New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-29
Brooklyn, June 81. 1891.
A REPLY TO THE REV. r. Il. MARVIN.

TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: In your Issue Of MAY - or 90 nit. there
appeared a letter from the Rev. Frederic r. Marvin.
The writer took for his text statement made by Dean
stanley I'm his lecture on the American Churches ana
then proceeed to offer some racy comments on recent
events in the Episcopal Church. | ask your lndul-
repce for brief reply explaining that the cause OF
nv DELAY i'm writing has been desire TO be sure OF
the facts nvolved-a matter requiring some private
correspondence
First in regard to Dean Stanley's assertion VIZ
that while In Hartford he was shown petition OF
some Episcopal clergy In Connecticut, asking to be adj
mitted TO the sacraments by the congregational min
Isersit Is only one case ont of many where English
men havs sadly Numbered In endeavOHng to speak OF
American affairs The Dean was certainly in error.
The petition 70 which he refers Is dated 1864 at which
time there were no Episcopal ministers In Connecticut
Either the Dean misunderstood the purport OF the
document at the time he saw II, or else in writHs
about II aftcrwarl his memory was ut inult. learn
from my friend Professor Hart Of Trinity college.
that the mistake corrected long ago. but evidently
the facts and meaning OF the paper In question are not
understood bv Dr. Marvin May | refer him to an
authority nearer homer The Rev. Dr. G.. L. Walker,
in his History Of the First Church in Hartford PIP
1915. ct segg discusses the matter at length. The
petition, ID seems, drawn up by William Perkins
and six other laymen, calling themselves professors
of the Protestant Christian religion, members Of the
Church OF England Their grievance was thaJ inc
CONGREGATIONAL ministers would not baptlze their chill
dren or admit them the petitioners to the Lord trblc
They asked for law which would give them
these privileges and also exempt them from
paving taxes for the maintenance Of minister who
refused them these services. The petition con
cerned sole with the duties Of the established C0ngre-
eaona body In the colony, and its requirements for
membership. Mr. Pltkn and his friends had bccl
members OF the National Church Of England, and d"
sired to be accounted the basis Of that relationship
without further requirement, members OF the COngI'
'.ational churches Of the places where they ne
sided. in New England The quotation IS from
Or walkers book. so much, then, for Dean
~anleys mistake. The Episcopal clergy had nothing t.
do with the forms Of Church government as IL leaves
that question entirely aside
With regard to the other part OF Dr. AlaPvns letter
that which deals chiefly with the bishops proposals
for Church unity-lltte need be said. lie insinu0ted
that the overtuics Of the Lambeth Conference are a
scheme for secarian conquest ard not what they
on their face viz u square proposal for honorable
COMPROMISE We might not he much disturbed by this
misunderstanding Of The motives OF our chief pastors.
although il argues poor opinion Of their intelligence.
bnt when IL 30 the further insinuati0n that our
desire for union with separated brethren Is only the
sOrIld wish 10 possess the wealth and social prestige
of the PreSbyterians. must in all charity assume
that Dr. Marvin has allowed his natural bias to weaken
his reason Can he seriously believe that the bishops
Of the Established Church Of England cOvet the wealth
and social prestige of the Presbytcrlans
TIiFO. T.. FOSTER,
Rector OF ST. Jamcss Church.
Great harrington, Mass. June 10, lo0l