in his argument by his colleague, Dr. Samuel McComb, who, being an Irishman, was the comedian of the occasion. On occasion he cried, "If it plase the court, we are in the prisence of three alternatives." At this someone in the courtroom cried, "He's an Irishman!" and the heavy atmosphere of the courtroom was refreshed by a gale of laughter.

At one period in these proceedings, I myself made a statement of my position to the court, in which I explained and maintained the principle of interpretation, showing how utterly impossible it was for any sane intelligence to hold the creeds literally at the present time and under present conditions of thought. This statement was published in full in the Democrat and Chronicle of the next morning, and I sent a copy of this declaration together with the report of the argument of Mr. Shepard to Andrew D. White, at Cornell University. Upon these documents I received from Dr. White the following comment:

"MY DEAR DOCTOR CRAPSEY:

"I gave last evening until midnight to Mr. Shepard's argument and the accompanying documents, especially your own statement before the Church Court, and I have rarely been as much moved by any reading whatever.

"The whole statement of facts, the argument, and your own statement have put the whole question on a higher plane than any upon which it has been presented to the world hitherto. It is all most nobly done and it has aroused my most enthusiastic admiration. I cannot believe it possible that it will not end the whole matter favourably to yourself and to the large body of men whose thoughts take the same direction as your own. To disregard the considerations presented by yourself, by Mr. Shepard, and by Professor Nash, would be almost a crime against humanity. It would certainly inflict a blow upon the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States from which it would, probably, never recover."

The trial court had this case under consideration for a

week; its sessions were in secret, but the proceedings of the court leaked out and the reporters of the newspapers were able to anticipate their decision. It was reported that the court was standing four to one for conviction. Francis H. Dunham, of Albion, was the dissenting judge. Mr. Dunham was my sponsor in baptism; he was the assistant minister of Christ Church, New York, at the time of my baptism and had a natural prejudice in favour of his spiritual child. He contended that while I might be judged as having denied the deity of Jesus, I did not deny His divinity, and he argued that there might be a distinction between deity and divinity, that the deity might be confined to the Father while the divinity was ascribed to the three persons of the Godhead. The reporters were able to say that this argument of Mr. Dunham, who was the oldest member of the Church, was answered by Mr. Gilbert, the youngest member of the court. Looking out of the window, Mr. Gilbert pointed and said, "There is no more divinity in Crapsey's Christ than there is in that telegraph pole"; and with Mr. Gilbert the majority of the court agreed. This court was organized to convict and it convicted.

T

CHAPTER XLVII

THE CHURCH SHUTS THE DOOR

HE decision of the Batavian court was not final. An appeal lay to a Court of Review which had been constituted for the purpose of correcting the legal errors that might be made in diocesan courts. The lower court consisted entirely of clergymen, and clergymen know nothing of the technicalities of the law. Prior to the establishment of the Court of Review, each diocese was a law unto itself and the bishop was its absolute ruler; it was to remedy, in a measure, this state of affairs that the Court of Review was set up. This court, however, was limited as to its jurisdiction; it could take knowledge only of purely legal errors; it could not discuss nor decide any questions relating to faith, discipline or worship. These questions were reserved to a Court of Appeal which was to be set up whenever the Church in general convention should act.

My counsel, notwithstanding this limitation, decided to appeal from the Batavian court to the Court of Review and the appeal was filed in due time with the president of that court, the Right Reverend John Scarborough, Bishop of New Jersey. This court assembled for the purpose of hearing this appeal on September 4th in the parish house of the diocese of New York. The court consisted of the president, Dr. William R. Huntington, Rector of Grace Church, New York, Reverend Alfred B. Baker D.D., Rector of Trinity Church, Princeton, New Jersey, The Very Reverend John Robert Moses, M.A., Dean of the Cathe

dral of the Incarnation, Garden City, Long Island, The Honorable Charles Andrews, lately Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, The Honorable Frederick Adams, Judge of the Circuit Court of New Jersey, The Honorable James Parker of Perth Amboy, New Jersey. The room in which this court assembled was one befitting the occasion. The building was Gothic in its architecture; this room was spacious, lofty and lighted with windows of coloured glass. When the court entered this room and took their seats, it had all the appearance of a There was no gathering of curiosity-seekers; the only persons present were those who were there to participate in the proceedings. The press was represented by reporters, the appellant was there with his son and two daughters, and a few of the clergy came to listen to the proceedings.

courtroom.

Bishop Scarborough opened the court with an address upon the importance and solemnity of the occasion. He assured those present, and through them the world at large, that the court was deeply impressed with the importance of the duty that had been laid upon them; their decision would affect not only the appellant, but it would have serious bearing upon every clergyman in the Church and would affect the future history of the Church itself. At the conclusion of the bishop's remarks, Mr. O'Brian, counsel for the respondent, moved the dismissal of the appeal; the court took this motion under advisement. The Honourable James Breck Perkins then argued the case for the appellant, dwelling mainly upon the technicalities. His argument occupied the time of the court until the noon recess. When the court reassembled, Mr. Shepard addressed the court, taking up the argument where Mr. Perkins had left off. It was conceded by all that the argument of Mr. Shepard was powerful and brilliant. Mr. Shepard, after dismissing the merely technical errors of

the lower court, entered upon a discussion of the principle of interpretation as applying not only to the creeds of the Church, but to all historical documents; as, for instance, to the Constitution of the United States. In the interim between the first and second trials, Mr. Shepard had given careful study to the history of the creeds of the Christian Church and their interpretations, and especially to the decisions of English courts bearing upon the subject. He spoke for nearly three hours and when he concluded he was congratulated most warmly by Judge Andrews and other members of the court; he published this argument in pamphlet form. Had Mr. Shepard delivered such an oration before an English court or any other audience capable of comprehending and appreciating his matter, he would have ranked with Edmund Burke as a master of the art of reasoning and of the use of the English language. I possess a copy of this pamphlet and am sorry that it is not in every law library in the country. Mr. O'Brian followed Mr. Shepard's argument and confined himself to the technicalities, as in the lower court he laid down the principle that the clergy of the Episcopal Church had no right to any liberty of interpretation in regard to the creeds. They must take them in the sense in which they had been held by the convention that organized the Episcopal Church in America just after the Revolution. His argument was about this: if a man is a member of a club or association and sees defects in its constitution and by-laws, he must not disturb the peace of the club by moving any amendments within the club itself, but go out on the sidewalk and throw stones through the club windows. The principle advocated by Mr. O'Brian would render impossible the administration of any law; no law can be so made as to cover particular cases; hence it is that we have courts to interpret the laws. This principle applies to creeds established by Churches as well as to laws enacted by legislatures. A