Perth Amboy evening news., 1906-04-27
RECTOR IN HIS
own DEFENSE
Judge Stiness of Church Court
Defines Case Testimony by
Pastors Ruled Out.

BATAEIA,l n. Y. April %. The
trial of Rev. Algernon 5. Crapsey OF
Rochester before an ecclesiastical
court of five rectors of Protestant Epis-
copal churches is nearing its close.
DR.. Crapsey stands charged with
heresy and Il violation of his ordina-
ton VOWS. the evidence against him be-
ing a book of m printed over his
name and the Book of Common Prayer
of the Episcopal church.
The prosecution abruptly ended its
case. and the defense endeavored to
present the testimony Of Il number of
prominent clergymen as to whether or
not DR.. Crapsey's sayings constituted
heresy, but the court ruled the tcsti-
mony out on the ground that no man
could qualify as an expert in doctrine
and on the further ground that the
witnesses We're called to express opin-
ions on subjects which were before
the court for decision. The lawyers
for the prosecution and defense will
sum up today.
The widespread interest which is at
tracted to the trial was attested by
the greatly increased attendance.
The most interesting incident was
an exchange between Judge Stiffness,
for the prosecution, and Edward NJ.
Shepard, for the defense. This fol
lowed the placing OF the stand of the
Rev. Joseph Alexander Leighton, chap
lain and professor of philosophy i'll
Hobart college. the first witness called
by the defense. After DR.. Leighton
had read the full text Of the present
ment against DR.. Crapsey, Mr.. Perkins
said TO him:
in your opinion, is there anything
contained in the specifications which
is contrary TO the doctrines of Christ
as the Lord had commanded and as
this church had received the sameT'
Il object" emphatically announced
Mr.. O'Brian of the prosecution. Il do
not understand that the witness is i'm
personating the doctrine of the Prot
estant Episcopal church."
Al this point Judge Stiness, former
chief Justice of the supreme court of
hIlOtt lSlNllu, SIbht IOI me HISt tlllit.
My associate" he said, has request
ed me to define this case TO the court.
| do. This court has to determine two
thingS-firSt. whether DR.. Crapsey
made the statements cited in the pre-
sentiment. There is no proof neces-
defense. Second. whether these state
ments amount to Il violation of the doc
trineS of Christ. 1t is not a question
whether that doctrine is true. The
great question is. Are these things said
by DIR. Crapsey in accordance with the
doctrines of the church?'
Rev. Mr.. Alexander testified that he
sat in his place at the chancel and took
notes Of what Or. Crapsey said. This
is what he heard:
Jesus was born Of parents belong
ing to the middle class. He was born
of a simple father and mother. He
was the sol of Il carpenter. The fact
that the early Christians predicted a
miraculous birth of Christ is to he re-
gardcd as one of the greatest misfor-
tunes that has even befallen mankind"
Had you heard him preach on SINH
lar questions hcforc%' asked Mr.. Per-
kins.
Yes. | heard him lecture for twelve
consecutive Sundays, and it was most
painful to hear"
Lawyer Perkins tried to draw an adj
mission from the witness that he got
evidence against DR.. Crapsey so he
could get the rector dismissed md Sc
cure his place. Mr., Alexander lodged
the point.
1t was said that the Rev. Frederick
j. X. Alexander. formerly DR.. Crap
sey's assistant. who testified against
the accused clergyman. will I've dis
missed us CurHte of ST. Luke's church.
Rochester, rs n result Of his testimony.