, 1874-03-14

God. 1Io has never doubted tint tt WAH tho Dt-
vino guidance which led lin to tho courao in
which ho has found peace With God.
INNOCENT or oFFENsE.
9, Your 1nenlorialist did not not, Mt tho timo
When ho resolved to nuke this omission, believe
tint he owas in 80 doing committing any oifensoo
againnt tho law of tho PROTESTANT Episcopal
Church.
Ho Ind been oarly taught to boliovo TINT our
Church WAS tho most broadly comprehensive mud
wisely tolerant OF the protcBtant oommuniona.
1Io Aal gloried in the idea that tho first utter
anco Of tho American Prayer Book was tho mag
t'0e part Of 'rs that blessed 4 berty s' Wherowth %
Christ hath mado us FREQ, TINT in hiH
worship different forms and usagos may without
otronso bo al!owod-provided tho substance Of
hood lie had seon this primal principle Of orr
Liturgy illustrated by omissions from, aftora-
tiouS OF, aud even additions to, prescribed
foru1H. made ms oxigcncy demanded by bishops,
Prenbytors, and Dcacons. These changes ho
knew wore justified upon tue ground Of
nero temporary expedicncy. Ho could not thon
doubt tint when similar change was demanded
OF him, not by the shifting emergencies of poaoo
and occaHion. but by the imperative, decreo Of
conscience, the Church had no harsh command
to iuterpose, between him aud his duty TO tho
Head Of lilo Church.
It has boen alleged agatnst your luon1orialist
TINT lo WIS, in tue omission which lo ack1owl-
GAENb f4NAAtA4lR k&40 l4CAE0 AV
gave at his ordination to conform to tho worship
Of tho Protestant Episcopal Church. But whit
il that worshp2 What constitutes such o
conformity ? 10 make good tho position Of the
accuscrB Of your memorialiBt, every departure
from tho ipsissima rcr1a Of any occasional ser-
vice contained i'll tho prayer-Bo0ls is yiulation
Of tho pledge given ut ordination. Such III III
terprotation would involve in ono common guilt
oyory minister Of our Church. Tho burial Of tho
dcud, tho Bolemnization of matrimony, the cont
m,1nion Office, tho visitation Of tho sick, rest
upon the same rubricnl authority aB tho service
for infa1,t baptism. Yet, from al theac, onlis-
sionB aro nude without notice or rcbuko.
4 DocTn1SA14 QUESTION.
II it be urged that the particular omission for
which your nlemoriaiiBt IL condemned toncllcn d
question Of doctrine, aud that lis own confession
Of conscientious acraplea III the use Of tho ex-
oct phraseoloYy Of tho ,baptismal oillco IN owl,
that hence tho omission il ono moro important
than those madc i'll other services, tho answer
IL two-fold: ~
omissions made in other services are not to avoid
doctrinal difficulty, and
Second-So fur from making tho omission re-
fcrred to in order to suppress or change my
doctrine Of this Church, your memorialist omit
ted tue positive averment Of tho regeneration Of
tho child, for tho express purpose of rendering
the service consistent with tho doctriual stan
dards Of the Church. That the crocds mud the
thitty-lillo articles in no wiso teach the necca-
6aFy connection OF regeneration with baptism
hnH boon established BY tho highest court t,-tle
/ Mother Church Of England hence tho
| omission with which your memoriaist Inns been
charged, and which le fully admits, WAS, to his
mind, the only way III which lie could avoid
teaching q doctrino foreign to tue standards of
| the Church and yet rlao bur form for the bap-
| tism of infants. The Church had also, at tie
| ordination OF your ulomoro!iBt, required tho
| solemn promise that ho would teach nothing
~ necessary to eternal salyation but
might be concluded md proved by the Scripture.
It lnid upon him tho .welghty responsibility Of
| exercising his Judgment aH to whnt tho word of
God royenlod, aud of tcacling such truth only.
But in using ono scnte'scc Of tue exLortation in
the baptisnial Office and another in its connected
Thanksgiving ho would teach TINT the now blrtl,
] which our Lord declared to be 'neccssary tc
eter1lal salvation" WAS impaired to every child
admitted to tho visible Church. This, ho was
"persundcd,'"' could not 'bo concluded or proved
ordination vow, lo omitted 80 unscripturul an ns
Borton. 1t is this consideration wllch alswerl
sufficiently and completely the plausible but ut
terly fal1acious argument, that II this nlomorial
was bis duty voluntarily to withdraw to somt
other communion. The lawH Of tho Church has
never, mp to tho tnlo Of Ills trial, been 20 inter
preted ab to forbid the conscientious minister O.
Christ to fulfill tue pledges made ut his ordina
tion.
Third-Your memorialiat desires further Il
Gull the attention Of your venerable body to th'
nature OF the sentence pronounced against linn
lie is fully persuaded lint, taken in connection
with tho foregoing .iacts, such sentence vii
manifestly appear to be 30 subyersiyo OF religion
aud morality, TINT 1t was not only impossible TO
him to comply with it, but that it il equal.
impossible for the General Convention Of th
Church to allow it to stand approved by th
SILENCE of our occlcs,astical legislation.
In order to remove all difficulties of toclni
cal character from Tho sottlemout OF tho gray.
isaues involved in his trinl, your mo,norlallst,
Writton statement roRd boforo tho Ecclesias
tichl Court, fully aud frankly admitted tho tact
In tho case namely, tlat ho did omit tho postiv
nyerment of tho regeneration OF tho CHILD
both III the oxhortation following the act of bap
tiHm, and in the succeeding thanksgiving l.
the statement thus made 10 tho Court, he sol
clnuly declared, ~ le does In this memorial, thu
the sole motive inspeling linn to such omission
waB an honest conviction, baged upon the stud
OF tho Bible aud earnest prayer TINT FOR linn t.
use the exnct lanGnnge retorred to would be
grieyous Rn against tho Groat Head Of th
Church.
llo cannot boliovo that the Ecclesiastical Cour
(.nost OF the nlonbora Of which bud long leo
| acquainted with this memoyiaiiat) could Aav
doubted tho truth OF lls statement Of the tue
two which had influenced linn, or could door
him capable OF deliberately attrlbuting to u col
viction Ut conHoionco that which hua sprun
from somo lower a,!tl less imperative CAUSE; NJ!
yot, In the full knowledge tint this memorials
lad acted i'll accotdanco with his higl
CIT Vows Of his duty NJ mnihte
, Of Christ, tho Court recommended aut tho l3sho
pronounced sentence Of "uuEponsion until til
respondent should Giyo aBs.ral,ces sat!sfaotor
to the bishop thut OF contriton Tor tho pagt, a,s
, of conformity in tho niattcr wherein he ha
! oIfbudcd f0r tho future"
wILL1ao TO HE ApsoN16HEp.
Your mcn,orlaliat fools that il ~ no exaggerf
tinn to eay tint tho darkeHt aays of tho 1nquib
tion of lapal home aloue afford T. parallel
such MI exercise Of ecclesiastical diHeipllu,
Believing, al ho dld. that he had not only con
Church, but that ho had discharged duty
> God In tho strict fulAllnlent Ut As olt1inatia
promises, this ,nolnolialiBt was notwitIBtaut
ing toady to submit oheorfully to such u
; unjust IN much y Judgment urpoaled to him. |
was willing to.t'auner. for consclenoe aake, "