Lecture had called an "excellent work, and earnestly "recommended to their perufal;" and in which they would have found the following account of the Chriftian priesthood, as, in this refpect, fimilar to the Jewish :

"For to inftance in Epifcopacy, the firft order of "it, befides the ecclefiaftical office, which is deriv"ed from Chrift alone, it hath in Christian states "annexed to it (as with us) the temporal benefice

66

(that is the revenues of the bishoprick) and fome "branches of the temporal authority, as the pro"bat of wills, caufes of tithes, caufes of defama❝tion, &c. All which latter most certainly is held "under the temporal ftate, but not the former.— "Were this diftinction duly confidered, it would

t

put an end to thofe Eraftian notions, which now "fo much prevail among us. For the want of this "is the true caufe, that many observing some bran"ches of the Epifcopal authority to be from the "ftate, wrongfully from hence infer, that the reft "is fo too; whereas, would they duly examine the "matter, they would find, that befides the tempo"ral power and temporal revenues, with which bi

fhops are invefted, there is alfo an ecclefiaftical or fpiritual power, which is derived from none "other than Chrift alone. And the fame diftinc❝tion may also serve to quash another controversy, "which was much agitated among us, in the reign "of his late Majefty King William the third, "about the act which deprived the bishops, who 3C2 would

"would not take the oaths to that king. For the con"teft then was, that an act of Parliament could not

deprive a bishop. This we acknowledge to be true in "refpect of the fpiritual office, but not in respect of "the benefice, and other temporal advantages and powers annexed thereto. For these every bishop "receiveth from the ftate, and the state can again deprive any bishop of them on a just cause. And "this was all that was done by the faid act. For "the bishops that were then deprived by it, had still "their Epifcopal office left entire to them; they

being as much bishops of the church univerfal "after their deprivation, as they were before."t

Such is the clear and diftinct account which Dr. Prideaux gives of this matter; and it fhould be remembered, that the cafe to which he alludes, of the deprived bishops in England, was of a much more perplexed and intricate nature, than that of their brethren in Scotland; the former leading to an unhappy feparation of one part of an Epifcopal church. from another, whilft the latter was an overturning of the whole established Epifcopacy at once, and obliged the Scotch Epifcopalians of that day to defend their cause, as it has been defended ever fince, on thofe general principles, by which their ecclefiaftic polity was fupported in the firft and pureft ages of Christianity. This was the apology made for us in year 1792, when that diftinguifhed prelate, Dr.

the

Horfley,

Cornelion of the Old and New Tefiament, part II. book 3. p. 161.

Horfley, then bishop of St. David's, now of St. Afaph, stood up to plead our cause in the great council of the nation, with a ftrength of argument, and dignity of mind, which did him equal honour as a bishop of the church, and a peer of the realm. "Thefe Epifcopalians," faid his Lordship, take

a distinction, and it is a juft diftinction, between " a purely fpiritual, and a political Epifcopacy. A "political Epifcopacy belongs to an eftablished

church, and has no existence out of an establishment. This fort of Epifcopacy was neceffarily un"known in the world before the time of Constan"tine. But in all the preceding ages, there was a pure fpiritual Epifcopacy, an order of men fet

46

apart to inspect and manage the fpiritual affairs of "the church, as a fociety in itself totally unconnec"ted with civil government. Now, thefe Scotch "Epifcopalians think, that when their church was "caft off by the ftate at the Revolution, their "church in this discarded, divided state, reverted to "that which had been the condition of every church "in Christendom, before the establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire by Conftantine "the Great; that lofing all their political capacity, they retained however the authority of the pure fpiritual Epifcopacy within the church itfelf"That is the fort of Epifcopacy to which they now "pretend, and I, as a churchman, have fome respect for that pretenfion."+

66

66

On

↑ See a Narrative of the Proceedings relating to an act which was paffed

On these principles therefore, founded in the very nature and conftitution of the Chriftian church, we may fafely say, that the bifhops of Scotland, ejected at the Revolution, continued to be as much bishops in the pure ecclefiaftical fenfe of the word, after, as they had been before, their ejection; and were fo, even on Dr Campbell's reftricting plan, when fupported by all his allufions to father and husband, fovereign and fhepherd, fince it is a certain fact, that—notwithstanding the parliamentary abolition of prelacy, great numbers both of clergy and laity, or as the Doctor would rather have called them—presbyters and people, adhered to the deprived bishops, and acknowledged themfelves to be ftill "under "their fpiritual care." And was this "fpiritual care" of the Scotch church to cease entirely at the death of these bishops? Or, because our profeffor will not allow that the apoftles could have fucceffors, on account of the extraordinary powers, with which thefe apoftles were invefted, was there any thing fo peculiar in the character of bifhops, precisely such as we have fhewn the bishops of the three first centuries to have been, that they could not have others to fucceed them in their fpiritual charge, or ufe the fame means for preferving that fucceffion, as had been ufed for the fame purpose in every age and under every ftate or condition of the Chriftian church?

But

in 1792, for granting relief to paftors, minifters, and lay persons of the Epifcopal communion in Scotland. Printed at Aberdeen, 1792.

66

But, fays our lecturer, "Even their own writers " acknowledge, that immediately after the death of "Doctor Rofs, bishop of Edinburgh, the last of these "ordained before the Revolution, there were no lo"cal bishops in Scotland, not one appointed to any "diocefe, or, having the infpection of any people, or spiritual jurisdiction over any district." And fuppofing this to have been the cafe, we fhall be able to fhew how eafily it may be accounted for, and what regular steps were taken for having again local bishops, appointed to their feveral diocefes or districts, as foon as circumftances would permit.Even our adversary acknowledges, that at the period he mentions, "there were bifhops in Scotland, "who had been ordained at large, fome by Bifhop "Rofs, others by fome of the Scotch bifhops, who "after the Revolution had retired to England."* And from what has been already faid on the nature of ordination and Epifcopal confecration, it is evident, that these were real, duly confecrated bishops, poffeffed of the power of confecrating others, and of taking the charge of any diocese or district, that might be committed to their inspection.

It

This feems to be very inaccurately ftated, as none of the ejected bifhops performed any confecration in England, and only one Scotch bishop was confecrated there, as may be feen in the Appendix No. I. from which it will alfo appear, that though Dr. Campbell speaks only of the bishop of Edinburgh as the ordainer, yet the first confecration in Scotland after the Revolution, was performed by the archbishop of Glasgow, and bishop of Dunblane, in conjunction with the bifhop of Edinburgh, and every conferation fince has been performed by the canonical number of bishops.