Court of review : in the matter of the presentment of the Reverend Algernon Sidney Crapsey : for trial upon certain charges : brief for appellant
Perkins, James Breck | Crapsey, Algernon Sidney, 1847-1927
Wil BX5960 .C89P4 c^' 5SrOF PR/iVj^ ;-; 1^. 1.50 ^ IZ^' ^/ ' J \ '-r. », I'PA C 8^P4 <.\r\s Court of Review IN THE MATTER OF THE PRESENTMENT OF THE REVEREND ALGERNON SIDNEY CRAPSEY, D. D., FOR TRIAL UPON CERTAIN CHARGES. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT. In the summer of 1905 the Bishop of the Diocese of Western New York appointed a committee of five clergymen and directed them to investigate a book published by Dr. Crapsey, known as' " Re- ligion and Politics." The committee examined the book and also met Dr. Crapsey from time to time. On October first, 1905, they duly certified to the Bishop in writing that there was no cause for pre- sentment against the respondent, and that he had not been guilty of any offense for which he was liable to be tried. This proceeding was taken under ^30! the ordinance for an ecclesiastical court in the Diocese of Western New York. Subsequent to this, and on the 23d day of Febru- ary, 1906, the Standing Committee of the Diocese pre- sented charges against Dr. Crapsey in which they alleg-ed that certain passages contained in the book called " Religion and Politics " were contrary to the doctrines of the Episcopal Church, and that the respondent had violated the vows taken at his ordi- nation in giving utterance to them. This present- ment was approved by the Bishop and the matter came on for trial before the Ecclesiastical Court of the Diocese. This court had been selected in May, 1905, as follows: The Standing Committee pre- sented ten names and from those five were selected to compose the Ecclesiastical Court. (Section 2, Title 3 of Canons of Diocese.) The five thus se- lected were Charles W. Hayes, Geneva ; C. Mor- ton Sills, Geneva ; W. C. Roberts, Corning; Charles H. Boynton, Geneseo; Francis S. Dunham, Albion. At the beginning of the proceeding, the respond- ent exercised the right given him by the Canon and challenged Mr. Hayes and Mr. Sills. The Bishop then appointed upon the advice of the Standing Committee the Rev. G. Sherman Burrows of Tona- wanda and the Rev. John Mills Gilbert of Phelps. The court as thus created fixed the 17th of April for the trial. At that time the respondent appeared and filed an answer in which he denied the charges made against him, and set out the vows made at his ordination, in which he had promised that he would teach his people nothing except what he was per- suaded might be concluded and proved by the Scriptures, and that .he would be diligent in his study of the same. He also set out the appoint- ment of the committee by the Bishop to investi- gate the charges against him, in conformity with the Canons, that they had reported against any pre- sentment and their report had been accepted by the Bishop, and that therefore, this proceeding should not be entertained. He also pleaded the fact that the general convention had not as yet 3 created a court of appeals which should decide questions of doctrine, faith and worsliip and that therefore, the Ecclesiastical Court for the Diocese of Western New York should not pass upon a question which could not be reviewed by those who could bind the entire church. The presentment had been served on the re- spondent on February 23d, at the beginning of Lent, and the day of the trial fixed was Tuesday after Easter. An application was made that the trial should be adjourned until June. The grounds of the application are fully stated in the argument which will be found at^L^^^-*/6'.a./', .v^/^fe $(>. In addi- tion to this, there was nled a paper signed by many clergymen of Buffalo, Rochester and other places, as well as by many prominent laymen, in which they asked that this matter be adjourned until after the meeting of the Council of the Diocese in Mav. In their petition, they set out the fact that the court was practically constituted by the Standing Committee which brought the presentment, and the Bishop who had approved it, and that to force the case to trial in this manner would surely be to the lasting injury of the Church. But any application for an adjournment was de- nied ; the court directed the trial to proceed, Dr. Dunham dissenting. Mr. Shepard was not able to be present at this hearing, and Mr. Perkins, the other counsel for the respondent, was obliged to re- turn to Washington. He thereupon announced that if the trial was to go on at this time, the case might go by default (t©4+e^^4). After this announcement the court consented to adjourn the case for one week. On the 20th of April the matter again came before the court. The respondent then filed a fur- ther answer, which will be found at folk>/.^i', in which he set out the fact that the members of the % court had been selected by the Standing Committee and the Bishop, who had presented the charges against him, and that it was contrary to the law of the land that the guilt of any person against whom a presentment was made, should be passed upon by a court, the majority of which were designated by the prosecutor. He therefore asked that the court should not proceed with the trial of the case. This application was overruled. Mr, Shepard then asked the court for an adjournment, the grounds of which are more fully stated in this argument at kyUcr^.^V. This application was also denied. The case was then tried. Most of the evidence offered b}' the respondent was excluded, and to the various rulings of the court exceptions were taken. The decision of the court will be found at feite^M; ^^'^'^■^^j and its form will be discussed in the brief. The roopondent deeply regrets the decision tlui, the record should not be printed, as he is uuiiWe to see how the members of the court cap^'farniliarize themselves with the record andjUrgquestions that are raised, without great itKr^venience and ofreat delay, but he assumps-^at each member of this court, even [ih^rnud it inconvenient, will give to the carefuJ^.et5nsideration of the record and the points mad,.e'<Tri appeal the attention to which their import- fnce entitles them. The Diocesan Court should not have undertaken to pass upon a question of faith and doctrine at this time. It has been provided by Art. IX of the con- stitution that a Court of Appeals may be created to review the determinations of any 5 Court of Review on questions of doctrine, faith and worship; and it is provided by Canon 29 that until this court is created, no Court of Review shall determine such ques- tions. The object of this is manifest. There must be one rule of doctrine established in the church, and that is for the Court of Appeals to determine. Until such court is created, the Courts of Review should not consider such questions, because they might differ among themselves, and there might be thus eight different doctrines laid down by as m^ny Courts of Review, which could not be brought into unity until a Court of Appeal was created. The reason for applying this rule is infinitely stronger when we come to the local courts of the different dioceses. Courts of Review are not allowed to pass upon such questions until an ultimate court is created, lest there might be eight different rules established, and'' a man declared a true believer in the first department find himself a heretic in the sec- ond. It is infinitely worse if such questions are to be determined by the local courts established in each diocese. There can be as many rules as there are dioceses ; a man tnight be rejected from the ministry in one, whose orthodoxy would be regarded as perfect in another. Nor is this an imaginary case. In the Western District of New York it has been decided that Dr. Crapsey cannot be allowed to continue his ministry. In the District of Cincinnati we have Dr. Cox stating similar beliefs, but no one interferes with his right to minister there. In Massachusetts we have Mr. Suter, and various other well known clergymen, who entertain similar views; cer- tainly no one will interfere there, because the chances are that in that district the majority would declare that the decision made by the Ecclesiastical Court of Western New York was as erroneous in theology as it is unfortu- nate in policy. The results of leaving each diocese to lay down rules of faith and doctrine for its own use will be that orthodoxy in one district will be heterodoxy in another; men will be driven from the church in one diocese who in another would be gladly welcomed as fellowworkers; the position of the church will be lamentable to its members and ludicrous to its enemies. II. The Court of Review must hold this case until a Court of Appeals is created. gi9 of Canon 29 provides that if the decision involve a question of doctrine, faith or wor- ship, the record shall be retained by the pres- ident of the Court of Review until the time of taking an appeal to the Court of Appeals shall have expired. That time cannot expire until the next general convention creates a Court of Appeals, as it doubtless will. The canons thus guard against the evil which 1 have already suggested, that difTerent decisions as to doctrine and faith might be laid down by diocesan courts. Such questions must be held in abeyance until the Court of Appeals is created which" will dispose of them in a man- ner which shall bind the entire church. Any other proceeding would be unfortunate and unseemly, and apparently has been guarded against by the canons. The wording of the canon seems to be explicit, and I am unable to see how the court can proceed. It is expressl}' provided, in §5, that until after the establishment of a Court of Appeals, no Court of Review shall deter- mine any question of doctrine, faith or wor- ship. The subsequent sections provide for the procedure of the court and the afifirmance or reversal of the decree below, which, of course, could only be upon questions other than those of doctrine ; that would leave the ultimate decision of a question of doctrine, the most important that could be raised, in the hands of an inferior tribunal. Where the question involved only the good conduct of the individual charged, he could have it passed upon b}^ the Court of Review ; where it • involved the belief of the entire church, it could not be passed upon by the Court of Review, but the decision of some local and unimportant court, in some remote and unen- lightened diocese, might assume to decide the faith of the church. To guard against such an evil, the canon says explicitly that where the decision would involve such a question, the record shall be retained until the time of taking an appeal to the Court of Appeals has expired. It is no answer to this proposition that no Court of Appeals has yet been constituted. Alike the constitution and the canons contem- plate such a court, all that is required is for the general convention to appoint its mem- bers. Until that time comes, questions of 8 doctrine cannot be disposed of by diocesan courts, and heresy trials will have to wait their time. No harm will result to the church or the community. The time is past when strifes over subtle meanings or dogmas excite the interest of the community, or help the growth of the church. If it is to be a great power over this and subsequent generations, it must appeal to humanity, not with the learning of the school- man but with the teachings of Christ ; by those and those only can it retain its hold. III. The jurisdiction of this court is broad enough to reverse the decision and put this controversy to eternal rest, if it deems this advantageous to the church and to Christianity. By the 29th Canon, it can not determine any question of doctrine, faith or worship. There is no reason that any such question should be here determined. The question here is whether it is for the interests of the church that a faithful Christian man like Dr. Crapsey should be thrown out of it. If it is for the interest of the church that he should be, then a great number of clergymen whose views are as far removed as his from those of the eccle- siastical court, must also be thrown out, and with them will go a large proportion of the best intellects among the lait}' of the church, of the men bv whose aid alone it can become in the future a great and progressive factor in religion and civilization, instead of a narrow sect daily losing in power. While the Court of Review may not pass upon a question of doctrine, it has the broad- est power given it. By §i8, it may reverse or affirm or grant a new trial if in its opinion justice should so require. In other words, it is to be governed by considerations of what is just, not only to the clergyman accused, but to the laity under his charge, to the church as a whole. IV. A new trial should be ordered, because it is con- trary to the principles of law that a man's accusers should select his judges. This question was expressly raised by the pleadings. By the provisions of the canon of the Diocese of Western New York, the Standing Committee presented ten names, from which the council selected five, who became the Ecclesiastical Court. Two of these were challenged and the places were filled by the Bishop, acting upon the advice of the Standing Committee. Thus the entire court was created by the Standing Com- mittee which prosecuted the respondent. It was said on the other side that such was the method of appointing a court adopted by the diocese. That does not make it legal. By the same canon, §14, it is said that a trial shall be conducted according to the principles of common law as administered in this state. In this proceeding the Standing Committee presented the charge. They declare that the respondent is guilty, they have no right to present the charge unless they do so believe. The Bishop himself also adopted their view. 10 He has the right to refuse to adopt their decision ; he did refuse to adopt the decision of the committee which he first appointed, because it was favorable to Dr. Crapsey; he adopted the decision of the second committee, because that was unfavorable, and yet the Bishop, upon the advice of the Standing Committee, appointed two members of the court to fill the vacancies created. Such a proceeding is contrary to the funda- mental principles of law. I make no charge against the Standing Committee, no charge against the gentlemen whom they selected: but all men, standing committees and clergy- men, as well as others, are under the influ- ence of their beliefs and convictions; instinctively, necessaril}^ not wrongfully, so far as they are concerned, they select to pass upon questions in which they are interested, men who S)^mpathize with them. It is for this reason that no man can either be his own judge or select his own judge; that is a funda- mental principle upon which our conceptions of justice rest. The fact that the court was so constituted, was one of the reasons why its decision has not changed the conviction of a man in the world and will have no more effect upon the beliefs of others than if its judgment had been so many idle words. This most unfortunate prosecution, instead of quieting the faith of the church and excluding erroneous belief, which was the only reason that could have justified undertaking it, has brought discussion of the questions involved to thousands who otherwise never would have heard of them ; has spread the II beliefs held by Dr. Crapsey instead of check- ing them. If thej^Standing Committee had left him in peace, his parishioners' cliances of entering heaven would not have been les- sened by his beliefs, and \vould have been increased by the example he set them of Christian living. But this proceeding has been productive of nothing but evil. A wise and judicious court, seeing the inherent defects in this procedure, will reverse the decision. Dr. Crapsey will continue his good work in his parish, and the immense advertisement which the Standing Committee have insisted on giving to his book, will cease. If they think the book con- tains any harmful statements, this would be a result which they should welcome as valua- ble to the peace of the church and the well being of Israel. V. It was manifestly unfair to refuse a proper adjournment. The proceeding was commenced at the beginning of Lent. It was forced to trial immediately after Easter. It may be said that such an improper forcing of the case, which in the eyes of the community turned prosecution into persecution, is only a ques- tion of procedure, involving no strict legal right. But in such a proceeding as this, if the decision is to have any weight in the church, it is essential that there should be every appearance of fairness, and of due deliberation. The summary procedure by which heretics were sent to the stake and 12 witches to the gallows, in days now long past, cannot be imitated ^ this era without great harm to the church. The -argument for adjournment will be found in the record, first application ftjfef-^- ^^'^°' and the second application -foii©^ . 3^ -■ iC. The presentment was served on Dr. Crapsey at the beginning of Lent, and he was required to attend to the trial as soon as Lent closed. It would have been most unseemly if he had neglected the duties specially imposed upon a clergyman during the season of Lent, to give attention to his own personal matters. In the argument made by counsel it was said that it was for the court to decide whether Dr. Crapsey should have spent the forty days of Lent, not in laboring for the parish of St. Andrews, but in preparing to meet the charges made against him. Evidently it was the opinion of the court that he should have done the latter. I would call attention also to the petition presented by leading clergymen in Buffalo and Rochester, the president of Hobart Col- lege, the treasurer of the Diocese, and other prominent laymen, asking the Bishop to grant the delay. It was certainly unfortunate that the court, by its action, should have pro- duced upon the community the impression that undue and unseemly haste was desired. Questions of this character, affecting the interest and well being of the church, should not be disposed of upon the principles that might prevail in trials for misdemeanors before police courts. '3 VI. The court below erred in refusing to receive the evidence of clergymen of good standing in the church as to whether Dr. Crapsey had taught any- thing contrary to the doctrine of Christ as this church hath received the same. The question will be found at4e+ie/'^/and other similar questions at -teUe-/^ . / » -j ^ / ^ /. These questions \\qy& vitally important. The English courts, in the prosecutions of Williams and others, allowed the opinions of authorities in the church to be received in evidence, as bearing upon the question of what are the doctrines of the church; not to show whether Williams, for example, had taught anything that the court might regard as untrue, but whether he had taught any- thing that was beyond the limits and liberties of the doctrines of the church. Such evi- dence was admitted, and by such evidence was the case that grew out of the publication of " Essays and Reviews " decided. Some of the authorities whose opinions were there re- ceived were dead. But death is not neces- sary in order that a man's opinions may be of value to the court. What this church re- ceives as the true interpretation of the Scrip- tures can only be shown by the beliefs of those who are members of the church. Necessarily such evidence would be confined to those who would be qualified as experts by reason of their studies of such matters. Surely their evidence is quite as persuasive as to the doc- trines of the church, as the opinion of five re- spectable gentlemen in some remote diocese who may constitute an ecclesiastical court. The refusal to receive this evidence prac- tically shut off the respondent's entire de- fense. The question to be determined here was not as to the interpretation to be put upon any particular clause of the creed ; there is hardly a clause of the creed which is not received with difTerent meanings by per- sons who are properly members of this church ; upon that fact rests its claim to be called a Catholic Church. The question here was whether there was anything- in Dr. Crapsey's teachings that took him outside the liberties of the church of which he is a mem- ber. Upon such questions the opinions of recognized authorities in the church are o^ vital importance, and only by receiving their opinions could there be any test at all. If the court will be at the trouble of examining the report of the trial of Dr. Williams, and the argument of Mr. James Fitz-James Stephen for the accused, it will see tliat his argument did not turn upon the question of whether Dr. Williams was right in the interpretations he gave to some passages of Scripture, and those who opposed him were wrong ; but he showed from the opinions of the doctors and authorities of our church that Dr. Williams could believe the things which he believed, and teach the things which he had taught, without being cast outside the pale of the church. The names of the witnesses that we were prepared to call — such men as Mr. Leighton, Professor of Theology at Hobart College, Mr. Hoopes of Cambridge, Mr. Stein, Chap- lain of Columbia University, Mr. Suter, Rector of the Church of the Epiphany of Worcester, Mr. Hoffman, Dr. Coxe of Cal- 15 vary Church of Cincinnati, Dr. Peters, the eminent student, Mr. Melish, the Rector of the Holy Trinity Church, Brooklyn, Dr. Bahcock of New Vork_, Mr. .Nelson of St. Georgo G^Church.JN(Mv^H)rR7 Mr. Worcester of Emanuel Church, Boston, and very many others whom we might have called, show the character of the men who claim that a clergy- man may hold Dr. Crapsey's views and re- main within the fold of our church." VII. A new trial should be ordered because the judg- ment is uncertain and irregular. It provides that the respondent shall be "suspended from exercising the functions of a minister of this church until such time as he shall satisfy the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese that his belief and teaching conform to the doctrines of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed as this church hath received the same." This judgment,! submit, is meaningless and void. Dr. Crapsey is suspended from service as a minister until he can satisfy the ecclesias- tical authorities of the diocese of certain facts. What is the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese that has the right to decide on questions of dogma or on the correctness of any man's belief? Wherein the canons of the church is any ecclesiastical authority created which must be satisfied as to the beliefs of the clergy of the diocese? It cannot be the Ecclesiastical Court, because that must pro- ceed by trial ; it cannot be the council because no such jurisdiction is given ; certainly it can- 16 not be the Bishop. The Bishops of the Episcopal Church hold high and dignified positions, they are possessed of much authori- ty, but they are vested with no power to decide, with infallible wisdom, as to the beliefs of any man. The Roman Catholic Church has adopted the dogma of the infallibility ol the Bishop of Rome, but our church has not as yet attributed infallibility to any Bishop, not even to the Bishop of Western New York. Dr. Crapsey will have to wander about the diocese of Western New York long and wear- ily before he will find the "ecclesiastical author- ity " of the diocese which has the right to say that his beliefs conform or do not conform to the Apostles' Creed. This church will be a different church when such authority is vested either in Bishop or Standing Committee. The judgment as it stands imposes upon the ap- pellant an impossible condition. If a man was condemned to state prison until such time as he should satisfy the legal authority of the state that he was a good man, no one would question that such a sentence would be void. A judgment must be precise, it must fix a penalty, it must fix a penalty which can be executedi. This court has fixed a penalty which cannot be executed. Itrequires the appellant to give satisfaction as to the correctness of his be- liefs, before a vaguely described tribunal that has no authority to decide as to the correctness of his views. Any court must act for itself and impose its own sentence, it cannot turn the responsibility over to somebody else. The canon requires the court to say what sentence ought to be pronounced. The sen- tence it has pronounced is meaningless. The Bishop is to pronounce such sentence as he 17 shall deem just, not exceeding in severity that specified by the court. No one can say whether any sentence he might adopt would be more severe than that adopted by the court, because no one can say what the sentence means. VIII. A new trial should be ordered because Dr. Crapsey has taught nothing for which he should be expelled from the church. This court can see from the men who were willing to testify in his behalf, and the great number of persons who sympathized with him and the feeling which this prosecution has excited, that his expulsion from the church would be an unfortunate thing for the church itself. It is the church which is on trial more than Dr. Crapsey. It is to be decided whether in this day and generation it will seek to influence thought and guide conduct by saying that the one important thing is the acceptance of certain dogmatic tenets ; or whether it will obtain its influence upon men, by teaching the doctrines which Christ taught, and bidding all follow his example. If the former course is adopted, our church will become less and less important, and in time dwindle awa}^ as many of the Eastern sects and churchesat last passed out of existance. If it follows the latter course, it will go along, extending the influence of Christianity with the growth of civilization. Similar prosecutions have been brought in the English Church and fortunately have failed. When Bishop Colenso questioned the literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis and said that the church must adopt what science proved, worthy but timid men endeavored to put him outside of the Church of England; the effort failed because the courts said that what he had taught, while some might agree with him and some might disa- gree, was within the liberties of the Church of England. The children of those who thought that Bishop Colenso should be expelled, that if his views were adopted there was an end to the church and faith, now believe as Bishop Colenso believed, and yet the church is stronger than it was before. The same thing is true in reference to the famous prosecution of Dr. Williams for taking part in the publication of " Essays and Re- views." As his counsel said, the question in that case was whether a clergyman of the Church of England had the right to use his mind, and on that question the court decided in the afifirmative. We pass on a few 3'ears later and find those who saw danger and impiety in " Essays and Reviews " joining in the acclamations which greeted the elevation to the See of Canter- bury of Dr. Temple, one of the editors of that book. So rapidly does the world move ; so true to-day is Jerem}' Taylor's remark, by which all ecclesiastical courts may well govern their actions, "So that here also there is a necessity to^serve the liberty of proph- esying and interpreting the Scripture." By such decisions the cause of religion has not been hurt nor the progress of Christianity retarded. On the other hand, the Church of England does to-da}' a greater work and has a greater hold upon the minds of the people than fifty years ago. 19 In reference to the interpretation which Dr. Crapsey puts upon some passages of the creed, it is well put in his own statement submitted to the court which is handed up and which I trust all the members of this court will care- fully read. No one will say that there can be but one interpretation, one spiritual signifi- cance attached to^the clauses of the creed, that if two men give to the same clause different interpretations, onl}'^ one can remain within the pale of our church. There is hardly a clause of the creed to which we attach the same meaning that was attached by the men who framed it. They were properly within the church in their day ; we are properly within the church in our day. When they said they believed in the Holy Catholic church, they meant the church which had its seat at Rome; when we use the same words, we give them a different meaning. When they spoke of the resurrection of the body, they meant a physical resurrection in the same flesh and blood with which the body is clothed in this world. Few, if any, believe that now. and yet surely because one believes in a spiritual instead of a physical resurrection, he need not be cast out of the church of Christ. We do not interpret the clause "He 'descended into hell" as it was interpreted by those who framed it. We do not interpret the clause " He ascended into Heaven and sit- 'teth on the right hand of God " as it was once interpreted. Belief in a material heaven and a material hell, having a definite place in the universe, between which our earth was suspended, has passed away. But we can be as truly Christans, as truly members of our church as those who only a comparatively 20 little while ago attached to the clauses of our creeds different meanings. They believed them literally, and if they did their work as Christians, there was no reason why they should not remain members of our church ; we believe them spiritually, and if we do our work as Christians, there is no reason why we should not also remain members of the same church. NINTH. The Court erred in finding that the accused had violated promises made by him at his ordination. The obligations assumed by a priest must be considered as a whole, and the first agree- ment is, " Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salva- tion, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Script- ures?" Is that solemn agreement a mere form of words ? Does a clergyman of our church when he enters the holy ministry take upon himself by solemn oath a promise which means nothing, a thing which he swears to do and then is bound to violate ? When a man takes his oath before the Bishop and in the presence of Almighty God that he will study the Scrip- tures, that he will teach nothing except what he is persuaded may be concluded by the Scriptures, there is imposed upon him an obligation, if he be persuaded that a thing is 21 necessarily proved b}' the Scriptures, to teach it. I do not believe that the Protestant Epis- copal Church will ask a conscientious, sincere, and God-fearing man not to do the thing- which he has taken an oath he will do. All these promises must be considered to- gether. The church certainly has not adopted a system by which a man will in one para- graph swear to do one thing, and in another paragraph take his oath to do a different thing ; he does not in one paragraph bind himself to do a certain thing, and in another section promise to do a thing contrary to that ; certainly no such construction as that could or should be given to the ordinal of a church, it would be contrary to the very essence of the truth which we profess. The presbyter promises to minister the doctrine, sacraments and discipline as the Lord hath commanded — the Lord has commanded in the Holy Scrip- tures, certainly nowhere else — and the Church hath received the same. He is asked, " Will you be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine, contrary to God's word ?" Contrary to anything else, contrary to any book, to any prayer, to the Thirty-Nine Articles, to the declaration of any council ? No. " To drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine con- trary to God's word?" That and that alone. The strange doctrines that are contrary to the word of God, are the doctrines that our faithful priest must drive away, those ana those alone. The ordinal was adopted when the Angli- can Church separated from the Roman Cath- 22 olic Church. It remains in substantially the same form as was fixed at the time of the separation, and the difference between the ordinals of the two churches is interesting and important. A priest in the Roman Catholic Church submitted himself wholly and entirely to the decision of that Church. Pius IV thus states the ordinal, the rule to which each priest in that church subscribes: " I most firmly admit and embrace the apos- ' tolical traditions, and all other observances 'and constitutions of the same church. I also 'admit the sacred Scripture according to that 'sense which Holy Mother Church, to whom ' it appertains to judge concerning the true ' meaning and interpretation of the sacred 'Scripture, hath holden, and still doth hold." Manifestly the ordinal of the church to which we belong does not agree with that formula; the presbyter does not promise to admit the sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy Mother Church hath holden ; but he promises, that which is the essence and the foundation of Protestant be- lief, the right and duty of the exercise of individual conscience in the examination of Holy Writ. Instead of saying, " I will accept the sacred ' Scripture according to the sense which Holy ' Mother Church hath holden," he promises that he will teach nothing except that which he is persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scriptures, and that he will be dili- gent in the study of the same. The sixth and twentieth articles of the church declare that no man is required to believe what may not be proved by Holy 23 Scriptures, that the church itself cannot de- cree anything- against Holy Writ, " nor enforce 'anything to be believed for necessity of sal- ' vation." The priest promises to teach what he shall be persuaded ma.y be proved by the Scrip- ture ; he then promises to minister the doc- trine, sacraments and discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this church hath received the same, and it is the last pro- vision which the Diocesan Court said Dr. Crapsey had violated. The two promises are perfectly consistent. The priest must teach nothing as necessary to eternal salvation but what he is persuaded may be concluded and proved by Holy Scripture, and he must drive away from the church all doctrine contrary to God's word. He must minister the doctrine, sacra- ments and discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this church hath received the same, and teach the people to keep and observe the same. This manifestly requires him to administer the sacraments and discipline of Christ as the church hath received the same ; it in no way conflicts with his promise that he will teach those things as necessary to eternal salvation which he shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture. It makes the rule of the church, as it should be, controlling in refer- ence to the ministration of the doctrine, sac- raments and discipline ; it leaves the individual to study the Scriptures and decide therefrom the things that are necessary to eternal sal- vation. The one promise covers the instruc- tion of the people as to the things necessary 24 to eternal salvation ; the other promise covers the ministration of the priest. The Diocesan Court certainly was far astray in the interpretation it gave to the word "minister." If they had consulted the dictionary they would have found it means " to serve officially; to perform a rite of pub- ' lie worship." Its meaning exactly corres- ponds to the words " keep and observe " which the people are to do. Whatever else Dr. Crapsey has done, he has not violated his ordination vows, and the interpretation given to them by the Diocesan Court, which disposed of the important ques- tions in this case with hardly an opportunity for examination, is erroneous. No principle is more familiar to lawyers than that when a change is made in the word- ing of a law, it must be presumed that it is intended to make some change in the mean- ing. The changes made in our ordinal, as compared with ordinal of the Roman Catho- lic Church, were surely adopted by the fathers of our church with good reason, and the reason is plain. It was intended that the faith of a priest should, in the interpretation of the Scripture, rest upon that conscientious study by the individual of the Holy Scriptures upon which all Protestantism rests. And, therefore, when the court below finds that the appellant violated his ordinal vows, because in their judgment the doctrine which he has preached was not that which this church hath received ; or, more strictly, did not agree with the literal iuterpretation which they gave to certain passages contained in 25 the creeds found in the prayer book, they fell into error. TENTH. The decree of the Diocesan Court is unjust and it should be reversed. It would be a serious misfortune to the church of which we. are members if a man like Dr. Crapsey should be thrust out of it. It would be an act of gross injustice to him if he were thrust out, and the thousands who entertain similar views, the hundreds of clergymen who preach with the same free- dom of interpretation should be left within. For almost thirty years Dr. Crapsey has had charge of St. Andrews parish in Roches- ter. There he has done valuable work, the parish has grown, its members are greatly attached to their clergyman, to expel him by violent means would be exceedingly unfortu- nate. If his views diverged somewhat from those of other clergyman, certainly there was no poisonous teaching which could have en- dangered the souls of his flock. Probably few of them followed with any closeness his theo- logical views. He had promised to teach his people nothing, as necessary to salvation, ex- cept what he should be persuaded could be proved by Scripture. As he himself says in his statement, when his people came to him and asked what they should do to be saved, he gave them but one answer, and that in the words of the Master, that they should love God and man and follow in Christ's footsteps. 26 Surely in this there was no violation of his ordination vows. In addition to his work in his own flock, Dr. Crapsey has obtained a hold on the poorer classes in our city stronger perhaps than that possessed by any other clergyman. His views lead him to sympathize with the poor, and to take a special interest in their lot. In the State, social questions are now rec- ognized as possessing the first importance; it is to the consideration of them that statesmen give their most careful thought. A similar situation confronts the Church, it must exert its influence upon the countless millions whose lot is lowly, or it will cease to be one of the great factors in the world's growth. Such an influence men like Dr. Crapsey possess, be- cause they seek to improve the lot of their fellows, because they walk in the paths of apostolic charity and poverty. It is safe to say that the millions that can be influenced by such teachings to live according to Christ's example, will take no interest in, and pay no heed to, the discussion of the theological sub- tleties which disquiet the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Western New York. The Standing Committee must feel that an accurate belief in the precise manner in which Christ entered this world is essential to sal- vation. Otherwise they would not have dis- turbed the good work that Dr. Crapsey was doing, have brought distress into his parish and confusion into the Church, and have given to his views the enormous publicity which this prosecution has attracted. The charge made against Dr. Crapsey, is that he has questioned or denied certain acts that are called miracu- 27 lous, as being contrary to the ordinary course of nature's laws. It must be claimed that if a man does that, he does it to the manifest det- riment and harm of Christianity. If Dr. 