Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-02

, is unquestionably right. I believe that
while Mr. Crapsey would have been per-
fectly free to express his views on church
matters Il layman, he WAS not entitled
to this freedom OF speech a churchman.
The question also hinged this point
that is to say, that he had no right TO
speak on any teachings or beliefs OF a
church other than those of the church to
which he pledged himself as being faithful.
In accepting the Episcopalian Church Mr..
Crapsey accepted all its traditions and
rules and teachings. and had no right to
subServe anything but these"
Rev. George +. Dudley. rector of ST. Ste
phen's Church. Columbia Heights. thinks
the position taken by Rev. DIR. Bowling in
able one for consistent churchmen.
1T has not been question" said Mir.
Dudley. as to the truth or falsity of DIR.
Crapseys position in regard TO certain fun
damental doctrines OF the church. nor
whether or not the church has defined
these doctrines clearly part of the
eternal truth revealed to man by God, but
simply whether priest of the church can
deny these doctrines because he personally
no longer believes them to be true. and
still hold his position official mouth
piece and teacher of the church. In
word, he says the church is wrong in still
teaching and believing these. to him. obso-
lete and unreasonable doctrines which are
not apostolic, but subapostolic in their
origin; but he does not deny that the
church does declare them to be true and
proven by holy scripture.
las DIR. Bowling says. there is only one
thing to be done. Such a man can no
longer be priest and preacher of the
church We all regret the necessity of
public trial chiefly because it is almost
impossible for the average reader to I'M
dertsand the exact status of the case
and to differentiate between the man in
his personal character and influence and
the priest who has sworn to defend and
teach the roctrines of the church.
'All who know DR. Crapsey admire him
as man and value highly his splendid
influence for good everywhere he went;
but we cannot but believe that he failed
In judgment when he forced upon the
church the necessity of a public trial We
should have honored him more had he
quietly withdrawn from the ministry of
the church when he could 10 LONGER be-
lieve the doctrines she holds and teaches"
Rev. Edward Marshall Mott of the
Church of the Advent has positive views
on the question.
ANY clergyman he said, ''of the
Protestant Episcopal Church who in the
course of his studies and meditations has
arrived at convictions which are at yari-
ance with the established standards of that
church, cannot consistently with personal
honor and self-respect remain a teacher
and priest in that church. That PROPOSE
ton Is plain as day.
I'm regard to the views of DIR. Crapsey,
We all know that rauonalism, broadly
speaking, like ProteuS of the classics,
takes on new face for every new phase
of thought. But 1t is the same old foe just
the same. The teacher of Christ's religion
is quite sure that the essential truths OF
Christ's religion are not (and this is the
gfst of the Crapsey heresy triaD at vari-
ance with the facts of natural philosophy
as known The peculiar heresics of DIR.
Crapsey have been met and fought during
every generation Of the church's history;
and the orthodox faith has always Won
and always WILL
THE Crapsey case has been settled just
ly," declared Rev. Richard p. Williams.
rector of Trinity Episcopal Church, Sd and
c streets northwest. 1T has been settled
in accordance with my convictions. | do
not see how any honorable man could re-
main in a church whose doctrines he had
sworn to teach. and was taking that
church's money for doing it, and then fatty
contradict those doctrines from the pulpit.
There is no argument in the matter. This
Is free country and a man can preach
what he chooses. Let him become an Uni
tartan and then he can preach any doctrine
or else let him hire hall. / cannot I'M
derstand Mr.. Crapsey's position toward his
own conscience. His case like of
soldier of one army, clad in the uniform or
his country,( giving away the military Sc
crets of his side to the enemy"
When asked his views upon the case, Rev.
Clement Brown, pastor of the Pro-Cathe-
dral Church of the Ascension, said: DIR.
Crapsey violated the oath he took when or
dained as priest in the Episcopal Church.
He might be what some would call a
traitor. He had right to his beliefs but
there was no excuse for him continuing to
preach from an Episcopal pulpit. If after
many years of teaching the principles of
the Episcopal Church. he found he no
longer believed in that faith, he should have
resigned. 1t would have been more honora-
BILE. instead of continuing, as he did in the
priesthood. 1t was in doing this that he so
grossly violated the oath he took He did
himself a great injustice as well as those
to whom he preached, and the church in
general