The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-10-20

it is entirely scriptural. But our old friend inter
prets the one lovingly the other, determined to
find fault.
The answer in this case is as easily given as in
the other. First ;the language used is in precise
agreement with the declarations OF our Saviour
himself, (see Matt xvi 49, John XXX: 23.) Second;
the Protestant Interpretation is that 1t was power
common to Peter and the other Apostles, and de-
scends to the Church in all ages, for the purpose
of maintaining its doctrine and discipline; that the
power of binding and loosing, or torgiving, in
these passages Is expressive OF authority not only
to declare doctrinally what are the obligations of
Christians, as appointed by Christ, but to infict
and remove church censures. Third; if these pas
sages of Scripture, taken 6y Themselves, are capable
| of being interpreted consistently with Romansm,
we know this cannot be the true meaning, since it
would be contradicted by many other texts where
the sense is plain-to say nothing OF arguments
drawn from many indisputabie doctrines. So, then,
we do not Judge these Scriptural expressions IN
the Liturgy by one rule, and the same expressions
in the Confession of Faith by another, unless it
can be shown as a historical fact that they were
adopted by the Episcopal and Presbyterian church
es in different senses If the Episcopal Church in
its origin adopted them in the Popish sense or if
it left their meaning an open question: then it is
Justly chargeabe with dereliction, which does
not lie against the Presbyterian Church. Wheth-
err in regard to these particular passages Of Scrip
ture and the point of doctrine involved, the Epis
copal Church is thus chargeable, we ale not now
considering. But we certainly do believe that this
applies to quite number of other points they are,
to say the least ambiguous; they do admit OF Rom
sh meaning. The Southern Chupchman admits
this, but would no doubt claim that they should
be explained by other authoritative declarations,
as in the SO Articles, the Book OF HomlIes &C.,
which directly and repeatedly contradict the Rom
ish and assert the Protestant doctrine; and that
one part of the Liturgy is to be explained by an
other, just as the Holy Bible itself must be. We
beg that broad difference should be noted. Ibe
Bible is inspired, and cannot be contradictory IN
its parts, it must necessarily be consistent, and
must be so interpreted. But this does not neces-
sarily follow in regard to any human composition.
1t is indeed just rule that every instrument OF
writing should, if practicable, be interpreted so as
IL ~ w
susceptible of historical proof that certain things
in book were left ambiguous Jy design, you have
no right to claim particular construction for them
because that construction agrees with what Is
taught in some other book Of equal authority, OF
even in some other part Of the same book. The
Bible comes from infinite Wisdom, that cannot
err, from infinite Holiness that cannot deceive.
This is more than can ever be absolutely ascribed
to anything from man.
Now, our position in this discussion is that it is
matter of history that through the influence Of
Queen Elizabeth, aided by extreme High Church
men, certain things pertaining to doctrine and GER
emory in the Liturgy were designedly lett there
ambguousy expressed, for the purpose of concil
iating the Roman Catholics; that there have beer
in the Church of England, ever since, those Wit
claim, land rightfuly as a question of ecclesiastical
law the benefit of that fatal fact. These ar
what writer's both in and out Of the Episcopa
Church call "germs of Romanism," causing a
various times developments in it Of Romish char
acter, to an extent witnessed in no other Protest
ant churches existing side by side with it and unde
the same general influences; developments no,
filling it with strife, with grief and reproach.
The Southern Chluchman while admitting tn
development as a fact, denies that there are an
such "germs of Romansm' in the Liturgy w
affirm that there are, as we have explained The re
marks of our respected brother being, as we think
considerably mixed and extraneous in their char
acter, it has been necessary to clear the real poiu
before us of good deal of brushwood whivh hi
it from view. We have endeavored to present
plainly and fully, and in proceeding TO its discus
sion, hope our opponent will hold us closely to it
as we shall try to hold him, The argument
brought forward in his article may be good 70
some other occasion and point but are wide Of tn
mark now before us, as We expect to show.