The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-07-06
EWING WRITES ID COBDS ONCE MORE His Concluding Letter Over Rec
 torShip Controversy ANALYSIS OF STATEMENTS After Accusing pr. cobhs of oulbbIlna and lnaccuraey, MT. Ewing Re-
 views Ills Standing as
 a Clergyman.
ANALYSIS OF STATEMENTS

a Clergyman.
 The Rev. Quincy Owing, rector of the Church of the Advent, replies to the open letter of Dr. R. IL cobbs of Greensboro. which appeared in The Age-TIerald of last Sunday. He says this will be his last letter It is as follows:
 The Advent Reotory.
 Birmingham, Ala, July 1, 1904. The Rev R. II. Cobbs, n D. Greensboro.
 Ala
 l Rev. and Dear Sir: You may recall the late Artemus Wards remark to London audience concerning a lecture that he was engaged in delivering: "One of the pecnliaritles of this lecture Is, that there are so many things In 1t which nave nothing to do with the subjectV' It was impossible for me not to recall 1t, when I read your reply CD In yesterdays Age Herald to my open letter to you puo- lshed in this paper on the goth ut.
 There are so very many things In your reply which have nothing to do with the proposition in controversy between us. Ii Is at least two-tenths bubble, three tenths inaccuracy, four-tenths irrelevant ey, and barely one-tenth a partial meet ing and partial begging of the question at issue The question at issue must again insist on putting you race to face with. and demand that you meet 1t face to face.
 In your open letter to Colonel Pearson, published in the Age-Herald Sunday, June 26. you stated that If Bishop Beckwith September 27, 1903 had given the evi- dence in writing. based upon information then in his possession, 1t would have been his duty after the reception of the letter dlsmissory, october 4, to have withdrawn that eyidence.'
 Paraphrased Statement.
 This statement of your for the sake of clearness I paraphrased as follows. in my open letter to you of the 2sth ult. {: If Bishop Beckwith, on September N. 1903 had certified to the vestry of the Church of the Advent, upon information then in his possession, that the Rev. Quincy Ewing was a quari1ed clergyman of this church. (the Protestant Episco- paD ''it would have been the bishops duty to withdraw the certificate given to the vestry, when he received the let ter of transfer October 4 issued to MT. Ewing by Bishop Bratton of Mississip- pi"
 1Ou accept Lnt DdTdltiEdSc III the IAAS Sb paragraph of your letter of the third instant. This clears the stream of the argument of a good dear of the sepia that has been unnecessarily and unfor- tunately injected Into 1t. For you plain- ly assert that, if Bishop Eeckwith had given a certificate to my qualification as clergyman on a certain day, seven days thereafter, it would have been his duty to withdraw the certificate. It could have been his duty to withdraw 1t only if he had discovered at the later date that what he certified to as to a fact at the earlier date, WAS NOT A FACT. There fore you have charged that at the later date, viz, October 1, 1904 Bishop Beck with discovered that was not "qual- filed clergyman of this church." If you have not so charged repeatedly. then the English language has ceased to be a pass- ably respectable vehicle for the convey ance of thought--and there is no question whatever at issue between you and mel
 As to Standing.
 Now then, in your open letter Age Herald July 0, you admit d) That, so far as you know or believe, was regard ed as a qualified clergyman in the dio- cese of Mississippi. septemoer z7, 1904. (Par. l of your letter..
 t1js 1IlhL OlQ tlOl DtGOIne uloQutlAllt0 between September H and October {. 1903.
 (3). That in Bishop Bratton's view I was "a clergyman in good standing fin the diocese of Mississippi-(the words, Clergyman in goodstanding,' you say. being underscored by Bishop Bratton in certain letter to somebody in Alabama )
 (D. That DURING THE ENTIRE IN- TERVAL BETWEEN THE DATE WHEN I WAS CHARGED BY TWO CLERGYMEN WITH HAVING vIo- LATED THE MARRIAGE AND DI- voRCB CANON, AND OCTOBER 23, 1903, WAS RECOGNIZED AS A CLER- GYMAN IN GOOD STANDING IN THE DIOCESE OF MISSISSIPPI.
 (5) That charges were preferred against me and the Rev. Charles Morris AT THE sAME TIME (February 26. 19O2). and that was ACQUITTED.
 Therefore, in your view-determined by unquestionable faet-my standing as a clergyman was ALWAYS good in Mis- sissippi, the diocese of my canonical res- idence; I was ALWAYS regarded there as "a qualified clergyman or the church;" and never declared by the Ecclesiastical Authority of that Diocese Justly liable to evil report for error in religion, or vs- ciousness of life" q affirm" you write in your open letter July 3, that on Oc- tober 23, 1903 the standing committee of the diocese declared officially that the charge had been considered upon It's merits, and you had been fully acquit- ted.9 C'Iad been'--please note) Now, of course, you are aware that there are no degrees of clerical good standing or clerical qualification" Every cler- gyman is either in good standing or not in good standing; either qualified or not qualified. Being qualified and in good standing in Mississippi I could not have been there more 'qualified" or in stand ing better than good" was, as Bishop Bratton said to me. October 2, 1903 and admits having said to mo in a letter dated June Il, 1904 ''in as good standing as he himself
 So much for my standing and uualifi- cation as a clergyman in Mississippi, October 1, 1903. on your own unreserved admission.
 The Contention.
 Your contention, then amounts to what? Why simply this: That up to the time I was transferred FROM MIS- SISSIPPI TO ALABAMA by the letter dimissory which Bishop Beckwith ac- cepted, I was mot recognized as a cler- gyman in good standing in the diocese of ALABAMAw In the name of common sense and all that's reasonable in reason, how could I have been recognized as clergyman in good standing In Alabama. while I was still canonicaly resident in Mississippi?
 Did you mean to assert that Bishop Beckwith should have withdrawn his certificate to my clerical qualification be- cause I was not ubiquitous. or because I was confronted by canon law which for