The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-26
RooBEsTERs HEREsY TRIAL.
what 10 the Duty OF . Clergyman Who
Holds Unusual Opinions?

To THE FpIToR OF TIL SUN-Sir; The
pastoral letter of the House OF Bishops issued
october. 1904, does not bear precisely on the
ethical position of Or. Crapsey. If one
finds, whatever his office or place In tho
Church, that he has lost his hold upon the
fundamental v%erities, then In the name or
common honesty let him be silent or with.
draw" What has that to do with a clergy.
man convinced that he has hold on the lun.
damental ~yerities?
The doctrine that a clergyman who reaches
opinions unusual in his Church and against
those OF a majority OF its preachers and
prelates on points they deem Fundamental"
ought to resign his pulpit may be very con-
venient to those Bishops without being
ethically defensible. 1t appears rather that
the plain duty OF a religious teacher under
such circumstance Is to declare his convic.
lions boldly and throw upon his Church
the responsibility Of proclaimins before the
world the limits Of It's liberation and defining
the precise doctrines excluded from further
inquiry or modification. A religious teacher
in DIR. Crapsey's position owes a duty to the
young men of the country who may contem.
the twentieth article OF their Church that ii
Is not lawful for the Church. to. .ordain any.
thing that is contrary to Gods Word written.
neither may II so eXpound one place OF Scrip
ture that II be repuRnant TO another" No
instructed person can deny that there arc
Scripture texts apparently supporting and
reptidiatinR miracles, the miraculous concep-
ton Of Jesus, &c.
There have been many judicial decisions
on the right Interpretation OF the articles aud
the. nature OF ordination obligations. Is nm
whole House Of Bishops. a General Council
Episcopal Church In America what are its
interpretations of the articles. and what ia
the limit OF its tolerance. and what amour,
course. II a clergyman In that position should
not have a sincere belief that he has q legal
honestly continue in it; but it would b" a
serious error to suppose that rationalistlc
clergymen like Colenso. Dean STANLEY, Prof
Jowett and the late Archbishop of Cant"r-
ever OF the r%eotitude and legality of their
attitude. Possibly a majority Of people think
differently, but no article declares that the
vo else. Of dI 2 maj9Tlty ~ + t asfe y = OF nro God. h,
the House of Bishops is clearly immoral; i
seems 10 regard the clergy as wheels and
pulleys of a machine whose purposes are nor
those of religious culture and growth: IRON
bishop Tillotson and Dean Swift, with their
deviations from dogmas commonly accented
by the clergy, the best traditions of the Eng
fish Church, OF whicht the American is a branch,
have been in favor OF outspoken expression
in the pulpit OF convictions. Indeed. tho
silence" demanded by the Bishops Is prac.
tically impossible except at the cost of moral
deterioration in the man who attempts II.
In The case OF the Rev. DR.. Crapsey. the silence
having been lrrecoverably broken and recan-
tatlon improbable, the question Of res jgna-
ton alone remains, ASSUMING that h"
of opinions, and that he believes himself
entitled to his place, its maintenance, u pos
sible to him. appear not only ,ethicallv de-
would be betrayed by desertion.
NEW IoRK, March 20. NEEhT.