The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1874-12-23
BISHOP CUMMINs' REVIEW OF THE
EPISCOPAL CONVENTION.

This discourse viii be read with much in
terest. 1t clearly and forcibly presents
views which we believe to be well founded,
and upon questions which it is important for
Christians outside of the Episcopal Church
to understand. These questions are deeply
sgitsting the Church of England, and in this
country they have been discussed with in
creasing earnestness every year. A few
years ago we felt called upon to expose the
elements of Romanism which are left in the
Episcopal Prayer Book, and to show that
wish ar the good belonging to the English
Reformation, there was this fatal defect in
it. It is gratifying to know that there is an
increasingly powerful party arising within
the Episcopal fold in both countries, which
takes its stand on the very position so long
maintained by others outside of it.
1t may be remembered that when the Rev.
Mr.. Latane withdrew from the Episcopal
Church about year ago, be addressed a
letter to Bishop Johns, assigning the rea-
sons upon which he acted. 1t was every
where regarded by unprejudiced judges as
production Of marked ability, as well as of
Christian csndOr. Among these reasons one
Of the most emphatic was " The position as
sumed toCards other Protestant churches. !"
He says:
Z" It is now held by an overwhelming ma
jOrity in the Episcopal Church, that there
can be but one form Of Church pOlity-that
ordination by Bishops, deriving their au-
thOrity by tactusl succession in an unbrOken
line from the Apostles, is essential to valid
minisry-and that without such ordination
there can be no true, and no lawful ministra-
ton Of the saeraments.
Again, in reference to her exclusiveness,
he says: 1.-The Episcopal Church in this
country and in our day, has practically
placed herself on this high ground, and as
sumed this imperiOus attitude towards the
great body of Protestant Christians. $50
far has positive legislation gone, if we &C
cept the current Interpretation of certain
canons, that no minister of the Episcopal
Church can now, by any official act, recOg-
nize any other Protestant Church as a true
Church, or the ministers of any other Church
as lawful ministers. E"
Bishop Johns in his reply says "The
only action on this subject of recent date,
wss the adoption of Canon II. Tit. L, 'Of
persons not ministers of this Church officia-
ting in any congregation thereof. 1t sim
ply prohibits the officiating in any of Our con-
grsgatiOns of any person, without sufficient
evidence of his having been duly licensed or
ordained to minister IN this Church" The
italics are the Bishop's.) "The language of
this canon is by no means as strong as that
in the preface, to the Form and Manner of
Making, Ordaining and COnsecrating' es-
tsblished in General Convention, September
A. D. 1892. In both. the purpOrt and scope
are the same, to protect the congregations of
this Church against the ministrations of per-
sons who are not responsible to this church
for what they may teach and do. 1t does
not declare that no persons are ministers ex-
cept those ordained to minister in this church,
but simply that such only are allowed to
oficiste for our people. 1t is a prudential
municipal regulation, that our congregations
may not be exposed to disturbance by the
insidiOus teaching of some one who may de-
light in the opportunity for creating cOnfus-
ion, especially as he was not liable to be
dealt with for the evil he had caused"
Bishop Johns no doubt believes all this,
and did not intend to make an evasion but
that it really is such must be plain to all who
notice only few of the considerations be-
longing to the matter.
l. If the law of the Episcopal Church
we're 70 allow their ministers TO invite those
of other denominations to preach in their
pulpits, it would not follow that they must
invite them without discrimination. That is
not the case among those denominations
where such acts of fellowship prevail; it is
not 50 even among ministers of the same
church. They invite those whose ministra-
tons it is supposed will be edifying. No
such mischief, then, as Bishop Johns refers
TO need be spprehended; and so the reason
for this exclusive, narrow, seotarian canon is
not to be found in the consideration referred
20.
,. Nor will it do to say that the object is
to "prOteet the congregations of the church
against the miDistratiOns Of persons who are
not responsible to this church for what they
may teach or DO" Ministers of the EpiseO-
pal Churches of England, Ireland and Scot
land are not responsible to the Episcopal
Church of this country; yet they are freely
admitted to its pulpits What then becomes
Of the Bishops assertion in view of that sin
gle fact The cause of this exclusiveness
is not there.
3. No better is the plea that it is " a pru-
dental municipal regulation, that congrega-
tons may not be exposed to disturbance by
the insidiOus teaching of some" &c, This is
completely refuted by two we'll known facts.
One is that 81 the doctrines current among