The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-06-29
REV. QUINCY EWING
ANSWERS DR.. COBBS
Rector of Church of Advent
Writes Extensively
CONTROVERSY NOW SHARP
Mr.. Ewing Reviews at Length His
canonlcal Standing and the Rector.
ship Matter-Retraetion Is
Strongly Demanded.
CONTROVERSY NOW SHARP

Church of the Advent, replies exhans-
lively in an open communication to the
letter of the Rev DIR. r. H. Cobbs. Sec
rotary of the diocesan council of Ala
Lama, which appeared In the Age-Herald
of yesterday. The rector's letter is as
follows:
The Advent Rectory.
Birmingham. Ala. June Is. 1904
The Rev. r. II. Cobbs d. D.. Green's
! boro. Ala:
Rev. and Dear Sr-I note with great
| surprise your statement I'm the Age
Herald of today Cruesday) that in your
open letter to Colonel Pearson, published
in this paper June rs, you made no
comment whatey err on my standing as a
clergyman, September 81, 19os Is 1t pos
sible that you or / have lived so long
without knowing the meaning of very
simple English words2 Here is the SEN
tence in your letter to Colonel Pear
son, to which your attention was called
by me in my open letter to you of the
Goth inst:
Il will go further and say that had he
Bishop BeclSwithl on September 81. 1908
given the evidence In writing e. e., the
certificate that was a qualified clergy
man of this church, based upon Informal
tion then In his possession, II would have
been mis- duty. after the reception of the
letter dimissory, October 4, to have with
drawn that evidence" | put This state
ment into language which may make the
gist of 1t clearer to the general reader.
without altering the sense of 1t by one
fraction of an iota, VIZ: IF Bishop
Beckwith on September q. 1903. ha~ GER
| tilted to the vestry of the Church of tho
| Advent, upon Information then In his pos
session, that the Rev. Quincy Ewing
was a qualified clergyman Of t-...s church,
1t would have been the bishops duty
to withdraw the certificate given to the
vestry, when he received the letter OF
transfer. October T. issued to Mr. Ewing
by Bishop Breton of Mississippi"
Standing as Clergyman.
| Now, sir, you hardly meant to assert
that my standing as a clergyman was all
right in the diocese of Mississippi Sep
TENDER "a, and that had become dis
qualified clergyman October 4, And there
is only one other thing that you could
possibly have meant to assert viz, that
If Bishop Beckwith, upon imperfect infor-
nation. had certified September 27 that /
was a qualified clergyman II would have
been his duty to withdraw his certificate
upon receipt by him of better information
conveyed to him in Bishop Bratton's let
ter October L. In other words. on Octo-
Der 4. Bishop Beckwith would have dis.
covered that what he certified to as
fact on September 81 was not a fact-that
/ 4 WAS not "a QuallueQ clergyman OF the
Protestant Episcopal church"
! Yet you state that you made no COM
ment whatever on my standing as a
clergyman September "a. 1903! l am at
| loss to understand your disclaimer, and
want so much TO understand II that am
| going to ask you several direct questions,
and in all courtesy beg Of you direct, I'M
| evasive answers which may serve TO
| throw light on the mystery:
/ I unQ 7 n
| gyman of the church September q. 1901
| 2. If was, did | become a. disqualified
clergyman between September q and Oc-
tober 4, 1903?
! g. Did you mean to assert that informa-
ton in Bishop Beckwith's possession
September q permitted him to write that
I was q qualified clergyman Of the church
and that information he received from
| Bishop Bratton on or about October
made It impossible for him to 30 write
without violating his duty7
| 4. Was I, or was not, a qualified cler-
gyman of the church October 4, 1903f-and
| II I was. why would 1t have been Bishop
| Beckwith's duty to withdraw his certif-
| cate to this effect, given September o.
Condition Of Things.
You say that your statement referred to
the condition OF things October T. 1905"
and that you have seen no cause" to
withdraw 1t. What was the condition Of
things October You tell the public that
your knowledge of 'the condition or
| things" was based upon letter Of Bishop
Bratton's that your statement had refer
ence to the contents OF that letter; and yet
you do not claim ever to have seen that
letter. and confess that you quote It rom
memory This is amazingl You made
clear pointed, unquanneo' posiiis.i S
a.t,aaS - ' r,v Qualifications as a clergy
n9an santamher n. 1904 II would have
been his duty to withdraw his certificate
that I was qualified clergyman upon his
receipt OF Bishop Bratton's letter Octo-
Der 4.
And now you confess that you did not
have Bishop Bratton's letter Derore YOU
that you quoted 1t from memory; ana you
do not tell whether you Quote ~ from
your own memory or soneone sise .. IL
less your own memory - Yeas "a" ~, 10.
until otherwise assureo ,.o,,,lr,, ~
quoted from sonie1 1,,', e gratta,,a ,atter
you nlsrepresens ap,s ,1anysr How. sir
Ia m mus -. ~ coreent Of YOUR con-
uiu 80 ,,tiisb 90 an officer Of this
selence 40 p1Dn nos not a ouaiiied clergy
,,1on octoher 4, 1909. in the lack of evil
L.. mon which Won could surely rely
trusting to a memory which you express
,ourseIv in today's Age-Herald as willing
| to have corrected, II IN error,
Have you SIR so little sense or the
consideration due one clergyman by an
other, one gentleman by another, one hui
man being by another, that You thought
You could righteously deny in dogmatic
fashion anothcr's good standing in his
chosen profession on the basis of evidence
of which you were mot certain? I confess
to profound establishment.
As to Memory.
| II would appear that you must have