Smyrna times., 1899-04-26
Smyrna, April oath, 1899.
Bishop Coleman and AuricuIar Con-
fessiOu.

Over the signature of "Daysman"
there appeared on Saturday in the
Morning NeJUs, a statement of the
position of Bishop of this Diocese in
reference to the Mass and Auricular
Confession. The writer saws:
''The Right Reverend Leighton
Coleman, Bishop of the Protestant
Episcopal Diocese of Delaware. has
written a letter to the New York Tri-
bune concerning the relation of the
doctrines of auricular confession and
the mass to the Episcopal Church
This letter, in some respects, is a sur
prlsing document. 1t is distinguished
principally for what it does not say,
and one regrets to notice that it is
devoid of that saving quality of
trankness that Is so necessary part of
clerical writings. l very much fear
the Bishop has been tempted to in
dulge in the useful art of "hedging. :"
which Is not form of discussion quite
IN keeping with the dignity and SER
lousness of the subject about which he
writes. | may do him an injustice,
but there are certain features of his
letter that strongly point to that con-
clusion. The editor of the Tribune
prOpounds two very simple questions,
both easily answered, but to neither of
which does the Bishop, for reasons
best known to himself, make a definite
reply.
First-Is or is not the doctrine of
the mass, as held by the advanced
Catholic party of the English Church.
in harmony with the Episcopal Church?
The Bishop says: cit is difficult to
answer this question without appear
ing to do so evasively, else doing in
Justice to those whom you especially
name" This, indeed, is fitting pre-
face to an answer characterized by a
hazy allusion to the kind of response
that might have been given had the
question been differently formulated; !;
by an irrelevent observation concern
ing silly accusation sometimes
brought against theologians about doc
trlnal beliefs; by platitudinous mo-
ralization on ''crucial distinctions" ap-
pertaining to $50 mysterious a sub
ject as that of the Blessed Sacrament; /;
by an obscure statement "that there
cannot be anything truly catholic held
concerning 1t by any one anywhere
that is not In harmony with the teach
ing OF one branch of the Catholic
Church" and by the curious admis-
sion that he has before him no ''auth-
orltative statement of teaching upon
the subject" or he might make more
definite reply. Coming from an Epis
copal bishop this is certainly an as
tonishing answer to so simple a ques-
tion, and it is only explainable upon
the theory that the Bishop is himself
a Ritualist and not only hesitates to
commit himself in print on that sub
iect, and by virtue of his Ritualistic
impregnation is unwilling to admit the
fact the question calls for. However
this may be, he very well knows that
the doctrine of the mass, as held by
the advanced Catholic party of the
English Church, is not in harmony
with the teaching of the Episcopal
Church. Whatever connection that
doctrine may have with the American
Episcopal Church exists as figment of
the Ritualistic imagination, coupled
with arbitrary and Unauthorized Ritual-
istic practices in individual churches.
He also knows that his statement-so
worded as to imply a fallacous infer
ence-ot not having before him an au-
tnority upon the subJect-was born of
the knowledge that no such antbor;tv
exists, and challenge him to prodncSs
any to which a church convant;oT
would pay serious attention.
10 the second question-What is the
attitude of the Episcopal Church
toward the doctrine of auricular eonfes-
sion, either enforced or voluntary
the Bishop is equally obscure in his
response, though somewhat more posi-
1--WE. He says: ''The church allows.
and IN some instances recommends
auricular confession. In no instance
goes she compel it, except in q general
way she makes it condition necessar-
lily precedent to absolution." If this
statement was not over Bishop Cole
man s signature would doubt that he
made 1t, for the Episcopal Church does