, 1865-06-13

Office Of The Cn1cAGo TE1ursE, need not send
Of No. G, copy Nil tt sent; NO. also. These
copies will be forwarded as soon as they can be
l1euaiu, 5ou,a very tsuly.
CHAs r. McFLyA1SI.
sst fopy f',es ,nd hs
to know what think oft, send him also copy
70 this letter Bishop whltehouse replied
rs follows:
CHICAGO, April Il, 1866.
10 TIE 1T. Ter, C. r. McNrdlnt, D. D.:
Dear Sir-1 hare received your letter OF the
18th. ine!oesa in which found returned to me
The Eame uiniesory Letter 1r favor Of the Rev. J.
Gsss5af hsn 81, sel{nsa s g TO- ssassp wth
papcr, With Which have nuthias 70 d., md
winch belongs to ,Jonr custody.
uESET J. Nu1rruousE.
With this letter the correspondence be-
tween shc Bishops has term1nAt.d.
On the 18Th Of May, 1866, Dr., Cracraft ad-
dressed to Bishop Hhltchouse letter of
which the following is copy:
To he &. lev. y 4, I; Hhitehouac, D. D.. Bishop
sln-The Ut derstgued woull make the follow
'nE 5ep1sssnts,ion 9s. a1a a. d@ssaIaton @ f9;Wit: ,
month Of March. 1861, for permanent residence;
that Vas about hist ti.1e invited 10 otlciate ID
Grate Church. Gale.buFg. il said Diocese; tint IN
lsboTs IL rsid chnrch !; ths, IN the nesntuses snd
In consequence prtkasriy md mainly OK preaching
come sermons npoa the obligation or the people
present lime, (which sermons have since been e.
amtned 6y my diocesan. Bishop MctlraIae, at
Ohio, md entirely approved By him> 'sas com.
we're preferred against me, through yourself, to
thc eec!eaiashes. authoEtties Of the D!ocese OF
Ohio; that. aeeosd!ngy, w.s 1emanded to that
The meantime. without authority Of Law, ~ my
Bishop declares, forbidden to of1ciate By yourself
u this ptoceee that ], though doubling the legal
ity Of the prohibition, refralned from officiating
foE more than asn months while the case was
pending before the proper authorities in Ohio,
I'D stnss ;aea; A. t9st passed through the requi:-
"fa regular 1tsndiug" by the bishop Of the same,
and, az euch. recommended to your Jurisdiction
s+sxssas tpet~snnss BsSop eS leasd Sei,sns
thowed the unlawtu1ness Of ,yonr refusal. yon rc.
violating not only an important canon Of the
Church, but also the principe Of the uaity Of the
Shaf sna !. t59; leaving nc In ny Standing In
Now, therefore, having been pronounced BY my
Bishop 10 be presbyter 10 recullr staudiue,"
s.ter process Of ,aw growing ont Of charges pre-
ceiye me under yonr Jurisdiction does not vit1ate
my commission, or forbid the propnety Of my
Genee III. HI ca es<t 1ot asd Being boa I'M r'eht
to the canons OF the Episiopal Church, and. above
do 20 !, ealing to God, % the Bishops, Cier.
sy and }ai,y Of The Eptscopal Church 10 defend
the rigbt, hereby notify yon that shall, by the
the 21st day o. the present month, In Grace
Cha1ch, Gaiesburg.
Giss1 Gsie.Su1re, May IL 1865, ~ w. oaAo'~f
We desire to present only one more docu-
ment, to wit, the professional opinion Of
Judge Hoffman, Of the city Of New York, the
distinguished author Of q work upon Canon
Law, and the highest American authority
upon questions Of this character. That opin-
loa Is as follows:
The facts and questions submitted By BI.hop
Acllvsine msy be thus stated:
Aeletryman owes hl7 canontcal obedience TO
~ h0 a. %s M s
rcadent in tho Diocefe Of B. he has there sub
lected himself to impusations, which resulted In
!. For prosehlnc polihce -.......
3. For violating prohibition Of the Bishop OF
B, seainzt preaching IN his dioeesc.
Bl.hop after having reld letter Of prohibition.
4. Some violations Of cauons-what cauons Is
not partieularized.
Of to ths bishop of !. III @ Tese sab,nltfed io
the etsndtng committee. booy 70 present. "A
prcsen'mcnt resulted upon three Of them, two for
ttol4tion Of canons; One for hrcact or The proAt-
hftten- They p4setd upon the Others, either dnd-
Ing them not 10 be preaen'ab1e offences, or be-
cause the proofs accompanying them did not fur
ret tnets. The use OF dtsgeapectf1l lsnsuasc WAS
Of the latter character. The clergyman made con-
sss.!en q shs srn:b of " esssss: whash sse1Eht
lar to those cited in d0dmanns Law Of the Church,
412. Sentence was thcn passed by aamonttiont
Tn!sn wss n apd notes vsn Tue
The proceedings we're all reported TO the Bi.hop
II e. Ehs sa4 Il @ Sh Il
nlze The general rule ot Ecclesiastical law. that
ceEan. This is explicitly declared to be the rule
Csnon1. Sec, - lhe canon Law generally was, that
pisee Of o6tnse, tren,r Hoa deltctuus.} But there
were exceptions to ibis, as Is ehown In the c1se Of
f. e. oS % sns ar = SSde g. s.us Il M1e9 CT Vca
ch. co. jurisdiction Is f1ed By the place OF the Of
sense. {Haffman's Law Of The Church, page 3s8)
The nf.1 section of Canon =, referred 70. con.
event Of The proper authority emitting TO proceed
upon the charges, for three months. That an:
and sentence hiss been had as 70 soma Of the
Is to these last, the decision is clearly tar to
pei ana noiseyieT. No new rtzatio (ln teehaicsl
phlascl conld be allowed in any ecc'cai MI
bunal OF the Chu1ch. They are fualiy, and, for
the action OF my other authority fally dis~
And And rs to the other aeeusations, think slmi.
M @ hs
mens and trial. It eould not tnesn TO supersede
the right OF the trne 1ufisdic'iopa body to judge
Of he character ot ne osn.es %hetaes II n present
h1bifcd to PIT the party on trial. It means an
omission to oeonsldet and Investigate The alleged
ehslses, which. S,d the otnses BEEN commtstcd
in rhe Diocese examining 1Ero them, would have
pfecirded guy future pr0tecdinE upon the eame
matters there. 1t muat be 30, ! think, ererywheEe
The aecond section Of the eanon seems to me.
after much consideration, 10 be brsnch only of
ior system which only allows the presentat.on
OF the caee of the offender to h1s proper Diocesan
dependant ppon The omission Of thai authority
the second section extends the authority Of the |
Diocesan Of the p1sce where tho party s.mperdri-
him. But Is 10 bs Communicated 10 the authority
to which the party belongs and ts to last until the
problbtAnE authority Is Rausdsd' or until trial |
Iaset Observe that There can be no ecclesl4a-
tital act Of nug Kind, tbefoze anal ssEtence) a.
iec.rs ths 5tasss o. esTG5mshi Taiea 1ast rot
recognizes Il in providing. that the Inhibition IS
sed III ciesty I this trii Is 70 Be sd uudet he e.
clet.astfcal suthortJ 10 whteh the party belongs:
The Canon ae to arnenabsity{T eanon !. Sec ~
is tecisire upon tnls head, and there mast be |
tpeeial enactment. IN particular case, 10 supa1.
scde Or create an exception to this.
And the rems1ks Of Pr. Hawks leoas.. a9d
ins % easa e Thed Vii night asise under iii. eaaoa,
Wfere Clergyman. 1rera visitor In the Diocese,
ioste IN Dut III n9i
would be responsible. but should be- punished by I
hts own Bishop. thonsh whst would Be the pun.
thn jhnfH1 ra