CHURCH UNION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 333, 21 October 1908, Page 15

CHURCH UNION.

CONDENSED- CORRESPONDENCE. •The'" following final budget of condensedletters from correspondents must close the flisbiiSsiori on this subject through our eeiumcg for the time befog i—■ animadvert* at some length on the. last letter of Tbylax," which he -describes as on "insuli to the largest iPrptestgni Communion in the *orWi". an « wijith ttould "unchurch countless millions of Clifistians. TlVben challenged to prov« his theory, ho coolly replies, 'I need not accept tbo-'olialiengo to trots, 'as I am concerned witli; itho:' fact of Episcopacy', not ivith somo tHeftry about th* fact.' It is useless to contiafife 'to argue with a porson obviously dcToiel;o£ all sense of responsibility, .when we mtfit '/with people' like 'Phylaxj can we woticUr at tho indignant oxolaniation. iof Afchdoafton Hare, 'This Monstrous error, wfilcli would restrict tha powor of Christ s mediatorial sacrifioa and too efficacy of His Ba6rarnents within tho limits of Episcopal ehiirc'nos, is still confined,; I trust, to somo of 'Our Weaker brethern, 'who stake themselves up with positive peremptory assertidnT!'. ■ .vv, - ', recommends-. "Phylax" to carefully examine into what /he-now takes for "granted. "It would be wolf.for him, ho'contimies, "to study his Now Testament, the ''Articles of his Church, particularly numbers 0, 19, 20, and .84, and the' Form of rProsbytorian Church Government agreed upon .'in .1643 by the 'Assembly of Church of England divines at Westminster, with the afe'siitSnce of commissioners from the Church of' Scotland. He should also take a course intEarly Church History in order to ascertain .tho' origins of Episcopacy. ; _• With the examples before him, it v ° not' that 'Phylax' did not caro toi,'try' to prove his theory. In his sermonbefore the recent Lambeth Conference, Dean Armitage Robinson did not attempt to argue from Scripture in favour of the Historic; Episcopate,' but fell back on ' Divine Evolution'.',,. V'The fear of a groat Armageddon, a veritablo.Tshambles of blood, is over the nations. What could not . a, mighty Protestant TJnion or' Confederation, which would 'rope in Germany,' and Christianise India and the Yellow Raoes, not do for the peace of the world," and for the universal recognition of the'Pathorhood of God jjn.d tho brotherhood of : ; Man ? What hinders this grand consummation? ;A theory! The Laudian, tracta'rian; mis-named-Catholic, theory o£ tho Church. And on what is this theory based? Is'itrbasod on. Scripture? No. Is it based on'uhomng historical research ?•' No. On reason ? JJo. On comrnon-sonso? No, On what then is it based? On 'It seemsM" fiThe letter of. ."Gonuino Catholic" provokM'a further reply from "Phylax," who answers what lie terms "the petty, threadbare put forth against the validity bf Parker's consecration as innocently as if i'they had not beoi abundantly answered." Hfe advises "Getuiino Catholic" to read an article jn tho "National Hovicw" of Novem-; ber last, and,he quotes Dr. Zollinger in support; of Anglican Orders.. ; 'Thomas M. Milligan replies at length to tbe;letter9 of '"Presbyterian," quoting from addrtescs at the recotit Pan-Anglican Congress to show that "Presbyterian" "is not in soT&ood company; as he thinks regarding Presbyterian-orders," After going exhaustively into the subject ha concludes as follows:—"I would remind 'Prosbytorinn' of the dinger of following too closely the-argu-ments ;qf certain schools as witness the pre-, soht "agitation in tho. Wellington' Presbytery. I ,>musfc thank 'Presbyterian ' for his-kindly information in regard to the friendly terms bejivjeen- the; Church and the Church ofiEnglnnd in.yictoria. I was very pleased to hear it. I might state that at theUast meeting.of the General Assembly, held-"in Edinburgh, presided over by Dr. Theodore, a,rery,>bk.address, he with'ths u'tifonj and advocated much tho same lines as advocated by Clarke of Melbourne. Ho also : stated that ho believed the doctrine of the-Presbytoriin- to bejpractically identical. Thero seems to be^iiothing..separating them -only the questignjof orders. It seems a pity that this could .not be adjusted. I wish to remind. that this has , boon a very important question-in Scotland for a .-great miny. years. Bishop Leighton advocated it allrhis life; ho was consecrated to the see of Dtjtiblane, 1661. In conclusion, I wish to reinind my friond 'Phylax'"that it :is hardly correct to say that Jamos v restpred the northern hierarchy, as I stated iii'/a previous lottor the Assembly of Glasgow in 1610 restored the Episcopacy; James only threw his Yweight on the side of a party in the Scottish'kirk. He did not force Episcopacv upon an unwilling, but upon an indifferent people; at the same time,'be interfered with,-tha election of representative? to the Assembly."

Catholic" refers to the comments of "Anglican" and "Outsider" upon' hislast letter. In regard to "Anglican," who ''insists pn ropeating tho exploded notion in rejecting Anglican orders Catholics rely. upon the uncertainty of the episcopate of'.Barlow,- tho consecrator of Parker," ho' wishfis itio be understood, "again and'once ' thafc. wo do not uecd to rely upon that : at all. Barlow may havo been » Bishop •likely-. enough. But oven granting lie was, in consecrating Parker ho used a new form ofjoonseoratlon different from.any erer used m any. part of the church heretofore—a form wjiwhich there is nijfc 'olio word about tho waking of' a Bishop, aud which was so Wflajsre ("Anglican's" own .words) that Dr. . Ljngard could say that 'it was a form as suitable for the admission of a parish clerk the. consecration of,, a Bishop.' 'rile . arguiriont of Anglican'sthat tho honest intention, of a,Christian man can supply the liok/of a defective form in • administering v %,'■ sacrament is ridiculous. That is applicable only in a case'where tho matter and form; are unquestionable.. It cannot ba claimed in a caso like that of England, rwhere ajvundoubtodly-sufficient form'was availabledeJib®ratu|y rejected, and where even the, title of the office conferred was jealously defended against Catholic interpretation, Anglican says that if this form is rejected wiat abbut tho ordinations of tho first ages of.<tho church, when the forms used were just, ; as meagre. I deny that thoy wero io I»,oyory liturgy whioh has been or ij now recognised by. the Catholic Church, the essential sentence from the forms contains certain words in which the office of the P/esbyter'ate or' Episcopate is formally expressed.: .Tho Anglican 'form' of 1550 was changed in £1662} but jt wns then too late to be of any ujib, ~as the hierarchy had long since becom'o eitinct." / . . ~ "Turning to "Outsider!" "Genuine Catholio'/.jsays he mixes.up ecclesiastical' jurisdistion with, the validity of orders, though these , are dlstirtct things, His: statements that, for 1100 yearj chaos, reighed in the church; and that the supremacy of tho Pope w,as'not secured until the middle of tho loth contury, he characterises as-being in flat contradiction to.history. "Beoauso the authority 'of the. Pope was called into question at different times -by various '" individuals," ".G'enuiho Catholic", continues, "is no proof that that authority was not exercised and ..acknowledged top; It was called into (jufiEtion recently by tho Modernists/ but it injritsvfertheless acknowlodged and is boing exercised, and very effectively too. From tho day. when Peter rose up in the first meeting . of.itho Apostles and disciples in tho upper Toom at Jerusalem, till tho present.day/ he and-jhis successors, tho Popes, have ruled tho- Catholic Church. Rival claimants to the papal, office did not break the lawful sueoessien, because anyons knows that only one of.-',thorn could be the real Pope. As well might one s»y that the succession is broken nowadays because a now Pope is not clected for.i'somo weeks after the death of his predecessor, However, this is a different phaso of" the question introduced by 'Outsider,' which you, Sir, cannot afford the space AMMsary for mo to deal with fully. My object in entering tho controversy at all was td,show that, according to Catholio nnd Greek idea''AiiglLcan Order#' wero invalid, and that tho succession of real Bishops was liope- ; lessly broken in the 16th century. This 1 have done, for none of your correspondents hiiva been able to controvert my statements. They have gone into other issues and made me appear-to rely, upon atgwaeata I norer used. • ,