The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-27
TESTIMONY
 COMPLETED Trial of Dr. Crapsey at
 Batavia. IS ARRAIGNED FOR HERESY Iheologian Will Conclude Argu- ments for Prosecution and Defense. Court Rules Against Expert Evidence Coming From Preachers Regarding Their Interpretations of the
 Episcopal Creeds.
$ ARRAIGNED FOR HEREsY

Batavia, N. r., April 2e.--The pro- secution rested its case today in the trial of Rev. Algernon 8. Crapsey. rec tor of St. Andrews church of Rochest- CT N Y, on the charge of heresy and violation Of his ordination vows. Be- fore doing so, John Lord O'Brfan, coun- sel for the prosecution. filed with the court for record a letter to Mir. Alex ander. Mir. Crapsey's assistant from Dr. Crapsey. dated January 5. 1906. He then submitted as evidence the collect. epistle. creed and gospel for st. Marks day as contained In the book of Common prayer.
 Congressman Perkins. counsel for the defense. admitted as evidence that pr. Crapsey had taken all his ordination vows.
 Mir o'Rrian then called Rev. Francis woodard. rector of St. Paurs church. Rochester, and asked him to rectte tho substance of a conversation held with Dr. Crapsey in February 1905. To this Mir. Perkins objected on the ground that this conversation was the present. ment against Dr. Crapsey. citing as precedent the case of Dr. Williams in which the prosecutor was the bishop of Salisbury After argument the court decided to exclude the evidence. pr. Woodland was then excused and Mr. O'Brinn announced that the prosecution rested It's case.
 Briefly the case of the prosecution consists of the original presentment against Dr. Crapsey: the evidence giv- en yesterday by MT. Alexander; the book of Dr. Crapsey's sermons, entIS tied Religion and Politics.: the book of common prayer. particularly those portions to which the prosecution yee- terday drew especial attention. tho canons of the church and other such documents.
 For the Defense.
 The first witness for the deferee was the Rev. J.. A. Leighton. Proffssor fof Philosophy in Hobart Colleget Con- gressman Perkins put In evidence cer- tain books bearing upon the doctrine of the Protestant EpiscnpaA Church. Including the work on tncafnation by fS RriHTsF ChfiFtF by D McCoueias and nlsa Works by Canon Henson ck westminster Abbey. Frederick Temple. former Archbishop of Cagterburs; the Rev Frederick Palmer of Andover. Mass, and others. Witness sshd in reply to questions he had read ali the books mentioned. as we'll as the presentment against Dr. Crapsey.
 .po you think" Mir. Perkins asked him. there is anything in the specifi- cations of the presentment contrary to the Doctrine of the Church as the law has commanded and as the church has accepted itT'
 Mr. o'Brian objected. He argued that the doctrines of the church were clear ly and explicitely set forth in the Book of Common Prayer and was not in need of interpretation; that no man could qualify as an expert on a question of doctrine. He then read from the Creed, and fin Jesus Christ our Lord who was conceived by the Holy Ghost. born of the Virgin Mary, suSered under Pom tius Pilate. was crucified. died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day he arose again from the dead"
 There is the doctrine clearly and unmistakably set forth" said NIT. OBrian.
 Much argument from counsel for both sides followed.
 Ex-Chief Justice Stiness of Rhode Island. closed an argument for ths prosecution with the words: "Tolera- tion of error does not establish 1t na truth" and MT. OBrian pleaded with the court to look at this question with stronK-hearted wisdom and remember that the church was not a cowardly church and to perceive its clear duty.
 He was answered by Edward M- sbepard of New York who declared that the prosecution begged the ques- ton, which was one of interpretation. 'The question is." said MT Shepara in conclusion. whether a clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church who, having taken his vows of ord- ination and studied the Holy Scriptures. Is persuaded as a result that the Ni- cene creed means certain things. should or should not preach these things It then becomes his duty and his right to preach these things.
 The court ruled that the testimony
 tuhf HOrnnHtemt and sustained the objection taken by Mir O'Brian The court in sustaining the objection taken by MT. O'Brian to The testimony of Dr. Leighton. declar- ed that the witness had been asked to decide questions which were before the court in other words. he had been as ked to act for the court. and for this reason the objection of the prosecution was sustained.
 c'ongressman Perkins called several clerygmen to the stand. including the Rev John P. Peters of St. Michaels Church New York. all of whom, he de- clared. were ready to give evidence similar to that which the defense want ed Dr Leighton to give. It was shown by questions directed to these witness es that they could be regarded as ex- pects in matters of church doctrines the defense declaring that 1t wanted to put in the records that the courts ex- cluded the evidence of these clergy men.
 Just before the closing of today's session the court ruled that the whole hook Religion and Politics" can be admitted in the argument. The court adjourned at 80 o'clock until tonior- row morning when the prosecution will begin summing up
 A theologian will speak in the sum- ming up for each side. pr. Elwood Worcester of Boston appearing for thg dnfense and Dr. Francisco J. Hall of Chicago for the prosecution.