with "pointed respect," unless they are Diocesan Bishops? Do no clerical meetings ever take place in the houses of any other class of ministers than Diocesan Bishops? Cannot messages of a public nature be sent to individual ministers of the Gospel, without supposing them to be Prelates? Suppose a number of Presbyterian ministers had an important communication to make to the Clergy of a certain city, would it be inconsistent with their doc trine of parity to address this communication to a particular individual, most distinguished for his age, talents, piety, and influence, to be by him imparted to the rest of his brethren? Nay, is not this, in all Presbyterian, as well as other countries, the ordinary method of proceeding? When the clergy of any town or district convene for mutual consultation, does their assembling in the house of some aged and venerable brother in the ministry constitute that brother their Bishop, in the Episcopal sense of the word? To propose questions of this kind seriously is little short of an insult to the understanding of the reader. Do not facts of the very kind related of James, happen every day to Presbyterian ministers? When gentlemen who would be thought to argue, and not to trifle, condescend to amuse their readers with representations of this kind, under the garb of reasoning, it is really difficult to answer them in the language of respect or gravity.

But the Fathers, it seems, assert that James was Bishop of Jerusalem. Admitting this fact;

and admitting, also, that there were no circumstances tending to invalidate their testimony; to what does it amount? Why, simply, that James was one of the Clergy, perhaps the Senior Clergyman of the Church of Jerusalem, and probably the most conspicuous and eminent of them all. For let it never be forgotten that our Episcopal brethren themselves acknowledge, that the title of Bishop was applied in the Apostles' days, and for some time afterwards, to the Pastors of single congregations, and of course that this term alone decides nothing in their favour. But let us sift this matter a little. Hegesippus is quoted by Eusebius as relating, that "James, the brother of our Lord, undertook, together with the Apostles, the government of the Church of Jerusalem*." This is the earliest writer that is brought to testify directly on the subject; and he declares that James presided over the Church in Jerusalem in conjunction with the other Apostles. He says, indeed, a little before, that the Bishoprick of Jerusalem was given to James by the Apostles, but when we come to compare the two passages, and to interpret the one by the other, the whole testimony of this writer will be found perfectly equivocal. Some of the later Fathers, also, following Hegesippus, speak of James as Bishop of Jerusalem; but do they tell us in what sense they employ this title? That the apostles and primitive christians sometimes employed it in a sense

* Eccles. Hist. Lib. 11. Cap. 23.

K

different from that which is adopted by our Epis. copal brethren, is confessed on all hands. And that these early writers, when they speak of James as Bishop of Jerusalem, mean to say that he was a Prelate, a Bishop, in the modern and perverted sense of the term, is what we confidently call in question, and what Dr. Bowden, with all his brethren to aid him, cannot prove. I know that the learned Professor loses all patience at intimations of this kind; but it is by no means the first time that a man has been provoked by a demand of proof, when he had nothing but assertion to pro

duce.

But the most wonderful part of the story is, that Dr. Bowden produces Calvin as a witness in support of the Episcopal dignity of fames. On this point he speaks in the following terms: "So evi"dent is it, that James was Bishop of Jerusa"lem, that even Calvin thinks it highly probable "that he was Governor of that Church. When,

66

says Calvin, the question is concerning dignity, "it is wonderful fames should be preferred be"fore Peter. Perhaps it was because he was

Prefect of the Church of Jerusalem.' In Ga“lat. c. II. v. 9. Calvin did not choose to speak plainer; for that would have been in direct contra"vention to his ecclesiastical regimen." 1. p. 346.

66

The moment I cast my eye on this quotation from Calvin, I took for granted that something had been kept back, which, if produced, would turn the tables on the Professor. And this accor

dingly proves to be the case. The passage, as it really stands in Calvin, is as follows. "The Apos"tle speaks of their (James, Cephas, and John,)

seeming to be pillars, not by way of contempt, but "he repeats a common sentiment. "Because from "this it follows, that what they did, ought not to "be lightly rejected. When the question is con"cerning dignity, it is wonderful that James "should be preferred to Peter. Perhaps this was "done because he was President of the Church of

Jerusalem. With respect to the word pillar, "we know, that, in the very nature of things, "those who excel others in talents, in prudence, or "in other endowments, must also be superior in "authority. In the Church of God it is a fact, "that in proportion as any one is strong in grace "in the same proportion is honour due to him. "It is ingratitude, nay, it is impiety, not to do "homage to the Spirit of God wherever he appears in his gifts. And further, as the people "of a Church cannot do without a

pastor, so

stands in

But let it

"each particular assembly of pastors "need of some one to be moderator. "be always understood, that he who is first of all "should be as a servant, according to Matthew "23. 11."

Where is the testimony from Calvin now? And, I will add, where are Dr. Bowden's blushes? The truth is, the whole passage, like the tenour of all Calvin's writings, is decidedly anti-prelatical. That great Reformer, as will be more fully seen here

after, believed in no authority of one minister over another, as having existed in the primitive church, but a moderatorship, either occasional or standing, for the maintenance of order.

This is not the only instance in which Dr. Bowden entirely perverts the language of Calvin, and represents him as delivering opinions directly op. posite to those which he really does deliver. Of this, more in a future letter, in which the writings of Calvin, so far as they relate to Episcopacy, will be particularly considered. In the mean timeI cannot forbear to notice a single specimen, so gross and remarkable, that I could scarcely credit the testimony of my own senses when I found it advanced by both my opponents, not only with confidence, but even with sarcastic and reproachful exultation, as a great concession from the reformer of Geneva in their favour.

In his Commentary on Titus 1. 5. Calvin speaks largely of the mission of that Evangelist to the Churches of Crete. Dr. Bowden and Mr. How wish to persuade their readers, that, in these remarks, he fairly gives up the point that Titus was a Diocesan Bishop, or Prelate. Accordingly they both represent him as saying "Hence we learn "that there was not any equality among the mi"nisters of the Church, but that one was placed 66 over the rest in authority and counsel." On this pretended quotation from Calvin, Mr. How observes, "Here the divine institution of superior "and inferior grades of ministers, is asserted in