, 1864-11-02

-whetter T1ltten, or unWritien, liz at the
| Foundation Of all law,-whether of the church
OF State. You now atudiously place all tina
in the background, md seek 70 plaat yoar-
| letter of the church canon that required hin,
| within six months from his reeitence here,
| to present to you bis Letters Dimisaory, which,
In Common English, simply means a'lsttet of
endorsement. =:
Before / conclude, ahal1 show that, even
On this ground, your proceeding ia utterly
| upinbtihaoIe nnder the very canons Of tbs
church On which you SO confidently plant
| yourself, hut intend first to hold you to the
real question. It is perfectly true that, in
| your letter to the vestry, you mentioned as
one Of the reasons ot your seton, ths ALLURE
man or Eomsn here, OF whatever party OF
creed, regarded this as one Of the substantive
! grounds OF pour procedure. In my former
/ letter aid not think It worth rhile even to
allude to this charge, because 1t leally never
| occurred to me that ron would seek to justi-
| merely marrow and technical ground and
| In order to present this matter fairly to our
| Joint readers, I must here state, as 0rien7 IS
| possible, the outside evidence N this Gase
Mr. s!eney Myers, }ouE aliY ana Go.la1oE, +!
in tes IN his and
| addressed to DR.. Cracraft sags. :" You we're
{; .inforu,allY called to the. parish Of Grace
Church, February 23d, 1864. You' accepted
| that cali March II, and first otic}atod March
asih." These dates Of Mr. Myers are eor-
| rect. Your letter to. the .gestry bears date
October Ht> Counting then, from March
2Sth, the date when Dr. Cracrafs first ofdcla-
| ted, VIC find TINT SIX months and two days
had elapsed before you illuminated your sen'
teuce TIE canon, (sections 2 and Of Can-
and an this, an informed. Isl Is The Se1 universal
understanding Of: the clergy; He had per
uitted tno dogs beyond that time to etapse,
and 10! the axe Of ecclesiastical Justice falls;
We hear sometimes, in our secular courts, Of
what law3 ers call "spap Judgments" They
What nomenclature shau We apply to this:
And yet, with Mr. Nj yers printed letter before
you, AID having acted, us all the world be,
lieyes, utder bis suggestion, in the second
column Of your Letter to me yen a,! nnye tae tae
produced Letters Dimissorr,' and he .soa.d
rot do Vt btt openly and mi tenfio'dy for ntar!v
a gear, he and the vestry ignoted every obi.
cation b<csus Of tbs supposed i1cehss ton'eh y
! gere him waited for many months and
then took action" I confess myself dumb
with anuzcuent. You state what Is not
| true, and then to account for your false fact,
you ascribe to Dr.. Cractaft and Ills VestrJ an
unWo1thy motive. Now, Sir, Willnot quote
from -FOUR letter, and 6ay :" sauddcr has
passed over the heart, lest this may be an nn-
guarded glimpse into q reality of inner ma
Iure." Twill not emulate your example OF
dark insinuatIon. On the contrary, 1t gives
me pleasure to say, what nost sincerely be.
1ieye, that while regard you as hasty and
yery arbitrary, l also believe you to oea gen
tleman o1 high tone, and as such, and apart
from your clerical character, It would be in
possible 1or 3ou to state an intentional IN
truth. But how, then, do account for this
strange mie-5tatement? Simply thus. When
you wrote your letter to the Vestry, yoh did
not consider The failure to present the LIST
ters Dlmissory rs serious ground Of rour
proceeding: Had you thought then, IS yoa
matter tec coEue1-stone Of so grave ao OIL.
cial act, ycu would unquesttonably, in com.
mon prudence, have asclrtained the exact
dates, rs upon thin the whole fabric would
rest. But it Is perfectly evident that, at that
time, you were not thtnElng Of this technical
matter. Probably those at whose instisatlon
you were acting informed you, in general
way, that Dr.. Cracraft had been Off :iating
nearly year, and that count Wns thro N Into
the Indictment aB conyenieutuud safe coser,
| though forming no:part OF the real antmut OF
| your act. I thus retcue your reputation ior
! Teracity, but am obliged to do 80 BY show
ipc, that all the t.lk of yonr article about the
| "Lettess Dismissory" is, SO far a. the SUB.
stance OF. your act is concerned, O simple
after,thonght. Now, Sir, beg leave to ask
5oa single question, and, TO borrow one q
| ~
| consciousness for It's sns Wer.
| Suppose that Clergyman, OF the highest
character, perE onal19 known to you, and Tor.
| mer1y prGsbyter In your diocese, had last
| March come again within your territorial ju-
r1salction, Suppose, on on h,s n Wy ths,ongh I;
courtesy, and In the. course Of conversation
had informed you, as Dr. Cracratt did, that
he had purcbase1 large farm adjoining
Galesburg, and expected to reside there.
6uppose that, after settling himself in his ne =
home, he decides to accept an invitation q
the GaleeburE church, then vacant, to Of
tic,ate ps their paetor. SIX months and two
days 70 by, and you never hear that he has
preached q political sermon, or hear con-.
Ilant OF any sort. Now I ask you, would
son, at the end ct the cir months and two
episcopal authority to write letter to hts
Testry, on the mere ground that tWo days
had elapsed bey ond the time allowed By the
canon for presenting the Letters Dismfssory,
curtly Informing them that you had written
msna a. nd SUCH % Clergyman to ohio fof trial, and
that If euch clergyman should continue tG
oficiate in your diocese, you should ~ feel
| it your duty to adnontsh and forbid him ~
Is this the spirit In which sou would I'D
minister ecclstfastical Justice! The euppos1
remembering that the mere omission to pre-
sent u letter, by clergyman already know
to you might be the remit Of mere accident
or inadverteDce, and In no way could be re
garded as "xaaltnn in &, although tecnnl
1 cal violation OF the canon, you would Write
q courteous letter to the pastor, reminding
him OF the canon, and he would at once e1
plain tis inadyeEtence, send tor aud present
his letter, and there the affair would end
Shall contrast this qnlet ro-edure will
what you have actually doae, and the 1esul
Of which will probably be, you 'ns.st 1s 9bo.
burg Church? Do you wish to have you'
diocese regard you as seeking to disgrace
clergy man, without Opportunity q e3plaua
tion, because be Inadvertently fails TO pre-
cent "a 1etters Is itaecorous in Yoa to charg
elimination" with ssdwarilng the Judge Q
the Supreme Bench Into pettifog.ing ct
torney," btcanse did not offer yo1 the dis
| respect OF euppoeiDg that you would rea1l
seek to Justify your procedure b' the eano
Permit ne also to give another reason 70
: | lot doing you this dlscredlt, drawn IRON th
) recent annals Of the chntch. In, OF not ia
| from the 1ear 1851, you were elected Bishol
. ! Of Illinois. It WA the ineartabk custom c
; the church, and part Of its unWrltten la"
, that Bishop should reside in his own dtt
t eese. The public has not forgotten no
t bitterly YOU we're asealled Tor your persis
> ent determination to live In New York an
:. govern the diocese Of Illinois at conyenltt
5 distance, 10 the Gar of all the Russsas rnlt
, Siberia; nor has the public forgotten tt
ssssen yeea to
9 clergy Of your diocese, IN which you state
J. thnt you were not " adapted to the nor
E ard social condition Of the West" This,
[ i cou1ee, meant that you were too Ligh, 20:
: ally and .Iuorasly, to dwell amon5 VI.
e quote fEem NIX EMORY, hut tnlnk USE 1ot
g exact language, and SIN sn'f1 rave Eivt
: your exact idea. / speak $50 On the ausho
il ity Ut Dr.. C1acraft, with perels:ioa from bi
'e to use his mime. Words with that kind
T. barb, ron are aware, have facnlty Of lod
e Ing themselves in the brain. 1t was plea
J. ant to be a Bishop. but not Pleas mt to u !,
5, in Illinois. The affsir, went before u
Is General Convention Of the Church, and f1
It among those canons which you so delight
:. quote. one which reads rs follows: "lt
is the duty OF every Bishop to i've within b
h eiocese" It Is short but Plthy, aud q
p joint readers will find It tn fit. ], Caqon oee
le and, / am told by those who know, "
q parsed for ynnr especial benefit
# And vet / nm also told-and OF this 1 WI
1t 5on to observe, DO not pretend 70 oI sp.e
of ances IN Chicago will know The dstes-l g
r told on did not transfer, In good faith, 80
" resldence to Chicago unril several years ST
ls this canon YRS enacted. | am further t:
ID that soon after It's enactment 5on1 We
a. through Int 1Qlu Vi 1tAt4As. q A1ooS ~ -
&c cago, By way Of co1orable eomphanee I'll
tt t The canon; that you then :s1b-let It; a
when Bishop -, Of the Diocese Of =
to being IN Chicago not long afterwards, insi
III ed On calling upon you to leave his card, 9
to Was told that you did not reside thsre, +
ce had merely leased and snb-les house,
he ineisted he would leaye his card where :
i'd ought TO be, drove to the house, and lett
IN | with ypur tenants, My authority for 7
iii interesting rem!nlscence Is st your sezVi
II yon desire it.