New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-02-21
1RREEIIIdIots DISCtSsfoN.

lpiocrshN EPIsCoPACY NOT THE DivINELY Az
POINTED METHOD or RULING THE CHURCH
rr TESTIMONY op EPISCOPAL WRITER'S AND DiyfSEs
THE APOSTLES WITHOUT SUCCESSORS - THE
TRsr or RESULTS. Itl.
ro IN, EDITOR Of The Tribune.
SIR: 10 seems proper that some reply should
mo made nv me TO the which, after the lapse OF
sono ,,oets have sppeared In your columns upon the
sition taken in my communication OF jan IN resara
10 tho exclusive claims OF Episcopacy Tue kindly eoho
Of tboae replies recognition III the saDe Sp
and N tho positive views OF tho original e'ter arc 10"
reiterated with an increase OF emphasis shouh Do
ndorsood that il with the earnest desire thai pot
inc NAV lao written which shall conflict with the teach
ms Of the Word OF God, with that charity which
onet ever TO characterize the discussions OF 'hosc WHO
love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity .i
Al tho outset suffer me TO few lines 10 expana-
nation of the object aimed at In the letter OF JAN l. "
the of the discussion growing out OF the inter-
UNCONVENTIONAL communion services observed oorne
,bc meetings Of the Evangelical Alliance. one OF whch
was beld in INV own church. 1t had come TO pass
that the whole argument had cenered upon the sac
,ssuo Wlcfber the validity OF nonEpiseopd ministera
orders had recognized IN the early history Vi 'n
Church of England. Interesting rs this DISCUSSION n"s'
have hoon TO members of the Episcopal communion
and ably as It was conducted on both Sides IL seemed 70
the writer to place tho great body OF Christians WHO 40
not belong to that branch Of the Church In the false
postion or depending upos, proof OF such recogn
ton for the justification of their separate existence 10
nreyent mistake that point, yentured 10 stae' III
the briefest possible terms, that tbe status Vi eso
non Episcopal churches is not In the slightest degree
affected by the results OF that discussion since the nau
question H. whether Episcopal orders are essentai OF
even important IN the true Church OF CHRIST huu Iii
regard to this question. the assertion was MADE DC
half of Presbyterans that going ito the heW leSt
ment for our polity, do for our doctrine, we
conf leny challenge the scholarship OF the age 10 es
tabsh the proposition that Diocesan Epsc0pacy' with
the three ministerial orders which 1t embodes. IL the
diviney-apponted method OF ruling the Church OF
Christ" To confirm this declaration, the authority OF
certain eminent Episcopal writers was adduced.
In reply this statement one Of your correspondents
NJ A. j. writing from Niagara Falls, proposes discus
sion of these points for the enlightenment OF all parties
concerned provided proper person VIII undertake TO
sustain the views OF r. H. b." and Is willing TO nave
that discussion proceed upon the sole basis Of Scrnura
testimony-referring the book called Apolos or the
Way of God" as presenting argument which "pro-
fesses TO begin with Scripture TO continue win scrip
turc, and to end with Scripture" and which "ceary
makes out that the system of the Scriptures is that
which call Episcopacy."
II somewhat amusing contrast TO this proposition
TO debate the claims OF EpsoOpacy on purely scripture
grounds that another Of your correspondents, "OEono
mos" launches out with the assertion that as /" the
Church was established before the New Testament was
written therefore whatever poity it had 1t did not
derive from the New Testament but that. "a Presby-
erans profess to derive theirs from That source II can
not be Apostolic" But surely the advocates OF TIE
Episcopal System cannot De Wiling TO reSt tneir ese
| on such a sylogsm the TACT mat tue Church was
founded before the New Testament was written, fact
pretty well understood by all Christian people. does not
dsprOve the assertion that We are To go 70 tne NoS
Testament for our polty which let IL De observed
| was the expression employed IN my letter .-,,.
How does yonr correspondent know that the hpOSloc
crnr VIZ How does he learn what is foundations
and structure except by consulting mat RECORD
has derived Information Will he any more trust
WvthY authorities than those VINO nave recoroe ther
testimony Ia the New TESTAMENT Are there, IN fact,
any others Whom shall We consult but the Apostles
when would learn what was me relation I Of Tns
The moi hod which the Church was estlblislei from
begnune These are inc very d aSt Ts are fGT
is1rE how " the Apostles founded the Church" The
honts M The New Testament present tho ouy account
which The first century afors of what was tauglt b.
Christ aud His Apostles IN the way 1 d.cflue' ana OF
NAY OF governments. This record not made BY
chance human wisdom, but DI direction OF the Holy
s If there any OF doctrine or or order npon
which 1t y not clear anu nen f6as
point. Holy Scripture is Sufficient for everything
Ihe wrllbcug OF the Church; and there rs no safe
appe from its decisions the opinion Of any priest or
OiEononos" can only sustain his views of the Church
by dsparagement OF serDtural authority, be exposes
feels that Sclipte speaks against them. Will Epis
copa friends approve such an unconditional surrenderi
il eVidcnt from fact that dad hun saving In the
next paragraph, Let us now to the New testament.
assuming for no gives no proof at ALL that the three
ministerial orders hch Epsc1paey lnh3lvGs nave been
method OF ruling the Church
Rnt n IL lust at THIS point that assumption Is very
much out of place. The whole question hinges upon the
nerInancncy o, the Apostolic oiIce and 30 intelligent
r,,ar ont 10 know that on This pont the abest and
most eminent scholars OF his own communion have
tuuy abandoned The claim 1t Is strangs that VITA tho
original article before HIN he should have ignored the
citation of such authorities as Wnatels Afford, and
JacoD" who are all Episcopal writer's. Ono would sup
smch importance no would at least have turned the
pages OF EllicOtt Afford, TO see what competent
scholars have decided to be the true Interpretation of tho
crucial passages contained in |. Tim. III, l. and Acts
II But no; SIC have simply the oft-rcterated assertion
that the Apostolic Office perpetuated in the Church as
one of the permanent orders OF the ministry and that
i'm abandoning that office that Presbyterians have
Now the sufficient to all this is denial OF the
clam that the Apostolic Office was permanent nstu
ton In the New Testament ChTcn or tna tue Apostles
had any Official successors at all Having every induce
ment TO learn whole truth this matter and having
in hand all the sources OF Information we PfeSDyterans
do iuelgently and cOnsclentOusly reach the conclu
that the system OF Chuicn government which Is
based on that succession IS not according 70 SCRIPTURE
and has no right OF control over the Church might 20
further than this and maintain the positive doctrine Of
Presby order but for tho present purpose II s
sufficient to meet the assumption which "Olkonomos'
autaorities which. within the Episcopal communion
attest our position s9 s S5f q fss sSp
fronds Of the exclusive school refrain from the post
veness Of assertion which is 50 often
these extreme claims, the case Is sub
stantally decided; / say, against these
extreme claims" for l do most heartily dlscrimt
nate between tie Epscopacy which maintains these
irrational and unscrpura pretensions and that Other
land as believer historical form OF the system which
simply asserts that Episcopal government Is essential
not to being, but 20 the webeing OF the Church
with rho latter class Presbyterans need have
controversy Though we dissent from their view OF
expedency and Judge that the PRESBYTERIAN order is
most consonan with the Scriptures and most profitable
for tho welfare Of tho Church. we do not mai
tain tbls position with aerimony, nor do we dis