The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1870-03-30
REPLY TO BISHOP POTTER'S
PASTORAL.


1t is known to the Christian public that, some
months ago. nine bishops of the Episcopal Church,
all of them known as Low Church, united in
letter addressed Is the other bishops, known as
High Church, proposing change in their Liturgy,
so far as to have an alternate form in the bap-
tismal service for infants, thus both High and Low
Church might be accommodated. How 1t is we
know not that they could be satisfied with such
change, knowing as they do that the existing form
has been fruitful source of strife and error, and
that those who cling to it with such tenacity make
it the shelter for errors which the Evangelical and
Low Church party consider deadly errors. But
that is for them to decide
To their letter expressed in terms not only gen
tie, but subdued and almost suppEcatory, Bishop
Potter of New York replied at once, and in a style
revealing the heat into which he was thrown. He
made it the occasion of issuing Pastoral letter
to the clergy of his diocese, in which be gives an
indignant refusal to the request of his brother
bishops.
To this Pastoral one of the nine-which one 1t
is not stated-has just published elaborate and
very able reply, occupying more than five columns
in The Episcopalian. This paper is one of much
Importance, not only as giving expression, by one
in high authority, to what may under the circum
stances be understood as the distinct views of the
Low Church party on subjects of vital interest now
and for good while past agitating the Episcopal
Church, but also as fOreshadowing to some extent
the result to which this controversy may lead. 1t
would be highly interesting to many of our read
ers to see this paper entire but its great length
will not allow its insertion. We SHALL however,
be justified in making copious extracts. Refer,
ring to Bishop Potter's Pastoral the writer of
this reply says:
"The matter is disposed of-settled at once, and
peremptorily. So prompt and positive, so curt
and unheSitatng is the non poSsltnus, that the
note is answered within forty-eight hours after it
net the Bishop indignant glance, and that, too
although he had just returned exhausted from a
distant duty. Is there aught in the position in the
Bishop of the diocese of New York which de
mands and justihes the manner and tone of this
remarkable paper? Have we new Rome on this
side of the Atlantic, whose Episcopal head is Judge
Of controversies? Great as is our regard for the
many eminent clergymen and laymen of the do
cese of New York, and highly as we esteem the
prepared to recognize any metropolitan see or
patrarchate. The question is not finally settled
for US, we trust not for the Church, by the ipSe
diUit of our respected brother. ln spite OF the
prompt, if not indignant denial returned, not by
the Supreme Council of our branch of the Church,
but by its sefappoiuted prolocutor, we are unable
to see that the relief requested is an absolute i'm
possibility '-and if there be IAN hundred reasons
for such denial, we do not find them In the Pas
toral
Are the nine Bishops who have united in this
application, so deficient in knowledge experience,
and intelligent attachment to the Church in which
they have been intrusted with office, that they are
not entitled even to a hearing? Is their deliber-
ate and respectful appeal to be thrust aside thus
| rudely, without even listening TO their argumentsH
Is it not becoming in one, who will be called upon
to act as legislator to hearken to the other side,
and maturey consider the case, before Dronoun-
cling his opinion2 When Stephen was addressing
the Sanhedrin, they cried out with a loud voice
and stopped their ears. If we have formed fore
gone conclusion, and are determined that nothing
shall change it, we may find it convenient to stop
our ears And when person has once committed
himself in print, and has taken his position be
fore the world he is but little more open to con-
viction than if his ears were closed.
INCONSISTENCY OF BISHOP POTTER.
1.-The writer of the Pastoral read the document
before him with astoniShment and grief, He has
been emiuenty successful in awakening like emo.
tions in the minds of some of his own readers
Unhappily, these feelings have been experienced
of late years by many of the Clergy and Laity of
the Protestant Episcopal Church. Sermons have
been preached and books published by some of the
Clergy, and an imitation of Romish ceremonies
exhibited in some of the churches of the diocese
from whence this letter emanates, which have ex-
ceedngy astonished and grieved the hearts OF
multitudes. These things have been matters OF
public scandal, arresting the notice OF the world,
spread abroad everywhere by the press, copied by
petty imitatOrs, dividing and troubling the Church
in remote Dioceses. Every part Of the land has
felt the baneful infection. No pastoral letter has
rebuked these perniciouS errors and irregularities.
No vehement remonstrance is addressed to those
who have been disgracing the far fame OF the
Church. and substituting superstinous vanlties tor
her reverent worship and doctrine undehled But
when nine of her Bishops propose slight modih
cation of single office, the author OF the Pastoral
can scarce give sleep to his eyes until he shuts the
door in their face with precipitancy, almost with
scorn.
Now what is the proposal that has So greatly
moved the Bishop Of the Diocese of New Y ork
and drawn down upon us so heavy a cenSure! DO
we ask for any sweeping changes? For the blOtting
ont of an Article? For the mutilation of Greed ?
our conviction that if alternate phrases, or some
equivalent modification, be allowed in the Office
for Infant Baptism, the pressing necessity would
he met and measure OF relief be afforded of great
inheritance to the peace and unity of the Church
This movement Bishop Potter predicts, will end
in "a notifying discontinue. If prove that we
have reckoned too confidently upon the magnanimi-
ty. wisdom, and brotherly kindness of the General
Convention, we shall certainly be grieved and
De-, nil ho., L Id,
feeling our share in general calamity and not for
the course which we were induced to take by clear
convictions of duty, Whatever the issue, to have
made the effort will be to the movers only cause
for satisfaction and thankfulness"
Speaking of the feelings expressed by Bishop
Potter at the proposal of the "niae, the writer
remarks that ITO sustain the Bishops argument
it must be shown not merely that they" (the wOr.
thy SANITY" fathers of the Episcopal Church
to which he had referredI loved and priced the
Prayer Book but that they held it to be incapable
of amendment: This is the assumption at the out
set of the Pastoral Letter. There could not be
more surprise expressed if the proposal had been
to omit or alter one Of the books of Holy Scrip
ture. Indeed this is much the way that any Sug
gestiop of the kind is now treated. 1t was not so
formerly"
Historical facts are then introduced, showing
how often the Liturgy has been amended, and that
the proprety of doing is recognised in the very
prefaces of both the English and the American
Prayer Books now used
BISHOP WHITES VIEWS.
As Bishop Potter introduces the name of this
venerable father in his Church, the writer of this
reply disposes of that point quite efoctually, and
it is instructive He says:
CAS- the name of Bishop White shines in this
roll of horror, let us recall to Bishop Potter's
memory, what he must have known, but seems to
have forgotten that we have the authority Of that
venerable man and his co aborers, not only for the
general principle, but for the removal Of the very