Evening star., 1901-05-06
Objects to Ceremonials and Vestments
Used at Conservation.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RUBRICS
Reply of the CIergymen Whom
He Criticised.
A 7 r l y l. Z r. O b \ b l. +

Church in regard to the ceremonials used
and vestmeEts worn at the consecration
recently of Rev. DR.. Heher Weller, jr.. as
coadjutor bishop of the diocese of Fond du
Lac, Wisconsin. which has attracted much
attention in Washington, and has been
augmented by public letters from Bishop
Thomas N. Clark. who subscribes himself
presiding bishop of the church, and from
the bishops who conducted the consecra-
tion at Fond du Lac
Bishop Clark of Providence r. L. aroused
by the Importance of the controversy and
the deep interest it has evoked among all
classes of churchmen, felt called upon to
disavow any responsibility for the pro-
ccedings at Fond du Lac and has even
gone so far in his disavowal as to term the
ceremonial used violation of the rubrics,
and to say that the VeStmentS worn had
no authority of use in the church
The bishops who took part in the conse-
Grafton acknowledge no authority in Bishop
Clark TO disavow their action. They con-
test the title assumed by him-"pr.si siding
Bishop of the Church''-and claim that no
such office exists. They claim that they
are answerable for their actions ONLY to
the house of bishops, and ask for speedy
trlal by that body, and further assert that
they Will bow to its decision in the prem
lses. If the house of bishops shall take up
the case and put the seven bishops on trial
1t VIII be spectacle without a preceder +
in the history of the Protestant Episcopal
podE. The Whole question of high church
versus the low church would be settled
lhe seven bishops who took part in the
conservation, using a ceremony approach
ing close to that used in the Catholic
Church and wearing VeStmentS scarcely
distinguishable from those worn by Catho-
lie bishops, with miters and crosiers, are:
Bishop William Z. McLaren of Chicago,
bishop {. c. Grafton Of Fond du Lac,
Bishop Isaac Lee Nicholson of Milwaukee,
Bishop G. Mark Williams of Marquette
Bishop Joseph Francis of Indianapolis Ind
Bishop Coadjuror Arthur l.. Williams of
Nebraska and Bishop Coadjutor Charles
p. Anderson of Chicago.
The letter of Bishop Thomas NJ. Clark of
Providence, r. l., which caused the pro-
test from the consecrating bishop is as
follows: "AS the recent conservation of
the bishop coadjutor of Fond du Lac was
held under the authority of the commits
sion signed and sealed by me as presiding
bishop of the church, l feel myself called
upon to disclaim any responsibility for the
violation of the rubrics on that occasion.
and the Introduction OF Yestments having
no authority of in the church."
The protest of the bishops in reply fol-
lows, in part: For reasons which will pres
emily appear we cannot recognize you, our
much reverend brother. as holding any
or judicial relations to our
actions; nor do We propose in this letter
the charges mentioned in your communica-
tion, which is something We shall continue
to decline to do until the only authority
which is invested with the right to do so
shall call upon US to plead guilty or not
guilty. In making this statement We dis
aVow any desire to conceal our action.
We simply decline to offer any plea what
ever in the face of charges ernanated from
one who is absolutely devoid of any judi
cial relation to that action.
Compelled to Emphasize.
I've fLd ourselves compelled to empha-
size this point because the title which,
perhaps inadvertently, you employ in desig-
mating yourself suggests the idea of some
measure of review and control as vested
in the incumbent OF the position which you
now hold with the respect and veneration
of the whole church. The title. Presiding
Bishop of the Church. is not found in our
canon law, and when it is used in popu-
lar parance it cannot mean more than
Presiding Bishop Of the House of Bishops.
1t would be very unfortunate if there
should exist in the Protestant Episcopal
Church tand there are many who fear it
does exist a process of evolution which
would end in clothing the senior bishop
with metropolitical powers. This is very
undesirable. and nothing would be more
calculated to prejudice lawful development
of the movement toward proper provin-
cal system. We disclaim any reflection
upon yourself as though it had been your
premeditated purpose to assume powers not
conferred by the constitution of canons.
This we do not for one moment believe,
but drifts and tendencies often exercise in
fiuence where the mind is unsuSpicious Of
the logical terminus adquem. This par
tiCular drift and tendency can be checked
only by exposure and protest, that the
church may be put on its guard against
the subtle encroachmentS of a centraliZing
policy which would work irreparable harm
Ia rl1 ICln ~ Ia Nghy 1lay fi..-
The mind Of the church has
ample opportunity to express itself in con-
stitutional methods without clothing any
with powers that simulate pa
paliSm.
That the conservation at Fond du Lac
was consummated under the authority of
the commission signed and sealed by me-
(you) Is true, but permit us to remind you
that you did not act presiding bishop
of the church in sending that commission
The canon under which you acted desig-
mates YOU as the presiding bishop of the
house of bishops, and this title is frequent
ly applied TO that functionary. 1t is, there
fore. evident that the title is not presiding
bishop of the church. since no such title
or office exists by provision of law. but is
presiding bishop of the house of bishops
Powers Conferred.
with reference to the powers which the
and canons confer upon the
presiding bishop of the house of bishops,
we beg very respectfully to suggest that no
powers are conferred except those which
are distinctly specified and these mostly
involve clerical duties only, and neither
nor archiepiScopal functions.
The fountain of authority for the consecra-
ton of bishop lies in the house Of bishops
considered in solidium, and when their pre-
siding officer acts he acts for them: their
and plenary authority passes to
him and two other bishops whom he may
select. but to him and to them only as
agents of the house There can be no
bishop until the house meets at
the next general convention, and his spe-
Gifted duties are to be discharged by one
who is not yet presiding bishop. 1t is evil
dent. therefore. that no duties devolve on
he presiding bishop by virtue of any power
dwelling in him as an intrinsic possession,
and that his duties and privileges are only
such as may be distinctly specified in the
written laws of the church. Since, then,
there is not word nor line which clothes
he presiding bishop of the house of bishops
with an iota of episcopal authority an any
other diocese than his own, and since his
duties outside of his diocese are clerical
only (unless he himself consecrates a
or exercises episcopal author
ty over what are called foreign churcheSD,
we perforce lock upon the communication
to which we ARE referring as expressing
only the private opinions of the bishop of
Rhode Island, which, beyond cavil or doubt
ba biShon of Rhode Island enjoyS the