fuch a latitudinarian principle should have been inculcated by a Profeffor from a theological chair, of which he claimed exclusive poffeffion by virtue of a commiffion delivered to him for that purpofe; and in a course of lectures, one principal object of which appears to have been the maintenance of the Presbyterian form of Church government, against the origi nal Apoftolical one of Episcopacy, is what could not have been believed, had not the fact been established by record. But were Dr. C. ftill living, we would take the liberty to ask one fhort question; which, if he could answer fatisfactorily, we might begin to think his mode of reasoning on this occafion entitled to attention. If the particular appointment of certain chofen individuals, felected from a numerous body, to an important office, (as was the cafe in our SAVI Our's delivery of the commiffion to his Apostles) carries in it nothing in which we can discover a commiffion for their exclufive exercife of that office; it may be asked, on the principle that an all-wife Being does nothing in vain, why did fuch a particular appointment take place?

Had Profeffor CAMPBELL been a member of the corps diplomatique, and in that character written a treatise on the rights and privileges of ambaffadors; and adopting a mode of reasoning fimilar to that here made ufe of, had he maintained, that the royal appointment of a certain individual to the representative office of an ambaffador carried in it nothing, from

a

which we could discover any right to the EXCLUSIVE exercise of that office; but that, notwithstanding this particular appointment, the office ftill remained open to be exercised, ad libitum, by any individual who might think himself qualified to undertake it, or to affift in it; his brethren of the corps, it is prefumed, would confider his treatise to be as little entitled to their thanks, as his argument was to their notice.

The able Reviewer of Dr. CAMPBELL'S work in the Anti-Jacobin has illuftrated the Doctor's mode of reafoning on this occafion by a different fimilitude; which, as it may strike fome readers more forcibly, is here fubjoined. "It is not probable (fays the Reviewer) that his Majefty's commiffion to the Prefident of the Supreme Court of Law in Scotland, expressly prohibits all other lawyers from executing that office to which it appoints him; and it is certainly not improbable, that there are many lawyers at the Scotch bar perfectly well qualified to prefide over any court of law in that part of the united kingdom. Yet what would Dr. C. have thought of the man, who, having formed opinions of the courts of law fimilar to those which he had formed of the conftitution of the Christian Church, fhould have faid, "There is nothing in the commiffion given to the Prefident of the Court of Seffion, from which we can discover, that it is a commiffion entrusted to him exclufively as a judge, and not given to him alfo as a lawyer; and that he is particularized in it, only be

cause he is best qualified for discharging the duties of the office; but not with a view to exclude any lawyer, who is capable, from occafionally taking poffeffion of his chair, and prefiding with authority over the court."

Either of the above fimilitudes, it is prefumed, is fufficient to expofe the weakness of the ground on which the reafoning of Dr. C. ftands; though it may prove infufficient to counteract the prevalency of the falfe principle built upon it. For unhappily, it is not the establishment of truth, fo much as the fupport of opinion, that the generality of mankind are anxious to fecure; and as the world is now circumstanced, the more latitudinarian that opinion is, the more welcome will be its reception. We are not, therefore, furprised to find the principle here alluded to daily gaining ground; and profeffed members of the Church becoming tools in the hands of those whose object it is to undermine it, by admitting the government of the Church to be a matter of " doubtful opinion;" and confequently, that the communion of one clafs of Christians may be equally fcriptural with that of any other.

But by a matter of doubtful opinion we understand a matter, which, upon competent investigation, does not furnish fufficient evidence to determine the judgment on either fide. On fuch a matter a difference of opinion must fubfift; and where it does, it is its own justification. For men may differ about an opinion, without either breach of charity, or of the unity of the

Church; which requires not that all should precisely be of the fame opinion, but of the same communion; and for this evident reason, because no difference of opinion among Chriftians, concerning matters really doubtful or not effential, can justify the pofitive fin of fcifm. But if any point be admitted to be a doubtful one, only because a difference of opinion exists upon it, whether the point in question relate to the confti. tution of the Church or its doctrine, the human mind must be left in an equal ftate of general indecifion with respect to its religious concerns. A state of mind which will ultimately introduce that dangerous error, to which MELANCTHON looked forward with ferious apprehenfion. "It was to be feared," he faid, "that the time would come, wherein men would be tainted with this error; either that religion is a matter of nothing, or that the differences of religion are merely verbal."

It is true indeed, with refpect to points on which there is no determining standard of appeal, an opinion, will be right or wrong, according to the order or caprice of the day; and what was right to day may, in conformity to the fluctuation of the public mind, be wrong to-morrow. But the question is, does the point under confideration admit of proof? And has that proof been fairly appreciated? If it have not, the perfons who, by occafional communion with different bodies of Chriftians, think proper to act, as fome members of the Church do, on the fup.

pofed ground of Church government being a fubject of" doubtful opinion," at the fame time that they are to be taken as no judges in the cafe, pronounce, by their conduct, the feverest sentence on their own negligence, and must be answerable for the confe quences to which it may lead.

As this is both a ferious and important fubject, it fhould be confidered ferioufly; and, as far as poffible, abstractedly from all perfonal confiderations and prejudices. In fact, this fubject is to be determined only by the word of GOD, and the practice of the Church originally built upon it. For next to the Divine inftitution, Catholic practice conftitutes the basis of the power and order of Epifcopacy. What government was therefore instituted by the Apostles, delivered to their immediate fucceffors, and universally established in the Church, fuppofing that capable of being afcer tained, must constitute the standard, to which all future judgment on this head ought in reafon to conform: on the confideration, that no judgment of the prefent members of the Church can come in competition with it; because no prefent members of the Church stand on the fame ground with the Apostles, and their immediate fucceffors, with refpect to the data, from which alone a judgment on this fubject is decidedly to be formed.

The reasoning which latitudinarianism has by degrees introduced into this fubject, however plaufibly it may found to uninformed minds, is certainly replete with