The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-06-03
BIsHop POTTER CONDEMNED.
The High Church Party Organs Comments
on BriRgss Ordination.


In the current issue OF The Catholic Champion.
recognized as tho mouthpiece OF the Anglo
Catholic party OF the Protestant Episcopal
Church In this diocese and edited by the Rev.
Arthur Richie. rector OF the Church OF 81.
Ignatus. on West Fortieth street, appears an
article condomnatory OF Bishop Potter in the
matter OF the ordination Of DR.. Briggs. The
article is. in part az follows:
Tho persons who are nnswerable are the
clerRymen who recommended Dr. Briggs
tDrs. Huntington. Peters and Tiffany the
Standing Committee and, chiefly. we regret to
say. the Bishop. They we're all bound to know
something OF him 1t will not do to say that
any Of the testimonials required were merely
formal That Ia another branch OF the same
error in regard to truthfulness under which
DR.. Briggs labors. II they knew nothing they
ought not to have spoken until they had in
formed themselves. This was not the ordi-
nary case OF young man trained in the Church
for her ministry who in his youth and appro-
pirate modesty had never made any public
utterances Dr. Briggs has been before the
public for many years. II It were not for
possible touch OF abusiveness in the word we
should say that he was notorious. With many
he was sort OF hero. And the reason why he
occupied such position was that he had been
expelled from the ministry OF the Presbyterian
denomination for denying one OF the funda-
mental principles OF religion. which we rejoice
that they hold in common with us and with the
Catholic Church OF all ages 1t was not that he
had been converted to EpisGopacy. IT was not
the, Bible Is the Word Of God and is therefore
| without error,
no authority for us. but the o. truth that the
Bible Is the Word Of God is vital There Is
nothIHs more carefully insisted on wrM
therefore, this man. who had published q book
in which he completely and thoroughly denied
edition Of It in January, 1890. reatiirming the
errors for which the Presbyterians expe lied
R6 WAS WAS IL, cDy aay d fer o.s Who orders
God to rs s{% &c him sh"aII they they
r naTs shoud they VIII Have S
him 20 on in his delusion and, as a condition OF
ments 70 be the, Word Of God while Tho
Th the BE Rss Of
God needs qualification and explanation :
e Ss Wb the yh SgS IT That
Should not those
must do 80 without Gpaihcatton ana explanq-
ton ard With the understanding that there is
These, gentlemen, however. had not tho
chief or final voice, in the matter. With pro-
found respeet for his office and for his many
|
| things he has done. we cannot conceal from
| ourselves the lamentable truth that the Bishop
| OF New York Is the chief offender in this caths-
| trophe, We DO not forget that letter from
| him. which we suppose was genuine. appeared
| in the papers in which he declared that he had
no discretion as to whether he should ordain
| the candidate.
I'VE fear it must be confessed that in this
Briggs case we were not ready DR.. Glen
| denim indeed was ready to refuse to have the
| sacrilege committed In his church. thanks be
that is. they feared not to protest and to ask
| Bishop Potter tn defer the ordination. But IL
| we had all read DR.. Briggs and had made notes
and had had our material in shape to say, in
| exact words. This man teaches thus and so.
| whereas the doctrine OF the Church Is thus and
| selves known these particular facts about
| this particular man and had put their names
| TO such written protest. it may be that
Bishop Potter would have proceeded notwith-
| standing. but it would have been more difficult
| for him to have done 30 and we should have
done charitably in giving him strong and
| ReriOnS WARNING