The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-27
ANOTHER LETTER FROM DR.
ARMSTRONG.

1t is rather out OF the usual course tor
newspaper to publish articles criticising
its own positions, and seems almost pecu-
liar to the Central Presbyterian. An in
stance of it occurred when we admitted
Bishop Keane into our columns, to reply
to DR.. Witherspoon. Bishop Keane's re-
ply to DIR. Witherspoon ought to have
been published in the Catholic organ here
Two weeks ago we, in the same spirit of
accommodation, admitted communica-
ton from DR., Armstrong, of the Episco-
pal Church, containing structures on one
of our editorials. To-day we publish a
second article from Dr. Armstrong, which
ought in fact to have been sent to the
Churchman. AS the matter stands, the
discussion is conducted entirely before an
audience of Presbyterians, where we have
nothing to make, and everything to lose
DR.. Armstrong reaches the readers of the
Central Presbyterian; we reach only
few Episcopalians. This inequality
can be repaired in only one way-by the
Southern Csurchnaam publishing the arti-
cles on both sides. We hope it will kind
ly do so.
1t would take Review article to dis
cuss this question, but we must conten
ourselves with few comments on the
several points made by Dr. Armstrong.
THE MAIN QUESTION.
l. The first remark of Dr. Armstrong
is that the primary and pivotal question
between US is-Do the Scriptures recog-
nize and teach three orders of ministers
In the Christian Church? 1t is not, what
differences may be deduced from the main
tenance of the affirmative of this oues-
ton. 1t is not whether the Anglican
Church and the Protestant Episcopal
Church are justifable in refusing to re-
cognize the validity of ordination by
Presbytery."
Reply.-This is hardly fair. We en-
preSsty stated that our main point was no
whether there were three orders in tn,
ministry, but, that-conGeding the Churcl
of England to be right on this point
that Church was not thereby justified il
unchurching all the other Protestant
churches of Europe and America. THi>
is the practical question, and this DR.
Armstrong will not notice, though We
have called on him twice to do so. We
shall recur to this.
HAD THE APOSTLES ANY SUCCESSORS?
2. Dr. Armstrong says that the "crux''
of the whole matter is that there were in
the primitive Church three orders in the
ministry-Apostles, Presbyters Deacons
represented now by Bishops, Presbyters
(why do Episcopalians call these PriestS?),
and Deacons. The diocesan bishops OF
England and the United States he holds
are the representatives and lineal success
sors of the apostles.
We denied that the apostles had any
successors. The apostles were extraordi-
nary officers, selected, like the prophets,
to do work involving miraculous row.
ers, and to bear personal testimony
to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead. They had no successors, as
Isaiah, Elijah, and the inspired seers OF
the Old Testament, had no line in official
succession after them. The very moment
we give admission to this fancy, we must
go a step farther, and admit, with the
Roman Catholics, that Christ has a rep
resentative and vicar on earth, holding
the keys, and renting sins. That was
the line Of development in the Church as
it departed from the primitive apostolic
simplicity: l. Presbyters and Deacons
2. Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons; 8.
Metropolitan, Bishops, Presbyters, and
Deacons; 4. Archbishops, metropolitans,
bishops, presbyters, and deacons; 5. Pa.
triarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, bish-
ops, &C.; and finally, 6. The Pope, with
his hierarchy Of patriarchs, metropoli-
tans, archbishops bishops, archdeacons,
canons, abbots, ETC., etc.
About A. D. SO; as recorded in the goth
chapter Of Acts, we find Paul at Miletus,
sending for the elders or bishops of the
church at EphesUs. No higher officer is
mentioned He sends for the elders as