expression in it which does not perfectly accord with the notion of a Primus inter pares. Calvin's Moderator is undoubtedly a moderator for life, possessed of the powers which he himself enumerates in the passage I have quoted; and which necessarily imply a superiority of dignity. Nor did James' superiority arise from pre-eminent talents, or pre-eminent grace; but from the election of the other Apostles, according to the writers who mention the case. Nor, lastly, do talents, or prudence, or other endowments, confer authority. They may lead to it; but it is very far from being true, that in the nature of things they give it. Authority comes either from superior force, which enables a man to usurp it; or from the election of those who have a right to bestow it. Talents, or other high endowments, generally give influence; but not authority. They are different ideas: the latter, in a greater or less degree, implies the former; but influence does not imply, in the nature of things, authority. Calvin, in my humble opinion, is very far from being happy in his observations on this point. But this is not material; the passage, in no respect, contravenes what I have ascribed to him.

It is then beyond all dispute, that I am perfectly correct in my quotation from Calvin, and you are very unfortunate in not being able to show the contrary. I am also correct in my observation, that he did not choose to speak plainer, lest he should contravene his system. It is possible, however, that I have not expressed myself so clearly as to preclude misconception. I take Calvin's scheme of Church government to be founded on parity of order, but not on parity of dignity. The former he explicitly asserts; but the latter he leaves you to gather from certain expressions and comparisons. To me he appears reluctant to admit imparity in any respect; but matter of fact stood so much in his way, that he could not possibly avoid it. He knew that antiquity bears testimony to James' being the first Bishop of Jerusalem. This he could not deny. He, therefore, calls him the Exarch or Governor of that Church; conveying to his reader no clear idea what he meant to comprehend under the term. Certainly, it implies imparity in some degree; but Calvin leaves us to conjecture in how great a degree. And from what this want of perspicuity arose, I cannot see; unless it be, that on the one hand, he did not choose to contradict the testimonies of the fathers; and, on the other, to say what might seem to bear hard on his own system. He was in a strait between parity of order, and imparity of dignity; and in such a case, it is not an easy matter so to speak as to preserve perfect consistency between these two ideas.

Whatever ground there may be for this supposition, certain it is, that I have quoted Calvin with perfect correctness, and I have given no meaning to his words which does not belong to them. You ought, therefore, if not out of respect to me, yet assuredly to yourself, to have forborne the following questions: 'Where is the testimony from Calvin now? And I will add, where are

Dr. Bowden's blushes?' Dr. B., bowing with profound reverence to Dr. Miller, assures him that he does not blush for himself, but for his polite opponent; whose embarrassment in this controversy he has frequently commiserated, but whose respectability he will always acknowledge.

But this intemperate sally, it seems, is not enough. You rise in confidence, misrepresentation, and bitterness. You put me in mind, Sir, of a sarcastic canon of a criticism which I have met with. "Consider," says the author, "whom you write for. If for scholars, and people of the best sense, use a little salt, not much; but if for the common sort of people, you may spare your salt, and use gall, which comes easier and cheaper, in the room of it."

To proceed-You observe, 'This is not the only instance in which Dr. B. entirely perverts the language of Calvin, and represents him as delivering opinions directly opposite to those he really does deliver.' You then say, 'I 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 with even sarcastic exultation, as a great concession of the reformer of Geneva in their favour.'

Now, Sir, with respect to the passage to which you allude, I deny that there is in my page, so much as a shadow of 'sarcastic and reproachful exultation.' I deny that there is a single word, which, even upon the rack, will afford you a tittle to bear you out in your assertion; and I defy you to point out any thing of the kind. You are really, Sir, so much in the habit of ascribing to me things to which I have not the least title, that I know not very well how to assign a reason for it, unless it be, that you are a man who knows his business, and what best suits the taste and spirit of party readers. Let us now see how the matter will turn out.

You inform us that, 'In his Commentary on Titus i. 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 ministers of the Church, but that one was placed 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 unqualified terms.' p. 63. Dr. Bowden quotes the passage from Calvin exactly in the same manner, and makes precisely the same use of it with Mr. How.'

As Mr. How is perfectly competent to defend himself against any attack which you, or any body else may make upon him, I leave him to take care of himself. He is not a weak adversary, as you will find when his answer appears. As to my own par

ticular, I have to say, that you go on in your usual strain of misrepresentation. I have not quoted Calvin to show that he maintained the divine right of episcopacy in our sense of the word; but merely to prove that he was not an advocate for parity. This I have already put beyond a doubt, and the quotation in question sufficiently evinces it. But it seems I have not translated the passage correctly. Supposing that I have not, what will you gain by it? You translate it 'There was not then such an equality among the ministers of the Church, but that some one might preside in authority and counsel.' I translate it, 'At that time there was no equality among the ministers of the Church, but some one in authority and counsel had the preeminence.' Now, where is the difference as to the sense? 'Some one might preside,' you say. 'Some one had the pre-eminence,” I say. Calvin endeavours to remove the objection, that there is seemingly too much power given to Titus. No, he says, there was not at that time such an equality, but that some one might have the pre-eminence in authority and counsel. Is not this imparity in dignity? Imparity in order I have not intimated that he maintained. Your translation is rather more literal than mine; but mine gives Calvin's sentiment just as correctly yours. Surely one who is superior in authority and counsel, must hold a dignity of pre-eminence. Surely consular dignity, which Calvin ascribes to the Bishop, is a very considerable elevation; and that too during the Bishop's life. This is certainly prelacy in no small degree. And this prelacy he allows to have been in the Church in the time of St. Mark. He also several times allows St. Cyprian to have been a prelate, and that there were even Metropolitans in his time. And, besides, he heartily recommends the ecclesiastical government at that time, and says expressly, “That if the Church in his time would agree to such an episcopacy, no curses could be imagined, which he should not think those worthy of, who would not submit to it, with all reverence, and dutiful obedience." The same idea of imparity is maintained by Blondel and many other great Presbyterian writers. They had the conception of parity in the Church of CHRIST, under, or at any time after the Apostles. All they contend for is, parity of order; but imparity of dignity they freely concede; and Blondel expressly says, that the difficulties are insuperable if the concession be not made. Yet you are contending for perfect equality; and want to make your readers believe, that your opponents pervert Calvin's declarations; and that I in particular, am reduced to the necessity of admitting, that either I cannot translate a plain sentence of Latin, or that I intended to deceive; and you very civilly tell me to take my choice. In the name of common decency, how could you use such expressions? In the name of common sense how could you be so weak? But you are a man, and humanum est errare, [it is the lot of man to err,] and sometimes most egregiously.

I have to correct but one more particular, and that is the idea

which you mean to convey in the note at the foot of the page. Your long quotation from Calvin ends thus: "This (precedency in authority and counsel) was, however, nothing like the tyrannical and unscriptural prelacy which reigns in the Papacy. The plan of the Apostles was extremely different." On this you say, Here Calvin not only represents prelacy as a tyrannical and unscriptural system, but evidently considers it as a part of the corruptions of popery.' This is wonderful logic! Prelacy in the Church of Rome, is tyrannical and unscriptural; therefore it is so in the Church of England. Again: The prelacy which reigns in the papacy is tyrannical and unscriptural; therefore the prelacy which reigns in the Church of England, is a corruption of popery.

You have, Sir, so indissolubly connected popery and prelacy in your mind, that I believe the idea of the one never comes up without the idea of the other. Popery as old as prelacy, and the parent of it too! Prelacy, according to Calvin, existed in the time of Mark-in the time of the Apostles; therefore popery existed then! Cyprian is acknowledged by him to have been a prelate, and the government at that time is considered by him as a model for imitation. But that excellent government, according to you, was a corruption of popery. You certainly must have some knowledge on this subject, which no other mortal has; or you have no knowledge whatever. With respect to you, there is no medium. No one before you ever lisped that popery existed in the time of Cyprian. How then have you become acquainted with the fact? If you cannot produce a single testimony to the purpose, then it is evident that you know nothing about the matter. Calvin, of whom you have a high opinion, (and in some respects he deserves it) declares that the papaĺ supremacy had no existence till the time of Phocas in the seventh century, who, he says, "granted to Boniface the third, that which Gregory never required, that Rome should be the head of all the churches." This is the era of popery. There were indeed some corruptions in the Church of Rome before that time; so there were in other Churches; yet no one ever called these corruptions popery. Yet ages before that era, Calvin admits that there were diocesan Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs. He never gives a hint that prelacy sprung out of popery; for how could he, without running into the absurdity of placing the effect hundreds of years before the cause? It is your felicity to have made so glorious a discovery-a discovery equal to that of Epicurus' atoms dancing themselves into a splendid universe.

I shall now, Sir, close the Scripture evidence for episcopacy, by making a few observations on the commission given by our SAVIOUR to his Apostles.

After our SAVIOUR had commissioned the Apostles to preach

b Institutes Lib. VI. Sect. 17.

and baptize, he assures them that he will be with them to the end of the world. It is admitted on all hands, that this promise implies a continuation of the gospel ministry to the end of time, and that the commission empowered the Apostles to preach, to administer the sacraments, to govern the Church, and to ordain others to the same holy office. This is the whole sacerdotal power which the Apostles received, and which they received from the commission given them, and from that alone. And with this authority, CHRIST has promised to be to the end of the world. Now it is most certain, and I believe disputed by nobody, that the Apostles, in virtue of their commission, and on no other ground, did govern all orders of men in the Church

-Presbyters, Deacons, and lay-believers. But the powers of government which the Apostles exercised, are, by virtue of CHRIST's promise, to be perpetual in the Church; consequently there must be an order of men of the same rank with the Apostles to the world's end, or CHRIST's promise has failed. Presbyters are not of that rank, because they were subject to the Apostles. It follows, then, that those individuals who presided over Presbyters, such as Timothy, Titus, the seven Angels, and others, are the true and proper successors of the Apostles, in the full extent of that power implied in the original commission. To those single successors, ecclesiastical usage has appropriated the title Bishop.

Perhaps it will be said, that, although the Apostles did exercise authority over Presbyters and all others, yet before their death, they left the whole power implied in the commission, in common with the Presbyters, who continued to exercise it in a collegiate way for one or two centuries; and consequently, the government of the Church by a Presbytery, in which all are equal, is the true apostolic mode. To this I answer,

First. As it is indisputable, that the power of governing Presbyters was given to all the Apostles collectively, and to each individually; and as it is indisputable, that each Apostle did exercise this governing power in all the Churches which he planted; nothing short of a full and clear evidence of a change from apostolic superiority to presbyterian parity, can be admitted. Now, where is that evidence to be found? Not in the commission-not in the practice of the Apostles by virtue of that commission--not in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus, which are decidedly anti-presbyterian-not in the circumstances of the Church of Jerusalem, where St. James presided, who from his apostolic character must have been the governor of that Church; and who, from the testimony of the ancients, was actually the governor of it-not from the Epistles of the seven Angels of the Churches in Asia Minor, in which there is nothing that looks like parity; and, lastly, not from the testimonies of the fathers, who all assert, that the Apostles conveyed to individual governors, their prelatical character.

Again: If the Apostles conveyed to Presbyters the whole