The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-07


religious journals supposed 60 We the mouth-piece
OF the Protestant Episcopal church. have been
greatly amused II not edihed by the controversy
that has been waged over an address delivered by
Or. Hugh Miller Thomson before the Church Con
ference early IN February. "Behold how great a
fire a little matter klndethin The Doctors ex.
IRENE modesty forbade any report OF the able adj
dress or any reference whatever 10 Is In his own
paper, the Church Journal until he was able to
shoot at tie HERALD over the shoulders OF tue
Gdldry and under cover OF replies 10 correspond
ents THIS he does IN last weeks issue. SHAH
not characterize the professional courtesy,
not TO say the common courtesy OF man to
man, which could permit Dr. Thompson to
so far forget himself as TO stgmatze the HERALDs
sketch OF his address as trash" ana 10 TOSS the
responsibility OF his u'terances over on your re-
porter. who. | take for granted. had no motive for
falsifyiEg or garbling the report In any way. l
have read that port carefully. and | find 1t sub
stantially agreeing with report that appeared IN
the Tribune the same time, ana with another
In church ana Stdte-a journal occupying an equal
standing IN the Protestant Episcopal Church with
DR.. Thompson's own jou nal. Inueed, Cftufch ana
State Endorsed the address editoray and very
FULLY. Why did not DR.. Thompson characterize
these as trashS But, letting that pass, why mas
he not openly and frankly denied what ne so char
mai. And II he has Jailed TO deny, mag not &C
cept those utterances as true
Wnen Mr. u. p. QuacEenbOs wrote TO Dr.
Thompson, I'm mediatey aICer t1e pubucatlon o.!
his address, he did not deny that piece OF trash"
winch reported him as SAYING upon information:
that Mrs. Jarley's wax works had been exhibited
In Episcopal church, but very adroitly trans
ferred the responsibility OF the answer 10
as easy Tor Dr. Thompson tnen to say in two lines
that he did not make any such statement as 20
wriggle himself out OF II as ne mas done. ia tne
ahsau of hts damn | inference
that this kina OF thrash" Is really his own ana not
the HERALp's Does the Doctor lind fault with the
''trasnn which assigns reduction in membership
or marked uecune III his Church between 1860
and 1870 Ii so, Will re er you 10 letter Ia the
nature, In winch ne proves by statistics that the
growth OF his Churcn between 1850 and 1850 was
twice that oil the succeeding decade: SO tha5
Charge TINS trash" home on the doctor Also To
be sure ne recognizes growth not counted by
numbers, but that was not the growth that ne re.
lerred in his address. He tells US In his letter
that he meant the common, vulgar growth
which figures measure" Very good. ! notice
wnerew,th to measure" this common, vul.
gar growth" but 1t does give the doctor
crediralor concedlng that the Church mad
made absolute PROGRESS. Another piece
''trashr IN your report Is the alleged Disturb
ance among religious uOdles. Marx you, the Doc
own denomination, but WITHIN 1t; and he tells you
tnat this Insurance among the Jour or hve
broad, conservative, liberia, evangelical and
don't knOw now many more there VIII be oy and
by If they so ON increasing Tor deoinlng mere,
after they have zone neretUI0re-ls the cause OF
the decline or Eplsc0pacy. One party or body
tends toward UltramOntanlsm or Romanism and
another toward MethodIsm or Congregatlonaism
and between these extremes the tendencies are
various. Now, Sir, why ala not Dr. thompson oeny
TINS II ne dld not say ~ FOR the pest reason pos
record In his own paper long before the HERALD
gave them to the world. He has been giving
THESE views TO the readers OF The church Journal
Tor five or SIX weeks past and mas been account
ing for the decline vi the ministry as well as IN
the membership OF the Church, and In his ADDRESS
before the Church Conference ne merely gathered
together ideas That had been scattered over
number OF issues OF his paper.
The only Otner material piece OF trash" that
ind your report OF the Doctors address Is that
which puts in ms mouth supposabie case where
IL one man wanted candles and another desired
Punch ana Judy snow In his church, such, 1t would
be argued, Is the freedom within tae church
fences that each could have his wish gratlfed.
Now, submit tnat the Illustration OF Mrs. Jarley's
wax WORKS IS a logical proof that such suppos-
able case was stated 6y the Doct0r There Is, as
have shown, no denial OF Mrs. Jar!ey," and her
connection with "Punch and Juay" Is 80 natural
mat l. for one, am compelled 70 the
ment. And moreover. as l remember.
deputy on the door OF the General Convention
last lal did connect MIS- farley ana Punch ana
Judy win rituaiism. VI course, IT Is not pre-
tended that your report Is verbatim 1t assumes
TO be a sketcn, and as such, WITH my reading OF
own paper am quite satisfied that 1t is suostan-
tally correct. Aud satisfied was the Conference
with the address tuat, while some OF his brethren
dinered with MIN. ley passed vote OF thanks to
him, or, the DO tor himself with true mOdesty
admits Ia MS own journal, 'the conference did say
thanks Tor the speech" would modesuy ask
winch Is the greatest sinner-the Conference OF
ministers who could by vote OF thanks lndorse
sucn ''trash," or the HBRALD which printed It?
will not take up your space to comment upon
the affected injury OF the Doctor because some or
his correspondents have mistaken the HERALD
reporters English Ior his. Possibly 1t is great
mOrtifcation, and possibly not. Nor Will ailude
to ms ding at the reporting OF sermons that lad
never Deen delivered and from texts that had
never been given. True or false, (and | presume
1t Is lase OF erwlse l nave no doubt the Doctor
would have disproved or dismissed the production
long ago., TINS aluslon had no relevancy 10 this
discussion at all ana must assume was thrown IN
here only TO direct attention from the conspicuous
TACT tnat he dld not deny his own alleged utter
ances out merely answered inquiries IN a lawyer
like way so tnat tine reader or the inquirer might
If he pleased Inler tnat the Doctor denied them
while II the tables were turned the same answers
would show that ne mad not denied them and he
could relterate them WITH greater power.
NEW YORK, March /, 1875. J. c. M.