New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-03-14
THE CONTESTED ELECTION OF BISHOPS

L
between real and pretended friends.
THE CONTESTED ELECTION OF BISHOPS
Many who have lately read the daily
kilograms of confirmation or rejection il
the Episcopal election cases, without com
ment, have wondered what they were al
about. It appears that by law of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States each diocese is empowered to elect
its bishop whenever a vacancy occurs.
Such elections, however, require the con.
firmation of higher governing powers. II
the election occurred within the six
months next preceding triennial con-
vention of the Church, the confirmation
or rejection of the candidates would be
accomplis he'd by the sense of the conven-
ton. 1t is also provided, that when an
election for bishop does not occur within
the six months preceding conventions
trionnial, such as was recently held in
New York-the election is left for confir-
nation by majority ofthe standing COM
mittees of each diocese, which committees
are to act indepe ndently within their dis
tricts. In this way the voice of the Epis-
cepal people is heard on matter of such
great importance to them as the election
of a bishop.
Under such rules the diocese of Illinois
has regularly elected DR.. DeKoven I'd be
its bishop, while the diocese of Southern
Ohio has chosen for bishop DR.. Jaeger.
1t is not pretended that either was not
elected by properly constituted author
tiles, and it is not denied that both of the
bishops elect are eminently fitted for the
positions. Their records show honorable
and useful service; they are famed for
scholarly attainments, and are sagacious
and eloquent men. They have been
chosen by the will of the majorities of
laymen and clergymen within the dioceses
named, and it is presumed that each do
cese has acted intelligently in the election;
and it also seems proper they should have
for bishops the men of their choice. But
some of the dioceses at large have differ
ent views, and the standing committees,
from Maine to Texas are expressing their
opinions
The differences of opinion have
ritualistic so URGE, which is nothing to
the outside world. There is prospect
of a division of the Episcopal Church in
America with different results from that of
such division in England, where the
high church is tostered directly by the
government. There is no broad church
here. The high churches are not far re
moved from Catholics in the multitude of
forms and ceremonies, and manner of
conducting public worship; more liberal
churches and clergymen, called low
church, are more nearly allied to the
Methodist Episcopal than to the Catholic
Church, though both have been kept un-
der the same central government, with an
occasional case of secession like the |
Cheney or Cummins secessions and con-
troversies.
The differences in ritual belief have no
geographical or political boundaries It
is simple battle Of prayer books. DR..
Dekoven is an extreme ritualist and the |
leading advocate of strict high church |
forms. He is radical in every sense of |
church doctrine, and yet it is doubtful |
at nv, ~ h. l.
bishop. On the other hand DIR. Jaeger
holds more liberal views. He is not ac-
cused of violating any church law, but a
feeling has gained ground that the high
church ritual would not be secure in his
keeping. The feeling is based on a letter
Of sympathy he once addressed to DR..
Cheney. He has since explained that he
lid not approve the position taken by DIR.
Cheney when he defed the authority of
Bishop Whitehouse, and that he does not
aow agree with him in his leaning to-
wards the Cummins independence; but
le claims the right to offer coincidence to
Christian minister, as a man, when in
ilstress Under such circumstances the
confirmation of DIR. Jaeger is no more
certain than that of DR.. DeKoven.
However the contest may result. the
differences Of opinion will remain. The
pest policy for the church to pursue
would be to confirm both bishops, with
tut dissenting voice, and in measure
ne union and perpetuation of the Epis-
opal church in the United States. as it
depends upon it. Both men represent
ne extremes of the different opinions
Which have arisen; both are good men,
nd placed in power both would be apt
modify their views. They would do so
nder bishops obligation promising
Uniformity to the doctrine, discipline and
'orship of the ch urcl. In good time the
orms from the Church of England dis
asteful to a large number of American !
,piscopalians can be modified to please
IL, and broad pulpit platform erected
q which all can meet. Anti-comnro-
lisers are at variance with the tenets of
~, l