceflarily be up. Only vindicate your own orders from' 
 the imputation which the Lecturer fixes on them But do 
 not imagine, that this can be done by fneering queftions 
 about the origin of ours, or by angry inve£lives- It is, I 
 own, confidered to be no bad policy, to carry the war into 
 the enemy's country , for, while we afford employment to 
 his forces at home, he will batter down none of our itrong 
 holds. But, in the war between us and High Church, this 
 ftratagem will not avail you. We leave you at full liberty 
 to fpend your ammunition upon our orders, to your very 
 ]aft charge ; and we laugh at you all the while. For we 
 do not claim, as you do, an exclufive right to preach the 
 gofpel, and adminifter the facraments of Chrift, who, we 
 verily believe, has referved to himfelf the power of bleffmg 
 his own means of falvatlon, and has not committed it ex- 
 clufively, to the clergy of r.ny cliurch under heaven, whence- 
 foever they derive their orders. Like the clergy of he 
 
 z, 2 church 
 
350 LETTER LXIV. 
 
 Church of England, (you will recollect, I hope, that you 
 lately figned the XXXIX. Articles, though you have not 
 yet taken the oaths to government) '•* we are called and 
 *' fent by men, having authority given unto them in the 
 " congregation, to call and fend minifters into the Lord's 
 « vineyard." Are your orders the better for this? Whence- 
 foever ours come, yours are from Presbyters in an Epifco- 
 pal church, an order from which, ever fince the formation 
 of a regular hierarchy, the power of ordaining has been 
 withheld. And if you derive your Epifcopal authority from 
 men who had no Epifcopal authority themfelves, how can 
 it be more valid, on your own principles^ than if as many 
 houfe carpenters had confecrated the Diocefan Bi{hops of 
 Scotland, before the Epifcopal College was diflblved ? 
 
 But, let me tell you, we no more derive our orders from 
 Bilhop Knox than from Bilhop Calvin. Do not you re- 
 member that, when the General Aflembly in 1638 depofed 
 all the Bifhops, and excommunicated the greater number 
 of them for Simony, negleB of Epifcopal dutyy profanenefs 
 (for it is or\\yfmce the Revolution that our Scottifh Bifhops 
 have been religious, and attentive to their Epifcopal duties; 
 which fhews that the Revolution has been good for them^ 
 as well as for us) the moft of the clergy, if not all, who 
 concurred in the depofition of the Bifhops, had been Epif- 
 copally ordained, and became, through the men, who had 
 authority given unto them in the congregation to call and 
 fend minifters, what we are now. Parochial Bifhops ? We 
 have the glory, then, of being independent of John Knox, 
 as well as of John Calvin, of whom the Anti-jacobin feems 
 to think but meanly. We defcend from James VI.'s Pres- 
 byterian Bifhops ! They were a mongrel kind of Bifhops, I 
 confefs; and, therefore, we do not value ourfelves f high- 
 ly on our defcent from them, as you, our fpiritual cou ns> 
 
 feem 
 
LETTER XLIV. 35? 
 
 feem to do. Nos novlmus hue ejjh nihil. But, you fee, wc 
 are tht fucra foboUs of the Church of England, as well as you. 
 
 In a word, on the principles of chriftianity and found 
 reafon, two fources of knowledge that are never at variance, 
 we do not obje£l to the orders which you derive from your 
 College Bifliops. God forbid, that we fliould believe the 
 falvation of fouls to be, in any meafure, dependent on fuch 
 trifles! But upon your own principles ^ thofe orders are no- 
 thing, iefs than nothing, and vanity. 
 
 When we think of the fanciful importance that your 
 church attaches to, what it calls, the validity of its orders, 
 we cannot help being ferry, that your College Biftiops 
 were, as our Lecturer exprefles it, " folemnly made the 
 " depofitaries of no depofit ; commanded to be diligent in 
 " doing nothing ; vigilant in the overfight of no flock ; af- 
 " fiduous in teaching and governing no people ; and prefi- 
 ** ding in no church." When men can, like children, be 
 " pleafed with a rattle," and " tickled with a draw," it is 
 painful to fee the rattle and thejlraiu placed for ever beyond 
 their reach. If your College Bifhops had been only com- 
 manded, in imitation of Simeon the anchoret, or of Sty- 
 lites and Baradatus, his contemporaries, to live, for the 
 edification of mankind, on the tops of pillars on a high 
 mountain, or to dwell in a cage, wherein they could nei- 
 ther (land nor fit upright, and to fail fix days of the week, 
 — it had been fomething. But there is not one religious 
 office, fuperftitious or rational, fave only the propagation of 
 their kind infpiritualibus^ nor one clerical function, which, 
 in confequence of their pretended confecration, they were 
 bound to perform. Unlike any thing that we know in na- 
 ture, they were created to be ufelefs to the world, being 
 only, as Horace fpeaks, ^* fruges conftwure nati.'" To equa- 
 
 z 3 Hze 
 
358 LETTER XLIV 
 
 lize them to holy water, would be accounted, by its admi- 
 rers, but a poor compliment to that confecrated fubftance. 
 
 Upon the whole, the united genius and refearch of the 
 Monthly Political and Literary Cenfor, and his Primate, 
 have not been able to difcover any thing chriftian, in any age 
 or country, to which your College Bifhops of the laft cen- 
 tury can be proved to lie like. In this I am joined, as I 
 have (hewn, by thofe men themfelves, by their contempo- 
 raries both of the clergy and laity of your church, and by 
 qne of the keened and moft ingenious controvertifts of your 
 communion, who publiflied on the fubjed^ fo lately as the 
 year 1770. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 359 ) 
 
 LETTER XL\ . 
 
 NOTHING Is more eafy than to render the ca- 
 nons of ancient councils " of none efFe(Sl'' in reafoning, as 
 well as in pradice, by fuch arbitrary explanations and glof- 
 fes, as you impofe * on the Sixth Canon of the Council of 
 Chalcedon. That Canon declares every loofe ordination, 
 whether of Prieas, Deacons, or any other .ecclefialtical of- 
 ficers, uKv^ti, void, that is, no ordination at all. And yet, 
 us if fcviti oXcjg rim rwv iv iKK^zo-ixo-riKu rxyfAxri (nor, in gene- 
 ral any ecclefiaftical ofRcer of a?iy order) meant nothing at 
 all, you fay that ** the prohibition is particularly levelled 
 " at the loofe ordinations of Presbyters and Deacons /" 
 
 The Council which met at Nice, and was transferred to 
 Chalcedon in 451, was, indeed, as you fay, " called to 
 « reprefs the Eutychian herefy.'* But all its deliberations 
 were not direded to that one objed, nor was it ultra vires 
 in the Council to take other things into confideration, that 
 had no immediate connexion with the repreflion of the he- 
 
 * Vind. p. 372, 373, 374, 375. 
 
360 LETTER XLV. 
 
 refy. After they had fettled the faith of the church, par- 
 ticularly refpedlng the nature of Chrift, and drawn up a 
 fymbol, which was fubfcribed by all prefent, excepting Di- 
 ofcorus and a few more Eutychians, the Fathers at Chalce- 
 don proceeded to a bufinefs of a different nature, the regu- 
 lation of the difcipline of the church : and among other de- 
 crees, relating to order and difcipline, the Sixth Canon was 
 adopted. 
 
 In what manner, or for what reafon, this decree tended 
 to the repreffion of the Eutychian herefy, I cannot divine ; 
 and, as you have produced none of the refpedtable authori- 
 ties, by which you tell us, that if you had fo pleafed, you 
 might have confirmed your opinion of the meaning and de- 
 fign of this Canon, we have, unfortunately, neither reafon 
 nor the authority of great names, to draw us over to your 
 opinion. Why was the ordination of Presbyters and Dea- 
 cons at large more dangerous to the catholic faith, than the 
 loofe ordination of Bifhops, which, you infinuate, it was 
 not fo much an objed with the Council to prohibit ? Are 
 vagabond Priefts and Deacons under ftronger temptations, 
 from their rank in the church, to fall into herefy, than va- 
 gabond Prelates ? Then I do not wonder that Priefts and 
 Deacons are ambitious of rifing to the Epifcopate as quicfc- 
 ]y as poffible •, and that it is, perhaps, a bifhopric that they 
 would be at, when they pray, <* Lead us not into tempta- 
 " tlon." When you (hall have anfwered all the queftions 
 which I have already propofed, I fhould be glad to hear 
 you upon another point, that perplexes me not a little. — 
 The Anti-jacobin tells me, that for j,the repreffion of the 
 Arian herefy in the fourth century, Athanafius and Eufc- 
 bius of Samofata, in the profundity of their fz«f2>«/wifdom, 
 ordained BKhops, Presbyters, and Deacons, at large, and 
 let them loofe upon the Arians. You inform me, that in 
 
 the 
 
LETTER XLV. 561 
 
 the middle of the fifth century, the Council of Chalcedon, 
 for the repreflioii of the Eutychian herefy, prohibited loofe 
 ordinations, and dtchired f^th ordinations null and void, 
 nay, and the minillrations of vagabond clerks utterly ineffi- 
 cacious, and no minillrations at all. rhe Literary Cenfor 
 comes forward again, and aflerts with confidence, that your 
 College of Bifhops at large, was a meafure reforted to in 
 the eighteenth century, by a church which never yet erred, 
 for the extirpation of herefy and Jchifvu I do not know what 
 to make of all this. That the very fame receipt (hould be 
 cfFedual for the repreflion of herefy in the fourth century \ 
 the worft thing that could be prefcribcd in the fame difeafe 
 in the fifth century, and confidered to be death by a great 
 Pope in the end of the fixth century, and then again fiiould 
 recover its fanative powers in the beginning of the eigh- 
 teenth, and be prefcribed, with effect, by the firft phyfici- 
 ans of the age ! This is too wonderful for me : it is high ; 
 I cannot comprehend it. But there is one thing \hat I am 
 able to comprehend, and that I cannot fufficiently admire ; 
 1 mean the delightful harmony, in point of opinion, upon 
 difficult fubjecls, that diftinguifiies the writers of High 
 Church. This muft be owing to their apoftle's" glutinum 
 ** mutute concordix," with which they are all mod profufe- 
 iy befprinkled, and his *' vinculum unitatis," wherewith 
 they are bound together, like the bundle of rods, with 
 which the wife father in the fable inftruded his fons in the 
 advantages of unanimity and concord. 
 
 You ask « how" the prohibition of loofe ordinations by 
 the Council of Chalcedon, and the veneration in which the 
 Canons of that Council were held by Leo L and Gregory the 
 Great, "come to afford any peculiar force of argument againft 
 " the Scotch Epifcopal Church ?" I will tell you how this 
 comes. It is becaufe the decifions of reafon and common 
 
 fenfe 
 
362 LETTER XLV. 
 
 feiife happen to be fan£tioned by a great council of ecclefi- 
 aftics, which was convened in the middle of the fifth 
 century, and by a Bi(hop of Rome, who was contempora- 
 ry with the Council, and particularly admired the 6th Ca- 
 non, and by another illuftrious prelate of the fame church 
 in the end of the fixth century, who equalized the Canons 
 of the four firft General Councils to the Four Gofpels. If, 
 indeed, reafon and common fenfe were on one fide, and 
 the opinions of ecclefiaflics, and the Canons of Councils, 
 in the fifth century, on the other ; confiftency would oblige 
 your church to bow to the latter. But as they happen to 
 agree in the inftance under confideration, our Ledurer 
 thought that the voice of reafon and common fenfe, being 
 recommended to attention by fuch refpe6lable authority as 
 the 6th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, had fome 
 chance to be liftened to by the idolaters of antiquity. But 
 he did not know the men with whom he was contending. 
 The Primate of the Scotch Epifcopal Church pays more re- 
 gard to an article of a modern creed, than to the decree of 
 an ancient Council, when the latter rebukes the pradice of 
 his church. The XXI. Article of the Church of England 
 is brought forward to invalidate the authority of the 6th 
 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon I High Church, who 
 adores the decifions of antiquity as one of the chief pillars 
 and grounds of truth, oppofcb the articles of a fingle nation- 
 al church in the fixteenth century, and in the vicinity of 
 the North Pole, to the Canons of an -Ecumenical Council, 
 held in the fifth century, and in that quarter of the globe, 
 where the light of chriftianity firft fhone ; and (he is not 
 afhamed to avow, that fhe entirely agrees with the former f 
 This harmonizes wonderfully with the title and the leading 
 objedt of your Vindication. 
 
 For my part, I agree with the Church of England in be- 
 lieving 
 
LETTER XLV. 363 
 
 lieving, that " General Councils may err, and fometimes 
 " have erred, in things pertaining to God ;" although I 
 cannot think it a damnable error in the Council of Chalce- 
 don, to prohibit the ordination of vagabond clerks. But 
 fallibility happens not to be one of the incotntnimicable attri- 
 butes of General Councils. It is part of my creed, that in- 
 dividuals, whether of the clergy or laity, as well as large 
 bodies of men, may err, and fomctimes have erred, in 
 things pertaining to God. Hence, after fetting at nought 
 the authority of a General Council, a Council fo ancient, 
 that its Canons are now in the 1358th year of their age, it 
 appears ftrange in the Vindicator oi Primitive Iruth, to ap- 
 peal to the opinions of individual theologues in modern 
 times.* 
 
 Your quotations from Do£lors Prideaux and Horfley have 
 not the leail connection with the point at ifl'ue between 
 the Lecturer and you ; and therefore they are as much mif- 
 placed, as if they were infertcd in the middle of Vida's 
 Game of Chefs. Who ever difputed Dr. Horlley's doctrine? 
 Who does not know, that a chrillian church may exift, and 
 did adualiy cxill three hundred years, not only indepen- 
 dently of the ftate, but in fpite of it.*' What then ? Does 
 this juftify the dedication of minifters, amidil prayers, and 
 other liturgical offices, to no miniflry ? As to Dr. Prideaux, 
 all that he infifls upon is, that the nonjurant Bilhops were 
 not deprived of their fpiritual ofiice by the law which depo- 
 fed them ; the contrary of which 1 have attempted to e- 
 vince.f This alfo is altogether unconne£l:ed with the con- 
 troverfy about the vahdity ofloofe ordinations. 
 
 Of your " refpedable authorities'' in defence of your 
 
 efla- 
 
 * Yind.^p. 383, 384, 385. etsequ. \ Lett. XXXIIJ. 
 
^64 XETTER XLV. 
 
 eftabliftiment of Utopian Bifliops, I think it ncceffary to 
 take notice of only one, T mean, Hooker. 
 
 The only fpecific reafon urged in juftification of loofc 
 ordinations by that excellent writer, is " the converfion of 
 ** nations." As to the general aflertions, with which we 
 are entertained, refpe61:ing the expediency of luch ordina- 
 tions at particular times, and in particular fituadons of the 
 church, they deferve very little notice, fince he leaves us 
 to imagine thofe times and fituations to be whatever we 
 pleafe. — But on what ground did he confider the ordination 
 of minifters, to preach the gofpel to unconverted nations, 
 to be loofe ordinations ? Has their miniftry no diftindl and 
 particular objecSl: } Are they made the depofitaries of no 
 depofit, or commanded to be diligent in doing no work ? 
 Are they ordained to propagate the gofpel in no place in 
 particular ? They are ordained for the converfion of nations. 
 Your College Bifhops were ordained for no purpofe, as you 
 acknowledge, but that of keeping up the order. So long 
 as there are nations to be converted, the orduiation of mif- 
 fionaries to convert them can never be abfurd or farcical. — 
 But nothing can exceed the abfurdity of appointing a Bi« 
 fliop to feed the flock of Chrift, and to prefide in a church, 
 while you give him neither flock to feed, nor church to 
 prefide in, nor fubje£l one Tingle chriftian on earth to his 
 Epifcopal government. If you wifhed to make the Epifco- 
 pal character an obje£l of derifion to all the world, this is 
 precifely the farce that would beR anfwer the purpofe. It 
 was fuch a farce, that Peter the Great caufed to be a£^ed, 
 when he defired to make the idea of a fupreme head of the 
 univerfal church ridiculous in his dominions. He made an 
 old fool, who had taught him to write, Knes Papa, or Su- 
 preme Pontiff; — whom he caufed to be inftalled by a num- 
 ber of buffoons, and harangued, on his inftallation, by four 
 
 fta- 
 
LETTER XLV. $65 
 
 ftammerers; and after the new Pope had created a fufTicient 
 number of Cardinals, his Imperial Majefty contrived to 
 have the whole facred college made drunk with brandy. — 
 Jotof (for that was the firfl Ruffian Pope's name) was 
 more fortunate tlian your College Bi(hops. For, though 
 he got no pontifical charge, he had an appointment of 2000 
 crowns, and a houfe affigned him.* This was a benefice 
 without cure of fouls. But your facred College got neither 
 benefice nor cure. 
 
 Hooker does not fpeak of the ordination of Bifiiops at 
 large. The fpecific reafon that he urges to juftify fuch 
 ordinations, rather excludes the idea of the loofe ordination 
 of Bifhops, whofe bufinefs it is, not to convert, but to o- 
 verfee and feed a flock already converted. By the way, he 
 makes a very curious dillinclion, to which you call the at- 
 tention of your readers, " between the nature of the mini- 
 " ftry, and the ufe ajid exercife thereof." I cannot com- 
 prehend of what fervice this can be to your caufe, or to any 
 other caufe ; for it is nonfenfe. What is it that makes a 
 man a fervant ? Is it not actual fervice, not merely an en- 
 gagement to ferve .'' Yet the judicious Hooker gravely af- 
 ferts, that men may be fervants of Jefus Chrift during the 
 term of Hfe, although they never, in their whole lives, 
 ferve him an hour ! I have heard of nothing analagous to 
 fuch fervice in any part of the univerfe, above or below. 
 It comes out that this fame fervice, or minifterfhip, if I 
 may fo call it, "confifts in power or authority to ferve, 
 *< with which a man is lavefted by being confecrated to God 
 <« and his fervice in holy things, during term of life, whe- 
 « ther he exercife that power or no." Admirable ! A man 
 piay be confecrated to a fervice, the fervice of God too ! 
 
 in 
 
 * See Voltaiie's Hist, of Russia, vol.11. 
 
^66 LETTER XLV. 
 
 in which he may do fomething, or do nothing, juft as he 
 pleafes ; and if he fhould never do any thing, he is yet a 
 fervant of God in holy things, during term of life ! It may 
 be fo. But what wages may he look for at the end of his 
 term of life ? What would you think yourfelf bound to give 
 a fervant, who engages to ferve you, for a certain fpace, 
 and yet never put his hand to your work ? It is a million to 
 one, if you would not profecute and punifli him for breach 
 of contra6t ; and no body can difputc your right to do fo. 
 Has not Hooker's fervant, who is confecrated to God and 
 his fervice in holy things, during term of life, and yet never 
 exercifes the power thus conferred on him, good reafon to 
 expedi punifhment inftead of reward ? If we do not entirely 
 mifapprehend the whole fcope of the gofpel of Chrift, this 
 is what he has to look for at the laft. If a man choofes to 
 aflume a travelling title, it were better that he take that of 
 Count, or Marquis, or fome fuch defignation, than that he 
 fhould call himfelf Bifhop or Prieft. By the former, he 
 only gives offence at the herald's office, and makes himfelf 
 ridiculous. By the latter, he affronts God and religion. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 367) 
 
 LErrER XLVl. 
 
 IT would have been to the honour of your judg- 
 ment, and it would have manifefted a degree of candor 
 highly reputable to a chriftian divine, if you had begun and 
 ended your defence of the validity of your orders, againll 
 what you call Dr. Campbell's " ftrange attack," with the 
 apology you make for the erection of your Epifcopal College, 
 and with infifling, that your church is warranted by reafon, 
 and by no means prohibited in the fcriptures (which fay 
 little about the orders of minifters, however much they 
 fpeak about their qualifications and virtues J to tranfmit the 
 apoftolical commiflion in that particular way, which her 
 circumftances, for the time, render, or appear to you to 
 render, mod expedient By this plan you would, indeed, 
 have given up yuur /ucctjfiofi. But this would have been only 
 to furrender a fortrefs, which you cannot defend with wea • 
 pons taken from the armoury of (cripture and found reafon. 
 You appear to me to have purfued, upon the whole, the 
 word method pollible. 
 
 You 
 
368 lEH ER XLVL 
 
 You begin with a defence of your Epifcopal College, and 
 end with a whining apology for the erection of that unpa^ 
 ralleled edifice. There is a manifeft inconfiftency here. — 
 If your College of Bilhops be defenfible, on the principles of 
 chriftianity and found reafon, it needs no excufe ; it wants 
 only to be explained, and fet in its proper light. By at- 
 tempting to excufe it, from the circumftances into which 
 your church was thrown foon after the Revolution, you 
 invalidate your defence. 
 
 We have examined the Anti-jacobin's defence ; for it is he 
 who is, in reality, the champion. Let us now attend to 
 the excufe of Bifhop Skinner, who is the apologift. 
 
 You honeftly avow,* that your collegiate form " now 
 « appears to you unfuitable and improper,'* and that even 
 while it fubfifted, « it was far from being acceptable to the 
 « clergy in general, or to the great body of the laity, who 
 ** adhere to your communion.'* But you entreat us not to 
 condemn it, till we candidly confider the motives^ which 
 occafioned its adoption.f Here, I muft cbferve, that, in 
 a cafe of this fort, no motives can render that fuitable and 
 proper, which is, in its own nature, unfuitable and impro- 
 per. Your collegiate form either was primitive apoftolic 
 order, to which you confider yourfelves facredly bound to 
 adhere, or it was not. If it was primitive order, it figni- 
 fies nothing from what motives you adopted it •, for, your 
 motives could not render the plan itfelf unfuitable and 
 improper, however they might afFe£t the merit of your 
 adoption of it. But if it was not primitive order, which 
 your church feemed to acknowledge, when it departed 
 from it, and returned to Diocefan Epifcopacy, and which 
 
 you 
 
 * Vind. p. 391, 393. f Ibid. 
 
LETTER XLVI. 369 
 
 you confefs, by faying that it feems to you " unfultable 
 " and improper •," no motives, be they ever fo laudable, 
 could alter its nature, and make it primitive order ; other- 
 wife proper motives would juftify you in employing Dea- 
 cons to confecrate Bifhops, and ordain Priefts. The om- 
 nipotence, that you, unwittingly I fuppofe, afcribe to 
 motives m your apology, is the mod dangerous doctrine 
 that is imputed to the moft dangerous order of ecclefiaftics, 
 that ever exifted in the chriftian c/\urch. Now for the mo- 
 tives themfelves. 
 
 A a LETTER 
 
( 370 ) 
 
 LETf f R XLVir. 
 
 YOU call our attention * to the pitiable diftrefs 
 of your clergy, when they were ejc£led from their livings, 
 and violently and harbaroujly driven from their former pof- 
 feflions. 
 
 I feel for human woe, and confequently for the diftrcffes 
 of your eje£l:ed clergy, as well as you do. But I cannot 
 help remarking, that your language, on this fubje£l, would 
 probably have been lefs impalTioned; and acrimonious, if 
 you had recollected, that fome of your readers may be as 
 well acquainted with the hiftory of the period as the clergy 
 of High Church, and may know, that not more than twenty- 
 feven years before, the Presbyterian clergy were driven from 
 their poflefTions, to which they had a better right, in a man- 
 ner inexpreffibly more violent and barbarous, and were, at 
 the injligation of their Epifcopal fucceflbrs, good primitive a* 
 poftolic men ! haraflcd, perfecuted, hunted as if they had 
 been wild beafts, and when they were driven to madnefs 
 
 on 
 
 * Viiid, p. 391, et sequ. 
 
LETTER XLVII. 371 
 
 on defign, then maflacred In the field, or hanged on a gib- 
 bet, and their goods confifcated. Presbytery was the efta- 
 blithed religion of the country before the family of Stuart 
 afcended the throne of England, and was the religion of 
 the firfl: of that family, who reigned over the whole ifland. 
 It was, by him, by that very monarch, who both profefled 
 it, and extolled it to the skies, deprived of Its legal cfta- 
 bliftiment. But It got the better of all its enemies, when 
 the nation appealed to arms In defence of their religious 
 and civil liberty, and it made Its oppreflbrs tremble in their 
 turn, Charles 11. when he was in Scotland, folemnly en- 
 gaged to maintain and defend it; he renewed his promlfes 
 to the fame efFe£l, at his reftoration ; and then he fubvert- 
 cd Presbytery ! The Presbyterian clergy in 1661, had, I 
 contend, an infinitely better right to the pofTcffions from 
 which they were ejected, than the Epifcopal clergy had to 
 ^^«> pofieffions in 1689. The right of the latter was, in- 
 deed, founded upon ftatute : but that ftatute itfelf violated 
 all law, human and divine, and was an outrage to all moral 
 and religious fentiment, — to fay nothing of the means by 
 which it was procured, and which, we all know, were bad 
 enough. Do you really think, that a few men, feveral of 
 them of the mod profligate and infamous chara6^er (Charles 
 It. and his court reformers of religion !) had a right to pre- 
 fcribe to the great body of this nation, the manner in which 
 they were to worfhip their God, and prepare their foulsvfor 
 eternity ? Had the court the fame title to order the Scots to 
 put oiT the religion of their fathers, which themfelves pre- 
 ferred to any other, that the .Lord Chamberlain has to or- 
 der the going into mourning, or a change from black to 
 grey in the drefs of the court itfelf? You feem to regard 
 Eraftian notions with very decent horror ; and you repro- 
 bate the opinions of thofe, " who would mnke the civil 
 *' power fuperior to apoflollc Inftitutlon/' You arc very 
 
 A a :: ri^h*^ 
 
372 LETTER XLYIL 
 
 right in this ; and I prefume, you give all due credit to 
 Presbyterians, in the tjme of Charles II. for their fincerity 
 in thinking, what you think of your ecclefiajltcal order ^ that 
 Presbytery is founded on " 'apoftolic inftitution." Yet, 
 while, in oppofition to the cleareft evidence, you deny,* 
 that the Bifliops of this ifland, from the time of Henry 
 VIII. have held their bijhopricsy as well the fpiritualities as 
 the temporalities thereof, of the imperial crown of this 
 realm, the king of England having been, fince that time, 
 really and truly the Pope of England ; it feems never to have 
 occurred to you, that there is any thing Eraftian, any thing 
 anti-chriftian, in the king's majefty changing the religion of 
 the country from Presbytery to Epifcopacy, in fpite of a 
 great majority of his fubje£ls, and in violation of his own 
 folemn oaths and engagements ! He may compel his fub- 
 je£ts to be of whatever religion he pleafes, though it were 
 Mahometanifm. But it muft not be thought, that he has. 
 Or can have, any concern, directly or indirectly, in con- 
 ferring their fpiritual powers upon Bifliops ! 
 
 I would not be underflood to infinuate, that the mutual 
 perfecutions of Scotch Presbyterians and Epifcopals, at the 
 different periods when each of their refpedive profeflions 
 was obliged to yield to the other in its turn, are afcribable 
 to the fpirit of their refpedive religions. They were the 
 fault of the age, and, from the reftoration of Charles 11. 
 to the Revolution, the fault of a government the moft pro- 
 fligate and unfeeling, that ever exifted in Britain. I am 
 proud, however, that I can remark with truth, that, fo 
 much milder and more tolerant and forgiving, was the go- 
 vernment 
 
 * You assert, p. 382, that no Presbyterian, no true christian, 
 will say, that the ejected Bishops derived a right to their spiritual 
 cure from the State, &c. 
 
LETTER XLVir. S7S 
 
 vcrnment both in church * and ftate after the Revolution, 
 than was tlie government before that glorious and happy 
 era, that many of the Epifcopal clergy, who gave the com- 
 mon pledge of loyalty, and even many who were notorioul- 
 ly difloyal, and openly joined thofe who caballed againft 
 the exifting government, were fuffered to live and die in 
 the poflefTion of their charges, and the enjoyment of their 
 livings.f There were no military executions, no intercom- 
 munings, no confifcatlon of goods, no hanging nor burn- 
 ing, on account of religious profeflion, after the Revolu- 
 tion. The government kept a watchful eye over the Jaco- 
 bites, and laid them under reftri^tions and difabilities, 
 which they themfelvcs did not much relilh : but this was on 
 the fcore of policy, not of religion. 
 
 You inform us that the feverity, which your party met 
 with, and which, by no ordinary perverfion of language, 
 [Yy] you call jlrauge and unexpeEledy kindled a refcntment, 
 which was not likely to be foon extinguifhed (it burned 
 long enough. Heaven knows -, and I will not anfwer tor its 
 being quite extinguifhed even at this day !) and determined 
 your ejected clergy to throw themfelvcs entirely into the 
 arms of the exiled family, and to (hare its fortunes : that 
 many of the perfecuted (fay difloyal) clergy were obliged to 
 depend for protection and fupport on the friends of that 
 family, and, **in confequence of that dependance, were 
 ** influenced by the wifties and opinions of their patrons."^ 
 You next, with mod laudable honefty and candor, acknow- 
 ledge, thzifome of the ejected clergy were inclined to E- 
 A a 3 raf- 
 
 * See Dr. Edwards* Sermon on the Union. 
 
 \ See Life of Mr. Carstares, and Letters and State Paper?, 
 
 [Yy] See Notes, + Any Hung for bread ! 
 
i^74 LETTER XLVII. 
 
 raftianifrn, and confidered the mitre and the crown to be 
 neceflarily conneded. This, you confefs, was the pre- 
 vailing opinion at the time ; and that it w^asfo, will excite 
 110 furprize in any perfon, who knows any thing about the 
 foundation, on which the Epifcopacy of this ifland has 
 refted, ever fince Henry VIII. threw off the papal yoke. — 
 YoMx fame of the ejeded clergy, though you call them an 
 inconftderahk part, would feem to have been a majority in 
 refpedt of influence, if not of numbers : for they prevail- 
 ed fo far, that their nenjo fcheme for the government of the 
 church by an Epifcopal College, the members of which had 
 110 charge nor local jurifdidion, was propofed to " the 
 « King over the water." His Majefty no fooner heard of 
 the fcheme, than it received his royal approbation ; his 
 Majefty having been, I fufpedl, fully as ignorant of the ec- 
 clefiaftical canons, and the conftitution of primitive Epif- 
 copacy, as were his grandees and prelates in Scotland. — 
 Nay, his Majefty, who was, like the reft of h\s family (if he 
 was really a Stuart) very tenacious of his royal prerogatives, 
 immediately exercifed the right, which had been long veft- 
 ed in the crown, and fent over his Conge d'elire, in confe- 
 quence of which ** a few promotions were made in the 
 " fepifcopal College." 
 
 You tell this ftory with no fmall degree of addrefs, 
 though not in very few words. But, though you ftrive to 
 make the beft cxcufie for your Epifcopal College that you 
 can, you cannot conceal your convidion, that the fcheme 
 "was inconfiderately adopted and fan6tioned. And it really 
 was fo. But this is not furprzing *, for refentment is or- 
 dinarily the parent of rafh counfels : and you confefs, that 
 to refentment we may, ultimately, refer the eredion of 
 your Epifcopal College. It happened in this cafe, as it 
 happens in many others, that your church, inftead of being 
 
 aven- 
 
LETFER XLVII. 375 
 
 avenged of her adverfaries, in reality poured forth her wrath 
 upon herfelf. She dug a pit ; and it was the fanciful vali- 
 dity of her own orders, that was buried in it. You confefs 
 that your collegiate form was quite new, having never been 
 heard of before. This acknowledgment does not agree ve- 
 ry well with Cyprian's corpus facerdotum^ fo triumphantly 
 brought forward by the Anti-jacobin, nor with Aihanafius* 
 college of vagabond clerks, with which the fame inventor 
 of rare arguments brings us acquainted. No matter. The 
 defenders of High Church are in the pra£tice of elbowing, 
 and joftling, and contradicting each other. But I am quite 
 amazed that you fhould, wilfully and deliberately, contra- 
 dict yourfelj. Who would believe, unlefs he were to read 
 your book, that the Vindicator of Primitive Order not only 
 admits, but ftrenuoufly contends, that a channel for the 
 conveyance of the ftream of Epifcopal fucceflion, which is 
 entirely tieiVy and altogether without a parallel ; a channel, 
 which neither the apoftles, nor the Biftiops, their fuccef- 
 fors, of the firft three centuries, no, nor the Biftiopsofthe 
 iix{i feventeen centuries, ever once thought of; a channel, 
 which the canons reprobate as abfolutely impaflable, and 
 which common fenfe cannot hear mentioned without a con- 
 temptuous fneer — is a proper and fufficient channel for 
 tranfmitting the apoftolical commiflion from age to age ? 
 What kind of a mode of conveying orders can that be, in 
 the opinion of High Church, which has the fandlion nei- 
 ther of antiquity, nor of univerfality, nor of covfent ? I grant 
 that your College Biftiops could tranfmit to others what 
 they had themfelves received ; and you, I hope, will grant 
 to me in return, that they could not give to others what 
 they had not themfelves. Now, I contend, that if antiqui* 
 /y, univerfal conjenty and common sense, have not all confpired 
 to deceive us, you' College Biftiops received w/^//?^ at their 
 confecration in adiiition to what they had before, and that 
 
 A a 4 the 
 
376 LETTER XLVII. 
 
 the dijlress and resentment of your church after the Revolution 
 were, by no means, fufficient to fupply all defeds in the 
 orders of its Biihops. 
 
 Your own church was once of my mind, whatever it may 
 be now ^ for it diflblved its Epifcopal College in a few 
 years, and returned to the diocefan plan. Why did it fo, 
 if your College Bifliops were " apoftles in the ftridteft fenfe 
 *' of the word," and if the collegiate was not only the apos^ 
 tolic form, but the form for the firft three centuries ? Your 
 fudden departure from it, after you had Humbled upon it 
 by chance, or thought yourfelves forced to adopt it by the 
 neceffity of your fituation, was, whether you found it ex- 
 pedient and generally acceptable or not, anti-apoftolical, an- 
 ti-primitive, and, therefore, if the principles maintained in 
 your book be not utterly indefenfible, anti-chriflian : and 
 it fhews, that, when it fults your convenience, you can 
 equally difregard the admonitions of Providence, and the 
 difcoveries of grace. 
 
 In truth, you and your learned allies, by your anfwer to 
 the Lecturer's argumentum ad hominem^ have contrived to 
 place your church, with its high pretenfions to divinity, in 
 the mofh awkward fituation imaginable. Two forms, fo 
 io very diflimilar as the diocefan and collegiate, cannot, I 
 Ihould think, be equally divine, nor equally fit for tranf- 
 mitting the apoflolical commiflion. Your fpiritual proge- 
 nitors adhered to the diocefan form from the time of its in- 
 troduction into the church, till after the Revolution in 
 Britain. Then they fuddenly, on the fpur of the occafion, 
 demolilhed this model of venerable antiquity, which has 
 the fanClion of age, and of univerfality and confent, and 
 erected the collegiate form on its ruins. By and by the 
 clergy and people began to think, that all was not right ; 
 
 that 
 
LETl EK XLVII. 377 
 
 that they had " founded a fociety for the falvation of man- 
 ** kind," which was not altogether of primitive ftruQure, 
 and, therefore, not a fit depofitary of the apoftolical com- 
 mifTion ; and they pulled it down, and raifed, in its room, 
 a fabric of more ancient archite6Vure. What, in the mean- 
 time, became of the apoftolic commifTion ? Where had it 
 lodged, from the time that the college was ere<^ed, till it 
 was pulled down again, to make way for the diocefan mo- 
 del ? With your College Bifhops ? If you fay fo, you dc- 
 flroy, with your own hands, more than two-thirds of the 
 reafoning in your Vindication of Primitive Truth and Or- 
 der ; nay, I may fay, you raze your whole fyftem to the 
 foundation. For you thus admit, that any conceivable form 
 of ecclefiaftical polity can tranfmit the apoftolical commif- 
 (ion ; and I call upon you to name any form, in any age or 
 nation, fince the plantation of the firft chriftian churches 
 by the apoftles, that differs more from Diocefan Epifcopa- 
 cy, than the form of your church, while its higheft offi- 
 cers had no flocks to overfee, and poflefled no authority 
 nor jurifdi6lion over any flock or people on earth, differed 
 from the ancient model, to which it foon returned. If, on 
 the other hand, you admit, that the commiflion, which 
 our Lord gave to his apoftles, was not lodged with your 
 College Bifliops, whofe ordination, as we have feen, was 
 no ordination at all, you thereby acknowledge, that your 
 Epifcopal fuccefiion has failedy and, confequently, that the 
 minifters of our eftablifliment are as certainly the lineal 
 fucceftbrs of the apoftles as the dignitaries of High Church. 
 
 LETTER 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
( 381 ) 
 
 LETFEll XLVIII, 
 
 I HAVE now accompUfhed what I propofed as 
 the obje£^ of the Second Part of Presbyterian Letters, hav- 
 ing enquired, with humble reverence, into the validityy on 
 your own principleSy of the clerical orders of the Scotch E- 
 pifcopal Church. I mud once more declare, that I have 
 no obje£lion to the vaHdily of your orders on any princi- 
 ples but your own, and do believe, that you may, warran- 
 tably, continue your Epifcopal fucceflion in any way that 
 you pleafe, if your plan be not an infult to religion and to 
 common fenfe. And, whatever your orders may be, in 
 refpe£t of what you call validity ; if you preach the pure 
 dod^rines of chriftianity, and adminifter its inftitutions in 
 their original fimplicity, I heartily wifti you all poflible fuc- 
 cefs, and ** bid you God fpeed." 
 
 After telling you, with my ufual franknefs, what thofe 
 of us, who are not bigotted Presbyterians, nor unreafona- 
 bly attached to any thing that can be called mere form in 
 religion, think of Epifcopacy in general, and of the genius 
 and fpirit of Scotch Epifcopacy in particular, in fo far at 
 leaft, as its genius and fpirit are exhibited in your works— 
 I fliall make my bow, and take leave. 
 
 I.ETTER 
 
S82 ) 
 
 LETTER XLIX. 
 
 THOUGH you demonftrate neither the divine 
 origin, nor the unrivalled utility of a hierarchy in the church 
 of Chrift, I know of no found interpreter of fcripture, and 
 of no rational and liberal writer on ecclefiaftical polity, who 
 denies, that a hierarchy, fuch as that which is eftablifhed 
 in England, is not only lawful, but may, in certain circum- 
 ftances, be highly expedient. We happen to have no par- 
 ticular ufe for it in this northern part of the illand ; and, 
 indeed, it fuits neither our minds nor our fortune. The 
 truth is, that <* though the Englifh hierarchy has been 
 *« proved, by experience, to be admirably adapted to the 
 <' country where it was framed, the fame experience has 
 « (hewn, that it is not equally fitted for any other people. 
 " It has been tried In Scotland, Ireland, and America, but 
 <^ without fuccefs."* 
 
 But if I do not entirely miftake the genius and fpirit of 
 that kind of hierarchy, which you recommend as apojlolical 
 
 and 
 
 * Edin. Review, vol. VIII. p. 314, 
 
LETTER XLIX. S8S 
 
 and therefore divine^ it refembles that of England in nothing 
 but external form, and not altogether even in form ; and it 
 is, in its genius and fpirh, and fomc of its profefled doc- 
 trines, more nearly allied to another church, to which you 
 are pleafed to liken the ejlahl'ipment of your native country. 
 I beg your particular attention to the illuftration of this a- 
 vcrment ; for I am particularly anxious to teach you, if 
 poflible, inftead of crying out, when you are puzzled with 
 fome Presbyterian arguments, <* I fmell Popery ! this is fo 
 *« like the language of x\\q fcarlet whore !" to c\czt yourfflf 
 from all fufpicion of holding fome of the moft indefenfible 
 tenets of the Church of Rome, and of breathing its mono- 
 polizing and domineering fpirit. Perhaps you will impute 
 this expofure of your principles to a third of revenge. You 
 may do fo, if you pleafe. I (hall, however, endeavour to 
 (hew, that I have a more laudable obje£l in view, than the 
 pleafurc of retorting a fenfclefs reproach. But to the pur- 
 pofe of this Epiftlc. 
 
 1. At the end of your introdu£lion to the Vindication of 
 Primitive Truth and Order,* you declare, that the ungainly 
 portrait of " a great majority of your countrymen,*' whicli 
 you prefent to the world, and the fentence of condemnation, 
 which you pronounce on all, who are not of your mind in 
 every thing connected with religion, « cannot juflly be im- 
 <* puted to any want of true charity, or what deferves to be 
 ** called liberality, no more than uncharitablenefs and illi- 
 <* berality can be imputed to a phyfician, who forbids his 
 »* patients to eat or drink what will hurt them ; or to a Bri- 
 " tifli lawyer, who recommends to his clients to ftudy the 
 " laws of his country in preference to thofe of France or 
 ** RufTia ; L^z] or to tlie commander of armies, who does 
 
 "noi: 
 
 * P. 25, CO. [Z z] See Notes. 
 
384 LETTER XLIX. 
 
 '' not leave his troops on the day of battle, without orders 
 ** or inftru£lions of any kind, rior fufFer them to fight the 
 " enemy in the way that feems beft to their own judg- 
 « ment.*' 
 
 Let me ask, whether you ever recolleft, while you arc 
 defending High Church, that you " are in the body," as 
 well as they who differ from you, and have no better pre- 
 tenfions to infpiration than they ? Your vindication of your 
 charitable and liberal fpirit is, I confefs, very ingenious, 
 [3 A] It wants only one thing to make it completely fatis- 
 fa£tory, I mean the produ£tion of a commifllon from hea-- 
 ven, conftituting the Senior Bifliop of the Scotch Epifcopal 
 Church the Spiritual Phyfician General, the Spiritual At- 
 torney-General, and the Commander-in-Chief in Spiritua- 
 lities, of the whole human race ; which, you know, im- 
 plies a certificate from above (the exhibition of half a dozen 
 miracles, or of fomething equally fupernatural) that the 
 faid Primus knows every thing neceffary to falvation, and 
 cannot err. In reality, your vindication of yourfelf from 
 the imputation of illiberality and intolerance, is not diftin- 
 guifliable from the Popifti claim to infallibility ; and, if, with 
 the Britifti Critic, we admit that it is fatisfa^tory, we can 
 deny you none of the powers and prerogatives, that were 
 ever claimed by the man of fin. That you have not appealed 
 in fupport of your claim to the fpiritual government of all 
 mankind, to thofc wonders and figns, to which your rival 
 at Rome appeals in fupport of his claim to the fame univer- 
 fal empire j this is, I muft fay, a great o mi flion, — and it 
 may prove fatal to your views of abfolute dominion over the 
 confciences of all chriftians. And yet, who can fay what 
 will happen ? This is a period of the world, which has pro- 
 duced 
 
 [3 A] See Notes. 
 
LETTER XLIX. 385 
 
 duced rtrange and unexpe6led events already ; and, for 
 for aught I know, it may be big with events flill ffiore 
 ftrange than any that we have feen. Hence, it would not, 
 in my opinion, be inexcufably imprudent, to be looking a- 
 bout you for a houfe, that might be converted into " the 
 " palace of the Inquifition !" 
 
 Do you dare at this, as the fuperfluity of extravagant 
 nonfenfe ? You need not. Admit only the claim you ad- 
 vance in the paffiige under review, as a like claim advanced 
 by the Pope was admitted in days of other years, and your 
 right to extirpate heretics and fchifmatics, in the manner to 
 which I allude, or in any manner that is agreeable to your- 
 felf, would be only one of the many prerogatives exercifcd 
 by the Church of Rome, to which you would have the fame 
 title with her. 
 
 2. It would not be confident with the very lowed pre- 
 tenfion to infallibility, if you were a friend to the right of 
 private judgment in religion ; to the exercife of which we 
 are indebted, under God, for the reformation. And, tru- 
 ly, you do not favour it more than is meet. You oppofe 
 the liberty, which the people in all the Proteftant churches 
 have ever enjoyed, of confulting the word of God, although 
 you well know, that our Lord himfelf preached the gofpel 
 not merely to the apoilles, but to all, indifcriminately, and 
 more efpecially to the poor ; from which I am difpofed to 
 infer, that He, who made them, knew that they were ca- 
 pable of comprehending what he preached. If I underdand 
 you right, you mean to exprefs indignant contempt of the 
 notion that the fcriptures contain a/i the words of eternal 
 life. [3 B] The Chu'ch of Ronu- joins you heartily on this 
 
 B b point. 
 
 3 B] Vlncl. p. CO, CI. See Note< 
 
3SG LETTER XLIX 
 
 point. You are not fo honed as that church, which frankly 
 tells us, that the fcriptures are both defe£live and obfcure, 
 in the information they furniOi, and therefore need the aid 
 of traditiony which both interprets the information they 
 give, and fupplies what information they do not give. On 
 the fubje£t of the conftitution of the church, you fpeak out 
 a little better afterwards, and teach us, that fcripture can- 
 not decide the controverfy about ecclefiaftical polity, and 
 that, therefore, in order to have fufficient light upon this 
 « important fuhje Sly'' we muft have recourfe to the Fathers, 
 whofe teftimony is nothing more nor lefs than Tradition, 
 " To whom then fliall we have recourfe,* &c." — and fo 
 you refer us to the Fathers. — That you may, if poflible, 
 frighten us all from depending on the knowledge of the 
 terms of falvation that is to be acquired by fearching the 
 fcriptures, you ask, with a decifive air, " Has a man no- 
 " thing more to do, in Order to be made a chriflian, than 
 •^ to go to a bookfeller's (hop, and purchafe a bible, that he 
 " may perufe it at his leifure, and interpret as he thinks 
 ** fit ?" I would ask, in return, K not this the very thing 
 that " a man" Jhould do, if he wifh " to be made a" real 
 " chriftian ?" Do you recommend to any body, firft to pro- 
 fefs chriftianity, and then begin to enquire what it is ? But 
 I beg your pardon ; let a man only profefs chriftianity, and 
 the churchy the holy mother of us all, that is, the clergy^ 
 will do all the reft: for him. It belongs to the church, and 
 not to private chriftians, to interpret fcripture, z%Jhe thinks 
 fit. This is your doctrine ; it is alfo that of Holy Mother 
 at Rome. And it implies one of two things *, either that 
 the clergy of your church cannot poflibly err (however ig- 
 norant and ftupid fome of them may be) in interpreting 
 fcripture for their people *, or that, if it fhould happen that 
 
 they 
 
 ^ Viad. p. 210. 
 
LETTER XLIX- 387 
 
 they lead tlie people into any damnable error, they will, as 
 St. Bernard exprelles it, be content to be damned/or them 
 at the lafli which, you know, if they miflead them, is but 
 fair. But you go a ftep farther, than even the Church of 
 Rome, on the danger of permitting the people to interpret 
 anything conncdled with their falvation ; for you cover two 
 pages * in labouring to prove, that they cannot interpret 
 the thoughts and feelings of their own mind and heart, and 
 cannot, without evident peril to their fouls, trufl: to their 
 own consciousness^ till they fubmit their faid confcioufnefs to 
 the judgment and decifion of the church f 
 
 3, You fpeak f of adminlftrators of the facraments of 
 Chrifl:, who are empowered to blcfs in his name, and on 
 whofe blefling, of confequence, the efficacy of thofe facra- 
 ments depends. What can this do£lrine fignify to your 
 church, or to any other chriftian hierarchy, unlefs it im- 
 ply, that Chrift cannot blefs his own inftitutions, but 
 through the miniftry of Priefts, who derive their authority 
 from him, through an uninterrupted Epifcopal fucceffion ? 
 This, with the infallibility to which (he lays claim, is the 
 very foundation on which the Church of Rome builds her 
 right to a monopoly of all the benefits of our Lord's fuffer- 
 ings and death ; and it does not merely conftitute Priefts, 
 who are duly authorized, Chrift's Vicars upon earth : it, 
 in truth, raifes them above the King and the Head of the 
 church, who, it would feem, has refigned into their hands, as 
 the German Orator, quoted before, would make us believe, 
 his own free agency in the government of thofe, whom he 
 redeemed with his blood. 
 
 4. You virtually maintain,:]: that ignorance is the mo- 
 
 D b 2 ther 
 
 * P, ]09; 110. t IJ- p. 103. I VinJ. i>. 1^ 
 
38^ LETTER XLIX. 
 
 ther of devotion, and the nurfe of virtue. For, to the 
 eafy accefs, which we have in Scotland, to the general ac- 
 quifition of knowledge, you afcribe all the fpiritual dif- 
 orders of this wicked country, in which you have the mis- 
 fortune to live ; — our infidelity, our vile hypocrify, our in- 
 clination to extravagance and riot, in which, very luckily, 
 our extreme poverty does not fufFer us to indulge, and our 
 endlefs diverfity of religious opinions. I need not mention 
 to you the mint, wherein this do6lrine was originally 
 coined. 
 
 5. You tell us, in a tone of high, nay, of fublime, in- 
 dignation at " an unworthy comparifon" ufed by the Lec- 
 turer, that it is to the church that men muft owe their fal- 
 vation, that is, I fuppofe, to Blfiiops, Priefts, and Dea- 
 cons, and not to God and themfelves ; for that the church 
 is " the fociety, founded by the Son of God for the falva- 
 •* tion of mankind."* 
 
 That I do not impofe an uncandid interpretation on the 
 words juft quoted, is evident from the general fcope and 
 tendency of your " Vindication" but more particularly, 
 from your adoption of the fentiments of an author, from 
 whofe decifion, on any given fubject, you feem to think, 
 there lies no appeal. The author to whom I allnde, is the 
 Rev. William Jones, of Nayland in Suffolk •, who fays, that 
 the ark of Noah, which faved the remains of the old world, 
 was the pattern and pledge of the church of Chrift, which 
 faves both the old world and the new.f 
 
 I am forry to obferve, but how can / help it ? that the 
 reverend divine of Nayland happens to differ from St. Peter, 
 
 of 
 
 * Vind. p, 141. t See Vind. p. 442. 443. 
 
LETTER XLIX. 389 
 
 of which you will be convinced, by turning to the paflage 
 referred to on the margin.* It is Baptistn, and not the 
 churchy which the apoftle compares to the ark of Noah, 
 floating on the waters of the deluge, and faving all who 
 were in it. And what baptism ? The putting away of 
 the filth of the flefli by the church ? No — but that of which 
 the wafhing with water is only a fignificant emblem— " the 
 « anfwer of a good confcience toward God" — that internal 
 purification, which the fcriptures exprefs by our " putting 
 " off the old man, with all his afFc6lions and lufts, and 
 " putting on the new man, which after God is created in 
 " righteoufhefs and true holinefs." This is Peter's ark. 
 
 But the fifliermen of Galilee mud, fomehow or other, 
 have miftaken this matter, if what Solomon fays be true, 
 that " two are better than one :" for the Rev. William 
 Jones, and the Senior Bi(hop of Scotland, maintain, that 
 it is not that baptifm, which confifts in the anfwer of a 
 good confcience towards God, but the church, of which 
 the ark of Noah was the pattern and pledge (Oh Mr. 
 Hutchinfon, what do we not owe to thee \) " that doth 
 " now fave us :"— and, fince they will have it fo, I fhall fay 
 no more about the matter. 
 
 "What, then, do we learn from the ark of Noah being 
 the pattern and pledge of the church } " Now let us ask,'' 
 faith Mr Jones, " what became of thofe who were out of 
 «« the ark ? The paraller' (ay, the parallel, which the 
 fcriptures do not ftate) " will fuggeft what great danger 
 " there muft be to thofe who are out of the church" that 
 is the Church of England, [3 C] as by human laws efta- 
 blilhcd j for all fincere chriftians, of every denomination, 
 
 B b 3 think 
 
 * 1 Pet.iii. CO, 21. [3 C] See Notes. 
 
390 LETTER XLIX. 
 
 think that they are in the church of Chrifi:. — Even fo, Mr. 
 Jones. As thofe of the old world, who were out of the 
 arh, were drowned in water ; fo thofe of the new world, 
 who are out of the church, cannot fall to be drowned in 
 fire and brimftone ; which muft needs be a very pleafant 
 contemplation to all true fons of the church. 
 
 This is a comfortable provifion, which Mr. Jones and you 
 have made, in the fulnefs of <« the milk of human kindnefs^ 
 «* that .flows cheerily along in your veins," for all the 
 Presbyterians, and other diffenters in England, and for " a 
 *' great majority of the inhabitants of the land in which we 
 <^ live," as well as for all the churches of the reformed eve- 
 ry where ; and it (hews us, how much more chrijlia?i is the 
 fpirit of High Church, in this enlightened and liberal age, 
 than that of the intolerant, domineering, damning church, 
 which we left at the Reformation. [3 D] 
 
 But Mr. Jones' " parallel fuggefts" more than he or 
 you have been gracioufly pleafed to mention. If the ark 
 was verily and indeed the pattern and pledge of the church, 
 which I am difpofed to admit, although St. Peter was of 
 another mind ; <* the parallel fuggefts" that, as they, who 
 ■were faved in the ark, had no exertion to make, but only 
 in ftepping in, and nothing to do, when they were within- 
 fide, but to fit or ftand, with folded arms, and be faved ; 
 fo, in order to be faved by the church, we have only to 
 enter it, to fit or ftand where we can find room, and be 
 carried to heaven, juft as the eight perfons who were in 
 the ark, were carried to the top of Mount Ararat. The 
 church, it appears from Mr. Jones' parallel, is the moft 
 commodious receptacle, for finners and faints, that can be 
 
 con- 
 
 {[3 D] See Notes. 
 
LETTER XLIX. 391 
 
 conceived. It faves you, without requiring you to do any 
 thing but enter it, juft as a paiTage boat carries you from 
 one fide of a river to the other, if only you pay the fare ; 
 which, you know, mufl: be done in the church, as well as 
 in the boat, bccaufe clergymen, as well as watermen, mull 
 live. 
 
 But Mr. Jones was ignorant of another accommodation 
 to be found in the church ; at leaft, he has left it to you to 
 reveal it to all good people. We difcover, in a pafTage,* 
 repeatedly referred to before, that if we pleafe to put out 
 our eyes, in order to prevent our beholding vanity, or to 
 cut off our feet, to fave the expcnce of (lioes and boots, the 
 church will be eyes and feet to us ; and if we do not well 
 know what pafTes in our own minds, we have only to ask 
 tlie church, and (lie will tell us what we are confcious of. 
 
 It is no wonder, that all who are under the guidance and 
 protection of the churchy call her Holy Mother. I will ven- 
 ture to fay, that a more motherly Lady is not to be found 
 on the earth. I fliould only be afraid, that flie is too tender 
 and indulgent, and runs the rifque of hurting the health of 
 her children, by not infilling on their taking exercife e- 
 nough. For holinefsy (he cannot be exceeded. The only 
 misfortune is, that ihe keeps it all to herfelf, and does not 
 feem to be fcnfible, that her offspring would be the better 
 for a fmall portion of it. However, if (he can fave them 
 with her oiun holinefs, it will do. We, who are aliens, 
 have no title to interfere between relations fo nearly con- 
 nected. 
 
 I have long been in fearch of fuch a particular defcrlp- 
 B b 4 tion 
 
 * Vind. p. 109, IlO. 
 
392 LETTER XLIX. 
 
 t'lon o( the church, as would enable me to know that valu- 
 able matron at fight. But I have never yet met with it. — 
 To be furc, the XlXth Article of the Church of England 
 pretends to defcribe the vifible church of Chrift. But that 
 defcriptioii anfwers fo well to our miferable ejlablijhment in 
 Scotland, that I have no faith in it. Tou alfo give us a 
 definition of the church,^ for the purpofe of putting the 
 Le£i:urer's account of her out of countenance. But as my 
 evil ftars would have it, I do not underftand you ; not be- 
 caufe you have too Jew words, but becaufe you have too 
 many; juft as fome people do not hear their preacher, be- 
 caufe he fpeaks too loud. But I think I have collected, 
 from the general fcope of your Vindicatiofiy what you con- 
 fider to be the church, *^ which doth now fave us -," and it 
 ssa fuitable cftablifliment of Bifliops, Priefts, and Deacons, 
 who, in confequence of their Epifcopal ordination, are au- 
 thorized to lead all other chriftians to heaven blindfold ; 
 taking fpecial care, that they do not ruin themfelves by the 
 way, '^ by going to bookfellers' fiiops, and purchafing bi- 
 ** bles, and perufing them at their leifure, and interpreting 
 <* as they think fit." Bifhops, Priefts, and Deacons, as 
 their general defignation, to wit, clergy, evidently imports, 
 are " God's pecu/itim, or fpecial inheritance," and, there- 
 fore, they alone are, properly, the church. There was 
 once a difpute between a Pope and a King of France upon 
 this fubje^t ; his holinefs infifting, that the clergy, on/y, 
 are the church " which Chrift purchafed with his blood," 
 and the king prefuming to fay on the other hand, that 
 Chrift died for the hity, as well as the clergy. The king, 
 in my opinion, had the better in the argument : yet the 
 Pope and his fucceftbrs carried their point. Accordingly, 
 at this day, and for feveral centuries paft, when men fpeak 
 
 of 
 
 * Vind. p. 140, 141. 
 
LETTEK^XLIX. 393 
 
 of ^^the church^'' they arc always underftood to mean the 
 clergy. And, indeed, who elfe can be faid to be *« eyes 
 ** to the blind, and feet to the lame," in their way to 
 heaven ? 
 
 I do not recolle£l to have feen the necefTity of implicit re- 
 liance on the knowledge and fidelity of our fpiritual guides, 
 fo diflincftly inculcated, in the works of any Proteflant di- 
 vine, as it is in The Vindication of Primitive Truth and Or- 
 der, by the Senior Bifliop of the Scotch Epifcopal Church. 
 In vain you attempt to repel this charge, by urging, that it 
 is only in one cafe that you recommend implicit faith, I 
 jnean, where there is a want of " the knowledge and ca- 
 ** pacity ncceflary for tracing the faint outlines of ancient 
 <* eftablifliment, and forms of government, and for enter- 
 ** ing into dark and critical queftions about the import of 
 ** names and titles, or for examining the authenticity of 
 " endlefs genealogies.'* If a man, in choofmg his religion^ 
 rely implicitly on the skill and fidelity of his teachers, 
 where is he to (lop, and begin to think for himfelf ? You 
 contend, that his choice of the church, to which he is to 
 adhere, is decifive of his everlafting condition, and that, if 
 he do not get into Mr. Jones' ark, in particular, he mud 
 be drowned irrecoverably. If it concerns him, then, to 
 think and enquire for himfelf on any fubje6l whatever, the 
 church, in which he can be faved, is, unqueiUonably, that 
 fubje£l. If he yield implicit faith to teachers and fpiritual 
 guides in this grand concern, he may very warrantably 
 make it a rule to " believe as the church believes" on eve- 
 ry other article of faith ; and, indeed, he is well prepared 
 for refigning his underllanding to the guidance of his Bi- 
 fliop, or his parifh minifler. Only, to prevent perplexity 
 and doubt, he mud hear no more but one party ; for the 
 cry of bigotted clergymen, of ^//denominations, is, " Ours 
 
 " alone 
 
394. LETTER XLIX. 
 
 *' alone is the church, of which the ark Is the pattern and 
 « pledge." 
 
 6. I have already remarked, upon fome occafion or o- 
 ther, that, by founding your hierarchy on the Jewilh mo- 
 del, which did not admit but one High Pried or Bifhop in 
 the whole church at a time, and by contending, that James 
 was raifed to the Epifcopate by the apoftles, and, " by his 
 <« decifive fentence, put an end to the controverfies'' that 
 occurred among them, you contend, not indeed for the 
 Popifh fupremacy, but for a fupremacy as anti-chriftian 
 and as ruinous (for, if wc muji have a Pope, he is as harm- 
 lefs at Rome, as he would be at Jerufalem \) and though 
 you fet up a rival to the pretended fucceflbr of St. Peter, 
 yet you attempt to juftify his ufurpation, by endeavouring 
 to prove, that Popery was inftituted by the apoftles of 
 Chrift. And, indeed, if it be true, that James poflefled 
 the authority with which you, for your own purpofes, have 
 invefted him, and that we cannot depart from primitive 
 apoftolic order without mortal fin ; it is manifeft, that it is 
 only under the dominion of a univerfal Bifhop, that, men 
 can be faved ; and, confidering your age and mine, there 
 are at lead two Bilhops in Europe, who have not begun 
 their journey to Rome before it is too late. 
 
 7. To the marks of the true churchy which I have point- 
 ed out in this epiftle, marks, which I fufped, are not all 
 Proteftant, I may add the account you give of the eucha- 
 rifly — your fervice, at the celebration of which, you are 
 authorized by an A£l: of Parliament to fay, " was compo- 
 « fed by the aid of the Holy Gholt." 
 
 Mr. Daubeny, in compliment, 1 fuppofe, to the public 
 creed of the Church of England, of which he is now a dig- 
 nitary, 
 
LETTER XLIX. 393 
 
 nitary, pronounces ^our eucharlllic fcrvice, and the " idea, 
 ** which your clmrch has on this facred fubjecl,'' more 
 primitive than the do£lrine and fcrvice of his own church •, 
 and this you quote * as a mod rcfpc£^able teflimony in 
 favour of your euchariftic fervice. Hence, I cannot help 
 remarking, Mr. Daubcny's adherence to a church, which 
 rewards his labours fomewhat more hberally than your 
 church could reward them, manifefts, on Scotch Epifcopal 
 maxims, fome portion of that duHility of principle^ which 
 you and the Anti-jacobin impute to our deceafed Le£lurer ; 
 fuch a portion at lead as fufFers his confcience to prefer a 
 good living with the burden of a faulty euchariftic fervice, 
 to poverty with a truly primitive euchariftic fervice. When 
 among us, a clergyman lets us know, that he is not quite 
 fatisfied with any of thcdo6lrines or modes of worftiip and 
 government, which he became folemnly bound, at his or- 
 dination, to teach and maintain ; we have a compendious 
 but moft efle£tual way, of fetting his confcience at eafe : 
 we fend him to the church, whofe dodrine and worftiip he 
 prefers to ours. But, it feems, things are not thus order- 
 ed in England ; and, hence, there is no probability of your 
 ever having the fatisfadtion of fdeing the Archdeacon of 
 Salisbury ofticiating at your euchariftic fervice. 
 
 That the do£l:rine of your church, on the fubjc6l of the 
 cucharift, is not the doclrine of the Church of England, 
 we learn by comparing the XXVIII. and XXXI. Articles 
 of that church, with your doctrine in your Ledlures, and 
 JNIr. Daubeny's in the Jppettdix to his Guide to the Church, 
 
 The truth is, you endeavour to ^reconcile the real pre- 
 Jence with the real abfence oi the body and blood of Chrift ia 
 
 the 
 
 * VinO. p. 48j, 486. 
 
396 LETTER XLIX. 
 
 the eucharlft ; an attempt, which, fo far as I know, was 
 never made by any of the Do£lors of the church of Rome, 
 much lefs by the compofers of the XXXIX Articles. For, 
 you aflert that, *f by means of the prayer of confecration," 
 (which comes in the room of our Lord's giving of thanks) 
 " the eucharillic oblation* is made, and the bread and the 
 ** cup do become the body and blood of Chrift." But you 
 immediately add, <' We are not to imagine, that they are 
 ** made the very natural flefh and blood of Chrift," No ? 
 When they become the body and blood of Chrift, what are 
 they made, if it be not the very natural flefh and blood of 
 Chrift ? " Thefe facred elements, therefore, are only in 
 '* power and efficacy, and to all intents and purpofeSy the bo- 
 <« dy and blood of Chrift." Put this luminous and felf-con- 
 fiftent explanation of a rite, which needs no explanation, 
 into one fentence, and it runs thus : " After the prayer of 
 " confecration, the bread and the cup in the eucharift do 
 " become the body and blood of Chrift, but not the very 
 «« natural flefti and blood of Chrift, and yet the body and 
 «« blood of Chrift to all intents and purpofes."f What can 
 this mean ? It is neither /^iT^ia-iXy nor (rwacncc, nor ^«r»<r«». 
 But I will tell you what it is. It is tranfubftantiation and 
 fjot tranfubftantiation. Away with this jumble of con- 
 tradiction and myftical jargon, and give me the Rom ifti te- 
 net ! I cannot believe in tranfubftantiation : no man in his 
 fenfes ever did, or ever will, believe in it. But though it 
 be obvioufly and manifeftly falfe, it is, at leaft, intelligible, 
 and prefents a diftin6l idea to the mind, which one can ex- 
 amine and reafon about. 
 
 You 
 
 '* As if " Take, eat, do this in remembrance of me,'* prescribed, 
 an oblation ! 
 
LETTER XLIX. 397 
 
 You tell us,* that " one great rcafon, why ive, who call 
 ^^ our/elves m\n\{itrs of the gofpel, deny that there is any 
 " proper facrifice to be offered in the chriftian church, is, 
 *' bccaufe our cowm'ijjlon is not fuch as would juftify our 
 ^* meddling with that ejjhiiial, that awful part of the Prieft- 
 " ly office." Really ? Do you believe, that we think cur 
 cowm/J/IoninfcxiOY to that of any of the fpiritual progeny of 
 Simon the forcerer, of the numberlefs thieves and robbers^ 
 that have, in fo many ages, entered the (heepfold, not by 
 the door, but by fome other way, — of Henry VIII. of En- 
 gland, and all the fovcreigns, fave one, that have fat upon 
 the throne of Britain after him, — of James VI. 's unbaptiz- 
 cd unordained Scottifli Bifliops, who renounced the religi. 
 on of their fathers for a mitre, — and of the Utopian Pre- 
 lates, at the mention of whofe orders the defenders of the 
 Scotch Epifcopal Church become drunk with pafTion, and 
 iilmofl frantic ^. Do not deceive yourfelf, " Right Reverend 
 " Sir." We are not fo imdej} as you fuppofe. If we be- 
 lieved, that we have, as chriflian minifters, any proper 
 facrifice to offer, we would offer it as boldly as you offer 
 up what is not a facrifice ; becaufe we believe our commif- 
 llon to be, even on the principles which you yourfelf affect 
 to hold, fully better than yours. We are nowife " terrifi- 
 *' ed,'' you may depend upon it, ** at the thoughts of per- 
 «' forming" any funclions that really belong to the mini- 
 fters of Chrifl. But I will tell you what we " are terrified 
 ** at the thoughts" of doing. We would not, for the 
 world, inve?it a facrifice for ourfelves, as you and the 
 Church of Rome have done ; nor would we, merely for 
 the honour of calling our miniiters Priefts, convert our com- 
 munion tables into altars, which are a fort of furniture in a 
 church, that chriflians n.vcr thought of for the firft three 
 
 ceu- 
 
 ■ \ ! ' • ••'■ in J.f^M' 
 
398 LETTER XLIX. 
 
 centuries. We believe the fcrlptures, which aflure us that 
 Jefus Chrift Is the oniy Pried of Chriftians, having, " by one 
 " offering perfected for ever them that are fan£i:ified," and 
 thus aboliflied facrifices world without end. To fet up ri- 
 vals or coadjutors to Him, — to (hew, by facrifices of o«r 
 own invention^ that we do not altogether depend, for our 
 acceptance with God, on the one facrifice, with which our 
 Creator declared himfelf well pleafed, by raifing the Vidim 
 from the dead ; — the very idea of this, does, I acknow- 
 ledge, " terrify" the flouteft heart araongft us, and make 
 it tremble.* 
 
 As you have kindly communicated to us the reafon, why 
 we " deny, that there is any proper facrifice to be offered 
 " in the chriflian church •," and as I (hould be forry to be 
 exceeded in kinduefs, I beg leave to return the favour, by 
 communicating to you, explicitly, the reafon why, as I 
 think, you convert an a6lion of bleffmg and thankfgiving 
 into a proper facrifice. Among other poffeffions, which 
 you inherit from the Church of Rome, your venerable an- 
 ceftor, there has been tranfmitted to the Scotch Epifcopal 
 Church, a very genteel portion of that Prieflly pride and 
 arrogance, which fo long infulted the underftanding, and 
 trampled on the rights, of men in the Wefl of Europe. — 
 The title and dignity of fervants of Chrifl in the gofpel are 
 too mean for your clergy ! As, in their ranks and degrees, 
 they affect the fplendour of the Jewifh hierarchy, fo they 
 delight in its names of office, in diredl and manifcft oppo- 
 
 fition 
 
 * All sacrifices, even among the Jews, did not require a Priest 
 to officiate in them. The sacrifice of the passover, for instance, was 
 killed by every father or master of a family, after the institution of 
 the Priesthood, as well as before that institution took place. Hence, 
 there is nothing so peculiarly awful in a sacrifice, but that even a 
 profane layman may venture to engage in it. 
 
LETTER XLIX. 399 
 
 fition to the examples fet them in the New Teftameiit, by 
 men of infinitely more dignified and illuftrious charader. 
 Not content with being fcrvants of the High Pried of our 
 profefiion, they would be his Vicars upon earth, and mud 
 be High Priefts as well as He ! And as your clergy muji be 
 Priefts, nothing is more neccfiary than to provide fuitable 
 religious offices for them as Priefts, and fuitable furniture 
 in your places of worftiip ; for a Prieft without an altar, 
 and a proper facrifice, to offer upon that altar, is juft fuch 
 an inconceivable fort of being, as a husband without a 
 wife. You have nothing, I maintain, to bear you out in 
 calling your clergy Priefts (pontifices vel facerdotes) but 
 vour doctrine of the facrifice of the eucharift. If you were 
 to give up this doctrine, your Priefthood vanishes along 
 with it, and you are reduced to a level with " Paul, a fer- 
 «f vant of Jefus Clirift." 
 
 But, what kind of facrifice is it that is offered in the eu- 
 charift ? 
 
 From your feveral anfwers to this query, we are taught, 
 that the eucharift is a facrifice of, almoft, every kind that 
 ever was offered or imagined. 
 
 I. The eucharift, according to you and Mr. Daubeny, 
 is a commtmoraiive hen ficcy and a /;/>/>«/ facrifice, by way 
 of memorial of Chrift's facrifice on the crofs. 
 
 If by typical, you n^^an that it is an emblem or reprefeii- 
 tation, which brings to mind the broken body of our Lord, 
 and his blood that was fhed for us, you are perfccftly riglir 
 But the type of a facrifice is not neceffarily a facrifice, any 
 more than the brazen fcr!;?:ir, and the rock which poured 
 
 forth 
 
400 LETTER XLIX. 
 
 forth waters in the defert, both which were types of Chrid, 
 were of the fame nature with the Anti-type. 
 
 As the type or emblematical reprefentation of a facrifice 
 is not neceflarily a facrifice, fo neither is the commemoratiGn 
 of a facrifice neceflarily a facrifice. A facrifice in comme- 
 moration of a facrifice ! Where do you find any example of 
 this ? Some of the Jewifli facrifices were typical of Chrift's 
 facrifice of himfelf, and were intended to prefigure it. But of 
 a facrifice, for preferving the memory of another facrifice, 
 heard I never ! 
 
 2. You, and the Archdeacon of Salisbury, call the eu- 
 charift a facrifical feaft, or a feaft upon a facrifice. In this 
 you are not original. But is there no inconfiilency in call- 
 ing it both a facrifice, and a feaft upon a facrifice .? Are 
 thefe two the very fame ? or can one and the fame a£t of 
 religion be both ? This feaft upon a facrifice was firft cele- 
 brated the night before the vi<£lim was flain and offered up 
 to God. Did you ever hear of a parallel to this ,'' You al- 
 lege * that " Chrift, the night before his crucifixion, un- 
 " der the fymbols of bread and wine, offered up his body 
 " and blood to God, as a facrifice to hejlain upon the crofs.'' 
 The offering up of a facrifice to he flain, and a feaft upon 
 a facrifice, the night before the vidim was flain and offer- 
 ed up to God, are acts of devotion, of which I can find no 
 example in the religious ceremonies of any nation. Among 
 the Jews, in particular, facrifices were never offered up 
 till they were flain, and out of the hands of the Levites who 
 killed them, nor did the feafts upon facrifice begin, while 
 the victims were alive, and were not as yet offered by the 
 Priefts. 
 
 But 
 
 * Tect. in Lent. p. 134.. 
 
LETTER XLIX. 401 
 
 But in the Inftltution of the eucharifl:, I can fee no offer* 
 ing up to God prcfcribed ; and when it was firll celebrated, 
 in fad nothing was offered up to God, but blefling and 
 thankfgiving. The elements of bread and wine were not of- 
 fered to God, but given to the apoflles, not as a facrifice, 
 nor a facrifical feaft, but as the fymbols or emblems of a fa- 
 crifice to be flain the next day. " Jefus took bread, and 
 *« blefled it, and brake it, and gave it to his difclples. And 
 '* he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them."* 
 Do thefe actions imply the oblation of a proper facrifice ? 
 Can you fuppofe any perfon, in his fenfes, capable of put- 
 ting fuch a conftru(Stion on them } You mud certainly have 
 confidered your Epifcopal authority, or your great elo- 
 quence, fufhcient to bewitch all who heard, or might read, 
 your Leisures in Lent, otherwife you would never have 
 ventured to preach or publifh fuch a fentence as the follow- 
 ing : " Do this (that is, offer this bread and cup) in com- 
 *' memoration of me.^f The pafTage, of which you give 
 us this notable expofition, runs thus : " Take, eat, this is 
 " my body, which is broken for you ; this do in remem- 
 " brance of me. This cup is the new teftameiit in my 
 ** blood \ this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance 
 " of me.''+ To what do the w^ords " do this'' refer.'' Is it 
 not to " take, eat, as oft as ye drink it V* There is nothing 
 elfe but thofe actions, and the giving of thanks, to which 
 they can refer ; for nothing elfe is mentioned in St. Paul's 
 account of the inftitution. Whether " take, eat, drink ye 
 *' all of it," be the moft appropriate and intelligible terms, 
 in which a facrifice to God can be inftituted, I will leave it 
 even to you to decide. Only if you decide, that no terms 
 
 c c can 
 
 ■■ See Matth. xxvi. 26, 27. Mark xiv. 2?, 23. Luke xxii. 19, 23. 
 1 Cor. xi. 2J -23. 
 
 t Lect, in Lent, p. 134. t 1 Cor.xi. 24, 25. 
 
402 LETTER XLIX. 
 
 can be more appropriate and intelligible, I muft infift, that, 
 in the language of fcripture, "Take" and " Give" figni- 
 fy the fame a6lIon. 
 
 3. After pronouncing the eucharift to be a typical facrl- 
 fice, a commemorative facrifice, and a feaft upon a facri- 
 fice, without (hewing, or, indeed, being able to fhew, that 
 it is a proper facrifice of any kind, you find out, in the 
 end, that it is, what the Church of Rome calls it, and the 
 Church of England, in her XXXF. Article, explicitly and 
 firmly denies it to be, an expiatory or propitiatory facrifice. 
 You aflert boldly, and, indeed on the juftnefs of all your 
 aflertions refpe£ling the benefits, which chriftians, of the 
 true churchy derive from the commemoration of our Lord's 
 death, you ftake the credibility of the whole New Tefta- 
 ment (you aflert) that " we receive the forgivenefs of our 
 «* fins by it.'' As you do not clog this mod comfortable 
 dodrine with any conditions, fuch as repentance, and holy 
 purpofcs, and a change of life for the better ; it holds forth 
 great encouragement to partake of the eucharift with you, 
 who are a Prieft " called of God as was Aaron," (great 
 encouragement) to them, efpecially, who have many fins 
 to be forgiven, and would rather partake of a facrifical feaft, 
 than amend their ways and their doings. 
 
 In fupport of yourpofition, that we receive the forgive* 
 nefs of our fins by the eucharift, you bring " proof of holy 
 " writ." To tell the truth, it needs fupport from very 
 high authority. — " We receive the forgivenefs of fin by it. 
 ** For fo faid our Lord, This is my blood of the New Tefta- 
 ** ment, which is ftied for many for the remiflion of finsj*'* 
 that is, the cup in the eucharift is the blood, the very 
 
 blood, 
 
 * Lect.inLent, p. 139. 
 
LETTER XLIX. 403 
 
 blood, which was flicd for many, for the remifTion of fins. 
 If this be not what you mean, your quotation does not prove 
 what it is brought to eftablifh, and is, indeed, altogether 
 impertinent to your purpofc. And, if you mean this, you 
 will permit me to fay, that your tranfubflantiation of the 
 cup in the eucharift into the blood of Chrift is not very con- 
 fiftent with the venerable title, which, in imitation of your 
 illuftrious relative, whofe language and manners you are 
 fond of imitating, you give the eucharift, I mean, <* our 
 " unbloody chriftian facrifice."* I need fcarcely remark 
 here, for every body muft fee it, that, in the paflage which 
 you bring forward to convince us, that the commemoration 
 of the death of Chrift, which you call a facrifice, confers 
 the rcmiflion of fins, or, is a propitiatory facrifice, our 
 Lord inftru6ls us only that hi$ blood, not the fymbol of 
 his blood, was Hied for the remifilon of the fins of many. 
 This is fo very obvious, that one is almoft afhamed to men- 
 tion it. 
 
 Upon the whole, if you do not receive the kifs of fra- 
 fernlty from the adorers of the facrifice of the mafs, they do 
 jiot treat you as a brother ought to be treated. An " un- 
 << bloody facrifice," which you firft create, and then offer 
 up ; by which alfo we receive the forgivenefs of fins ; is 
 undoubtedly the mafs, " wherein the Prieft offers Chrift for 
 ** the quick and the dead, to have remilTion of pain and 
 " guilt.'* 
 
 '• Vera incessu pafd Dea." 
 
 * Lect. in Lent. p. 1J7. 
 
 c c 2 LETTER 
 
( 404 ) 
 
 LETTER L. 
 
 IF " Popery and Presbytery do not dIfFer in ma- 
 ** ny things, fo much as is generally imagined," it would 
 appear from what has been ftated in the laft Letter, that 
 Scotttjh Prelacy and Popery have, in fome things, fuch a 
 likcnefs as the poet defcribes, when he calls the likenefsj 
 that was obfervablc among fome ladies of iht fame familyt 
 
 " Qualis decet esse sororum." 
 
 And thus puts me in mind of " a tale that is told/* 
 
 A Roman Catholic Prieft, not quite a hundred miles 
 from the archiepifcopal refidence of our Primate, being en- 
 gaged in argument with a Scotch Epifcopal in your diocefe, 
 thought it proper to difplay, according to the ufual plan of 
 fuch gentlemen, when they are employed in perverting 
 "filly" Proteftants ; (he difplayed) Bellarmine's marks of 
 a true church, every one of which he eafily (hewed, is im- 
 printed on the Church of Rome, and is quite clear and in- 
 telligible. The woman (for it was a female Epifcopal with 
 whom he argued) unable to unravel the fubtleties of the 
 
 art- 
 
LETTER L. 405 
 
 artful Roman Cardinal, by whom, you know, even fucli 
 Presbyterians as our LeElurer are often taken :V/, was fooii 
 reduced to her laft defence of Scottifh Epifcopacy, and faid, 
 in the fimplicity of an honeft heart, " Our church is not 
 '^fciv from yours J"* " True,*' anfwered the fon of Loyola, 
 *< and let me remind you, that a monkey is, of all creatures, 
 " the moft like to a man^ and yet it is the uglieft of all ani- 
 " mals." This did the bufinefs. The poor Epifcopal gave 
 up her religion, becaufe it is nothing; but an ugly llkenefs 
 of the ancient religion ; and in due time, (he received " the 
 " euchariftic oblation," in the form of a wafer, and as the 
 real body and blood of Chrlft, that (he might thereby have 
 remiflion of pain and guilt, whether alive or dead ; and (he 
 would no longer receive it in the form of bread and wine, 
 as the real body and blood, and yet not the real body and 
 blood of her Redeemer, " by which we receive the forgive- 
 *« ncfs of fin." I have given my reafons for thinking that 
 the woman a£led fenfibly. 
 
 Whether fuch occurrences happen frequency, I do not 
 know. But the occurrence now related, I am well aflured 
 did happen. Perhaps you may be furprized at it : But / am 
 
 not. 
 
 All true Proteftants regard Popery (whatever brotherly 
 kindnefs, charity, and eftcem, they may feel for Papifts) 
 as an illiberal and pernicious fuperftition, the prevalence of 
 which is unfavourable to the improvement of our nature, 
 and to the beft interefts of mankind, both as citizens of 
 this world, and expedlants of a better. Hence we cannot, 
 without a mixture of furprize and deep regret, behold a 
 Proteftant divine exhibiting the fpiriloi Popery in his writ- 
 ings ; advancing fome of its moft arrogant pretenfions, and 
 avowing fome of its moft indefenfible tenets and principles 
 
 cc 3 to 
 
406 LETTER L. 
 
 to be the tenets and principles of his church. If your own 
 people admit your pretenfions to the high andffacred cha- 
 ra£i:er to which you lay claim, and breathe the fpirit, which 
 your writings breathe, and believe all that you inculcate as 
 divine truth ; the fincere part of them are, like the woman 
 mentioned above, well prepared for accounting a Scotch 
 Epifcopal fuch a difgufting hkenefs of a Roman Catholic, 
 as a monkey is of a man ; and for taking ihame to them- 
 felves, fo foon as this Hkenefs is fairly fet before them, for 
 having been in a ftate of feparation from Rome, and in- 
 curring the enormous guilt of fchifm, which their Senior 
 Bifliop cannot think of without horror. But (his is not 
 the worft. 
 
 Popery, bad as it is. Is much better than Infidelity, which 
 the world, efpecially in the prefent age, feels to its coft, is 
 worfe than the worft religion that ever was profefled In ci- 
 vilized fociety. But, unfortunately, Popery and infidelity 
 have a mutual Influence, and have. In many Inftances, been 
 pbferved to be handmaids to each other. " The exhibition 
 <« of the fpirit and principles of Popery, where it is predo- 
 <« minant," fays a pious writer,* " has been found but a 
 " forry recommendation of chriftlanity to phllofophers ; 
 " and hence, for one deift or atheift in Britain, you will 
 <« find at leaft twenty in Italy or France. On the other 
 <« hand, atheifm and fuperftition, though they fly from 
 '« one another, yet move In a circle, and may meet on the 
 «' fide oppofite to that from which they fet out ; and in 
 " faft, atheifm has been frequently obferved to end in ab- 
 « je6b fuperftition." No perfon, who is acquainted with 
 human nature, through an attentive ftudy of its hiftory, 
 •jyould be furprized to hear of Paine, the hireling and un- 
 
 blufli- 
 
 * Dr. Erskine. 
 
LETTER I.. 407 
 
 blufliing apoftlc of anarchy and infidelity, flying to the pre- 
 tended vicar of Jefus Chrill, and clinging to the mumnic- 
 ries of fupcrftition, the laft miferablc refuge of a corrupt 
 heart, diftraded by a confcioufnefs of enormous guilt, and 
 the fear of judgment and an eternal Hate cf retribution. 
 
 I need fcarcely remark, that the exhibition of the fpirit 
 and principles of Popery, under the difguife of a Proteftant 
 profefhon, is not lefs favourable to the growth of inlidelity, 
 than if the name accompanied the thing. Nay, I may 
 venture to affirm, that the friar's frock peeping from be- 
 neath the Proteftant gown, does more mischief to the caufe 
 of revealed religion, than the full and open difplay of all 
 the tinfel pomp of the fcarlet whore.* It was from fuch 
 phenomena that free-thinkers inferred, long ago, that 
 " Priefts of all religions are the fame," and all purfue one 
 grand objed, the exaltation of their own order, whatever 
 becomes of the fuccefs of the religion, which they profefs 
 to believe, and pretend to teach. Think, then, I entreat 
 you, of the poflible confequences of the exhibition, at the 
 prefent day, by a Proteftant divine, of the fpirit which 
 your Vindication breathes, and of the principles it inculcates. 
 Suppofe, that fome of your readers, who have not ftudied 
 our religion in the fcriptures (and you know, the ftudy of 
 it there is what you difcourage) fhall be fatisfied with your 
 account of it. , Suppofe farther that, fome time or other, 
 they (hould revolve that account in their mind, and thattlie 
 following very natural queries ihould occur to them : " Did 
 " God, the Father of all mankind, fend his Son into the 
 <' world, that he might fuffer and die, to fave thofe only, 
 
 c c 4 " wlio 
 
 * Is it not remarkable, that so early as the pnntijicate of Damasua, 
 (a little after the middle of the fourth century,) Jerom calls Rome 
 ** the scarlet ZL'Iiore ?"' 
 
408 LETTER L. 
 
 *' v^ho fubmit to Bifhops, Presbyters, and Deacons ? Can 
 «' that be his method of falvation, which (lamps the fhigheft 
 ** poffible importance on the rank and degrees of the men, 
 ** that come after the fiftiermen of Galilee, who were all 
 " on an entire equality ; and which fubje£i:s the reafon and 
 ** confcience of his rational creatures to the dominion of a 
 " few, fele£lcd from among themfelves, and fet apart to 
 ** their office by certain ceremonies and forms, and drefled 
 '' in a certain manner ? Does chriftianity leave all, however 
 " fmcere in their belief of its tenets, and however confci- 
 " entious in the difcharge of its duties, to perifli everlaft- 
 ** ingly, M'ho are not under the government of Bifhops in 
 f* an Epii'copal Church ? Did Biftiop Skinner's confecration 
 " confer on him, both ability, and the right which he claims 
 ** in ,the introduction to his book, to di£late to all man- 
 ** kind ? Is it no indication of illiberality and uncharitable- 
 •' nefs in Him to tell me, that if I follow not with his church, 
 ** I cannot be faved ? Does chriftianity authorize fuch hor- 
 ** rid declarations, — which are equally arrogant and inhu- 
 *< man ? Muft I perifti if there be any breach in the apof- 
 ** tolical fucceffion from the College of Apoftles, of my Bi- 
 •' (hop or my parifli Pricft ; if there be the leaft flaw in the 
 ** canonical derivation of their orders for nearly eighteen 
 ** centuries ? Does Chrift make my falvation dependent on 
 *' a condition, of which he has given me no warning, either 
 " explicitly, or by fair and undoubted implication ? a con- 
 •* dition of falvation which it is impoffible for me to know 
 ** whether I have performed or not : for what man on 
 " earth can certainly know, whether the canons, which 
 " have been violated, times without number, have been 
 " ftridlly obferved in the particular Epifcopal fucceffion, in 
 ^< which his falvation is concerned ? Can that fyftem be of 
 " God, which makes a man's falvation to depend on what 
 ** is merely accidental in regard to him, — what is not per- 
 
 «< fonal 
 
LETTER L. 409 
 
 «* fonal, nay, what he cannot poflibly inveftigate with any 
 <* degree of certainty ?" 
 
 If fuch queries, which are not unlikely to occur to a rea- 
 der, who undcrftands your Vindication, (hould not fend 
 him to the New Teftament, and lead him to fearch the 
 fcriptures with diligence and perfevcrance, they may, very 
 probably, if he be of a difpofition to give himfelf any trou- 
 ble about the matter, fend him to one- of thofe excellent 
 nurferies of fciencc both political and religious, which are 
 known by the name oi Difputing Clubsy where all his doubts 
 will be cleared up, and his fcruples removed at a few fittings. 
 
 If, again, a ferious perfon, that " he may be able to 
 '* know and do every thing neceflary for falvation," (hould 
 contrary to your advice, have recourfe to the fcriptures, 
 " and perufc them at his leifure, and interpret as he thinks 
 <* fit ;" here the doctrine of your book meets him, and 
 throws him into perplexity ; for it brings in queftion the 
 credibility of the fcriptures. They profefs to be 2iJu/I znd 
 clear revelation of the will of God for man's falvation. Yet 
 we in vain turn over the leaves of the facred volume, in 
 fearch of the leading do6lrines of your Vindication^ the prac- 
 tical belief of which, you contend, is as eflential to falva- 
 tion, as the practical belief of any of the dodlrines which 
 are clearly and fully revealed. We do not learn in them, 
 that " the Son of God founded a fociety," of a particular 
 model, "for the falvation of mankind :'' and, indeed, fome 
 of your own party contend, on fcriptural grounds, that 
 He formed no fociety at all, the church being founded on 
 his refurredion, and confequently after he departed from 
 our world. Holy writ by no means teaches, that if we be 
 not fubje£l to a hierarchy, fupplied with facred officers, 
 who derive their commifllon in a right line from the apof- 
 
 tles. 
 
410 LETTER L. 
 
 ties, we (hall as certainly perifli, as thofe antediluvians pe- 
 rlflied, who were not in the ark of Noah at the deluge. — 
 It does not prefcribe a hierarchy in the church of Chrift, 
 nor any other fpecific plan of ecclefiaftical government. — 
 Nay, it does not fo much as tell us, " in exprefs and pofi- 
 <« tive terms," what that government was, which the apof- 
 tles themfelves inftitated for the benefit of their own im- 
 mediate converts. And as it does not fpeak of proper Epif- 
 copacy, it cannot well be fuppofed, that it inculcates the 
 necessity of what you call the Epifcopal fucceflion. This 
 you confefs •, and you endeavour, with the afliftance of the 
 Anti-jacobin Reviewer of LeElures on Eccleftajiical H'lflory^ 
 to account for it ; with what fuccefs let the reader judge. 
 
 I am amazed that, while you were colle6ling from every 
 acceflible quarter, the materials, with which you endeavour 
 to prop up your fcheme of Prieftly domination, and com- 
 pelling fcripture itfelf, by far fetched and violent inference, 
 to put its facred hand to the work, while you acknowledge 
 (and who will dare to deny ?) that the Spirit nowhere 
 dire£lly and explicitly, reveals any thing upon the fubje£t 
 of ecclefiaftical government ; I am amazed that it never 
 once occurred to you, that you were doing all in your power 
 to undermine the credibility of revelation ! — A hierarchy in 
 the chriftian church, all whofe officers derive their orders 
 from the apoftles, through an unbroken Epifcopal fuccef- 
 fion, either isTneceflary to the falvation of chriftians, or it 
 is not. If it be not neceflary, we need not give ourfelves 
 the trouble, unlefs for the gratification of curiofity, of en- 
 quiring, when, by whom, or in what manner, a chriftian 
 hierarchy was fet up. But if it be neceflary to the falva- 
 tion of chriftians, which you labour to prove, and repea- 
 tedly boaft that you have proved, treating the judgment of 
 thofe, who differ from you, with difdain, and their moral 
 
 and 
 
LETTER L. 411 
 
 and religious character with abufc ; I ask you, why the a- 
 poftles did not reveal this eflential condition of falvation ? 
 Had they received it from their mafter, or had they not re- 
 ceived it ? If they had not, I ask you. Why ? Anfwer this 
 queflion fo, as to fave the credibility of our religion, if you 
 can ! But if the apoftles had been taught by their mafter all 
 that you can call Primitive Truth and Order, what has be- 
 come of that part of the facred and invaluable treafure which 
 was committed to them ? It is nowhere mentioned in their 
 writings. Had they loft it ? Did they wilfully fupprefs it ? 
 Did they treacheroufly carry it with them, out of the 
 world, and expire, amidft all that could render death ter- 
 rible to human nature, with the guilt upon their confcience 
 of concealing what the falvation of mankind was concerned 
 in their clearly unfolding ! Or did they reveal it darkly and 
 obfcurely, fo that the learned only could attain to the 
 knowledge of it, and communicate it to the unlearned, 
 that ignorance might be kept in a due dependence on know- 
 ledge and profound literature ? This, I maintain, would 
 not have been a revelation at all, but only a method of fub- 
 je£ling the majority of mankind to the fpiritual tyranny of 
 a few. If the apoftles were capable of thus trifling with 
 the everlafting interefts of human nature, what (hall we 
 think of them? What (hall we think of the mefTage they 
 pretend to deliver to us in the name of Chrift ? 
 
 • The memory of Docftor Campbell, the moft uncandid 
 treatment of which cannot afFe6l him ; and the character 
 of Presbytery and Presbyterians, which you cannot hurt 
 where we value chara61:er, are here, comparatively be- 
 neath notice. The welfare of millions in time, and their 
 education for eternity, are, in fome fenfc, involved in our 
 conteft with the sidvocates of Scotch Epifcopacy. Who 
 but muft feel indignation rife in his breaft, when he beholds 
 
 thofc 
 
412 LETIER L. 
 
 thofe incomprehenfibly grand objefts trifled with, and the 
 credibility of the gofpel, " the beft gift of heaven to men," 
 brought in queftion, in fuch an age as this ! for the ho- 
 nour of a difcontented fadion, which has been difpleafed, 
 for more than a century, with the appointment of eternal 
 Providence in the difpofal of its lot ? What (hould engage 
 any of us in the contefts of fuch a fa£lion, but regard to 
 the credit of revealed religion, and to the beft interefts of 
 mankind ? T ou ftand not in our way. You interfere not 
 with our intereft. You rival us in nothing. In proportion 
 as the minds of men advance in the knowledge and love of 
 the genuine unfophifticated religion of the New Teftament, 
 your numbers will be diminifhed, till Scotch Epifcopacy 
 itfelf, as well as Nonjurors, fhall become " an obfolete 
 « term," and all your high prctenfions, " a tale of other 
 •< times." — Adieu. 
 
 NOTES, 
 
NOTES. 
 
JVOTES 
 
 PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. 
 
 (A) Page 28. 
 IT is faid that, whereas the Bllhops in England 
 had formerly too much power, they now have almofi: none, 
 but what they were lately vefted with by the refidence bill. 
 The prevailing notion, that parochial livings are ftri£lly 
 and literally fo many freeholds, has exempted the clergy al- 
 mofi totally from any fubjedion to their ecclefiaftical fupe- 
 riors ; and the temporal courts flop almofl: every profecu- 
 tion in the fpiritual, if the accufed or guilty clergyman has 
 money enough to apply for a prohibition. Among usy on the 
 other hand, no temporal court can interfere with the fpi- 
 ritual in the exercife of difcipline, particularly in the pro- 
 fecution of an accufed or guilty clergyman. 
 
 (B) Page 43. 
 COMPARE our Lord's account of the Samari- 
 tan (:/^?/rf-^, Jolm iv. 2 2. which by no means implies what 
 
 modcrii 
 
4^16 I^OTES. 
 
 modern bigots would call a true church J with his acceptance 
 of the humble thankfulnefs and faith of the Samaritan Le» 
 per, Luke vlii. 17. i8. 19. and his declared approbation 
 of the enlarged and feeling charity of another perfon of the 
 fame nation and religion •, by which he conveyed the moil 
 fevere reprehenfion of two eccleQaftics of the true church,— 
 See Luke x. 29 — 37. 
 
 (C) Page 45. 
 
 LET me recommend to our modern advocates 
 of the " facred hierarchy,'* the perufal of the printed fer- 
 mon of a celebrated German Orator, of which Dr. Erskine, 
 in his Hints and Sketches of Ecclejtaftical Hiftoryy vol. L p. 
 218. has favoured us with an cxtra£l. The fubjedt of the 
 fermon is the Dignity and the Privileges of the Priefthood ; 
 the principles of the preacher much the fame with thofe 
 maintained in Primitive Truth and Order Vindicated. " The 
 " Priefthood," fays the Orator— (and obferve, that accord- 
 ing to hintf as well as the Scotch Epifcopals, there can be 
 no Priejlhood where the Epifcopal fucceffion has been in- 
 terrupted, and where no facrifices arc offered ;) " the 
 " Priefthood conveys a power and authority over the per« 
 " fon and adorable humanity of the Saviour himfelf. — 
 •« Though Priefts arc only his viceroys^ yet every day he 
 " fubje£ts himfelf to them, and pays them the ftrideft 
 ** obedience. At their command^ he defcends from hea- 
 •* ven, and, in their hands, repeats, a thoufand times 
 " over, what was done in the womb of the Virgin. — 
 ** Divine faith ! didft thou not aid me, I could not com* 
 ** prehend this. It is, indeed, beyond comprehenfion^ 
 
 whether 
 
NOTES. 417 
 
 whether you have faith In it or not. " The clergy's ju- 
 " rifdidion," adds the Orator, "Is Incomprehenfible, i. 
 " in Its extent ; no oflice, however great, no prince, how- 
 " ever Illullrious, being exempt from it : 2. in its obje£ls; 
 " who are tlic parties, between whom they interpofe as ar- 
 ** biters .'' The offended God, and finful man. The Lord 
 " of hofts leaves his rights and prerogatives in the hands 
 " of the Priefts, and appoints them his commifTioners to 
 *^ conclude a peace between him and finners. He is ready 
 ** to fubmit to their declfions, and to renounce the claims 
 " of his juftice, as foon as they have abfolved the guilty." 
 Behold the pretenfions of High Church, both abroad and 
 at home, (tripped of all difguife and covering ! 
 
 (D) Page 52. 
 
 I MEAN not to exprefs the leaft dlfiefpecl for the 
 rite of confirmation. There is not, it is true, the flighteil 
 trace of the pradllce in tlie New Teftament. Yet, it is at 
 leaft harmlefs ; and we may fay of it, what cannot be faid 
 with truth, of many rites of merely human invention, that 
 it is a ceremony that does not feem to have been abufed, 
 nor indeed to be very liable to abufe. Nay, fome plaufible 
 reafons may be urged for the propriety of fome folemnity 
 between the biptifm of Infants, and the time they are fit 
 to partake in the eucharift. I cannot, however, divine one 
 plaufible reafon for confining the celebration to Blfhops, 
 which, in certain circumftances, is productive of inconve- 
 nience, but is not, in afiy circumftances, fo far, as I know, 
 indifpenfably neceflaiy. 
 
 Dd (E) 
 
41 S NOTES. 
 
 (E) Page 53. 
 
 THE -expreflion, inclofed in inverted n:ommas, 
 is to be found, Vind. p. 141 ; and, if it mean any thing, 
 it implies, that we are indebted for our falvation, not to 
 the labours and fufferings of the Son of God, but to the 
 focieiy which he founded j in other words, that Chrift came 
 into this world to fave finners, by fubjecting them to the 
 fpiritual government of a certain number of their feilow- 
 finners, whom he appointed to be ordained Bifhops, Priefts, 
 and Deacons. How can the Critics fay, that " we in vain 
 *' look for bold originality of thought in Skinner's Vindi- 
 " cation?" 
 
 (F) Page 54. 
 
 THIS myjlery was not firfl: difcovered by any 
 Bo6Vor in the Church of Rome, although that church has 
 turned it to better account than any other. It was firft ad- 
 vanced by Anaftafius, a Monk of Sinai, in a little work 
 which he wrote in 640, and called 'ohyo?, Germanus, 
 patriarch of Conftantinople, took it under his patronage in 
 714 — and John of Damafcus, the famous lying defender 
 of image worftiip, maintained it (Irenuouily in 754; though 
 it was condemned, along with the worlhip of images, by 
 the Council of Conftantinople. From the Eaft this ftrange 
 do£lrine gradually found its way into Saxony •, and in 818, 
 was publiflied and defended by Pafchafius Radbertus, Monk 
 of Corbi. Like Anaftafius, Germanus, and Joannes Da- 
 mafcenus, Radbertus was in fome doubt about the manner 
 of the real prefence in the eucharift. He pronounced it 
 
 one 
 
NOTES. 419 
 
 one while fiirna-ix, by which, probably, he meant that the 
 fubftance of the bread and wine was changed into the fub- 
 ftance of tlie body and blood of Chrift, by the '^ Hoc ejl 
 " corpus tneum'^ of the confecrating Prieft. Another while 
 he called it a-vvvs-ixy or a certain commixture of the nature 
 of the euchariftic elements with that of our Lord's body, 
 which Werenfelfius calls either " Dei imianatio,^* or ** Pa- 
 ** nis ccrohua-tgy And fometimes he exprefled the change 
 produced at confecration by the term ha-aa-ixy which I can- 
 not fay that I diftlndlly comprehend, unlefs it mean that, 
 the fubftance of the bread and wine, and the fubftance of 
 the body and blood of Chrift, are both prefent in the eu- 
 charift at the fame time. 
 
 The do£trine of Pafchafius was vigoroufly oppofed by 
 almoft all the learned men of the ninth century, particular- 
 ly by our countryman John Scotus. But it was a dcdrinc 
 of great importance to the Priefthood, for, as it has been ex- 
 prefled, it vefted them with the extraordinary ^ow'^r of mak- 
 ing the God who made them. Several of the clergy, therefore, 
 held it faft j and, aided by the ignorance and barbarifm of 
 the tenth century, propagated it with no little fuccefs. A- 
 bout the middle of the eleventh century, Berengarius of 
 . Tours, who oppofed it with firmnefs, was pronounced to 
 be " a fetter forth of new and ftrange dodlrines, unknown 
 " in the church from the times of the apoftles," and was 
 condemned by feveral Councils and Popes. Thus the doc- 
 trine of Pafchafius became, in the end, the public and au- 
 thorized doctrine of the church, which all muft believe, 
 whether they ^!7///i believe it or not, under the moft dread- 
 ful pains and penalties. In the twelfth century it was open- 
 ly and generally taught as the faith of all true chrlftlans in 
 all preceeding ages, and aflumed the name of transubstan- 
 iiatiotiy which it bears at this day. Scarcely was this name 
 
 D d 2 heard, 
 
420 NOTES. 
 
 heard, fays a learned writer, when the adoration of the 
 hoft enfued. But it were endlefs to enumerate all the ido- 
 latrous and fuperftitious fopperies, which the folly or fraud 
 of ignorant or defigning ecclefiaftics invented, for the pur- 
 pofe of making the facrifice of the mafs the more awful and 
 impreffivein the eyes of the vulgar. The reader, however, 
 may be amufed with a fpecimen of the prayers, that were 
 appointed to be faid or fung at the elevation of the hoft : 
 
 '^ Ave Caro Cliristi cara, 
 *' Immolata Crucis ara, 
 *' Pro redemptis hostia ; 
 " Morte tua nos amara, 
 " Fac redemptos, luce clara 
 " Tecum frui gloria." 
 
 " Salve lux mundi, Verbum Patris, hostia vera, 
 " Viva Caro, Deltas Integra, verus homo." 
 
 See JVerenfelsii Opusc. 
 
 (G) Page Q3. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST made all the difciples Priefts, 
 in one fenfe of that term, by opening to them all equally, 
 accefs to the throne of grace through his mediation — a 
 throne to which, as an apoftle fpeaks, " they may come 
 ** boldly." Hence a chriftian layman is as much a High 
 Prieft as his Bifhop. Accordingly John, Rev. i. 6. fays, 
 that Jefus has made us all " Priefts unto our God " It is 
 worthy of notice, that the chriftian paftors were firft called 
 Priejls {h^ug ^nd facerdotes J not by chriftians themfelves, but 
 by the heathen, who faw them officiating in holy things in 
 the chriftian afiemblies. " To* rwv ^ot^/Zu^av i^m h^ix,'* fays 
 Malchius in Byzanticis, *' ov <?< ^^t^ietvoi Kocxaa-i 5r§sj/3yT£g6v." 
 See Suicer* 
 
 (H) 
 
NOTES. 421 
 
 (H) Page 63. 
 
 READ Hcb. vill. 6 — 13. and you will fee, that 
 nt lead orje]ewi(h convert confidcred chriftianity to be fome- 
 thlng more tlian Judaifm (tripped of its types and ihadows, 
 and that the fame convert feems to have thought, that Je- 
 remiah, or rather his Infpirer, was of the fame mind. 
 
 (I) Page 74. 
 
 I BEG leave to mention it as my conjecture, that 
 " the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," i Tim. iv. 
 14, and " the putting on of Paul's hands," 2 Tim. i. 6. were 
 two diftin6t tranfa6tions. By the former^ I confider Timothy 
 to have been ordained, or feparated, by farting and prayer, 
 and the impofition of hands, to the work of the miniitry •, 
 and by the /ntier to have received the extraordinary gifts of 
 the Spirit, which were conferred by the laying on of the 
 hands of the apoftles. This conjecture appears to me to 
 derive fome plaufibility from the admonitions that accompa- 
 ny the two intimations of the impofition of hands on Timo- 
 thy, in the two tpiftles to that Evangelift. In the firft paf- 
 fage, referred to above, Timothy is exhorted not to nfg/e^ 
 the gift that was in him by the laying on of the hands of 
 the Presbytery ; that is, I apprehend, to be faithful and 
 diligent in doing the work of an evangelift. In the fccond 
 pafTage, Timothy is admonifhed tojiir up the gift that was 
 in him, by the putting on of Paul's hands. Is it not rea- 
 fonable to think that ^-,j «|K£A£< tb ev c-o< ^a^icrfiXTo^. and urx^.iu- 
 unc-KCj ce xvet^coTTv^uv TO ^et^ta-fcac ra 0£b, refer to different du- 
 ties ? Can we fuppofe, that the x*t^ia-^x in the firft paflage, 
 
 D d :^ which 
 
422 NOTES. 
 
 which the evangelift is exhorted not to negUEly and the '^tx.- 
 e^io-^a. TH 0£« in the laft, which he is reminded tofiir upy as 
 one ftirs up a fire, which begins to decay (for that is the 
 import of uvct^uTrv^nv) are the very fame gift ^ How, in that 
 cafe, could we account for their not being both equally cal- 
 led either to j(j«g<(7-^«e, or to ^otgivfiu, m 08» ? If you under- 
 fland the ^a^io-f^x m Qm to mean fupernatural powers, we 
 eafily comprehend the admonition, " Stir up the gift that is 
 <' in thee," that is, " keep alive the gift that is in thee, by 
 <«. exercifing it, and not fuffering it to lie dormant, and 
 *' ufelefs to mankind.'"' If the ^u^to-f^oc given by prophecy 
 with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, was on- 
 ly, as Bifhop Skinner contends, authority to minifter in the 
 gofpel, uvx^iOTTv^iw^ could not, I fhould think, be ufed to 
 exprefs Timothy's duty with regard to it. Add to thefe 
 confiderations that in I Tim. iv. 14. it is faid to have been 
 ^icc 'r^o(pYiTiiecg that the gift which was in Timothy was con- 
 veyed j and in 2 Tim. i. 6. that it was ^icc tjjs s7riho-t&)? rav 
 xue,av f^a. Is it conceivable that " prophecy'' and ** the 
 " laying on of the apoftles' hands," were the very fame 
 inftrumental caufe ? I cannot think it. — Upon the whole, 
 there is not the (hadow of a reafon for afluming that either 
 Paul, or any other of the apoftles were prefent at the ordi- 
 nation of Timothy, which appears to have been performed 
 by the Presbyters of a particular church *, in what place we 
 arc not informed. 
 
 (J) Page 75. 
 
 SINCE I wrote the paffage in the text, here re- 
 ferred to, it has occurred to me as highly probable, that 
 
 when 
 
NOTES. 423 
 
 when a fucceflbr to Judas was appointed, there was In fa£t 
 no eledlion at all by either the eleven, or the hundred and 
 twenty, — Harfabas and Matthias having, it is very likely, 
 been tlie only perfons prefent befides the eleven, who had 
 all the qualifications for the apoftleftiip, which are defcribed 
 A6ls i. 21, 22. 
 
 (K) Page 85. 
 
 SUPPOSE the apoftles to have In reality ap. 
 pointed James to the Epifcopate at Jerufalem, and made 
 him their own ecclefiaftical fuperior : Would this exaltation, 
 of itfelfy have qualified him to decide all the controverfies, 
 that might arife in the chriftian church ? Or would it have 
 conferred a divine right to decide every controverfy, whe- 
 ther he underftood it or not ? Does the a<Sl of confecratlon 
 enlighten the mind of an ecclefiaflic fo wonderfully, as to 
 qualify the Presbyter of yeflerday, now raifed to the Epif- 
 copate, to inftrudt and guide all the Presbyters of to-day ? 
 Perhaps it is only authority to decide all controverfies among 
 the inferior clergy, that It conveys : and, if this be the cafe, 
 it puts one very much in mind of the Poet's " divine right 
 " of kings to govern wrong." 
 
 (L) Page 83. 
 
 SOME expofitors, I know, infift, that "It feem- 
 " ed good to the Holy Ghoft and to us," implies only, 
 *' From the a(fls and dilates of the Holy Ghoft we are au- 
 
 D d 4 *J tho- 
 
424 . KOTES. 
 
 " thorized to conclude. '» To this exporuion, I could, if 
 this were the proper place for fuch a difcuflion, urge feve- 
 ral ftrong obje(Sl:ions. But whether this, or the more ob- 
 vious explanation of the paflage, be the jufter, ftill " It 
 *« feemed good to the Holy Ghoft and to us," oppofes the 
 dodrine of High Church, that «« James' decifive fentence 
 " put an end to the controverfy ;'* — for Peter, and Paul, 
 and Barnabas had drawn the fame conclufion from the hO:s 
 and miracles to which they appealed, that James, after 
 they fat down, drew from ancient prophecy. 
 
 (M) Page 84. 
 
 THE paflage formerly referred to, in which Ig- 
 natius puts the Bifhop in the place of God, Presbyters in 
 the place of the apoftles, and Deacons in that of Jefus 
 Chrift, does imply that the author, whoever he was, con- 
 fidered Presbyters and Deacons to be fubjedl: to Bifliops ; 
 for all beings in the univerfe are fubjeft to God. But I 
 fcarcely think that the ideas of dominion and fubje6lion 
 were at all in the writer's mind at the time he wrote the 
 paflage under confideration, for this reafon, that he places 
 Jefus Chrifl: under his own apofl;Ies, by making Deacons 
 his locum ienenies. And indeed I recolledl: no pafl^age in the 
 Ignatian Epiftles, wherein the do£lrine of the fubjedlion of 
 Presbyters and Deacons to their Bifliops is explicitly incul- 
 cated. In the Epifl:le to the Ephefians, cap. iv. he fays, that 
 «* the Presbytery is fitted to the Bifliop as Airings to the 
 <« harp," (a favourite figure with the author) but this, by 
 no means, implies fubje6lion. In the Epifl;le to the Antio- 
 chians, towards the end, he exhorts the Presbyters to feed 
 
 the 
 
NOTES. 425 
 
 the flock which was among them, till God fliould declare 
 who was to be their ruler after him. But this implies only 
 a mere prcfidency on the part of the Bifliop ; for the admo- 
 nition fuppofes, that the Presbyters were competent to eve- 
 ry olEce of the chriftian miniftry. It is the very fame ad- 
 monition that Paul gave to the Bifhops of Ephefus, when 
 he took leave of them at Miletus. 
 
 (N) Page 86. 
 
 IS it not furprlzing that High Church in Scot- 
 land, who trembles for the foul of the man, that prefumes 
 to aft as a Bifhop, without a commillion figned and fealed 
 by two or more Bifliops, ftill revives the mifreprefentation, 
 folong ago refuted by one of her own fons, that the apof- 
 tles aBed on their apoftolic commiflion, which is recorded 
 Matthew xxviii. 19. 20, long before it was ifTued ? The 
 miflion which they received, during the life of our Lord, 
 was only to the cities and villages of Judea, in which they 
 were not, furely, commanded to " make difciples of all 
 " uationsy baptizing them, &:c." but to preach repentance 
 to their countrymen only, proclaiming that the kingdom of 
 heaven was at hand. When they received their commifTion 
 to preach the gofpel to all nations, the kingdom of heaven 
 *was comey and their ofRce was to invite all mankind to fub- 
 mit to it — unfolding to them its laws, it privileges, its re- 
 wards, and its puniftiments. The time of their Lord's mi- 
 niftry was the feafon of their education for their high of- 
 fice. They were then employed in learning what they 
 were to teach after his refurredion, and after they {hould 
 receive the Holy Ghoft. And, in fadl, it was not till after 
 
 his 
 
426 NOTES. 
 
 his refurredion that he gave them their commiffion to teach 
 all nations, and fent to them, that which alone could ena- 
 ble them to execute their commiffion, the fupernatural 
 gifts of the Spirit. Can any thing, then, be more abfurd, 
 than to fpeak of them as Presbyters in the chriftian church 
 under Chrift their Bifliop, before that church was founded, 
 and before their commiffion as office-bearers in it was given 
 them ? 
 
 (O) Page 90. 
 
 THE Vindicator (p. 127) aflerts with confidence, 
 that " in every Council or Synod, mention is made of the 
 << Deacons, their powers are confirmed, and their duties 
 " explained, as being the perfons alluded iOy whom the apojlle 
 ^^ faySy God had fet in the church, as thirdly teachers" Did 
 any Council or Synod know better than the author of the 
 book of A£ls, ivho it was that fet Deacons in the church, 
 and for what purpofe they were fet there ? Does Luke in- 
 form us, that God fet Deacons in the church ? No— but that 
 they were firft elected by the whole multitude, in confe- 
 quence of the apoftles fuggeding the propriety and expedi- 
 ency of inftituting fuch an order at the time. Does Luke 
 declare the original purpofe of the Diaconate, or does he 
 not ? If he declares it, — what is it ? Is it teaching P Can 
 any thing exceed the abfurdity, I may fay the effrontery of 
 endeavouring to eftablifh the divine inftitution of an ecclefi- 
 aftical office, on the human authority of Councils and Sy- 
 nods after the death of the lafl: of the apoftles,— and that in 
 manifeft oppofition to the report of fcripture ? 
 
 (P) 
 
NOTES. 427 
 
 [P] Page 90. 
 
 IN his Epidlcs to Timothy and Titus, the apof- 
 tle defcribes the quaUfications and duties of two orders on- 
 ly of ecclefiaftics, to wit, Bifliops or Elders, and Deacons. 
 How can this be accounted for, if there were three orders 
 in the apoflolic church ? Are the duties and qualifications 
 of a Bifhop and of an Elder, the very fame ? One fhould 
 think the apoftle had been of that mind, fince he defcribes 
 the duties and qualifications of a Blfliop only. Thtn it ne- 
 ceflarily follows, that, in the apoftle's mind (and I would 
 not advife the fl:outeft champion of High Church to difagree 
 w^ith him) the office of both is the fame. In vain you ask, 
 « Were the apofliles themfelves no order in the church r" 
 This by no means removes the objeclion to High Church's 
 fcheme, (the objedion) arifing from the fa£t, that, in the 
 Epiftles to Timothy and Titus, the duties of Elders and 
 Deacons only, and their qualifications, are delineated. — 
 For \Vhy (hould not the duties and qualifications of opojlles 
 have been defcrlbed, if the apoftolate was intended to be a 
 (landing office in the church ? Is it of no confequence whe- 
 ther the fupreme governors of the church be well or ill qua- 
 lified for their office — or whether they do their duty or 
 not ? — I cannot believe the Vindicator to be in earned 
 (Vind. p. 1 86.) in his deep criticifm on o E^*(rx«:ro; in Tit. i. 
 7. which he tranflates not « Bifhop, but the Bifhop; for it 
 makes nonfenfe of the context, and is indeed fo like the pal- 
 try conceit of a Jefuitical commentator, that it would dif- 
 honour //^f- Bifliop, who, without all queftion, "muft'be 
 " hlamelefs.^'' Finally, if Paul, by the Elders, whofe qua- 
 lifications he defcribes Tit. 1. 5 — 9. meant the intermedi- 
 ate order of Presbyters in an Epifcopal church, how comes 
 it that he does not warn them of the damnable error of pre- 
 fuming to ordain ? an error, which interrupts the flrcam 
 
 of 
 
428 NOTES. 
 
 of Epifcopal fuccefTion, and, hence, is pregnant with mlf- 
 chiefs that cannot be fuitably defcribed .in the language of 
 earth ? 
 
 (Q) Page 90. 
 
 BOTH High Church and bigotted Presbyteri- 
 ans are puzzled with this fa6t, as it is related A£ls viii. 
 In explaining it, the Epifcopal adverfaries of lay-preaching 
 make a curious diftindion. They admit, that the *' ^r^^vre? 
 *< who were fcattered abroad, and preached the word every 
 <* where," were only private difciples or lay-chriftians •, but 
 they infift, that thofe private chriftians did not, like Philip, 
 preach the word authoritatively. In proof of this they urge, 
 that in v. 4. it is faid of the Tcuvriq, ^i^x&ov ivxy/zM^of^ivoi rov 
 Myov ', whereas in v. 5. we are told, that Philip tKij^vtro-iv rov 
 x^iTov. If this profound criticifm be juft, the Haldenites 
 have only to fend out their lay-preachers as evangeli/Is, to 
 declare the " good news" to thofe who never heard them 
 before, or who have heard them only in part from men 
 who handle the word of God deceitfully ; and the Anti- 
 jacobin dares not, on his own principles^ reprehend them. — 
 Some bigotted Presbyterian controvertifts, who, in fo far 
 as the exclufive authority of the clergy to propagate the gof- 
 pel is concerned, make common caufe with High Church, 
 contend that the w-s^vtj?, who went every where preaching 
 the word, were the Elders of Jerufaiem. This ** out-he- 
 ** rods Herod.'* — In regard to the Anti-jacobin's diftin£tion 
 between the verbs ivxyyiXi^oy^oti and Kvie^va-o-M in A£l:s viii. the 
 latter of which, he fays, is ufed to exprefs Philip's preach- 
 ing, while the former is the expreflion for the preaching of 
 
 the 
 
NOTES. 429 
 
 the' brethren, I beg leave to direa him to the 35th v. of the 
 fame chapter, where he will find it faid of Philip, ivxyyiXic-x- 
 r6 ecvru Toi> U^av. EvxyyiXt^of^cci is the word commonly ufed 
 for the firfl: intimation of the good news. K»gy(rc-« fignifies 
 to proclaim any thing, whether it can be called news or 
 not. 
 
 Do I plead the caufe of lay-preaching ? If to reprefent 
 things as I find them in fcripture, be to plead the caufe of 
 lay.preaching in modern times, I mud confefs myfelf to be 
 guilty 5 and what is worfe, I cannot prevail upon myfelf to 
 repent. But, I hope, it will be recolleded, that there is 
 fome difference between the qualifications of modern lay- 
 preachers, and thofe of the brethrenhdoxQ the converfion of 
 Paul, who went every where gv£«yy£A«{fl,ug»<» t«v Aoy«». But if 
 lay-preachers be qualified to preach, and if they preach 
 Chrift as he is preached in the New Teftament; what does 
 it become a chrijiian to fay ? and how will a chrifiian feel ? 
 « I therein do rejoice, yea, and ivill rejoice:'' Philip, i. 18. 
 
 (R) Page 93. 
 
 IS it not a ftrange anfwer to a train of reafoning, 
 fupported by an indudion of fads, to fay, " Sir, you have 
 »* borrowed all this .?" Does our Vindicator, or the Arch- 
 deacon, from whom he copies the heavy charge of plagiarifm, 
 dare to deny, that the LeLlurer had accefs to the beft four- 
 ces of information concerning the confiitution oj ike primitive 
 church, as well as Lord King, and that he could confult an- 
 cient records with underftanding. If they do not, -what 
 candid inference can ibty deduce from hia coincidence 
 
 with 
 
430 NOTES. 
 
 with Lord King, but only that both drew from the fame 
 fources, and unierftood the writings of antiquhy, to which 
 they appealed, in the fame fenfe ? Does this militate againft 
 the fcheme, which they both fupport ? The very reverfe. 
 If, like the writers of High Church, they had both efpou- 
 fed tilt fame caufe, and yet differed in their interpretation 
 of thofe pafTages of fcripture, and of the writings of the Fa- 
 thers, to which they appeal in fupport of it ; this, indeed, 
 would have created a ftrong prefumplion, that their fyftem 
 has no foundation in truth. 
 
 ** Page 95. 
 
 THE primitive chriftians had no altar properly 
 fo called. It was jneiaphorically that they denominated the 
 communion table '• the Altar." Their heathen" neighbours 
 and adverfaries were wont to reproach them with their ha- 
 ving no altar. Chriftians acknowledged the fa6t, and they 
 accounted for it by urging an excufe, that is no proof of 
 the antiquity of what both Roman Catholics and fonie Scotch 
 'E,^\{co'^2\s cdW their unbloody facrifice J that they had no proper 
 facrifice to offer ; for that their " only oblations were pray- 
 «< ers and thankfgivings, out of a pure confcience, thofe 
 " facrifices, with which, fays the apoftle to the Hebrews, 
 « chap. xiii. 15. 16 > God is well pleafed." See Origin adv. 
 Cels. — Arnob. Af. adv. Gentes, — La£i:ant. et mult. al. — 
 The church was three centuries old, and fomewhat more, 
 before (he difcovered that ftie had a facrifice to offer,- that 
 requires its correlate, an altar ! Yet the euchariftic fervlce of 
 the Scotch Eplfcopal Church, In the opinion of its Primate, 
 and of a Divine of the Church of England, keeps clofer to 
 
 the 
 
NOTES. 431 
 
 the original pattern of t\iQ primitive church than the eucha- 
 riftic iervice of the Church of England now does ! What 
 do thofe learned Divines call the primitive church ? The 
 Church, I fuppofe, of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh cen- 
 turies. 
 
 (S) Page 99. 
 
 IF the Vindicator mean an equivoque on the word 
 fend, which he has diflinguiflied from the other words of 
 thefentence by an Italic drefs, I am forry to be obliged to 
 remark that, in this inftance at leaft, he is more witty than 
 wife. All the clergy, in a modern diocefe, in England for 
 example, are not of the BiQiop's fending, in any fenfe in 
 which the word can be underflood •, neither can he, like 
 Columbanus, or like- a Scotch Highland Minifter, recall 
 thofe '* ordained afliftants" of his, when he pleafes; much 
 lefs can he difmifs them altogether. Would any body con- 
 fider you to be in your right mind, if you were to defcribe 
 Dr. Barrington as the ordained paftor of the parifh of Dur- 
 ham, " who has power to fend out, to the diftant parts of 
 ** his parilh, ordained afTiftants to fupply his place, as oc- 
 " cafion requires, and to recall them at his pleafure ?" 
 
 (T) Page 101. 
 
 THIS, unlefs the author felt himfelf to be under 
 a necefTity of copying a certain quantity, in order to liil the 
 intended number of p',-:.?, does not appear to be much 
 
 more 
 
432 NOTES. 
 
 more judicious, tlian the condu£t of a gentleman, who 
 wrote to an accoucheur , requefting him to come and deliver 
 his wife, who was in fevere labour; and being informed, 
 before the letter was fealed, that the lady was fafely brought 
 to bed, told the Do6lor, in a poftfcript, that his attendance 
 was unnecelTary ; and then difpatched the letter to him in 
 great hafte. 
 
 (U) Page 102. 
 
 THIS expreffion is evidently elliptical. The firft 
 queftion, then, that occurs in endeavouring to afcertain its 
 fignification is, What is the neuter fubftantive that is un- 
 derftood } Bifliop Skinner (See Vindic. p. "254, 255. i$6.) 
 never feems to have once thodght of this enquiry. He ad- 
 mits that, in A6i:s ii. i. iTvi ro ccvto ought to be rendered 
 " in one place •," and fo it is rendered by the Vulgate, Zu- 
 rich Tranflation, Erafmus, Beza, Caflalio, Anon. Italian 
 1545, Diodati, and Luther. I apprehend that the Vindi- 
 cator will admit the propriety of rendering the fame expref- 
 fion, by the fame Englifh words, in A£ts i. 15. Luke xvii. 
 35. and I Cor. xi. 20. Dr. Hammond interprets it in 
 Adts i. 15. " aflembled for the fervice of God.'' Interpret 
 it thus in i Cor. vii. 5, and obferve how it will fuit the con- 
 text. Nobody, I fuppofe, will difpute, that iTi ro ocvro in 
 the Septuagint tranflation of Deuteron. xxii. 10. means, 
 " in one place," or " together." Now what is the fub- 
 ftantive underftood in all the paflages now referred to ? I 
 prefume to aflert with confidence, that it can be no other 
 but x^^iovi and I have no fear of being contradicted by any 
 " mafterly Critic^ unlefs, indeed, it be the Anti jacobin 
 
 Re- 
 
NOTES. 43;^, 
 
 Reviewer of LeElures on Eccteftaftkal History ^ who Is fo ve- 
 ry ^profound a Critic, that he difputes Dr. Campbetl's 
 knowledge of the Greek language, becaufe he does not 
 tranflate ^Kxioa-vvn " alms-giving ;" and who puts the fol- 
 lowing fage admonition in the mouth of our Saviour, 
 •* Firfl caft out the double vifion out of thine own eye, and 
 ** then (halt thou fee clearly to caft out the mote out of 
 ** thy brother's eye." Du Bos, in his Ellipfes Gracay fup- 
 plies %u2^it^ in A£ls ii. i. — fo does Hefychius, who explains 
 iTVi TO uvTo by £7r< Tov xvTov TOTToif. To tlicfe I may add the au- 
 thority of Stephani Thefaur. in Voc. uvrog — which fee. — 
 li p^u^iov be the word that is underftood in all the pafTages 
 referred to above, what right has the Vindicator to contend 
 that the fame word is underftood in every paflage, wherein 
 iTTi TO UVTO occurs — every paflage without exception ? Can 
 you afl'ert of any EUipfis Gr^cay that it requires one woxd to 
 be fupplied m/ome pafl'ages, and another word in other pafla- 
 gcs .'' If you can, a Greek elliptical expreftion may, very eafily, 
 be made to fupport any do£lrine or fyftem, that needs its aid. 
 
 Some Critic or other, I think it is Grotius, renders ett* t6 
 etvTo m A61:s iii. i. " fub idem tempus." But how does ixt 
 TO ccvTo agree with KXi^ovj or ptj^ovo^, or 'aj^xv ? 
 
 The precife meaning of iTn to xvto f supple y^u^ioy) in any 
 given pafllige is to be afcertaincd from the connexion in 
 which it ftands ; an obfervation that is applicable to feveral 
 words and phrafes in all languages. In different connexi- 
 ons it may fignify, " in the fame room ; in the fame 
 ** houfe j in the fame ftreet ; in the fame city ; in the fame 
 ** region or country :" or, when it is ufed in fpeaking of 
 perfons, who are in habits of intimate friendftiip, it may 
 mean, that " they Iiave very frequent intercourfe with one 
 " another." BiZas opinion reipetiling the meaning of s^< to 
 
 E e XVTO, 
 
434 NOTES. 
 
 dfvTo, in AcSls il. 44. as quoted by the Vindicator, is jufi 
 the opinion of Beza j and that is all. No body fuppofes 
 that all the difciples, after 3000 were added to their num- 
 ber on the day of Pentecoft, were crowded into one room, 
 or into one houfe. But that they had daily intercourfe 
 with one another, ♦« fpeaking often," as Malachi exprefles 
 it, «' one to another,'' we have every reafon from their hif- 
 tory to infer, efpeclally as they all lived on a common 
 flock, and were all alike the objeds of public hatred and 
 perfecution ; to fay nothing of their frequent meetings, in 
 different affemblies, for the purpofes of chriftian worlhip. 
 
 In A6ls iii. i . it is faid, that " Peter and John went up 
 ** iTTt TO ecvro to the temple at the hour of prayer ; being the 
 " ninth hour." The Vindicator has not fallen into the ab- 
 furdity of rendering with Grotius, g7r< ro uvto " about the 
 "Jame time," which makes the facred hiftorian tell the 
 fame thing twice in one fhort fentence. But by his inter- 
 pretation he equally perverts the meaning of Luke : for he 
 tranflates iTri to otvro for " the fame purpofe." It is evident 
 from v. 3. that the hiftorian meant to inform his readers, 
 that Peter and John went up into the temple in company, 
 or «' together," as our tranflators render it ; for he fays, 
 that the lame man faw the two apoftles about to enter the 
 temple, and addreffed them both for alms at the fame time. 
 Luke is not a hiftorian of many words ; and it is not to be 
 fuppofed, that he meant to inform his readers of the " pur- 
 " pofe" for which two of Chrift's apoftles went into the 
 temple at the hour of prayer. Hence it is apparent that, 
 in A£ls iii. i. iTrt ro »vro means " together," or, if I may 
 fo fpeak, fide by fide. 
 
 I cannot think the Le£lurer's opponents more happy in 
 their interpretation of s^r; to «vto in Acls iv. 26. 27 Bifhop 
 
 Skinner 
 
NOTES. 435 
 
 Skinner fays that, when the apoftle Peter exclaims, For of 
 ** a truth ngainft thy holy child Jefus^ luhom thou haji anointed^ 
 ** both Herod and Pontius Pilate^ and the Gentiles ^ and the peo- 
 •^ pie of Ifrael G-wnxena-xv ex* t» «ut#, for to do ivhatever thy hand 
 *' and th^ counfel determined before to be done, — it would be ab- 
 " furd to fuppofe, that they all aftually aflembled in one 
 «' place, but that they confpired together for the fame puv- 
 ** pofe, the words (£?r* to uvTo^ plainly pointing to the objecl^ 
 *^ not to the place of their combination." To have convin- 
 ced his readers that this is perfe£lly />/«;«, our learned Vin- 
 dicator (hould have firfl: produced to them the Greek 
 word that is left out, and next have fhewn that the purpofc 
 of the combination is not unfolded by Luke without the help 
 of «7r< TO ccvTo. But I fufpe6l he could do neither. Neither 
 /SaA/jy, nor c-^ra^jjv, nor ^y^tov, nor any word fignifying " pur- 
 " pofe" that I have met with, can be made to agree with 
 £7r< TO ccvTo. And for the declaration of the purpofe of the 
 confpiracy, Luke has not left it to nviio olvto^ — but has told 
 us diflinctly that Jews and Gentiles combined againfl " thy 
 " holy child Jefus, for to do whatfoever thy hand and thy 
 ** counfel determined before to be done," which is a fufh- 
 ciently clear and precife enunciation of the obje«£l; of the 
 confpiracy. And was it not in Jerufalem, and therefore 
 sTi TO at»To ;\i(y§<ov, that the confpiracy was formed, and its 
 atrocious objecSt accomplifhed } Nay, were not all the con- 
 fpirators, excepting Herod, convened at our Lord's con- 
 demnation ? — May I not remark alfo, that (r\)n%H<riiv (con- 
 gregabantur) which our tranflators have very properly ren- 
 dered *' gathered together," refers, wherever it occurs to 
 the place, not to the purpofe, of the convention.? The very 
 fame expreflion, a-vrnx^na-etv itti. to xvto occurs in Matth. xxii. 
 34. where it evideiitly means that there was a concourfe, 
 or flocking together. As <rvva.yo) refers to place, its connec- 
 tion with sxi TO flfvTo in Ads iv. 26. and Matth. xxii. 34. 
 
 r. e 2 fixes 
 
436 NOTES. 
 
 fixes the meaning of stti to uvra^ and fhews, that the fub- 
 flantive underftood is unqueftionably ^ugiov. 
 
 Ifliall only obferve farther, that in the pafTage of Juftin 
 Martyr, to which the LeBurer refers on the fubje£l of pri- 
 mitive Parochial Epifcopacy, the obje6^ of the meetings of 
 chriftian congregations on the Lord's day, is diftin£lly 
 placed before the reader independently of iTrttaccvros for 
 Juftin particularly defcribes the religious duties, for the 
 performance of which, the chriftians met together in the 
 fame place. Thus our LeBurer^s opponents, it is evident, 
 have not produced one Jingle pafTage, which, if candidly in- 
 terpreted, militates againft his interpretation of Juftin*s and 
 Ignatius' i%i rouvroi and, as we have feen, Cyprian's decla- 
 ration, that at a time when chriftians were greatly more 
 numerous than in Ignatius' and Juftin's days, he celebra- 
 ted the eucharift, all his flock being prefenty eftabliihes it be- 
 yond contradiction or doubt. 
 
 (V) Page 107. 
 
 * THE Anti-jacobin obligingly recommends to Dr. 
 Campbell's biographer a tranflation into Englilh of the apof- 
 tolical canons, which he aflures him, is quite Jaithful ! 
 AVhat a profound Grecian muft the Reviewer be — who is 
 able to appreciate the merits of Johnftone's tranflation of the 
 apoftolical canons ! 
 
 (W) 
 
NOTES. 437 
 
 (W) Page 107. 
 
 SEE Acts XX. 31. Sec alfo chap. xlx. 10. where 
 we are informcil, that, in the courfe of " two years, all 
 " they which dwelt in Afia, heard the word, both Jews and 
 " Greeks.'' Were all they who diuelt in AJia^ confined to Io- 
 nia, Lydia, Myfn, and Phrygia Major ? or were they all 
 fubjc£i;ed to the Epifcopal authority of the /even angels P^ 
 
 (X) Page 108. 
 
 IT is Jerom, I think, who affirms, that John 
 planted 2lx\ A governed the churches of Afia. This aflcrtion 
 is not corred. That Peter planted churches in Afia, is 
 probable ; that Paul planted many churches there, is abfo- 
 lutely certain ; for he was long in that country, and he 
 declares, that he never " built upon another man's foun- 
 <« dation." Tertullian fays, that John nourifiedy that is, 
 infl:ru£led and governed, churches fomewhere, he means, 
 mod probably, thofe of Afia. But he does not fay, that 
 John founded thofe churches, though in the Vindicator's tran- 
 ilation of his words, he is made to fay fo. Does " habe- 
 " mus et Joannjs alumnas ecclefias" mean, " we have al- 
 « fo churches /o««i^^ by John?" (See Vind. p. 7c6.)— 
 Where did the Bifhop meet with the adjective alumnus in 
 this acceptation ? It ordinarily fignifies " nouriOied, main- 
 " taincd, inftruded, educated." But where is the clafTi- 
 gal authority for interpreting it by " founded, created r' 
 
 EC3 
 
 NOTES 
 
JfOTES 
 
 ON 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN LETTERS. 
 
 PART L 
 
 (Y) Page 140. 
 
 WHAT fedary may not as reafonably fay the 
 fame thing of any minifter of any eftablifliment under the 
 fun ? " You (land on a bog, my Lord," might an Englifli 
 diflenter have faid to Bifhop Home. " If you fpeak out 
 ** what you believe in your heart concerning the form of 
 *< the apoftolic church, which, you well know, was not 
 ** Epifcopal, you fink, and your titles and revenues, your 
 *^ fquare cap and temporal peerage, difappear." Would 
 any man of the leafl fenfe or candor pronounce this addrefs 
 more arrogant or impertinent, than what you fay of the 
 Lecturer ? I believe not. 
 
 (Z) 
 
.NOlEb. 4139 
 
 (Z) Page 141. 
 
 THE Leaurer, inflead of wifliing to find the 
 conftitution and difcipline of the primitive church what a 
 bigottcd churchman of his own, or any other, communion, 
 would liave them to be accounted, enquires into what they 
 really were-, and he enquires with fuch modelly, that he 
 does not' pretend that he could fully afcertain every thing 
 relating to them. Of the difcipline you virtually admit that 
 he gives a jufl: account. For do you not acknowledge, p. 
 145. 146. 147. that Paul and Cyprian, the former "for 
 " particular reafons," which you coiiccal, and the Litter out 
 of pure humiiiiy and condeicejifion, did, in facf , delegate to the 
 people that cenforial power, which modern Bifliops with- 
 hold from them .? It is not true, that the Leclurer pretends 
 ** to fupport and recommend'' primitive order and diicipiine. 
 They ftand in no need of fupport and recommendation from 
 him or from you ; of which he was not fenfelefs and pre- 
 fumptuous enough not to be aware. He only informs his 
 pupils what they appear to him to have been. What would 
 you or the Anti-jacobin have done in a like cafe ? Com- 
 pelled the primitive order and difcipline to corrcfpond ex- 
 aaiy with thofe of your own church.'' or, if that could not 
 be done, quitted your church altogether r — If Dr. Camp- 
 bell had wilfully mifreprefented primitive order and difci- 
 pline in compliment to his own church, he would have 
 well deferved all the malignant cenfure, with which his 
 pofthumous adverfaries have endeavoured, though vainly, 
 to load his memory. And fhould he have left the church, 
 in which he was baptized and educated, bccaufe he was 
 not fuch a fenfelefs bigot as to think, that its conilitution 
 and difcipline are perfcdly apoftolical ? Whither could he 
 have gone } Does he not declare it to be his decided opini- 
 
 F c .1 on, 
 
440 NOTES, 
 
 on, that nothing but fe£lanan bigotry and ignorance would 
 dare to claim ayW divinum in favour of any eccleftajlical polity 
 in existence? Therefore, to be, what the Anti-jacobin would 
 call a conscientious chriftian, the LeBurer ftiould have founded 
 a new fecSt, of Campbellites! But this, again, would have 
 aggravated your " heavy calamity, the endlefs diverfity of 
 " feds and opinions." 
 
 High Church can make large demands on the confcien- 
 ces of Presbyterians, without ever once drawing on ^an E- 
 pifcopal confcience. All that the late Dr. Home had to do 
 in order to be of the church, which the great apoftle of 
 the Gentiles would join, if he were coming to earth again, 
 was only to quit his Epifcopal palace, and give up the re- 
 venue of his fee, and crofs the Tweed with Mr, Jones at 
 his fide, and prefent himfelf to the Bifhop of Edinburgh, 
 or of Aberdeen, and fay, " Here am I, and my friend 
 " Jones, where St. Paul would be, if he were upon earth, 
 *' and it were left to his choice with what denomination of 
 " chriftians he would communicate.'' — But Dr. Home did 
 not do this, although it was entirely in his power. He ve- 
 ry wisely contented himfelf with commending the Scotch 
 Epifcopal Church, and calling her Biftiops better Bifhops 
 than himfelf ; and he ftaid in England, where, he was fure, 
 St. Paul would not have fiaid, and died in pofleflion of his 
 Epifcopal palace, his feat in the Houfe of Peers, and the 
 revenues of his fee. What would have been the chief re- 
 commendation of the Scotch Epifcopal Church to an apof- 
 tle, I mean, its " poverty^ and deprefled ftate," had no 
 charms for " the pious and learned Biiliop of Norwich," 
 but merely in fpeculation ! Perhaps it has been his profound 
 learning that enabled him to difcover, that he lived more 
 comfortably in England, than the Bifhops in Scotland live. 
 At any rate, we have never heard that his confcience re- 
 proached 
 
NOTES. 441 
 
 preached him for preferring an Engllfli Bifhoprlc to a Scot, 
 tlfh. Mr. Jones, indeed, would not have failed to tell us, 
 if it had. Nay, (and this is more wonderful ftill) Dr. 
 Home has efcapcd all rcprehenfion on the fubjedl, from 
 the Primate of Scotland, and the Anti-jacobin Reviewer of 
 Dr. Campbell's LeQures ! This is a (Iriking fpecimen of 
 the rigid and dignified impartiality of thofc right reverend 
 and right learned gentlemen. 
 
 (A a) Page 141. 
 
 KIRK is an abbreviation of y-y§<«xop, (or, accord- 
 ing to fome, of KvgiK oiKoq) and was once the fafliionable 
 word in England. But in procefs of time, it was fupplan- 
 ted by a fofter found, and then it was baniflied to Scotland, 
 the Siberia of all obfolete Englifh words and phrafes, where, 
 in a little time they are naturalized, and become Scotti- 
 cifms. 
 
 (B b) Page 146. 
 
 THE charge, quoted in the text, is to be found 
 in the laft page of the Anti-jacobin's altercation with Dr. 
 Campbell's Biographer, which the Anti-jacobin has conduc- 
 ted in*a manner, that deprives it of all title to the appella- 
 tion of a controversy. What a furious thing is ^the Odium 
 Theologicum ! It is fome comfort, however, that, by the la- 
 teft accounts, the Odium Mcdicum rather exceeds ours in vi- 
 rulence. 
 
 (Cc) 
 
442 NOTES. 
 
 (C c) Page 173. 
 
 AMIDST all your profefllons of loyalty, which 
 the Anti-jacobin (probably becaufe they may excite fome 
 fufpicion of your fincerity) thinks you pour forth in too great 
 confufion, I cannot difcover the leaft evidence, but your 
 diflike of the obsolete term Nonjurors, of your taking fhame 
 to yourfelf for your former diiloyalty. To what (hall we 
 impute this ? Your former diflatisfadion was innocent, or 
 it was not. If it was not, why Aoyou not, like St. Paul, after 
 his converfion, confefs iniquity ? You do not, furely for- 
 get what the fcriptures fay of the man " who concealeth 
 " his fins !" But if your former difafFedion to the exifting 
 government of the country was your duty, why have you 
 put It away from you ? The gentlenefs of His Majefty^s 
 government, which has always breathed the liberal and to- 
 lerant fpirit of the monarch himfelf, Should have induced 
 you to live quietly in all godlinefs and honefty. But it 
 could not cancel the facred obligations of duty, nor juftify 
 the transference of your allegiance from the perfon, whom 
 you accounted your rightful fovereign, to another. The 
 defcendants of Charles I. were not all extinct in 1788. 
 
 A true penitent is not only ready himself to confefs his 
 fins j but he can hear others confefs them for him without 
 getting into a paflion. Hence I very much fufped the fin- 
 cerity of our quondam Nonjurors' repentance — they are io 
 liable to irritation, on the flighted mention of their former 
 political principles. 
 
 (Dd) 
 
JVOTES 
 
 ON' 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN LETTERS. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 (D d) Page 211. 
 
 I AM aware that chrlftianity was planted in Scot- 
 land much earlier than the feventh century. But it is e- 
 nough for my purpofe to ftate, that there was a chriftian 
 church in Scotland in the time of Ofwald, king of the Noc- 
 thumbrians. 
 
 (E e) Page 212. 
 
 BEDE's words are, '^ Monachus ipfe Epifcopus 
 " Aidanus, utpote de infula quae vocatur Hy deftinatus. 
 
 <«Cu- 
 
444 NOTES. . 
 
 " Cujus monafterlum in cun6i:is pene feptembrionalium 
 " Scotorum et omnium Piftorum monaderiis non parvo 
 *• tempore arcem tenebat, regendisque eorum populis prae* 
 *« rat:' 
 
 (Ff) Page 215. 
 
 Mr. Skinner (Lett, on Eccles. Hift. of Scot- 
 land, V. I. p. 102) inftru6l:s us very learnedly. He fays, 
 that, by the major es natUy to whom Ofwald applied for an 
 Antistes, Bede did not mean " the old men with refpeft to 
 <' age, who could be oj no use to him in what he was wan- 
 '« ting •, but in Tertullian's phrafe, seniores qui president ; 
 « and indeed," adds he, " in current ecclefiaftical ftyle, 
 ** the venerable men, who managed and prefided in fuch 
 " matters j" that is, I prefume, Diocefan Biftiops. To 
 this fine theory I have fome objedlions. i. Ofwald fent 
 for an Jntisies \ to whom .? To the Aniistites of Scotland ? 
 No, fays Bede, but to the majores naiu. If thofe majores 
 tiatu were antistltesy why does not Bede call them fo } There 
 muft, in his mind, have been fome difference between a 
 major natu and an antistesy otherwife he muft be confidered 
 to be the moft contemptible ecclefiaftical hiftorian that ever 
 wrote. The difference, I apprehend, is, that the majores 
 natu were Presbyter Monks, and the Antiftites minifters or- 
 dained to the charge of particular parifhes, or fent upon 
 particular evangelical miffions. 2. It is not true that ma- 
 jores natUy or seniores^ ever, meant Bifhops in current ecclesias- 
 tical style, that is Diocesan Bifhops. Both the exprefTions 
 are literal tranHations of 7r^s(r/ivr^6i j a term which was ne- 
 ver applied to Diocefan BiQiops. 3. Mr. Skinner takes it for 
 
 granted 
 
NOTES. 4.45 
 
 granted, that by setiiores qui president y TertuUlan unqueftlon- 
 ably meant Bilhops in an Epifcopal church. Thofc, on the 
 other hand, who do not confider proper Epifcopacy to be 
 primitive order ^ confider J^/»"o;v/ and 7r^£(r/3yT!^<j< to mean the 
 fame office-bearers (in which, I think, they are juftified by 
 the fa£l, that seniores is a Hteral tranflation of 9r^ec-/3uT£§oO 
 and they urge TcrtulHan's seniores qui prafident as a proof, 
 that proper Epifcopacy was not generally eftabliftied in the 
 end of the fecond century. 
 
 (G g) Page 223. 
 
 PAUL'S baptifm by " a certain difciple named 
 ," Ananias," has perplexed High Church in all ages. Auguf- 
 tin contends, that Ananias must have been in orders^ becaufe 
 he baptized Paul. By this mode of reafoning, one may 
 make fcripture and antiquity, both of which call Ananias 
 " a certain difciple," fpeak whatever one pleafes. What 
 is " a certain difciple," but a certain private or lay-chrifti- 
 an .? The apoftolical conftitutions, in the lafl: two fentences 
 of the lad book, call Ananias " a faithful brother,*' and 
 they fay, that neither he, nor Philip, who baptized the E- 
 thiopian eunuch, fnatched the facerdotal functions to them- 
 felves, but were appointed by Chrift to do what they did : 
 a difcovery, which, with the New Tcftament in our hand, 
 we might, perhaps, have made, without the affiftance of 
 the apoftolical conflitutions. GEcumenius, on Acts ix. 
 fuppofcs Ananias to have been a Deacon, becaufe he is men- 
 tioned by the apoftolical conflitutions as having had the 
 fame authority with Phiiip the Deacon. But might not 
 CEiumenius have as rcnfunably concluded that the brethren 
 
 who 
 
446 notes; 
 
 who accompanied Peter from Joppa to Cefarea, were all 
 Deacons, becaufe they were commanded to baptize Corne- 
 lius and his houfhold ? Does not every perfon, who can 
 read, know that it was the exprefs command of the Spirit, 
 that gave authority to Philip and Ananias, to. baptize Paul 
 and the Ethiopian minifter of ftate ? If High Church rejoin, 
 " And was not this sufficient authority ^without ordination ?'* 
 I admit that It undoubtedly was. But, then, what anfwer 
 does {he return to this query. Can that be a divine canon, 
 which the Spirit commanded Ananias to violate ? Does the 
 Spirit prefcribe laws to chriftians, and then fet them the 
 example of breaking them ? 
 
 (H h) Page 234. 
 
 THE proudeft prelate In Europe at this day docs 
 not certainly know, much lefs can he prove, that hs does 
 not defcend quoad fpiritualia from the minion, the vile fcor- 
 turn of a Pope j by whom his vile progenitor was raifed/i^ 
 saltum from a layman, and a flagitious layman foo, to the 
 Epifcopal dignity. Only produce your authentic genealo- 
 gy : we {hall then know what to think of your progenitors. 
 
 (I i) Page 239. 
 
 BRUNO, Bi{hop of Segni, informs us that Leo 
 IX. who was his namefake till he was raifed from the See 
 of Toul to the Pontificate, folemnly and firmly declared, 
 that he {hould look upon his eledion at Worms as abfolute- 
 
 ly 
 
NOTES. 447 
 
 ly null, unlefs it were followed by a free unbiafled election 
 by the cle^gy^and people of Rome ; urging, that this was 
 required by the canons. The biographer farther informs us, 
 that Leo went to Rome in the habit of a pilgrim, and was 
 there unanimoufly elected, amidft the loudeft acclamations. 
 See Brun. V. S. Leonis, 
 
 (Jj) Page 239. 
 
 THE 24th Canon of the Fourth Council of La- 
 teran, during the pontificate of Innocent III. prefcribes 
 laws, which were to be obferved in all ele£tions, and ap- 
 points the ecclefiaftics, who do not conform to thofe laws, 
 to be deprived of the benefices, to which they have been 
 irregularly eleHedf and to be declared incapable of ever hold- 
 ing any other. Nay, thofe who but approve of unlawful 
 eledions, are fufpended from the exercife of their office, 
 and the enjoyment of their benefices. 
 
 (K k) Page 246. 
 
 GREGORY VIT. Urban II. and Pafcal II. con- 
 
 tended that the right of confirmation and inveftiture is a 
 
 fpirituality \ and this was one of the reafons urged by them 
 
 for wrefting it from laymen. At the pacification in 1121, 
 
 between the Emperor and Calixtus II. it was agreed, that 
 
 the Emperor fhould give inveftiture, not with the ring and 
 
 crofier, which were underftood to be fymbols of a fpiritu:il 
 
 power, but with the imperial fceptrc. 
 
 (L I) 
 
4-48 NOTES, 
 
 (L 1) Page 270. 
 
 <« THE Church is a fele6t fociety or number of 
 ** people, called or felecSled by fome perfoii or perfons, hav- 
 " ing authority for that purpofe -, and as the kingdom of 
 " Chrift is declared to be not of this world, the fubje£ls of 
 " that kingdom, or the members of his church, mud be 
 " confidered as called out of, or from, the world that lieth 
 *' in wickednefs, that having delivered them from the pow- 
 '' er of darknefs, he might tranflate them into the king- 
 ** dom of his dear Son.'' — Does this definition defcribe the 
 Church of Rome accurately, at the time that a Reforma- 
 tion was thought to be neceflary ? The members of that 
 church were called o«/ of the world of wickedness by the Pope, 
 ■who, no doubt, had fufficient authority, being Peter's fuc- 
 ceflbr, and the Vicar of Chrift ! and called imo a world of 
 fully as great wickednefs, to fpeak moderately — a world in 
 which they might, if they had money, purchafe impunity 
 for all pra61:icable crimes, and even (if we may believe Tet- 
 zel) for crimes that are not pradicable ! a world of idola- 
 try, fuperftition, and will-worfhip ! And yet, becaufe the 
 Romifti clergy had authority, founded on the Epifcopal fuc** 
 cefTion, this fame world of idolatry and iniquity, " this ha- 
 «* bitation of demons, this hold of every foul fpirit, this 
 ** cage of every unclean and hateful bird," was — the king- 
 dom of God's dear Son ! 
 
 (M m) Page 278. 
 
 THE Parliament of England enaSIed, that Ed- 
 ward's liturgy « was compofed by the aid of the Holy 
 
 « Ghoft. 
 
NOTES. 449 
 
 *' Ghofl.'* This ena6lmcnt is frequently appealed to by 
 Bifhops, who ufe the euchariflic fervice of Edward Vl/s 
 liturgy. Hence it would appear, that thofe prelates con- 
 fider the Parliament of England to have been a very com- 
 petent judge of an affair of the kind ; and far be it from me 
 to difpute the point with them ! 
 
 (N n) Page 283. 
 
 IS not this very decent language ? The illuftri- 
 ous characters, who were> engaged in effecting the revolu- 
 tion, and fettling our prefent happy frame of goverriment, 
 were long revered as the glory of our country, as well as, 
 under Providence, its bed benefaCtors. But now — the re- 
 verend dignitaries of the Church of England, who owe to 
 thofe men their dignities in a Protejlant church in thi.t 
 country, compare them, without ceremony, to a lawless 
 banditti! Whom does the Archdeacon mean to flatter by 
 this fine compliment to the memory of our deliverers at the 
 Revolution ? Not furely the prefent royal family, who owe 
 the crown of thefe realms, as he owes his dignity, to the 
 Revolution ! Not furely the Peers of the realm, nor the 
 Commons, who are indebted for the fecure enjoyment of 
 their high privileges, (privileges, to which there were ne- 
 ver any like in any other nation) to the fame grand tran- 
 faclion ! The Archdeacon fpeaks ofiiis retaining his pafto- 
 ral character, qftcr his having it no longer in his power to 
 feed his particular flock. Neither chriftian antiquity nor 
 common fenfe know any thing of a palloral chara(fler 
 without a particular flock Xo feed I A pastoral character 
 without a flock \o feed I Will Ili-h Church never ceafc 
 to infult our underftanding with fuch palpable con- 
 
 F f tr*i- 
 
450 NOTES. 
 
 traditions in terms ? — And, let me remark, that the a£t 
 of deprivation would have been nugatory, and would have 
 expofed the government and legiflature of the country to 
 univerfal ridicule, if it could have been underftood to leave 
 the deprived clergy at liberty to execute the Epifcopal of- 
 fice, and other fun6lions of the chriilian miniftry, ivhere- 
 ever they pleafed, if only they did not feed- the particular 
 flocks, from the charge of which they had been depofed. 
 It would have been, in reality, equivalent to faying to the 
 deprived clergy, " Gentlemen, You may teach rebellion at 
 ** largey or wherever you pleafe ; but you muft not confine 
 '^ your labours in this way to your former pariihes and dio- 
 " cefes/' Would not this have been a moft politic legifla- 
 tive provifion for the fafety of the new government, and 
 of our renovated conftitution ? 
 
 (Oo) Page 291. 
 
 THE LeBurer calls your church a pariy^ and Is re- 
 buked J your church, a mere handful, like ** the gleaning 
 <* grapes, when the vintage is done," in comparifon of the 
 great body of the eftablifiied church. Our reformers^ dur- 
 ing almoft the whole reigns of Mary and James, were, I 
 prefume, nearly nineteen-twentieths of the population of 
 the country. And yet, I conclude, that there is nothing 
 reprehenfible in calling them -x party ^ from this circumftance, 
 that BiQiop Skinner has fo denominated them. 
 
 (Pp) 
 
NOTES. 451 
 
 (Pp) Page 297. 
 
 THE houfe was crowded; and when the butcher, 
 who was a fat man, began to grow warm, he difencum- 
 bered himfelf of his wig, and put it on the head of hismaf- 
 tifF, who had accompanied him to the pit. . 
 
 (Q q) Page 302. 
 
 TO do juftice to the memory of Charles II. he 
 ilncerely intended to keep faith with the Presbyterians in 
 Scotland, although he very much difliked their religion. 
 The king was always averfe to the reftoration of Epifcopa- 
 cy in this country. "We owe that favour to the bigotry of 
 Lord Clarendon, or to the fears, which that minifter enter- 
 tained, of the danger to be apprehended to the monarchy, 
 from the eltablilhment of presbytery as our national reli- 
 gion. 
 
 (R r) Page 303. 
 
 MY argument does not require me to take par- 
 ticular notice of the fraud and perfidy, the violence and 
 outrageous cruelty, with which Epifcopacy was introduced 
 into Scotland in the reign of Charles II. in i66i, and fup- 
 portcd for twenty-feven years. "Whether it be the caufe of 
 God or not, it was certainly maintained, in this unfortu- 
 
 F f 2 natc 
 
452 NOTES. 
 
 nate country, by methods, which He never either prefcrib- 
 ed or authorized. The hiftories of thofe unhappy times, 
 whether written by Epifcopal or Presbyterian authors, teem 
 with fuch horrors, that if the principal fafts were not prov- 
 ed by the records of Parliament and of the Privy Council, 
 they would fcarcely be believed. No wonder that Popery 
 and Prelacy, which, in this country at leaft, were " bre- 
 " thren in iniquity," have been long " conne£led in the 
 " language of the vulgar !" If to this we add the general 
 character of the Epifcopal clergy in refpedi of piety, mo- 
 rals, and literature, as they are defcribed by all the hifto- 
 rians of that period, we (hall be obliged to acknowledge, 
 that however venerable the remains may be (and, as you 
 know them better than I, I (hall not contradict your ac- 
 count of them) the eftablifliment, when it was in all the 
 glory of its priftine ftate, was not much fuited to infpire 
 veneration. Leighton foon left it, becaufe he was afhamed 
 of his connection with his brethren, and early difcovered, 
 that, by continuing to hold his bifliopric, he could be of 
 no ufe to religion. Nairn, Charteris, and Burnett, could 
 not be prevailed on to accept the fuperintendence of fuch 
 men as the inferior clergy, nor to connect thcmfelves with 
 the Epifcopal Bench. Time did not improve the Epifco- 
 pal clergy of Scotland. It is well known that Epifcopacy 
 was favoured at Court after the Revolution, and that if its 
 clergy in this country had poffeffed either wifdom or virtue, 
 and if the violence of the High Church party had not defea- 
 ted every plan of comprehenfion that was propofed in Eng- 
 land, (it being a rule with High Church never to make the 
 /f^/? conceflion for the fake of peace and mutual love!) 
 King William would not have agreed tp the abolition of 
 Epifcopacy in Scotland. But the mad bigotry of High 
 Church in England, and the folly and proftitute principles 
 of the Epifcopal clergy here, — blafted every profped of ef- 
 
 ta« 
 
NOTES. 455 
 
 tablifliing the fame ecclefiaftical government in the two fif- 
 ter kingdoms. I would not be underflood to defend or ex- 
 cufe the violence of fome of the Presbyterians, after the 
 Revolution, toward their Epifcopal brethren. But they 
 had fuffered. They were, fo to fpeak, bleeding at the 
 wounds infliaed by their rivals. And they were not all 
 what they ought to have been. See Life cf Mr. Ccirftares, 
 and Letters y ^c. 
 
 (S s) Page 306. 
 
 THE age and country, in which he lived, and 
 the fraternity, with which his acceptance of a Scottifli 
 mitre connefled him, were unworthy of a man of Leigh- 
 ton's profound learning, extenfive and enlightened benevo- 
 lence, and fublime piety. Let not the remarks I have made 
 on the charaders of fome of his colleagues and contempo- 
 raries be called perfonal abufe, which I fcorn as a dilgrace 
 to any caufe. Thofe remarks are too well founded : and if 
 truth be fatire, it is not the fault of the relater. 
 
 (Tt) Page 312. 
 
 THE Le£l:urer takes no notice of the fadl, which 
 
 1 have urged in Lett. XXXII. that the deprived Bifhops, 
 
 both in England and Scotland, were, in reality, diveflcd of 
 
 their Epifcopal authority by the A^ of deprivation ; which 
 
 renders the confecration of the College Biihops as farcical, 
 
 as human ingenuity, if it had been exerted for the purpofe, 
 
 could have made it. 
 
 pf3 (Uu) 
 
454 NOTES. 
 
 (U u) Page 330. 
 
 HAVING nothing to urge againft the conclu- 
 fions, which the Ledturer draws from the baptifm of Cor- 
 nelius and his houfhold by " the brethren" from Joppa, 
 you lay great ftrefs " on the previous falling of the Holy 
 " Ghofl on thofe firll fruits of the Gentiles." The falling 
 of the Holy Ghoft on Cornelius and his family was fufH- 
 cient authority for Peter to admit them into the chriftian 
 church by baptifm : fo, indeed, he fays himfelf, Ads x. 
 47. But furely it gave him no authority at all to command 
 the brethren from Joppa to baptize them. Could not Peter 
 have baptized them himfelf? Unqueftionably. And he 
 would have done fo, inftead of commanding laymen to do 
 it, if he had been a high churchman. 
 
 (V v) Page 335. 
 
 THIS, by the bye, has probably infpired that 
 corporation fpirit, resprit du corpt, as the French exprefs it, 
 which the clergy have been accufed of cherifhing to excefs, 
 and of which I never knew the original caufe before. 
 
 (W w) Page SS6. 
 
 LET me ask the Anti-jacobin, why he, know- 
 ing fo well, and believing fo firmly, that the corporation or 
 collegiate form is the genuine primitive mode of divine E- 
 
 pifco- 
 
NOTES. 45J 
 
 pifeopacy, adheres, in this age of the prevalence of here- 
 fy and fchifm, to a church, which got quit of its Eplfcopal 
 College, as foon as it began to fancy, that the copiosum cor- 
 pus sacerdotum of Cyprhn does not imply the collegiate form 
 of Epifcopacy, and is not primitive order? Why have not 
 we heard of the formation of a Cyprianic corpus saccrdoium 
 at Stirling, which would be a very proper ftation for a 
 Gleggite College of Bifhops -, the rnembers of which, if 
 they were all like their founder, would be equally free from 
 the fufpicion of herefy themfelves, and zealous for its fup- 
 preflion ? The Anti-jacobin is quite amazed, that the I^ec- 
 turer's biographer, whom he very juftly calls an amiable 
 man, and treats accordingly, did not give up his living long 
 ago, and join the Independents. Has not the Lecturer's bio • 
 grapher fome reafon to be furprized in his turn, at the An- 
 ti-jacobin's conduct ? To make demands on the confcicncc 
 of other men, is one of the cheapeft and eafiefl; methods of 
 acquiring the charadcr of religious, that has yet been in- 
 vented ; and like molt other very ufeful inventions, it is in 
 daily and very general ufe. To liften to the demands of 
 one's own confcience, after one is fixed in a tolerably com- 
 fortable place, and perhaps has hopes of making it better ; 
 this is not quite fo convenient, and therefore prudent mea 
 are never guilty of indifcretions of the kind. 
 
 (X x) Page 345. 
 
 LET any one read the two pages of the rindiid- 
 tioTi referred to in the Text, and judge, whether tl^.e wri- 
 ter does not incline to the belief of thofc who think, that 
 the apoftles firft divided the earth among them, each tak- 
 
 F f 4 ing 
 
456 NOTES. 
 
 ing a^particular portion, which he was to evangelize ; and 
 when that was clone, became the Bilhops, each of his own 
 portiG gregis. But what fays the New Te {lament ^ 
 
 (Y y) Page 373, 
 
 SUCH language betrays inattention to the moft 
 notorious fafls. Not only had Epifcopacy perfecuted its 
 rival for twenty-fix years, but it was the firft aggreflbr in 
 the lengthened conteft, that was carried on from the intro- 
 du£lion of Regent Morton's Tulchan Bilhops, down to 
 1689. It difpofleffed Presbytery of its natural, chriftian, 
 and legal rights, and, from the year after the Reftoration 
 to the Revolution, treated it with a barbarity, the contem- 
 plation of which, as that barbarity is exhibited in the faith- 
 ful page of hiilory, is one of the beft receipts that I know, 
 for making the heart fick, and Scotchmen afhamed of their 
 country. If then, Presbytery, when it became its turn to 
 triumph, h^d meafured back to your " venerable church,'* 
 what it had received from her, it would, inftead of being 
 strange, have been precifely what nvas to be expe£ted, whe- 
 ther your church looked for it or not. 
 
 (Z z) Page S8S. 
 
 I DO not know that a lawyer recommends to his 
 clients to ftudy any laws whatever, but thofe on which he 
 exacts his fees. He may give them, by way of inftru<Sl:Ing 
 
 them 
 
NOTES. 45Y 
 
 them, a fight of tlic « Book of Rates." But he will not 
 trouble them with poring over cither the Pande<Sls, or Coke 
 wpon Lyttleton. 
 
 (3 A) Page 384. 
 
 IT defervcs the notice of the admirers of the Bri- 
 ti(h Critic, that the literati, who conduct that journal, 
 feem not to have known, //// somebody told them^ that the 
 principles maintained in Dr. Campbell's LcEiures on Eldest^ 
 astical History^ are very exceptionable ! It is alfo worthy of 
 remark, that thofe learned gentlemen publifh their unqua- 
 lified applaufe of Bifhop Skinner's vindication of himfclf, 
 in the end of his Introdu(5^ion, from the charge ofilllbcra- 
 lity of fentiment ! See their Critique on Skinner's Vindica- 
 tion of Primitive Truth and Order. 
 
 (3 B) Page 385. 
 
 COMPARE the fentiments publiftied in this 
 part of your Vindication, with the Vlth Article of the 
 Church of England, all whofe Articles you lately figned, 
 and publicly defend in a printed fermon. 
 
 (3 C) Page 389. 
 
 N. B. Mr. Jones is pouring forth a vehement 
 
 phi- 
 
458 NOTES. 
 
 philippic againfl: fchifm. But what would Mr. Jones have 
 called fchifm ? Undoubtedly feparation from the Church of 
 England (which was eftabliftied by Parliament!) if the fe- 
 paratift live in England ^ or, at any rate, feparation from 
 all churches of Epifcopal conftru61:ion. The criminality 
 then, of what Mr. Jones deemed fchifm, muft refult from 
 the full and clear eftablifhment of the fa6t, not only that 
 proper Epifcopacy was inftituted in his church by our Lord, 
 but that the adoption of it is clearly enjoined in fcripture, 
 to all chriftians, as a condition of falvation •, — fo clearly, 
 that " if it be hid, it is hid to them only that are loft, in 
 " whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of 
 <« them that believe not." But who will dare to aver, that 
 proper Epifcopacy, or, indeed, any particular mode of ec- 
 clefiaftical government, is clearly inftituted in fcripture, 
 and the adoption of it exprefsly enjoined ? I muft do the 
 Primate of Scotland the juftice to acknowledge, that he is 
 fo far from ftiewing fuch audacity, that he confefTes, with 
 moft exemplary candor, that the very model fet up by the 
 apoftles (who instituted no form of church government, no 
 more than their mafter) is not fo much as mentioned by 
 the facred writers " in exprefs and pofitive terms." What 
 then, (hould hinder an Englifti diflenter, or a Scotch Pres- 
 byterian, to fend you and Mr. Jones to deftru£lion as fchif- 
 matics, becaufe " you follow not with him," juft as you 
 fend him to deftrudlion, becaufe he <* follows not with 
 « you ?" I know of nothing to hinder him, but a greater 
 {hare than you poiTefs, of common judgment, and of the 
 candid and benign fpirit of the gofpel of our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift. 
 
 (3D) 
 
NOTES. 459 
 
 (3 D) Page 390. 
 
 EVEN Romanists, of the prefent day, admit (at 
 lead the enlightened part of them admit) that good men, 
 who differ from t/jern, (hall be favcd. High Church alone, 
 in this enlightened age, poflefles exclufively, the honour of 
 grafping the thunder-bolts of omnipotence, and of " deal- 
 " ing damnation around the land, on all whom J/je judges 
 " the foes of God." 
 
 Chalmers & Co. Printers, > 
 Aberdeen, 3 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page. 
 38, 1. 24, for testimony read testimonies. 
 44, 1. 3, for imfilicithj read exfilicitltj. - 
 45, 1. 8, for stamfied read vamfud. 
 45, last line, for ht read she. 
 48, 1. H, for f^y/oMnt/ read expounding. 
 
 52, 1.27, expunge//". 
 
 53, 1. 12, foro« read /«. 
 
 56, 1. 17, for customs read custom. 
 62, 1. 24, for inconsistent read consistent. 
 65 y 1. 2, before schismatical insert a. 
 76, 1. 27, for cAwrcA read churches. 
 78,11. 15, 16, for Bisho/is and Preshy 
 
 ters read Bishofis or Presbyters. 
 79, 1. 27, for Deacon read Deacons. 
 
 86, 1. 1, for right read r//^. 
 
 87, 1. 6, for any,farlhcrTG^^ any farther, 
 92, 1. 20, lox persfiuuity read perspica- 
 city. 
 
 95,1. 29, {ox-vehiclei read •vehicle. 
 
 99, 1. 11, for o« read ///. 
 109, 1. 17, for division read divisors. 
 119,1. 7, for //jreadow. 
 126, i. 4, for 0/1 read /o. 
 
 126, 1. 26, for Halleri read Italleri. 
 
 127, 1. 11, for Hallcri read Italleri. 
 150, 1 6, expunge If. 
 
 152, 1. 9, for nieces read ivives. 
 
 153, 1. 3, for /roOT read /or. 
 
 167, 11. 8,9, for interftrence read /«/fr- 
 
 fowrj?. 
 173, 1. 12, for regard rezd regards. 
 1 80, note 1. 9, for the read their. 
 191, 1. 21, for matters read matter. 
 193, 1. 2, for a substitute ^i. 
 
 197, 1. 1 1, tor that read and. 
 
 198, 1. 31, for £-i//7o/j read canont. 
 207, 1. 26,~for reduced read seduced. 
 217, 1. 2, for which read it-Ao. 
 
 219, 1. 19, for in Mf read «/i an. 
 
 220, 1. 20, for Hortiensis read Hostiensis. 
 222, 1.2, (or requisite reSidprerejuiu'e. 
 
 Page. 
 
 222, 1. 10, for ///.^f^^ead M<r/V. 
 
 224, note, for Hoduardi read Flodoarik 
 
 228, 1. 29, for /*o/*r/j read Papess. 
 
 229, 1. 14, for Prf^^ read Pagi. 
 
 ib. 1. 16, lox Popess' rt^d Papess* 
 
 ib. 1. 26, for /Z'^/ w true read Maf »V ij 
 true. 
 250, 1. 18, for chairs read c/;ajr. 
 
 ib. 1. 1 9, for Tz/ax read ivere. 
 257, 1. 29, for absolutely to accept read 
 
 refusing absolutely to accept, 
 263, 1.12. for //J read o/. 
 
 ib. 1. 17, iox ivays xtzdiuay. 
 
 ib. 1. 27, for 31 read 51. 
 267, 1. 5, for -would read ««/</. 
 288, 1. 31, for has read Aa-y?. 
 301, 1. 4. for Mrjf read //;3j<r. 
 307, 1. 8, for n/ight read must. 
 SI 4, 1. 10,for Aaj read he has. 
 316, 1. 9, for awrott/ read amount. 
 318, 1.31, for ivas done read Twaj «T/fr 
 
 done. 
 329, 1. 21, for tuhene^jer read "wherever. 
 344, 1. 6, for Ma/ read //;a«, 
 349, 1. 10, ioxtoyou xed^dfor you. 
 
 388, 1. 23, for allndexesd allude. 
 
 389, 1. 13, iox fishermen Xiididfshtrman. 
 59 3 1. 14, for establishmtnt read establish' 
 
 ments. 
 399. 1 1, iox exampUi xe-dd example. 
 404, 1.8, ioxthu, read M/V. 
 
 411, 1.7, expunge ca«. 
 
 412, I. 7, for //I the contests of suck a fac- 
 
 tion read in contests luith such a 
 faction. 
 420, 1. 28, for Malchius read Malchus. 
 433, I. 14, for is understood read is not 
 
 understood, 
 442, 1.7, (ox dissatisfaction read disaffec- 
 tion. 
 ib. 1.4, iox confusion xadprffusitn. 
 

 'm^mm 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01017 2304