that they have no right to baptize and administer the eucharist without his authority; that he is the vicegerent of GoD and of CHRIST; and that Presbyters hold but a secondary rank, as the Apostles did while CHRIST was on earth, administering the affairs of his Church; could it enter into the mind of any man that I was speaking of congregational Bishops? The supposition is ridiculous. There is therefore nothing necessary but to determine what was the government of the Church in any particular age, and then it follows, that the writers of that age are to be understood according to the current notion and practice.

There is but one thing more that I shall notice, and that is, your assertion that I misrepresent Blondel. Pray, Sir, for what purpose did I quote him? Was it not simply to prove, that the Angels of the seven Churches represented the exarchs or chief governors of those Churches? And does he not say so? His words are, "The acts of the Church, whether they were glorious or infamous, were imputed to their exarchs or chief governors." And is not this saying, that each of those Churches had a chief governor, and that the Angel represented him? I did not quote Blondel to prove that he maintained a difference of order. I knew his scheme too well for that. He most indubitably supposes, that there was in every city, whatever may have been the number of the Churches, a Presbytery, with a President or Moderator for life; and that when he died, the oldest Presbyter succeeded to the chair. This officer he calls the exarch or chief governor, who had of course certain prerogatives. This he says it is necessary to maintain, otherwise the difficulties are insuperable, But this plan does not mend the matter. I could, were it necessary, demonstrate that the oldest Presbyter did not succeed to the Presidency. But this is not for my purpose. His scheme I have nothing to do with. I have quoted him in reference to the seven Angels, and not to prove that he maintained diocesan episcopacy. He did not believe in parity, unless a person can hold a presidency for life, and yet be on a footing of equality with those over whom he presides. Had you attended to what I have said, and compared it with your own extract, you would not have made the following improper observations-'I make no comment on Dr. B.'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.'

I have now finished all I have to say on the present point, and shall proceed to notice what you affirm with respect to St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

On this point it is needless to spend much time. I shall but just observe, that as there were numerous congregations at Jerusalem, and numerous Presbyters, upon your own principles, they must have had a Moderator. Now St. James must have been that Moderator; not only from his being distinguished from VOL. II.--12

the Presbyters on all occasions, but from his being an Apostle, whether of the twelve, or not, is immaterial. He is expressly called an Apostle by St. Paul; and all acknowledge the Apostles held a jurisdiction over the inferior orders. Now, as he constantly resided in Jerusalem, he must, from the circumstance of his being an Apostle, have presided over that Church. This consideration proves, that our interpretation of the texts which strongly intimate this superiority, is correct. And when you add to this the unanimous testimony of the ancients that he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and that he is always placed at the head of the catalogues, what more satisfactory testimony can you have? You would certainly receive such testimony for any other matter of fact; and if you would not, you must reject many things that have not stronger support. Can you seriously think, that you know more about the government of the Church of Jerusalem than the ancients? Even Jerome will decide the matter for you, if you will allow him. He says expressly, that St. James governed the Church of Jerusalem. But you have your usual evasion here. Admitting the fact,' you say, '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.' To what will not hypothesis lead men! How weak is reason when opposed to preposession! Jerome says, 'immediately after the passion of our Lord, James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem "—that is, was constituted the senior clergyman! Clemens of Alexandria is quoted by Eusebius as saying, that, "after the assumption of CHRIST, Peter, James, and John, did not contend for the honour of presiding over the Church of Jeruralem, but, with the rest of the Apostles, chose James the Just to be Bishop of that Church ;" -that is, to be the senior clergyman! It was also received (as I have observed) as an undoubted fact by Hippolytus-by Cyril of Jerusalem, (one of James' successors) and another Cyril of Scythopolis-by Epiphanius and Chrysostom-by Augustine and Fulgentius-by Nicephorus and Photius-by Oecumenius and Nilus. And it was also mentioned as a matter universally acknowledged by the sixth general council —that is, all these writers mean, that James was appointed the senior clergyman! Indeed, Sir, this is below, far below a man of sense.

a

'But,' you say, '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 Bishopric of Jerusalem was given to James by the Apostles;

a Letter XII. p. 340. Vol. I. p. 168.]

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.' Now, Sir, this testimony is so far from being perfectly equivocal, that it is perfectly unequivocal. Every one, with the New Testament in his hand, must see, that for some time the Church of Jerusalem was governed jointly by the Apostles; but after their dispersion, James remained and governed that Church. There he lived, and there he died; and after his death Simeon succeeded to the presidency, as all antiquity asserts. Here is a succession, not of equality with the other Presbyters (for that is nonsense,) but to the pre-eminence which James the Apostle had over them. This was a presidency over numerous Presbyters and numerous congregations, which, indeed, he would necessarily have by virtue of his apostolic character, but which he had also by the appointment of the other Apostles. Nor is Hegesippus, who lived about the middle of the second century, the earliest writer on this subject. Ignatius, who had lived nearly his whole life in the apostolic age, says enough to convince any unprejudiced mind, that James presided at Jerusalem. He says that Stephen was the Deacon of James. How of James? Upon your plan, he must have been the Deacon of the Presbytery. For if James was no more than the senior minister, he had no more relation to Stephen than the other ministers. Such are the difficulties in which you involve yourself.

Now comes again your usual contemptible subterfuge. Some of the later fathers also, following Hegesippus, speak of James as the Bishop of Jerusalem; but do they tell us in what sense they einploy this title? That the Apostles and primitive Christians sometimes employed it in a sense different from that which is adopted by our Episcopal 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, in the modern and perverted sense of the term, is what we confidently call in question, and what Dr. B. with all his brethren to aid him, cannot prove. I know that the 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 produce.'

Well, Sir, this is a flourish equal to any that graces your book. Of declamation, I am sensible you are never much in want; but here you soar above yourself. This stroke convinces me that you are not altogether unacquainted with human nature. You know, I perceive, that whoever declaims with agility, will be, in the judgment of the common run of readers, more than a match for any other inan, or any seven men that can render a reason, Who that aims at truth, would not avail himself of such a powerful weapon?

So, you think it doubtful, what sort of Bishop the fathers meant, whether a congregational or a diocesan? James, they

say, was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem; that is, to an equality with fifty other Bishops! James governed the Church of Jerusalem; that is, had an equal share of the government, with many others! James was the first Bishop; that is, had no authority over the Presbyters! James too had his successors; that is, they succeeded to nothing; or they succeeded equally with the other Elders! 'Oh no! James was perhaps the Moderator.' Well then, James the Moderator, who sat in the chair a day or a month, or perhaps a twelvemonth, was succeeded about thirty years after by Simeon, another temporary Moderator. He had also his successors for ages; and there is strict propriety in calling a temporary Moderator, Bishop of a city, and Governor of the Church in that city, although it contained a multiplicity of Presbyters and congregations, over whom he had no authority! 'Oh no! James was Moderator or President for life; he might therefore have his successors.' James was President of the Presbytery for life, over whom, however, he had no authority; he being under the absolute control of a plurality of votes! James, as President for life, governed the Church of Jerusalem, to which, as President, he had no relation at all! Mercy on us! To what will men not some men submit rather than acknowledge an error !

But the most wonderful part of the story,' you say, 'is, that Dr. B. produces Calvin as a witness in support of the Episcopal dignity of James. On this point he speaks in the following terms: "So evident is it, that James was Bishop of Jerusalem, that even Calvin thinks it highly probable that he was governor of that Church. When, says Calvin, the question is concerning dignity, it is wonderful James should be preferred before Peter. Perhaps it was because he was Prefect of the Church of Jerusalem. (In Gal. ii. 19.) Calvin did not choose to speak plainer; for that would have been in contravention to his ecclesiastical regimen."

Well, Sir, it seems you admit that I have quoted Calvin correctly. He thought it probable that James was prefect of the Church of Jerusalem. What is the meaning of this title? A prefect is one qui rei alicui præficitur—who has the charge, the government, the oversight of any thing-a chief officer, a governor, a superintendent. Now, does this mean a temporary Moderator? He holds no government over the Presbytery, nor over the Church. Nor would he hold any, were he prefect for life; the duration making no difference in the degree of authority. What then can Calvin possibly mean, but that James was the Governor or Bishop of Jerusalem? I have not asserted, that Calvin had the same idea of a Bishop that we have. I have not asserted, that he thought him an officer of a superior order to a Presbyter, or that he was the sole ordainer; but I have quoted him expressly for the purpose of showing that he had no idea of parity in the Church. It is impossible that James could have been the Prefect or President of the Church of Jerusalem, and

be on a footing of equality with the Presbyters; and if Calvin at any time talks otherwise, he flatly contradicts himself. That he did not consider the Church, in the times of the Apostles, as existing under a parity of officers, is evident from the following passages. Speaking of Jerome's comment on Isaiah vi. he observes, that Jerome reckoned five orders in the ChurchBishops, Priests, Deacons, Believers, and Catechumens; "therefore," says Calvin, "to whom the office of teaching was enjoined, these they named Priests. In every city they chose out of their number one, to whom they especially gave the title of Bishop; that dissensions should not grow of equality. Yet the Bishop was not so above the rest in honour and dignity, that he had dominion over his fellows. But what office the Consul had in the Senate, to propose matters, to ask opinions, to go before the others with counselling, admonishing, and exhorting, to govern the whole matter with his authority, and to put in execution what is decreed by common counsel, the same office had the Bishop in the assembly of the Priests." From this it is evident, that Calvin did not believe that there existed in the Primitive Church a parity of ministers; but that there was in every Church, at least a Primus inter pares-La chief among equals.] The Primus, Prefect, or President of the Church of Jerusalem, was, he says, James, the brother of our LORD; but how a President or Prefect can be on a footing of equality with those over whom he presides, is far beyond my comprehension.

Nor does the passage which you quote from Calvin militate in the least against the opinion which I ascribe to him. You say, 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 accordingly proves to be the case. The passage, as it really stands in Calvin, is as follows. "The Apostle 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 concerning 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 each particular assembly of pastors stand in need of some one to be moderator. But let it be always understood, that he who is first of all should be as a servant, according to Matt. xxiii. 11."

On this passage, I would observe, first, that there is not one