, 1873-06-19
RELIGIOUS INro1EnAscr.-The Intsui

BEA'ZaH BRO1r.E. EDuOR
RELIGIOUS INroLERANcE.-The Inteui-
kgencer, under the significant heading:
"CAN IT BE Poss1BLE?" gives currency
to the following reflection upon Bi hop
Morris. which appears in letter 10 an
Eastern paper on the funeral of Gen.
Candy:
Mrs. Candy. who is a Methodist,
asked that the services should be uni
ted one. by the Methodist, Presbyterian,
Unitarian and Episcopal ministers, but
Bishop Morris refused to have anything
to do with it. saying that General Candy
WAS not an Episcopaliou, and that he
did not consider the other ministers
ciergymen, and wonld not act with hem
which they considered an insalt, us
they went so far as to propose that they
would confne themselves to the ritual
OF the Episcopal Church if he would
join them. But he refused TO confer
with them ON the subject, saving they
were not ministers of the gospel. He
was then asked to offer an extempore
prayer, which he also refused, unless
the others were sent away; which was.
Of course. impracticable-a manlfesta-
:ion of bIgotry for which every one con-
iemns him."
A secular newspaper Is not proper
medium for the discussion of questions
Of denomlnational differences; but il is
not only proper, but duty which every
editor owes to community. to defend the
constitutional right of religious freedom
from whatever source assailed Admit
ting all that mnnifestly prejudiced
correspondent charges against Bishop
Morris. they do not convict him of big
otry or intolerance in the mind of any
candid intelligent man who understands
! the nature and obligations of his Office;
but rather throws the onus upon those
who sought popular occasion to force
him TO stultify himself and give the lie
TO his professions, or expose him to the
censure for doing what his ordination
VOWS compel him to do. We do not
learn that any one was guilty of the i'm
pertinence of calling upon the Roman
Catholic Bishop of Portland to exercise
priestly functions in common with the
ministers of half dozen or more diff
ferent sects, each holding different arti-
cles of belief and different modes OF
worship. 1t was no less an impertinence
TO demand this of Bishop Morris. He
had no discretion in the matter, but to
decline the overture. or by accepting it
falsify the obligations Of his priestly
office. Those who condemn the Bishop
FOR his course under the circumstances.
condemn the Church which he repre-
sents; and show their bigotry and intol-
erance by assailing tn. individual for a
consistent adherance to the doctrines
and orders Of his own Church. The
Bishop is priest only to his own
Church. He has no right or authority
to exercise any priestly function outside
the Church and not according to its rit-
nal. either in administering the sacra-
Inents, marrying the living or burr, wing
the dead. When he depart from the
Church he ceases to be priest, and IS
no more sacred character than the un-
consecrated elements of the Eucharist,
or consecrated altar when turned into
card table. He could not oficIate
as priest in common with ministers
outside the Church, and to pretend to
do SO would be mockery of his sacred
office for popular applause. This is the
Church theory. and we do not propose
to argue the question whether it is right
or wrong; we but stand for the right of
every denomination to pursue their own
religious modes without molestation
from others. The best liberation in all
things is for each to mind their own bH
siness and not medde with others IN
matters upon which they cannot as rec.
There can be no conflict where there il
no contact.