struction attended not only with insuperable difficulty, but with manifest absurdity.*

But, admitting that this term designates individual ministers, does it follow that they can be no other than diocesan bishops? By no means. The angels of Ephesus, Smyrna, &c, might have been, as was observed in my former letters, the moderators of the presbyteries of those cities respectively; or they might have been the senior pastors, to whom, on account of their standing and age, all communications intended for the churches in which they ministered, were, by common consent, directed. The rector of Trinity Church, in the city of New York, has five congregations under his pastoral care, and is aided by the labours of several assistant clergymen ; yet this rector is not, as such, a bishop; nor are his assistant clergymen inferior in order to him. The whole city of Edinburgh, in Scotland, is one parish, while there are near twenty churches, and more than twenty ministers, within and belonging to that parish; still all these ministers are ecclesiastically equal, excepting that there is a moderator of the city presbytery, who has certain powers vested in him, for convening the body, and preserving order during the sessions; and to whom, also, all letters are directed, and all communications made. And yet this is not considered as at all infringing the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. In truth, neither the title of angel, nor the addresses made to those on whom it was bestowed, nor any of the powers implied in these addresses, give the least countenance to the system of prelacy; and to suppose that they do, is as gross an instance of begging the whole question in dispute, as can well be produced.

Dr. Bowden appears, indeed, to be sensible, that the scriptures, left to speak for themselves, by no means decide that the angels in question were prelates: he, therefore, has recourse to Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius, Ambrose, &c. to help him out in his difficulty. They, it seems, assert that these angels were the

* See that gentleman's very luminous and able review of the episcopal essays in the Christian's Magazine. This work, which I consider as one of the ablest periodical publications that ever appeared, ought to be in the hands of every one who wishes to attain clear and sound views of " evangelical truth and order."

66

bishops of the respective churches mentioned in connexion with their names. But supposing these fathers to be, in all respects, credible witnesses; and supposing, too, that their assertion is founded, not on conjecture, but authentic records; it still remains. to be ascertained in what sense they use the word bishop. What kind of bishops do they mean? Such bishops as the Presbyterian, and the great body of the reformed churches, allow to have existed in the days of the apostles, and still retain, or such as our episcopal brethren contend for? Dr. Bowden undertakes to assert that they were of the latter kind; but he says it without authority; for the fathers whom he quotes as witnesses, do not say so. They might have been scriptural bishops, without, in the least degree, serving the episcopal argument.

Dr. Bowden endeavours to press the learned Blondel into his service, by representing him as admitting that the angels of the Asiatic churches are addressed as "having jurisdiction over both clergy and laity ;" and thus by implication as acknowledging the existence of diocesan episcopacy in the apostolic age. This is a mistake. Blondel says no such thing. After investigating this subject perhaps as profoundly as any man ever did, he tells us, that during the apostolic age, and for a considerable time after, bishop and presbyter were reciprocally one and the same; that these were combined into classes or presbyteries; that the eldest minister, pastor, or bishop belonging to the presbytery, was, by virtue of his seniority, constantly the moderator; that when he died, the next in age succeeded him, of course, and continued to hold the place during life. "These senior pastors," says he, "had a certain singular and peerless power, such a power as all "moderators, after whatsoever manner constituted, ever had, and ❝ever will have, belonging to them. Neither was the moderator "of any of these sacred colleges, chief among his colleague pres"byters, as a presbyter, or as one placed in higher order above all "the other presbyters; but as the eldest and first ordained pastor. "Nor did the rest as presbyters, but as younger presbyters, and "afterwards ordained, yield the moderatorship to him. His office

was to exhort the brotherhood; to war a good warfare; to com "mend them to God by prayer; to gather the presbytery; to give "them a good example; and to declare himself to be a diligent messenger of God to mankind. And, therefore, as Christ does in

"his admonitions to the angels of the Asiatic churches, both the "good and the evil deeds of the churches might be imputed to these "moderators." And again he says: "Linus, as he was a bishop, "had for colleagues Clement and Anacletus, who were shortly "after ordained bishops, with himself, in the same church of Rome. "But as he was the exarch or moderator of the brethren, he "neither had, nor could have any colleagues, (seeing the modera"torship can only fall to one person at once) but only successors. "There was a plurality of bishops, presbyters, or governors, at 66 same time, and in the same church. All these pastors or bishops, "on the very account of their presbyterate, were endued with equal power and honour. The moderator was subject to the "presbytery, and obeyed its commands with no less submission "than did the meanest of their number. He had the chief power in "the college of presbyters, but had no power over the college it"self." And, as if this learned man had been aware of every cavil that ignorance or sophistry could suggest, he expressly compares these ancient moderators with the moderators of presbyteries, in the reformed churches of Scotland and France, and assigns to the former no more power or pre-eminence than belongs to the latter. Blondelli Apolog. Præfat. pag. 6, 7. 18. 35. 38. I make no comment on Dr. Bowden's perversion of these plain declarations. If he fell into it ignorantly, he is to be excused; if wilfully no reader will be at a loss for appropriate reflections.

Of the same character, and equally destitute of force, is all that Dr. Bowden has advanced to show that Timothy and Titus were prelates. After filling about thirty pages with what he calls his proofs of this point, he will really be found, when closely examined, to have done little more than beg the whole question in dispute.

He insists that Timothy and Titus were not sent to Ephesus and Crete in the character of Evangelists; that they had finished all the labours which belonged to them in this character, before they went thither; and that their principal duties in those places were of an higher kind, and appropriate to an higher office. Nay, he formally sets it down, in a long catalogue, as one of my "unfounded assertions," that I represent them as acting in that capacity in the Ephesian and Cretian churches. Has Dr. Bowden ever read that portion of the New Testament which is called the

second epistle to Timothy? Does not the apostle Paul say to Timothy, in that epistle, Do the work of an evangelist? And was this written before he went to Ephesus? Truly, when this gentleman can permit himself, with so little ceremony, to contradict an inspired apostle, I need not wonder that others fare so roughly in his hands. Nor will it afford any relief to his cause, to cavil about the meaning of the word evangelist. Whatever it then meant, or may now mean, it is certain that Paul applied it to Timothy, and that after he had been sent on his Ephesian mission. And if it were applied to Timothy, no good reason can be assigned why it may not, with equal propriety, be applied to Titus. In fact, if it be conceded that the former was an Evangelist, and acted as such, when the epistles directed to him were written, the friends of prelacy can have no interest in contending that the latter bore a different character; for the same reasoning, in substance, applies to both.

But Dr. Bowden still contends, that Timothy and Titus were diocesan bishops, because they were empowered to ordain others to the work of the gospel ministry? Shall we never have done with this begging of the whole question, in a manner so unworthy of logicians and divines? Suppose they were empowered to ordain? What then? Do we not consider presbyters as invested with this power? And is it not the great object of Dr. Bowden's book to show that it was otherwise? Why, then, does he attempt to impose upon his readers by taking the main point for granted? Let him first prove that, in the primitive church, none were permitted to ordain, but an order of ministers superior to presbyters, and then his argument from the fact of Timothy and Titus having been invested with the ordaining power, will be conclusive; but until he shall have established the former, which neither he nor any other man has done, or can do, the latter will be considered, by every discerning reader, as worse than trifling.

Dr. Bowden and his friends also lay great stress on another point. They take for granted that there had been Elders (or presbyters) ordained by the apostle Paul himself, both at Ephesus and Crete before Timothy and Titus were sent to those places. Assuming this as a fact, they say, these presbyters, on Presbyterian principles, must have been invested with the ordaining power; but if this were so, why were others sent on so long a journey, to

perform that which persons on the spot could have done as well? Here, again, every thing is taken for granted. Where did Dr. B. learn that there had been presbyters fixed either in Ephesus or Crete, before Timothy or Titus went thither? The sacred history says no such thing. With what face, then, can any man undertake to found his whole argument on a mere assumption? It is certain that the epistle to Titus contains a direction to ordain elders in every city. There were, therefore, some cities, at least, which were not furnished with the requisite number, and probably with none at all. But admitting that there were elders already ordained both at Ephesus and Crete, still the argument is good for nothing. That some portions of those churches were unfurnished with ministers of any kind, and that they were all in a comparatively unorganized and immature state, is perfectly manifest from the whole strain of the apostle's language concerning them. Was it unnatural, on Presbyterian principles, that in this state of things, special missionaries should be sent among them; men well known as possessing the entire confidence of the apostle; fully instructed in their duty; and qualified to travel from place to place, and set in order the things which were wanting? Might not many prudential considerations have rendered it expedient to send such eminent characters from a distance, rather than to select men of less distinguished and commanding reputation on the spot, to perform a service as delicate as it was arduous? In fact this is precisely the course which has been, more than once, pursued, in Presbyterian churches, when they were in an unsettled state, without any one ever dreaming that it infringed the doctrine of ministerial parity; or that it implied any deficiency of power in those ministers who resided nearer the scene of action.

But Dr. Bowden further contends, that Timothy and Titus were empowered to ordain alone; that is, that in the ordinations which they performed at Ephesus and Crete, there were no other ordainers joined with them; and hence he infers that the Presbyterian doctrine cannot be true, because our rules do not admit of ordination by a single presbyter. Here, once more, this dextrous disputant takes for granted the very thing to be proved. Who informed him that Timothy was the sole ordainer at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete? The epistles to those evangelists do not say so. Is he sure that they had not travelling companions, of equal power with them.