New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-11-05
RTSUOP SEYMOURS "HOLY WARP

With every desire to do so, ii will not be easy
for candid people to accept Bishop George f.
Scymour's assertion that he is not assaillng the
dead in the controversy which he is trying 10
nroyokc I'm the Episcopal Church, thus far APP
parcntly with nut success. For the only reason
for that controversy. Bishop Seymour hinlscii
being witness. was the election and consccra-
tion Of DR.. Brooks as Bishop Of Massachu-
setts The letter from the Bishop, which we
print to-day, is proof Of that fact Though he
declares in it that his attack is directed against
certain living bishops, he explains that lie IL
attacking them, not for personally holding OF
teaching false doctrine. but for admitting 10
the Epscopatc one Bishop Brooks whose
status as n baptized man was extremely doubt
ful at the best and who fatty contradicted
some of the foundation truths of the Gospel as
taught by our Prayer Book, and treated others
with Indifference" In view of this and similar
statements of the Bishop. are still con
strained to say that the leading issue OF the
holy war upon which he has entered Is the
doctrina status of the late Bishop of Mlssachtl-
sctts-settled so far as the Church Is concerned
by his confirmation as Bishop. and settled so
far rs the public is concerned by his noble life
ard lancnted death.
But we would prefer if possible. to accept the
Bishops disclaimer on that point and to regard
the issue he raises as one that concerns living
men in the Episcopal Church. What is that
issue? Briefly this: that there are men in the
Church. some of them bishops who are trying
to "cvacuate and deprave" " the Creed the
Offices. the Catcchism. the Ordinal and the
Articles Of the Church. and they are doing
so. not openly and abovcboard but by "cva-
sions' sharp practice trlckery, clever
attempts to deceive" and through the viola
ton of pledges, promises and vows" These
are serious charges. Made. as they are. by
responsible Bishop Of the Church, over his own
name. they ought not to be ignored by the
Church. Though the Bishop gives no names,
which is unfortunate he says enough to indi-
cate that he has certain men in mind. In MS
sermon ut the conservation OF Dr. Gallor, last
summer, he declared that bishops OF the
Church, among others. are " marked with the
plague spots of craft, deceit and evasion OF
their Oaths by sophistry. And in his letter
which we publish to-day he declares that his
attack is upon the bishops who voted to con-
firm the election Of Bishop Brooks, and espe-
resulted in the elevation Of DR.. Brooks to the
Episcopate. Now this reduces the issue to
terms in which it can be discussed and settled.
The names Of the bishops who assented to the
conservation of DR.. Brooks are recorded in the
archives Of the Church; and the names of the
bishops who were the leaders in the movement
are known to every intelligent EpiscOpalian.
They were: John Williams. Bishop Of Con-
nectcut and Presiding Bishop of the Church:
Henry G. Potter Bishop Of New-York, and
William Croswell Doanc Bishop Of Albany.
These are the men against whom, among
Others Bishop Seymour lifts up his voice. 1t Is
for thcm and not for a secular journal, to make
an answer to his charges. They are accused by
one of their peers, and they owe it to them
selves, as well as to the Church. to meet the
accusation
Two other points in the Bishops letter may
be noticed. He declares that the elevation Of
DR.. Brooks to the Episcopatc did not repeal the
Greed Of the Church. That is true; but it was
an official declaration that the Church tolerates
n liberal construction of its formularies, just
as it tolerates the more narrow construction
put upon them by the Bishop Of Springfield.
The other point is the Bishops reputation Of
the charge that he upholds what he knows to
be untrue. We neither made, nor intended to-
make, any such charge. What we do say is
that Bishop SeymO and those in the EpiscO-
pal Church who hold views similar to his would
be prevented by their principles from consider
ing the most overwhelming evidence which
might be offered against the truth Of doctrines
that they believe to have been settled once for
all in the past. If. for instance, to take a con-
crete example, some General Council Of the
early Church had declared Moses to be the
writer OF the Pentateuch, Bishop Seymour
would consider 1t his duty to believe that as
sertion. even though it should be Individually
proved that Moses did not write it, AS he says
himself In such matters he is not a seeker
after truth"
NO FEARS FOR DIR. NANSEN
The current story OF disaster to DR.. Nansens