Project Canterbury

Contributed by the Rev. Dr. Charles Henery, 2005

I HERE present to the members of the Church in Wisconsin three letters and a speech actually read in the Special Council for the election of a Bishop in this Diocese. I do so because I was not reported in any distinct way, so that it could be understood what I said. Indeed, four reports of daily papers lie before me, and no one from these can make out precisely either what 1 did or what I said upon any matter whatsoever. If the general public or the Church is to understand what I said in these documents in opposition to the election of Dr. James DeKoven to the Episcopate of Wisconsin, the only means I know of reaching them, is by printing them myself. Accordingly I give them. The letters are in regard to the Confessional; the speech concerns Eucharistic Doctrine.

Now in regard to this first, I will give a little anecdote. A leading Ritualist from Florida, at the General Convention of 1871, met me one day and said, "What are you going to do in this Convention about Ritualism?" And upon my saying that "The Church would legislate and enforce her legislation," he said, "You may do what you like; we will work the Confessional, and where goes your Protestantism then?"

The saying still remains on my mind, and I think it perfectly true. Let any clergyman who chooses so to do have the opportunity of receiving to confession, unchecked by law, the members of churches under the care of a regular pastor, or the members [3/4] of one of our Church Colleges, or the Candidates for Orders of any Bishop, and he can mould them as he will. The Professor and the Pastor and the Bishop are powerless, in the present state of our Church Canon-law, as against the Confessor and Director. It is to this work, persistently and steadily carried on by a very small number of men, and pushed with stealthy pertinacity, that I attribute the present growth of the Ritualistic party among our younger clergy. They have come under the influence of the Confessional.

At Nashotah we have had experience of this thing. Dr. Thompson, then Professor of Church History, and the writer, Professor of Systematic Divinity, found, about the date of these letters, that there were certain subjects in the course of Nashotah upon which it was very difficult to teach a certain class of students. The doctrines of the Eucharist and of Absolution were of these, and in general all the peculiar doctrines of the so-called "Advanced Party,"--the Ritualistic, that is, or Romanizing party,--and the persons were those especially that had come in any way under Ritualistic influences.

In fact, from one quarter or another, the books of that base apostate to Rome, John Henry Newman, and of Robert Isaac Wilberforce, had been pushed in all directions among our students. I myself ascertained that the infamous tract "No. 90" had been energetically circulated among the candidates. It was re-edited by Dr. Pusey in 1866, with a commendatory preface, and its business is to show that the Articles of the Church, as against the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, are of no power, so that, according to it, a clergyman of the Church may hold any Roman doctrine and still remain in the Church.

This state of matters rather disturbed us; when at once the whole thing was made manifest by two circumstances, the first occurring in Dr. Thompson's class-room, the second in regard to my own brother-in-law, Mr. S. R. Kemper. The first was this: A student, I think in the then Junior Class, being asked by the Professor of Church History to recite about the Eucharist, [4/5] refused to do so, on the ground that "he had been forbidden by his confessor to discuss that subject," and it came out that his confessor was Dr. DeKoven.

This matter of the Confessional having been alluded to in the late Special Council, I stated this fact, not naming the person. Mr. Ward, a class-mate of the gentleman alluded to, asked me, "Was not this the case of Mr. Berkley?" I answered, "Yes." He then replied, "It is false; I was there, and did not hear it from Mr. Berkley." And Dr. Cole, according to the Sentinel, "substantiated Mr. Ward's statement"

The Sentinel then proceeds to state: "Dr. Adams gave Mr. Ward a flat denial." I beg to say that I did not do this thing. I simply said that "I had the direct evidence of the Professor to whom it was said in class, and until it was distinctly overthrown and refuted, the evidence of one who had not heard him say it, and of another gentleman who was not present, was no disproof. The evidence of one reputable clergyman is as good as that of another." This is what I actually did say.

Immediately after the adjournment of the Council I wrote to Dr. Thompson, and he replied stating the matter in these words: "The fact is, Berkley, openly, in class, told me that his spiritual director had charged him not to discuss the doctrine of the Eucharist. Thereupon I told him I did not believe Dr. Cole* would do anything of the sort. [* The President and Pastor of the Institution.] Upon which he let it out that Dr. DeKoven was his spiritual director."

I asked of Dr. Thompson permission to publish this his statement, and it was published in The Church Journal of April 9, with a further declaration by Dr. Thompson: "With regard to the question of veracity, Dr. Adams, we suppose, stated the fact exactly as it occurred. . . . We cannot understand the statements of the classmate, nor of Dr. Cole, nor of the young man, 'now an estimable clergyman,' as reported in Dr. DeKoven's speech. It was on the express ground that the young [5/6] man stated 'that his spiritual director had advised him not to discuss Eucharistic doctrine,' and that he therefore declined reciting on the matter in class, that the Professor brought the subject before the Faculty. He considered it interfering with the work he and the other Professors were set to do. He decidedly did not bring it before the Faculty on the ground that Dr. DeKoven was merely advising spiritually one of the students. The ground was that he was so advising him and directing him that on certain subjects he was his real master in Theology, he and not the man supposed to be so by his Bishop." These statements have not been contradicted.

The matter of the Confessional having been introduced, the writer went on to lay the letters he wrote to Dr. DeKoven before the Council. The Sentinel proceeds to say that "there was a storm of hisses, amidst which Dr. Adams calmly proceeded reading letters to show that Dr. DeKoven had been guilty of everything laid to his charge."

"He proposed to publish the letters and Dr. DeKoven's replies. Did the Doctor object?"

"Dr. DeKoven said he reserved all his rights."

"After reading a mass of correspondence, the reverend gentleman stated the law of the Church as to confession." This is true.

These letters I now print, with the remarks I made on the law. They sufficiently explain themselves. The first is dated in April, 1871, nearly three years before the Council.

And by them the reader will see plainly this fact: Dr. DeKoven, Rector of Racine College, not only received those students, when under his own pastoral care, to confession, but when they became Candidates for Orders he continued his relation of Confessor to them, when they were transferred to Nashotah and residing there, fifty miles from Racine. And this he did without any knowledge or consent of their Bishop or Bishops, or of the Faculty of Nashotah.

And under color of making visits and preaching in [6/7] Nashotah Chapel, he heard their confessions at Nashotah, within our ground, in the same quiet way.

Again, he did the same with other candidates, who had never been students of Racine or under his pastoral care in any way.

And I must also add that his "penitents" were said to have been very energetic in, urging upon others the value of confessing to Dr. DeKoven. This will explain some discrepancies between what I say in my letters and the statements of Dr. DeKoven. To give one instance in regard to the case mentioned in these letters,--that of H---------. I say, "You sought him out and spent considerable time in his room." Dr. DeKoven says, "The young man, through Dr. Cole, requested of me." The man himself at the time told me, " I did not want to go to confession, but---------urged me, saying 'it was such a comfort,' and I went" Party leaders, like Dr. DeKoven, have always obsequious and serviceable friends who will do their will without in any way compromising them. And Dr. DeKoven's "penitents" (I use the word in a technical way) were always an energetic brotherhood at Nashotah, in behalf of Dr. DeKoven's Confessional and his doctrines. They called themselves the Orthodox, or Catholic Party.

It is only fair to say that I understand as a fact, that since the action of the Faculty Dr. DeKoven has heard no confessions upon the grounds of Nashotah. But he has still persisted in hearing confessions of the Candidates at Nashotah, if they go to him at Racine for that purpose. 'He has no right,' he thinks, 'to refuse.'

Bishop Armitage, when the thing was opened up, requested of him not to do so without his permission (if the man was a candidate from Wisconsin), or the permission of the Bishop to whom the candidate belonged, if he were a candidate of any other Diocese, pursuing his studies at Nashotah. And Dr. DeKoven utterly refused. A long letter to that effect is to be found in his pamphlet, page 58. I give two paragraphs:

[8] Rt. Rev. and Dear Bishop:

In the course of the conversation I had with you, you desired me to promise you that I would not hear the confession of any Candidate for Holy Orders in the Diocese of Wisconsin without your permission, nor the confession of any Candidate of any other Diocese, being a student of Nashotah, without the permission of the Bishop of such student.

Your action was based upon a correspondence which had passed between me and Dr. Adams, in which he had made certain accusations against me, and which, as I thought he had no right to make any complaint, I had courteously declined to respond to; and upon a resolution passed by the Faculty of Nashotah, which accuses me "of an unauthorized and illegal intrusion upon the spiritual and pastoral care of the candidates," in having allowed "several of the students, candidates of this Diocese and of others," to resort to me "for private confession and absolution," without the knowledge and express sanction of their Bishops. [Theological Defence, p. 58.]

Dr. DeKoven goes on to give his reasons, and finally he says: "I write these things, my dear Bishop, as they are presented to my mind, to beg of you not to issue any command to me on the subject, or to ask of me any promise."Ý [Ý Do. page 60.] And then he goes on to give his reasons, and finally he says: "Further, by asking me to promise that I will obey such commands, you place me in the position either of disobeying you, or else that I should be forced to do two things,"¦ etc.--which of course he must not do, and cannot do conscientiously. [¦ Do. same page.] In other words, if asked or commanded by the Bishop of Wisconsin to promise not to hear, without his knowledge and consent, the confessions of candidates in his Diocese, or the confessions of other Bishops' candidates without their knowledge and consent, he will not do it, but will continue their confessor whether or no. That is what the thing amounts to.

The Bishop had no Canon-law, no enactment of our General Convention on this subject, no law to restrain self-will. And therefore Dr. DeKoven hears confessions of candidates still. But what should Dr. DeKoven have done with regard to [8/9] these young men? He should have obeyed the law of the Catholic Church in regard to confession; that is, when these students passed out of his jurisdiction at Racine, under the jurisdiction of the Bishops whose candidates they became, he should have utterly given up their pastoral care, and never have heard from them another confession, except with the express consent and knowledge of their Bishops. In truth, of his own accord he should have done, as each student became a candidate, precisely what Bishop Armitage afterwards requested him to do, and he refused.

And then, if the candidate felt the need of confession, he should have advised him to go to his Bishop, or to some "discreet and learned man" appointed by him,--some one delegated by the Bishop.

In fact the doctrine and principle of Confession in the Catholic Church is this: First, by the fact of his Orders, any priest in the Church of God has the power of receiving confession of sins, and giving absolution. But, secondly, it is only to those under his jurisdiction,--those entrusted to him by his Bishop officially. Upon these two principles the whole law of the Church in regard to confessions depends.

But, thirdly, as parish priests and others may possibly, for various personal reasons, be unfit, the Bishop has the power of appointing certain ordained persons in the Diocese, canonically called "discreet and learned persons," and giving them the right to hear confessions in these excepted cases. Fourthly, the Bishop himself, or some of these "discreet persons" by his commission, can hear the confessions of the clergy, major or minor. The minor clergy in a great degree correspond to our Candidates for Orders.

This was the regular law of the Mediæval Church, greatly [9/10] impaired afterwards by the Papal privileges granted to the Mendicant Orders first, and afterwards to the Jesuits. [For this I am greatly indebted to Van Espen, "Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum," where the whole subject is discussed at length; and also, for the Common Law of the English Church, to Lyndwood's "Provinciale." Oxford. 1679. I think the statements in the text are very distinctly borne out by these two authors.] But it is a clear and distinct law, and never has been repealed in the English Church. Blunt, in his "Dictionary of Theology," expressly says: "Although the canons of the Mediæval Church of England respecting confession were not actually repealed, their compulsory power may be said to have lapsed during the Reformation period, and without any word, indeed, depreciating the value of confession. The Church of England habitually reverted to the earlier voluntary system." (Blunt, p. 142, vol.2.)

That is, confession is not compelled, as it is in the Roman Church, once a year under peril of excommunication; but is resorted to as necessary in extraordinary cases, voluntarily, as we go to the physician when we feel the need of his care. Undoubtedly this is the distinguishing point--the separating line between Confession as held in the English Church and that of the Roman communion. In this last it is a sacrament, enforced under peril of excommunication, and statedly and habitually used; and the other is a voluntary recourse to a clergyman in his office as a physician of the soul.

We are within the Church of God, whose very air breathes pardon, grace and reconciliation, and only in cases of sickness of the soul do we need the physician. Each eucharist, each public absolution, even each sermon, each Lord's prayer, every Church service,--all these, received in faith, are, for the Christian who abides in faith, means for the remission of post-baptismal sins. We therefore need no confession, save in cases where we are soul-sick, and then the Church authorizes her clergy to hear confessions, to advise acts of repentance and faith, and, these honestly done, to absolve the penitent. Post-baptismal sin in the Roman Church, and, we may add, in the Ritualistic teaching, is forgiven only by sacramental confession and priestly absolution.* [*See "Evangelist Library," Catechetical Series. Absolution, by Father Benson. Questions 60, 62, 67, 103, 107, 108, 112.]

[11] It will be seen, therefore, that Confession is only an occasional means in the Anglican system. And secondly, that by the law of the English Church, still unrepealed, the man must come to the priest under whose pastoral care he is, except in extraordinary cases, and then he may confess to the "discreet person," that is, one legally set apart for that purpose by his Bishop. "I am indebted," says Mr. Carter, in his "Doctrine of Confession in the Church of England," "to Dr. Irons for the following remarks on the word 'Discreet': 'It is a word well known in the Canon Law. It does not mean any common virtue which a man may attribute to himself, but definite virtues ascertained by the Bishop as Ordinary. "Discreet" canonically means approved by the Bishop as "discreet," and "learned" approved by the Bishop as "learned." They are technical terms.'"* [* Carter on Confession, page 104, note.]

This fully interprets the address in the English Prayer Book (omitted in ours): "And because it is requisite that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore, if there be any of you who cannot quiet his own conscience, let him come to me or some other discreet and learned minister of God's word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God's holy word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness." Here, then, is seen the perfect agreement of the English office with the law of the Western Church as to Confession and the persons to whom it was to be made.

[But does not Dr. Pusey think that each person in the Church of England has a right to choose his own Confessor? I suppose he does,--for he has published a pamphlet to that effect. But I cannot hear that the law has been repealed, or that the Ecclesiastical Courts of England have decided that such a view is according to law. In the mean time the Common Law remains the same.

[And if our Church wishes to avoid the endless confusion that is upon us, she will give us Courts of Appeal and a Supreme Court, in which the emergent questions of Ecclesiastical Common Law may be tried and decided for the Church in the United States. In fact, for want of these Courts the Church is in danger everywhere of being wrecked, and the clergy and laity suffer great wrong.]

[12] In view, then, of this law and these facts, I considered that the coming in of a clergyman, not connected in any way of spiritual or legal authority with the Institution, neither chaplain, nor professor, nor Trustee, unauthorized by the Bishop of the Diocese, or by any other Bishop of any Candidate under our care, was an intrusion upon the rights of the Bishop of Wisconsin and of every Bishop whose Candidates were entrusted to our care, and an intrusion, also, upon the rights of every presbyter of the Faculty.

And as the matter came privately to my knowledge through a family connection, I wrote to Dr. DeKoven a letter personally and privately, to ascertain whether it were so; for I had not the slightest dream of any such work being carried on quietly for years, as it undoubtedly had been. Dr. DeKoven replied in a tone which he characterizes as "courteously declining to respond, as I thought Dr. Adams had no right to make complaint," and which I thought then, and think now, to be only the smooth and measured words of a man who tells another not to interfere in what is not by any means his business. Having received this specimen of what the Western people call "being bluffed off," I wrote again to the Reverend Doctor, and entered into the merits of the case. And then after that the whole matter came before the Faculty. And with it Dr. Thompson's experiences of the effects of the Confessional upon his classes came into the discussion. And the Faculty, after due deliberation, forbade, by resolution, Dr. DeKoven coming in to confess and absolve candidates entrusted to our care. The resolutions were forwarded to the Doctor and to Bishop Armitage.

I now proceed to give those letters and resolutions.


That were sent by the Rev. William Adams, of Nashotah, to the Rev. Dr. DeKoven, of Racine, with the Resolutions of the Faculty of Nashotah.

Delafield; Wis., April 14, 1871.

The Rev. James DeKoven, D. D.

Reverend and Dear Sir:--Some time ago, when you were last at Nashotah, you met my brother-in-law, Mr. Samuel Kemper, at the R. R. station. [Pine Lake or Nashotah.] He took that opportunity of inquiring from you particularly as to a report he had heard in Milwaukee. A lady had mentioned at his table that two of the students at Nashotah, Candidates for Orders, both of them in this Diocese, had as a preparation for Lent, been down to Racine making private confession to you and receiving private absolution from you.

Thinking this probably to be in some way a mistake, he determined to speak to you in regard to the matter, having been formerly Warden of the church in Delafield when you were Rector. He took the opportunity at the time (March 18) and place above mentioned. And after a little hesitation you fully and freely admitted the fact. And the reason you assigned was that you had no right to refuse.

Now, my dear brother, I write to you to understand the basis of this opinion and action of yours. I am a trustee of [13/14] Nashotah, and its oldest professor,--one, also, of its founders,--and now the oldest presbyter of the Church in this Diocese. And I have always understood that the spiritual care of the students is: (I) under the Bishop of this Diocese; (2) in charge of the President of the Institution; and (3) within the Faculty, who are all presbyters of the Church.

And the Faculty have Candidates for Orders entrusted to their charge, mainly by the Bishop of this Diocese, but also by many other Bishops.

To these Bishops the Faculty are distinctly responsible, both for the doctrinal and spiritual instruction of these young men.

In view, then, of this my position, and of these obligations, I wish to know how it has come to pass that you, who have no official connection with the Theological Seminary at Nashotah, "have no right to refuse" to these persons (not under your pastoral or official charge in any way) the privilege of private confession and absolution.

You are the last man to brook any interference with your ecclesiastical or educational rights over the young men entrusted to your charge in Racine College. I desire now, in behalf of the Bishop of this Diocese, to whom I am responsible, of the Board of Trustees and the Faculty of Nashotah Theological Seminary, to have a full and frank explanation of the grounds upon which you base your course of action in this case.

And less than this I think you yourself must acknowledge will hardly be just and fair upon your part as a brother presbyter in the same Church and Diocese.

I remain, in Christ and the Church,

Yours truly,


Dr. DeKoven's reply, as he has distinctly refused me liberty to print it, I of course omit.


Delafield, Wis., 18th April, 1871.

To the Rev. James DeKoven, D. D.,
Warden of Racine College:

Reverend and Dear Sir:--I have received your letter of the 15th in reply to mine of the 4th instant. You say, "Permit me to accept the statement that you make, that the spiritual care of the students is, under the Bishop of the Diocese, in charge of the President of the Institution, and within the Faculty," "who," I added, "are all presbyters of the Church," which words you omit. I have to thank you for accepting these principles. You then proceed, as your ultimatum, I presume, to say further that "it will give me great pleasure to confer with Dr. Cole with regard to any supposed interference with his important duties." This, I take it, is your way of telling me to mind my own business,--that I have nothing whatever to do with your acting as confessor to the Candidates for Orders at Nashotah Theological Seminary; that, if it comes to Dr. Cole's knowledge, you stand ready to confer with him, but that I have no right even to speak to you on that subject.

If Dr. Cole were merely the pastor of a parish, having ordinary care of souls, and these young men were only members of his parish, it might be so.

But they are Candidates for Orders, entrusted to the Institution by Bishop Armitage and various other Bishops of the Church. Their spiritual care is not an ordinary power, but one that is delegated. And by the law of the Church, by their own status and position,--nay, by the very statement which you have accepted, no presbyter outside the Faculty, without the consent and authority of their Bishops, can exercise any degree of pastoral care over them.

And least of all that which you have been exercising, of receiving them to confession and giving them absolution.

Upon this point Church law is most imperative and distinct.

[16] I tell you that you have no jurisdiction whatsoever over any Candidate at Nashotah, or over any student. And every absolution you have given is utterly invalid, every confession you have heard illegal, unless you have the authority and permission of the Bishops severally who have entrusted their Candidates to the spiritual care of the Institution. This I do not believe you have in any way. For I apprehend that you are hearing the confessions of these young men, and giving them absolution, not only without the authority of their Bishops, but even without their knowledge.

In my last letter I informed you that I had heard of this course of action upon your part for the first time, as a matter of fact, upon indisputable evidence, as regards two Candidates of this Diocese, one a graduate of Racine, another unconnected with your College in any. way. I have since understood that there are a good many more who confess to you,--six or eight,. I have understood. Dr. DeKoven can correct me if I am wrong. He knows the number,--I can only estimate it.

Nor are you likely to let the number decrease. I have within these three days seen a book you gave to a preparatory student here. At your last visit you sought him out and spent considerable time in his room. The book has in it the inscription, " Mr.---------; a present from the Rev. Father DeKoven of Racine,"--and then follows a sentence from St. Basil on the necessity and duty of confession.

That book is the "Treasury of Devotion," a very favorite book with the Ritualistic party in England,--a book, I will say, derived entirely from Roman Catholic sources, and entirely Romish in its form and tone. I will give you specimens, for a copy of the book lies before me.

On the tenth page occurs this prayer: "May the intercession of the Holy Mother of God, of the Prophets, of the Holy Apostles, of the Martyrs help me! May all the Saints and the elect of God pray for me, that I may be worthy with them to possess the kingdom of God."

[17] On the seventeenth page is the Angelical Salutation.

On the thirty-ninth, "Avert from us all those evils which we most justly have deserved, by the Intercession of Thy Son, and in him of all Thy Saints through the same," &c.

On the two hundred and forty-fifth page, in a prayer regarding the Virgin, we are taught to pray: "Howsoever Thy Saints have profited through Her Intercession, may we in like manner profit," &c.

On page 247: "Mercifully grant that we who now celebrate the festival of Thy holy servant S. M. (Virgin and Martyr) may also enjoy the advantage of her prayers before," &c. [See Appendix, note A, page 23.]

And on page 66 is a most extraordinary devotion, every word of it in capital.letters, covering the whole page. It is called "ANIMA CHRISTI." It prays to the Soul of Christ! to the Body of Christ! to the Blood of Christ! to the Water from the side of Christ! [See Appendix, note B, page 25.]

The third of these petitions is so extraordinary that I would call your particular attention to it. It is, "Blood of Christ inebriate me!" I can find no other meaning in the English language for "inebriate," than "to make drunk." And I confess I shrink with horror from a petition in such terms. I have run over this book at random. Such things, however, are scattered all through,--they are repeated frequently, and I may say they are on every page.

[Dr. DeKoven asserts that there is high authority for this Petition: "The language is to be found as being employed in Holy Scripture, in St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Eusebius, Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Athanasius, and Theodoret. Should any one wish to look up the passages, the references can all be found in Dr. Pusey's letter to the Bishop of London, p. 145." [Dr. DeKoven's pamphlet, p. 62.] One passage from Holy Writ authorizing such a prayer as this: "Blood of Christ, make me drunk!" would be better than all this parade. I apprehend no such passage can be quoted. If it could, Dr. DeKoven would have given it.]

[18] And this book you have given to one of our preparatory students, a young boy just beginning his studies,--just come in to the Church; I will add, from Dissent, his father and grandfather being Congregationalist or Presbyterian preachers. [See note at the end of the correspondence.]

I tell Dr. DeKoven I will submit all these facts to Bishop Armitage, and hold him (Dr. DeKoven) strictly accountable for the wrong he has done the Church and this Institution.

Dr. DeKoven knows well the power OF A PASTOR in teaching doctrine by authority, and that no professor can stand against that power. He knows, also, the influence of Devotional books in forming doctrinal opinion,--especially when they are prescribed by a Pastor or Confessor. If he is to come in here, and introduce this Ritualistic Theology, which by Bishop Kemper was utterly detested, and which, I will say, is utterly foreign to the Theology of Pearson and Bull and Hooker and Waterland and Hobart and Seabury, it is not to be done without opposition.

And Dr. DeKoven has chosen the wisest and shrewdest way of doing it. He knows that he can do it by establishing himself as Confessor to the students, and thus in the highest degree taking their pastoral care to himself. If we, the presbyters of the Faculty, permit this to become a fact of custom, and usage, and established right, we may teach what we like, but the controlling influence is Dr. DeKoven and his theology.

If, therefore, Dr. DeKoven is to become, as a matter of fact, Confessor to the Candidates and other students of this Institution, I say the thing must be done openly and above board, with the knowledge and consent, and by the action of, the authorities,--that is, the Trustees and Faculty. It must be known and accepted by the Bishop of this Diocese, and it must be an acknowledged fact upon our Catalogues and other documents, patent and evident to the whole Church in the United States; or else Dr. DeKoven must altogether give up, and that [18/19] in the most distinct and binding way, the unlawful hold which he has established upon Candidates in this Seminary. I remain, in Christ and the Church,

Truly yours,


Rev. Dr. DeKoven.


Delafield, Wis., April 29, 1871.

Rev. James DeKoven, D. D.:

Reverend and Dear Sir:---I have just received your letter dated 26th and mailed 28th inst. Allow me to say that as the resolutions of the Faculty, passed upon the 27th, are now in your hands and in those of the Bishop, all personal correspondence between us upon this subject is at an end. And also to express my regret that when, as a Christian and a brother-clergyman in this Diocese, I appealed to you for a frank and full personal explanation of a fact that had come to my knowledge through a family connection, you would not give it, but have compelled me to bring the matter before the Faculty of the Institution, and the Church. I would only add that I disclaim all desire of drawing you into controversy. Permit me to also say, that I have never objected in any way to your lawful influence over any member of Nashotah. The only thing I did object to is, and was, the Confessional.

I remain, in Christ and the Church,

Truly yours,


P. S. Not to be misunderstood, I would add that I knew nothing at first of your pushing such books as the "Treasury of Devotion," either among our students or those of Racine. This knowledge came to me afterwards. To books of that class I do always object, and most seriously.


April 28, 1871.

Rev. James DeKoven, D. D.:

Reverend and Dear Sir:--In accordance with instructions, I hereby forward to you a copy of resolutions adopted at a regular meeting of our Faculty, held yesterday, the 27th inst.

"Resolved, That, the Faculty of Nashotah Theological Seminary having heard, upon the best authority, that several of the students of Nashotah, Candidates of this Diocese and of others, are in the habit of resorting, for Private Confession and Absolution, to the Rev. James DeKoven, D. D., Warden of Racine College, and are received by him to the same, hereby declare that this course of action, unless known and expressly sanctioned by their Bishops, is, on their part, wholly inconsistent with their position as Candidates entrusted to the care of Nashotah; and, on his part, is an illegal and unauthorized intrusion upon the spiritual and pastoral care of the Candidates, which is entrusted to this Institution by the Bishops, and by their commission is under the President, and within the Faculty, all of them presbyters of the Church.

"And they hereby forbid this intrusion on the part of the Rev. Dr. DeKoven, as he is not in any way connected with the Institution officially, as Teacher, Professor, Pastor, or Trustee. "And as they are entrusted by the Bishop of this Diocese, and other Bishops of the Church, with the doctrinal and spiritual instruction and care of these young men, they therefore have upon them a distinct responsibility, which is binding upon them solely, and shuts out all others, and which they will not permit to be divided.

[21] "2. That these resolutions be communicated to the Rev. Dr. DeKoven by the Secretary, and also to the Bishop of this Diocese."

L. A. KEMPER, Secretary.

The Faculty at that time was composed of the following members:

REV. A. D. COLE, D.D.,
President, Pastor, and Professor of Pastoral Theology.

Professor of Systematic Divinity.

Professor of Exegesis, Biblical Literature, and Hebrew.

Professor of Ecclesiastical History.


I have only to add that the young man alluded to on page 7, whose case also was mentioned in the debates before the Council, came back to the Institution in October, a declared Romanist. I was told that he attributed his conversion to the books given him by Dr. DeKoven, and to his teaching. The Professors (chiefly Dr. Kemper) and Candidates then resident did what they could with him in the way of argument; but he left in a state of great mental uncertainty. However, he was sent back home and placed under the care of his Rector, and I understand is now in communion with the Church.

In connection with this book, "The Treasury of Devotion," which in the letters I state "Dr. DeKoven gave to a preparatory student here," and in it " I saw the inscription, 'A present from the Rev. Father DeKoven, of Racine,'" Dr. DeKoven said at the Council, "The boy had in his hand a book called 'The Treasury of Devotion.' I asked the boy if it belonged to him, and he replied no, it did not. I then said I would give him a copy, and I did so. Somebody afterward wrote in it, 'A [21/22] present from Father DeKoven.' I did not know it was Dr. Adams." [Report of Chicago Times.] (!)

Again he says in his pamphlet, page 43: "Being placed for a brief time in the way of helping this person," [that is, I suppose, becoming his Confessor,] "and seeing him use a somewhat worn copy of the 'Treasury of Devotion,' I replaced it with a new one."

All this is perfectly true, but evasive. Dr. DeKoven gave "The Treasury of Devotion" to the young man, and then the young man or "boy" as he calls him, returned the other "somewhat worn copy," which had been put into his hands by a Ritualistic student.


Note A.--Upon Carter's Book.--(Page 17, line 11.)--Dr. DeKoven makes a great excitement about these quotations. He says:


For proof of this a somewhat singular line of argument is adopted.

1. A certain young man joined the church of Rome.

2. This young man had a copy of the "Treasury of Devotion," given him by myself.

3. The "Treasury of Devotion" has certain prayers in it, which, by dexterous twisting, may be made to mean Invocation of saints and angels; therefore the Rev. Dr. DeKoven believes in the Invocation of saints and angels. Q. E. D.

It seems absolutely pitiful that one should have to answer such arguments. [Dr. DeKoven's Defence, page 43, What does "Q. E. D." mean?]

He goes on to say: "'The Treasury of Devotion' is a slandered book." "It is edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, one of the holiest priests of the Church of England," and endorsed by "the saintly Bishop Hamilton," whose certificate he gives in full, as if "holiness" or "saintliness" was a proof that a man did not worship saints and angels! When we have Fenelon, Carlo Barromeo, Cheverus, Cardinal Bona, and Francis Xavier, universally acknowledged as "holy" and "saintly" men, worshipping saints and angels all the time!

And then "'The Treasury of Devotion' is a slandered book!"

[24] Now, in reply to all this rhetoric, of which there is more than a page, I say simply the "holy" Mr. Carter, whose books he has distributed far and near, does teach expressly the worship of Saints and Angels. Mr. Carter is the author of a series of Devotional Manuals, three in number, of which this "Treasury of Devotion" is the third, the other two being "The Star of Childhood" and "The Way of Life." The three are now before me. In the preface to the second of the series he says: "The same principles pervade the three manuals, which thus form a series suitable, it is hoped, to meet the needs of the successive periods of life to which they are respectively adapted." Now, in addition to the quotations we gave him from "The Treasury of Devotion," which "by dexterous twisting" Dr. DeKoven allows "may be made to mean Invocation of Saints," we annex for the Doctor's benefit .the following quotations from page 19 of the "Way of Life," the second of the series:

"May the intercessions of the Holy Mother of God, of the Prophets, of the Holy Apostles, of the Martyrs, help me! May all the Saints and Elect of God pray for me, that I may be worthy to possess the Kingdom of God!

"May the Holy Angels, especially my own guardian, keep watch around me this night, to protect me against the assaults of the Evil One, to suggest to me holy thoughts, to defend me against all dangers, to lead me in the way of perfect peace, and to bring me safe at length to my home in heaven. Amen."

"May the souls of the faithful, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen."

"May God the Father bless me; Jesus Christ defend and help me; the power of the Holy Ghost enlighten me and sanctify me, this night and forever. Amen."

These are prayers to the Saints and Angels, in a Daily Prayer for the Young, prescribed by the "holy" and "saintly" T. T. Carter. And I submit to the candid reader that no 'dexterous twisting" can prove them otherwise.

[25] Note B.--(Page 17, line 16.)--This seems to have been one of the sorest spots in my letter. The reader will see, upon reflection, why I pressed upon it so distinctly. If express prayers are lawful to the "Soul of Christ," the "Blood of Christ," the "Body of Christ," etc., then we may lawfully pray to the "Sacred Heart of Christ," and at once we have room made for one of the most debasing of Roman Superstitions, the Jesuit "Adoration of the Sacred Heart." This is the point of these remarks. I did not, at the time I wrote this letter, know the origin of this prayer, or what a favorite it is with the Ritualistic party. I finally found it in a dozen, I think, of their books. A copy of it I also saw, by chance, in a Roman Catholic Book Of devotion, and there it was in Latin, and entitled "The Prayer of St. Ignatius Loyola," with large indulgencies attached. It is from this last, it seems to me, that the Ritualist translation is taken.

There are in Bishop Andrewes' devotions, in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, on page 163, seven lines in Bishop Andrewes' Greek, of which four lines in the Latin translation on the opposite page bear some resemblance to the Anima Christi ascribed to the great Jesuit, and copied exactly in their Ritualistic books. A resemblance, I say, not an identity; for of sixteen words there are four utterly different, and the most hateful phrase of the Jesuit and Ritualistic prayer, "Blood of Christ inebriate me," is altered into "Blood of Christ strengthen me."

Now, Bishop Andrewes' Devotions, the editor tells us on page 437 of the volume, was in Greek only up to the end of the Daily Devotion on the two hundred and fiftieth page. For the Greek only, therefore, the Bishop is responsible. And the Latin, therefore, is not Bishop Andrewes' at all. Whose is it, then? It was put together by the editor (editor ipse confecisse videtur) of the edition of 1675, nearly fifty years after Bishop Andrewes' death! [Edition above cited, page 437.] The Latin, therefore, is his, the Greek is Bishop Andrewes'.

[26] Dr. DeKoven, unaware of these facts, quotes from page 163 this put-together Latin of fifty years after Andrewes' death, and places it in parallel with the Latin Jesuit's prayer, heading them thus, in small capitals:



A great triumph for him, if the Latin were Bishop Andrewes'--which it is not! He then goes on to give the translation of both into English.

But what difference does that make? A very great difference indeed, for in that case you have Bishop Andrewes praying with Ignatius Loyola to the "Soul of Christ," the "Body of Christ," the "Blood of Christ," &c. It is otherwise in the Greek, which only is Bishop Andrewes'. The nominative of the noun in the Greek is joined with the imperative of the verb, and it is not to be translated in the vocative, but in a permissive or optative sense. This is very exactly brought out in the translation of Dr. Newman (Oxford, 1842):

"The soul of Christ hallow me,
And the body strengthen me,
And the blood ransom me," &c.

This is at once seen not to be a prayer to the soul, the body, or the blood of Christ, in any sense. Dean Stanhope, also, in his "Devotions of Bishop Andrewes," [Philadelphia. 1817] a book used by Bishop Kemper through his whole life, avoids the difficulty by a paraphrase:

"Oh, dearest Saviour, impart to me Thy whole self, and let every part and act of Thine have its saving influence over me.

"Sanctify me by Thy Spirit; feed and strengthen me by Thy body; ransom me by Thy blood; wash me in Thy water; heal me by Thy stripes; refresh me by Thy sweat; heal me by Thy wounds."

It is very amusing, therefore, when we think upon the well-known fact that Ignatius Loyola knew no Greek, to hear Dr. [26/27] DeKoven solemnly say, "The use of the Anima Christi by Bishop Andrewes is the more remarkable, because, having been born but a few years after the death of Ignatius, he must have gone out of his way to get it." (!) "It is he who introduced it into the English Church." (!) "It did not come to him, as it has to us, after long centuries of use." (!) He then supposes, in a note, "that it may have been brought from Spain at the time of the visit of Prince Charles. (!)

As my readers may not be able to see the book to which I objected, "The Treasury of Devotion," I give them the "Anima Christi," and then, from the sixth volume of "Tracts for Parochial Use," (printed by John Henry Parker, Oxford, 1852,) . Bishop Andrewes' Prayer. It is, as they will see, the translation by Dr. Newman, above cited.



Soul of Christ sanctify me!
Body of Christ Save me!
Blood of Christ inebriate me!
Water from the side of Christ cleanse me!
O good Jesu hear me!
And suffer me not to be separated from Thee!
From the malicious enemy defend me!
And bid me come to Thee!
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee!
To endless ages. Amen!


May Thy strong hand, O Lord,
be ever my defence;
Thy mercy in Christ my salvation;
Thy all-veritable word my instructor;
The grace of Thy life-bringing Spirit
my consolation,
all along, and at last.
The Soul of Christ hallow me,
And the Body strengthen me,
And the Blood ransom me,
And the Water wash me,
And the Bruises heal me,
And the Sweat refresh me,
And the Wound hide me!
The peace of God,
which passeth all understanding,
Keep my heart and thoughts
in the knowledge and love of God.

[28] I NOW go on to reprint my speech upon Eucharistic Adoration, which I read before the Council.

I had the floor when the adjournment to the last session of the Council took place, and accordingly I proceeded to address the Chair upon the point of Dr. DeKoven's Eucharistic doctrine. I said:

"Dr. DeKoven had made an eloquent speech, but evasive, it seemed to me. Dr. DeKoven had made two speeches before General Convention; which of them did he cite here,--the first or the second?"

Dr. DeKoven said he did not know the page; he could find it. Accordingly he indicated the speech on pages 505 and 506, Phonographic Report of General Convention. Whereupon I said:

"I had not, perhaps through inattention, heard him cite that speech here, but I had heard him speak it at the General Convention in 1871, and I would read a portion of it before this Council." I went on to say: The Ritualistic party commonly were vague and indefinite enough. But Dr. DeKoven, whom they recognized as their great leader, was distinct enough in all conscience in that speech. Before the General Convention he said (and I will read his very words):

"I want to give anybody in this House the opportunity of presenting me for false doctrine if he wishes, and in order to do so I choose some language which is rather balder and barer than any I myself would use except in a company of theologians; and I use this language for another purpose, which I will explain presently. I believe in,--and this will be printed to-morrow, and I will write it out, if necessary, for anybody who wants to [28/29] use it,--I believe in the Real, Actual Presence of our Lord, under the form of bread and wine, upon the altars of our churches. I myself adore, and would, if it were necessary or my duty, teach my people to adore, Christ present in the elements under the form of bread and wine."

Dr. DeKoven goes on to say:

"They are adjudicated words. They are words which, held by a divine of the Church of England, have been tried in the very highest Ecclesiastical Court of England, and have been decided, by that Ecclesiastical Court, to come within the limits of the truth laid [down?] in the Church of England." [Report, p. 506.]

The Ecclesiastical Courts of England, I would say to this Council, are strange things. Sir Robert Phillimore, whom Dr. DeKoven cites, is simply a layman; and the four gentlemen who pleaded in that case, before that Court, were laymen also. It is the Court of Arches.

But Dr. DeKoven, by his words, "highest Ecclesiastical Court," leaves the impression that it was legally the ultimate Court of Appeal,--the highest court--what we call the Supreme Court. There was another court, the highest court actually,--the Court of Final Appeal. [I was interrupted here by Dr. DeKoven, and informed, with an air of triumph, that "it was not till six months after our General Convention that the judgment I was going to cite was given"! As though that fact made the Court of Arches the court of final appeal in England!] I hold in my hand the judgment of that court, delivered, not by a layman, but by the Archbishop of York, the second Archbishop in the British Church; and on the 215th page are to be found in it the two passages cited by Dr. DeKoven before the General Convention as "adjudicated words." I will read them. But before I go on to show to this Council the way they are handled in the real highest court,--the court of final appeal in the English Established Church,--I would ask this Council to notice the defiant character of Dr. DeKoven's speech before the General Convention. He is willing to be tried upon the opinion he gives,--the Eucharistic declaration he makes. He begins it with the solemnity of an [29/30] Apostle's Creed, "I believe in." He "will write it out for anybody who wishes to present him for false doctrine." I suppose, if he was willing to be tried for that, his speech, he is willing now that we should discuss the tendencies of that speech, since he is here, as a candidate for the Episcopate, before us. I think it only fair.

Again, I would remark that Dr. DeKoven does not, or did not at that time, in these words, profess transubstantiation. These words strictly taken do not contain or express that doctrine. I stood up myself on the floor of that house, and told the members that it was so,--that Dr. DeKoven's doctrine, as in these words he states it, is not transubstantiation. (Pp. 512 and 513.) I cautioned the members of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies not to make a martyr of him. And then I told them in plain words, "If this House imagine that my colleague is a meek lamb to be martyred here, they make a great mistake. He is simply one of the shrewdest and ablest party-leaders that has ever been on the floor of this House." To which opinion, Mr. President, I still adhere.

I would also that this Council should note another point in that speech of his. Look at his determined tone,--fierce and defiant,--standing before the General Convention and challenging the members, one and all, "anybody in this House," to try him if they dare! And in that tone he says, "I myself adore, and would, if it were necessary or my duty, teach my people to adore, Christ present in the elements under the form of bread and wine." And his friends say now, "Oh, Dr. DeKoven is mild and tolerant. He will not push his opinions. He will be tolerant." Also he himself says in his manifesto, that he has "no right to condemn those who are not able to receive it."

He is very mild indeed, if you take his own declarations at this time, and those of the advocates of his election. But I say I heard him, on the floor of the Lower House of the General Convention, say that "if it were necessary or his duty, he would teach his people" this doctrine of Eucharistic Adoration. [30/31] And if we elect him here, as Bishop, this day, the Episcopal Church of Wisconsin becomes "his people." He will teach that doctrine in every pulpit, and make, if he can, every clergyman teach it, or put another in his place who will. For it is in his eyes the catholic truth of God's Holy Church,--and he has said what he will do.

He is willing, now, to pat the horse on the neck, that he may mount into the saddle,--or let his friends do it. But when in the saddle, it is a different position. A Bishop once elected, is a Bishop for life, in his Diocese.

For my part, I was on the floor of the House and I heard him utter these words. And I believe that he meant them, uttering them as he did, solemnly and emphatically and defiantly, and I tell you the man will act as he has promised with "his people," if you let him do so,--if you elect him your Bishop, and thus become "his people."

I will now read to this Council the passages originally in Mr. Bennett's "Letter to Dr. Pusey; a Plea for Toleration; third edition," from which these two sentences are extracted, the first asserting "The Real and Actual Presence of our Lord under the form of bread and wine upon the altars of our churches," and the second, "I myself adore, and would (if it were necessary or my duty) teach my people to adore Christ present in the elements under the form of bread and wine." These sentences Dr. DeKoven adopts as "words adjudicated in the highest Ecclesiastical Court of England" (they are taken from the publication of Mr. Bennett, above named, for which he was tried), and utters them, as his own belief on the Eucharist, before the General Convention of 1871.

Mr. Bennett, as quoted in the Court of Final Appeal, says:

"The three great doctrines on which the Catholic Church has to take her stand, are these:--First, the real objective presence of our blessed Lord in the Eucharist. Secondly, the sacrifice offered by the Priest. And, thirdly, the adoration due to the presence of our blessed Lord therein." [Six Judgments of the Privy Council. Page 219.]

[32] Again, he goes on to say:--

"The greater part of the Priesthood does now maintain and set forth those doctrines which were then, to say the least, held in abeyance. To speak only of myself, I have worked steadily onward, as far as my humble powers have enabled me, cheered and instructed by the 'Tracts for the Times,' and your own more special teaching [Dr. Pusey's] in Oxford, . . . 'to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints'; that faith seeming to me to derive its whole efficacy from a right appreciation primarily of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and depending on that, the real and actual presence of our Lord, under the form of bread and wine, upon the altars of our churches. [Six Judgments, page 219. These italicised words are Dr. DeKoven's first adopted words, which he says were adjudicated by the highest ecclesiastical court.] Without that doctrine, as inferring the sacerdotal office of the Priest and the sacrificial character of the altar, there would seem to me no Church at all."

Again, Mr. Bennett says:

"Well, I do not know what others of my brethren in the Priesthood may think. I do not wish to compromise them by anything I say or do. But, seeing that I am one of those who burn lighted candles at the altar in the daytime; who use incense at the Holy Sacrifice; who use Eucharistic vestments; who elevate the Blessed Sacrament; who myself adore, and teach my people to adore, Christ present in the elements under the form of bread and wine, [Here is found Dr. DeKoven's second assertion of his belief before the General Convention,] believing that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; seeing all this, it may be conceived that I cannot rest very much at ease under the imputation above cited." [It will be seen by this enumeration of Mr. Bennett's the reason why he uses these five practices. He believes that they are adjuncts to the "Sacrifice of the Mass," and that, by introducing and practising them, he makes a way for it, and pushes it. These are the very practices charged upon the Ritualistic party in "Principles, not Men." See Dr. DeKoven's pamphlet, p. 49. Six Judgments, p. 220.]

Now, with regard to the decision of the Supreme Court. The lower court, a court presided over by a lay judge,--which Dr. DeKoven most strangely calls the highest ecclesiastical court,--undoubtedly asserted the legal correctness of the two sentences which Dr. DeKoven cites. The Higher Court "comes [32/33] to the conclusion, not without doubts and division of opinions, that this charge (against Mr. Bennett) is not so clearly made out as the rules which govern penal proceedings require. Mr. Bennett is entitled to the benefit of any doubt that may exist. His language has been rash, but, as it appears to the majority of their Lordships that his words can be construed so as not to be plainly repugnant to the two passages articled against them, their Lordships will give him the benefit of the doubt that has been raised." [Six Privy Council Judgments, pp. 243, 244.] That is, Mr. Bennett personally got off in this way by "the benefit of a doubt."

And Sir Robert Phillimore, the learned Judge who "adjudicated these words," is snubbed severely for his decision,--is told, in polite legal phrase, that he went outside of his power, and that it is absolutely void. Their Lordships cite a passage of Sir Robert's judgment, quoted before General Convention by Dr. DeKoven (on page 506, col. 1, Phonographic Report) from Dr. Phillimore's judgment, which is this:

"I say that the Objective, Actual and Real Presence, or the Spiritual Real Presence, a presence external to the act of the communicant, appears to me to be the doctrine which the Formularies of our Church, duly considered and construed so as to be harmonious, intended to maintain. But I do not lay down this to be a position of law; nor do I say that what is called the Receptionist Doctrine is inadmissable, nor do I pronounce on any other teaching with respect to the mode of presence. I mean to do no such thing by this judgment I mean by it to pronounce that to describe the mode of presence as Objective, Real, Actual and Spiritual, is certainly not contrary to law."

"I read these words," says Dr. DeKoven, "from the 'Judgment delivered by the Right Hon. Sir Robert Phillimore, D.C.L., Official Principal of the Arches Court, in the case of the Office of the Court promoted by Sheppard vs. Bennett.'"

And then "their Lordships regret that the learned Judge should have put forth this extra-judicial statement, in which," [33/34] they say, "he adopts words that are not used in the Articles or Formularies as expressing their doctrine." [Six Privy Council Judgments, page 247. EXTRA-JUDICIAL. "That which does not belong to the judge or to his jurisdiction, notwithstanding which he takes cognizance of it. Extra-judicial acts or judgments are absolutely void."--Bouvier's Law Dictionary.] Certainly these words are not "adjudicated by the highest ecclesiastical court," seeing this is said in the judgment of the Highest Court; certainly, seeing Mr. Bennett only gets off "by the benefit of a doubt," his doctrine is not adopted,--only the defendant personally escapes from penalty by "the benefit of a doubt"

But what does this doctrine mean? Mr. Bennett has told us. First, it means the real, objective presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, under the form of bread and wine, upon the altars of our churches. And then, for what purpose is this? First, to be offered as a sacrifice by the Priest; and secondly, there and then, and afterwards, to be adored. That is Mr. Bennett's system.

The first and the last of these principles Dr. DeKoven has openly avowed, Mr. President He believes in the first, the Real, objective presence of Christ, under the form of bread and wine, upon the altars of our churches. He believes in the third, that He is there to be adored. The second is that He is there to be offered to God by the Priest. I will ask Dr. DeKoven, is this also his doctrine?

Dr. DeKoven--"I will answer if the Council will allow me time to reply after Dr. Adams has done."

Dr. Adams--You will not answer now? Well! I do not care. You do hold that second principle. And for proof I bring forward your own words in your letters to Dr. Craik: "I believe that the Body and Blood of Christ really and truly, but supernaturally and spiritually present, are offered and pleaded before God by the Priest, for a continual remembrance of Christ's death and passion until his coming again." [DeKoven's letter to Dr. Craik, Church Register, 1872, p. 660, vol. 2.] You do hold Mr. Bennett's second principle, as well as his first and third,--and these three make up what is called by the Roman Catholic Church the Sacrifice of the Mass, which the Church of England [34/35] and our own Church utterly abhors. But Mr. Bennett believes it, and so do you."

Dr. DeKoven--"Why, the very words you have cited are the words of the Prayer-Book."

At that, there was a burst of clapping of hands and cheering from Dr. DeKoven's friends.

I said then: "Please read before this Council any passage of the Prayer-Book that says that 'the real Body and Blood of Christ are offered before God by the Priest.'"

Whereupon Dr. DeKoven got up at once and read a passage at hap-hazard, as seemed to me, and again was cheered by his friends with much clapping of hands and stamping of feet

I then resumed: Mr. Bennett's system is simply the Roman doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And then, as we have seen, Mr. Bennett goes on, in connection with these three principles, in the same breath to avow the Elevation of the Host, incense, candles burning on the altar in the daytime, eucharistic vestments, all of them practices and forms that attend the Roman Sacrifice of the Mass. [See above page.] And we know it, we, the Six Clergymen who have been so much complained of for declaring it upon paper. And I have extracted the confession of this fact from the very passage of the letter of Mr. Bennett from which Dr. DeKoven has taken and adopted his "adjudicated words." The very sentences in which Dr. DeKoven professes his belief are taken from a declaration in which the man who was tried professes the "Sacrifice of the Mass," the Elevation of the Host, the use of incense, burning candles upon the altar, all of them the principles and practices of the Roman Church.

I have read the passage before you. The book is in my hand, and Dr. DeKoven's sentences of belief are there. Three principles make up the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Two of these principles of the system he has solemnly professed before the General Convention. The third is to be found in his [35/36] letter to Dr. Craik, as you have seen. And he does not deny it. I have a right on these grounds, I think, at least to be cautious in the election of Dr. DeKoven to the Episcopate of Wisconsin.

Now I will proceed to read again, and for another purpose, from the Phonographic Report of the Debate in the Lower House of the General Convention, 1871, Dr. DeKoven's speech on page 506:

"I want to do what my brother from Wisconsin did yesterday, only in another direction; I want to give anybody in this House the opportunity of presenting me for false doctrine if he wishes; and in order to do so I choose some language which is balder and barer than any I myself would use excepting in a company of theologians, and I use this language for another purpose, which I will explain presently. I believe in--and this will be printed to-morrow, and I will write it out if necessary for anybody who wants to use it--I believe in 'the Real, Actual Presence of our Lord under the form of bread and wine upon the altars of our churches.' I 'myself adore,' and would, if it were necessary or my duty, 'teach my people to adore Christ present in the elements under the form of bread and wine.'"

[It is astonishing to see how these words of Dr. DeKoven's excited the Church. They were spoken on the twentieth day of General Convention, October 26, 1871, and immediately upon adjournment a page was given by the House of Bishops in their Pastoral Letter to the subject of Eucharistic Adoration!

[They begin by saying: "The doctrine which chiefly attempts as yet to express itself by Ritual in questionable and dangerous ways, is connected with the Holy Eucharist. That doctrine is emphatically a novelty in Theology. What is known as Eucharistical Adoration is undoubtedly inculcated and encouraged by that ritual of posture lately introduced among us, which finds no warrant in our office for the Celebration of the Holy Communion."

[And so going on, they argue for a whole page together against Eucharistic Adoration. Taken in connection with Dr. DeKoven's delivery in the Lower House, this fact is very significant.

[Then, again, the President of the Lower House of General Convention, who had left the Chair and spoken on the same side as Dr. DeKoven against the proposed Canon, one of the dearest-headed of men, goes home to Louisville and preaches a sermon before his people, in which he described "another doctrine" as a "wretched fiction" and "gross idolatry," and said that "one man of the General Convention professed to hold this doctrine,"--alluding, manifestly, to Dr. DeKoven. This occasioned a long series of letters.

[And, even as Dr. Craik reminds him, "Father Bradley," "so lately a leader of the new party, now an apostate priest," has declared that "among all the crowd of clerical and lay representatives, one only, on the last day of the Convention, avowed his belief in the Catholic verity of the Real Presence." "We all understand," Dr. Craik says, what "Father Bradley" means by this "Catholic verity."]

[37] Now I would remark upon the two assertions of belief contained here. "I believe," says Dr. DeKoven twice over, "I believe in the Real, Actual Presence of our Lord under the form of bread and wine, upon the altars of our churches." Where did Mr. Bennett and Dr. DeKoven get these words? Are they in the Prayer-Book, or the Articles, or the Creeds therein contained? Not at all. They are Dr. DeKoven's and Mr. Bennett's creed. But they are not in the Prayer-Book.

He says twice over, "I believe." He did me the honor once of calling me the leader of the "Protestant Party" in this Council. I am certainly so far Protestant that I do not believe in this his Credo. But the self-named "Catholic Party" does,--the Ritualistic, Romanizing Party, that is, of which I consider him to be the leader in the American Church.

He believes it. And so does every Roman Catholic Priest in this country and everywhere else! There is not one of them who will not accept Dr. DeKoven's words as they stand, and say that they express the doctrine held by the Holy Roman Church, "That our Lord is really and actually present, under the form of bread and wine, upon the altars of our churches." [Dr. DeKoven here interrupted me to assert that he did not hold Tran-substantiation, and to explain the difference, which he did at some length. I never said he did. But the same formula that expresses the Roman Catholic doctrine so far, expresses his, as I said then, and do now say. The difference is that the Roman Catholics say the substance of the bread and wine is not there. Dr. DeKoven says it is,--a difference very great indeed to theologians, but an ordinary man can hardly discern it. I say now again, let any plain man who reads this passage try the test of these words with the next intelligent Roman Catholic priest or layman he meets, and he will find the man will accept Dr. DeKoven's statement as Roman Catholic And yet it is not fully so. It only goes so far,--it does not embrace the whole.]

[38] They may well do so; for the words are really the words almost wholly of the Canons and Catechism of the Council of Trent. Dr. DeKoven, who adopted these words from Mr. Bennett, may not know that it is so. But Mr. Bennett knows it, and Dr. Pusey, and the Catholic Party in England, if not here. The Council of Trent says: "In the first place, the Holy Synod teaches that in the august Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and Man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the species [the same word among logicians as 'form'] of these sensible things." [Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 71.]

This is in the first chapter, which is headed, "On the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist."

And then Canon I. anathematizes any one that shall "deny that 'Totus Christus' ('Whole Christ') is therein, and shall say that he is only therein in a sign, or figure, or virtue." The fourth Canon anathematizes any one that shall say "that the Body and Blood of Christ are only there during the use whilst it is being taken, and that in the Hosts or consecrated particles which after consecration are reserved or remain, the true body of the Lord remaineth not."

The same doctrine is expounded in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Every phrase of that first assertion of Dr. DeKoven's, every clause of that very complex sentence of his, is to be found in the Canons and Decrees and Catechism of Trent.

The real, actual presence of our Lord,--under the form of bread and wine--Christ present in the elements--upon the altars of our churches. Every phrase and word is Roman.

[39] But I would note one thing more that does not lie upon the surface,--is not at once perceptible,--and yet, when pointed out, is very easily seen, and very significant. It is in the phrases Dr. DeKoven uses, "The presence of our Lord under the form of bread and wine"; "Christ present in the elements." Now Christ Himself says, "this is my Body," and "this is my Blood," implying a presence of His "body and blood." That is what many of the Divines of the Church of England allow. They say, "We allow a presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements, but we allow no more. Since He Himself says 'this is my body and blood,' we allow that mystically, sacramentally and supernaturally it is so. But since Christ does not say, 'This is Christ,' or 'this is your Lord; we will not say it is." [This is Mr. Freeman's View.]

But Dr. DeKoven says "the real, actual presence of our Lord under the form of bread and wine"; he says "Christ present in the elements." Does he not believe in the Roman form, then, that "Totus Christus" ("Whole Christ") is present in the elements? "It is clear that in the Sacrament Christ is contained whole and entire." [Catechism of the Council of Trent, page 230.] Surely this is his belief.

All these are Tridentine principles and doctrines, and they are contained and implied in his (or Mr. Bennett's) definitions. He believes that "Christ is present in the elements"; "our Lord is, under the form of bread and wine, upon our altars." What else that is than a local presence, then and there, of "Whole Christ" ("Totus Christus"), no man can understand from his words.

And this is manifest from his second principle, which is Mr. Bennett's third, "I myself adore, and would, if it were necessary, teach my people to adore, Christ present in the elements under the form of bread and wine." If "Whole Christ" ("Totus Christus") is not present in the elements,--the Man Christ Jesus, in the truth of his two natures,--the body and soul as well as the Divine Nature,--He is not to be adored. But Dr. [39/40] DeKoven says, "I will teach my people to adore Christ present in the elements under the form of bread and wine." I conclude, therefore, that he believes in the Roman Catholic formula of "Totus Christus" ("Whole Christ") in the elements,--and that we are not going to be "his people."

But that principle of his which I have above recited is Roman also. Recite it also as it is in Dr. DeKoven's speech, word for word, to the first Roman Catholic priest or intelligent layman you meet, and he will tell you it is their own doctrine, the words express their faith exactly. They "adore, and teach their people to adore, Christ present in the elements under the form of bread and wine," upon the altars of their churches. They teach it, and their people do it. And they are bound so to do by the Canons of their Church. "If any one shall deny that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, is not to be adored even with the worship external of latria (i. e., the highest worship due to God), let him be anathema."

[Section 13, Canon 6.--The rest of this Canon, and Canon seventh, anathematizes those who deny the Elevation of the Host, the Reservation, the carrying it in procession, the celebration of Corpus Christi Day, etc. As "our Lord is present upon the altars of our churches under the form of bread and wine," which of course takes place after the words of consecration, I really think Dr. DeKoven must see it is only a reasonable and natural conclusion from that premise for the Priest then to lift Him up--"Elevate the Host," the phrase is--and for the people to fall down and worship Him then and there.

[And also afterwards to put him into a Pyx or Monstrance, and keep Him upon the altar to be seen and worshipped when any one wants to. Reservation, they call it.

[And then that He should be carried in procession, and that every one that meets Him should kneel down and worship. All these seem to me natural and easy consequences from Dr. DeKoven's principle of "Christ present under the form of bread and wine upon the altars of our churches." If "Christ" is there "to be adored," as "present in the elements," He is to be adored in the Monstrance upon the altar or in the Pyx during the procession,--and reservation for that purpose is right, notwithstanding the Twenty-fifth Article, paragraph four.]

I have shown now to the clergy and the laity of this Council where Dr. DeKoven's doctrine on the Eucharist is to be found, so far as it goes. And you will say, "Why, that is transubstantiation!" I say, "No! it is not." It goes very near it, but it is not. It is not transubstantiation, because he says that the substance of the bread and wine remain. And thereby he is actually anathematized by the Council of Trent in the Second Canon on the Eucharist, for denying that "wonderful conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the [40/41] whole substance of the body and blood of Christ, which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation." If Dr. DeKoven denies he holds transubstantiation,--and the Roman Catholic Church anathematizes him for the denial,--and I, who here oppose his election to the Episcopate of Wisconsin, tell you he does not, I think it is only fair for you to think he does not.

But he goes very near it. The only difference is that he says "the substance of the bread and wine remains." But; what if he should reconsider his position? What if he should say, "The consecrated elements are Whole Christ, really and truly, upon the altars of our churches, there to be adored; and THEREFORE, being Christ, they are not bread and wine"?

I tell you it is a process of reasoning through which many have gone, and through which Dr. DeKoven may also go. The man may say, "That is Christ,--there upon the altar,--whom I worship--under the forms of bread and wine. It is, therefore, whole Christ, Christ only, Christ and nothing else, and the forms are merely forms. I deny the existence of the bread and wine except as forms." This is the natural, logical conclusion from Dr. DeKoven's premises. And what is it? It is the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Now I venture to say that of the forty or fifty clergy of our Church in this land who have gone over to Rome, the mass of them have gone, just precisely because they held these [41/42] principles on the Eucharist which Dr. DeKoven so clearly and distinctly stated before the General Convention,--and then, found out by-and-by that, logically, if these principles are true, transubstantiation is true also, being their natural and inevitable result.

And here I will say one thing that will perhaps astonish the clergy and laity whom I address. Ordinary Protestants take it for granted that transubstantiation is simply a monstrous idol,--a figment invented by Roman Priests in order to impose upon the people and thereby to rule them. It is not so. It is the logical development, by some of the most pious men, and the ablest and greatest logicians that the world has ever seen, of one or two-root principles, perhaps only one.

And when you have got that principle firmly fixed in your mind, when you thoroughly believe in it, the process, if you are an honest man, is only a matter of time--transubstantiation comes out logically and ultimately as your doctrine.

I believe, as I have said, Dr. DeKoven does not hold transubstantiation; but from what he has said before the General Convention I believe, if he carries out the premises he holds to their conclusion, he will come to hold it,--that now he comes very near it.

And therefore I do not vote for him, and I tell this Council my reasons for it.

I have seen in my day one Bishop go over to Rome (Bishop Ives of North Carolina), just because of these principles and influences, and I do not want to see another.

"Oh!" It will be said, "that is only an imagination of Professor Adams." I say, in reply, that within a week I have had a letter in my hand from one of the wisest and most clear-headed men of the Church, in which he says: "Dr. DeKoven comes too near transubstantiation. Take care; in electing him you may have another Ives' case." Such imaginations occur to many minds just now,--and may be fulfilled.

Project Canterbury