New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-04
JOINT COMMUNION.
LETTERS FROM DR. DRUMM. BISHOP POT
TER AND OTHERS.

10 ne Righ, Rev. GEORGE DAVID CUmMISs. d. d., As
sistani Bishop Of Kentucky.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR l turn now to your
second letter. dated Oct l6 IN which you undertake 10
furnish proof OF the statement that challenged WIN
t the letter OF Historcus will be considered Also nrs
because you added nothing in your own Name auu
second because that letter and yours traverse the same
Cround az least Historicus has given nearly all your
matter given II in more convenient iorn' ana mas
added TO il much matter the same kind But what is
that knd4 Is IL what the public had right TO expect
from YOU YOu made positive assertion respecting
fhe law and discipline OF your own Church IN the
,ixeenth century, and whom asked TO establish the
truth OF that assertion, you point to others who
have made IT, You sustained III samost iden-
teal words by Professor Fisher Of Yale College, the
latest and most scholarly English historian of the
Reformaton;" and you quote. to the same effect,
Macauay. Keble, Haam. Burnett and others. But what
all hsl You surely do not expect that or the pup
lie viii be satisfied easily You do not expect me to
receive such quotations proofs OF your assertion DO
you any OF justice where such evidence
would be admittad9 In the case Of man on trial tor
murder what would you yourself think Of the proseeut-
Ing attorney who would strive to prove him guilty by
showing that other people said he was guilty
or course no lawyer would dream OF ohef-
lug such evidence. and no judge would admit H.
and YET, Sir is the only additional evidence you
have presented this very important matter OF fact
In letter TO which you appenuou )Our Oh'iai eith"
ture you assured the public that the Church Of England
for many years admitted to parishes" persons who
had only Presbyterian ordination and when required to
prove what you thus affirmed you tell us that there Is
gentleman Yale College who says the same thing and
that there several others III England VINO SAID H.
leave readers to decide whether would not be at
perfect liberty to cast all such matter, and in the
bsence OF any other evidence claim the verdict But,
sir shall not take this course for or your friends
might say that avoided through fear
OF their force the quotations you have made.
To show you that this not the case Thereby, with
great pleasure, help you TO some additional "author'
ues Of The same kind. First in Importance among
them is the late Rev. Dr. GOode. Dean Of Rpon' who
said: Until the period Of the Restoration Q6J2 minis
tors OF the Scotch and Foreign Episcopal Churches
were admitted of souls in Church without
any fresh ordination"
This statement was duly echoed by number OF rev.
erend gentlemen in this country who seemed to regard
Dr. Goode as an nalibe guide in oil such matters For
instance by the Rev. Dr. r. Newton OF Philadelphia 10
sermon preached aud published 1850 1t also
poated by the Rev DR. Tying Of NewYork in his reply to
Bishop POicrs pastoral letter in 1865 1t was echoed by
Inc Rev Dr. T. II. Garfield Of Brooklyn, who, In his re-
ply 10 Bishop Potter the OCCASION said Every
wclLmformcd person knows that for the first
hundred years after the Reformation, those having
only Presbyterian Orders admitted without re-
ordination to liyngs and benehces in the Church and
Universities Of England" Not being weinformed
person. did not know tins, and 80 took the liberty OF
writing private letter to DIR. Garfield asking for proof
or further information He replied saying that be was
engaged in preparing q larger pamphlet, in which he
would give the authority wished for. Shortly after he
sent copy OF this additional reply to Bishop Potter
and there found the authority" the reverend gentle
man had TO offer 1t read thus "The validity of these
nOnEpiscOpa orders was recognized in the Church OF
England fOr,upward Of hundred years by allowing
thus ordained to hold vngs to preach and to adj
minister the sacraments OF that Church" And to this
repetition of his former statement the reverend gentle
man added three of the extracts that you and His
toricus now present
You have therefore the pleasure OF knowing that there
= al least one other clergyman whose idea OF proof cor
responds with yours In 1867 the Rev. DIR. Newton
preached and published another sermon in which he
peated the in almost identical words" He
was followed by his the Rev. r. H. Newton, afore-
mentioned who repeated 1t in terms positive. 1t was
also asserted in several publications by certain Rev
Mr. Gallagher whose principles led him at last to resign
his ministry.
Now these are all willing witnesses and they speak
with no uncertain sOuDd Their dicta are at least as
good and IN fact ought he better than those OF Prof
Fisher and Lord Mlcaulay aud Mr.. Hallam, because
they are Episcopal clergymen who might be supposed
10 know Of the history Of their Church than
laynen or non Episcopalians. cheerfuy besOw them
upon You. sir. and II you desire IT, will find you few
more authorities" OF the kind, quite strong
and Just As worthless!
surely Sir YOU eau see how easily might collect
score OF extracts from modern authors, who in ser
nous and pamphlets, aud books have denied what Hal
lam and Nacaulay, and GOode baye affirmed but what
would he gained in the end by such balancing of
mere sayings The question is not whether this
or that made certain assertions but whether the
tons We considering matter Of fact not
Of opinion and therefore require evidence, not
sertions 1 refuse therefore, Sir, to waste time with
than
least something that looks like attempt 10 substant
ate what is said. But before taking up any Of them al
low me TO say RI ght Reverend Sir, that surprised
al the way ia which you HistOricus make your ap
peal TO books expected that what you would furnish
would be the fruit o. your own labor in research
hut I am sorry to say that you have left it
very difficult for to believe that you have
examined the books from which you quote
II is not strange Sir, that you and your anonymous
defender shOuld quote the passages for they
The stock in trade but 1t is little remarkable
you should both quote from precisely the same ed
tons. OF them scarce and expensive books.
For instance, Fleetwood & Parker, and Strype
Keble eaiton OF Hooker This last named has been
printed in this in two volumes, and the ordinary
edition mot Keble is in general use, but it would
seem a. you and Hstoricus both had the oxford ed
lion three volumes STRIPES Annals in four volumes
foiOs is wO2 that found in every elergyman's
library yet Judge By the quotations the public would
suppose that you and HisOrcus both have IL at hand
Bu It j. little singular that in citing the passage from
It, HstOrcus gives the volume and the page, but does
the book, though strype wrote eight or nine
works that all important That might appear mere
oversight however II the very peculiarly did not
distinguish Mr. Gala ghers mode Of quoting the
passage in OF his booklets published in 1851
You, sr mention the work, but in common
HistoIicus and Mr.. Gallagher, you give "page 54"
II you will take the trouble to look you will find that
page Ga contains such matter you quote from it,
IL mistake msprint for ga but mlsprint per
petuated tells where the last quoter got his information
There are other inaccuracies defects which show
either tha you have conducted your own search IN
fllnf hLun Ds