Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1874-06-05
WILMINGTON, n. c., June l, 1874

WILMINGTON, n. c., June l, 1874.
Edjfors of the Daily Journal:
| observe IN your issue of yesterday
a rather peculiar document, purporting
10 he the proceedings of an '1ndigna-
ton Meeting" of the members of the
congregation of St. Thomas (Roman
CatnOlic) Church in this city, the OBJ
iect Os which was to censure the Bishop
Of the Protestant Episcopal Church
IL North Carolina for one of his
official acts
As it certainly cannot be claimed
that Bishop Atkinson is responsible to
the congregation of st. Thomas
Church for what he does as Bishop of
the Protestant Episcopal Church, the
document referred to is calculated to
cause no little surprise and regret.
We are confident that it was not the
Bishops wish to offend any one, and
still less to arouse the "indignation"
of a body of fellow Christians Of they
will permit lis to call them such) who
are, we trust, endeavOring to serve
God though III a way different from
orr own, yet according to their con-
scentiOus convictions.
But as you have seen fit to publish
their proceedings, you will not think it
unreasonable to give equal publicity
to statement of the facts as they
actually occurred, and thereby to show
that the censure passed on Bishop
Atkinson is not altogether we'll
founded.
1t is required by the Canons If our
Church that every Bishop shall deliver
charge from time to time to the
Clergy of his Diocese. The subject of
that charge should clearly be some
thing of Immediate interest to the
Church, on which men are at the time
thinking and acting. Such *, to our
branch OF the Church. at the present
time, the matter of Sacramento Con-
tessiOn.
Certain persons are earnestly en-
gagged IN endeayOriug to engraft
upon our system this feature,
and as the Bishop believes this
sort of confession to be IL per
nlcious innovation IN our Church, he
directed ms charge against II. That
charge was delivered to the ciCgQV,
and no LAY man, even of our own com
munion, obliged to hear it, al
though of course it was expected that
the lay members Of the Convention
would do so.
A brief abstract of it, however, was
published i'll your paper, of which we
do not complain, although it was done
without consultation with the Bishop,
who we understand would have object
ed to the publication as it was made.
In that charge he reasoned against
sacramental confession, on the grounds
of Scripture, Of the testimony of
ancient authors, and of it's practical
results
In estimating these last, it WAS ne
cessary to refer to ii, influence in
countries where it is generally prac-
tlced, and the best known of these
happen to be Roman Catholic
countries
1t was only i'll this incidental way
that the Roman Catholic system was
referred to at all, but nothing was
sad Of Roman Catholics as indiyid-
uals
Individuals may live under a sys-
tenn tmbOdying religious errors, and
yet may attain to high degree of per
sonal sanctity. Had he not then
right TO speak of the Roman Catholic
system, as being in this respect erro-
neous and mistaken ? How can
practical system be judged but by its
practical working. We have fair
garden of which the Bishop is one of
the appointed keepers. Certain men
are cnGearoring to transplant into
1t vine hitherto not generally cul-
tlvated among us, but which has
hourshed for many years and borne
abundant fruit in an adjoining en-
closure. Have we not right to
test the quality of the vine by the
nature of the fruit? The self
appointed Judges of st. Thomas con-
gresato1 say no, but n much more
awful Judge has pronounced, "Ye
Shall know them by their fruits
Every good tree bringeth forth
good fruit, but corrupt tree bringetn
forth evil fruit"
Aud we may ask, do not Roman
Ca'hoHc Dlelncs, without censure
from Us, make use of this as one of
their staple arguments Are they
ever weary of descanting on the errors
VI r'testantlsm-its supposed ten
uency to produce infidelity, irreligion,
aud Generalization ? We dispute
many OF their facts, we deny many of
..ielr lhierences, but we do not hold
,halSnatlon Meetings" to denouncc
~ "7iiiS lilc argument.
Sal II be that what is lawful and
I8A Tor them is not lawful and right
"ilen done by MS
10 speculative mind it might be Il
mater -t";Iet OF curious enquiry how much
VI VI Hotf ~ OF thought and speech would
u Dg 'eit IN TINS country, if the principles
Ston ~, winch the Indignation Meeting of
o. w.. thomas congregation was held
were Upheld by sufficient power-and
@,d stranger to the facts might infer
l,ol-i Inc published inmates of that
meeting that our condemnation of the
paatIlGc OF auricular confession was a
WV WV, lhln@, CT that the grounds upon
"' u We oppose it were new.
Every Intelligent Roman Catholic
I ' /" Know that for the last three
t .;L Years. our Church has main
. r,ilt't precisely what the Bishop ex-
tt: anSed' III his charge. ard upon the
's Sn5e grounds. This sudden AMI unu-
sr Trl Expression of indignation must
T'sE' therefore, be the language of
T''''"iirb on ati'ectation.