Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1853-10-01
For he Southern Standard.


to (which Pesbuteros in his endeavor to extrcate his
friend slipped also beyond the power OF extricaton-
"A laughable example OF parity OF ministers; and of
the the predicament into which the divine appointees
of the sslo am with you always even unto to the
end Of the word stumbled at their first setting out
and into which they sunk deeper and deeper until "hu-
man prudence suggested Bishops as the remedy
aic charged Episcopus with ignorance of the fathers
and also Of Stllngeet, and adduced proof of his
ignorance his notable blunder of installing Arius for
Krus. The former, one of the most noted characters
in Church history as the head of the Arian heresy,
and the later an obscure presbyter, who, "having
failed to procure for himself bishopric which he
eted, began to teach in the bitterness of bafied amb
ton, that there difference between bishop
and presbyter, asserting that both ofequal rank
and power. The origin of his opinion was so notori
ous and its novelty extravagant in those days. 9th
century, that the holy Fathers who notice speak of
him rather "insane" person than to
whose petulant folly it pecessasy offer any se-
rious reply" (Marshalls notes on Episcopacy page
263) The Arian heresy did not relate to Episcopacy
at all, but it related to the doctrine of the Trinity
The Arians strict adherents and maintaners of
Episcopacy, whilst Hrius solitary and alone opposed
it. On this subject Laic will say word first to Epis
copos and then to Presbuteros and will see how the
latter put his foot into W in trying to help the former
In the standard of August g. the mistake of Arus for
Hrus is admitted and Presbuteros in behalf of his
friend says that Episcopos has the quotation it is in
Stillngheet verbatim and not as is in Powell and in
Powell page 261, where the author quotes from
Stilngtieet Hrius instead of Arus it is not for us to
say how the discrepancy came" Let us halt mo-
ment to prevent false impression which these words
are (unintentionally perhaps) designed to make. Be
it understood that there is in Powell to
Erius nor is there any discrepancy between Powell
and Stllingfleet. Both knew the Importance of not
coufounding these two heretcs to put the for
the other Powell quotes the same passage twice
from Stngfeet at page POI, and at page 1913. The
hot, nj hot Of
tory, and not between Powell and Stllngheet, as
Presbuteros enormously ntmates. Presbuteros pro-
ceeds whether it was originally misquotaton" Ca
little halt here by way of parenthesis to rebu another
erroneous impression that Stlngfeet might have orig
inaly committed the error for which purpose let it
suffice, that two quotations by Powell from Sitting
fleet attest the correctness Of the latter cor whether
the may not have crept there in the of the
multiplied editors through which the work has passed
in Great Britain we'll in this country We
think however, that the is in the American edi-
ton of StillingAeet, Erus and Arus had nothing
in upon this subject, and the similarity in the
names of the two presbyters, may have led to it,
To dispatch EpisCopos suddenly in order to come at
Presbuteros You perceive attentive reader that the
error into which Epscopos fell is admitted but in
excuse it is said that the American edition of Sitting
fleet contained the error and Laic says by way of adj
dton, that Epscopos may have very nnocenty fallen
into the error for the good that his slight
guaintance with the Fathers out of Powell did not en-
able him to detectit.
Now Presbuteros come forward and testify in your
own behalf. WHY'S it, that after full adms; ion
of the in the Standard of August 6h you deny,
in the Standard of the 18th, that any error exists
Why do you say in the paper of the 9th, 'we think
however, that the is in the American edition of
Stingfeet," and in the paper of the 18th that the
American edition is correct Why on the 9th, do
you admit that the individual intended was Erus and
on the 18th affirm that it was Arius Why is it that
on the 9th you say that Cirrus and Arus had nothing
in common this subject" (to-wit: the Office of
bishop and the 18th that they had nothing in COM
mon except on this subject Did Presbuteros suppose
that this could pass unnotced Whence all this ter
giversaton Presbuteros says son further examina-
ton of authorities, learn that the discrepancy be-
tween Powell and Shllingheet in the quotation re-
erred to, IreneCum 30l is not to be attributed, as
supposed to the American edition of that work. as the
text in Shingfeet is correct, and the quotation by
Episcopos in strict accordance with it, Mark first
the alledged discrepancy between Powell and Still
lingheet; what Stillingfeet is this the American
edition. An edition which Powell never saw at least
from which he did not quote. Powell was not an
American but an Englishman preacher of the Yves
leyan Methodsts. Laic says that he did not quote
from the American edition because he SAYS so himself.
The edition from which he quotes is the edition OF
1869 Powell 201. Hence the alleged discrepancy
between Powell and Stilngfeet arises from an over
weening desire to put the any one, even ON
Powell so that the learning of the precious Epscopos
is left unimpugned. Presbuteros says son further ex-
animation of authorities &c., and Lac briefly replies
that he has found no such authorities and challenges
Presbuteros to produce them,
Mark secondly, that Presbuteros says that the
American edition is correct and that this edition has
it Arus instead of Erius. This Presbuteros says he
has found on further examination of authorities. As
well might he gaze at the mondays sun and affirm
that it is midnight. Look at Powell, page 2Ol, and
he quotes the out of Stillngfeet and the name
is Hirius. Look at page 1913, and the name is
mentioned no less than six times, and on the same
page Powell says "Erus maintained that bishop
could not ordan. He opposed the existence of the
distinction between bishop and presbyter; he re.
jected it he also fell into the heresy of the Arians
Now Presbuteros, what have you to say for yourself
To which this to be charged to head heart aic
must open ledger for the benefit of Presbueros and
his fellow-laborer in order that balance sheet may
be struck between head and heart, and the problem
solved, is the head empty orr is the heart. 0 heav.
ems excuse good reader, these are evangelical
ministers of the New Testament.
Laic referred Presbuteros to the vol. of Moshiem
for short account of this same Erius, and he saw il
and acknowledged it Erus at the place referred to
Laic also referred him for further of this
same Erius to to British Encyclopedia and in the face
OF all this and his own acknowledgment in the Stand
ard of the 6th Presbuteros in the very STANDARD
(be it spoken with sorrow,) denies that it is Erus
and arms that it is Arius and that he had found this
out by the examination of authorities
Now hear quotation from the celebrated Barrow
VOL g. Serm. "a !: "All Arians, Macedonians, Nova
tans, Donatists maintained the distinction of Eclesi
astcal ORDERS and the duty of the inferior clergy tc
their Bishops and of this distinction was never made
any question, except by Erus, who found very few
followers in his heterodoxy."
Here you see my reader that the Arans and Eriu!
had nothing in common to Bishops, and so does
Presbuteros admit in the Standard of the 9Th and We
kbof oc&