to point out the various contradictions that are to be met with in the pages alluded to. It may fuffice to obferve, that the argument upon which much is built, by all advocates for religious liberty, and which has its force when confined to the corruptions of the church of Rome, becomes weak and ineffectual in its general application to the church of CHRIST.

But an author, who, though highly distinguished for his fagacity and erudition, appears, from his writings, not to have formed a confiftent idea of the nature and conftitution of the Christian Church himfelf, cannot be expected to convey that idea to his readers. And in fuch cafe, great abilities ferve rather to confound and perplex the truth, by rendering it a fubject of more complex investigation, than to elucidate and confirm it.

What we lament in this cafe is, that bifhops, whofe facred office it is to prefide over and govern the church of CHRIST committed to their charge, fhould use a language calculated, if generally acted upon, to leave no church on earth for the exercise of the spiritual authority with which they have been entrusted.

There is still a third writer of great refpectability, whose opinions upon church fubjects appear to differ

widely from those of the old school. In his chapter on religious establishments, Archdeacon PALEY informs his readers, "That it cannot be proved that any form of church government was laid down in the Chriftian church; that no command for that purpofe was delivered by CHRIST himself; and upon the fuppofition that bishops and prefbyters were appointed by the Apostles, that the true conclufion is, that fuch offices were at firft erected in the Chriftian church, as the good order, the inftruction, and exigencies of the fociety at that time required; without any intention of regulating the appointment, authority, or the diftinction of Chriftian ministers under future circumftances."

Such appears to be the Archdeacon's conclufion

upon

this fubject; although fuch is not the conclufion which it might be expected would have been drawn by a prefbyter of the epifcopal church. But without oppofing to this confident affertion of Dr. PALEY our own confident negative, (which, from our particular examination of this fubject, we need not hesitate to do;) it fhall be obferved only, that the Doctor's argument, though entitled to attention, upon the confideration of the quarter from whence it proceeds, does not ftand upon firm ground.

Should we allow, that no command from our SAVIOUR, respecting the form of church government appears upon record, does it follow from thence that no command was ever delivered upon this fubject? And on the ground that no express form of church government is to be found, totidem verbis, laid down in the scripture, are we authorized in concluding, from that circumstance, that no form was established?

The inftructions which our SAVIOUR might, and most probably did, give the Apostles on this fubject, upon the delivery of their commiffion;* the refemblance to be expected between the form of government established under the Jewish and Chriftian

*The Apoftle to the Hebrews, fpeaking of the priests under the law, fays, Heb. viii. 5, that they ferved "unto the example and fhadow of heavenly things, as MoSES was admonished of GOD when he was about to make the tabernacle; for fee," saith he, "that thou make all things according to the pattern fhewed to thee in the Mount." From whence it appears, that the plan for the fervice of the tabernacle was delivered by GOD to MOSES in the Mount. We do not fay, that the neceffary inference from the above circumstance is, that our SAVIOUR'S conference with his Apoftles in the Mount, when he delivered to them their commiffion, had a fimilar object in view with refpect to the fervice of his church; but we think that the analogy between the two cafes does at least make such a conclufion highly probable; and ought, in our judgment, to more than balance against any supposed want of information on this fubject in the Apoftolic writings.

œconomy, confidered as two branches of the fame Christian church; (Chriftianity being only Judaifm fpiritualized) and the circumftance of the Apostles, in the discharge of their office, acting under immediate inspiration; are confiderations which appear not to have had fufficient weight allowed them in the Archdeacon's fcale of judgment. Whilft his reasons why no permanent church government could be fixed upon, because " no precife conftitution could be framed, which would fuit with the condition of Christianity in its primitive state, and with that which it was to affume, when it fhould be advanced into a national religion; and because a particular defignation of office or authority amongst the ministers of the new religion might have fo interfered with the arrangements of civil policy, as to have formed, in fome countries, a confiderable obstacle to the progress and reception of the religion itself;" are reasons which, it is prefumed, will not be generally admitted.

That a "religious establishment is no part of Christianity, but only the means of inculcating it," is a position that will be readily granted. But if a religious establishment have been deemed neceffary to the propagation of Christianity, it will be concluded, that that form of it, which was fet on foot by those

infpired perfons, to whom the charge of the church was firft committed, is beft calculated to answer the end in view. This is a fair prefumption, not to be fet afide but upon fubftantial evidence.

"The authority of a church establishment is founded," we are told, " on its utility." The pofition, thus ftated, appears capable of leading into error. The authority of the establishment of the Christian church is founded upon the character of the party who establifhed it; that party being JESUS CHRIST, through the miniftry of his Apoftles, its utility muft of course be admitted. No fuppofed improvements, therefore, to be expected from human "deliberations concerning the form, propriety, or comparative excellency of different establishments,' can balance against the authority of those perfons, who were favoured with that competent judgment upon this fubject, which is now no longer poffeffed.

The Archdeacon's arguments upon this subject, if I understand them, may, when brought together, be thus ftated: "A religious establishment is no part of Christianity. It cannot be proved, that any form of church government was ever laid down in the Christian church. However this be, certain it is, no command was delivered by CHRIST on the fubject.