oʻRKS

W-0 R K S

ON

PISCOPA C.Y.

VOL. II.

CONTAINING THE

SECOND SERIES OF DR. BOWDEN'S LETTERS TO DR. MILLER ;

gilt

Tappan Presb. an 3-14-1932

SERIES OF LETTERS,

ADDRESSED TO

THE REVEREND DR. MILLER,

IN ANSWER

TO HIS CONTINUATION OF LETTERS CONCERNING THE

CONSTITUTION AND ORDER OF THE

CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

BY THE LATE

4-20-32 SWB

PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC, AND BELLES LETTRES,

IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE. NEW-YORK.

SECOND EDITION,

CONTENTS.

LETTER I.

Dr. Miller's Continuation of Letters strikingly destitute of propriety

and civility-instanced in several particulars. Dr. Miller's charge that

Dr. Bowden had forgotten his promise in referring to authors, proved

to be groundless. Dr. Miller makes a great outcry against Dr. Bowden

for beginning his proofs with the Fathers of the fourth century-this

arrangement shown to be perfectly natural and proper-Dr. Miller

declaims, instead of reasoning--asserts, without proving. He charges

Dr. Bowden of being 'afraid to encounter Scripture alone'-shown

not to have even a shadow to support it.—The ancients the best

judges of the primitive government of the Christian Church-Dr.

Miller totally misrepresents Dr. Bowden with respect to Ruling

Elders—the proof given-Dr. Miller wholly inexcusable in this par-
ticular.

1

LETTER II.

Dr. Miller is very unfortunate in his assertion, that Dr. Bowden 'rushes

to the conclusion, that different orders of the clergy were intended by

a distinct enumeration'—Dr. Bowden relies on things, not on names

-on the powers exercised, not on titles—The heathen noticed the

pre-eminence of the Bishops, long before the empire became Christian

-Dr. Miller required

four proofs of Episcopal pre-eminence—they

were given in great abundance-he does not notice this in his second

work, but repeats the demand-a most disingenuous way of proceed-

ing—the demand is, however, complied with-Dr. Miller denies that

the ancients assert the apostolical institution of prelacy-proved by

evidence irresistible—but if they did, he says, it would have no weight

with him—this assertion, if correct, would take the fathers from us

as witnesses to the canon of Scripture, and to the LORD's day.

LETTER III.

Dr. Miller derives no strength to his argument from the circumstance

that the wine in the LORD's Supper was mixed with water—the fact

is certain—no one denies it. The ancients believed that it was an

apostolic usage, and there is sufficient evidence that it was—is used

by the Scotch Episcopal Church— The practice of administering the

communion to infants was very partial; therefore it wants univer-

sality, one of the marks of an apostolic usage—it cannot be traced

to the apostolic age, and therefore it wants antiquity-consequently

it must be rejected from the list of apostolic usages-Irenæus' mis-

take about the age of Christ, and the dispute about the time of

keeping Easter, do not militate in the least against the testimony of

the fathers to the divine origin of episcopacy-no reason can be

assigned why Presbyterians at this time should be better able than

the ancients to determine what the government of the primitive