"And I am convinced that your Congregations "would think it so, were it proposed to allow the "Ruling Elders as ample a salary as they do their "ministers, or any salary at all. Let the experi"ment be made universally in your Churches, and "I will commit myself, that we shall never see the "face of a Ruling Elder again." 1. 201. But what has this to do with the Apostolic institution of the Ruling Elder's office? Suppose it conceded, that a compensation ought to be made to this class of officers, for their services; and suppose it also conceded, that no such compensation is ever, in fact, made; will it follow that such officers cannot be of divine appointment? Dr. B. would think it strange reasoning in any man to infer, that, because the labourer is worthy of his hire, his clerical commission depends on the payment of his salary; and that if the one should be withdrawn, the other would cease with it. Did the Apostle Paul cease to be a Minister of Jesus Christ because he laboured, working with his own hands, that he might not be chargeable to any; while, at the same time, he declared, that they who serve at the altar, should live by the altar? Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose it. Yet this, even conceding the fact for which Dr. B. contends, is the amount of his whole argument.

But the fact cannot be conceded. If Dr. Bowden had been as well acquainted with the Presbyterian Church, as a discreet man would have taken care to be, before he suffered himself to speak so

confidently on the subject, he would have known, that a compensation for their services has often been made to Ruling Elders; and that the nature and amount of this compensation, depend on the circumstances of the Elders themselves, and of the Church which they serve.

But, leaving this collateral inquiry, it is time that we should return to the main question; which shall be resumed in the next Letter.

LETTER V.

IN

Testimony of the Fathers.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,

my former volume, while I insisted that the cause in question should be tried at the bar of Scripture alone, and utterly protested against the jurisdiction of the Fathers, I still consented to examine their testimony, and devoted two long Letters to that examination. In those Letters, if more impartial judges, as well as myself, are not deceived, there is abundant proof, that the Fathers of the FIRST TWO CENTURIES, do not contain a sentence that can be justly construed in favour of Prelacy; but that, on the contrary, their testimony is decisively favourable to Presbyterian parity. Dr. Bowden, indeed, is of a different opinion, and speaks with great confidence and asperity in a different strain. But after the specimen which has been given of the manner in which that gentleman can treat demonstrative proof, and even plain declarations of Scripture, we need not wonder that, in his eyes, every argument is "frivolous," and even "contemptible cavilling," which opposes his Episcopal creed.

I have neither the leisure nor the patience again to go over the whole ground of the testimony of the Fathers on this subject. My only design in the present Letter, is, with great brevity, to examine a few of the strictures of Dr. Bowden; to confirm some of my statements which have been most confidently and boldly called in question; and to supply some of the defects of my former Letters on this part of the controversy.

Suffer me, my brethren, again to remind you of the principle on which we proceed, in this part of our inquiry. If it could be demonstrated from the writings of the Fathers, that, in one hundred, or even in fifty years, after the death of the last Apostle, the system of Diocesan Episcopacy had been generally adopted in the Church, it would be nothing to the purpose. As long as no traces of this fact could be found in the Bible, but much of a directly opposite nature, we should stand on a secure and immoveable foundation. To all reasonings, then, derived from the Fathers, I answer with the venerable Augustine, who, when pressed with the authority of Cyprian, replied, "His wri"tings I hold not to be canonical, but examine "them by the canonical writings: And in them, "what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scrip"ture, I accept, with his praise; what agreeth "not, I reject with his leave."

But our refusal to be tried by the Fathers, is

* Contra Crescon. 11. Cap. 32.

founded on principle, and not upon any fear of the result of such a trial. We know what their writings contain; and are sure that our Episcopal brethren would lose instead of gaining, by an impartial examination of their testimony. We are perfectly ready, then, to meet Dr. Bowden or any other man, and to hear what he has to say on this department of evidence.

ses,

In entering on this branch of the controversy in my former Letters, I made the following remarks: "Before we proceed to examine the testimony of the Fathers, let us be careful to recollect precisely, what our Episcopal brethren contend for, and what they are bound to prove by these witnesin order to make good their claims. When they show us passages in which these early writers merely speak of Bishops, they seem to imagine that their point is gained but such passages are, in fact, nothing to their purpose. We do not deny that there were Bishops in the Primitive Church: on the contrary, we contend that the word Bishop was a title given, in Apostolic times and long af terwards, to every pastor of a particular congregation. Again, when they quote passages which barely enumerate Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, as distinct officers in the Church, they can derive no assistance even from these; because there were, doubtless, Presbyters, at that time, as well as now, who, though in full orders, were not invested with a pastoral charge; and who must, therefore, be distinguished from such as were literally Overseers