New-York tribune., 1906-10-20
MANY WITH DIR. .CRAPSEY
MR.. SHEPARD'S ARGUMENT
Tells Court Hundreds Should LeaUe
Church if Rector Goes.

Edward NJ Shepard in his argument for the
Rev. DR.. Agernon Sidney Crapsey before the
victed rector should be forced out Of the Episcopal
Church for heresy, "a very great company OF
clergy and laity the breadth OF the land ought
to be driven out with him. He continued:
Is RT crapssy to out7 Is he TO go slOns, n1,ss
i en9Ffsd who VIM have e out TsFs
side the hundreds % 'sFa who viii s be aectsd By ths
inside in influence Is it gRe for you to lay down
do9 hIs be var are eT f eod s@I o P0qH Hs n not he
day to daily with fine points OF doctrine; There Is
the day to measure the Length or height Of
Charity.
Some of the foremost scholars Of the Episcopal
Church in America gathered at the diocesan house.
IN Lafayette Place. where the court OF review as
sembled TO hear the appeal Of Dr. Crapsey from
the decision of the ecclesiastical court OF the do
cese of Western New York. which adjudged him
hereto and ordered his suspension from the per-
formance OF his ministerial offices. Dr. Crapsey, It
held then had denied the virgin birth OF Jesus
and otherwise irnpugned the doctrines OF the Eps-
copal Church in his teachings from his pulpit In
ST. Andrews Church Rochester. At the last
era convention OF the Episcopal Church. IN Boston,
notice OF an appeal from the finding OF the Roches-
ter court was issued
The case. from doctrinal standpoint. Is one OF
the most interesting that has been brought before
the courts of the Episcopal Church in America and
Is. incidentally. the first heretical to be
viewed by the court OF review IN the East
Bishop Scarborough. OF New Jersey. presided.
surrounded by the Rev. DIR. W. P Huntington. OF
this city; the Rev. DIR. A. B. Baker. the Rev. Dr..
John G.. Moses, Charles Andrews. Frederick Adams
and James Parker, who make UP the court OF ap-
peal John Lord OBrian OF Buffalo. was church
edvocate Edward NJ Shepard and Representative
J. B. Perkins appearing for DR.. Crapsey. For a
time DR. Crapsey sat beside his counsel. but later
lourged on one of the benches. His two daughters
were among the spectators.
Yesterdays sessions consisted OF general re-
view OF the case presented to the court by Repre-
sentative Perkins, argument in behalf OF DR.
Crapsey by Mr.. Shepard and an appeal to sustain
the finding OF the lower court by Advocate oBrian
Mr. O'Brian declared that the court OF review
was not TO determine questions OF policy or expedi-
ency, but TO administer the laws of the Church
they existed. The defence gathered from the prose-
cution that It believed the court OF review had
appellate Jurisdiction. and Representative Perkins.
in his review Of the made this point factor.
He argued thar onder a proper Interpretation
Of canon law the diocesan courts had no jurtsdtc-
ton Of doctrine. faith worship; that that Juris
diction should rest with the court Of review. He
went on:
IT, the other side holds this court has no
diocesan Court ca can declare man hereto OF I'M
moral. moral. and he has no appeal This is manitestly
million men and women affects the whole catho-
portant decision, and there could be no appeal to
a higher court? It would be injustice, and.
worse than that an absurdity. II the contention
Cnat this court OF review has appellate turts
dictton Is held, what occurs? At once IL becomes
possible that what Is heresy IN New York may be
truth in Massachusetts,.
Mr.. Perkins then argued for the suspension OF
the verdict until the Episcopal Church shall estab
lsh an ultimate court OF appeal. Il only Just.
he said, that the case should be held In abeyancs
until such a court be created.
Nj o'Brian presented brief and argument. He
held, nrst, that the court OF review not TO de-
administer the law OF the Church. The court, he
SAID should not revsrse any technical error but
II should reverse II substantial injustice had been
done the appellant by any serious misruling or er-
ror IN the decision OF the trial court.
Mr.. O'Brian recalled the charge that was made
that the trial court at Batavia unfair. II was
not, he raid and he had resented the attacks that
had come from the failure 70 postpone II until after
the meeting or the council OF the Diocese OF West
New York.
Although our opponents do not seem TO recos-
been postponed until the time OF meeting OF that
council, there would have been question OF the
result OF the trial. 1t would have been against Dr.,
Crapsey, for II is certainty that there would have
been elected court that from the start would
been against DR.. Crapsey. Feeling high at the
time"
On motion OF James Parker. OF Newark. the argll-
ment was suspended until this morning, when the
court viii convene 70 hear the conclusion OF the
argument. a decision however is not expected FOR
some days