The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-11-06


friends! The question srises, Is Mr.. Heb
berd really sincere in his belief that this
was all that was needed under the cir
cumstances-all that was due from man
of honor to people who confided in his
personal and denominational integrity
3. 10 an interview with reporter Of one
of the Lacrosse papers (Morning Chron-
icle, Oct. 19) it is stated that Mr.. Hebberd,
in reply to question, remarked that he
had "given no hint of this step in the
course of his preaching" adding that he
supposed he had never been quite strong
enough in the Universalist idea" If
this was the fact, what becomes Of the
statement which he now brings to the
| front as to his Reputation of obligation
to preach the "ism," and his assumption
of an independent position while he still
held the fellowship of the Church? Mr..
Hebberd's conversation with the reporter
inclines more closely to the exact facts
than his representation to The UNIvERs-
ALIsT.
4. We are reluctantly obliged to call
special attention to Mr.. Hebberd's refer
ence to the chairman of the Board of
Trustees as proof that he now pro-
poses to present facts only as he under
stands they will help his case. We SUBJ
NIT that any reader would understand
from Mr.. Hebberd's reference to this
gentleman, that the chairman of the
Board OF Trustees was taken into person
al confidence in the matter. Hence he
says, "Where, then, is the betrayal of
confdence?" The facts are that the
chairman of the Board accidentally De-
came aware of Mr.. Hebberd's intention
to leave our Church in certain con-
tingency; but this knowledge was not OBJ
tanned from Mr.. Hebberd, and he is
entitled to no consideration whatever IN
der the circumstance. The precise man.
ner in which the chairman of the Board
be here stated. We sllude to it only to
show that Mr.. Hebberd can not success
fully use the incident as evidence that he
was not betraying his friends and his
statement conveys false impression in
his own defense.
5. Mr.. Hebberd denies the assertion
OF our Lacrosse correspondent that g. he
WAS anxious to become our pastor again
and worked very hard to accomplish that
result" On this point we may simply
quote from another of the Lacrosse par
ish, and one of his former most steadfast
friends, who writes: "He says ne never
stirred finger, but I do know that he
stirred his feet lively to this end. If the
committee chosen by the Trustees to ap-
prise Mr.. Hebberd of their action in
voting to hear candidates is not very
much mistaken, he could have been en-
gagged any time previous to Oct. 4, when
he took the cars for Chicago to print his
pamphlet" We may leave Mr.. Hebberd
to settle this unpleasant difference with
the members of his former parish.
6. The matter of the Lacrosse pulpit
a0as decided against Mr.. Hebberd and
by the vote of the Trustees to hear can
didates. 1t is also true, as previously
asserted, that his friends had worked
faithfully and we'll to secure his re-engage-
ment, efforts that proved unayailing. II
anybody believes that all this could
have gone on without Mr.. Hebberd's
knowledge and consent, or that if the re
suit had proved favorable TO him he
would have declined TO remain as pastor
of the church, they are welcome to the
conclusion; but we risk little in saying
that the opinion is shared by few, if any,
of the Lacrosse Universalists.
7. Mr.. Hebberd further says he an
nounced his resignation without sug-
gestion from any one" and gives his rea-
sops. But was not this after he had
beeL made aware that the effort to re-
engage him had fallen through and the
parish Trustees had voted to hear can
didates? Such, at least, is our under
standing. IL this is true, what need was
there of any formal suggestion as to his
resignation? The facts we're sufficient to
indicate that the Lacrosse church no
longer required his services.
s. On a review of the entire case, we
fail to see that Mr.. Hebberd makes any
Roadway against the "unwelcome facts"
They will stand on record against him
although he attempts to brush them
aside. His course in Lacrosse was not
honorable to himself or his friends. His
plea that he began preaching there on
his own responsibility is subterfuge. He
knows well enough that he could not
preach Independently without surrender
ing his connection with the denomination.
His attempt to defend himself by re-
course to the declarations of his second
sermon is seen to have no weight in view
of his previous statement that he had
given "no hint of this step to the church
in the course of his presching;" and his
reference to the chairman of the Board
of Trustees evinces a disposition to sup
press the exact facts to build up an ap-
pearance of honorable action not justified
by the circumstances. As to his relations
with the Lacrosse church he is at issue
win all his friends, and no one in that
city conversant with the history of the
last few months, has any doubt whatever
that had the arrangement been made as