New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-07

EPISCOPAL ORDERS NOT OF DIVINE RIGHT.
A PRESBYTERIAN VIEW OF THE QUEsuoS-CAN DIR.
CUMMINss EPISCOPAL POWERS BE REVOKED
70 Inc Editor or The TrtbuHe.
SIR: In common with very many of the
ngious community the writer has highly appreciated
the generous indulgence OF THE TRIBUNE in opening it's
columns the discussion OF Of the points at issue
between who approve and those who condemn the
recent mathematician communions which
held during the sessions of the Evangelical Alliance.
More particularly he has followed with great interest
the earnest aud courteous arguments which have from
TO time been presented by Drs Fisher and Thomp
con ,upon the question whether the early usage OF the
Church OF England favored the recognition of nEps
eepal orders II has however occurred to hun in con-
nectOn with this that there danger that In the dis
cusson a issue like this the main question might
he 40 ov erooked misrepresent the position OF the
great body Of Christians who do not belong to the Eps
cop Church Whether this apprehension is well founded
certain that the fact ought not TO be ignored
that the status Of these nonEpscopa churches is not in
she slightest degree affected the results OF this dis
cusslon. Suppose 1t to be true. Dr. Thompson 80
earnestly and lesrnedly afirms, that the primitive
teaching and practice OF the Church of England tOler
sted none but Episcopal orders; this does not at all
settle the main question, which is whether such orders
are essential important In the Church OF
Christ
nis just at this point that Presbytersns-to cite
only q single one of the noDEpiscopal eommunlons-
meet the with all confidence and, making ap-
neal 70 Holy Scripture reject the entire claim Of special
and exclusive validity in the Episcopate Going to
New Testament for poty. do for doctriue
NE confidently challenge the scholarship OF the age TO es
,.hsb the proposition that Diocesan Episcopacy, with
,h. ,h,ee ministerial orders which II embOdies IL the
a,vinely appointed method OF ruling the Church Of
Cnrst II has not been proved-it cannot be proved;
and ths fact atesed by such authorities as Whstely,
Jacob must OF course, eonsign the claim OF
exclusive orders to the common category OF unwar-
xaDted assumptions
III however the necessity and reality " tactua apos
soea successlOn clearly established u would
ne difeut 10 evade the force OF the Roman Catholic
claim 10 the only true ecclesasca authority for the
that orders OF the Church OF England are de-
rived from depOsed and bishops whose
powers having been revoked by the authority which
Conferred them must have been rendered null and VOID
From this point Of view II seems 10 an outsider that
nsinfu but inevitable dilemma awaits those who
now dealine with the new departure or Dr. Cumnilns
deposition does not retract the socaeu powers
bisbop, and that DIR. Cummins Will retain
his supposed apostolic authority ana the new Reformed
vithdpsw them and In that case 10 follows thai the
orders OF the Episcopal Church were severed from the
erue apostolca succession by the act OF rebellion wien
ehe Reformation began. and by the subsequent depos
Bnt with ali this We Presbyerians have very little
concern. Standing on the word OF God (which con
fsineth ali things necessary TO salvation see article W.
Rook of Prayer declare In all seousness tha' the
claim 70 divine and special AUTHORITY when the Roman
CstSoIe and the Episcopal Churches 30 frequently re-
tteraa< IL vthouS support In the New TESTAMENT That
~ anpct be justified by the early church history as the
Xpo0tohe FATHERS present IT. and that IL breaks down
SieGetasy xbss tfod BY the teet which ow h"fa n'n