importance. But this is The passages concernheavy a complaint is

size of my work, nothing more than a selection, and even that a very limited one, was possible; it is more than wonderful that an imputation so serious should be advanced, even if I had omitted to produce passages of real far from being the case. ing which so formal and made, will be found, on examination, to be of no solid value to the advocates of Episcopacy. What do these writers say? Why, Dionysius, who lived about the year 170, and whose wri tings are all lost, excepting a few sentences, preserved by Eusebius, is represented by that historian as speaking of several persons as Bishops of particular Churches. Polycrates, also, who lived about the year 180, and of whose writings we have nothing except a fragment or two, preserved by a writer who lived long after him, simply says, that Timothy was ordained Bishop of Ephesus, by the great Paul; speaks of Polycarp as Bishop of Smyrna; and of himself and six others, as having been Bishops of Ephesus, in succession, after Timothy. And Hegesippus, contemporary with Polycrates, of whom nothing remains, but a few detached sentences, recorded by Eusebius, only says that one Primus was Bishop of Corinth; that Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherius were successively Bishops of Rome; and that James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem, because he was the Lord's near kinsman. But what is the amount of this testimony? It is really

too frivolous to be treated with respect. What Presbyterian ever doubted that there were Bishops, in the primitive Church; not only in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, but also in every other city or town on the globe, where a congregation of Christians was organized? And when it has not only been demonstrated, but also acknowledged by our opponents, that the word Bishop was applied, in the days of the Apostles, and for a considerable time afterwards, to those who were not Prelates, it is really something worse than trifling, still to insist upon an argument founded upon an equivocal title, and only calculated to insult the discerning, or to deceive the unwary.

But why did Dr. Bowden mention the testimony of three Fathers only, as having been omitted? Why did he not enumerate Bachyllus of Corinth, Serapion, and others, in the second century, who are represented as having left writings, in which, though now lost, the word Bishop was found? The truth is, I considered all this testimony as vague and irrelevant; and am still confident, that in the selection of testimony from the Fathers of the first two centuries, which I professed to make, I did full justice to the Episcopal side of the question. There was no passage omitted which can be considered as speaking more forcibly in their favour, than several which were exhibited; nor any which wear, in my opinion, so plausible an aspect, as some which I candidly brought forward. Nor can I believe that Dr. Bowden would have com

plained so loudly of the omission of testimony, had he not felt that every scrap which bears the most distant appearance of plausibility, is necessary to assist his cause.

With respect to another charge of Dr. Bowden, that I have omitted to produce certain testimony from some of the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries, it is scarcely worthy of an answer. In entering on this part of the controversy in my former Letters, I made the following explicit declaration:

"In examing the writings of the Fathers, I "shall admit only the testimony of those who 66 wrote within the FIRST TWO CENTURIES. Im"mediately after this period so many corruptions "began to creep into the Church; so many of the 66 most respectable Christian writers are known to "have been heterodox in their opinions; so much " evidence appears, that even before the com68 mencement of the third century, the Papacy be66 gan to exhibit its pretensions; and such multi"plied proofs of wide spreading degeneracy crowd ❝into view, that the testimony of every subsequent "writer is to be received with suspicion. Besides, "if diocesan Episcopacy existed, and were of the "fundamental importance that our Episcopal bre, "thren make it to be, we may surely expect to ❝ find some reference to it in the records of two "hundred years; and especially when we consi> ❝der that those were years of the greatest simpli,

city and purity ever known to the Church." Af

ter such a declaration, who would have expected to find it imputed to me, as an unfair proceeding, that I had not exhibited the whole testimony of the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries; especially after conceding, in the most unequivocal manner, that clerical imparity had begun to appear in the third, and was established in the fourth century? 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 offended. 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 "incau

tious" 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 dif ferent 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.

ness.

But, if I do not mistake, some imputations may be brought against both the "caution" and the "modesty" of Dr. Bowden himself, in this busiIt 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 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:

up