Daily Republican., 1881-07-11
CHRIST CHURCH AGAIN.

CHRIST CHURCH AGAIN.
, A Review OF Bis hop Lees State
ment about the D1tlculty.
New Castle Star.
A studiOus effOrt has been made ny
interested parties to produce the unwar'
ante impression that the Convention
O Delaware, held June 1st and "a deci-
ded tha merits of the question between
the pseudo vestry and the legitimate
vestry of Christ Church. To put the
mildest expression upon this convention
it was most lamentable mistake, and
a contradiction Of itself from beginning
to end. In the first place, the clergy,
devoid OF any "esprit du corps or too
timid to evince it went in there with
the fixed impre ,sion that they must,
nolens volens, sustain the action OF the
Bishop against me, whatever 1t might
be, because forsooth he is the Bishop,
and am only poor vestry-rldden
Priest, although representative OF the
hundreds who are annually driven out
of their parishes and tossed about for
their liveliht cd, for no fault of their
own. these brethern of the conven-
ton seemed to have forgotten that, by
their votes against me, that they were
putting ED in the hands Of their
Bishop to $ fy themselves by and by, on
the demand of their vestries. Appar-
emily they were moreover utterly insen-
sible that, by the a Dsence Of all charges
against me (except the Bishops intan-
gible one OF my bsing "nOt suited to
the circumstances" Of the starving out
problem), Gin which was placed"
that | am fighting bravey here
not nv own Individual battle, but
the b TIE of every honest manly
priest in the Church of God, battling
against the Erastianism of the vestry-
system against an Ecclesiastical star
chamber court and against Episcopal
Au 5ocracy. The time will come when
the true friends of the Church in Della
ware will sorrow over the action OF this
CONVEX tion of 1881, while her enemies
will hold it up to the scorn of the world
as an evidence of the incompetency OF
the Diocese of Delaware to grapple
with question of vital interest in the
| o.ity OF the Episcopal Church. Is this
vergrown vestry system to be reduced
to normal relation to the genius OF
the Church or-as the in evitable and
sad Alternatives the Priesthood Of
the Church OF God to be emasculated
and demoralized by this system of dry
rot in the Episcopal Church ?
The mistake in the second place is
the ishop drags me into the convention
after having bound and gagged me
with sentence of "Inhibitlon" not to
lift up my voice in his Diocese, and
there he stab, mo gagged and bound
And the whole course of his Episcopate
for ~ years past, Including his tlagrant
wrong, endorsed by u Resolution offer
ed by a minister of the Gospel who has,
before this, not only criticised Il at Epis-
copat. but who lomentel the beginning
Of the irritation in this parish, which
he ,nce had the rare opportunity of
brinL ing to q peaceful end, but instead
of this, k"ptit mp by frequent intrusions;
and as the clergy generally, who en-
dOrscd this Epi,copate OF ~ years, there
were on the floor Of Convention | un- |
drrstand only seven Rectors of sclfsup- |
porting parishes; and only two of them
who had been in the Diocese II years;
theaver ge Delaware clergyman preach
ing to an average congregation OF not
more than twelve males-atter an EpiS-
cOpacy ut 40 years.
But this was not the only wrong
inflicted by one who, by his office, ought
10 be the friend and father Of his clergy
not their traducer. For want OF
space pass over the Instances of sup
preSsio veri and suggestions of sinister
in his letter to Inc of
Dec. x, read before Convention
The Bishop raises a palpable question
of veracity between himself and me
when he positive ely declares that he 're-
ceived no reply to his le tier of Dec. 8,
asking for my resignation in the dark
and in aw y calculated 10 blindfold ths
without once taking the
trouble 10 learn the truth for himself
but making himself the instrument of
those whom he had a year before him
self condemned, when he wrote to them
that, if they should succeed in driving
Mr.. Phillips sway from the parish, no
gentleman would come here. As do
not reply to insulting letters, l made
aE exception in this case, and replied
Dec. 2lst, as follows:
'YOnrs of Sth inst. received. | have
1c idea that the most voluminous cor
will promote an under
on this subject. [ think it
would be better for me to come and see
you, al d talk the matter over with you,
,ye to eye. Very much better thar this
would it be for you to come down on the !
;pot; preside ut meetingof the con-
,regation called for the purpose probe
he matter to its very root bodily re-
,uke the wrong anc sustain the right.
Eor obvious reasons | have not men i
toned the subject Of your letter to any
me. shall be absent from town for a '
week or 80.
Now, what proves beyond question a
hat dd reply to this are those points :
# his answer relating to this very re- .
|llest made in my reply of 2lst Decem-
'er that he would come down to Della d
ware City and learn the facts for him =
elf In his answer to mine, he writes
nder date of January 5, 1881.
Your letter does not give me satisfac-
ion. Il ! can see no good
0 be effected by my coming to Della :
ware City or by personal interviews.
hat is, the whole matter has been pre-
ldg.d, and he refuses to come and t
'arn the Truth. How, otherwise, could t
G learn it? He has not been in Della c
rare City for the last IA months. But .
It his own words explain the merits of h
he case. Il
Il eEdea, ored, as earnestly as posi- il
lie to imprt IS on you the Indispensable Il
ess Of very conciliatory and prudent t;
ourae"' L
All this time was forbearingly un- n
ergoiug Insult from some of this fac p
on-so far as they could offer 1.-THE Il
.ader Of this choir and late member fl
t St. Andrews choir, who wishes to tt
rake the music Of this church an ad- a
ertising card for his practice ofphysic, Il
nade it rule toget up, Sunday after tt
unday, lust rs | was about to an n
,u,,, ,ny toyt and IN laaya the rhurrh a