Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1868-03-10
Published by request.l
EkiA No. XI. a = s
About the Exclusiveness of the Episco-
pal Church.

tinually charged with bigotry, want
of charity and such like, because their
church excludes from lis pulpits min
listers of other denominations; And
being obliged 10 assent unto this ex-
clusiveness as fidelity to the great
Head of the Church; and at the same
time being troubled to have any per-
sons with whom we have daily inter>
course think thus of us; for we know
that it is not through want of chariey
thus that we assent; being thus
troubled, | propose to say few
words in this article in our defense,
and let all people form an honest, i'm.
partiul judgment as to our bigotry,
etc.
suppose Christ when establishing
His Church through His Apostles,
(tor His Church was net established
until after His ascension, established
its ministry of three orders: OF bish-
ops, priests, and deacons In other
words, established Episcopacy. Sup
pose this ,caS so, then He Himself is
| the exclusive one: or rather they
who establish any other kind OF min~
istry do by the very act exclude
| themselves from the Office held by
Christ's ministers, and His Church IS
clear when she is judged. By the fact
OF Episcopacy coming from Christ, all
other kinds of ministry are in the
very act of their establishment rebel
lious against Him who is the Head
of His own Church, which HE has
purchased with His own blood
He gave Himself for it," therefore,
as ST. Paul tells us, THE Church il
subject unto Christ :" not only
WALKING in obedience 10 His truth re-
lating 10 the inner man, but also rem
dering as ready obedience TO anu and
all OF His institutions. The Justice
and truth of the whole charge then
OF uncharitable exclusiceness has its
foundation in Episcopacy not being of
divine origin ii Episcopacy is of ha-
man orig n. then we are exclusive,
even unto bigotry But Episcopacy
beng III itself exclusive, this charge
Is brought against Christ Himself it
IT has come from him. No need of
arguing to prove this. for any insti,
tutlon having come from God to an
swer a certain and important pur
pose, utters for God His sentence of
rebellion upon any who think fiji to
set up another kind OF Institution for
the same purpose. And now my char
liable brother when you issue forth
your severe and nurtful charge
against Us, ought you not TO first ask
yourself whether you have fairly in
vestigated this matter yourseIf?-
Whether it be fair TO hurt a brother
without being fully satisfied, after
proper investigation as to this broth
er's being justly liable to your charge?
Ii seems TO me that true charity will
be careful about doing such a thing
as this; and will show that is careful
by going tothe Scriptures andthe wri.
tiers Of the first three centuries for its
information concerning the origin of
Eplscopacy: 1t is the very nature of
charity to be very careful not to hurt
brother unless it TO deliver him from
something injurious to bis present
and eternal welfare. l appeal there
fore to your charity to go to the Now
Testament and TO the chief authors
OF the first three centuries, and learn
from them whether Episcopacy be
from Christ: whether we be unchar.
ltabiy exclusive. This is not mat
ter OF mere opinion; our exclusive
ness ought not to be judged by ones
opinions of what the ministry of
Chrlst's Church ought to be, but al
together a matter Of Historical tes.
tlmony. If history favors us, then
VINO Is the exclusive one You orI?
My conscience hears my acouittal
from history's voice of every century
up to the middle of he sixteenth.
II you cannot disprove the divine
origin OF Episcopacy then you ought
not to say that we are too exclusive.
IT you cannot point to any time when
the Church was not Episcopal then
you ought not to say that we are too
exclusive. All | want is simple fair
ness not to be judged by you, but
by history. Show me where Church
history condemns us and will cease
to assent unto the exclusiveness OF the
Episcopal Church. But until you can
do this, out ofyour abundant charity
hurt us not with your unfounded
charge.
Our Church says: at is evident
unto all men, diligently reading Holy
Scripture and ancient authors that
from the Apostles time there have
been these orders OF ministers in
Christs Church Bishops, Priests
and Deacons. which officers were ev.
ermore held in such reverend esti-
nation, that no man might presume
10 execute any OF them, except he
were first called tried, examined. and
known to have such qualities a. arc
requisite for The same. aud also by
public prayer, with imposition Uf
bands, were approved aud admitted
hercunto BY tdWfut authority. "And
we claim this lawful authoi itv 10 be
vested in the bishops, which claim of
ours Is proved to be exaggerant by
any one who can point out single
instance from the middle of the SIX
teenth century down to the day of
Pentecost where any man was admit
Led into the ministry of the Church
without being ordained by bishop.
If this cannot be proved either from
the bible or from Church history, or
from both, then does not our claim
bold good? Give mo one single in
stance where the Church recognized
any one, not ordained by Bishop, as
a minister Of Hers, and | will never
again undertake to defend our Church
IN this thing. But if you cannot pro-
duce this instance, in all fairness, you
ought not, your charity ought not to
permit you to hurl this charge at US
with force that ,16ntd entirely de.
molish the whole establishment of