Memphis Daily Appeal

Bishop Quintard Interdicts the Church of the Blessed Virgin.
Answer of the Rev. J. W. Rogers, Rector of that Church,

Editors Memphis Appeal:

The Bishop of Tennessee having raised a controversy concerning the services of the Church of the Blessed Virgin, and having thrown it before the public by the first adverse publication, instead of writing to me in private, when I thought I was acting in accordance with his views expressed on other occasions, I now consider it due, alike to myself and the Bishop, that nothing shall occur between us without the cognizance of the public, before whom his card denounced my services as being 'unauthorized by the canons, customs and rubrics of the church.' I therefore submit for publication a letter from the Bishop, just handed me by a Committee of Clergymen, returned from the Bishop's Conference, at LaGrange, and who evidently leave me in their commissions, the choice of Peace or War.

LAGRANGE, TENN., September 29, 1868.
To the Rev. James W. Rogers:

Rev. and Dear Brother: I am informed through a card published over your name in the papers of the city of Memphis, that you propose organizing a new Parish in that city, to be known and styled as the 'Church of the Blessed Virgin.' It is not my wish at present to discuss the propriety of an additional Church organization in Memphis. I understand that a majority of the clergy of the city have declined giving their canonical consent. I am informed through your card that the services in the Church of the Blessed Virgin will be neither High Church nor Low Church, but eminently Catholic: incense, candles on the altar and gorgeous vestments adorned with precious stones and silver and gold will be employed to add dignity to the worship of God.

These things are contrary to the usages of our branch of the Church Catholic, and to the wishes of your Bishop, and your attempt to introduce them into the public worship of Almighty God is an innovation which violates the discipline of the Church and offendeth against its common order.

Your ordination vows bind you to give faithful diligence, always so to minister the doctrine, sacrament and discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church hath received the same, according to the commandments of God.' I therefore require you to relinquish the said usages and practices; and you will understand that they are officially interdicted by the Bishop of the Diocese to whom you owe canonical obedience, and whom you have sworn 'reverently to obey.' This will be placed in your hands by the Rev. Richard Hines, D. D.

I am yours, faithfully, in Christ and the Church,
CHARLES TODD QUINTARD,
Bishop of Tennessee.

Rt. Rev. C. T. Quintard:
Sir:

Your 'Interdiction' resolves itself for justification into two propositions:

First. That I have in my services broken the laws of the Church.
Second. That in cases where there is no law I am bound by my ordination vow to 'obey the Bishop' in every fancy, if he orders me.

-As regards the first, my answer is simply this: I have reverently kept all the discipline and laws of the Church, and if my Bishop will point me to the page where any law is written prohibitory of my practices, I will instantly abandon them. I know all the laws of the Church and I keep them all.

My answer to the second residuum of your note is simply that I have only done in my church what you allow in others, except the burning of incense, which the first two verses of the Prayer Book command, and I enjoin you by the majesty of the law to do the same. Can a Bishop make and break laws at pleasure? Although our Church teaches that the people must obey their 'pastors and teachers,' have I a right to order my people to bow at the name of Charles Todd Quintard? Suppose I commanded it, and they refused, could I bring them to trial? Yet they ought to obey me in all lawful things. Surely any right-minded man will see that in our respective vows of obedience we recognize the Constitution and laws, both in Church and State, to give the limit of that obedience to ecclesiastical and civil rulers. Ought not civil rulers to be obeyed? Surely. But when Gov. Brownlow commands arbitrarily and contrary to law, does every Christian man offend 'order and religion' by asking, humbly, 'Tell me, Governor, where is the law for your command, and I shall reverently obey it!' Give us stable laws, and every true man is safe; but the moment you begin to try men for supposed offenses, not accurately defined in law, that moment Christian liberty fails, and petty tyrants exert their power.

The true issue, Right Reverend and dear sir, is not even about Ritualism, for you are yourself a Ritualist, as every man may see by entering your Cathedral. It is the name of my Church that offends you, as the name St. Lazarus did. Had I named it St. Mary's Church, you would have tolerated me, notwithstanding my merry letters from Europe; but that the people should be taught to call the mother of our Lord 'Blessed,' this you consider 'going to Rome.' And I remember well our conversation about the Immaculate Conception, but you will allow me tell you, Right Reverend and dear sir, that the very Angels call her 'Blessed,' and her Divine Lord will not be very far from those who truly love and honor his 'blessed' mother!

As regards the minor question, whether the consent of the clergy for me to officiate here has been obtained, I have only to repeat that a majority consented before competent witnesses or in writing. Yet one of them, I learn, falters, under your influence, and declines to put in writing what he said in words to Dr. Rogers.

You may possibly on this ground defeat me, as the canons require the consent to be in writing. But would it not be more manly, Right Reverend and dear sir, to let the true issue come up on its merits, instead of trying to get rid of my church by a technicality? If I have done any thing wrong try me, but oh, for the sake of the Church and the Lord that bought us, leave this miserable Gerrymandering to politicians. Yet, if on account of a mere technicality, I should be prohibited from preaching here, where I have labored for twenty-five years, where I have given thousands of dollars to build 'nests' for you all: If I, in order to keep my vows and preach the Gospel, must leave my home and friends and the dust of my dead in Elmwood, or submit to arbitrary dictation, then I would rather follow the eagles over mountains and seas, bearing the cross, and singing the lofty chants of the Catholic Church, in freedom and poverty, than lick the hand of Caprice and Power for the richest benefice on earth!

Thus having answered you, Right Reverend and dear sir, with that respect and dignity which is due your sacred office, I wish to say a single word as between man and man.

I know full well, Right Reverend and dear sir, that such sentiments as I have expressed above are not pleasing to you. You would like me amazingly, and write many letters to me, as you used to do, just before your election, (some of which are now before me, in which you called me your dear 'Jeems,' 'My darling' and the like): if you could only use me; but when, in our controversies, hitherto, you found I would not bend against my own race and people. When, in the St. Lazarus controversy, I persisted, through long years, against you, and carried my church into convention at last. When in England I exposed the circular which stated that $500,000 had been expended in the buildings and lands of the 'University of the South,' for which you were begging money, and did it for the truth, without consulting my Bishop. When, in the midst of this controversy, you recommended me in a private letter to Rev. Mr. May, Editor of the English Church Chronicle, as a suitable person to lead the mission from England, in the Church of God, to Venezuela. When I surprised you in my card, last Sunday, by showing that I knew of your being 'cheek by jowl' with Ritualists and making speeches to them in 'St. Mary Magdalene,' when it was to your interest. When, in a word, I had seen so many of your tracks in the street about my path, it does not surprise me in the least that you wish to get rid of me; but I intend to dispute every inch of ground, with every weapon that honor supplies, and will not be driven from my home and country without a conflict which you can never forget.

Respectfully,
J. W. ROGERS.