, 1875-10-24

| but would content myseE with being only
reader did not the letter signed Protestant" il
to-tlay's iesue manifest]y demand reply.
The author stated, truly enough, that ntur
| ey is not of the essence OF the Church." ant
| therefore mar be changed at the Chnrch's will
| He then calls it an: Inconsistency" that Mr.
Cheney was not allowed to after the service tt
euit his own whim; and stated that the variation
did not effect the faith, and that " the doctriua
difference is slight" Now, would ask " Prot
estant,'' if these things be as ho states thom tt
be, why should lie be driven into schism for 6
matter which does '' not affect tho faith" for 8
slight doctrlnal difference, and when (as ht
asserts) "both phases are clearly within the
comprehension Of this Church Y Surely, wher
slight thing is the subject matter Of dispute,
it becomes good churchman to submit TO the
judgment Of the great majority OF tho Church,
rather than to say that tho majority must give
w their opinions to suit the minority, on peril
o1 a secession.
churchmen, both in tho English and American
Churches, hold that the Riblo, Prayer-Book, aud
other authorized standards OF the Church teach
the doctrine Of the Real Presence" Would
protestant" be willing to tolerate this inter
pretation ? greatly rnlsjudge him Il IT, quote
again) he would not be OF the first " to drive OF
another ra1t of the Church, because the latter
cannot profess the opposite Of their belief.
In the next paragraph Protestant" makes o
curious mistake, when he states that the Protest.
ant Episcopal Church declines to ''pahs any
Judgment upon tho ecclesiastical statu8 Of other
Protestant Churches" About as high an authority
as we hayc is our Ordinal This reads {after
specifying that all men who diligently read the
Holy Scriptures and ancient authors will bo
INSURED Of the existence from tine first OF the
thrcefo!d ministry: And, therefore, to the iu-
tent that these orders may be continued. rev.
e1entIy esteemed, aud used in this Church, no
nan shall be accounted Or taken to be lawful
Bishop, priest, or deacon in this Chulch, or
suffered to e4@cute uny OF tae said functions,
except he be called, tried. examined and ad-
mitted thereunto, according to the form hero
after following, or hath bad Episcopal consecra-
tion or ordiuation." THIS ~ certainly 1,lain
enough.
The whole question OF tho Apostolic succession
is treated in 1t seems 10 mel u curiousiy wrong
headed way. 1t ia assumed as claim of su-
peTiority,' prejudice is at once aroused, and the
only result reached is an emblttering OF feelings
already too excited. It should he treated simply
as question OF fact. II, as We believe, it is an
integral pa1t of the Catholic iaith. We should po
traitors not only to Gcd but to man abate one
jnt or little Of the claim, in order to pander to
poruler prejudice. Takc as au illustration
Ambassador. He is duly credited to represent
his country. to do certain acts for it and IN its
naIaa. 1he country's honor is in his hands, and
he has the responsibility as we'll as the dignity.
Let some other servant of lis home Government
come to the place; shall he ALLOW that person
however GOOD may be his motives and pure his
desire to eerve only his country to interfere in
diplomatic mattefs2 Or would the good and
true ma1, who yet lacked the commission held
by the Ambassador, accuse him Of bigotry and
arrogance because he refused to recognize the
said good mah as sco-Ambassador
Ne believe the apostolic ministry alone hold
such commission. Examine the facts then ;
1isprove them, and we at once throw down tho
1atli iers. Till then let us not be thought
= bigoted' or uncnaritah|a because We - cannot !
,rcfess the Opposite Of our belief" |
TkTHorlc