New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-05-16
FIND AGAINST CRAPSEY.
UNFAIR, SAYS SHEPARD.
Court Packed and Case ForecIosed,
Declares Rectors attorney.

! That the respondent be suspended from exercs-
such time as he shall satisfy the eccesiastcaI a-
thoEity Of the diocese that his belief and teaching
and the Ncene Greed. as this Church hath received
and desire that the resp0ndent NAV see his VTay
clearly, thrnuzb the thirty days under which the
tenee can be pronounced to fully satisfy the 60
! part
The report is signed by W. c. Roberts, president:
z. H. BoyntoE. clerk; G. S. Burrows and John
Mills Gilbert
Dr. Francis s. Durham filed minority report
follows:
The UNDERSIGNED, member Of the ecclesiastical
court referred to in the foregoing decision, makes
ana Mes the following separate decision and re-
Whereas, The, respondent constantly affirm. his
as contained in the Apostles Creed; and
teres e 6 4hls creed declares the sacred mys
the most Holy Trinity and belief in the resur-
ties Of the Christian religion the said respondent
and the nS fom his own state
aat ms error consists rather in presumng de-
to Interpret these doctrines ii manner IN NOT GEM
sey P Pe by the Church rather than In
After referring to the specific charges. based on
Dr. Crapseys book. Religion and Politics" and on
the sermon preached about December 81
1914 the majority report finds DR.. Crspsey guilty
OF npugning, If not actually denying the doctrine
OF the divinity Of Christ the Trinity as held
by his Church. The immaculate contention virgin
birth and the resurrection Of Christ as likewise
understood. Dr. Crapsey not only impugns but
cording to the report
me application made by counsel conducting the
prosecution Tor leave to amend the presentment
SO as 10 include the year 1904 within the period
covered by the allegations is denied
Edward M. Shepard, when informed yesterday of
the verdict against DR.. Crapsey. said he Thought
mere would be an appeal to the court of review,
cue members OF which are the Bishop Of New Jer-
! sey' chairman; the Rev. Dr. Huntington rector Of
| grace Church, in this city; the Rev Dr. R. F.
| Alsop. Long Island; the Rev Dr. A. B. Baker
| New Jersey; ex-Justice Charles Andrews, New
YORK Frederick K Adams, Newark. N. j., and
| Marcus Hun, Albany.
Mr.. Shepard called attention to Section Z OF Canon
| q, which says:
In case Of conviction by the lower court the
bPisnop shall not proceed to sentence the accused
have been notified Of the decision Of the court nor
IN case an appeal is taken shall sentence be pro-
| thereof.
Later Mr.. Shepard made the following state
n1ent
the R %e maan5S R9 NOR to 9uspD
court But, nevertheless. I am clear that their
gentlemen seemed from the besinni3E to 1t con
sider themselves mere representatives of the prose-
S KS named oy the prosecuting 9pthorities-the
| Crapsey challenged two members Of the court the
prosecution named their successors. The original
members of the court were chosen from a list Of
Ten ba men all named by the The, standing stan committee
| nS{ IN intention, packed refused the very reason.
! able request of the defence for adjournment OF
then to meet should have the opportunity Of ap-
naed by TER eou tna' Is 70 say one
Crapsey's cause as practically foreclosed, and that
sidered the trial entirely as burdensome foTmalty
Although the canons provided for procedure &C
cording to the principles Of the common law, not
| only those principles but the eommonest rules of
Fortunate intervention of the very competent law
Yer Judge NoFf9 who was Galie6 IN as assessor
the programme upon which they started out to
MAKE % the mears 5tt mere Ioraty eonon6IG %
tunity for defence. The odium theologicum was
The defence undoubtedly did a large amount Of
YORK during the poor delay Of week which was
| whelmng one, although it would have been greatly
prosecution conceded as It had TO concede that the
! form OF the Apostles Greed had been altered by
coded. it explicitly did of necessity, that num-
Der of it's articles were interpreted by pious and un
] disputaby orthodox chUrchmen in different ways
and are now interpreted by the whole Church In
| entirely different way from the way such arti-
| cles were interpreted until within the last century
verify 10 the divine conception Of our Lord and a
spiritual verify to His resurrection-that is to say
| to do precisely what ST. Paul and the other
Apostles did-was not open to reasonable dispute.
made in the ordination when the English or
! Church Of Rome ard that in the Episcopal Church
| q clergyman was bound to preach only what he
he has done with courageous and high-minded hon
IN many ways a strong case for its doctrine OF
| authoritative Interpretation by the head Of the
| able than that promulgated in DR., Crapsey' s
case, that the court of single diocese of the
| Protestant Episcopal Church there limit the
comprehensive and sacred liberty which Is freely
enjoyed in other and for important doceses-
The trial has been OF infinite value 10 the Church
that its Comprehensive liberty as true catholic
church does not require that DR.. CTapseys sacred
| labors and self-sacrihce should be driven out OF
the pale Of the Church. have confidence that the
Of the Protestant Episcopal Church Will not fall
short Of the farseeiEg wisaom with which, in these
istered. If they shall take the narrow sectarian
view OF the work OF the Church which the majority
of this court has taken. them OF course, future
! of the Protestant Episcopal Church is merely the
future OF single Christian sect in our country and
far from the most important one
! AS TO an appeal. cannot OF course. speak until
Lins T@ a aIaa yar 1T apsey 9hd MT th
all Of the New York and New Jersey dioceses The
would have the right to hear the appeal upon
any of the questions which raised. whether
| court or upon its merits. The canons OF the ma
tonal church wisely give the court of review tho
very ampest power TO deal With such a Judgment
/ rendered by diocesan court. The notice Of appeal
stays enforcement OF the decree by the bishop
1 until thirty days after the appellate court shalt
have acted I suppose It to be very unlikeIy that
the appellate court would hea- the case before next
| OF course. I am quite unabls to say what would
! be the attitude taken by the Rev DR. Crapsey and
ST Andrews Church, Rochester. in the Judg-
ment rendered should stand. 1 suppose the Bishop
of the Diocese of Western New York would have
the right practically 10 exclude ST. Andrews Church
from the diocese in case the church should refuse
| 20 give UP DR.. Crapsey and DR. Crapsey should
prefer to remain IN his present rectorshp without
accepting the conditions prescribed by this judg-
ment
CHURCHMEN MEET IN BUFFALO.