But I forbear. To take up your time in replying to cavils of this nature, even if one had patience enough for the purpose, would be equally irksome and useless.

In my former letters, I omitted to examine the testimony of the Apostolical Canons, and the Apostolical Constitutions; and assigned as a reason for the omission that I considered them as spurious and unworthy of credit. With this omission, and the reason for it, Dr. Bowden is much dissatisfied. He does not, indeed, attempt to establish the authenticity of the Apostolical Constitutions; but for that of the Canons he contends with ardent zeal. He charges me with having "vilified" them; and thinks, if I had ever read Beveridge's defence of them, I should have been more "cautious" and "modest." I beg leave to inform my "learned" antagonist, that I am not an entire stranger to Beveridge's work, and that after weighing his arguments as impartially as I can, I am still so "incautious" and "immodest" as to believe that these Canons are not what they profess to be. Beveridge himself does not contend that they were made by the apostles; and Dr. Bowden acknowledges the same thing. They are not, therefore, Apostolical Canons. The learned Daillé is of the opinion that they were not compiled till the fifth century; Blondel dates their compilation towards the close of the third century; and even Beveridge himself, their most partial defender, supposes them to be the decrees of synods in the second and third centuries, collected at different times, and by different hands. Now, so far as they belong to the third century, the line which I have drawn excludes them from my notice. When Dr. Bowden can decide which of them were formed in the second century, and which of them are of a later date, I shall consider myself as bound by my plan to examine the former class, and not before.

But, if I do not mistake, some imputations may be brought against both the "caution" and the "modesty" of Dr. Bowden himself, in this business. It would be easy to produce a number of episcopal writers, of the highest reputation for talents and learning, who have, without ceremony, pronounced the Apostolical Canons, as well as the Apostolical Constitutions, to be destitute of authenticity. Dr. B. certainly could not have been acquainted with these writers, of his own church; as it is not supposable that he

would set up his judgment in opposition to theirs. Among others Bishop Taylor, who was at least as competent a judge as Dr. B. speaks of the writings in question in the following language :

"Even of the fifty (canons) which are most respected, it is evi"dent that there are some things so mixed with them, and no mark "of difference left, that the credit of all is much impaired; insomuch "that Isidore, of Seville, says, they were apocryphal, made by (( heretics, and published under the title apostolical; but neither "the fathers nor the church of Rome did give assent to them.'"*

Dr. Bowden not only charges me with omitting to state the testimony of some fathers, but also with misrepresenting that of others. Most of the instances which he produces in support of this charge, do not appear to me entitled to any reply. Of a few, however, it may be proper to take a cursory notice.

He asserts that I have misrepresented the testimony of Ignatius ; but wherein does this misrepresentation consist? Dr. Bowden will not dare to deny that my quotations from that father are larger and more numerous than his own ; nor will he dare to deny, that I have selected, and fairly exhibited, those very quotations which high churchmen have generally adduced as, in their view, most decisive in favour of prelacy. In what respect, then, have I been guilty of misrepresentation? He will probably reply that my comments on the testimony of Ignatius are unfair. The best answer to this charge will be a dispassionate review of those comments; and I will venture to say, that no one who takes this trouble, will find any thing in them but what is natural, probable, and abundantly warranted by the strain of the testimony itself.

Ignatius, indeed, speaks much of bishops. But I have shown that this title furnishes no ground of argument in favour of prelacy. He speaks much, too, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as distinguished from each other: but I have also clearly shown that this distinction is perfectly consistent with our doctrine of ministerial parity; and that to represent it in a different light, is a mere begging of the question in dispute. But I will go further, and again venture, with greater confidence than ever, to repeat my former assertion, that the bishop so often mentioned by Ignatius is evidently a parochial and not a diocesan bishop. If the bishop to whom this father refers, was the only person, in each church, em

* Liberty of prophesying, Sect. 5. Art. 9.

powered to baptize, and administer the Lord's supper ; if no marriage could take place without his knowledge and consent; if it was considered as his duty to be personally acquainted with all his flock, to take notice with his own eye of those who were present and absent at the time of public worship, to attend to the widows and the poor of his congregation, to seek out all by name, and not to overlook even the men and maid-servants of the flock committed to his charge; then, surely, no man in his senses can suppose that this officer could have been any other than a parochial bishop or pastor. I know that Dr. Bowden is of the opinion, and endeavours to show, that the duties which I have stated, are not all represented by Ignatius as belonging to his bishop. I do not consider it as worth while to take up your time in discussing this point. Let any one look over the epistles of Ignatius, or if he cannot have access to them, let him look over the extracts which I have given in my former letters, including those on which Dr. B. lays the greatest stress, and then let him say whether it is possible to reconcile the whole strain and language of that venerable father with any other than parochial or Presbyterian episcopacy? For my part, though Dr. B. very delicately loads this suggestion with the terms "nonsense," "contemptible puerility," &c. I am persuaded every impartial reader will say, it is both sounder sense, and better logic, than this gentleman, with all his "scholar-like" management, has drawn from the testimony of the pious martyr. In short, Dr. Bowden may fume and fret as long and as much as he pleases, but, after all that he has said, or can say, nothing intelligible can be made of the bishop, presbyters, and deacons of that father, materially different from the pastor, elders, and deacons of every regularly organized Presbyterian church.

Dr. Bowden supposes that Presbyterians consider the bishop so often mentioned by Ignatius, in no other light than as the moderator of some ecclesiastical assembly. Assuming this as our opinion, he attempts to pour ridicule upon it, by substituting the word moderator for bishop, and endeavouring to show that the supposition is utterly inconsistent with the representation given of the duties of this officer. When a man does not comprehend the subject which he attempts to ridicule, he is extremely apt to draw upon himself the laughter which he thought to turn against others. This is the unfortunate situation of Dr. Bowden. He seizes upon a detached fragment of Presbyterian doctrine; and, imagining that

he sees and understands the whole system, he thinks to involve that system, in the absurdity which he makes to recoil upon his

own.

Dr. Bowden ought to know, that bishop and moderator are not convertible terms; and that they are not so considered by Presbyterians. We suppose, and believe it is easy to prove, that the word bishop, in the apostolic age, signified, simply, the pastor or overseer of a flock, or single congregation. Accordingly we conclude that there were several organized churches both at Ephesus and Philippi, in the days of the apostles, because the scriptures expressly tell us that, at that time, there were several bishops in both those cities. We have shown, too, that each church, in the days of the apostles, was commonly furnished with a bench of ruling elders, and deacons. We have also reason to believe, that, in large congregations, there were several elders who, as assistants, laboured in the word and doctrine. The pastor, that is the presbyter who was particularly invested with the pastoral charge, was called the bishop of that church; and when the elders came together, and sat as a church session, or ecclesiastical court, he, of course, presided as their moderator. It is easy to perceive, however, that this bishop was equally such, both in fact, and in name, whether he was ever called to act as moderator or not. The mere circumstance of his having no bench of elders, and no church session in which to preside, did not destroy or affect his pastoral character. We maintain, that there was no other species of bishop, during the time of the apostles, than such as has been described, that is, the pastor of a single flock or church.

But we suppose that, very early after the apostle's days, when the congregations, and, of course, the pastors, in large cities, became numerous, and frequently convened for the transaction of ecclesiastical business, that the custom was adopted of choosing one person, generally the most aged and venerable of the number, to act as president, chairman, or moderator, and that, after a while, the title of bishop was, by way of eminence conferred on him; and, in process of time, gradually appropriated to him. Hence it is a notorious fact, which our episcopal brethren do not pretend to deny, that bishops, in the second and third centuries, were frequently distinguished by the titles, PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, and the person who filled the FIRST SEAT in the presbytery. But this

no more implied, nor, at that time, was considered as implying, a superiority of rank or order, on the part of the chairman, than the office of moderator in one of our presbyteries or synods, clothes the pastor who fills it with a permanent superiority of order over his brethren,

In some cities, however, it is evident that a different plan was pursued. When the converts to the Christian faith became so numerous, that they were no longer able to worship in one assembly; and especially when a number of persons from the neighbouring villages joined the city church, some of these members be gan to lay plans for forming separate and smaller congregations nearer home. To this the bishop consented, on condition that the little worshipping societies thus formed should consider themselves as still under his pastoral care, as amenable to the parent church, and as bound to obey him as their spiritual guide. When the pastor agreed to this arrangement, it was generally understood, that there should be but one communion table, and one bapistery in the city or parish; and, of course, that when the members of these neighbouring societies wished to receive either of the sacraments, they were to attend at the parent church, and receive them from the hands of the pastor or bishop himself. The ordinary services of public worship on the Lord's day, were performed at little oratories, or chapels of ease, planted at different and convenient places within the parish; and on these, it was considered as sufficient for the assistant preachers, or curates, to attend. But at special seasons, at least once or twice in the year, every church member was held under obligations to attend the mother church, and commune with the pastor himself. This was laying the foundation for the authority of one bishop or pastor over several distinctly organized congregations, which, not long afterwards, was claimed and yielded.

We have specimens of a similar arrangement in modern times. Fifteen years ago all the episcopal inhabitants of the city of New York, were under the pastoral care of the rector of Trinity Church. In the beginning, that rector had only one church under his inspection, and was himself the only preacher in it. But when a second and a third were built, and a large congregation established in each, it was still thought proper to retain the whole under the care of one pastor with several assistants; so that when there