New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-12-01
JOINT COMMUNION.
DIR. DRUMM CNTICIsEs PROF. FISHERS
ARGUMENTS.

MINISTERS, AS SUCH, WE'RE ADMITTED TO THE
CHARGE OF PARISHES IN rHE CHURCH OF EN-
GIAND-BIsHoP BURNEr AS A hIsroRAN-oplN-
IONS OF ENGLISH REFoRMRRs AND DlyiNEs ON
THK QUESTION AT IssUB-FACTs, NOT PRoBA-
BILITIEs, TO BE THE BASIS OF APPEAL"
fe the Editor Of RE TrfbWhe.
SIR: greatly regret that my last letter was
too long to find place IN your crowded columns
would have liked your readers 70 have read the cxpana
lions given OF the ~ of Cavelarus and Corranus ~
nfJno Morrison 90 spottswood and other Scotch Bsh-
OPS Elect and M Of the order TO pray for the Church OF
Scotland these letters should be put In permanent
srm the last Will appear then. refer to 1t now only
70 prevent your readers suppOsng had not given Az
tention 10 the subjects just mentioned
now write with reference TO the letter OF the Rev
Prot Fisher of Yale 1t pleasant to meet an opponent
whose ability aud general knowledge OF the SUBJECT
der discussion such TO command respect Prot.
Fisher esteemed by many an authority upon the mat
Ter in hand and the communication with which he has
favored suoh only scholar could have written
Tits very welcome am heartily glad that he has done
hs best TO aid Dr. Cummins for IL il should be found
that the case fails in hands OF such advocate the
question Will be settled for all time. The Professor says
lit is historical question OF some interest" To the
public 10 is, but TO it is much more; IL
Is matter OF vital Importance, and therefore
one that we cannotIaOw to be misrepresented. Prof
Fisher also says It "need not provoke sectarian
hCoIblty MOST certainly lDtf0 ~ no utCcS'lly ipl
anything of the kind, for such remark; for
Cat least on my sde there has been approach to bit
terness OF feeling or language it is litte strange
remark, the reverend gentlemen should himself have
far in opposition to the spirit OF It as TO say OF
assc which he attributes 10 me, IL Is not true,
20 say Of another matter which he thinks MAINTAIN
that no man who has read" SO ana 50 VIII nave tne
efrOntery 10 affirm" DC, | would not NOT nave CHOSEN
language in writing 10. OF Of Prof Fisher But
matters OF personal interest need not occupy our
time Let 10 the point IN DEBATE.
DR. Cunnins affirmed, IN justification OF his Joining
mai for many wears after the Reformation Presbyterian
ministers, such, admitted 10 parishes IN the
ly way OF proof was pointed 10 several modern
writer's who had made similar assertions. To these
ty produced. The matter being one OF facts anu
not OF opinions, the mere dcta OF writers espeeay
modern writers, declared worthless As rog irds
four Of the whom Bishop Cummins pointed there
was authority furnished in their books, ana So they
were declared incompetent TO testify but the Other IS
alive and here among us and now takes the s'ahu 10
The positive statement was Episcopal minis
in that character. and without re0rdinaon
admitted 10 parishes in the English Church We expect
then from the learned witnesses many Instances IN
proof OF an assertion so positive OF custom ara
which is said TO have lasted a hundred years
expect that those instances shall be gwen with cir
M pToof that the had received Presbyterian or
dBatOn and no other. 3d. the names OF the parishes 10
sSmiited IN accordance with the law Of the church.
that they openly acknowledged TO be only IN Pres
nvings All this is necessary justify the assertion
made by Dr. Cummins and Prof Fisher III less imam
this furnished every reader Will that the case
fails for Qs), n have not the names OF the men,
they may be myths or persons about Tnom tnoSe VINO
f2d II proof their beng Presbyterian diynes and
nothing else is not given. they may be such Presby
ssrians as Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer that is Eps
copay ordained PTesbyIers. SD II the names or the
PARISHES are not given we be wasting time in
taking about men who we're not admitted parishes
but held professorshps or preoends or oneI positions
which did not IN any way involve RECOGNITION OF true
ministerial character Gth) u 1t be not shown mat
they were aumtttd IaiIIy aiu - ~ ~ - 49,
alleged, they may nave Deen cases % Lduu o e par
the persons themselves OF unlawful cOnnvance on
the part OF the Bishop who admitted them. Manfesty
then all these things are requisite anu as te euo s IS
said 10 have continued from the Reformation 10 1904
period OF over 100 years, the instances ought 10 DO
So now we are prepared to hear and examine tho
eases that the reverend gentleman has 70 present In
support Of his assertion. What are theyi VIII the pub
Hc believe itf-there is not one-no MT one! In pace
of giving US names and other crcumsantia details to
show that he is dealing with facts the PROFESSOR goes
Into an elaborate argument 10 prove that there was
soM,e PROBABILITY that such custom existed. Be il re
mem6ered that the original statement was e1pcit ana
positive; and when proof demanded, in place OF such
clear putting forth OF unquestIonabe facts as all men
would expect, have couple OF columns OF ingenious
R FisSsI o'Squi''''OD 4H1' &c '"'
Perhaps may be supposed that am not quite fair
90 the reverend gentleman inasmuoh as ne ooes men
fiOn TWO But one Is name tlat mas ALREADY
been canyassed, aud 10 is very doubtful whether t1e
Professor intended TO present the other rs case IN
aoin We snail examine both. the first IS Paul fagus
who ''had been a minister IN Germany, made snch OF
rourse, without Episcopal conservation" TWIN Prof
Fisher allow TO correct him IN one trtlng natter
the later term is restricted ordination by which
presby raised TO the Episcopal OrderI The words
of course In this description of Fagus rather out
Of place. Dr. Fisher surely VIII not contend that every
minister IN Germany at that uine was, was maze 20 20
moi why does he say OF course 7" In tins particular
.ese t5e nrobebty is that Facus was ae descrbed-a
Presbyterian minister and nothing more we may come
10 that conclusion from weighing the tle evidence we
sSout IT. Grant then that he was as stated what
the parish to which ne was admitted IN England None
whatever He was, we have seen long ago Professor
OF Hebrew And If he is 10 suit the turn we have to
IAN back on the old absurdty that proiessoIslp Is
parish. DIR. Fisher says st IS NOT true that he was
rallied merely teach the Hebrew language as Jew
might teach it," But never said that ne was 90 MOI
write SO completely al random. NV point was TINS lie
was Professor OF Hebrew az Cambridge ana that IN
wolves recognition Of complete ministerial charac-
ter then the same University mas destined 10 .ht con-
pete ministerial character OF Jews wno have taught
mat language precisely rs Jew would teach H.
What them Does the difference in the mode prove
10 IT. The reverend gentleman goes on with
his argument thus: That Fagius would have
scented such an appointment from those who denled
ns none viii be excnsed for reminding prof
Fsher that TINS is not the question II is acknowledged
presume, that the man named got no parish ia England
Ills suggested, however that s Professorsnp Implied
recognition of his full ministerial character, and then
when that plea disposed Of II Is said hea minister OF
nigh standing in Gernany-would not have accepted
from persons denied mis- right TO exer
Else ministry Does Prof Fisher forget mat those
notable piece OF Gods good providence that when
these two champions OF the true religion Bueer
aud FagiusJ were IN 30 Huch present uahker ia
nv 80 sessoDabe refuge was provided ior mem eise
kuere" Very glad would he have been TO accept my
appointment that would have gwen nun JUST hen seeo
rity support, with denial Of the right 10 ex
his ministry Out tDort was euCu uo
NAL Has right minister in Germany, where Episcopal
ordination could be mad, was acknowledged edusd
s,oeSsitats And in England he would have been
rermtted minister among his fellow exles, 70 whom
ihe government gave generous toera;lon. But the
English church was d totally different matter; and II Is
about It's affairs exclusively that the present CORE
spondence is maintained But why multiply words II
Erg1ns had parish assigned TO any decidedly equiya
enf Office Act IL be made known. III not let that DO con-
fessed and pass 10 the next case
JOAN Knox introduced but as already stated IL 10
aoubtul whether Prof Fisher meant to represent mn as
an instance OF q Presbyterian who was beneheed III
not object of mentioning the oniee he
held and the made 10 him; while II was
deEgued represent him. II II 20 purpose, for
Knox a priest regularly ordained tsee McCrle's