New-York tribune., 1875-03-05
DIR. JAGGARS CONFIRNATION.
VIGOROUS DENIAL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST
THE DI5HOP-ELECr.

A VIGOROUS DENIAL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST
THE DI5HOPELECE
To the Editor Of The tribune.
SIR: The article in your paper of the 1st
inst. dated Brooklyn, Feb. l6, and signed Reformed
Epscopahan," in relation the Rev. Dr. Jaggar, is SO
full Of msstatements that am constrained 10 send you
few lines contradict every charge made by the writer
First The letter to DR.. Cheney not written after
hs deposition from the ministry OF the Protestant Eps
copal Church. Whco that letter was written he was
merely suspended from the exercise of his ministry
and the circumstances vi his were or such pecu-
liar character excite the sympathy of large num-
Der of our clergy OF every shade OF churchmanship
The letter was signed by DR.. Jaggar and 60 Other
clergymen, and upward Of 100 aymen, when d. Cheney
in "perpexity and sorrow - and il was intended
simply an expression OF ministerial and Christian
Sa4 6S@p@tnS iOf n"h III great 'i00Oe AA' u''r''' 0
Secondly: Dr. Jaerar with several other clergymen Of
Philadelphia, signed protest AGAINST Bishop cum,
iGins's WITHDRAWAL from the Protestant Episcopal
Church. aud The estaOli hment OF eeco 4stical
organization. Your coTIesponCent alleges that Dr
Jaggar has regretted having signed the protest.. Dr.
Jaggar has never regretted protesting against the
acton OF Bishop Cummins. De has only expressed his
regret that the laper ia question should have been ln
tcrpreed as in any sense needed EIndcation OF the
loyalty OF the sgners.
hidiy Year correspondent also states that "during
the present Winter meeting hed at DR.. Jdggars
house, composed OF Lew Church ccrGyuen with view
y issuing protest on their part agalns ne doctrine OF
ever held at the house OF D JagGar or anyW here
else and there not the slight s foundation Tor the
assertion. lne writer says: IL these sGitenieLss Dc
well founded, they Will greatly help the 0p-
pOsers Of the cOnsecgdtiO1 or the rev. Dr.
JaggaT" may add. there Is probably no one
heartily opposed 10 h5 conservation th:s4 thls
" Reformed Episcopalian" OF Brooklyn. There " not
word of 9th IL the charges preferred aalnss Dr.
JaE.gr By Your pJndPnt. 3ne article Is mall
clOus and covert attack upon true and loyal clergy
of the Episcopal ChGrch, 40 prejudice hlu IA the
minds of the Bishops and Standing Countries, With a
tO his rejection Bishop Of southern ONO Let
the truth whole truth, De made known III TINS mat
ter. But deliberate fdlsehOOd ana SANDER should nc
echcwCd IL ana especially by those WHO cali them
selves "refOrmers." c. d. c.
Philadelphia, March q 1875.
WHERE THE CHARGES ORIGINATED.
TO the Editor Of The 7rt5une.
SIR: i communication in your issue of the
Ist signed "Rformed Epscop.an" mas plainly for
vote against the confirmation of the Rev Dr. JsGgar
Bishop OF Southern Ohio. 1t contains these uterances
l. That DR.. Jaggar signed letter OF sympathy with
Dr. Cheney after the latter mad been deposed from the
ministry OF the Protestant Episcopal Church Tas is
mistake. When that letter signed Dr.. Cheney had
not been deposed.
That DR.. Jaggar is alleged by somebody, name not
gven) have expressed regret at having signed the
Philadelphia anti Cummins circular. This is pure gos
SID without evidence OF Its truth from any source
g. That Or. JaCsar Is asserted 10y somebody, mama
gwen 10 have been present at meeting IN IN -
delpbia. al mis- house. during the winter or 1874 D.
said meeting having convened for tie purpose OF lssuG
a against the doctrine OF Apus;ouc Succession
This is asOn pure gossip, without any oViOence OF Is
ruth from any source.
Reformed Eplscopllan must try aga q. he dates
from Brooklyn, and there Is no better place. AT hls
particular inncturc in which TO learn that mistaken
rea sOnable aud intelligent men. k D. d.
Bergen Po1at, n. j., MIrch 8, 1870