, 1875-02-28
THE ILLINOIS EPiSCOPATE.


Dk. DE KovEN AND THE BISHOPS.
To The Editor Of The Chicago tribune:
More pressing if not more important natter
| hare prevented US from paving more promp
| attaStion to A article in TIE TRIBUNE q
| Wednesday, Feb. II, headed "A Plain and Com
mon 6enta View" OF Dr.. De Koyen'a soun1nes
in the faith. It If = very tr:te saying that
Common sense is the most uncomn1on Of al
our senses" and this writer, who signs himself
III" is evidently no exception to the genera
rule II he has any s4 common sense be has
certainly not exhibited it in this essay, which
| contains almost IS many misstatcments Is it has
! ecntences. But We shall not attempt to follos
him through all his alterations; few instances
| will be sufficient.
F1rst-He represents "almoat ths entire
College Of Bishops" IS indoreing the " "ortho-
do1y Of Dr.. De Ko4en." But that i,
the very point which the memorial
ists against Dr.. De Koren's confirm.
tion as the Bishop Of Illinois propose
to test provided, that ID to say, that the Stand
ing Committees Of the various dioceses will al
low the matter to 60 before the Bishops. If the
Standing Committees understand the uttc1ances
OF the Bishops in the matter OF Ritualism for
several years past. as We do, they will not think
it worth whils to troube them NTH the matter,-
they will DO assured that thu Bishops have al
ready pronounced sentence upon DR.. De Koyen's
views and uttetauces, and that, therefore, it ia
not necessary for them to do anything more than
make an application Of this to Or. De Koven
by declaring that they cannot consent to his con-
eecrat!oD. We claim that all that is peculiar in
Dr. De Koyen's system Of theology has been
distinctly and unequivocally condemned by the
Bishops on various occasions, but moro particu-
larly In their pastoral Of 1871. Ii Bishop Doane
is, as I'll" claims, the author OF that pastoral
&nd st the same time the advocate Of Dr. De
Koven's confirmation and elevation to the
Epiaeopate, VIC have only to say, it
md defend his consistency. But tho pastoral is
plain III ita condemnation Of Dr.. De Koven's prin-
cples and practices in Ritualism and it's con-
neeted system. The Bishops there say, 'What
is known as 'Ritualiaa1 is mainly aquostiou ct
taste, temperament, and constitution, until it
becomes tue expression of doctrine. The doc
t1ne which chiefly attempts to express itself by
ritual in questionable and dangerous ways, is
connected with the Holy Eucharist Tint doc
trine is enaphaticslly novelty in theology.
doub.edy irculcated and encouraged by that
ritual OF posture lately introduced among US,
which finds no warrant in our soffica for the ad-
n,inistTation OF tho Holy Communion, Al
though men may. by unlawful reasoning on Di-
vine mysteries, argue themselves into m ac-
ceptance both Of tho practice and the doctrine
which it implies, these are most certaiuly au-
authorized by Holy Scripture. entirely aside
from the purposes for which the Holy Sacra-
nent uas instituted, aud moat dangerous in
their tendencies"
Now, it is notorious that no ona in our Ameri-
can Church has been more prominent or mora
Jealous ia the defensa OF this doctrine Of
- Eucharistic alteration" than Dr.. De Koren.
He has exhibited this in two GcnerrI Cpnyeu-
ton and in al sorts Of speeches pamphlets,
articles, and catccbisms. In this re-
6pecs re suppose there will be no dispute It is |
. matter entirely apart from his ideas on the !
mode OF Christ's presence in Ihe Eucharist, !
This be did not attempt to deny or explain even /
IN his speech in the last General Convention, in
which he labored 80 anNously To fres himself |
from tho charge of Reconsideration and Of . !
local phyalcal, carnal rreseuce in the cle- |
neuts." It is not necessary 10 quota DR.. Dc |
aoren's language on this subject,-the
tictfino runs through the greater part Of
asst General Convention. This doctrine
'f Eucharistic adorxtion II il nell known that
le holds. He himself has not denied twill |
lat deny it. But this is tho doctrine which tue
Bishops have so unequirocally condemned in tne
astotal just cited
But this is not The only doctrine of DR.. Do
loven which the Bishops haze condemned in
bat pastoral OF 1871, which "H." 80 aptly
tyles "their protestant pastoral" They there
nrsher say, I'm thus speaking Of dangers con-
ected with present movements in tle Church,
aere are other points oo which your Bishops
lust not be silent. The first relates 70 private
. Another Eeiat Of dangor
= tendency to.ard SAINT vQrshlp.".
8 fostering tendencies OF Hhich we regret to 6ee
nJ tokens among Us. Nc must NOT fsit to.point
Ut the danger sr7sing from devotional and DOG
ana1 books, alien in their character to the whole
oirt Of our liturgy Nhict fayo of lstA years been