utter variance with the explication of the fathers. As the point in dispute is a matter of fact, they must be infinitely better judges of the evidence of that fact than any moderns can be. Letters IX. X. 17. You have greatly misrepresented Barrow, Dodwell, and Hoadly, on the subject of uninterrupted succession. The latter is said to be misrepresented on the supposition that you had reference to his Reasonableness of Conformity. Letter XI. p. 143, 144, 145, 146. 18. You have totally misrepresented the nature of the Jewish Synagogue; and, in consequence, have erroneously made it the exemplar of the Christian Church. Letter XII. 19. You have given an erroneous view of the Institution of a Christian Man. It maintains a parity of Bishops in opposition to papal supremacy; but not a parity among all the ministers of the Gospel. Letter XIV. p. 186. 20. You have misrepresented the principles upon which Cranmer took out a new commission for the exercise of his office. He did not thereby acknowledge any spiritual authority in the King; as is evident from Burnet's history of the reformation. Letter XIV. p. 192, 193. 21. You have given a very false representation of the old Ordinal. Letter XIV. p. 194–199. 22. You have grossly misrepresented the canons of Elfric. They bear a direct testimony to episcopal pre-eminence. Letter XVI. p. 230, 231. 23. You have ascribed to Archbishop Anselme, a work which Cave says is spurious. Your qnotation, therefore, is good for nothing. Letter XVI. p. 231. 24. You have given a very improper view of Whitgift, Bilson, Jewel, Stillingfleet, Burnet, and several other writers. Letter XVII. passim. 25. Your view of the rise and progress of episcopacy is nothing but misrepresentation from first to last. It is in direct contradiction to the nature of the human mind, to notorious facts, to the circumstances of the Church, and to the testimony of all antiquity. Letters XVIII. XIX. passim. These, Sir, are but a part of your misrepresentations. They are, however, enough for a specimen. UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS. 1. All your misstatements of facts, and misrepresentations of authors, are so many unfounded assertions. To these I will add a few more. 2. You assert that Jerome informs us, that the Presbyters ordained their Bishop at Alexandria. This is without foundation. He says no such thing. Letter I. p. 11. 3. Your caution to your readers to beware of the writers of the third century, cannot be justified by facts. None of your observations can be supported. Letter III. p. 30-32. 4. You assert, that there was but one congregation at Carthage. This has been proved to be groundless. Letter III. p. 32-34. 5. You say, That the Church of which a Bishop had the care is represented in the Epistles of Ignatius, as coming together to one place.' This is without foundation. Letter VII. p. 90-92. 6. You say, that 'the fathers are not unanimous, but contradict one another.' This is totally unfounded. They all make episcopacy an apostolical institution. Letter VIII. p. 107, 108. 7. You assert, that Timothy and Titus acted as Evangelists at Ephesus and Crete. This assertion is unfounded. It has been shown that they could not possibly have acted as Evangelists, if we regard the etymology of the word; for the Gospel had been preached in both places before Timothy and Titus were sent to preside over them. Letter IX. p. 123, 124. 8. You assert, that the reformers of the Church of England were Presbyterians in principle. This has been proved by abundant evidence to have no foundation. Letter XIV. passim. 9. Your assertion that ignorance prevailed in the second and third centuries, is groundless. It was very far from being the case. Letter XVIII. p, 265, 266. 10. I have noticed in this letter your unfounded assertion that imparity is a Popish doctrine, p. 255. 11. The summary in your last letter of the evidence contained in your book, is nothing but a string of unfounded assertions. Not one of the nine particulars you enumerate has been proved, p. 320. This, I believe, will be a sufficient sample of unfounded assertions. CONTRADICTIONS. 1. You contradict yourself. Letter XIII. p. 184. 2. You contradict your own Confession of Faith, p. 184. 3. You contradict the Westminster divines, Dr. Mason, and Mr. M'Leod. p. 185. 4. You contradict the Scriptures. p. 183. OMISSIONS. You have omitted several direct, positive testimonies from Jerome, several from Hilary, two from Isidore, two from Optatus, one from Athanasius, one from Theodoret, two from Epiphanius, several from Chrysostom, and several from Eusebius; besides the testimonies of hundreds of Bishops met in General and Provincial Councils in the fourth century. 2. In the third century you have omitted the testimonies of Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, of Cornelius, and the Presbyters of the Church of Rome, of Origen, and a volume of testimonies from Cyprian, and the Bishops of Africa; besides the testimony given to episcopacy by the Apostolical Canons. VOL. I.-28 3. In the second century, you have omitted the testimony of Dionysius, of Polycrates, and of Hegesippus. 4. In the first century you have omitted to notice the Church of Jerusalem, which, from the Scripture account, and the testimonies of the ancients, affords episcopacy strong support. I have now, Sir, said all that I think necessary to be said upon the question relating to the government of CHRIST'S Church. The subject will admit of a much ampler discussion, and it would be an easy matter to fill another volume with testimonies, and reasonings upon them; but I think enough has been done to convince those who will weigh with candour and impartiality the evidence adduced, that episcopacy is an apostolic and divine institution. Although my patience has been severely tried by your manner of quoting authors, by several provoking hints and expressions, and by a management strikingly partial and unfair; yet I hope that I have not been hurried into any transgression of decorum. I certainly wished, while I spoke plainly, to avoid every thing that would unnecessarily hurt your feelings. When error is exposed, it must unavoidably have an unpleasant effect upon the mind of him who has fallen into it; but if, when exposing error, the manner of doing it be so harsh as to irritate the feelings of an opponent, it is censurable. That I am faulty in this respect, I am not conscious; but if you, Sir, perceive any thing of the kind, point it out, and it shall be immediately retracted. Or if I have done you injustice in any respect whatever, you have but to name it, and if it be really injustice, I will readily acknowledge it to be so. To err degrades no man; but obstinately to persevere in error, is really disgraceful. The series of Letters which I have now addressed to you, can certainly have no claim to freedom from defects. The circumstances under which they have been written, do not, I believe, often attend one who gives his thoughts to the public, upon such a variety of points as have occurred in this discussion. By far the greater part of these Letters have been written in the midst of my family, without having had recourse, in a single instance, to solitary retirement, and but one of the whole series has been transcribed. My collegiate duties, too, have caused daily and almost hourly interruptions. A candid mind will not, therefore, be disposed to find fault with slight inaccuracies; but will place them among those things quas incuria fudit, [which have dropped for want of care.] I shall now, Sir, take my leave of you, at least for a time. Whether I shall ever address you again, will entirely depend upon yourself. Should you be disposed for any further discussion of the subject, you will not find me unwilling to meet your wishes. When the Church to which I have the happiness to belong is attacked, irksome as writing is at my time of life, I feel no backwardness to exert the little ability I possess, in her defence; and it affords me no little pleasure to think, that I am at the same time defending the cause of almost every Christian Church upon earth. I am, Reverend Sir, with esteem and respect, Your obedient and humble servant, Columbia College, July 15, 1808. THE END, JOHN BOWDEN. |