had been written at the earnest request of the assembly at Westminster, and especially of the Scots; when their agents in Paris saw this conclusion of Mr. Blondel's manuscript, they expostulated with him very loudly, for marring all the good he had done in his book, disappointing the expectation of the assembly, and showing himself an enemy, instead of a friend, to their holy covenant; this they urged upon him with such vehemency, and unwearied importunity, that they prevailed with him to put out that conclusion."* His intention however of admitting it, sufficiently shows what his sentiments were on this subject,' and how far he was from abetting or approving those violent measures, which were then in agitation for overturning that ancient and apostolic constitution of the church, which he wished to see carefully preserved, wherever it had been regularly established.

We shall only take notice of another testimony, given by a divine of the presbyterian establishment in Holland, who could not be suspected of any prejudice in favour of Episcopacy. This is the celebrated Mr. Le Clerc, whose words, as quoted by the present bishop of Lincoln, are these "I have always professed to believe, that Episcopacy is of apostolical institution, and consequently very good, and very lawful; that man had no manner of right to change it in any place, unless it was impossible otherwise to reform the abuses that crept into Christianity; that it was justly preserved in England, where the reformation was practicable without altering it; that, therefore, the protestants in England, and other places, where there are bishops, do very ill to separate from that discipline; that they would still do much worse in attempting to destroy it, in order to set up presbytery, fanaticism and anarchy. Things ought not to

This important piece of information is given at full length in a letter from Dr. P. du Moulin to Dr. Durell, and published in the Appendix to his View of the Government and Public Worship of God in the reformed Churches beyond the Seas, p. 339, 340.

be turned into a chaos, nor people seen every where with out a call, and without learning pretending to inspiration." Nothing is more proper to prevent them than the Episcopal discipline, as by law established in England, especially when those that preside in church government, are persons of penetration, sobriety and discretion."*Yet this same Mr. Le Clerc exhibits a strong proof of the inconsistency of those writers on this subject who, if they do not halt between two opinions, seem desirous however to keep well with both sides; for, arguing in another part of his works, against the necessity of Episcopal government, he tells us" It is nothing to the purpose to show, that Christ and his apostles instituted this form of church government, and that the church never had any other kind of government in it for above fifteen hundred years from our Saviour's days downwards, which, though it be so clearly evidenced, that the truth of it cannot be denied, yet it is of no weight, nor deserves to be regarded. For those, who would make thehierarchy necessary to the constitution of the Christian church, ought to prove, that God instituted Christianity for the sake of the Episcopal order, and that the Episcopal order was not instituted for the sake of Christianity.-For if this order was appointed for the sake of the church: (which they cannot deny) they must also acknowledge, that if it be more advantageous to the church in some places, to have this order abolished, it is not amiss to lay it aside in such places."t

Now, this is an argument for abolishing the Episcopal order, which, if carried to its full extent, will equally serve to prove the lawfulness or even expediency of laying aside every "outward and visible sign" in religion, nay, even the scriptures themselves; since it may justly enough be said,

• See Bishop Pretyman's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 400, 401.

+ Bibliotheque, ton. ix. p. 159, as quoted by Dr. Brett in his Account of Church Government, &c. p. 111, 112.

that Christianity was not instituted for the sake of the scrip tures, but the scriptures were written for the sake of Chris tianity, that the church might have a certain rule to walk by; and therefore, when any church judges it more advan tageous to be without the use of the scriptures, there is nothing amiss in laying it aside, as the church of Rome has done, for what she is pleased to think the greater benefit of Christianity. By the same reasoning, the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, being instituted for the sake of Christianity, and as outward means of conveying an inward grace, they too may safely enough be laid aside, when any body of pretended Christians shall feel themselves so inwardly moved by the spirit, as to stand in no need of such outward means of obtaining its grace and influence; and the church of Rome is the less to be blamed for taking away the cup from the laity, since, according to Le Clerc's argument, she might have deprived them of the whole sacrament, had she thought it more for the advantage of the church so to do.

These are modes of reasoning, to which, as advocates for the truth as it is in Christ, we can never be obliged to have recourse. We know, that the holy scriptures, and the sacred institutions of Christianity, were designed by its blessed Founder to be continued in his church, even unto the end of the world; and, therefore, neither the church of Rome, nor any other church, can ever set aside the use of the scriptures, or the ministration of the sacraments, whole and entire, as they were instituted by Christ himself: And we see no reason why the same may not be said of the Episcopal government of the church, which, being appointed by Christ himself, who had all power given him in heaven and earth for that purpose, cannot be set aside by any human authority, or on any pretence whatever. We do not say that Christianity was instituted for the sake of the outward polity of the church, or the church for the sake of the Episcopal order; but we may justly say, what

is plainly said in scripture, and was constantly professed in the purest ages of the gospel, that the belief of the "holy catholic church," being a part of the faith which Christianity requires, and the Episcopal order a part of what we are taught to believe, concerning the constitution and government of the church, no separation must be attempted of what our God and Saviour has thus joined together. We must receive his scheme of salvation according to the plan and the terms on which he has offered it to us; and notwithstanding all that Mr. Le Clerc and other writers of the same stamp have affirmed to the contrary, we must conclude, that the necessity of Episcopal government is most undeniably proved, when we show that it was instituted by Christ and his apostles, and continued to be the only form of church government for fifteen hundred years and upwards.

. The strength of the arguments which we have now been handling in defence of the apostolic Episcopacy, lies in this undoubted truth, that the Christian priesthood is a divine positive institution, which, as it could have no beginning but by means of God's appointment, so neither could it be continued but in the way which he had been pleased to appoint for its continuance. The apostolic practice plainly showed what the method was which God had chosen for that purpose: For Christ was in all that the apostles did, and God was " in Christ reconciling the world to himself." The ministry of this reconciliation was committed to the apostles; and we have seen how that ministry was branched out into three distinct orders, and that the persons severally invested with them, towards the end of the apostolic age, were distinguished from each other by the appropriate titles of bishop, presbyter and deacon: A distinction which evidently took place in conformity with that which had been established in the Jewish church, of high priest, priest and Levite. That such a resemblance would appear between the Israelitish and Christian economy, may be justly in

ferred from this consideration, that the former was designed to be the figure and forerunner of the latter, and that the author of both was the same all-wise and merciful God, who would certainly contrive and order whatever was best for answering his own gracious purposes. This was a matter which could only be settled by divine wisdom and goodness, and, therefore, would not be left to the determination of human prudence. For if it be true, as Dr. Campbell has affirmed it to be "certain, that one model of church government may be much better calculated for promoting the belief and obedience of the gospel than another," we may as certainly conclude that such a model would be prescribed by the divine Founder of the church, as he knew to be best calculated for promoting the ends of infinite mercy and goodness. This was the object which he had in view, by appointing the orders of the ministry, and regulating the whole sacred service under the dispensation of the law; and we cannot suppose that he would leave that of the gospel in an irregular or unsettled condition, and not make sufficient provision for the permanent order and polity of that church which he came in person to establish and to build on such a rock, as that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. To say then "with freedom," as our Professor does, "that if a particular form of polity had been essential to the church, it had been laid down in another manner in the sacred books," is, in our opinion, to speak with more freedom than is becoming on such a subject, especially when any person may see, who is not blinded by prejudice, that there is " a particular form of polity laid down in the sacred books," both in what our Lord said to his apostles, and in what they did in consequence of his directions; and all this laid down, if not in such a manner as Dr. Campbell would have dictated, yet so as to enable the primitive church perfectly to understand

* Lecture iv.