New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-04-12
THE PROTEST NOT POPULAR.
MANY INFLUENTIAL EPISCOPAL RECToRS
WILL NOT SIGN IT.

GROUNDS OF THEIR oPPosIuoN-ITs MANY
SUPPORTERS MAINLY LAYMEN AND
ASSISTANT MINISTER'S.
| The protest against the alleged uncanonical
| practices of the Rev. DIR. Hcber Newton and the
| Rev. DIR. Rainsford has obtained nearly all the
signatures that the clergymen responsible for its
| framing and circulation can get The protest
was sent out marked private and confidential. y
| Therefore neither its supporters nor those OPP
posed to it are willing as yet to give it to the
public through the newspapers. 1t is a brief
document, and its purport is that the clergymcn
and laymen whose names are signed to it respect
| fully protest against the action" of the clergy
| men mentioned ;" in inviting clergymen Of other
| Christian denominations into their pulpits on
the ground that IL is in violation Of Canon IA of
Title | of the Digest Of Canons." The protest
is not addressed to the Bishop or anybody else in
particular. Its trainers and Ggners have simply
freed their own minds in it. II is certain that
it has been signed by many prominent clergy
men, but it is equally certain that many promi-
nent clergymen have refused to sign It, Pro-
fessor Rchey drew ii up and the Rev. DR.. Dix is
one Of the signers.
The Rev. DR.. de Costa did not sign it. His
reasons for withholding his support are, it has
been learned, that the protest has too much milk
and water about it. 1t does not meet his views.
because it is not pronounced enough, his con-
tention being that by the canon preachers" of
other denominations, whether robed or not, should
not he allowed to address Episcopal congregations
from the pulpts of Protestant Episcopal churches
1t is certainly significant fact that. with few
exceptions, the strongest Episcopal clergy
men in this city have refused to
SiOn fha acf no cto n1
on good authority that the Rev. DR.. f. Winchester
Donald, of the Church of the Ascension, the Rev.
DR.. Greer of ST. BartholOmew's, the Rev. DR..
Huntington, of Grace Church, the Rev. DR.. Arthur
Brooks of the Church of the Incarnation, the Rev.
DR.. L. Walpole Warren, OF Holy Trinity, the Rev.
Mr.. MOttet, of the Church of the Holy COmmu-
nion the Rev. Cornelius B. Smith Of st. JameSs
Church, the Rev. DR.. Van De Water, Of st. An
drew's, the Rev. DIR. Stanger, of the Church of
Holy Trinity, of Harlem; the Rev. DR.. Rylance,
of st. Marks Church, the Rev. Dr. Peters of st.
Aiichael's Church, and ArchdeacOn Mackay- Smith
have all refused to attach their TO the paper
A number of the clergymen, in fact, have not seen
the papers at all Many of them, naturally, Won
de- at this
1t is understood, also that with the exception
of the Rev Dr. Dix, the Rev. DR.. Satteree and a
few other well-knOwn leaders Of the Church the
sgners are in the main assistant rcctors and
laymen.
The Rev. DR.. Newton, who, it was said, would
explain his position publicly, has written the fol-
lowing letter to " The Churchman":
Your irenlcon in this weeks "Churchnan
require and deserve frank and cordial response and
although you have had the courteous discretion to MAKE
m personal references trust you will lnd space to admit
a brief personal answer.
You have very fairly stated the broad ground which,
years past have felt free to have special services In
my church. which Christian divnes not In the orders
OF our Church have been invited to deliver addresses
Something might indeed add to your statement II my
present purpose argumenative Since. however.
am responding to an renlcon will only add in this con-
necton who has soken In my church on such
an occasion has ever word that might not have
been spoken by yourself occasion or in any presence
may further say that IL had occurred to me that serious
dsqulet woud be caused ty special us which have
made large liberty which hold that the Church
allows and wisely allows. in matters OF this kind would
gladly have subodlnated personal preferences as 70
means and methods cf expressing and promoting CHRISTIAN
unity to the calm consideration OF those larger measures Of
reunion which Church is now happily leading We
way and to which other churches incning so gra
clously.
Serious msappreheDsons do certainly seem to have
arisen and regret to learn that Others nave Deeh sup
posed to part responsible for arrangements "hh
were mine alone and which but myself had any
knowledge regret this sincerely. 1t involves SORT
Of injustice to which have been not hfrcquehty SUI
jected and to which would not Willingly subject an
other No man ought be held responsible for any WORD
or act which he himself spoken, done, CT eey
consented and perhaps the greatest wrong oil an "'
tIcc Of this kind is this that the injured par a oe rc
strained by sense OF personal dignity or by feong
OF loyal friendship by generous indisposton 70 seem
10 strike another from vndcatng himself and even from
doaptnc his own uositloa Thus The wrong done ITO the
man may result IN more important wrons to the VuOh
should do more than It q in my mind 10 do II were
to enter into G. your irenicon In all Its parts
and vet you will pardon me- sLrcy, for saying that IN
all it, parts 1 entirely aErcc with you But 70
a., sprt as an irenicon lot me say that respond sim
cerv and heartily and not least heartily to that part Of
it in which you urge that the present good time Tor
earnest men to be prudent and selfdenyng even In the
use OF what they hold to be their lawful liberty rather
than TO ecpardze that large measure OF Christian unity
which our bishops have formulated