"who had lived with St. John, and the other "Apostles, from whom they all received this ac66 count, and constantly bore witness to the truth "of it." Lib. II. Cap. 39. But no one can open the Bible, without perceiving that this pretended fact, in behalf of which the authority of inspired men is quoted, is totally false. To mention only one case more; we learn from Eusebius, that, in the days of Irenæus, there arose a very fierce dispute respecting the proper time for the celebration of Easter. The Churches of Asia took one side; and the Western Churches, with Victor, Bishop of Rome, at their head, took the other. The former asserted, that they were supported by the authority of the Apostles John and Phillip. The latter, with equal confidence, plead the authority of Peter and Paul in justification of their practice. Ireneus addresed a lester to Victor on the subject, in which there is found the following passage. "This di

66

versity did not begin in our time; but long ago 66 among our forefathers; who, as it seems, through "negligence in the management of their charge, "handed down to their posterity a custom which "through simplicity and ignorance had crept into "the Church*." And Socrates, the Ecclesiastical Historian, who wrote about a century after Eusebius, speaks of such observances generally in the following language. "Neither the ancients, nor "the moderns, who have studiously followed the

* Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. v. Cap. 24.

"Jews, had, in my opinion, any just or rational 66 cause for contending so much about this festival "(Easter.) For they considered not with them"selves, that when the Jewish religion was chan66 ged into Christianity, those accurate observances " of the Mosaic law, and the types, wholly ceased. "And this carries along with it its own demon"stration. For no one of Christ's laws has per"mitted Christians to observe the rites of the Jews. On the contrary, the Apostle has ex"pressly forbid this, and does not only reject cir"cumcision, but also advises against contending ❝ about festival days. Moreover, it is his admo"nitions, that days, and months, and years, should "in no wise be observed. Besides, in his epistle "to the Colossians, he loudly affirms. that such ob66 servances are a shadow. Men love festival-days "because thereon they have a cessation from "their labour. Neither our Saviour nor his "Apostles have enjoined upon us by any law to "observe such days*." Here, then, is a large body of Churches and Bishops asserting that they have Apostolical authority for a certain practice. On the other hand there is a large body of equally respectable Churches and Bishops, who assert, with no less confidence, that they Have· Apostolical authority for a different practice. And, to crown all, a third class, as much entitled to respect as either, pronounce, that both the former speak falsehood;

* Socrat. Eccles. Hist. Lib. v. Cap. 22.

and that the plea of Apostolical authority advanced by each, is equally and totally without foundation! Who, after such notorious instances of either credulity or dishonesty, would give the least credit to a claim of Apostolical institution, resting on no other ground than the assertion of the Fathers? Could we find in them, therefore, the most direct and decisive claim of this kind, in behalf of diocesan Episcopacy, it would be unworthy of confidence.

But it is not true that any one of the Fathers, within the first four centuries, does assert the Apostolical institution of Prelacy. Dr. Bowden produces Cyprian as saying, that " Jesus Christ and he alone "has the power of setting Bishops over the Church "to govern it ;" that "Christ constitutes as well

66

as protects Bishops ;" and that "it is by divine "appointment a Bishop is set over the Church.” He produces Origen, as saying, "Shall I not be "subject to the Bishop who is of God ordained to "be my father? Shall not I be subject to the "Presbyter, who is, by divine vouchsafement, set

66

over me?" He quotes Hilary as declaring, "The "Bishop is the chief; though every Bishop is a “Presbyter, yet every Presbyter is not a Bishop." And also as asserting, that James, and Timothy, and Titus, and the Angels of the Asiatic Churches were Bishops. He cites Athanasius as remonstrating with one who declined a Bishopric, in the following terms " If you think there is no reward allotted to the office of a Bishop, you despise the “Saviour who instituted that office." He repre

R

sents Chrysostom, as commenting on 1 Tim. iv. 4. in these words-"Paul does not speak of Presby "ters, but of Bishops, for Presbyters did not or"dain Timothy a Bishop." And finally he produces the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, in the year 265, as declaring, that "the office of a Bishop "is sacred and exemplary, both to the clergy and "to the people." Now, is it possible that Dr. Bowden, after devoting the best powers of his mind, for thirty years, to this controversy, has yet to learn, that all these quotations, and ten thousand more like them, are nothing to his purpose? It is truly amazing! Have not I, who am a Presbyterian, repeatedly said, in the foregoing sheets, that " Bishops were, by divine appointment, set over the Church?" Do not Presbyterians perpetually speak of the office of Bishop in their Church as a sacred office?" And would any Presbyterian on earth scruple to say, that Bishops were, and are ordained of God to be set over the Church; and also that every member of their flock, and even assistant preachers, within their parish, if not invested with a share in the pastoral charge, are bound to be" subject to them?" But no one, surely, could construe these expressions, on our part, as implying that we believed in the divine institution of such Bishops as our Episcopal brethren contend for. The truth is, these quotations, so pompously made, only prove two points; First, that the Fathers in question believed that there were Bishops in the Apostolic Church; which no man, in his senses, ever doubt

ed: and Secondly, that at the time when they wrote, Bishops were considered as having some kind of superiority over common Presbyters; which is as little doubted as the former. In short, Dr. Bowden is deceived by the bare occurrence of the word Bishop. Whenever he finds this word in the writings of the Fathers, his imagination is instantly filled with Prelates, and with all the peculiarities of the Episcopal system. But before the smallest touch of inquiry this hallucination vanishes. Though Bishops in the third and fourth centuries, had appropriated to themselves powers, which before had been enjoyed by others in common with them; yet their office itself was of divine appointment. Dr. Bowden, indeed, says, and endeavours to persuade his readers, that the writers whom he quotes, declare the Bishops which existed in the days of the Apostles to have been just such Bishops, as existed several centuries afterwards, in their own timesBishops in the prelatical sense of the word. But the Doctor, with all his confidence, must pardon me for saying, this is not true. He has produced no passage which makes any such declaration, or which legitimately implies it; nor is he able to produce such a passage, from all the stores of antiquity, within the specified limits.

Besides the direct quotations from the Fathers, which prove that the primitive Bishop was the Pastor of a single congregation, I mentioned, in my former Letters, some facts, incidentally stated by early writers, which serve remarkably to confirm