Such, Sir, being the light in which the bishops were univerfally feen in the primitive church, you will not be furprised at the ftrong language of ST. IGNATIUS, when he says in his epiftle to the TRALLESIANS, "what else is the bishop, but one that hath all power and authority above all men, as much as a man can have who represents the person of JESUS CHRIST:" or at that paffage from EPIPHANIUS, where, fpeaking of ST. JAMES, our LORD's brother, the first bishop of Jerufalem, he fays, that "he first received the epifcopal chair; being the perfon to whom CHRIST first committed his throne upon earth."*

This Catholic doctrine, refpecting the Divine ori ginal of the episcopal office, and the spiritual govern ment in the kingdom of CHRIST, though liable to abuse, (and what doctrine is not?) was acknowledged without fcruple by Christians of all ranks, as well after as before the empire turned Chriftian; when emperors, not less than their subjects, fubmitted them. felves to their bifhops, as to their fpiritual fuperiors: emperors who knew well what they did, and who had too much courage to fear any thing but GoD,

* σε Και πρώτος στος είλεψε την καθρεδραν της επισκοπης ο περίζω ευκε Κύριος τον θρόνον αυτε επι της γης πρωτω.” ΕPIPHANIUS, Heres. 78. paragr. 7,

and too much wisdom to be impofed upon by the craft or policy of priests.

Much less, indeed, might have been faid in anfwer to your objection, had I not concluded, that it must have proceeded from a total want of information, with respect to the early state of the Christian church.

Now, Sir, though I may not think fuch knowledge abfolutely neceffary to falvation, I muft ftill think it effential to a person who writes on the fubject on which you have here committed yourself. For an acquaintance with fome of the early writers of the church would have convinced you, that the divinity of the primitive times confifted, in a great measure, in fhewing the Jews, with a view of winning them over to the Christian religion, how Christianity was the mystical Judaism, or Judaism the mystical Christianity: in other words, how the temple economy was perfected under the Gofpel, and how the Old Jerufalem was the type or pattern of the New. To wean them from their attachment to the temple, it was a great object with the first preachers to convince them that the Gospel was no new religion, but only the perfec tion of the old; and that the Jewish difpenfation was only preparatory to the Chriftian. Hence, their ufual way of preaching to the Jews confifted in ta

king away the veil from the face of Moses, to the end that they might see how the platform of the Gospel was laid in the law. In this ftyle, and with this view, doubtlefs, did our bleffed LORD preach after his refurrection; when, "beginning at MOSES and all the prophets, he expounded to his difciples in all the facred fcriptures the things concerning himself." LUKE XXIV. 27. Thus alfo did the Apoftles and their fucceffors preach after him, opening the typical parts of the Old Testament, and fo applying them to the Christian economy, as to make the knowledge of the law minister to the more ready reception of the Gospel. A fignal fpecimen of this mode of preaching we have in the epiftle to the Hebrews, where the whole fervice of the temple is confidered as typical of Christianity, and, as fuch, accommodated to Christian practice. As the fervice of the temple then furnished a typical representation of the fpiritual fervice of the Christian church, so it may be expected that its minifters fhould alfo furnish a typical representation of the minifters of the Chriftian church; because it is reasonable to suppose that GOD acts uniformly in his difpenfations. Now, the analogy betwixt the Jewish and the Christian church was fo exact, even in the chief and most ef

fential parts of its constitution, that the New Testament fets forth Chriftianity under the fymbol of Judaism, and mystically calleth Chriftians Jews.

Thus, Sir, in the 22d of ST. LUKE, the twelve tribes of Ifrael, put for the twelve parts of the Chrift ian church, are committed by our SAVIOUR to the government of the twelve Apoftles. "I appoint you (fays CHRIST to his Apostles) a kingdom, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and fit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Ifrael."

Such was the mystical language, in reference to the connexion between the Jewish and Chriftian difpenfa tion, in which our LORD thought proper to commit the government of his church to his twelve Apostles, by giving them to understand, that they were to be the twelve rulers in his fpiritual kingdom. In Rev. vii. we see the twelve tribes fymbolically put for the Christian church; and the twelve thousand that were sealed, for the true Apoftolical Christians. Many other inftances might be produced from the facred writings, particularly, from the book of Revelations, (fee iii. 12, and xxi. 2, and Gal. vi.) where Christianity is fet forth by Judaism, Chriftians mystically called Jews, and the Christian church the New Jeru

Salem; from whence the obvious conclufion is, unless you will suppose that the facred writers made use of language more calculated to impofe on the underftandings of their readers than to inform them, that there must be a great likeness and affinity between the two churches; and that the Jewish temple was prefigurative of the Chriftian church.

So fully convinced, indeed, were the primitive Christian writers on this fubject, that they analogically used the names of high priests, priests, and Levites, for bishops, prefbyters, and deacons; and made an indifferent use of these Jewish and Christian titles, confidering them in a manner as fynonimous. The inftances above produced were from the writings of ST. CLEMENT and JEROM; and the inference drawn from them appears to me to be perfectly conclufive. Indeed, unless the Jewish clergy were a pattern, unto which God intended that the Christian clergy should be conformed; I do not fee how the language of the Apostle is to be understood, where he speaks of per fons perishing in the gainfaying of Core; for the fin of Core confifted in the rebellion of an inferior minifter against his fuperior, the high-priest; because, as it was pretended on the occafion, AARON had taken