The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1853-07-27
For The Demoeraic Sea
REPLY TO Z. NV

NsA eoesidcred tho subject, sndif | intro-
dsoed any new matter e was not fOrriga to
the sabjrct You ask 'Uhat had Wesley,
hssl.odls, EPiseOpaey. DO1triRNl Tracts &c.
~ Do with Calyin's causing the dea;l cl
servetHs. which l had proved BY gaillaume,
wesley aaa Othefss' Well they had this
much 10 10 with IT. | showed, Iby these.
that sgs;cf subjects of vastly more impIr:,
uaee were misrepresented, End inferred that
ii ,hey s,,,represeHted subj :eis Of greater
in J,rtia SC. they would not hesitate TO dose
"a those Of less moment. So vas not
satisfied with your proof.
had concluded in my Jas article 10 give
up any further investigation OF ibe subject;
but as you seem dispoed to prosecute 1t
further, deemed another article in reply not
IRproPer.
In nv last. showed how unlikely il was
that, Calvin who had come out from the
komish Church. and pubiickly denounced
,heir doctrines, and mode of worship, and
took such an active part against her in the
reformation, how very unlikely it was Il g
lie, who was counted hereto, should in-
s<rfere on behalf Of the said church in the
sase Of Serv,tus. Besides, what end could
letters from Calvin to the Magistrates OF
Vienna have answered? Servetus was pub
lickly known to be the authoy ef his famous
work, since it bore his name. Neither was
it neeessary for Calvin to inform them what
The book contained; a single psrusal would
make this evident, 1t woutd have been
absurd in Calvin 10 have sent them copy
OF the work since it was printed in France
nnder their own eyes. So that it is difficult
to imagine the possibility cf such conduct
10 Calvin as his enemies have represented.
And Further; the sentence pronounced at
Vienna against SeryetVs takes no notice of
any ipierPosliion on the part of Calvin. i
condemns Servetus for his printed work. on
the report of the doctors of Theology con.
suited on ,he occasion, on the ground of The
errors contained in that work, and finally;
on the confessions of Servetus himself. These
considerations to my mind have more wei ght
than the assertions of Gaillaume, Wesley
and others, to the contrary notwithstanding.
You say in your last. Il thought you
knew that Bishop and superintendent, were
from Episcopos and meant the same thing;
and not an order obove priest or Elder
II then, as you affirm, that in the MethG-
dist System, the terms bishop and supern-
tendant be synonymous, and both imply that
their poSSessor is an elder; why all this
pompous talk of Episcopal ordination. y
Letters Of episcopal ordersP DC. Now
in the system OF Presby yterian church gov
srnnent; Bishop, Presbyter, Elder, ard
superintendent are all terms Sy nonymous
But how would it be more absurd TO speak
of Presbyterian Episcopacy, since every
paster superiutends a portion Of the church
OF christ? Besides, is there not something
rrofane in the repetition of the solemn, d.
vine rite Of ordination whenever an elder
is to be appointed to a larger sphere Of su-
perintendehce, if you do not consider the
office of Bishop an order above a pr4sbyter
or Elder? But you say, ''Nesley, held tha,
bishop was not an 0 der above priest or
Elder" aud that, "when these societies in
1884 organized themselves into the d. Z.
Church the name of bishop was not so Of
fensive and ostentations as in England, they
called The superintendent, or overseers. bish-
ops, but they never have been considered
by any writer of the NJ. E. Church to be an
order above presbyter."
But Mr. Wesley did not think so, when
in Sept. 90, 1888, four years after these
societies were organized, ,eProves them
sharply, for their ambition. He says; in
a letter to Mr.. Asbury, of the ahove date.
"tiow can you. how dare you suffer your
self to be called bishop? shudder, ! start,
at the very thought. Men may call me
knaye, or fool. rascal, scoundrel and ! |
am content; but they shall never with my
consent. call me a bishop. For nay sake, for
Gods sake. for Christ's sake, put full end
10 this"
Did Mr.. Wesley think that Bishop was not
an order abops presbyter? Did he think
Il less ostent atoms and offensive four years
after the NJ. E. Church was organized2 Is
il probable that man Of Mr.. Wesley's
strong sense, would make all this ado about
s mere name, # there had not been connec-
led with it, much Of the arrogant assump-
,ionof the Office: We submit to the dicision
Of cander.
] would ask, ii bishop is not an order
shove an Elder in the Methodist system,
why do they assume 10 their official capac-
~ authority superior to tina: of an Elder?
Nov as regards the orders" Of bishop and
Elder, these terms are uniformly used in the
nGw Testament as convertible terms, the
enc or the other as convenient to the writer,
and what is more conclusive, the very same
sbaracter and powers are ascribed to Elder,
40 bishop. Thus proving that they are
the same. and not different orders of minis ]
=. Z. 49, 4. b. t, =. 4