in his version: 'No more is it lawful for Priests to do any thing in the diocese, without the permission of the Bishop in writing.' This addition is found in the ancient code of the Romish church, published by Quesnellus, and in the version of Isidore; and Justellus has restored it in the Greek text of the code of the universal Church."

The observation of Du Pin, that the text of the canon is in a very corrupt state, from the circumstance of its making the city Presbyters to have been allowed to ordain without the Bishop's license, previously to the passing of the canon, while the Chorepiscopi, who were true and proper Bishops, were restricted from the exercise of that part of their office, carries with it great force. There is no way of removing from the canon, the charge of inconsistency with the principles and practice of the Church at the time when it was formed, but by adding the words, to do any thing, as has been done by the ablest and best writers, both ancient and modern.

I have dwelt the longer upon this point, to show the very singular way you have of settling every thing, however obscure and difficult. You assert roundly, and there is an end of the matter. But surely, Sir, there must be some among your readers, who will not be put off in this way. There must be some, however predisposed to receive your assertions, that will be staggered when they find adduced so many instances in your work of unfair management, and so many proofs given of your contradicting well-authenticated facts. This last instance of arbitrary decision is not the least, and I believe it will not be the last, of this very censurable catalogue.

Before I go on to your fifth head of observations, I would just observe, that it is an argument against episcopacy which one would not have expected from a man of sense and a scholar, that there have been Bishops who attempted to extend their authority beyond its due limits. Yes, Sir, this is undoubtedly true: but is it not equally true, that Presbyters and Deacons have done the same? With respect to the latter, does not Jerome tell you so? And with respect to the former, is not history full of it? I name but one of these Presbyters-Calvin, (supposing him to be such) the Apostle of Geneva. his conduct, and be silent forever.

Consider

Under your fifth head you say,-'The gradual diminution of the number of Bishops, after the first three centuries, serves to confirm the fact for which I am contending. The great number of Bishops found in the early ages of the Church, was remarked in a former letter. They appear to have been as numerous within two or three centuries of the apostolic age, as modern parish ministers. But as we recede from that period, we find their number gradually diminishing, in exact proportion as their claims and honours became extended. In the island of Crete,

where we are informed that in early times there were one hundred Bishops, in a few centuries afterwards we find but twelve. In a small district in Asia, where, in the third century, there were settled one hundred and five Bishops, in two or three centuries their number was reduced to nine.-What is the obvious inference from these facts? That primitive Bishops were a very different class of officers from those which bore that name three or four centuries afterwards; and consequently, that during this period an important change had taken place in the character and powers of Bishops.'

Here, Sir, you give us a story very different from that you told us in your fifth letter. Now, you say, after the third century the number of Bishops decreased; then, you represented their numbers in the fourth and fifth centuries as enormously great

Thick as in spring the flowers adorn the land

Or leaves the trees

One of the councils in the fifth century, you say, was composed of six thousand Bishops. Here then must have been a prodigious increase of Bishops, after the period you have assigned for their diminution. And in the same century, you assert, that the council of a single province in Africa, was composed of between five and six hundred Bishops. Where now is the diminution of Bishops after the third century? The fact is, that Bishops in the apostolic age were but few, while Presbyters were very numerous. There were several Elders at Jerusalem, and but one Bishop, St. James. That was also the case at Ephesus, and Crete, and Philippi, and Alexandria, and Rome, and other places. In the second century, we find the Bishops much increased, in consequence of the diffusion of Christianity; but the Presbyters, from the same cause, increased proportionably. This continued to be the case during the subsequent ages. The increase of Bishops in Africa in particular, after the schism of the Donatists, was enormously great; those schismatics placing a Bishop of their own, wherever the Catholics had one." But after the Roman Empire was torn to pieces by the northern barbarians, a considerable change took place. The number of Bishops was in some places lessened; and after the conquest of the Saracens in the East, many flourishing Churches were entirely extinguished, and most of them greatly diminished both as to clergy and people. The frequent revolutions which took place in the eastern and western empires, produced a constant change in the number of Bishops; generally on grounds of a political nature, in no way connected with the spiritual nature of the office. But what argument can be drawn from all this against the apostolie

t Page 198, 199.

u How strangely is the world altered in this respect! The very heretics and schismatics took care always to have Bishops; for they knew that otherwise it would be an unanswerable argument against them in the mouths of the Catholies, Just the reverse is the case at present.

origin of episcopacy, is beyond my comprehension. Whether Bishops have been more or less numerous at different periods, has no more to do with the origin of their office, than with the origin of Presbytery, or of Independency.

What you say, Sir, with respect to the island of Crete, and a small district in Asia, wants to be supported by competent authority. What author says that there were a hundred Bishops in that island in early times? Till I saw your book I had never heard of it. I have consulted Eusebius in those parts of his history in which one would naturally look for such an account. But I can find nothing like it. Bingham, who has given the most correct view of the primitive dioceses, speaks a language very different from yours. His words are, “In the isle of Crete, Carolus a Sancto Paulo names eleven dioceses. The Notitia of Leo Sapiens, in Leunclavius, makes them twelve; but Hierapetra is there, by mistake of some transcriber, divided into two, which being corrected, reduces them to the same number. Whence I conclude, this was pretty near the standing number for several ages."

It now appears, I think, very evident, that you are at variance with yourself upon this point; but putting that out of the question, you are at variance with the best authorities we have upon the extent of dioceses, and the number of Bishops in the primitive ages. But if you were even correct, still your inference with respect to the origin of episcopacy has nothing to do with the position, that the number of Bishops decreased after the third century. That is easily accounted for, from the well known events which took place in the Eastern and Western Empires, and from that constant mutability which attends all human affairs.

The last circumstance which you advance in favour of your hypothesis is, 'that it is confirmed by the most learned and impartial historians;' and of these you mention three-Mosheim, Gibbon, and Haweis.

These three writers give us nothing more than their opinion; and I have already observed, that the value of an opinion depends upon the strength of the evidence by which it is supported. Mosheim gives no proofs; he merely asserts. Assertions are easily made; but proofs are not so easily given. Mosheim too.

had the system of his own Church to maintain. The prejudice and errors arising from this source, every thinking mind must be aware of. Many great men have adopted opinions utterly inconsistent with facts, and have maintained principles from which common sense revolts.

Gibbon is another of your authorities, if the opinion of a man can be called authority. I wonder, Sir, that it did not strike you, that a man who denied the divine origin of the Scriptures, could not, with the least consistency, allow the divine origin of

▼ Antiquities, Vol. I. p. 426.

episcopacy. To have done this, would have been to renounce infidelity. If the Scriptures have not the stamp of divinity, certainly the ministry, which was instituted to preserve and expound them, cannot claim any character of that sort.

Your next historian is Dr. Haweis. Did you quote him, Sir, on account of the weight he derives from his learning, or profound knowledge of antiquity, or consistency of character? Do you think that a man who despises learning, can be very learned himself, and who abuses all the fathers of the Church, can know much about them? Do you think that man's testimony is of much weight, who always takes part with heretics and schismatics, and commends Novatians, Donatists, Meletians, and Luciferians, while Catholic confessors and martyrs are treated with contempt, because they did not think as he does upon the subjects of predestination and grace? Can you think that man's opinion of any consequence, who says, that he "thinks episcopacy most correspondent to the apostolic practice, and the general usage of the Church in the first and generally esteemed purer ages," and yet can unite with those who have departed from apostolical practice, and are the avowed enemies of primitive usage? Can he be a proper guide to those who wish to be acquainted with the constitution of CHRIST's Church, who says, that "most of the Apostles lived and died among their brethren in Palestine," that "all ecclesiastical officers for the first three hundred years were elected by the people ;" and that "Matthias was thus chosen to fill up the tribular number of the Apostles," as he expresses himself? Is that man a diligent and accurate historian, who talks of the "constitutions of Ignatius," meaning, no doubt, the Apostolical Constitutions, which were pretended to have been written by Clement; who calls Polycarp the disciple of Ignatius, when all the primitive writers assert that he was the disciple of St. John; who mistakes the name of an office for the name of a man, calling Pontius, the Deacon of St. Cyprian, Pontius Diaconus? Can, in short, that man, who is so spiritually minded, because he believes the doctrine of election and reprobation, be a sure guide to primitive truth and order, when he speaks contemptuously of the great lights of antiquity, the martyrs and confessors of the faith of JESUS; and when he rejects in a lump the testimony of the early writers of the Catholic Church? If such a man's opinion can be of any service to you, avail yourself of it, Sir; but we will be contented with the ancient fathers, as historians of the facts which were accessible to their inquiries."

I will close this letter with recommending as a counterpoise to your three historians, the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Sozomen, and Theodoret among the ancients; Echard's and Du Pin's among the moderns; and, with them, Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church.

w See a Review of HAWEIS' Church History, annexed to SKINNER's Answer to Campbell's Lectures, lately published by T. & J. Swords.

LETTER XX.

REV. SIR:

I HAVE NOW considered, as briefly as I well could, your manner of obviating the difficulties attending the supposition of a change of government in the purest ages of the Christian Church; and if I do not deceive myself, it has been demonstrated, that it was morally impossible, that such a change should have taken place before the Roman empire became Christian. The profound silence of all antiquity upon the subject; the impracticability of a change, considering the circumstances of the Church in the first three ages; the absurdity of the supposition, considering the nature of the human mind, which cannot act without motives; the extreme difficulty of perceiving any motive that could have actuated the breasts of the usurpers; the inconsistency of such a supposition, with the positive testimony of the fathers to the apostolic origin of episcopacy; the well known purity of the Church in the second century, when this change is supposed to have taken place ; all these accumulated considerations place episcopacy upon high and impregnable ground. They afford what the great Chillingworth does not scruple to call a demonstration of the apostolic origin of episcopacy. The demonstration stands thus-" Episcopal government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the Church presently after the Apostles' times. Between the Apostles' times and that presently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration. And, therefore, there was no such alteration as is pretended. And, therefore, episcopacy being confessed to be so ancient and catholic, must be granted to be also apostolic."

In the preceding letter, I showed that Presbyterian writers are at variance, when they attempt to assign the century when episcopacy first appeared in the Church; and also observed, that this difference among themselves affords a strong presumption that they are all wrong. I would now observe, that as they cannot agree with respect to the time, so neither can they with respect to the source of this usurpation. The generality ascribe it to wicked ambition, rendered successful by general corruption. But the celebrated Dr. Campbell takes very different ground, He condemns those who ascribe the change to corruption; for that, he says, is ascribing it to what did not exist. The Church, he assures us, was in great purity, and the clergy were distinguished for their virtue and piety in the second century; and you make the same acknowledgment. He ascribes the change not to vice, but to virtue; not to corruption, but to piety. Well, Sir, where are we now? According to the learned Principal, virtue and piety changed presbyterian into episcopal govern