New-York tribune., 1875-03-10
TIE STRUGGLE IN T,c EPISCOPAL
CHURCr,

LETTER TO TIE siA' DING COMMITTEES RfGARD-
INC DIR. DE R>vEN's VIEWS ON DOCTRINE
MONTGOMERY BLAIR's REPLY TO CHANCELLOR
JUDD.
George. r, Cushman, President of the cStandlng
COmm Of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese OF ILLINOIS,
addressed letter. Feb "a last TO the Bishops ana other
Standng Committees Of that denomination IN regao W
The statements which had been made eonccrnng .ne
Rev Dr. De Koven's views certain doctrines OF 'no
denomination The letter has Just been made puohe'
s"1 sN0" '" CHtcAeo, Ill. Feb. a. 1915
So she FASHIONS aud Standing CoBpsseeS Of The Froes"
FArIGRs AND BRETHREN: Since the election %1 @
De Koyen TO the vacant Episcopate Of Illinois
ana unfair statements of his views ueon ,hranr6 the
Of doctrine have Ses9 h auUs ccmniltee Of the
Diocese which SO @ desires re srs,S M Will
Thought improper in me ~ make some coiio'"'' " ~
SaTe never nd and DO not now have. any sympathy
with what called Rtualism SnS n%ia vas a, PROPOSED to
truth aud Apostolic order wneh ~, ~ % srccai Ponyen,
taon msde due Inquiry 10 earn II .Vuau ~ v
snnory ana g made for my own USE while Dr.
He Koyen might call in question the WISDOM OF naAne
s tins OF ANY am we assured and speak sdvscdly when
say SO, mat nc would ndorse It's substance ~ -
Yven has been Of erroneous Goetruc upon SIX
points. l. Alteration OF Christ IN the elemehts q
ritual Of posture suggesting the awful error o. s1T,
4 Invocation Saints and Angels and the eireIlatSn
" eSoks teaching me same T. dS tsr io of our Ie Lord
Ia Alteration OF Christ IN the elements, ano hi9ai .,
Posture-Dr DeKo'en denies impley any oeie, III -,
pny sical local, carua presence IN the eIemensW W
any presence by tTansubsiauIiauon, mpanaion iuehe
of SUBSTANCE, or any other device or explanation m oI
human rcascn He does define the mOGe OF Christs
presence because Christ aud the ChuIeh nanU nos
nTesence Ia the eements lis sacramental presence
Dr. DE Koven never has practiced any rtua VI P o
mepts themselves" other error anu ne mas posi
lively asserted that kncelng III me 1la as e M
oined IN the rubiie, serves INC hee's VI .ue ~
desires lie docs not MAINTAIN or deiend any eueharsuc
1dorailon tnat does not come within the hmls OF me
Pastoral of the House Bishops Of s1 which Pastoral
he accepts as lac does the Canon oil Ritual OF 1875
g. Aui ocular Conesson.-Dr. DE kOven ekpressly
that private confession ought not to be enforced,
aud necessary TO the forgiveness OF SINS ne uots
y and rejects the Roman doctrine OF salts
faction, and wIat is known, technically, as dlreetlon
He does not believe Ill doctrine OF confession but
such as is allowed by the Communion Once and ap'
proved BY great dlvhes OF the ChuFen oi Eglann;
On this p9ut, as upon 0'neis' ne 10 III "''''"
4 Invocation of SAINTS and Angels, and circulating
bouks approving the sdme.-Dr. De KOven has never
taught pTaoticed the Invocation OF SAINTS anu
Augels, and there is no SHADOW OF ground Ior ihe
charge. lie has circulated or defended hOmlsh
or other books of devotion teaching the same ana II no
sSmsaiton by cergyman Of the English Church,
the express grodnd that IL did NOS contain sue
g. Prayer for tho Dead-Dr De KoyeD upon tins sub.
beet goes further ihan 10 hold, WIN many dvines OF
our own aud the English Church, tnat IL Is dllO"eu
m the Engsh Church ~ hlk that the prayers OF the
CAurch earth may De Blessing TO the souls oi those
G. Tue Perpetual virgnity OF the Mother of Lord.
-UpOu this point DR.. DE koyen has never held or
taught thing taught express words, byBishop
Pearson on the Creed, which is commended to our
students of theology 0y the House of Bishops
such we believe 10 be a true statement Of Dr. De
KOven's opinions upon the poiuts IN dispute, aud We
tina, they come very far within the latitude
winch either hand, the church allows ana thdt they
are shared by large body OF our bishops clergy
ana -iy. d. Dc koVen is true and loyal son OF tne
aards, and desing 10 cnaDge IN her Prayer BOOK or
se oGS GosoTs S Of the E1 chSr nd
not hold He has no love Tor an extreme ritual Du
ostraczs men who hold practice what Hooker and
Andrews and Taylor, Bull and Herbert, and thousands
Uf the DODes Of the Church. now at rest win
God, revcTed and loved on earth. Your servant III
CbtIst GEO h. CUsLMAS.
James II. Roberts of Chicago. soon after Chancellor
Judo's letter arguing that Dr. De Koven had been
legally elected Bishop OF Illinois published for
warded paper containing the letter to the Hon. Mont
gomery BLAIR, who It Will be remembered took
prolnaent part al the late General Convention OF tue
Protestant Episcopal Church in this city MT Blair at
snoe short letter IN reply and stated the
reasons led him to think that the Chanceors ar
gumeuts were not well grounded.
Mt Blair first replies to the Chancellors argument
that parish which represented at the Illinois Con
vention and actually voted but vote OF which was d
yided could not be counted in the VOTE because In
such case parish was to be deemed not to be repre-
sen,ed at all the Convention" MT Blair says IN reply
that the Chancellor took the same ground in the Gen
era Convention Baltimore in 1871, that the PROPOSE
ton was by II referred to the Committee on Canons
and WAS by that Committee decided unanimously
against him The authority OF the General Counci MT
Blair believ cd ought to be conclusive.
Mr. Blair then examines Mr. Judd's argument in favor
sf the PROPOSITION that the two Chanceors OF che
diocese a right to vote. The Chancellors, Mr. Blair
argues eonfessedly did not within the provision
of the Constitution providing that the Convention
chan b. composed u laity and clergy, aud that the
lay members shall consist Of delegates from each con
eregation." The membership Of the Chancellors was
created by and ii had been argued that the canon
had the force the Constitution Congress could
reasOuiug, give vote TO territorial dele
gate in Congress IT, as in other doceses, the Consu
tion was on a different basis than the canon law, II
could not repealed suspended at any moment by
the Convention as The Chancellor had argued. Mr. Blair
closed his letter as follows:
On one point of Law agree with the Chancellor that
i that the bishops and standing committees cannot
inquire the regularity OF the election Their power
extends only to oODhrmatOn but power and duty are
their to tde Church whether the Domina-
tion ought to II. confirmed. Aud when 10 appears by
the admitted facts that not elected hut that lac
has arccptpd the pOSiio1 with the knowledge that le
was not elected thcTa ought II be M doubt about his
tsQuaEhCatOn. d.. Seymour declUcf 10 he rejected,
DECLARING that he could not Lave accepted when n!st
elected " he Ead Known OF the Cyi-iD IN me diDeese,
uLi,h subsequently manifested But the oppoSi-
tIon 10 Lin Was less than the present nominee.
who s tAe chief vi tie discriminating medlRvdi5s
disquahn d. therefore. Ia the Judgment OF bis best
friends. even u lac had obtained tie election fdlrly.
But when, IN the fpit O mere partisan, ne 10 ~lIuS
take the office nO ODy acaD>t the welkn0wn wishes
the great body OF tae a!ty of The diocese bnt even
without being elected 10 IL. ana nothing but
discord aud disaster can follow from his cOtnrms-
tion, there Dc doubt that tie uughf 10 he rJried