tablish a great number of small (in comparison with most modern Chuches) distinct and independent Communities, each governed by its own single Bishop; consulting, no doubt, with his own Presbyters, and accustomed to act in concurrence with them, and occasionally conferring with the Brethren in other Churches, but owing no submission to the rulers of any other Church, or to any central common authority except the Apostles themselves. other points of difference might be added.

And

Now to vindicate the institutions of our own, or of some other Church, on the Ground that they "are not in themselves superstitious or ungodly," that they are not at variance with Gospel-principles, or with any divine injunction that was designed to be of universal obligation, is intelligible and reasonable. But to vindicate them on the ground of the exact conformity, which it is notorious they do not possess, to the most ancient models, and even to go beyond this, and condemn all Christians whose institutions and ordinances are not "one and utterly. like" our own, on the ground of their departure from the Apostolical precedents, which no Church has exactly adhered to,-does seemto use no harsher expression,-not a little inconsistent and unreasonable. And yet one may not unfrequently hear members of Episcopalian Churches pronouncing severe condemnation on

those of other Communions, and even excluding them from the Christian Body, on the ground, not of their not being under the best form of Ecclesiastical Government, but, of their wanting the very essentials of a Christian Church; viz. the very same distinct Orders in the Hierarchy that the Apostles appointed: and this, while the Episcopalians themselves have, universally, so far varied from the Apostolical institution as to have in one Church several Bishops; each of whom consequently differs in the office he holds, in a most important point, from one of the primitive Bishops as much as the Governor of any one of our Colonies does from a Sovereign Prince.

Now whether the several alterations, and departures from the original institutions, were or were not, in each instance, made on good grounds, in accordance with an altered state of society, is a question which cannot even be entertained by those who hold that no Church is competent to vary at all from the ancient model. Their principle would go to exclude at once from the pale of Christ's Church almost

It is remarkable that there are Presbyterians also, who proceed on similar principles; who contend that originally the distinction between Bishops and Presbyters did not exist ; and consequently (not that Episcopacy is not essential to a Church; but) that Episcopal government is an unwarrantable innovation,—a usurpation-a profane departure from the divine ordinances !

every Christian Body since the first two or three Centuries.

The edifice they overthrow crushes in its fall the blind champion who has broken its pillars.

Appeal to

Churches,

an argument inac

mass

of

$ 21. Waiving however what may the practice be called a personal argument, and of the early supposing that some mode could be devised of explaining away all the incon- cessible to the great sistencies I have been adverting to, Christians. still, if the essentials of Christianity,—at least, a considerable portion of them-are not to be found in Scripture, but in a supplementary Tradition, which is to be sought in the works of those early Fathers who were orthodox, the foundations of a Christian's Faith and Hope become inaccessible to nearly the whole of the Laity, and to much the greater part of the Clergy.

This, it may be said, is just as it should be; and as it must be the unlearned being necessarily dependent on the learned, in respect of several most important points; since the great mass of Christians cannot be supposed capable of even reading the Scriptures in the original tongues; much less of examining ancient manuscripts.

Now this necessity I see no reason

Supposed dependence

on the word

of learned

for admitting, if it be understood in the sense that the unlearned must needs men.

take the word of the learned, and place implicit reliance on the good faith of certain individuals selected by them as their spiritual guides. It is in their power, and is surely their duty, to ascertain how far the assertions of certain learned men are to be safely relied on."

y See Appendix, Note (H.)

z" It is manifest that the concurrent testimony, positive or negative, of several witnesses, when there can have been no concert, and especially when there is any rivalry or hostility between them, carries with it a weight independent of that which may belong to each of them considered separately. For though, in such a case, each of the witnesses should be even considered as wholly undeserving of credit, still the chances might be incalculable against their all agreeing in the same falsehood. It is in this kind of testimony that the generality of mankind believe in the motions of the earth, and of the heavenly bodies, &c. Their belief is not the result of their own observations and calculations; nor yet again of their implicit reliance on the skill and the good-faith of any one or more astronomers; but it rests on the agreement of many independent and rival astronomers; who want neither the ability nor the will to detect and expose each other's errors. It is on similar grounds, as Dr. Hinds has justly observed, that all men, except about two or three in a million, believe in the existence and in the genuineness of manuscripts of ancient books, such as the Scriptures. It is not that they have themselves examined these; or again, (as some represent) that they rely implicitly on the good-faith of those who profess to have done so; but they rely on the concurrent and uncontradicted testimony of all who have made, or who might make, the examination; both unbelievers, and believers of various hostile sects; any one of whom would be sure to seize any opportunity to expose the forgeries or errors of his opponents.

This observation is the more important, because many persons are liable to be startled and dismayed on its being pointed out to them that they have been believing something-as they are led to suppose on very insufficient reasons; when the truth is perhaps

ness of ap

early

to

But when, in the case now before Doubtfulus, men come to consider and inquire peals what the foundation really is on which Churches. they are told (according to the principles I have been speaking of) to rest their own hopes of eternal life, and to pronounce condemnation on those who differ from them, it cannot be but that doubt and dissatisfaction, and perhaps disgust and danger of ultimate infidelity will beset them, in proportion as they are of a serious and reflective turn, and really anxious to attain religious truth. For when referred to the works of the orthodox ancient Fathers, they find that a very large portion of these works are lost; or that some fragments or reports of them by other writers alone remain: they find again that what has come down to us is so vast in amount that a life is not sufficient for the attentive study of even the chief part of it; they find these Authors by no means agreed, on all points, with each other, or with themselves; and that learned men again are not agreed in the interpretation of them; and still less agreed as to the orthodoxy of each, and the degree of weight due to his judgment on several points; nor even agreed by some centuries as to the degree of antiquitya that is to make

that they have been mis-stating their reasons."-Rhetoric, part I. ch. 2. § 4.

a See Note, p. 110.