"unordained." If So, he is of a different mind from some of the most learned and pious bishops of the Church of England, who have decided that it is not the formality of laying on hands which constitutes the essence of a lawful vocation to office in the Church; but the election and appointment to the office *.

Dr. Bowden makes an objection to the office of Ruling Elder, as it exists in the Presbyterian Church, which I scarcely expected from so grave a reasoner. It is this: That if the office be such as we represent it, and the Scriptural warrant for it such as we are in the habit of quoting, especially if 1 Tim. v. 17. be considered as pointing out this class of Elders, that then there ought to be a salary or some kind of temporal support annexed to the office. "But," he adds, "to put a Ruling "Elder in this respect, upon a footing with a mi"nister of the word, is altogether preposterous.

When I began these sheets, it was my intention to take notice of all the material points in the Letters of Dr. Kemp, as well as in the writings of my other opponents; and accordingly I made a kind of engagement to do so, in a former Letter. But I had not gone far on this plan, before it became apparent that fulfilling my engagement would be equally useless and irksome. The fact is, that the "Rector of Great "Choptank," has scarcely stated a single objection or argument, but what has been exhibited with more plausibility and strength by Dr. Bowden. In refuting the latter, therefore, the former is, of course, refuted. On this account I beg to be excused in future, for passing over the attack of Dr. Kemp in silence.

N

"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.