ruction. And if Dr. Campbell, with all his acknowledged abilities, had not been a blind worshipper of his favourite idol, Prefbyterianifm, he could not have acquiefced in a fyftem of Church government, " to which all the fources of evidence hitherto known in theological controverfy, reafon, Scripture, and tradition, (if fairly produced) are equally repugnant." "But before I proceed to the examination of particulars, it may be observed that the fundamental pofition on which the Profeffor's argument againft Epifcopacy is built, namely, that a primitive Bishop was a Minifter only of a fingle parish; the proofs of which are now attempted to be drawn from the ftate of the Church in the first ages, was never heard of till many years after the feparation from the Church of Rome had taken place. Had those foreign reformers, who, when they separated from the Roman Church, unfortunately neglected to take the fteps neceffary to retain Epifcopacy among them, entertained any fuch idea on the fubject, they certainly would not have kept it out of fight: much lefs would they have spoken decidedly in favour of the Epifcopacy of the Church of England, and condemned unequivocally as they did all separations from it. The words of Beza on this occafion are remarkably ftrong.* "If there are any, (fays he) which you can hardly make me believe, who reject the whole order of Bishops, God forbid that any man in his found reafon fhould confent to their madnefs." And fpeaking of the Hie rarchy of the Church of England, he fays, " Let her enjoy that fingular bleffing of God, which I wish she may ever retain." And Calvin, if he is to be judged by his writings, muft have thought the caufe in which Dr. Campbell has engaged, more worthy of an anathema than of vindication. "If (fays he, fpeaking in oppofition to the Popish Hierarchy) they would give us an Hierarchy in which the Bishops were fo eminent, as that they would not refufe to be subject to Chrift, and depend on him as their only head, and be referred to him; then I confefs them worthy of all anathemas, if there fhall be any fuch, that would not reverence fuch an Hierarchy, and fubmit to it with the utmoft obedience." Such an Hierarchy Calvin acknowledged that of the Church of England to be. (To be continued.) A Reply to fuch Parts of the Rev. JOHN OVERTON's Apology, as concern the Publications of T. LUDLAM, A.M. Pp. 26. IT appears, from an advertisement at the end of this pamphlet, and indeed from the ftyle and manner of the pamphlet itself, though not from the title-page, that it is written by the author, whofe publications it undertakes to defend. The title of Mr. Overton's book, to which this pamphlet is in part a reply, is this:-"The true Churchman afcertained; or an Apology for those of the regular Clergy of the Establishment, who are fometimes called Evangelical Minifters: occafioned by the publications of Drs. Paley, Hey, Croft; Meffrs. Daubeney, Ludlam, Polwhele, Fellowes; the Reviewers, &c. &c." Second edition. In this work, Mr. O. has treated the writers here mentioned, some of whom are of the firft eminence in the literary world, with a want of re * Si qui funt autem (quod fane mihi non facile perfuaferis) qui omnem Epifcoporum ordinem rejiciunt, abfit ut quifquam fatis fanæ mentis furoribus illorum affentiatur." "Fruatur fane iftâ fingulari Dei beneficentiâ, quæ utinam fit illi perpetua.” Beza ad Tract. de Minist. Ev. Grad. Belgæ Edit. C. 1 et.18. "Talem fi nobis Hierarchiam exhibeant, in quâ fic emineant Epifcopi, ut Chrifto fubeffe non recufent, et ab illo tanquam unico capite pendeant, et ad ipfum referantur ;―tum vero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, fi qui erunt qui non sam revereantur, fummâque obedientiâ obfervent." De Neceff. Eccl. Retor. Aaa 2 fpect, fpect, which even a demonftration of their being in the wrong would not have juftified. It is not our present business to review Mr. O's work at large; otherwife, we could eafily point out that he is, in general, very far from having demonftrated the writers, whom he opposes, to be in the wrong, and that, in many inftances, he has greatly mifreprefented their meaning. Mr. O's great object is to fhow, that only the Evangelical or Calvinistic minifters of the establishment ought to be confidered as the true minifters of the Church of England, and that confequently, the great body of the English clergy are," in a very fundamental and important fenfe of the word, Diffenters from the Church of England." The obvious conclufion from which is, that, if the people wish to hear the true doctrines of the Church of England, and are not within the reach of an Evangelical minifter of the establishment, they must leave their parifh-church, and refort to one of thofe conventicles, now fo thickly fpread throughout the land, of which Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wefley were the founders. If Mr. O's grand pofition be admitted as true, all his gentle admonitions and precautions againft the fin of fchifm can be but of little comparative avail to hinder this effect; and it will be well if, while he is attempting to correct one schifimatic, he does not make an hundred. But we forbear, for the prefent, to pursue this important confideration, and proceed in our account of Mr. L's Reply. Mr. Thomas Ludlam, who is now, we understand, in his 76th year, is the furviving brother of the late Mr. William Ludlam, the well-known mathematician, mechanic, and divine, and is, like him, as his former publications fufficiently fhow, remarkable for his clearness of conception, acutenefs of difcernment, and confequent juftnefs of reasoning. The title of the work before us may lead the reader to fuppofe, that Mr. L. has given a full and methodical reply to the objections, which Mr. O. had urged against him. This, however, is not the cafe. His intention feems to have been, to give a /pecimen of what he could do, if his patience had held out, and to leave the readers of himself and Mr. O. to judge of the reft. This, indeed, is all that was neceffary. When a writer, whose work as Mr. L. very justly observes of Mr. O's, is "wholly built on human authority," is convicted, in feveral material inftances, of misreprefenting his vouchers, it would be lofs of time to purfue him through all the confequences, which he may please to draw from them. If, in fhewing this with refpect to himself, Mr. L. had abftained from the farcaftic and ironical expreffions, which we here and there meet with, his arguments would not have had lefs force in themselves, and they probably would have been more effectual in convincing his adverfary. Admitting thofe fubfidiary arts of controverfy, which are fometimes employed inftead of ftrong reafons," to be of any use, we do not know a writer who has lefs need of them than Mr. Ludlam. We are not pleafed, therefore, to fee him make any approaches to the employment of them. This being premised, we hesitate not to say, that he has drawn together, within a small compass, a number of juft and important obfervations, which bear directly upon his subject, and which, if duly attended to, can neither fail of vindicating Mr. Ludlam, nor of checking the mifchievous confequences to be apprehended from Mr. O's. publication. The accuracy of Mr. L's notions, and the juftness of his reafoning, will appear from the following extracts. Mr. O. very truly fays, that definitions are not a fovereign remedy for every (and I beg leave to add for any) difficulty on moral or religious fubjects. I can, however, affure him, that they are a fovereign remedy for nonfenfe. But, unless he is better acquainted with the nature of them, than he seems to be, he may write for ever, without making his readers, or being himself a whit the wifer. Definitions,' Mr. O. obferves after Mr. Burke (who, by the bye, was better acquainted with the fublimities of oratory, than the accuracy of reafoning) may be very exact, and yet go but a little way towards informing us of the nature of the thing defined.' It is not the defign or the purpofe of definitions to inform us of the nature of things. This is the bufinefs of a very different matter, what we call expla nation. Definitions are merely enumerations of the ideas comprehended by the writer under certain words, and this combination is arbitrary; but explanations are not arbitrary: they depend upon the nature of the thing to be explained. An explanation may be true, or it may be falfe. A definition cannot be either true or falle. It may, indeed, be nonfenfical, as are Mr. Milner's and Mr. O's definitions of juftification; because they join together ideas, which are inconfiftent with each other; for it fhould feem, that none of thefe fcriptural theologians can fee the difference between pardon and acquittal." p. 7. "Juftification means not the general favour of God fhown to all mankind in that goodness of which the earth is full, and which causeth the Sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and the rain to defcend on the just and unjust; but it means the particular favour of God to particular perfons for particular reasons. Thus, Abraham believed in the power and veracity of God, that, contrary to all prefent appearances, he fhould have innumerable defcendants; and, for this reafon, for his faith in what was highly improbable, he was admitted into the favour of God. After the fame manner finners are now justified, i. e. received into the prefent favour of God; yet not all finners, but those only, who believe in the atonement, and accept the falvation of Jefus upon the terms he is pleased to offer. For though the general covenant of grace was not offered in confequence of any works of righteoufnefs, which mankind had done, nor is admifion into this covenant granted on account of human works, yet continuance in it, and the expectation of the benefits of it manifeftly depend upon following after holiness." p. 19. The latter part of this extract is of the very firft importance. In order to fecure the reader's attention to it, we fhall give what M. L. afterwards fays on the fame point. "Though the Gospel difpenfation, that is, the Gospel mode of falvation, namely, of falvation by grace through faith in the Redeemer, was provided for all mankind, without any refpect to human conduct; yet the particular falvation of every individual is not provided in the fame sense for every particular perfon. The general mode, in which this mercy is tendered to the whole race, was an unconditional offer; but the falvation of each individual is conditional, (fee Mr. Pearson's firft Letter to Mr. O.) it depends upon the obedience of each particular perfon: for it is pofitively declared, that, without following after holiness, no man, whatever his faith may be, fhall fee the Lord. For fuch faith, as neither does nor will, influence the conduct, cannot justify any, however firmly fuch perfons may entertain a speculative belief. If it could, the devils would be justified." p. 23. It is the practice of Mr. O. in various parts of his work, to enter into laboured demonftrations and defences of the most acknowledged truths ; with the view, as it should feem, of making his more ignorant readers believe that the oppofers of him and his opinions deny thofe truths. For the probable conclufion from this denial is, that thofe, who oppofe fuch plain and obvious truths, must be wrong in every thing. Though, therefore, on these occafions, Mr. O. is contending againft an imaginary antagonist, he does not contend to an unreal purpose. Without the hazard of a defeat, he obtains the advantage of a victory. Such an infidious practice is well calculated calculated to excite the indignation of an opponent. Mr. L., however, in replying to an infinuation of this kind, instead of being angry, gives us this fublime paffage. "What teacher of religion is now to be informed, that the feat of religion is in the intellectual powers, and in the ftate of the difpofitions? Who does not know, that the mind is the man? When Abraham ftretched forth his hand to flay his fon, his obedience was compleat, though the facrifice was not. When the king of Babylon caft the three Jews into the burning fiery furnace, they were martyrs and he was a murderer, though on their bodies the fire had no power, neither was a hair of their head finged." It appears from this, and from Mr. L's. other publications, of which we fhall give a lift at the close of the article, that he may juftly be confidered as one of the most formidable opponents of the Calviniftic writers of the prefent day. There is, indeed, fcarcely, one of them, who has not felt the force of his attack. His difcriminating pen, like the fpear of Ithuriel, has detected many of their latent fallacies; and, though it is hardly to be expected, that writers of that complexion will openly acknowledge their errors, however clearly pointed out, his detections may have had their effect in fecret. It is probable, in any cafe, that, if Mr. L. has not convinced those writers of their errors, he has greatly contributed to prevent others from being mifled by them. The praife, which more peculiarly belongs to Mr. L. (and, in the eftimation of a theologian, it is praise of the highest kind) is due to him as an exact interpreter of Scripture. In different parts of his Effays, the reader willl find ample teftimony of this. He has, and often in a few words, very happily illuftrated and explained many difficult and important paffages,, which the more they have been attempted to be explained by fome writers, the more obfcure and perplexed they have feemed to become. The venerable Bishop Hurd, whofe critical acumen is well known, was fo fenfible of Mr. L's. merit in this respect, that he expreffed much fatisfaction at the appearance of his first set of Effays; and we are greatly mistaken, if the second set was not published at his request, and even printed at his expence. We know, that Mr. L. has completed a third fet, and we venture to mention it as our earnest wish, that the public may, ere long, be indulged with the fight of them. X. Mr. L's. publications, befide the present, are these :1. Four Effays, on the ordinary and extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit on the application of Experience to Religion; and on Enthufiafm, and Fanaticifm. 2. Six Efays, upon Theological, to which are added two upon Moral Subjects. 3. Remarks on the fcurrilous reflections caft upon the Rev. W. and T. Ludlam, by Dr. Milner, Matter of Queen's College, Cambridge, and Dean of Carlifle. Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocefe of Rochester, in the year 1802; and published at their Request. By JOHN LAW, D. D. Archdeacon of Rochefter. 4to. pp. 16. A CHARGE delivered by an Archdeacon to the Clergy of an entire ever, that the Archdeaconry is commenfurate in fize with the Bishopric of Rochester; there being but one Archdeacon in the whole See, which is the cafe in the diocefes of Bristol, Ely, Gloucefter, Oxford, Peterborough, Worcester, St, Afaph, and Llandaff. The main province of an Archdeacon is to examine into the State of Ecclefiaftical Edifices, whether churches, chancels, chapels, or parfonage-houses. He has jurifdiction, in his proper court, in other affairs; but, (if we miftake not; and if we do, we fhall be happy to be fet right;) the great object of his annual Vifitation, is to infpect the condition of thofe ftructures appropriated to the fervice of Almighty God, or the habitation of the Clergy. The worthy Archdeacon of Rochefter himself, in the last page but one of his Charge, is confcious that in touching on the point of Kendence, he steps beyond the limits of archidiaconal duty. "Should it be thought (fays he, that the recommendation of refidence may not be within my immediate province, I am ready to accede to the obfervation."-It must be confeffed that the Charges of Archdeacons, of late years, have put on a character perfectly epifcopal. This innovation was not begun by Archdeacon Law. He has too much good sense to set an original pattern of deviation from the path of prescriptive propriety; his ideas are too correct, to allow him to lead the way in making an incroachment on another man's ground; and, what are ever concomitants of true merit, his modefty and regard to decorum will not permit him to overleap thofe fences which the wisdom of our ancestors fet up.-After all, we know not whether the church has not reason to be thankful, that the archidiaconal Charges have taken the turn which they affume at prefent. The clergy, the church, and the orthodox faith of Chriftians, were reciprocally inftructed, enlightened, and corroborated by the charges of the Bishop of St. Ajaph, while yet Archdeacon of St. Albans. Who is there amongst the clergy that could wish to fee charges of the prefent Archdeacon of St. Albans, Mr. Pott, (a man whose very life exhibits a model of Chriftian behaviour) other than they are. Our readers can easily add names to the lifts of archdeacons who have deferved well of the church by paying attention "to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine"-although an injunction to that effect was given primarily to St. Timothy "the first Bishop of the church of the Ephefians." Premifing thus much, we must do Archdeacon Law the juftice to say, that we have rarely perused a charge with more fatisfaction than that with which he has obliged the public. The topics are perfectly appropriate. The restoration of peace is noticed. The theories of modern Philofophifts are duly characterized. The exemplary conduct of the Clergy, under all the trying circumftances of the times, is noted. The artifices of popular Teachers, whether "within or without the pale" of our Church, are adverted to. "The favourable difpofition of the Laity towards" the Clergy, *Archdeacon Plymley (of Salop) adheres to the particular duty of his office. His Charges thould be ftudied by every one who has an intereft in our ecclefiaftical buildings, or to whom they are a care. Indeed we cannot recommend them to every man of architectural taste in the kingdom. He profeffes to keep within his official province. Particularly in the dedication to his Charge of 1796, to Chancellor Napleton;" in prefuming, (lays he,) to give Charges to the Clergy of my Archdeaconry, I have done it with the diftinct view of reporting to them from time to time fuch circumftances of ecclefiaftical import, as my official fituation enabled me to make; and which might not be wholly unimportant to those who were not called to fo wide a profeffional SURVEY, manifefted |