The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1868-03-18
A QUESTION OF CONSISTENCY.

A QUESTION OF CONSISTENCY.
The Southern Chrchman notices in a very
fraternal spirit the articles recently appearing
in this paper concerning the positions of High
and Low Church Episcopalans. As the re-
marks are not long, it will be satisfactory to
many readers to have them in the writer sown
words. He says:
1.-The Central PfeS5yte1Gn discusses the
question Of High and Low Church In kind
and Christian manner The editor thinks that
the Low Churchman is inconsistent In not ex-
changing pupits with his nOF.Episeopal broth
err Il may be so but we cannot so regard 1t.
We acknowledge fully and frankly that Episco-
paey is not of the essence OF a Church, and
that every believer in Christ, is member Of
the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
In stating this belief, we may further say, this
was the opinion DOto only of our RefOrmers, but
of Jewel, and HOOker-nay of even such men
at Laud, and Bull; and it would be exceed
ingly difficult to find one distinguished man in
the Church of England for $50 or even 200
years after the Reformation who thought Eos
copacy was necessary to the being of the
Church But though we may think our neigh
Dor has a tOlerable coat. WHY should we on that
ground exchange with him? We live on the
very best terms with our neighbors only by
keeping up the partition wall that separates
Us. We should expect, if we were to break
down that wall, TO have dispute every day.
Partition walls may not be necessary In heaven
where we shall all be perfect; but imperfect as
ws-ncv are, we cannot but deem them abso
lutsly necessary. We heartily agree With cae
editfr of the Ceargl Presbyterian (for whom
we tatertain the profOundeSt respect, in what
he says in the following, paragraph:
Suppose IN many things we differ, yet IN
many more and essential things we agree
Suppose that in some things | do not think
him altogether consistent in carrying out his
own principles. But he may not view it as |
do, and may think he is consistent The case
stands Just here. In spirit We agree fully, and
in sentiment to a large extent Then what Is
the prudent, peaceable, Christian course to
pursue? Exactly what the Apostle Paul told
the Philippians: "Whereto we have already
attained, let us walk by the same rule, let US
mind the same thing, and wait for that happy
day of promise, that IF in anything we be
otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this
unto US,
with love for all of Gods people and re-
joicing in all their good We hope the day may
come when we shall see eye to eye. But if We
must wait for this happy eonsummation, till
we reach a better world, we will try to wait In
Christian love and patience. "
For the kind spirit in which the discussion
in the Central Presbyterian is here received
By our brethren Of the ChurchnaR, they will
please accept the assurance of our sincere
qualification. In whatever was or shall be
said, it is our desire not only to avoid anything
which might wound or offend our fellow
Christians whom we esteem, but to reciprO-
cate all the good feeling so strongly expressed
in their article here copied. But it seems due
to the Importance of the question, as involving
the great practical duty Of the communion of
saints, to offer some remarks upon what our
brethren have written.
And first, we must express regret that see
ing our esteemed eOtemporaries took the mat
ter in hand, they should not have gone into its
merits somewhat more fully. The drift OF our
discussion was to show that there is, in num-
Der of important particulars, wide difference
between the positions of the High and the
Low Church EpiscOpalians. At the same
time it was admitted that the latter were
inconsistent with their own avowed
sentiments. The case Of communion in the
Lords Supper was mentioned as an example
Now a multitude Of our best people would
have been much grati6ed to know why such
an eminent theologian and Christian as good
old Dr. Alexander, had he been present at the
Episcopal Convention in Lexington, to which
we referred, could not be permitted to partake
of that holy communion by the side Of Bishop
Meade, or Bishop Johns, whose instructor in
theology he was at Princeton, or by the side Of
either of the editors of the ChUrchman. If,
as Bishop Meade declared so emphatically in
the reference made in his address to that Con-
vention, there was hardly shade between DR..
Alexander and DR.. Minor, while on earth, and
if they had both sat down with Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,
why could they not be permitted to sit down
together while here below, in observing the
Redeemer's dying command to his disciples,
''This do in remembrance Of me?" Now.
when our brethren declare, Eve acknowledge
fully and frankly that Episeopacy IS not ne
ceSs0Ty to the essence Of a Church, and that
srery bsljerer IA Christ Is member Of the one,
holy, Catholic and apostolic Church" it
passes the comprehension Of our people, aud
stumbles their charity exceedingly to hear that
such a good man as DR.. Alexander must be
a place by his brother Minor, or
Bishop Meade, or Bishop Johns at the table
Of the Lord in the Episcopal Church and
such people would be greatly relieved to learn
Why it is so.
This matter concerns US all the more deeply
since it descends directly into the heart Of the
great question of scbism Without opening
the length and breadth Of that vast ecelesiasti-
cal discussion, our meaning may be under |