New-York tribune., 1873-12-27
DIR. THOMPSON IN REPLY TO PROF FISHER

DR. THOMPSON IN REPLY TO PROF. FISHER
PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS NEVER OFFICIALLY RECoG-
NHRD BY THE CHURCH OF RNGLAND-PERsoNAL
OPINIONS OF CHURCH DIGSnARIEs iNOT TO BIZ
TAKEN IN EVIDENCE
70 tAs EdiIor Of The Tribune.
SIR: | meant no irreverence toward Prof.
Fishers book or himself when, weeks ago. imade
general statement which the Professor does me the
honor to notice In THE TRIBUNE Of the 18th inst The
slightly acid flavor Of his remarks is excusable the
ground that he supposed dsparaged his book. For an
author has strong parental feeling and. when rash
hand is laid upon his pet book is disposed to 1t
much as II one had boxed the ears OF his baby. My
proposition Is general one, and referred to Prof.
Fisher only illustration. It is this History
written consists OF two factors the facts and the
who uses the facts" 1t Is self.evdent do not pro-
pose argue 1t. Now the facts common property.
Certainly the facts about such period as the Reforma
tion are accessible to s scholars Upon them there
really dispute. The debate is the significance Of
the facts. What story do the facts tell
That they tell different stories to different men, the
discussion now going ON in TRIBUNE is evidence.
IL is no fault OF Prof. Fisher that he looks at them
through eyes, how else he look at
them at all And looking at them through his eyes
he writes history according to- Prof Fisher, just
another looking at them through his own eyes
would lwrite a history according to" Prof. Brown,
Jones, or Robinson. The value Of history is not Its
facts otherwise chronological table would be the best
history The best history that wherein Is tho greatest
insight into the meaning and the broadest and most
generous grasp OF the purpose and causatiOn and
herence Of the facts That IT, the real historian brings
genius insight and historic Imagination to dry annals.
and converts them into living history But always he
will color the facts with his color and flavor them
with his own flavor He cannot help 1t unless he mako
himself over. IL dsaparsgement, then, TO Prof
Fisher. aud DO not tho slightest ofense when
say that write history like Prof. Fisher and
that he cannot write IL like churchman. His stric-
tares upon my letter. 70 NO further. arc evidence
his position that, perod Of her history, the
Church Of England admitted the validity Of
Presbyterian orders Tho proof ho offers h the
unofficial utterance IN letters. books, PAM
phs,s Of certain English diyines and bishops He ssks
"What proposition OF mine docs DR.. Thompson deny ~
answer, deny "Craumer and his sssocistes."
"Jewe and his" ho chooses taught that Bishops and
priests order But ask. what has this to do with
the corporate action. authoritative tdoctrine
OF tho Church Of Englandi Tho Professor
undoubtedly thinks Il has great deal to do with
them. lie thinks antecedent to his examination Of
the facts at all He brngs that thought to the facts
ehurchmsn considers that the facts have positively
nothing 10 do with the doctrine or discipline Of the
Church Of England. ana Is sstonishsd at Professor
Fishers conclusion. He brings another thought the
facts. did not write to gainsay facts, which the
common property Of educated men, did not write az II
believed they had any real bearing the issue to be
proved. wrote simply ~ sccount for them on theory
which explains them without the slightest reference to
the authoritative position In this the Church
OF England, with which hold they really have
nothing do The discussion about CraDmer and the rest
tho minute microscopic examination Of this mans notion
or that mans irregular action, s very useful business
IN ts way but will settle the point In debate
Prof Fisher writes and his Of the word founders
betrayed the scntpen II the Church Of England was
begun BY number OF "Reiormers and that, therefore,
to nnd her doctrine on subject must ash those
Reformer TO find what Lutheransmis is We cite Luther
And his position 10 that to md what tho Anglican Church
believes, We must cite Cranmer Jewell somebody
else; and just here is the nisconcepton, 1t goes
farther than word The Church Of England was not
"founded" BY Crsnmer or Jewell or any "Reformsr"
and shs not responsible the private notion or the
IRE susr action Of any Bishop, Archbishop, Doctor
sny more than she for the late action OF Dean Smith,
To begin st the beginning. In the reigu Of Henry |
WILL. she had three orders-Bishops. Priests, and
Dsscons ali churches had. No man uness Episcopay
ordained. considered holding rightly any Of
thoss Offices at that time In tho reign Of Edward
just the same. by the iav the Church and Of tho
and E0YcOaal orders were the oAy orders allowed II