is right in inserting the words quidpiam facere. He confirms this emendation by the versions of Isidorus Mercator, Gentianus Hervetus, (deemed ancient by Blondel himself,) and by the 57th canon of the council of Laodicea, which runs in almost the same words-Similiter et Presbyteri præter consilium Episcopi nihil agant; i. e. "Likewise, let the Presbyters do nothing contrary to the will or counsel of the Bishop."*

Du Pin also observes, that "this canon is imperfect, and that something must be supplied to make it sense; for what (says he) mean these words, Nor to the city Presbyters in another parish without the permission of their Bishops? Had Priests ever power to ordain other Priests in their own churches? Had they ever permission to do it out of their own churches by the Bishop's letters? Why should not the Suffragans, (Chorepiscopi) who were above the priests, have the same power? There must be something added. See what Dionysius Exiguus added, 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."+

* Dissert. tertia de omnibus Evangeliorum Periochis, &c. c. 9. Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 249.

The observation of Du Pin, that the text of the canon is in a very corrupt state, from the circumstance of city Presbyters having 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 autho→ rity beyond its due limits. Yes, Sir, this is undoubtedly true; but is it not equally true, that Prèsbyters 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. Consider his conduct, and be silent for ever.

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, conse quently, 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 6000 Bishops. Here then must have been a prodigious increase of Bishops, after the period you have assigned for their diminu tion. 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 Apos、 tolic age were but few, while Presbyters were very numerous. There were several Elders at Jeru salem, 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 Chris

tianity; 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 na ture, in no way connected with the spiritual nature of the office. But what argument can be drawn from all this against the Apostolic 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.

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 Catholics. Just the reverse is the case at present.