The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1871-11-03
THE COLUMBIAN AND DEMOCRAT BLOOMSBURY, COLUMBIA C
believe the argument has ever been

believe the argument has ever been
"refuted," or that it ever can be.
Mr.. +. says 1 have rendered to him
not one single authority" If not, / am
certainly mistaken, I thought | had.
/ did tender him something which l
regard as authority. But he says that
/, being lawyer "know the difference
between an authority and a mere oJiter
dictuna, and that the latter will not an.
swer for the former" / will not say
that Mr.. f., being lawyer, "fnds it
convenient to escape behind the purely
legal defense'' involved in the distinc-
ton between an authority and an oJiter
Cictum because | do not think he has
succeeded in making his "escape." l
admit that an oJiter dictum is not bind
ing authority; though it is authority of
certain grade, and is often quoted,
both from the Bar and from the Bench.
Still, if what have quoted as authority
Is, in the legal sense of the phrase,
"mere O6ter dictum," then admit that
it was not adequate authority. My
quotations were from the Scrip lures.
"All Scripture Is given by inspiration
of God" The Scriptures are the ST.
prenle Lac to Christians. Did Mr.. +.
ever find an oJHer dict,tm in the Consti-
tuition of the United States, or in an act
Of Congress Pin any organic law?-or
in any legislative enactment? 1t Is, /
confess, new idea that there are oJiter
dicta things incidentally said-in the
law itself. 1t strikes me this Is not ex-
actly "lawyer. like"
On mature reflection, l think Mr.. +.
will take this all back. He will not
insist that anything "written by inspir-
alton of Cod" is a "mere O6Her dictum"
and, therefore, not authority. Will he
be kind enough to frankly answer me q
few questions:
/. Are not the sacred writings, or
Scriptures, the highest and the only
binding AUTHORITY in religious mat.
ters?
.. Docs not the apostle Paul. in these
sacred writings, distinctly and repeat.
edly use the words PreSbmerOS ELDER
and EpiShop0S (Bishop) interchangea-
bly,, as two names for the same Office?
and is not this adequate "aahoriy' for
this fact ? See 1 Timothy 8 and 3: II;
Titus l: 3, I; Acts 20: II, IS.
3. DO not the passages quoted by me,
in my former communication, Ito witt
Acts 10: 2; 20: II; IA: %; and Titus
1: 81 clearly and distinctly show that
there was plurality of these officers in
each church, or local congregation Of
Christians; and is not this adequate
authority" Cor this fact.
4. Is there anywhere in the Sacred
Writings, the slightest hint that some of
these officers possessed, by virtue of
this Office, greater authority than others
or that any one of them possessed any
authority, by virtue of this Office, out
side the local congregation of which he
was one of the Elders or Bishops?
In view of the fact that he has alledg-
ed that | have rendered him "not one
single authority that the expectation
that | would support my statements
"by some show of authority y"-"huS not
been reali=ed,"-I have n right, think,
to insist upon an answer to at least the
first three of these questions. AS to the
fourth, and my request for definition
of what he means by "Or6ers in the
and his authority for believ-
ing that these "orders' have been au-
thorized by Christ or the apostles, of
course, he will answer or not, as he may
deem prudeM.
Very respectfully, f. T.. ORvIs.
Benton, Pa, Oct. 7, 1871.