The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-03-10


firmly persuaded that It is our duty to bear
testimony, without Partially or affection,
do in the presence of Almighty God, testi-
fly that A. B. is not, so far as we are In
formed, Justly liable to evil report for er
ror in religion" This testimony has been
borne, this certificate has been signed by
the standing committee Of Vermont In re-
ference to both DeKoyen and Dr. Jaggar.
This action of Vermont's standing commit
tee is as strange and apparently irreconcil-
able, except on the ground of extreme lib
erality, as the coincidence-was it provi-
dence ?--that presented these two men, re-
presenting such radically diverse views, for
approval or disapproval at the same time.
We have no comment, however, to make
upon their action. Our province now is
merely to state facts and let others draw
differences. We are bound to believe that
the certificate was, in both cases, intelli-
gently and conscientiously signed, and if
there is an apparent inconsistency in their
action, they are responsible for it only to
their own consciences and the church they
represent.
Let us see what opinions these men hold,
and how the church regard them, and this
we shall do with only such comment, If
any, as may be necessary to a plain under
standing of their cases and the action
| Of Vermont thereon. First, as TO DIR.
DeKoven. He was delegate TO the general
convention of 1871, as he had been before
and has since, and there thus avowed him
self 81 believe in the Real Actual Pres
ence of our Lord under the form of
bread and wine upon the affairs of our
" churches myself adore, and would,
"if it were necessary or. my duty, teach
:" my people TO adore Christ present in the
" elements under the form of bread and
=" wine. And | use these words because
they are a bald statement of the doctrine
" of the Real Presence This is not, by
any means, the doctrine of the church, be-
cause, the same year, the bishops united in
declaring it ian awful error, antagonistiC
to the doctrines of the church, the teach
ing of Gods word and that 'it puts in
peril the souls of men," DR.. DeKoven's
avowal ought to settle and probably has
settled his case. 1t needed not the pointed
condemnation Of the bishops, it was op
posed to the convictions and conscience Of
nearly the whole body of the church. Sc
far as heard from, the standing commit
tees are nearly an unit in his rejection, YET
that of Vermont certify, sin the presence
of Almighty God, that, SO far as they are
informed "James DeKoven, ID. D., bishop
elect of the diocese of Illinois Is not justly
liable to evil report for errors in religion.
How is it with the Rev. DR.. Jaggar? He
goes to another extreme. After the depo
si;ion of Rev. Mr.. Cheney, letter, adj
dressed to him, was written and published
to which was appended the signature Of
Dr. Jaggar, containing this language.
We maintain your right to such decision
and action as that for which you have
been punished by an ecclesiastical sen
tcnce." This too, after he had bee,
the sentence had been approved by tn,
church at large. This, too, notwithstand
ing the constitution of the church declare
that mo alteration or addition shall ~
made to the book of common prayer, o
other offices of the church except in
certain specified way, and it was for sucl
an unauthorized alteration, in effect, tina
Mr.. Cheney was convicted. Yet the stand
ing committee of Vermont certify that til
Rev. Thomas A. Jaggar, d. D., bisho
elect of the diocese of Southern Ohio 81
not justly liable to evil report for errors il
religion" Surely, if they correct
represent the church in both cases, tn
church in Vermont sis not justly liable
TO the the charge of illiberality. Surely
the standing committee have made prece
dent that can be approvingly quoted in al
future cases.