12. You misrepresent Clemens Alexandrinus, who distinctly enumerates the orders of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon; and asserts that there are precepts in the holy scriptures relating to each of them; consequently, that they are of divine institution. Letter vi. p. 155.

13. You have given an unfair view of the testimonies of Ireneus. Nothing can be more explicit than his assertion, that Bishops succeeded to the pre-eminence of the Apostles. Letter vii. p. 163, 164, 165.

14. You have, even to a degree of ridiculousness, misrepresented Ignatius. His Epistles are such a powerful support to the Episcopal cause, that the most learned advocates of Presbytery have never attempted to bend them in favour of their hypothesis. Letter vii. p. 182, 183, 184, 185.

15. You have entirely perverted the meaning of Origen and Hilary, in order to make them give a favourable look towards Ruling Elders. They do not give that order the slightest support. Letter viii. p. 204, 207, 208.

16. You have given an explication of the various texts of scripture adduced in the course of the discussion, which is at 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 misrepresented on the supposition that you had reference to his Reasonableness of Conformity. Letter xi. p. 296, 297, 300, 301, 302.

18. You have totally misrepresented the nature of the fervish 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. vol. ii. p. 3.

20. You have misrepresented the principle 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. 15, 16.

21. You have given a very false representation of the old Ordinal. Letter xiv. p. 19—27.

22. You have grossly misrepresented the canons of Elfric. They bear a direct testimony to Episcopal pre-eminence. Letter xvi. p. 94, 95.

23. You have ascribed to Archbishop Anselme, a work which Cave says is spurious. Your quotation therefore is good for nothing. Letter xvi. P. 96.

24. You have given a very improper view of

Whitgift, Bilson, Jewel, Stilling fleet, 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.

3. Unfounded Assertions.

1. All your misstatements of facts, and misrepresentation 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. 19.

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. 59, 60, 61, 62.

4. You assert, that there was but one congregation at Carthage. This has been proved to be groundless. Letter iii. p. 70, 71.

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. 187.

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. 220, 221.

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. 255, 256.

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.

167, 168, 169.

166,

10. I have noticed in this letter your unfounded assertion, that imparity is a Popish doctrine, p. 278.

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 which you enumerate has been proved, p. 280-285.

This I believe will be a sufficient sample of unfounded assertions.

Contradictions.

1. You contradict yourself. Letter xiii. p. 381. 2. You contradict your own Confession of Faith. lbid.

3. You contradict the Westminster Divines, Dr. Mason, and Mr. M'Leod. Ibid. 4. You contradict the scriptures. Ibid. p. 379.

Omissions.

You have omitted several direct, positive testimonies from Jerome, several from Hilary, two from Isidore, two from Optatus, one from Athandsius, 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.

3. In the second century, you have omitted the testimony of Dionysius, of Polycrates, and of Hegesippus.