New-York tribune., 1873-12-27

either In the reign OF Mary it was certainly tho
In the reign Elizabeth the first care was TO continue
tho Episcopacy and provide for tho succession Oh tue
orders the ancient way This Church had dher synods
her own official mouth pieces whose alono
bound or Ipressed will All through these reigns
they were busy. They were ord,9,I Ieyl''nS layIng
%5VysF'SeF down Ssa Articles, tns .eSg hSs forth her e
Where In oil these years, DO they so mucn as Wnspoa
that Episcopal orders not essential 70 the 3 %
OF the Churchi In comforting them there 5 not I4o
slightest change Of importance except IN i
the Arehepscopa oath to the Pope between 'ng Fber
knows this well as do and virtually admits H. ue
he inagnss that this steady uniform m EyIad from
the time Of Augustine to the time OF Archbishop Iat IL
o tai aSrv dotr and bishops And he nagncs
this because he comes 70 examine the facts win tne pre-
conceived idea that the Church OF England was
Lutheranisn was founded by Luther, and Calvnism y
Calvin Archbishop Gran%ers 1prnS n ESSapd @
much Archbishop Poles in the reign OF mary
rae astoa OF se Alamo anS et ss e op the matter OF
orders, just the same IN both regns-wefe .he
same in Alfreds reign and are tne same % ~ ninion<
Now undertook to account Tor tne yrys ~ IN
OF individuals In the Church OF 2ann Dy showing IN
the first place that tho question OF Stdos VI s1 ~ n
could up at rst. because IN the ns
all the revolters from Rome had inc sae tSst
England aud those in Germany alsonaha ne% tnsn si
when that question did arise i would pc disSusset @
enthusiastically ana ba ,ae SsSops and priests are one
order would be naturally taken-aD the more natusdy
bec
stand as close ne might 10 the men on tho
aghtin1 tho common foe, Rome. But wnen tne ques-
ton transferred 70 England anu .ns FIand
English divnos were compelled 10 stn1y INC suVeJ'
Of orders on s real msr IN oder e e oae the out
spoken doctrine OF antiquity. that Episcopaey 10
tisl The Romsh doctrine, ,nas ne fact, Of the
Churchs position, the teaching OF her anu
was east aside with the other corrupons OF oDslsu
Ana this accounts for changes not ia the teaching
practice OF the Church of England be u
OF the Pope's supremacy II that may be considered
matter OF ordeTsj confidently afirlD ana Challenge
contradiction, the same today tnat tney were
Thousand years agowere the under Cranner they
were under Warham the same under Parker they were
OF the diynes OF Church Of England at
various periods OF her history In defending her orders
prof Fisher admits that nowhere has tho Church OF
England in any authoritative synodal or conelllsr ac-
70 1ive apy proof to the contrary He only asks where
by such action does she :" "dscredit" such orders l
clergy in conyOcaon. aud her laity In Psrnanent,
over and again revised and yet never changed ~
any man with such orders. seeks TO enter her ministry
To suppose that the Church OF England was TO legis-
late for Saxony to pass opinions about Holland,
strange conception OF churchs duty. For herself
she has from foundation" twelve hundred years
ago steadily refused officially 10 recognize any man
from any land bishop. priest. or deacon, unless he
had been Epscopally ordained 1t would seem she was
scarcely called to make her utterance more emphatlc
But mean while any Is free within her To nod ana
express doctrine theory he peases about orders
Young man did in his he ia also free to take
the theory back again, and Ike Stilngees
teach another. He may correspond with converted
priest like Bucer Lutheran scholar like Melanchthon
He may even preach in Presbyterian pnplt, or pat
take OF a Presbyterian communion or have Pfesoy-
teran preach his pulpit, aud receive communion III
his church. and nobody will harm him But oil TINS,
we must remember. proves that the Churcn or
England recognizes Presbyterian orders than the
that Hoadey bishop proves her to DE soonla
OF that Bishop Burnett who Erastan
proves her he unpIncpled Again permit me 10 say,
with profoundest respect for Prof. Fisher ana
high appreciation OF his great learning my complaint
IA that his accurately gathered facts fail, from .
Churchman'S point of view to touch the question he is
dcnssne that his conception Of the nature OF the
HUGH MILLER THOMPSON.
Chris, Church, y. T., Dec. 20.