The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1874-02-11

REPLY BY THE
1t. Rev. j. Johns, D. d.,
To a Letter OF Withdrawal From the
Protestant Episcopal Church,
Addressed 10 Him by the
Rev. j. A. LaIane.
REPLY BY THE
MALVERN, Feb. ?, 1874


Rsvtrend and Dear Brother:
You might well suppose that the an
nouncement contained in your letter
would cause me both Surprise aud pain"
In which your many friends have largely
shared, on hearing OF your withdrawal
from the Church Of their deliberate choice
and devoted affection.
For many years your own love for that
Church, aud your diligent labors in her
Ministry, have compared favorably with
those Of your attached brethren Of the
Clergy, and secured for you the kind re-
CARDS OF the intelligent and pious Laity
throughout The Diocese. Oh this you
have received many and unmIstakable
proofs, which respect for your delicacy re.
strains me from mentioning. In ali this
favorable manifestation no ono rejoiced
more cordially than myself. thankfully
regarded you as one on whom, in my age
and inhrmities, could rely, to aid in
sleadytng my feeble steps and sup
plying my lack OF service. This am sure
you perceived, and so can In some degree
understand the shock and sorrow which
JSAA hAAOhhSSAhSub nha Cau6Gus
You need not, my dear brother, appre.
bend any ungenerous construction oil youT'
motives in taking this serious step. For
our brethren in Virginia, I can engage
that one and all will render yoN full cred
Il for consclentiousness, however decided.
ly they may dlssllow the reasons you as
sign tor. leaving the Episcopal Church,
and regard 1t as csuseless separation.
Your Just testimony as TO the unchang.
ed Protestant and Scriptural teachings Of
the Articles and Offices OF the Church, is
no more than was TO have been expected
from one Of your intelligence and candor,
though 1t Is testimony which many per.
sons must find difficult 10 reconcile with
your withdrawal H
Your testimony may be presented as
follows; You, Of course, regard the doc.
trines held by what you call the "Low
Church Party" ITO be sound and scriptur-
al. Now, on page IS you represent "the
Thirty.Nine Articles OF the Church,
which were designed TO be the standard Of
doctrine for the Church" Us sustaining the
Low Church Party In its teaching, and
as proving "conclnsively that It (the Low
Church Party holds today the doctrines
held by the trainers OF the Prayer Book"
This passage in Its connection affords
favorable testimony TO the orthodoxy Of
the XXXIX Articles, and indirectly to
the orthodoxy OF the Prayer Book.
Again, page A: ut Is true that her stan.
dards oil doctrine remain unchanged, and
the NIX and XXTIT Articles in the Pray
er Book still testify toher original Protes.
liant stand on this question" (The ques-
ton of the Ministry, which carries with it
the whole question about Priest, Sacrifice
and Altar. 49,.
Once more, pSge4: ~ am satisfied
that this doctrine C'that Baptism invariab.
y effects regeneration was not he'd by
tle trainers Of the Prayer Book, nor in.
IeNded 10 be oppressed In the Service, and
Church. -.
do not cite these passages as dissent
ing from them, for / think them accurate.
lytfne; but as expressing your deliberate
opinion as 10 the strict conformity Of the
teaching OF the Church, in the Articles
and Offices, with the Word Of God as in
tetpreted by the. Reformers. =
For separation from Church, Justly
entitled 10 such testimony, what reasons
can DO assigned? Those alleged in your
letter ! cannot recite in tull-nor islt nee,
essary, being, as you say, "lust those
which have been for some years burden
and griet 10 many In the Church." and Il
might be added, which have been often
and DANGEROUSLY urged by aiversaries
stated:
There are, in some Of the Formularies
provided in the Book of Common PRAYER,
Jew, very few, words OF phrases which,
tnough II rightly interpreted according to
Ine Intent Of the trainers, express true
uoSItlne, yet are liable TO be misunderstood
suu IN Taa have been and are 90 m,sun-
uetstood and perverted, as TO subserye the
cause oil serlOnS doctrinal errors. This
statement Is unhappuy true, and furnishes
good anu sufficient reason for such, al.
terdHonS as may be necessary 10 obyjate
Inc evil. But II Is no valid reason for re.
pHSsu ltTg le BOOK, or withdrawing from
ne ChurA. II tbs were admitted con- M
Ssslency would require US 70 reject The
cc se Epistlea, and withdraw from
H.ntlSuanity. st. Peter(li. Ill. 49, writeS
S Suat IN Sll those Epistles "are some things
, nGtu 70 DO understood, !" and whichH[ceF-
otha,P persons ssas wrest, as they do also the
t,oN scWTlptures, unto their own destruc.
iow n. no9 would not expect me to al
Snn,I s%s validity Of reason, capable OF an
s p5 ,CsSU 50 wide and so destructIye
s az ~, ml hS.L would make clean sweep Of
al! Nv We both hold to be most precious = "
The true Lesson taught .6y ia iac,.
wa'ca are admitted is, the importance 81