The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-20
CUAPSEY'S SENTENCE STANDS
Unless WITHIN 30 DAYS HE RE-
CiNTS ms ALLEGED HERESY.

,ourt Of Review lph0lds the Decision OF
the Lower Court That He he Sus-
pended From the Ministry Of the Epis.
copsl ChUrch-NO Appeal From This.
BUFFALO, Nov. l9.-The court of review
Of the Protestant Episcopal Church has
s,sta med the decision OF the lower court
in the case Of the Rev. Algernon s.. Crapsey
of Rochester, who was condemned by the
lower court to suspension from tho Church
AZ a result Of u~tteranoes made by him in
A book which he published.
The decision Of the court Of review was
brought to this city this morning by
the Rev. Henry A. Anstics OF Newar X,
secretary Of the court OF review. He de-
6vered the decision to Bishop Walker
Of the Protestant Episcopal diocese Of
western New York.
There ia no appeal from this decision;
hut Bishop Walker has thirty days in which
10 carry out the suspension of DIR. Crapsey.
As 10 when this will be lone Bishop Walker
refuses 10 say.
Bishop Walker refused to discuss tn Q
decision in any way. He also refused TO
.av what the next step in the proceedings
would be or when it would be taken, but it
was learned that the next thing which
DIFpDB hihN "lh NO 10 u dCiANC III VI
decision to DR.. Crapsey. When that is lone
Bishop ak can impose the sentence OF
suspension.
At noon to-day Bishop Walker made
public the decision in the Crapsey case.
II covers between thirty and forty type
written Pages, but the gist is contained in
the following statement given out by
Bishop Walker:
The court of review Of the Second
judicial department met September 4,
1906. in the city of New York, all the menu
ters Of the court being present. The APP
%pelant. the Rev. DR.. Crapsey, appeared
in person and by his counsel, the Hon.
james r. Perkins and Edward NJ. Shepard,
ESQ. The respondent was represented by
members of the standing committee Of
the diocese of western New York and by
John Lord O'Brien, church advocate. The
hearing was continued on October 10 and
20 at the same place. The arguments Of
counsel having been heard, the case was
on the day last mentioned submitted to the
court for decision.
The court having taken the matter
under advisement, and impressed with a
profound sense of its responsibility in dis
charging the serious duty cast upon it.
met from time TO time to consider the
appeal. After full consideration of the
questions presented it has determined
with the unanimous concurrence OF its
members that the Judgment of the trial
court should be affirmed. and it hereby
shfrms the same
Al the outset Of the trial by the eccle-
|siaStical court it was announced by the
n~..1zn3.H, .h1R Sl,., oil NwS NIAs @A..
on the question whether DIR. Crapsey
preached and taught what the Church re-
quired him TO do and not whether the
teaching of DR.. Crapsey was true. The
doctrines of the Church were not under
trial, declared the prosecution, but the
orthodoxy Of DR.. Crapsey.
Tho defence commended that DR.. Crapeey's
p contract with the Protestant Episcopal
Church permitted him to teach the truth
az he found it in the Scriptures, even where
that was at variance with the literally
Interpreted creeds Of the Church.
1t was conceded that DR.. Crapsey denied
the miraculous birth of Christ and His
physical resurrection and ascension, and
the prosecution charged further that DR..
Crapscy denied the existence Of the Trinity.
On the basis of these charges, as enun-
ciated in a book written by the accused,
entitled Religion and Politics" and in a
sermon delivered in st. Andrews Church,
Rochester, ION or about December 81, 1905, y
the court adjudged he defendant guilty Of
heresy and ordered that he be suspended
from exercising the functions OF a minister
of his Church until such time as he shall
satisfy the ecclesiastical authority or the
diocese that his belief and teaching con-
form to the doctrines of the Apostles
Creed and the Nicene Creed as this Church
hath received the same. =
This verdict was confirmed by four OF
the five members composing the court on
MAY. IS, 1908. The fifth member, Francis
s. Durham, wrote a minority report in
which he declared that DR.. Crapeeys error
consists rather in presuming to define what
God hath not been pleased to reveal and
10 interpret those doctrines 1.-THE incarnation,
the Trinity, and the resurrectionI In a man
ner not generally received by the Church;
rather than in a denial and rejection OF their
truth and authority
Mr.. Shepard Immediately announced
that he would move for a new trial before
the court OF review Of the Protestant Epis-
copal Church, and in an interview he ex-
pressed his belief that the judgment OF the
court would carry no moral weight what
ever. He also said that the -odium theo-
logicum' was painfully apparent through
out the trial.
The court Of review which sat or the
case in New York consisted OF the following
members: Bishop Scarborough OF New
Jersey. presiding; the Rev. DR.: william n.
Huntington. rector OF Grace Church, New
York; the Rev. DR.. A. B. Baker, Of New
Jersey; the Rev. John B. Moses, OF Garden
City, l.. l., and three lay members: ex-Judge
Charles Andrews Of the Court OF Appeals.
New York; Frederick Adams OF Newark, N.
j., and James Parker Of Perth Amboy.
They heard the first argument, Tor an
appeal on Oct. 10 at the diocesan house OF
the Protestant Episcopal Church, at 4i6
Lafayette avenue, and without taking action
adjourned until November IL.
BY ecclesiastical law the sentence or the
lower court had been stayed by h filing OF
DR.. Crapsey's appeal. and Mr.. Shepard
argued for a further stay until a court or
appeals could be constituted to give the case
a rehearing. In his argument Mr.. Shepard
made the plea that while DIR. Crapsey may
have denied or impugned the doctrines OF
the Church. he did so not knowingly, but
without the knowledge that he did so ana
without any desire TO imPugn any uoc-
trine of the Church or creed.