verned, and in what way a fucceffion of governors was to be continued, as their Lord had promifed, "even unto the end of the world;" this was a matter, which, however important in itself, did not require to be particularly infifted on, in the writings of the New Testament, because it must have been eafily known and well understood by those persons, for whose immediate use these writings were originally intended. A great number of these were either Jews by defcent, or profelytes to the Jewish religion before they embraced the faith of Chrift; and to people of this description, the form and order of the priesthood had long been as familiar, as the daily service performed in the temple; all which they knew were to be confidered as "types and fha"dows of the good things to come," under the dif penfation of the gofpel. Viewing the religion of their fathers in this light, as nothing else in fact but Christianity under a veil, thefe converted Jews, or Jewish profelytes, would naturally infer, from the little that was faid on this fubject, that the fame orders of priesthood were to be retained under the gofpel, that had been established under the law; efpecially when they faw three orders actually employed. in the work of the ministry, and heard of certain Chriftians" perifhing in the gainfaying of Corah ;" a thing which to them must have appeared impoffible, if there was not to be ftill a fuperior order of priesthood in the church, the "honour of which "no man was to take to himself, but he that was

"called

"called of God, as was Aaron." Even the converts from heathenifm had been so long accustomed to higher and lower degrees, among those who were appointed to direct its idolatrous fervices, that when they faw the worship and difcipline of the church, conducted by the three orders of apostles prefbyters and deacons, they could not fail to believe, that this plan of ecclefiaftical polity was to be permanent under the gofpel, as a fimilar eftablishment had been under the law while it remained in force, and that both were acceptable to that God of order from whom they proceeded.*

It is true, Dr. Campbell is at great pains to expofe, what he thinks the abfurdity of eftablishing any analogy between the priesthood of the Old, and that of the New Teftament; the former of which being intended to ferve but for a time, he confiders as "inftrumental in ufhering a more divine and ra❝tional difpenfation;"† more divine than that which God himfelf had inftituted-more rational than that, by which the reafon of his own chofen people had been fo long directed! On this point he labours, with uncommon ardour, through a whole lecture, inveighing against the diftinction between clergy and laity, and with particular feverity against, what he is pleased to call, "the priefly pride of fome prelati"cal preachers ;" where the force of the cenfure,

no

* See this point very properly handled in the Anti-Jacobin Review of Dr. Campbell's Lectures-for June 1801.

See his Lectures, vol. I. p. 309.

Vol. I. p. 318.

tery

no doubt, lies in the beautiful alliteration or jingle of the fentence. Were we difpofed to retort in fomething like his own ftyle, it would not, we prefume, be difficult to fhew, that the pride of prefbyis much more predominant in these prelections, than could have been expected from a profeffor, whofe general character was fupposed to place him far above the use of any such mean unbecoming language, as that which we have now quoted. We must take him however, as he is reprefented to us, in this pofthumous publication, which, we are affured, "was left fully written out by himself, and in a proper state of preparation for the prefs;" and of which it is faid, in an advertisement prefixed to the work, that "fuch as are acquainted with the "fubject, will admire the author's well-digefted

66

66

learning, and will readily perceive the importance "of an accurate hiftorical deduction of the progrefs "of church power, and the establishment of a hierar"chy, and how clear and decifive it is, in all that

66

may be termed the hinge of the controverfy between High church and others."

From this prefatory account of thefe boafted lectures, and from what we have heard reported of their extraordinary merit, by thofe who are prepared to admire and extol whatever has come from the pen of their author, it may fairly be prefumed, that they are confidered as containing the whole ftrength of the arguments against diocefan Epifcopacy, and that every thing which could be faid on the fubject,

has

has now been brought forward, "with that perfpis cuity, candour and moderation," which are faid to distinguish the writings of Dr. Campbell. It may. therefore be deemed not a little prefumptuous in any one, who has not arrived at the same height of literary fame, to attempt a refutation of such strong and powerful reasoning as might be expected from a writer, whose reputation has been long established "in the republic of letters." The only apology I have to offer for fuch feeming prefumption, shall be furnished by Dr. Campbell himself; who, in the introduction to his ingenious Differtation on Miracles, alluding to Mr. Hume, as "a fubtle and "powerful adversary," makes this modeft acknowledgement, which I fhall beg leave to apply to my own cafe" With fuch an adverfary," as Dr. Campbell, "I fhould on very unequal terms enter the

lifts, had I not the advantage of being on the fide "of truth. And an eminent advantage this doubt"lefs is. It requires but moderate abilities to speak "in defence of a good caufe. A good caufe de"mands but a diftinct expofition, and a fair hearing; and we may fay with great propriety, it will "fpeak for itself."

To ftrengthen this confidence in the goodness of the cause, which now claims our support, I have the 'fatisfaction to obferve, that nothing has been faid against it, in these modern, and by fome fo much admired lectures, but what had been often. faid before, by writers on the fame fide, and as.

often

often anfwered by others of a different perfuafion. Even Dr. Campbell, with all his boasted penetration, and "wonderful acuteness," has not been able to produce any one objection to the apoftolic, and therefore divine inftitution of Episcopacy, which had not been started by others, who preceded him in the fame field of controverfy.* Some of their arguments he has indeed clothed with a new dress, and by that means has made them affume fomewhat of a different form and appearance; but in fubftance and reality, we fhall find them the fame as thofe to which we have been always accustomed, with the exception perhaps of one prominent and diftinguishing feature, their being accompanied with a peculiar boldness of affertion, and peremptory mode of decifion, which certainly give no addition to their intrinsic value, or to their effect in proving the truth of what is thus afferted.

Such then being the nature of the work we have to examine, the materials of which have been furnifhed by other hands, and only put together by this eminent artift, we need only look back to the accounts of those, who have already inspected them,

and

In proof of this, it might easily be fhewn, how much he has borrowed, not only from Blondel, Salmafius and other foreigners, but also from writers in the English language, fuch as Cartwright, Clarkson, Baxter, Lord King, author of an Enquiry into the Conflitution, e. of the primitive Church; and from his own countryman Mr. Anderson of Dunbarton against Rhind, to whom he seems to have been particularly indebted for fome of his moft vio lent invectives, against the "High-church party," as may be feen in the dedication, preface, and many other parts of Mr. Anderson's work.