Smyrna times., 1886-07-07
Why Not Church Union7
WHO WILL ANSWER THE oIrEsrIoNs
FOR THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH?

FOR THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH,
ALBERT LEA, Mimi, May 25th, 1886.
/ have something immensely more
practical to suggest in behalf of Church
Union than the resolutions of the
Council of the Diocese of Louisiana. I
am only single presbyter in the Prot
estant Episcopal Church, and hence
what | here have to offer will not carry
so great weight rs any thing coming
from a body of both clergymen and Law
men in a Diocesan Coancil assembled ::
butAI will leave it to you and your
readers, Messrs. Editors, if what now
proceed to suggest does not beat the
Louisiana contribution "all hollow"
In all seriousness, then, l would ask
l0hy should not the Protestant Episco-
pal House of Bishops be authorized to
treat with all evangelical Christian
bodies, for the purpose of healing
schism, without requiring the ministers
of the various bodies to receive ordina-
ton from their hands? Even upon the
Episcopal theory that Bishops are dis
tlnct, as an order, from presbyters, this
does no more than allow that the non
Episcopal bodies have not the Order of
Bishops. 1t does not follow, further.
that Plesbyterians have not the Order
OF Presbyters. In spite of all my train
ing and reading in the Protestant Epis-
cOpal Church about the irregularity of
ordination by presbyters, with which
training l agree, yet have read and
searched much, and in vain, to find
any proof that a presbyter may not
validly bestOw what he has. And so
l have yet to be convinced that presby-
ters cannot validly ordain to the pres
byterate.
And as to the irregularity of it, let
me still further suggest to my brethen
of the Episcopal Church that we Epis-
cOpalians have inherited from times
prior to the Reformation about as much
irregularity about the regimen of
Bishops as we can well extricate our
selves from. No effort is being made
by any Episcopal Church to correct
the irregularity I refer to. If Episco-
pal bodies have certain depositum-
something to impart to others-so have
Presbyterians and Congregationalists a
depositum-a certain truth to impart
to the EpiscOpalians. This truth is
what all neutrality-suspicious. have resur-
rected from history, and rightly cling
to. 1t is that the primitive Bishop
was parochial pastor This truth lay
buried completely .out of sight before
and at the Reformation, and church.
men to this day they have not reformed
IN that respect. But Presbyterians
and Independents did unearth that
truth, historically SO at least. This
depositum EpiscOpalians must be will
ing to receive at the hands of their
brethren, and then their brethren NAV.
and l doubt not will, receive whatever
depositum is peculiarly theirs. We
must acknowledge our mutual depen-
dence on each other before the primi-
tive polity and unity can be restored.
The union of Episcopalians with the
neutrality-suspicious. by the process of
uniting as equals, not by absorption, is
the way, and the only possible way of
curing schism, as we'll as curing all de-
fects.
From an EpiscOpalian standpoint 1
say it, that the Presbyterian and Congre-
gational depOsitum of truth that the
primitive regimen was a parochiaL and
not diocesan one is quite as essential
a depOsitum as that which Episco-
palians have to bestow. If presbyters
can validly Ordain presbyters-which
thing l confess believe is true--then
the nOn-Episcopal bodies have a valid
ministry, and no necessity is there of
their being re-ordained; and the
"irregularity" of it would cease in a
single generation by Episcopal hands
joining in all future ordinations. This,
then, is my plan let the ministrations
of all be fully recognized as valid, and
so let them and Episcopalians unite.
Now, Messrs. Editors, does my plan
beat the Louisiana one? Please print
and send me a copy.
Yours for Church Union,
r. r. GOUDY,