Project Canterbury

THE CASE OF S. JOHN'S, TOLEDO.   HAS ANY BISHOP THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE UPON ANY PRIEST, New Standards of Doctrine, Composed by himself? THE RIGHTS OF THE LAITY.   A CORRESPONDENCE.   TOLEDO, OHIO. SPEAR, JOHNSON & CO., PRINTERS. 1887.

The following correspondence would be obscured by any comment.

It is published and circulated, because there is, at present, no appeal in the American Church for the oppressed, except to printers' ink and public opinion; and because the official organ of the Bishop of Ohio, the Standard of the Cross--in its issue of May 26th, gives only one side of the case, by publishing the Bishop's "injunction," without that which went before it, and that which followed after.

CORRESPONDENCE.

I.

THE REV. C. H. deGARMO TO THE BISHOP OF OHIO.

RECTORY OF ST. JOHN, EVANGELIST,

Toledo, O., March 21, 1887.

Dear Bishop:

Will you please let me know when you will visit St. John's to administer Confirmation. Any day which will meet your own convenience will suit me and my people. I am very respectfully, yours,

CH. H. DE GARMO.

II.

THE BISHOP OF OHIO TO THE REV. C. H. deGARMO.

DIOCESE OF OHIO.
Cleveland, March 22, 1887.

Rev. and Dear Brother:

The only day now at my disposal is Saturday, April 30. I will visit St. John's for Confirmation at 4 o'clock in the afternoon on that day. The services are to be entirely at my direction, and no notices are to be given out except by me on that occasion. Yours sincerely,

G. T. BEDELL.

[This was followed on the 24th by the usual formal notice of appointment for visitation.]

III.

THE REV. C. H. deGARMO TO THE BISHOP OF OHIO.

RECTORY OF ST. JOHN, EVANGELIST,
Toledo, O., March 30, 1887.

Right Reverend Father:

I have yours of March 24, informing me that you will visit my parish on Saturday, April 30. p. m.

You say in your note of March 22: "The services are to be entirely at my direction, and no notices are to be given out except by me on that occasion." To this I beg to reply: That St. John's, Toledo, is a parish in good and regular standing, and its rector has the same canonical right as any and every other rector in the diocese; that all alterations in the services demanded by the Bishop having been made (though under protest), its services now are thus certified by the Bishop himself, as being within the law of this Church, and have so been for about two years; that last year the Bishop's visitation was made without any such demand as is now put forward, and without any complaint afterward on his part in regard to anything; that nothing has arisen since to require or justify any change on the Bishop's part; that I know of nothing in Constitution, Canons or Rubric, that gives to any Bishop the right, summarily, without charges, inquisition, or trial of any sort, but ex mero motu, arbitrarily to suspend a rector during the visitation of the Bishop, from his unquestionable right of directing the services in his own church; and that I have never heard of the Bishop's making any similar condition before consenting to perform his canonical duty of visiting any other parish in the diocese. But though convinced that the course yon propose is not only unjustifiable by the law of the Church, but also exceedingly invidious both toward my parish and myself, I am so anxious to avoid any fresh cause of difference with my Bishop, that I am willing, as before, to submit under protest, announcing beforehand to my people that, by your requirement, the services on that occasion will be under your direction, and reserving my right to publish this correspondence, whenever and wherever I think it advisable, in explanation of the course I take in the matter. I am, Right Reverend Father,

Very respectfully yours in the Church,

CH. H. DEGARMO.

IV.

THE BISHOP OF OHIO TO THE REV. C. H. deGARMO.

DIOCESE OF OHIO.
Cleveland, March 31,1887.

Rev. and Dear Brother:

Receive my thanks for your favor of 30th at hand to-day.

It would be difficult to contend with so amiable a spirit as is shown in the first few lines of the last page of your letter.

G. T. BEDELL.

V.

THE BISHOP OF OHIO TO THE REV. C. H. deGARMO.

DIOCESE OF OHIO,
Toledo, April 30, 1887.

Rev. and Dear Brother:

For reasons which I need not explain, I had not intended to visit St. John's church at this time. At your request, however, I consented to make the visitation, provided that the services should be entirely under my direction.

Since that date, without my knowledge, until so informed to-day by an extract published in the May number of your paper, by your authority, "a Crucifix, almost life-size and intensely realistic," has been placed in the church. It is stated that the "pose of the limbs, the tension of the muscles, and every detail of the anatomy, as well as the expression of the face, all heightened by artistic and faithful coloring in natural flesh tints, give it religious value as a touching and effective object lesson." I cannot officiate in St. John's church without giving countenance to this, your act. I therefore withdraw my appointment of visitation for Confirmation, and request you to inform your parish accordingly. I am also informed that you are teaching "erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God's word." This is confirmed by statements in your paper, which I have to-day seen for the first time.

I cannot feel satisfied that the candidates are properly prepared for Confirmation until I have made further inquiry, as the canon requires of me at visitations.

Yours sincerely,

G. T. BEDELL.

VI.

THE REV. C. H. deGARMO TO THE BISHOP OF OHIO.

RECTORY OF ST. JOHN, EVANGELIST,
Monday Morning, May 2, 1887.

Right Reverend Father:

I beg to say in answer to your letter of Saturday that I will be ready to remove the Crucifix whenever you will show me, in the canons, that the Bishop has a right to insist on any structural alterations in a church edifice which may strike his fancy. The so-called Ritual canon does not touch it. I am, very respectfully,

Your son in the Church,

CH. H. DEGARMO.

At a meeting of the Vestry of S. John's parish May 2nd, the following preamble and resolution were adopted and signed:

Whereas, We, the Vestry of St. John's Church, have heartily supported our Rector, the Rev. Ch. H. deGarmo, in the manner in which he conducts the services of this church; and have given our sanction to the erection of the Rood-screen, surmounted with the Crucifix, and

Whereas, we think and believe that Bishop Bedell has acted most unbecomingly in him as a man and a Bishop in the manner in which he treated this parish and our Rector on Saturday last, therefore,

Resolved, That we heartily agree to stand by, and support, our Rector in conducting the services of this parish as he has been, and is now doing.

Signed,

JOHN BRERETON,
GEORGE H. MCMULLEN,
WILLIAM BENDALL,
JOHN B. MARSTON,
J. F. RICHARDSON,
L. W. WACHENHEIMER,
J. S. C. RICHARDSON,
F. A. SCHMIDT.

VII.

THE BISHOP OF OHIO TO THE REV. C. H. deGARMO.

DIOCESE OF OHIO,
Toledo, May 2,1887.

Rev. and Dear Brother:

Under my canonical obligation, it has become advisable for me to inquire as follows, and I have the less hesitation because hitherto, in conversation and otherwise, you have frankly uttered your opinions to me:

1. Does the article in the "Church Kalendar," vol. I., No 2, entitled the "Real Presence," express your opinion on that subject?

2. Does "A Catechism," printed in No. 5 of the same paper, express your opinions?

3. If that catechism does not express your opinions on any of the topics treated in it, will you be so good as to specify the difference?

I beg to acknowledge, with thanks, your note of this date, and am,

Sincerely, Your Bishop,

G. T. BEDELL.

VIII.

THE REV. C. H. deGARMO TO THE BISHOP OF OHIO.

RECTORY OF ST. JOHN, EVANGELIST,
Toledo, May 4, 1887.

Right Reverend Father:

Your letter of May 2, reached me yesterday. I beg to say in reply that I hold no opinion on the subject of the Real Presence other than that expressed by the Church in the Bible and Book of Common Prayer. If the "Catechism" referred to in your note, can be proved to be contrary to the "Catechism to be learned by every person before he be brought to be Confirmed by the Bishop," and authorized by our Prayer Book, I will humbly acknowledge my error in allowing it to be circulated among my people.

Permit me again to refer to your letter of last Saturday. When you consented to my request for a visitation and Confirmation in my parish, it was only on the condition that the services on that occasion should be entirely under your direction. Though knowing no law of this Church which gave you any right to make such a condition, I was so anxious to avoid any fresh contest with my Bishop that I yielded under protest. From that time I patiently awaited your "directions" for the services but received none.

The appointment was made for 4 p. m. on Saturday, April 30. At 1:30 p. m. on that very day—too late to give my people due notice of the change—you entered the church and handed me a letter already written, withdrawing your appointment, for causes altogether outside of your original demands.

This shows the uselessness of yielding, even under protest, to uncanonical demands. When, two years ago, you required me to give up incense and some other things, though I knew you had no right to make the demand, I yielded under protest, hoping for peace. Next comes the entirely new, and equally uncanonical, demand to direct the entire services on the occasion of your visitation. Though knowing this demand to be equally uncanonical with the other, yet—still anxious for peace—I again expressed my readiness to yield tinder protest. The only result is a still further demand, also without canonical authority; and where is this arbitrary dictation to end?

But let us look at the letter again. In it you complain that I have "without your knowledge" put up a Rood-screen, with a Rood or "Crucifix almost life size, and intensely realistic." I do not suppose that the size is the thing complained of, or that one-half as large would be more acceptable to yon. Nor do I suppose that its fault is, that it really looks like what it is meant to represent, or that a conventional one would please you better; for you assured me yourself that your objection was to "the idea," not to the artistic style of execution. Now what "the idea" is, except only to remind us of "Christ and Him crucified," I cannot imagine. And yet, pointing to the figure of your crucified Saviour, you actually called it, in my church, "that abominable thing!"

Now, Right Reverend Father, allow me again to remind you that the use of the Crucifix—expressly so called—is not prohibited in this church. In 1874 the attempt was made (as it had been made before) to prohibit the use of "the Crucifix" and of "incense," and the attempt was always defeated, that defeat being ratified in 1874 by the express vote of both Houses. No prohibition has been enacted since. In using incense two years ago, and in introducing the Crucifix now, I am clearly doing what is not prohibited by the Church--nay, only what the Church has expressly and repeatedly refused to prohibit. By what authority, then, do you undertake to prohibit it now? But, you say, it was done "without your knowledge." Of course it was. It is a permanent part of the structure of the church. Who ever heard of such a thing as that no rector and vestry could make any change in the structure of their church building, without the knowledge and consent of the Bishop, first had and obtained? The implication of such a claim of power on your part needs no further answer than a smile. The laity understand their rights over the fabric of the church too well to need any further defence. I leave you to enforce your claim upon them, if you think it worth while to try it.

As to your further charge, that I am teaching "erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God's Word," I am not at all disturbed. I remember that, two years ago, when you charged me with falsehood, I challenged you to have me tried for that offense, assuring you that your refusal or neglect would be construed as an abandonment of the charge. In the face of that challenge, you never took a single step towards my trial on the charge of "falsehood." Everybody understood that you had made a disgraceful charge against one of your priests which you could not substantiate, and that you knew it.

Let me point out to you the position in which you have placed yourself now. You say that you are "informed" that I am teaching erroneous and strange doctrines. Yet you give me no knowledge as to who these informers are. I have a right to meet my accusers face to face, and you have no right to let one of your priests be stabbed in the dark by informers unknown. Moreover, you are equally astray in making so general a charge, without a single specification of what are the "erroneous and strange doctrines" I teach. You are kind enough to say that this charge against me "is confirmed by statements in your (my) paper, which I have to-day seen for the first time." As the paper was before you at the time, surely you could have specified a point or two, if I am so very far wrong. Even in your letter of May 2, there are no charges. But I have only one answer to make to all this: I deny, point blank, that I teach "erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God's word;" and I shall be ready to meet my accusers face to face in the mode provided in the canons, whenever they may feel disposed to make the venture.

But how are you to give me a fair and impartial trial? You, my Bishop, are the original accuser; you, my Bishop, say that the charge is confirmed by my parish paper, which is the same as saying that in your opinion, I am condemned already. How are you to be accuser, prosecutor and judge, all in one, and yet satisfy the Church that I have been dealt with impartially and justly? You have thus given yourself away as completely as you did two years ago, when you informed me what the result of a trial would be, before the court was organized, or even the presentment was made!

As to your concluding remark, in the letter you handed me, about not being satisfied that my candidates are properly prepared for Confirmation, your scruples may be easily removed. The Church requires that "so soon as children are, come to a competent age, and can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, and can answer to the other questions of the short Catechism, they shall be brought to the Bishop." If you will be kind enough to make the appointment, 1 will bring all my candidates before you with pleasure, and you may examine them yourself, as to their knowledge of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, and the rest of the Catechism. I trust that such a personal examination will lead to your giving to them the Confirmation of which you so unexpectedly disappointed them on the 30th of April.

I am Right Reverend Father,

Your obedient servant and son in the Church,

CH. H. DEGARMO.

[The Bishop briefly acknowledged the receipt of this letter on May 7th.]

IX.

THE REV. C. H. deGARMO TO THE BISHOP OF OHIO.

RECTORY OF S. JOHN, EVANGELIST,
Toledo, O., May 11, 1887.

Right Reverend Father:

Your letter of May 2 opens with these words: "Under my canonical obligation it has become advisable for me to enquire as follows, etc." In order that I may know exactly what I am about, will you be kind enough to inform me in which of our canons I shall find the "obligation" referred to? Your obedient servant and son in the Church,

CH. H. DEGARMO

[The following acknowledgement of the above, written by the Bishop of Ohio on a postal card, was duly received:--

"Yours of 11th received, and contents noted for attention; received just as I was leaving town."]

X.

THE BISHOP OF OHIO TO THE REV. C. H. deGARMO.

DIOCESE OF OHIO,
Cleveland, May 11, 1887.

Rev. and Dear Brother:

My change of purpose as to the visit to St. John's and the Confirmation of your candidates is easily explained. You seem to have forgotten what occurred on the occasion of my last visit; which indeed probably made but little impression on your mind, but left an indelible mark on mine.

After the solemn Act of Confirmation, and after my sermon and instructions to the class, whilst I was sitting in the chancel waiting to give the final Benediction, you gave public notice that on such days, at such hours, you would celebrate the Mass, and at certain hours preceding, you would receive confession. You could hardly have failed to realize how offensive such announcements must be to me, and how directly they were in the face of your Bishop's teaching. I had great difficulty in restraining myself from rising and reproving your false teachings. Nothing prevented me but a desire to avoid a public scandal. But I determined that such an offense should not occur again.

For this reason, when you requested me to appoint a Visitation for this year--which I was under no canonical obligation to do--I made it a condition that the services should be entirely under my direction; and that no notices should be given, except by myself. You accepted this condition, although under protest, and I anticipated nothing that would mar the pleasure of my visit to Toledo, or disturb the quietness of your parish.

Meanwhile--I say meanwhile so far as any information had been given to me--a Rood-screen had been built across the chancel, and a side Chapel opened, with an Altar dedicated, as I learn, to the Virgin Mary; also, you had placed above the center of the Rood-screen a travestie of the crucifixion, "intensely realistic," as it is described in your parish paper, and as it certainly is.

I determined to see, with my own eyes, the changes that had been made in the furniture of the church, before deciding on my course. But, supposing it possible that I might be compelled to omit a portion of the usual duties of a visitation, I had written a note to leave with you in case I should not meet you. You have given to the public press an account of that brief interview, sufficiently accurate, except that you omitted to state my advice. In all sincerity, and with an impression that it would tend to your happiness, I advised you to apply for Orders in the Roman Catholic Church, believing that your sympathy with that system would enable you to be more useful there. I used strong language to affirm the impossibility of my worshipping in a church which contained such an image, but I stated immediately that my refusal to confirm your candidates was based on more serious grounds.

I consider myself justified in withdrawing my appointment for Confirmation, because of your violation of the compromise under which it was made. I did not decide whether the introduction into the church of this new furniture, and this image, was forbidden or not; but only that its introduction without my knowledge was a violation of what was virtually a compromise, and that by my presence at the visitation I should have given my official sanction to it.

You will, however, recognize that I am fulfilling no small part of my official duty at this visitation by "examining into the state of the Church, and inspecting the behavior of the clergy," as required by the canon.

Sincerely, your Bishop,

G. T. BEDELL.

XI.

THE BISHOP OF OHIO TO THE REV. C. H. deGARMO.

A SECOND LETTER.

DIOCESE OF OHIO,
Cleveland, O., May 13, 1887.

Rev. and Dear Brother:

It is with great reluctance and much sorrow of heart that I address you this communication. But you will bear me witness that I have more than once, both in words and deed, remonstrated against the instructions which you are giving to your people by act; and, as I have reason to believe, by public teaching also.

The Standing Committee of the Diocese, acting in conjunction with your Bishop, remonstrated against your use of certain signs and actions in your mode of public worship, which were supposed to imply a serious error. To this remonstrance you dutifully gave heed. I had hoped that no further occasion would be given for final protest. But occasions continued.

I beg you to credit my respect for your sincerity. I have no doubt of your fidelity to what you believe to be true, or your earnestness in work. But you are unwilling to believe that in this earnestness you are upholding the very errors against which our Fathers of the Church of England protested, and against which our Protestant Episcopal church, through which you received your Orders, and which you have promised to stand by, continues to protest. I name only one of those errors; but that one which lies at the basis of a whole system of error.

In the Catechism published for the instruction of your people, and circulated for them in your Parish paper, you teach, that, "in the Holy Eucharist, whole Christ is present under each kind; and that by whole Christ is meant His human Body and Soul, and also his Godhead." This is the doctrine known as Transubstantiation, Now, this teaching is injuring the congregation committed to your pastoral care. It is injuring the influence of our Church in the community of which you are a part. It is misrepresenting the Church, to which both you and I have sworn allegiance.

I have remonstrated against such teaching. The time for remonstrance has passed. I reluctantly proceed to discipline; yet, in its mildest form.

I am credibly informed, that you have taught your people, including your candidates for Confirmation:--

First--That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, after the consecration of the elements by a Priest, the bread and wine contain the Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, in some localized, restricted or different sense from that in which that Presence is contained in the House of God, or in the hearts of God's people; and that this Presence cannot be realized, even by faith, except through the agency of these elements, eaten and assimilated as other food.

Second--That this Presence is Real in such sense, that it is not proper for a communicant to partake of ordinary food, within certain hours proceeding the Communion; thereby teaching that the Presence of our Blessed Lord, although called a Real Presence, is so dependent on material conditions that its influence can be counteracted, or interfered with, by the presence of ordinary food with it in the stomach.

Third--That the Holy Eucharist gives us an object of worship upon earth; and that the people may properly make acts of adoration of, or towards, the elements in the Holy Communion, such as bowings, prostrations, or genuflections.

Fourth--That not only may one who requireth comfort or counsel come to some minister of God's word and open his grief, but that the people should come to confession, as of religious obligation, and as an essential part of the Sacrament of Penance, and as preparatory to receiving the Holy Communion; and that confession should be so absolutely secret, that even a child may confess to a Priest that which might not, or should not, be told to a father or mother.

That you teach these doctrines to your people is confirmed by the statements published in, and recommended by, your parish paper. It is not my duty to affirm the fact further, or to prove it. It is sufficient that you have given me reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. Nor is it my duty to show that such doctrines are erroneous and contrary to God's word; although I have not failed, in conversation and otherwise, to attempt to convince you that these are errors.

But it is my duty, under the vows of my Office, and under my obligations as a Bishop in the Church of God, to declare that doctrines expressed under the headings as above, namely, First, Second, Third and Fourth, are erroneous, and contrary to God's word. I do so declare.

The Church has required me to banish and drive them away. And while I do not affirm that you teach them, and shall rejoice to learn that you do not, yet as I have reason to believe that you do, therefore, if you do teach any or all of the doctrines above enumerated, In the name of God, and by the authority committed to me in the Church, I forbid you to continue so to do. I shall be glad to receive an assurance of your intention to obey.

I am, faithfully, Your Bishop,

G. T. BEDELL.

XII.

THE REV. C. H. deGARMO TO THE BISHOP OF OHIO.

RECTORY OF ST. JOHN, EVANGELIST,
Monday Morning, May 10.

Right Reverend Father:

Two letters have been received from you, both bearing the same date, May 11.

As to the wording of the notices given out by me at the Confirmation in my church a year ago, I did not suppose it possible that any one could hold you responsible. The usual notices wore simply given out in the usual way, and I was not aware that any offense was taken.

As to the Rood screen and side Chapel, nothing further need be said, as you do not specify any law of the P. E. Church which gives to the Bishop any right to overrule or control the material fabric of the parish building. The matter has been referred to the Vestry who have that control, and they have decided that the material fabric of the church is to remain as it is at present.

As to your "advice" to me which I omitted from my published account of our interview, I did not remember it in the form given by you, but in another form, of which, as it was personally offensive, if not insulting, I preferred then, and prefer now, to say nothing. I cheerfully accept your version of it in the form in which you now give it. You say: "In all sincerity, and with an impression that it would tend to your happiness, I advised you to apply for Orders in the Roman Catholic Church, believing that your sympathy with that system would enable you to be more useful there." Though I have not the slightest idea of acting upon this advice, yet I thank you for it. In view of the general present movement towards the Unity of Christendom, this is, practically, from one who is now our oldest and most venerable, and most decided Low-church Bishop, an admission that even in the Roman Church there is no deadly error; for, if there were, how could a Christian Bishop advise anybody to join it? For myself, I have no hesitation in saying that I think it safer to be under Bishop Bedell, defended by the constitution and canons of the P. E. Church, rather than to be under Pope Leo XIII., with no defense at all.

Your idea that my giving up, under protest, two years ago, the special things which you then requested, was a "compromise," by which I pledged myself to make no alterations in the material fabric of the church without your previous knowledge and consent, is utterly and entirely repudiated by me. There was no such thing either expressed or implied by you at the time, or imagined or suspected by me. The changes desired by you were specified. My giving them up, under protest, was specified also. And nothing was included, beyond the things specified.

Your official right and duty of "examining into the state of the Church, and inspecting the behaviour of the clergy," is cheerfully acknowledged. And I thank you for stating, as one result of this inspection, the judgment expressed by you in these words: "I beg you to credit my respect for your sincerity. I have no doubt of your fidelity to what you believe to be true, or your earnestness in work." But when, as another result of your inspection, you proposed to censure me or my teachings, the canons of the Church have something to say. You have no canonical authority even to "admonish" me, until I have been found "guilty" by an ecclesiastical court. If I am guilty of "holding or teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, "I may be presented and tried therefor, and you have no canonical right to censure me, officially, until I am duly found guilty. If, indeed, I had denounced "the soul-destroying doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration," or "the unchurching dogma of the Apostolic Succession," I should be plainly liable to presentment and trial; for both these doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration and Apostolic Succession are taught in the Prayer Book in terms as plain as the English language can make them. But that men who make such denials should go scot free, while such things as I have taught should be proceeded against, is theologically preposterous.

To convince you of this, look only at the first of the four points which you specify. Your words are: "You teach, that, 'in the Holy Eucharist, whole Christ is present under each kind; and that by whole Christ is meant His human Body and Soul as also His Godhead.' This is the doctrine known as Transubstantiation." Permit me to ask, where did you ever learn that that is "the doctrine known as Transubstantiation?" Certainly not from the P. E. Church.

The P. E. Church in her XXVIII Article of Religion, gives the correct definition, and gives it nowhere else in her Standards. That article reads: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ," etc. I never have taught, and do not hold, "the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord." No other transubstantiation is condemned by the P. E. Church. The statement of doctrine which you condemn, was a well known formula at the period of the Reformation; and was not then condemned or protested against by the English church, or at any time since.

Nay, to prove to you that I am far more faithful to the teaching of our reformed Church than yourself, let me call your attention to an original authority--a letter written by the very Bishop who drew up that Article (XXVIII), and who is explaining its true meaning to the Prime Minister of the day, before the signature of the Articles was imposed upon the clergy. The writer is Edmund Geste (or Gheast), Bishop of Rochester, and the date is December 22,1566. He says to Lord Burleigh (I modernize the spelling): "I suppose you have heard how the Bishop of Gloucester (Cheney) found himself grieved with the placing of this adverb 'only' in this Article. The "body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the supper after a heavenly and spiritual manner only," because it did take away the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, and privily rioted me to take his part therein; and yesterday in mine absence more plainly vouched me for the same. Whereas, between him and me, I told him plainly that this word 'only' in the foresaid article did not exclude the presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof: For I said unto him, though he took Christ's Body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that corporally, naturally, really, substantially and carnally, as the doctor's do write, yet did he not, for all that, see it, feel it, smell it, or taste it. And, therefore, I told him I would speak against him herein, and the rather because the Article was of mine own penning. And yet I would not for all that deny thereby anything that I had spoken for the Presence. And this was the sum of our talk. And this that I said is so true by all sorts of men, that even D. Harding writeth the same, as it appeareth most evidently by his words reported in the Bishop of Salisbury's (Jewel's) book, p. 325 which be these: Then ye may say that in the Sacrament His very Body is Present, yea really that is to say indeed, substantially that is in substance, and corporally, carnally and naturally, by the which words is meant, that His very Body, His very Flesh, and His very Human Nature is there, not after corporal, carnal or natural wise, but invisibly, unspeakably, supernaturally, spiritually, divinely, and by way unto Him only known." Now here we have the very Bishop who wrote that XXVIII Article, explaining to us its real meaning, and quoting the express words of Harding the Jesuit, to show that as to the reality of the Presence in the Sacrament, the doctrine of England is identical with that of Home. If you are willing to adopt the language of Bishop Geste, as your own, so am I. If I am willing, and you are not, which of us two is traitor to the Anglican Reformation on that point?

But to follow up all the points you make is needless. In each of them you condemn, and call on me to condemn forms of expression which have not been condemned by the P. E. Church in any of her standards. The only apparent, exception to this is in those words of yours which seem to refer to the Ritual canon (commonly so-called) of 1874,--a canon utterly null and void from the beginning, for its acknowledged unconstitutionality. There is no law of this Church which makes it my duty to accept new doctrinal standards, drawn up by my Bishop himself, and never set forth by the Church in the United States of America.

I am astounded at the verbal solemnity with which you say; "In the name of God, and by the authority committed to me in the Church, I forbid you to continue to do so," viz: to teach the opinions you dislike. You add: "I shall be glad to receive an assurance of your intention to obey." I am glad to give you "an assurance of my intention to obey" every command which the constitution and canons of this Church authorize you to impose; and none other. I do not teach any "erroneous or strange doctrine, contrary to God's word." I do not teach anything as necessary to salvation, unless I can prove it so to be by Holy Scripture, as interpreted by Ancient Authors I do not teach any doctrine contrary to that of this Church. Beyond these limits I am free, and you have no canonical power to limit my freedom. Indeed, Right Reverend Father, the idea of new doctrinal standards, drawn up by a Low-church Bishop, no matter how aged or venerable—expressly to be enforced on one Ritualistic Rector, and on nobody else, is an absurdity, so entirely unheard of that, if persisted in, I am really afraid that it will set the whole Anglican Communion laughing at the Bishop of Ohio! If you will persist in it, please, for your own sake, begin by accepting the definition given by your own Church of the word "Transubstantiation."

Your course towards me, in my opinion, would abundantly justify me in resuming the exercise of my rectorial rights, in those points where I yielded to your requests, under protest. But I am still so anxious for peace with my Bishop, that I shall not, at present, take any such step.

With all due obedience,

Your servant and son in the Church.

CH. H. DEGARMO.

XIII.

THE BISHOP OF OHIO TO THE REV. C. H. deGARMO.

DIOCESE OF OHIO.
Cleveland, May 10, 1887.
Festival of the Ascension.

Rev. and Dear Brother:

Your letter of May 16, is received. I should feel hurt by the general tone of it, did I deem it possible that you appreciated the want of courtesy which it exhibited towards the Bishop set over you in the Lord.

I regret that the reply can be interpreted only as a refusal to obey me in the sense in which I issued the injunction, and a decision to continue to teach doctrines which I have declared to be erroneous and contrary to God's word. There is nothing left for me therefore except to proceed accordingly . Sincerely yours,

G. T. BEDELL.

XIV.

THE REV. C. H. deGARMO TO THE BISHOP OF OHIO.

RECTORY OF S. JOHN, EVANGELIST,
Toledo, Ohio, Monday, May 23, 1887.

Right Reverend Father:

Your favor dated on Ascension Day is received. The reproach of being lacking in courtesy to you, is borne by me the more patiently when I remember that two years ago you charged me, groundlessly, with "falsehood;" and that, during the two years that have elapsed, you have never attempted to substantiate the charge, and never have done me the justice to withdraw it.

The idea that the P. E. Church has ever given to you, or to any other single Bishop, authority to draw up new doctrinal statements in your own words, and to issue your "injunction" to a Priest to accept them and "forbid" him to teach the contrary, is utterly without a single syllable of authority in the Digest. I acknowledge my obligation not to teach any doctrine that is "contrary to that held by the P. E. Church in the United States of America." I have never come under any obligation not to teach anything contrary to the opinions of the Bishop of Ohio. No such claim has ever before been made by any Anglican Bishop since the Reformation. No such claim can possibly be substantiated at this late day. In defending myself on this point as strenuously as I know how, I am only maintaining the unquestionable right of my Order, and that precious liberty which is the birthright of every Priest of the American Church.

You close by stating that "there is nothing left" for you "except to proceed accordingly." Conscious of the rectitude both of my principles and my acts, I await your further proceedings with equanimity.

With all due obedience,

Your servant and son in the Church,

Ch. H. DEGARMO.

[The Bishop returned a brief acknowledgement of the above, written on a postal card, under date of May 25,1887.]

THE STANDING COMMITTEE TO THE VESTRY OF S. JOHN'S.

DIOCESE OF OHIO.
Cleveland, June 1st, 1887.

John Brereton, Geo. H. McMullen, &c.,

GENTLEMEN:—I am instructed by the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Ohio to enclose to you a copy of so much of the minutes of their late meeting in this city as relates to their action in regard to the Vestry of St. John's parish, Toledo.

Please find said copy enclosed.

Yours truly,

S. N. SANFORD.

The Standing Committee being in session in Cleveland, May 30th, 1887, and having under consideration the relations of the Rector, and the Vestry of St. John's Church, Toledo, to the Bishop, the Standing Committee and the Diocese, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted:

Whereas, Evidence has been laid before the Standing Committee, which indicates that the parish of St. John's, Toledo, has entered upon a persistent course of disregard for the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese, and for the canons, and doctrines, and peace, mid good order of the Protestant Episcopal Church, which is at variance with the best interests of the same and inconsistent with its doctrines, discipline, and worship, and,

Whereas, the Bishop has placed before the Standing Committee the following preamble and resolution, passed by the Vestry of said parish, copied from the Toledo Blade, Tuesday, May 3rd, 1887, no copy having been sent to the Bishop,

"At the meeting of the Vestry of St. John's parish last evening, the following preamble and resolution were adopted:

Whereas, we the Vestry of St. John's have heartily supported our Rector, Rev. C. H. deGarmo, in the manner in which he conducts the services of this church, and have given our sanction to the erection of the Rood-screen, surmounted with the crucifix, and,

Whereas, we think, and believe that Bishop Bedell has acted most unbecomingly in him as a man and a Bishop in the manner in which he treated this parish and our Rector on Saturday last, therefore,

Resolved, That we hereby agree to stand by and support our Rector in conducting the services of this parish as he has been and is now doing.

Signed,

JOHN BRERETON,
GEORGE H. MCMULLEN,
WILLIAM BENDALL,
JOHN B. MARSTON,
J. F. RICHARDSON,
F. A. SCHMIDT
J. S. C. RICHARDSON,
L. W. WACHENHEIMER."

Resolved, That in the opinion of the Standing Committee, action ought to be taken at the next Diocesan Convention of the Diocese, with reference to said parish, under article third of the Constitution, and Title IV, Canon 4, of the canons of this Diocese; and that the Secretary be requested to embody in his annual report to the next Diocesan Convention the recommendation of this Committee advising the taking of such action.

Resolved, That the Secretary be requested to forward to the Rector and Vestry of said parish copies of the foregoing preamble and resolutions.

The foregoing is a true copy of the record.

S. N. SANFORD, Secretary,

St. Com. of the Diocese of Ohio.

II.

THE VESTRY OF S. JOHN'S TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE.

At a meeting of the Vestry of S. John's Church, Toledo, held June 7th, 1887, the above Communication from the Standing Committee having been read and duly considered, it was unanimously

Resolved, That the declaration of the Standing Committee, that this Parish "has entered upon a persistent course of disregard for the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese, and for the canons, and doctrines, and peace and good order of the Protestant Episcopal Church, which is at variance with the best interests of the same, and inconsistent with its doctrines, discipline and worship," is not true in whole or in part. No communication has ever been made by the Bishop to this parish on any subject whatever, so that disregard for his authority, in all the many points mentioned, has been simply an impossibility;

Resolved, That we humbly apologize for the neglect to send the Bishop a copy of our former resolutions of support to our Rector, the omission having been purely inadvertent, and not intentional;

Resolved, That our only fault has been, that we are in loving and unanimous concord with our Rector; and that we have not asked the Bishop's approval, in advance, in making alterations in the material fabric of our parish church: the canons of the Church requiring no such previous approval, and the claim of any such power of control on the part of the, Bishop, in matters outside of Church law, being a serious encroachment upon the rights of the Laity, to which the Laity never have submitted in any part of our Church in these United States.

Resolved, that we regret having said, in our previous resolution, "that Bishop Bedell has acted most unbecomingly in him as a man and a Bishop in the manner in which he treated this parish and our Rector on Saturday last," and that we will cheerfully withdraw that expression of opinion entirely, and humbly apologize for it, if a majority of two-thirds of each Order in Convention, Clergy and Laity, shall clearly decide that it is "becoming in a Bishop to cancel an appointment for Confirmation within about two hours of the time when the service was to begin; and that it is "becoming" in a Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church to advise one of his Priests, seriously, to go over to the Church of Rome.

Resolved, that the recommendation of the Standing Committee, that this parish be "suspended from the right of representation in the Convention," or that "its connection with the Diocese be wholly dissolved," is, under the circumstances, such an astonishing outrage upon the rights of the Laity, that we cheerfully leave our case in their hands at the coming Convention.

Project Canterbury