The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1891-03-30
iHE NEED NOT REFRACT.
Such is the View Of Rev. How
ard MacQueary
REGARDING THE FINDING
Against HIm-He Declares that He
is Still an Episcopalian..some
new Correspondence Given
to the Public.

JAxEs7ows, N. Y, March 2s.-Rsy
Howard MacQueary, the heretical Epis
copal minister Of Canton, o., who is fill
ing the pulpit Of the Independent Con
greeational Church here two Sundays
has consented to the publication o
matters not heretofore made public
They include the DECISION and opinion
Of the Ecclesiastical Court which tried
him, the dissenting opinion, the
Bishop's letter and the minister's reply,
In explanation Of 1.-THE letters IL may be
well to say that Bishop Leonard, in pro.
nouncing the sentence of suspension
upon Mf. MacQueafy, said that "the
court had decreed that in case Rev.
Howard Mace Quearg fails 10 retract his
errorSin six'tdonthR',he should be de.
posed from the ministry. II was the
opinion Of many, including some mem.
bers OF the court, that the sentence went
beyond the decision and opinion OF the
court, and therefore Mr.. MacQueary
asked the Bishop "a allow the decision
and opinion to bs published and to
strike out the words "retract" and IRE:
tracted" in his sentence.
Bishop Leouard's letter contains the
following: ~ am quite sure you do not
believe me capable Of doing you an in.
Justice or OF acting unkind toward you
in any way. I think that our relations
have been unmarried by aCrfmony or
lack Of courtesy. So that in the prepar
alton Of the sentence Ihaye had but one
sentiment, and that Of sorrow.
"should you within six months pre-.
sent to me satisfactory evidence setting
forth that you will no longer teach and
publish the views, etc. (italics are mine)
would not that mean retTaction OF the
most practical character? Such prom.
ise would be published to the world. It
would certaiRly be IN acknowledgment
that you agreed with the majority OF the
court who declare your teachings to be
contrary to the teachings and doctrines
Of the church, and such promise would
be permanent pledge, would 1t not 2
This Is my view Of the opinion My
words we're not rescript OF the courts
expression, because that was hardly
necessary, and the use Of the word
court is certainly correct, though the
minority dissent. | aim simply 10 assure
you that could not do you
an injustice"
The Bishop added the following in
postscript: ''Ifi will be any more salts.
factory to you to have the exact wording
of the opinion reproduced in the sen.
tence, ] am entirely willing 10 re-write
the game, and alsoit you desire II, state
that this is the opinion Of the majority
OF the court"
To this letter, bearing date OF March
23, Mr.. tQueary responded on the
26.h inst. Tue following Is an extract
from his reply:
81 am glad that you offer to insert the
exact wording Of the opinion OF the court
in the sentence, and I shall be Obliged II
you will do so, for | don't understand
the verdict Just as you do. The court
asks that ! mo longer teach and pub.
lish'' my ''pecpliar! Yiews' OF Christ's
birth aud resurrection. In other words,
am asked simply to omit all considera.
ton ot these two topics from my teach.
ings aud writing. But a 'retraction"
would bold in that diocese, for, Of
course, the court cannot lay down the
Law for other dioceses. A Iretraction"
would involve an admission that my
opinions on these subjects are errone.
ous. and this, Of course, could not ad.
NIT. Whether at the end OF the period
named-six months from March 1871
shall give the required evidence that
will "no longer teach and publish my
views" shall remain an open question
until September l8, 1891. Meanwhi
have resigned my parish in your dio-
cese, and feel at liberty TO do whatever
my hands find to do.W
Mr.. MAJ Queary was asked whether he
ought not TO haYe been given the rea.
sons OF the majority OF the court for
their decision and opinion.
II think so,n he answered, ''hut the
canon law on this point Is not very clear,
and personally ] care very little about
the REASON for the decision. The impor-
tant point is that the verdict does not,
as the Bishops sentence did, require o
retraction OF my opinions, but simply a
promise not to "teach and publish" my
views OF Christ's birth aud resurrection.
OF course, this decision legally affects
only the diocese Of Northern Ohio, for
being diocesan tribunal the court can.
not lay down the law for any other than
It's own jurisdiction. What, therefore,
is Sheresy' In one diocese may be 'ortho.
do{y6 in another. Hence the reasons
for such q decision as this are not as i'm.
portant as some might suppose, and !
shell not troable myself about getting
"What about the resignation you sent
the BishopP"
"That was intended simply as as q no.
tlce to the Bishop that a retraction Of
my opinions was out OF the question; |;
but since l am not required to retIact l
would, Of course, withdraw that resigna.
tion, II 1t were worth anything. But the
Bishop could not, nnder the law Of the
church, accept any resignation, and,
therefore, Tam still an Episcopal clergy
man temRpIarily sgspelded. Whether
i shall ever res1ma ministerial worE In
that church remhlnRto be seen."
--.--N-