Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-03-25
BISHOP IRELAND.

BISHOP IRELAND.
.IHE PRoTEsT1NT Episcopal
CHURCH,
A Reply to Rev. Messfs. Thomas and Ten |
Brock, Delivered by Bishop Ireland at |
the Cathedral Last Evening, March oath.
The Cathedral was crowded to its utmost
capacity last night on tho occasion of Bishop
ireland's reply to two Episcopal ciergymen,
Revs. Ten Rrceck and Thomas. This dis
ctssion is attracting SO much attention ruat
we append Bishop Eeland's discourse in
full:
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying:
earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
have commanded you. and behold am with
you all days even unto the communication of
the world" Matt. xviii, VS.. 1920.
Go ye into the whole world, and preach the
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized, shall be saved. He that believeth
not, shall be condemned. Mark XVI, vs.. 1916.
The Protestant Episcopal church will again
occupy our attention this evening, the con-
troversy being this time engaged with two of
its st. Paul ministers, Rev. Messrs. Thomas
and Ten Brock.
Mr.. Thomas has attempted a reply to my
structures on his previous lecture In defense of
the Protestant Episcopal church. His effort is
simply no reply; I take it as a full confession
of defeat. The question at issue is wei. known
to the public of st. Paul; it is,
Professionalism, another name for re-
religious communism. Mr.. Breed
first appeared in the arena as the defender of
Professionalism in general and Mr. Thomas fol-
lowed In the name Of the Protestant Episcopal
church. Professionalism was on trial; Mr.. Breed
and Mr.. Thomas wore the advocates Of the de-
PENDANT Mr.. Thomas in his first lecture said
at least some words in defense Of his church
most of his time, however, being occupied with
series of running charges against the Catholic
church, and of questions regarding my posi-
ton on varied points Of doctrine and history.
| answered Mr.. Thomas few words of defense
showing that despite what he said. Episcopal
| ianism remained religious communism, and
l
appears second time before the public, to re-
| ply to my structures on his previous lecture,
and this time not one syllable falls from his
! lips in defense Of his church. Religious con-
1 troversy follows the rules of common logic; re-
ligious disputants are to bejudged as We would
! judge other disputants lawyers, for instance,
before civil court. Now, what would be- in
the minds of Jurors. the condition of defend
ant. for whom his counsel finds nothing to say I?
Such q defendant stands convicted.
The counsel's silence is al admis-
sion of defeat This, claim is the
position to which Mr.. Thomas has been re.
duced he confesses to my charge that the
Protestant Episcopal church is communion.
Mr.. Ten Brooks lecture confirms my state
-1ent of Mr.. Thomas defeat. II appear" says
Mr.. Ten Brock, only for the defense.'' He
understands the position in which the contro
versy has placed the Protestant Episcopal
church. "The church of which I am an hum
BILE minister has been fercely assailed by name
Satisfied that under the circumstances forbear
anoe will be accounted cowardico, and quiet
ness will be reckoned as Indifference, an
compelled to give answer to these attacks.
MIR. Ten Brock manifestly realizes the fact
that no answer has heretofore been given, al
though two lectures have been read from th
pulpit of st. Paul's church.
Mr. Thomas plan to cover up his defeat vii
not deceive the most unwary. Objections ant
questions, as have remarked, formed the bod
of his first lecture. answered as many as ha
the least relevancy to the present controversy
Attention to others should have called ava
the minds of my hearers from the mai
points Of the dispute. Time too. forbad
f; me, no less than the principles of OIL
gumentation to follow him over all his deviou
ways. child might ask in five minutes nor
questions than Scion Cicero could answe
l-,,, .sox1,
tens Of objections and questions to which Iha
. given answer, aud triumphantly crows over th
few, which for the best of reasons had Lei
+ unnoticed. 'The discourse" he says, "thoug
more than two hours long, failed to allude I
. several points which I supposed had mad
y my reply to him had stated the reason-the
interchangeable. Thomas, without wor
v spoken to establish their relevancy, calls "ev,
; sions, and on these fancied evasions he reste
D his cause before his audience.
Mr.. Thomas says nothing about the create
"a number of my answers to those of his objection
:. and questions witch I had deemed proper to col
slider. am justified in concluding that he az
nits these answers as final. He alludes
e his reply to few Of my answers. but
4 so doing he shows himself a dishol
est sdysrsay If you aaets ct all
le Not SO with MIR. Thomas. In rega1
/. to my defense of the genuinenesss of the fit
y verse, fourth chapter of st. John, he say
This verse the bishop grants is omitted fro
a the four Oldest uncial manuscripts, but affirm
IN that it is found in the old versions, one
which, he says, is about as old as MIR. Thoma
uncials. There is this one little peg for tt
IS vulgate to hang hope upon.' had said tn
n the vulgate itself is about as old as Mr.. Thoma
uncials, and that seven old versions Of the Ne
Testament, all made long before the date of tt
a. uncials, contain the verso in question. b,
re presented seven most substantial props for II
Of genuineness of the verse. Mr.. Thomas
his own impartial way, tells his hearers that
had found one little peg upon which the VT
10 gate may rest,
IN Again, in reply to his quotations from s
h Gregory, had made two statements-the on
that the words quoted are those Of a prva
!, doctor, and have consequently no bearing up,
&c the question of papal infallibility; the othe
n that in themselves, and as used by st. Gregor
~ they bear most Catholic Interpretation. d
Thomas quotes my first statement as if it we
r. the only explanation had offered Of the wor
= Of st. Gregory.
he lated no law Of his predeceesse
by allowing, in certain CASE m,
Ne riage which the general canons of
- church held to be unlawful, because tho u
u lawfulness in the case derived merely frc
Mt ecclesiastical law, which Pope can make
unmake. as he pleases-he being the SUPPER
an legislator of the church. Mr.. Thomas there
-, remarks: 81 should think dispensation
y contract an unlawful marriage was questi
'c- of morals, if it were anything "-omitti
ne altogether my explanation that the unlawf
no ness in the case derived solely from ecclesias
cal law.
;, To the quotation from Firmilian he says
III gave but a passing sentence, and he procee
RS to read at length Firmilian's letter. ct
oil {fSoia