every other occafion, has diftinguished Great Britain; but we feel it impoffible to contemplate, without emotion, this land, the cradle of human genius, the fountain of civilization and fcience; diftinguished, even after the lapfe of many ages of darknefs and defpotifm, by aftonishing monuments of ancient art, and the traces of a glory now no more; we cannot, without powerful emotion, contemplate a land like this, interefting alike to the Philofopher, the Man of Sci. ence, and the Hiftorian, once more and for ever configned to oblivion and chains.

From this involuntary digreffion, into which we have been hurried, by feelings which we could not refift, we haften to the conclufion of this addrefs.

with us, much danger may justly be dreaded; and, as national corruption is generally accompanied with the decline of genuine freedom, every precaution that can be devised to enable us to escape the contagion, is reasonable and neceffary. But at prefent, we hesitate not to affert, that the French Government has more caufe to be alarmed by the propagation of Englifa principles, than that of England has to apprehend from the operation of French ones.

Upon the whole, we would remark, that a state of peace may be a ftate of danger, but that a ftate of war must be fo.-Worfe than cold-hearted is that politician, by whom the horrors of war are regarded with complacency, and peace alone with dif

may.

Thofe Jacobin principles, which were formerly fo much and fo juftly the subject of abhorrence and dread, appear now to be divefted of their power to injure. The experience of the laft few years has opened the eyes of the deluded, while the energy of Government, feconded by the courage and native good fenfe of the country, has unnerved the arm of the difloyal. Besides, in that country in which thefe prepofterous principles were originally fet afloat, and in which their effects have proved fo deleterious, they are now heard of no more. The British nation now more than ever, know how to estimate a Constitution, dear to them from habit, and venerated from reflection; and which, at this day, contains more of theoretical excellence, and fecures more of practical freedom, than any other nation has ever enjoyed. From the fcepticism and manners of a licentious people, brought into renewed intercourfe the ages of futurity."

Shall we feek to be involved in new and untried calamities, becaufe every vifionary with cannot be gratified? because objects are not accomplished, which the fober sense of all mankind has declared to be unattainable? or, fhall we fuffer it to be faid, that, fafe amid her furrounding waves, and covered by her triumphant navy, Britain can fmile at the carnage which the feels not? Away with fuch felfish, fuch deteftable principles? alike unworthy the generofity and public virtue of Britons. Let us truft to a prudent and vigorous administration for the adoption of fuch precautions as the renewal of our Continental intercourse may render neceffary; and, let us never doubt, that, by the bleffing of Heaven, we fhall retain the poffeffion of that felicity, for which we have long been diftinguifhed, and fhall tranfmit our privileges, in undiminished luftre, to

To the Editor of the Edinburgh Magazine.

REMARKS ON CANDLE-LIGHT SKETCHES NO. VII. LIBERTY AND NECESSITY.

SIR,

IN your Magazine for October laft appeared certain opinions on the

applicability of the doctrine of neceffity to the affairs of life, on which

ticular, it would be merely, it ftrikes me, an idle fpeculation.

Your correfpondent further afferts, in fupport of his general propofition, that the doctrine of neceffity difcriminates not between virtue and vice. This I fhall answer in the language of another.

661

"fore by virtue we mean that prin

66

ciple which afferts the preference "of the former over the latter, its "reality will remain undiminished by " the doctrine of neceffity."

Again: "freedom of the will is "abfurdly reprefented as neceffary to "render the mind fufceptible of mo"The doctrine of neceffity," fays "ral principles; but in reality, fo far he "does not overturn the nature of "as we act with liberty, so far as we things. Happiness and mifery, "are independent of motives, our con"wifdom and error, will still be dif- "duct is as independent of morality "tinct from each other, and there" as it is of reafon; nor is it poffible "will still be a correfpondence be"tween them. Wherever there is "that which may be the means of "pleasure or pain to a fenfitive being, "there is ground for preference and "defire, and on the contrary for ne"glect and averfion. Benevolence "and wisdom will be objects worthy "to be defired, felfifhnefs and error Edinburgh, "worthy to be difliked. If there- 19 Jan. 1802. S

"that we should deferve either praise "or blame for a proceeding thus ca"pricious and indisciplinable.”

I have thus ftated what occurs to me as fufficient to fhew that your correfpondent's objections are not well founded, I am, Mr Editor,

Your obedient fervant,

To the Editor of the Edinburgh Magazine.

AMERICANUS.

A DEFENCE OF THE ORDINATIONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF SCOT LAND, IN ANSWER TO THE LATE REV. DR GEORGE CAMPBELL, PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND PRINCIPAL OF THE MARISCHAL COLLEGE IN ABERDEEN,

SIR,

As

S the Clergy of the Epifcopal Church of Scotland hold the neceffity of having a divine commiffion conveyed from the Apoftles, to preach the Gospel, and difpenfe its Sacraments, Dr Campbell was pleased to ridicule that doctrine in a Sermon preached before the Synod of Aberdeen, anno 1771. On that fermon, the writer of this letter made remarks, and published them: And because the Doctor maintained that the Apoftolic office ceafed with the Apostles lives, the Preacher was called upon to fhew when, where, and in what perfon that misfortune had happened, as by the rules of fair reafoning he was bound to do, his being the affirmative fide of the question. But altho' the learned Profeffor hath, after a space of 30 years, animadverted, in

his ecclefiaftical lectures, upon fome of the remarks then made, he has prudently declined to prove that the apoftolic office has failed; well knowing that it was out of his power, to point out either the time, the place, or the perfon required. He has however again attacked the unfortunate Epifcopal Church of Scotland, and that without the smallest provocation: and as you have inferted in your Magazine for September last an extract from that learned gentleman's work, in which the venerable remains of that ancient, respectable, and decent fociety, friends to peace and order, and to true and undefiled religion, are caufelefsly reproached, and in fact, reprefented as guilty of that enormous crime which made the earth to open miraculously, and swal

low

86

low up Corah, Dathan, and Abi- " in no church;" nay, altho' he acram, and their company, I call upon knowledges that the above - named you to do juftice, by inferting this de. gentlemen, "who came under the fence, which I the more chearfully hands of bishop Rofe of Edinundertake, becaufe, from what the burgh," (and he fhould have added learned Lecturer has faid of church of archbishop Paterfon of Glasgow, government, it is evidently intimate- and bishop Douglas of Dunblane,) ly connected with the falvation of "had been regularly admitted minimankind. And yet, what is aftonifh-fters or prefbyters in particular coning, he confiders the queftion about "gregations before the revolution," it, tho' not trivial, as not of great con- yet, he goes on, p. 356. " let no true fequence in itself, but made fo by the "fon of our church be offended that intemperate zeal of fome warm dif. "I acknowledge our nonjurors to putants, Lectures on Ecclefiaftical His "have a sort of prefbyterian ortory, vol. I. p. 86. "dination, for I would by no "means be understood as equalizing "theirs to that which obtains with Whoever is ordained among 66 us, is ordained a bishop by a class of bishops ;-whereas, the ordina❝tion of our nonjurors proceeds from "prefbyters to whom a part only "of the minifterial powers was com"mitted, and from whom was with"held the right of tranfmitting or"ders to others." He afterwards, p. 357. ftiles the Scotch prefbyteries "a fort of subordinate mini❝fters, who are not authorized to or"dain, and who on Dr Hammond's "hypothefis, as well as ours, were "not," he fays, "original in the "church"!!!

But furely, "if a certain model of "church government must have been originally adopted for the more "effectual prefervation of the evan"gelical inftitution in its native pu

rity, and for the careful tranfmif"fion of it to after ages," as Dr C. tells us, p. 87, the question about it, is of the highest confequence in its own nature, and cannot poffibly be made higher by the most intemperate zeal of the warmeft difputant; unless it can be faid, that the preservation and tranfmiffion of the christian faith in purity, is a matter of little moment; which the learned Lecturer certainly wouldnot, nor willany of his friends fay.

But to proceed to my defence. Dr Campbell has not only denied that the epifcopal church of Scotland has valid orders from bishops, but that fhe has even proper Presbyterial ordination. He fays, p. 5. " Our Scotch "epifcopal party have no orders but what they derive from bifhops "merely nominal!" p. 354. and indifcreetly calls their confecrations farcical confecrations. And because Meffrs Fullarton and Sage, our first post-revolution bishops, were not appointed to particular diftricts, ludicrously adds, P. 355. 6. "they were folemnly made "depofitories of no depofit, com"manded to be diligent in doing no "work, vigilant in the overfight of "no flock, affiduous in teaching and "governing no people, and prefiding

66

us.

That the Lecturer could have expreffed himself in more contemptuous and vilifying language, it will not be eafy I imagine to fhew. But to overlook that at the prefent, I beg leave to afk any prefbyterian minister of honour in the kingdom, whether, admitting that John Knox and his associates, at the Reformation, had prefbyters' orders in the church of Rome, (which I believe it would not be easy to prove,) the right of tranfmitting orders to others was not withheld from them, as well as from Meffrs Fullarton and Sage? and if 'fo, were not thofe gentlemen, (even before their confecrations by the three bishops,) minifters of the same order with the forefaid Meffrs Knox and Melville ?

and

and confequently equally entitled with them to tranfmit orders to others, merely as prefbyters? Dr Campbell has been pleafed to affirm they were not, for he calls them subordinate ministers, not authorized to ordain, nor originally in the church. p. 357. But whether the fact is fo, let any fenfible and honeft prefbyterian judge. And so much for the orders of the Scotch Epifcopal Church from prefbyters.

Let us next try if we can prove that she has orders from real and true Eishops. The learned Principal owns, as we have feen, that Meffrs Fullarton and Sage were regularly admitted minifters or prefbyters in particular congregations, before the revolution, (p. 355.) And he tells us in the next page, that according to the apoftolical, primitive model, every "bishop had but one parish, one con"gregation, one church or place of worship, and one altar." Confequently, when the hands of three indifputable bishops were laid upon their heads, and the English office for the confecration of bifhops was read over them, they became fuffragan, or affiftant bishops; and after the death of Dr Rofe, more primitive bifhops, according to the learned Lec turer's principles, than diocefans are. Their having congregations al of fhows, that, although they had no diocefes, it is not true that they had no flocks; because their congregations were their flocks.

They could not claim jurifdiction, it is true, over any diocese, until they were elected by the inferior clergy and people, as Bifhop Fullarton foon was after Bifhop Rook's death; but they had, notwithftanding, a juft title to confirm and perform every function of a bishop, when regularly invited, as fhall be proved immediately. For the miniftry is not like fatherhood, or matrimony, as the learned Lecturer will have it: these being mere ftates or conditions of life

only, but is an office, the poffeffors whereof are endued with authority to execute their respective parts of it, even when they have no relation to a flock.

To prove this, let us ufe an argument ad hominem: fuppofe then that Dr Campbell, instead of refigning his charge, when his faculties began to fail, had applied for an ordained affiftant; and that the very day the prefbytery had ordained one for him, the Doctor had died fuddenly. Suppofe also, that the intended affiftant had not been prefented to a living for feveral years; I afk, in the first place, whether he might not have been employed by any diftreffed minifter, either to baptize for him, or to affift him in the adminiftration of the Lord's Supper? and when a call was moderated for that gentleman, I afk farther, whether the presbytery would have deemed his former ordi nation null, and proceeded to re-or dain him? And as the first queftion will, I prefume, be answered in the affirmative, and the other in the ne gative, by every fenfible prefbyterian clergyman in the kingdom, I ask, thirdly, whether this does not prove, that, in the opinion of Dr Campbell's own friends, a minifter may retain his clerical powers, although he has no paftoral charge? And if fo, does it not follow, that Meffrs Fullarton and Sage, after being confecrated as aforefaid, might not only act as bifhops of their own congregations, but ordain priefts and deacons, and con. firm young people in any part of the church where they were regularly employed? undoubtedly. But more efpecially, had they a right to preferve the fucceffion of bishops, by confecrating others into that high office, because it was chiefly for that important business that they were created bishops, as their deeds of confecration, ftill extant, fhew. I may add, that the permanency of the epif. copal powers, where there is no con

necton