only t. Behold the jugulum caufa. Now what teftimony is credible, what teftimony is decifive, but that of Holy Writ? No man fhall ever perfuade me to believe, that what is not to be found in fcripture as a condition of falvation, is one of the terms of acceptance with God through Jefus Chrift. If I were to be convinced by reasoning, that any one condition of falvation is either omitted by the facred penmen, or fo darkly revealed, that it is discoverable by the learned only, after long and deep refearch into the Chriftian antiquities, I muft ceafe to be a Christian the moment after." P. 28.

To the greater part of this extract we give our cordial affent; but we trust that a moment's cool reflection will convince the author himfelf, that the latter part of it has not been duly weighed; for though we do not like some of his principles, we thould be forry to fee him renounce his Christianity. Before any one religious doctrine, not difcoverable by human reafon, can be rationally believed on the authority of fcripture, we must be convinced that fcripture itself is the word of God; that the feveral books of which it is compofed were written by thofe holy men of old to whom they are afcribed; and that the fame holy men wrote as well as fpake as they were moved by the " Holy Ghoft." But this difcovery cannot be at all made by the unlearned, nor even by the learned themfelves, but after long and deep research into profane as well as Christian antiquities. Let us fuppofe however that the mere illiterate vulgar fhould, by fome means inconceivable by us, be able to convince themfelves that the Scriptures are indeed the word of God, and therefore worthy of all acceptation, what would this avail them? The English Bible is not that infallible word, but a mere tranflation by fallible men. cording to our author's principles, therefore, the vulgar must tudy the Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic languages, before they can have any reafon to admit the truth of Chriftianity; but as they have neither leifure, nor perhaps inclination, for fuch ftudies, we fhould not be furprised to hear that fome of them, after reading this part of Prefbyterian Letters, by Patrick Mitchell, D.D. had burnt their Bibles as impofitions upon mankind. This we all know was done by many of them fome years ago, when Tom Paine's Age of Reafon

Ac

We have heard a rumour that there is another champion of liberality in Scotland, who will foon afcertain this fact by metaphyfics! a metaphyfical demonftration of an arbitrary matter of fact will indeed be a curiofity. Rev.

found

found its way into their libraries; or, if Paine could alone accomplish fo much, what may he not do, when backed by the authority of the misifler of Kemnay?

But this author will fay that the vulgar have the teftimony of the learned, that the Scriptures are faithfully translated into the English language, and that the original books were indeed written by thofe infpired men, whofe names they bear. This we readily admit, as well as that fuch teftimony is to the vulgar a fufficient foundation for faith in these two matters of fact, on which alone refts the truth of Chriftianity; but, we fay alfo, that the original conftitution of the Chriftian church is as much a matter of fact as the authenticity and infpiration of the four Gofpels, and certainly more visible to the public eye than that St. Matthew wrote the firft of the Gofpels, and St. John the laft. High Church adds, that we have the unanimous teftimony of learned and unlearned, for fifteen centuries, that the conftitution of the church was every where from the beginning epifcopal; and this teftimony acquires fome additional fupport, if it ftood in need of any, from the difcovery in the Eaft of an epifcopal church, which appears never to have acknowledged the ufurped prerogatives either of the Pope of Rome, or of the Patriarch of Conftantinople.

He be

But the prefent author will admit no evidence of the apoftolical inftitution of epifcopacy, but the exprefs teftimony of Holy Scripture, and of the few fathers contemporary with the apottles, whofe writings have come down to us. gins, we know not why, with examining the report of the apoftolic fathers; but rejects the author of the epiftles fually afcribed to Ignatius from that refpectable body of witneffes. For this rejection he affigns no reafon-at leaft nothing that to us has the appearance of reafoning; but if our recollection do not deceive us, his infallible mafterthe late principal of Marifchal College, Aberdeen-rejects thofe epiftles, or at leaft queftions their authenticity, because the author fo clearly teftifies that in the church, when he wrote, there was a hierarchy confifting of the three orders of bishops, priefts, and deacons. If this be the reafon of their rejection by Dr. Mitchell, as we fufpect it to be, his reafoning amounts to this

"In regard to fuch of the letters, whofe writings are acknow ledged by all to be unadulterated, I have no objection to admit their teftimony concerning the external form of the church, or any thing else, which they relate as what they faw." P. 30.

E

BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XXXV. JAN. 1810.

But

"But I am convinced that whatever ancient writings give an account of the hierarchy, muft on that account be either altogether fpurious, or fo completely adulterated, that it is in vain to attempt to feparate the truth from falfhood. I therefore appeal only to fuch ancient writings as make no clear mention of the hierarchy in other words, to fuch as favour me, and by them I am willing that the queftion between myself and High-Church be tried!" Yet this man fneers at fome of thofe, whom he has chofen to revile, as men not accustomed to turn over treatises of Logic!

He next proceeds to affirm, with buffoonery and banter (for he does not reafon on the fubject) that the apostles were not bifhops, though St. Paul exprefsly fays, that on himself came daily the care of all the churches which he had founded; that James, the Lord's brother, was not a bishop, though it is impoffible to read the Acts of the Apoftles without perceiving that he was fuperior to the Elders of Jerufalem, and equal in flation to St. Peter himself; that Timothy and Titus were not bishops,, though they were both enjoined by St. Paul to perform the very offices, which, in the opinion of High Church, diftinguifh bifhops from prefbyters; and that the angels of the feven churches, mentioned in the Apocalypfe, might be moderators of Prefbyteries, paftors of fingle congregations, or indeed any thing which you please, if you infer not from what is faid to them, that there was then a hierarchy in the church. It is, however, true, nor has he ventured to contradict it, that fome of them are cenfured for fuffering falfe teachers in their churches, a cenfure which feems unjuft, if they were nothing more than mere moderators of Prefbyteries; and abfurd, if they were, each the paftor of a fingle flock. But rather than admit them to have been diocefan bifhops, he appears willing to abandon the infpiration of the Apocalypfe, obferving that the church, which refts the truth of a practical doctrine on a book fo myfterious, is much at a lofs for proofs of "Holy Writ!" High Church, he fays, admits that there is in the New Teftament no delineation of the form of church go

Before he actually abandon that myfterious book to the pu pils of Michaelis and Eichornt, we would recommend to his atentive perufal ten letters on the fubject, which were fome years ago addreffed to Dr. Marth. It may likewife be worth his while, before he publish a new edition of his Letters, to read what was long ago written by Bishop Pearfon, and more lately the Effay of Mr. Cockburn, on the Epiftles of Ignatius.

vernment

vernment adopted by the apoftles; and though there had been fuch a delineation, he is confident that the adoption of it would not have been obligatory on Chriftians, unless it were clearly and authoritatively prefcribed as a Chriftian duty." P. 69. Hence we expect foon to hear that the ob fervation of the Lord's Day, or Christian Sabbath, has been given up in the parish of Kemnay by the advice of the pious paftor; for there certainly is not in the New Teftament any clear and authoritative prefcription on the fubject. We have not, however, nor, we truft, has the Church of Scotland, fo learned Chrift. We think that what may be proved by Scripture, whether, in this author's fenfe of the words, fully delineated and exprefsly prescribed or not, is obligatory on Chriftians; and therefore we hope to be allowed, as heretofore, to obferve the feftival of the Lord's day, and retain the epifcopal government of our church.

But who are thofe members of High Church, that make the conceffions in which Dr. M. appears fo much to triumph? Why, they are Bifhop Skinner, Mr. Daubeny, and the anti-jacobin reviewer of Dr. Campbell's Lectureswriters certainly from whom we fhould have looked for no fuch conceffions. But have they really made the conceffions in queftion? They have-in Dr. Mitchell's pages, but not in their own! Be not furprised, good reader. Bigotry produces the fame effects in every mind, of which it takes poffeffion; and the bigot to modern liberality is just as ready as the bigot to old prefcription, to mifreprefent the fenfe, and falfify the words of his antagonist, that he may exhibit that antagonift in a ridiculous point of view, as shifting his ground, and even contradicting himself. That Dr. Mitchell has occafionally betrayed this fymptom of bigotry, take the following proofs

"Our opponents," he fays, "are very far from pretending, that any fpecific fcheme of ecclefiaftical polity is authoritatively prefcribed in Holy Writ, under awful fanctions. Nay, they ad mit that the model, which they are pleafed to call apoftolical, and therefore divine, is not fo much as mentioned in exprefs and pofitive terms, from the beginning to the end of the New Teftament." P. 52.

In proof of this he refers the reader, at the bottom of the page, to Anti-Jac. vol. ix. pp. 106, 107; he should have added 108, as, on turning to the vol. we found the dif cuffion referred to extending through all thefe pages. This, however, would not have ferved the purposes of bigotry; for, in p. 108, that reviewer exprefsly denies what our liberal

inded author makes him admit.

The reviewer having obferved (p. 106) that the mode of reasoning from the fuppofed filence of the New Testament is not peculiar to Dr. Campbell, but common to every latitudinarian of every age finee the reformation, proceeds, through p. 107, to fhow that a hierarchy in the priesthood was fo familiar to the first converts to the faith, that unless it had been exprefsly forbidden in the New Teftament, thofe men obferving the affairs of the church, adminiftered by the three orders of apoftles, elders, and deacons, muft naturally have inferred, that a hierarchy, fimilar to that which was established under the law, was to be retained under the gofpel. He then adds (p. 108,) "But our author (Dr. C.) confiders this pretended filence (for we fhall fhow by and by that it is not real) as decifive in the caufe;" and the proofs which he urges that it is not real, Dr. Mitchell has certainly not confuted *.

We fhall give another inftance of this author's fairness of quotation, and then take our leave of him for this month. After mentioning fome differences of opinion among Dodwell, Dr. Hammond, and Bifhop Burnet, concerning the government of the apoftolical church, as ftated or alluded to by Clement of Rome, he adds

"To put an end to this epifcopal feuffle, which cannot but grieve the heart of a genuine high churchman, our primate (Bp. Skinner) fteps in between the two combatants last named, and with true archiepifcopal gravity 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 Corinth, and calls them one while bishops and deacons, and another while prefbyters and deacons. But do you not ob

The only thing bearing even the femblance of a refutation. of thofe proofs, is contained in the following words: "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, Coloffian, Theffalonian, converts, either Jews by defceni, or Profelytes to Judaism ?" We certainly are not called upon to anfwer for the Anti-Jacobins ; but we have no hesitation to fay, that a great majority of the earliest converts from all thefe nations and cities were either Jews or Profelytes to Judaifm before they became Chriftians; and that we have been told this fine tale in various places of the New Teftament, but more particularly in the Acts of the Apof. tles, which we hope Dr. Mitchell will not therefore exclude from the canon.