The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1868-02-19
For THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
High Church Episcopacy.

In your issue of the 29th of January,
there occurs in short editorial the fol-
lowing sentence: "Such articles as thai
of DIR. Ross are not, of course, to be un-
derstood as intended to assault the Epis-
copal Church, but as making common
cause with all moderate Churchmen
against the intolerable pretensions of
High Churchism.
| think that sentence mi ght be taken
as a fair specimen of the extreme delica-
cy, and carefulness of our Church, in
handling these points of controversy with
other churches; and 1 call attention to
it in order to suggest the inquiry-Are
we not too careful in this matter? And
do we not often sacrifice the interests of
our Church, and of the cause of religion,
to our extreme aversion to controversy /!
1t does not occYs to me that such an ar
ticle as that of DR.. Ross, needs any dis
claimer or apology, but rather needs con-
slant repetition; because the whole ten
dency of High Churchism is, not merely
to the exaltation of Episcopacy over
Presbytery, but to exalt Journalism above
Evangelism. Then, is it exactly true,
that in opposing High -Churchism, and
its preposterous assumptions, "aoe make
common cause with all moderate Church.
men," Do not the very terms in which
this is stated, at least suggest the very
gist of the controversy between Episco-
pacy and Presbytery? High and Low
Church Episcopalians agree in their ex-
elusive claim to the title Mwchmera, and
turn US Presbyterians over unceremonious-
ly to "the uncovenanted mercies of God. y
Our ministers are not ministers, until
they are Episcopally ordained, and of
course our ordinances, administered by
unauthorized persons, are not valid ordi-
nances; and our members are not mem
bers of the Church until they receive the
grace of confirmation. The difference is
not that one party recognizes other
Churches, and the other does not; for in
these formal and official acts, both are
High Church in most offensive sense.
High Churchmen only carry out the
views of the Church consistently, and as
necessary consequence, run into mere
Journalism. Low -Churchmen are held in
check by the evangelical spirit that so
largely prevails among them, and theirs
is only half-fedged Epscopacy.
If it is objected, that many ministers
and members of the Low Church party
do recognize orhet denomina dolls OF
Christians, the reply is, that they do
it in opposition to the canons and rubrics
of their Church, and their recognition is
only in such informal and unofficial ways,
as amounts to nothing. Of what avail
are the Christian salutations of Bishop
McIlvaine, for instance, while in his Of
fetal capacity he would re-ordain even
DR.. Hodge, before admitting him to or
ders in his own-Docese Are we to ac-
cept such "bare bone thrown to us
under the promptings, it is true, of a
Christian spirit, in lieu of the distinct
recognition to which we are entitled p
Such recognitions are indeed creditable
to those that make them, because they
exhibit religious sentiment strong enough
to enable the Christian to rise above the
Churchman, and to free himself from the
trammels by which the Church would
bind him down. But they do not reach,
or affect at all, the question between us
and them. Instead, therefore, of hand
ling this subject SO very tenderly. and
delicately, we need to make a square and
distinct issue with the whole spirit OF
Episcopacy. Such course is not for
hidden by Christian charity, but rather
required. We do not by it attempt to
unchurch them; we need not even at
tack Episcopacy, considered apart from
its offensive assumptions. We are per-
fectly willing to meet them on the broad
Christian ground of liberty of con-
science; but we do and ought forever
to protest decidedly, and unhinchingly,
against all their unscriptural, uncharita-
bic, not TO say ridiculous pretensions.
We ought to make distinct issue, be-
cause the Low Church party exhibits the
same proselyting spirit as the High, and
its emissaries arefound every where cen
tering into houses and leading captive
silly women" by the boldness and eff
frontery with which they urge their
claims, and by their appeal to the fashion
and forms of the Church. Our reticence
on the subject, and the extreme delicacy
which we manifest in touching it, may be
very creditable to us, as exhibiting our
dislike to controversy, and our higher
appreciation of the vital doctrine OF
Christianity. But it only encourages
and emboldens the efforts of our adver.
saries, and weakens our cause with many
of our friends.
The same thing is true of the contro.
yersv with the Baptists. The bold, and