CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY JACOB H. SCHIFF Endowment for Studies IN Human Civilization Bxsggo.Msr"""'™""'"-"'"^ Some American churchmen / 3 1924 006 394 534 LIBRARY m¥ DATE DUE GAYLOHD PRINTED IN U.SA The original of tliis bool< is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924006394534 SOME AMEEICAI^ CHTJECHMEN BY FREDERIC COOK MOREHOUSE .^'^ <^-' MILWAUKEE: The Young Churchman Oo. 1893. COPTEIGHT, 1892, BY THE YOUNG CHUECHMAN CO. 4// -.T. TO ihe %t feu. Isaac %m fichotson, ^.i.i., BISHOP OF MILWAUKEE, Who in His Own Person Combines a Goodly Number op Those Elements which Make up a Staunch, Able and True Leader among this book is respectfully dedicated, BY THE AUTHOR. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Preface, ... 7 I. Samuel Seabury, The First American Bishop ... 9 II. William White, The First Bishop of Pennsylvania 21 III. John Henry Hobart Bishop of New York . . .29 IV. Philander Chase, The Pioneer Missionary . 53 V. George Washington Doane, Bishop of New Jersey . 65 VI. John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of Vermont . . . . 89 VII. Jackson Kemper, First Bishop of Wisconsin . 109 VIII. William Augustus Muhlenberg, The Christian Educator . . .125 IX. James Lloyd Bkbck, One of the Founders of Nashotah 139 X. James DeKoven, Warden of Racine College . 157 Index . . 235 PREFACE. IT seems unfortunate, that so little is recorded in per- manent form, of those characters who have played the greatest parts in the history of the American Church. Not only has the Church in this country, during the brief period of her history, produced men of intellect- ual and administrative ability, but it seems, upon in- vestigation, that the number of men who might really be termed great, has been not a few. Of these, strange to say, the younger generation, with whom the author is numbered, know almost nothing ; and the few works of history and biography which cover the period of their lives, are, for the most part, so obscure and scarce, that the controversies and the conflicts, with the men who, under the Almighty Head, made the Church what it is to-day, are now well-nigh forgotten while there are yet those living who were contemporaries with them. Those two early founders. Bishops Seabury and White, may be said to be exceptions to this rule ; and as the story of their lives and work has been frequently told and is within easy reach of any who would seek it, it has seemed best to devote but little space to each ; while yet no work on the worthies of the American Church, would be complete without referring to them. No apology, the author believes, is necessary for the proportionately great amount of space devoted to the life of DeKoven, since his brilliant career has never before been sketched, and the material might not be 8 PREFACE. accessible to most persons. Yet his peer can hardly be found, even in the galaxy of brilliant names which make up the roll of the Church's saints. To enumerate all the works consulted in the com- pilation of this volume, does not seem necessary ; yet not to name those which have been most freely drawn upon would be ungrateful indeed. Some of them are the following : The Journals of General Convention, 1785-1835, compiled by the Bishop of Iowa. Historical Notes and Documents; by the Bishop of Iowa. A History of the American Episcopal Church ; by the Rev. S. D. McConnell, D D. Students' History of the Church of England; by the Rev. George G. Perry. Memoirs of Bishop White. McVickar's Life of Bishop Hobart. Memoirs of Bishop Chase. Life of Bishop Chase ; by the Rev. John N. Norton, D. D. Memoirs of Bishop George Washington Doane ; edited by his son, William Oroswell Doane, Bishop of Albany. History of the Church in Burlington, N. J.; by the Rev. George Morgan Hills, D. D. Life of Bishop Hopkins; by his son, John Henry Hopkins, D. D. Files of the Nashotah Scholiast, containing several histor- ical series relating to Bishop Kemper and Dr. DeKoven. Life of Dr. Muhlenberg ; by Anne Ayres Life of Dr. Muhlenberg ; by William Wilberforce Newton, D. D. Life of James Lloyd Breck ; by his brother, Charles Breck, D. D. Memoir of Bishop Welles ; by the Rev. S. S. Burleson. Journals of General Convention. Debates in General Convention. Files of the Milwaukee Sentinel. Official documents of Racine College. Several numbers of the Church Eclectic. Pamphlets and other documents relating to the episcopal elections in Wisconsin and Illinois. Diocesan Journals of Wisconsin, Illinois and Massachusetts. SAMUEL SEABURY, Bishop of Connecticut. SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. (I.) SAMUEL SEABURY THE FIRST AMERICAN BISHOP. 'VXTHAT a strange thing is the verdict of history ! The most unlikely man, in 1776, to make his impress felt, second to none other, upon the American Church for all time, was Dr. Samuel Seabury, an S. P. G. missionary at West Chester, New York. He it was, how- ever, who, more than any other one man, gave to the American Church its beautiful service for the Holy Communion, patterned rather after the Scotch than after the English Liturgy. Dr. Seabury was a native of North Groton, Connecticut, the son of an S. P. G. missionary, and was born in 1729. He early assisted his father as a lay reader, and in August, 1752, he braved the long, hard and expensive journey 10 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. across the Atlantic and entered the University of Edinburgh for the study of medicine, intend- ing to use the knowledge thus gained in con- nection with the work of the ministry. We may readily believe that it was during this res- idence in Scotland that he obtained his close knowledge of the persecuted Church in that land. He was ordained to the diaconate on the 21st of December, 1753, by the Bishop of Lin- coln (Thomas), acting for the Bishop of London, who exercised, nominally, episcopal supervis- ion over America. Two days later. Dr. Seabury was advanced to the priesthood by the Bishop of Carlisle (Osbaldeston), who also acted for the Bishop of London. Returning to America, he was successively rector of Christ Church, New Brunswick, New Jersey ; Grace Church, Jamaica, Long Island ; and S. Peter's, West Chester, New York. The troubles of the Revolution found in Dr. Sea- bury an ardent supporter of the British Crown. With two friends he established a literary bu- reau for advocating the British claims. It is not strange that he fell under the ban, and was arrested by the Continental authorities. He SAMUEL SEABURY. 11 escaped, however, joined the British in Long Island, and became a chaplain in the British army. Up to the time of his death, he received the regular half-pay of a retired chaplain from the British Crown. So it was, that when the peace was finally established and the feeble American colonies became the United States of America, Dr. Sea- bury was most unpopular to the patriots who had achieved independence at such a cost. From New York southwai-d, many Churchmen were in active sympathy with the Continent- al government. George Washington was a Churchman. So were all the signers of the Declaration of Independence from Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas, most of those from Pennsylvania, and the preponderating number from the other States south of New England. In Connecticut most of the Churchmen were Tories, and so, loyal to the British Crown. When, therefore, the war was over, and Church- men began to draw together the scattered frag- ments of the Church, they felt themselves to be under the necessity of exercising very great care to escape censure from the civil author- 12 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. ities, in trying to perpetuate anything so very English as the English Church. Accordingly, ten of the fourteen clergymen in Connecticut gathered informally and secretly at Woodbury, on the 21st of April, 1783, to con- sider what might be done. No record of their proceedings has come to us — even their names are unknown. That the episcopate must be established, they were agreed. How, only time could tell. Accordingly, they elected Dr. Seabury to the ofl&ce. Their first choice was the Rev. Jere- miah Leaming, D. D., an aged clergyman, then in New York, who had lost his all by the mis- fortunes of war. Dr. Leaming was too infirm to accept the arduous trust, and so Dr. Seabury was chosen. There were, of course, no Bishops in Amer- ica to whom the Bishop-elect could go for ordi- nation. The long and hazardous voyage to England was therefore necessary. The plan decided upon was, that Dr. Seaburj^ should first lay his credentials before the English Bishops and apply for consecration. Should that fail, he was then to proceed to Scotland and seek consecration from the Non-juring Bishops. SAMUEL SEABURY. 13 The English Bishops at the close of the eighteenth century were not remarkable for their piety. Many of them had received their appointment as court favors, and their spirit- ual duties were well-nigh forgotten. Lowth, Bishop of London, had declared he never would lay hands upon any man who was " going to America to preach." English Churchmen, like English statesmen, were humiliated by the loss of their American colonies. Thus Dr. Seabury found the prospects de- cidedly unfavorable. There were real difficul- ties in the way, and artificial difficulties were made. The English consecration service con- tains an oath of obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury or of York. This, of course, an American Bishop could not take. Then the Bishops could not conceive of an eighteenth century Bishop whose jurisdiction would be wholly spiritual. The episcopate would fall into disrepute, they maintained. What surety would be given that proper support would be given a Bishop in Connecticut ? What would be his relations to the State ? At length a bill was passed through Parlia- 14 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. ment dispensing with the oaths from persons consecrated Bishops for foreign countries. But even then innumerable difficulties were raised by the Bishops. Dr. Seabury's patience and his purse were well-nigh exhausted. He had lived at his own expense in London for more than a year, and he was a poor man. Finally he proceeded to Scotland, and visited the persecuted Church of the Non-Jurors. A hundred years before, when William, Prince of Orange, came to the British Throne, and the Stuarts were banished, the Scottish Bishops refused to conform to the new regime, but remained loyal to King James. They were accordingly deprived from their sees, their places were given to Presbyterians, and the Presbyterian was constituted by law the es- tablished Church of Scotland. The deprived Bishops, hated equally by Scottish Presbyteri- ans for their Churchmanship and by English Churchmen for their politics, met in secret for divine service, and perpetuated the episcopate by secret, but well authenticated, consecrations. They were only a few, and were persecuted bit- terly, but they were ardent and trae Church- SAMUEL SEABURY. 15 men, and perpetuated the old Scottish Liturgy, which was very similar to the first Prayer Book of King Edward VI. in England. To these Non-Jurors Dr. Seabury presented his credentials. With a true spirituality born of hardship and trial, and with a firm belief in the Catholicity of the Church, with an episcopal succession unbroken, through James Sharp, consecrated Archbishop of Saint Andrew's in 1661 by the Bishops of London, Worcester and LlandafF, three of these exiled princes of the Catholic Church — Robert Kilgour, Arthur Pe- trie and John Skinner — conferred the episco- pate upon the infant American Church, by the consecration of Dr. Samuel Seabury, on the 14th of November, 1784. Truly, as the Psalm- ist sings, the same stone which the builders refused, had become the head stone in the cor- ner ! After his consecration. Bishop Seabury at once returned to his flock in Connecticut. He became rector of the parish at New London, from which he received his support. The clergy accepted him loyally as their Bishop. His jurisdiction really included the whole 16 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. of New England, and he visited all parts of those States. An amusing story is told by Bishop Chase in his " Reminiscences," as hav- ing been told by Bishop Jarvis : The Congregationalists of New England were exceedingly indignant that a Bishop should have invaded their stronghold. At Bishop Seabury's first visitation of Boston, Mather Byles, the Congregationalist minister, determined that he would get from the Bishop some recognition of his (Byles') Congrega- tional orders as being equal to the episcopal orders of the Bishop. Bishop Seabury and Dr. Parker, rector of Trinity Church, were accord- ingly invited by Mr. Byles to tea. The two walked together to the house of their host. As they entered the yard, and walked toward the house, Mr. Byles advanced toward them, making profound obeisances at every step. As the guests reached his doorstep, he looked the Bishop full in the face, and, raising his voice, said with the utmost formality : " Rt. Rev. Father in God, Samuel, Bishop of all New England, I, Mather Byles, as the repre- sentative of all the clergy of the Congrega- SAMUEL SEABUBY. 17 tional churches in Massachusetts Bay, and other places, bid thee a hearty welcome to Boston, and give thee, and hope to receive from thee, the right hand of fellowship." Mr. Byles held out his hand, expecting the Bishop to grasp it. Not so was the great Sea- bury to be caught. Without a moment's hes- itation he replied : " Not so, Mr. Byles, with your leave ; I can't do this ; but as you are a left-handed brother, I give you my left hand." In the meantime the Church was being organized in the other States, though as yet there was no Bishop. Accordingly, in the sum- mer following Bishop Seabury's consecration, a letter was sent by the Connecticut clergy to Churchmen in the other States, inviting them to attend a conference at Middletown to form- ulate a union. The Philadelphia clergy replied that a General Convention had already been formed and would hold its first meeting in that city in the September following, and invited the Church in Connecticut to send representa- tives to that convention. Bishop Seabury plead poverty and a press of 18 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. duties as his excuse for not accepting this invitation. There were, however, some doubts as to how he would be received, should he go ; and this fact may have influenced him in stay- ing away. Instead, he addressed to Dr. White, the leading spirit, a letter of sympathy with the work of the convention, but urging him to pro- tect more carefully the office of the episcopate. In 1786 a second session of the General Con- vention was held, and a spirit very unfriendly to Bishop Seabury was manifested. Dr. Pro- voost, afterward Bishop of New York, moved : " That this convention will resolve to do no act that shall imply the validity of ordinations made by Dr. Seabury." * Happily, this motion failed, only New York, New Jersey and South Carolina voting for it. Later, in 1789, the validity of Dr. Seabury's orders was unanimously affirmed. Bishops were consecrated in England for Pennsylvania and New York, and later for Virginia. Negotiations for the union of the Church in Connecticut with that of the other States con- * Perry's Journals of General Convention, vol. 1, page 37. SAMUEL SEABURY. 19 tinued to be interchanged. So successful did they prove, that Bishop Seabury attended an adjourned session of the General Convention of 1789, held in October, and, with Bishop White, constituted the first House of Bishops. In 1792, the four Bishops then in America, Dr. Seabury, of the Scottish succession, and Bishops White (Pennsylvania), Provoost (New York), and Mad- ison (Virginia), of the English succession, united in the consecration of the Rev. T. J. Claggett, D. D., as Bishop of Maryland. Thus were the two episcopates united. The influence of Bishop Seabury upon our present Book of Common Prayer was most beneficial. The daily ofiices were for the most part adapted from the English Prayer Book by Southern Churchmen, but through the influ- ence of Bishop Seabury, the more beautiful Communion Ofiice of the Scottish Church was made the framework for the American book. He also strongly urged the continuance of the Athanasian Creed in the Prayer Book, but the South would not listen to him. New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted " No " unanimously, New Jersey and Delaware were 20 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. divided, Maryland and Virginia were not repre- sented. It was through Bishop Seabury's in- fluence that the House of Bishops was organized as a separate house. Bishop Seabury's Churchmanship was ahead of his age. He believed firmly in the Church as a divine organism. His orders, he firmly believed, were of divine origin, and the Apos- tolic succession was to him a certain fact. His influence upon the Church was very great, aided, no doubt, by his unquestioned purity of character. He died February 25th, 1796, and was buried in the cemetery at New London. In 1849 his remains were taken into the chan- cel of S. James' Church, New London, and an altar tomb, surmounted by a mitre, was erected over them. Bishop Seabury's mitre is still preserved in the library of Trinity College, Hartford. WILLIAM WHITE, Bishop op Pennsylvania. [From a Steel Engraving.] (II.) WILLIAM WHITE THE FIRST BISHOP OF PENNSYLVANIA. "\T0 two men were ever more unlike than Samuel Seabury, the subject of the pre- vious sketch, and William White, first Bishop of Pennsylvania. The latter was born in Philadelphia, April 4th, 1748. He was educated at the College of Philadelphia, now the University of Pennsyl- vania ; was ordained deacon by tlie Bishop of Norwich in 1770, and priest by the Bishop of London in 1772. He was thus a young man, and young also in orders, when the War of the Revolution broke out. He was at first assistant minister, and then rector, of Christ Church, Philadelphia. Of the patriots who resisted the British claims, no one was more ardent than the young Philadelphia clergyman. When the Continent- al Congress was in session at Philadelphia, he 22 SOME AMERICAN CHUECHMEN. was made chaplain, in 1787, and he held that position until 1801. When the war was over, the future of the Church was a grave question. Notwithstand- ing that a great number of the leading patri- ots were Churchmen, the Church was looked upon as "English," and was accordingly un- popular with the masses. In the same year in which the Connecticut clergy met in synod and, trusting in Him who had promised that the gates of hell should never prevail against the Church, had elected Dr. Seabury to the episcopate. Dr. White, in Philadelphia, published his celebrated pamph- let, " Tlje Case bf the Episcopal Churches Con- sidered," wherein he looked upon the attempt to obtain the episcopate, as hopeless. It is an interesting study to compare these two American types. Dr. Seabury acted upon a firm belief in the necessity of the episcopate, trusting that God would make clear the way by which it might be obtained. Dr. White ap- plied to the same subject his calm, cold, states- manlike logic, which declared the scheme im- possible. But Faith triumphed over Logic, as WILLIAM WHITE. 23 in God's Kingdom it is sure to do, and the American Church received the episcopate in God's good time. This pamphlet of Dr, White's, first assumed the impossibility of obtaining the episcopate from England. Next, it recommended that the clergy and lay delegates from each parish in definite districts, form diocesan organizations, record their attachment to episcopacy and their determination to secure it when it might be possible, and then proceed to carry on the Ohurch by presbyterial organization. It was a project only for an emergency which seems to have disheartened the great White. He him- self, in after years, defended it only on the ground of an apparent necessity. But while Churchmen in Philadelphia and the South were considering its expediency. Dr. Seabury was crossing the great ocean in search of episcopal consecration. * Dr. White's plan was never acted upon, and with a return of hopefulness, was entirely abandoned. *Thla pamphlet is reprinted in full, in the third volume of Bishop Perry's "Journals of General Convention." 24 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. In 1784 there was a meeting held in New Brunswick, New Jersey, of the managers of the "Society for the Relief of the Widows and Orphans of Clergymen," supported jointlj'' by Churchmen in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The discussions took a wide range, and covered the whole state of the Church. Laymen as well, as clergymen were present. As a result of the conference, a call was issued for delegates from all the States, to meet in October of the same year, at New York. On the 6th of October, the convention met. Dr. White was the leading spirit, and delegates were present from Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and Connecticut. The Connecticut delegation were only present provisionally, awaiting the result of Dr. Seabury's trip to England. A general plan for the future was outlined, by which a General Convention should be formed, consist- ing of clergy and laity, Bishops, when conse- crated, to be members ex-officio. The doctrines of the Church of England were to be maintained, as also the Liturgy, so far as consistent with the American Republic. The whole plan, sub- WILLIAM WHITE. 25 stantially embodied in the present constitution and canons of the American Church, was sub- mitted by the conference to the Church in the several States for approval. The plan had originally been drawn up by Dr. White, at an informal gathering at his house in Philadelphia. The conference also issued a call for a consti- tutional convention, to be held in Philadelphia in the succeeding autumn. The plan was generally favorably received. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Dela- ware, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina sent delegates. Massachusetts sent a letter. Connecticut declined to participate, although Bishop Seabury had already been consecrated.* The convention met on the 27th of September. On the second day. Dr. White was unanimously elected president, and the Rev. David Grifiith, of Virginia, secretary. The work of this, the first General Convention, was not wholly satis- factory. The convention was composed of clergy and laity, with no Bishops. New Eng- land was not represented at all. The Prayer Book was revised very much and very unsatis- * See page 15. 26 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. factorily. An address to the English Bishops was prepared, and the roll ot States called for the presentation of names of Bishops-elect. Dr. Provoost was named by New York, Dr. White by Pennsylvania, and the Rev. David Griffith by Virginia. The English Bishops were not cordial. Strange reports had spread abroad as to the Philadelphia convention. It had, indeed, taken strange liberties with the Church's creeds, and its Prayer Book, known to history as the "Pro- posed Book," never was widely received. The convention re-assembled in June, 1786, and prepared a reply to the English Bishops. They also adopted a constitution, meeting again in October of the same year at Wilming- ton, Delaware, when they received further com- munication from England. After the conven- tion, Drs. White and Provoost set sail for the mother country, to obtain consecration. It was on the 4th day of February, 1787, in Lambeth Chapel, when that memorable service was held by which the English episcopal suc- cession was given to America. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Moore, was assisted by the WILLIAM WHITE. 27 Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Bath and Wells, Peterborough, London, and lloches- ter ; and William White and Samuel Pro- voost became Bishops in the Church of God. There were now three Bishops in the Amer- ican Church, but Bishop Seabury's position was not yet acknowledged outside of Connecticut. There was, indeed, little friendly communica- tion between the Tory Churchmen of New Eng- land and the Whig Churchmen of Pennsylvania and the South. But Bishop White at once set to work to reconcile the factions. In 1790, Dr. James Madison was consecrated in England as Bishop of Virginia. Thus there were three Bishops of English succession in the United States, and Bishop Seabury, of Scottish conse- cration. In 1792, the four Bishops united in the consecration of the Rev. T. J. Claggett, D. D., as Bishop of Maryland. Thus the Church was united, and the twofold succession given to all the future Bishops of the Church. For nearly fifty years. Bishop White lived, the Presiding Bishop, and in many ways the leading Bishop in the American Church. His leading and most valuable literary work was 28 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. his " Memoirs ot the Church," which made rec- ord of the early history of the Church in the United States. Bishop White took part in the consecration of no less than twenty-seven Bishops, the last of whom was the missionary Kemper. Bishop White was strong as a diplomat and as a statesman. It is to him that we owe the constitution of the Church, and, in large part, the reconciliation of the Church in New Eng- land with that in the other States. In spirit- uality and devotion, he was inferior to Seabury. His Churchmanship was not of the same un- compromising caste. Bishop Bobart, who was latterly his contemporary in New York, made a greater impress upon the real work of the Church. Bishop White did not have the mis- sionary zeal that might have vastly strength' ened the Church in the Western part of his great diocese. But his diplomatic power and statesmanlike ability were ot vast use to the Church in its infancy, and no name is better known to Churchmen in America to-day, than that of William White. JOHN HENRY HOBART, Bishop of New York. (III.) JOHN HENEY HOBAET BISHOP OF NEW TOBK. A NEW epoch opens up before us with the •^^ consideration of the work of Bishop Ho- bart. After the Revolution, the Church was tol- erated only, and her chief shepherds, it may be of necessity, did little aggressive work, but apologized, perhaps too feebly, for the continu- ance of what had once been known as the "Church of England." From the days ot Bishop Hobart a new idea was advanced. The divine mission of the Church was taught, and a truer Churchmanship was impressed upon her members. John Henry Hobart was born in Philadel- phia on the 14th of September, 1775. He was baptized, confirmed and ordained deacon, by Bishop White, in Christ Church, in his native city. For short periods of time he was, respect- 29 30 SOME AMERICAN CHUECHMEN. ively, in charge of Trinity Church, Oxford, near Philadelphia ; rector of Christ Church, New Brunswick, New Jersey (the same parish which had once been served by Bishop Seabury), and rector of the Church at Hempstead, Long Island. In 1799, he became secretary of the House of Bishops. In 1800, he became assist- ant minister at Trinity Church, New York, Bishop Moore being rector. In the following year, he was advanced to the priesthood by Bishop Provoost. Mr. Hobart was known as a remarkable preacher before he had passed his diaconate. After he took up work in the metropolis, his fame spread rapidly. A disciple of Bishop Seabury, he was convinced that the position of the Church was impregnable, and he believed in preaching it vigorously. He early took a leading part in the deliberations of the dio- cesan convention of New York, was its secre- tary from 1801 until his election to the episco- pate, was a member of the Standing Commit- tee, and was deputy to General Convention in 1801, 1804 and 1808. In 1803, he began his literary work by edit- JOHN HENRY HOBART. 31 ing and republishing a work on " The Nature and Constitution of the Christian Church." The first edition of his " Companion for the Altar" was dated the next year. This little work was of deep spirituality, and was of a character unknown before, in those days. It created a storm of dissension, and was con- demned as " unreal " and " extravagant." Un- real and extravagant its language would doubt- less be to its condemners ; real, sincere and true, it was to the young priest. It is encour- aging to learn that prior to 1836, the Manual had passed through six editions. Two other works were also published, in 1805, and 1806, respectively. One of these was his "Compan- ion for the Festivals and Fasts," which is still in print, and which was destined to bring its author into a sharp controversy. Soon after this work was published, a series of violent attacks upon its principles, and upon the Church, was made by the Albany Sentinel, a paper widely circulated in the State at that time. The attacks were continued through several months, and, though anonymous, were understood to have been written by the Rev. 32 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Dr. Linn, a Presbyterian minister, widely known. The attacks not only criticised the book itself, but also appealed to the popular prejudice against the Church, which was then happily declining. Mr. Hobart, assisted by two friends, ably defended the "Companion" and the Church tenets which were so bitterly as- sailed. As a result of this literary warfare, Mr. Hobart, now a D. D. from Union College, pub- lished another, and perhaps his most famous, work, "An Apology for Apostolic Order audits Advocates." It was in this book that he used those words which afterward became so widely quoted as the watchword of the Church : " My banner is Evangelical Truth and Apostolic Order." This latter book, being a complete defense of the Church and its Apostolic succession, created a great furore. Dr. Hobart was said to " unchurch the other denominations." His argument was coarsely said to be " episcopacy or perdition." He was characterized as a bigot, and was charged with a lack of charity. In- deed, the charges against Dr. Hobart in 1807, have a strikingly familiar sound. They are JOHN HENRY HOBART. 33 the same as are sometimes made now against the advocates of Apostolic order. How com- pletely has history vindicated Dr. Hobart ! How completely will it also vindicate those who dare to stand up for the truth now ! One of the greatest ambitions of Dr. Hobart, was to build up a theological seminary for the Church. As yet, there was no place in the Church for the instruction of candidates for the ministry. The canons, indeed, provided for examinations by chaplains prior to ordination. But the education itself must either be ob- tained under alien influences, or under private tutorship. What wonder that the clergy were not fully instructed in distinctive Churchman- ship ! How shall they learn except they be taught ? This ambition resulted in the formation of a class, under the leadership of a clergyman, which should make a study of Theology, and at the same time unite in devotional exercises. This class, so humble in its origin, was the germ of the present General Theological Semi- nary. Of that institution. Dr. Hobart was one of the founders, and afterwards, when he was 34 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. established in New York, he was made its pro- fessor of Pastoral Theology. Dr. Hobart began, in 1808, the editorship of the Churchman's Magazine, the first Church periodical published in New York. The plan was to make a stirring magazine in the inter- ests of the Church, to impress more firmly upon her members a sound Churchmanship. Busy though Dr. Hobart continually was, he found time to revise the papers sent for publication, and to perform the exacting duties of an editor. It was in 1809, that Dr. Hobart began a work that, in its first years, encountered the most frantic opposition, both within and without the Church. This was the New York* Bible and Common Prayer Book Society, organized for the distribution of Bibles and Prayer Books as missionaries beyond the pale of the Church. Dr. Hobart believed firmly in the Prayer Book. He believed, without reserve, that no better digest of the Scriptures existed. Thus, he believed it to be the duty of the Church to circulate the Prayer Book with one hand and the Bible with the other. This led, for a time, to serious trouble with JOHN HENKY HOBAET. 35 the American Bible Society, an organization composed of representatives of all denomina- tions. Dr. Hobart had no wish to antagonize their work, but he was bitterly opposed to any " inter - denominational " or " non - sectarian "' union, which must ignore some of the positive teachings of the Church. He did not believe in a " Christian Unity " that left out the Church. He believed that the Church was qualified, as it was commissioned, to do its own work, and that any compromise in doing that work, was a breach of trust. Thus was formed that ad- mirable institution, now so well and so grate- fully known to hundreds of missionaries and struggling missions of the Church. Church music was a subject which received frequent treatment in the Churchman's Maga- zine. Dr. Hobart was himself a musician, and opposed vigorously the frivolous music which was then too widely sung in the Church. His work as a priest concluded with his ele- vation to the episcopate in 1811. Before considering Dr. Hobart as a Bishop, we must go back some years to explain the status of the Bishopric of New York. 36 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Bishop Provoost, her first Bishop, was con- secrated, with Bishop White, in Lambeth Chapel, in 1787. Prior to the War of Inde- pendence, Mr. Provoost was assistant minister of Trinity Church, New York. Unlike many of the clergy, his sympathies were with the patriots in the memorable struggle. At the outbreak of the war, the rector of Trinity Church being an ardent loyalist, Mr. Provoost retired to his farm in Dutchess county, living in poverty, and gaining the reputation of a martyr to the American cause. When, therefore, the victorious colonists made peace, Mr. Provoost was invited to re- turn to New York, and to become rector of Trinity Church. This, in 1784, he did. In 1786, he was elected Bishop of New York, and re- ceived consecration, as we have seen, in 1787. Bishop Provoost was not an active man. He loved his comfort and ease, and appeared to be very little weighted down with diocesan affairs. In 1799, too, he was afflicted by the loss of his wife, and in 1800, by the death of an unworthy son. Increasing age did not increase his love for work, and, on the whole, his epis- JOHN HENRY HOBART. 37 copate was not a brilliant one. In September, 1800, he resigned the rectorship of Trinity Church, and summoning the diocesan conven- tion for the first time in three years, presented to them his resignation of his diocese, to take •effect the following year. Bishop Provoost's successor in the rector- ship of Trinity Church was his own assistant, the -Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. When the convention accepted the Bishop's resignation of his diocese, Dr. Moore was also elected Bishop, on the 5th of September, 1801. Three days after Dr. Moore's election, the ■General Convention met at Trenton, New Jer- sey. On the second day of the session, Bishop White presented to the House of Bishops a personal letter from Bishop Provoost declaring that he had already presented his resignation to the convention of the State of New York. Dr. Moore's testimonials as Bishop-elect of New York, were also before the convention. After deliberation, the House of Bishops •declined to admit the validity of this resigna- tion, because made to the diocesan convention instead of to their own House. They resolved, 38 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. however, to consecrate Mr. Moore as coadjutor, or assistant. Bishop of New York, which resolve was carried into effect on September 11th. Thus Dr. Moore, elected to one office and consecrated to another, proceeded to New York. Bishop Provoost retired to his farm, and devoted his time to the study of botany and the classics. He seems to have entirely neglected the services of the Church — not even attending the Holy Communion. For ten years he paid no attention, whatever, to the diocese of New York. Bishop Moore suffered a stroke ot paralysis in 1811, and accordingly applied to the conven- tion to elect an assistant Bishop. On the 14th of May, the convention assembled. Dr. Hobart was at this time an assistant minister of Trin- ity Church, and the editor of the Churchman's Magazine. His name appears to have been most prominent at once before the members of the convention. His election, however, was bitterly opposed by the evangelical faction. On the second day of the convention. May 15th, Dr. Hobart was elected by a majority of both orders. JOHN HENRY HOBART. 39 His consecration seemed, however, to be du- bious, for it was doubtful whether three Bish- ops could, or would, unite together at any one place. Only two Bishops attended the meet- ing of General Convention, which was held the week after Dr. Hobart's election. These were the Bishops of Pennsylvania (White) and Connecticut (Jarvis). The ancient canons, however, require three Bishops to join in a consecration. Where should the third come from ? Bishop Provoost's retirement has already been noted. Bishop Moore was laid up by par- alysis. Bishop Claggett, of Maryland, started North for the purpose, but was taken ill on the way, and returned home. Bishop Madison, of Virginia, declared that his duties as president of William and Mary College demanded his presence in Virginia, and declined to leave. Dr. Hobart's friends were in despair. Finally Bishop Provoost was prevailed upon to consent to assist in the consecration, " if his health would permit." The Bishops agreed to have the service in his bed-chamber, if need be. This, fortunately, was not required, and the 40 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. three Bishops, White, Provoost and Jarvis, gathered in Trinity Church. Of this point in our narrative, an amusing story is related by Dr. McConnell in his very interesting " History of the American Episco- pal Church :" " But upon his (Bishop Provoost's) arrival a great difBculty arobe. He had adorned his head with a wig, and the other Bishops wore only their hair. It was solemnly discussed whether or not so important a func- tion could be performed wigless. Dr. Duche offered to lend Bishop White his for the occasion. But Bishop Jarvis, in that case, would be singular. Bishop White advanced the high example of Bishop Tillotson, whose portrait shows him wigless. This illustrious precedent was deemed satisfactory for the two, while Bishop Pro- voost should uphold ancient usage in his episcopal head-dress."* So Dr. Hobart was consecrated a Bishop in the Church of God, with jurisdiction in New York, and at the same time Bishop Griswold was consecrated, for the Eastern Diocese. The opposition whicli had manifested itselt at the election, was by no means allayed. A *MeConnell's Hist, of the Am. Ep. Ch., pages 285-6. JOHN HENKY HOBART. 41 "Solemn Appeal to the Church" against his consecration had been made by the Eev. Cave Jones, fellow - assistant at Trinity Church. Though fruitless in preventing the consecra- tion, it lighted a firebrand throughout the Church. Some also doubted the validity of Bishop Hobart's orders, the invocation (" In the Name of the Father,'" etc.) having been inadver- tently omitted by the Presiding Bishop, at the laying on of hands. To cap the climax, Bishop Provoost now addressed a letter to the conven- tion of the diocese, reciting that the House of Bishops had, ten years before, declined to rec- ognize his resignation, and declaring that he was now ready, "in deference to the resolution " of the House of Bishops, to resume his episco- pal duties. This letter was signed by himself as " Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New York, and Diocesan of the same." The diocesan convention (1812) issued a long proclamation reciting the facts, denying Bishop Provoost's jurisdiction, and acknowledging Bishop Moore " and no other person, to be their true and lawful Diocesan Bishop." Bishop Ho- 42 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. bart also rose to the emergency. The personal charges against himself were easily refuted. His argument upon the legal point, was said to be unanswerable. Mr. Jones, his opponent, continued to be so troublesome, that he was finally suspended for contumacy. He was sub- sequently restored, and left the diocese. The opposition to Bishop Hobart continued most bitter for the first two years of his episco- pate. An anonymous letter to the Bishop, crit- icised severely, and not in a kindly spirit, the Bishop's pronunciation. His personal appear- ance, also, was brought into play against him. In spite of these petty insults, the Bishop easily held his ground. In 1814, Bishop Hobart took his seat in the House of Bishops, which met in Philadelphia. At the opening service, the Eev. R. Channing Moore, D. D., was consecrated Bishop of Vir- ginia. Bishop Claggett, of Maryland, was to have been preacher, but was detained by ill- ness. Bishop Hobart, therefore, by invitation, took his place. The Bishop seized the oppor- tunity for preaching a strong and characteristic discourse on "The Origin, General Character- JOHN HENEY HOBART. 43 istics, and Present Condition of the Church." The sermon was most timely, and received much attention. It was at this convention that the first steps were taken looking to the forma- tion of the General Theological Seminary. In view of his well-known favor of such a semi- nary, Bishop Hobart was much criticised for op- posing the establishment of it by act of General Convention. But the reason was plain. Bishop Hobart doubted the advisability of placing complete control of so important an undertak- ing, in the hands of so changeable a body as the General Convention. In later years, the matter was happily settled on its present basis. Bishop Hobart was an ardent believer in domestic missions. His predecessors in the episcopate had hardly ventured further from the metropolis than to make an occasional visit to Albany. To Bishop Hobart, the rapidly settling portions of Western New York early became a care. The story of the conversion of the Oneida Indians, on the reservation in the central part of the State, is full of romantic interest. One of the later inroads of the Indians, was 44 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. an attack on Deerfield, Connecticut. The vil- lage was sacked and plundered, and among the captives who were carried off by the savages, were the wife and children of the rector, the Rev. Mr. Williams, who was absent. On his return, Mr. Williams at once set off in search of his family, but not until many years had elapsed did he find them, in an Indian village in New York State. One daughter had married an In- dian chief, and refused to leave her family. A son of this union, who took the maternal name of Williams, received Church instruction, was appointed by the Bishop as lay reader, and was afterward ordained. In 1818, Bishop Hobart reports that he confirmed at that mission a class of eighty-nine, who had been instructed and presented by this Eleazer Williams. In this same year, a touching address was sent by the Indian chiefs to Bishop Hobart, to which thirteen chiefs attested by their marks. The Bishop's relation to the New York Bible and Prayer Book Society has already been noted. Of his influence as Bishop in connection with the same, it is enough to note that 500 copies of the Prayer Book were issued from the JOHN HENEY HOBART. 45 Depository in 1815, 2,750 in 1816 and 5,239 in 1817. These were distributed broadcast by the Bishop as missionary tracts. His own son-in- law, indeed, Levi Silliman Ives, afterward Bishop of North Carolina, was brought into the Church by casually looking over a Prayer Book, as was also Bishop Otey, first Bishop of Ten- nessee. Indeed, Bishop Hobart was a profound be- liever in organization. Among the fruits of the first years of his episcopate, were the Prot- estant Episcopal Tract Society, the Young Men's Auxiliary Bible and Prayer Book Society, the New York Sunday-school Society, the Mis- sionary Society, the Education Society, the Protestant Episcopal Press, etc. By these, the diocese was united together in active work, and the missionary spirit was encouraged. After the death of Bishop Moore, in 1816, Bishop Hobart became involved in controversy in regard to the doctrine of the Intermediate State, through some clear statements of his on the subject, in his funeral discourse at the burial of the departed Bishop. This was a sub- ject which was painfully misunderstood in the 46 SOME AMERICAN CHUECHMEN. early American Church. In the "Proposed Prayer Book" of 1785, the clause relating to the descent into hell was expunged from the Creed. Upon the protests of the English Bish- ops, the clause was restored when the present Prayer Book was adopted, but with rubrical permission to omit the words — a permission which stood as a blot upon the Prayer Book until it was finally removed, in 1886. The popular ideas upon this subject were very hazy. That misleading phrase, " he has gone to be an angel," or " gone to heaven," with the hymn : "I want to be an angel," represented the popular belief. Bishop Hobart clearly showed how false these ideas were, and taught the Church's true belief of the Interme- diate State of Paradise. An interesting anecdote of the Bishop is told of his visit to Detroit, in 1817, to lay the cor- ner-stone of the mother church in that, then, far Western outpost. The Bishop made the journey by boat, and was met at the landing by the members of a Masonic Lodge, in full uni- form, who had come to assist in the ceremony. JOHN HENRY HOBART. 47 The Bishop never hesitated, but said : " No, gentlemen, this cannot be. I came here to lay the foundation of a Christian Church, not of a heathen temple ; if you accompany me at all in that ceremony, it must be as humble Chris- tians." One of the labors of Bishop Hobart at this time was as editor of an edition of D'Oyley and Mants' Family Bible, published in 1823. His health broke down in the same year, and he sought relief in a European trip. It is worthy of note, as Dr. Batterson remarks in his " Amer- ican Episcopate," that Bishop Hobart was al- lowed to preach in Rome, but not in London, where he was prevented by the act under which Bishops White and Provoost were conse- crated. In 1826, Bishop Hobart presented in the House of Bishops a series of resolutions in regard to the use of the Prayer Book, which were adopted, as follows : "The House of Bishops, deeply solicitous to pre- serve unimpaired the Liturgy of the Church, and yet desirous to remove the reasons alleged, from the sup- posed length of the service, for the omission of some of 48 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. its parts, and particularly for the omission of that part of the Communion office which is commonly called the ante-Communion, do unanimously propose to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, the following reso- lutions, to be submitted to the several State Conventions, in order to be acted upon at the next General Conven- tion, agreeably to the eighth article of the Constitu- tion."* The resolutions following related to permis- sion to substitute other Psalms and lessons for those appointed, and to certain changes in the Confirmation office, and ended as follows : "And Wheeeas, In the opinion of the Bishops, there is no doubt as to the obligation of ministers to say, on all Sundays and other holy days, that part of the Com- munion office which is commonly called the ante-Com- munion, yet as the practice of some of the clergy is not conformable to this construction of the rubric on this point, the House of Bishops propose the following res- olution : "Resolved, That the following be adopted as a substi- tute for the first sentence in the rubric, immediately after the Communion office : " 'On all Sundays and other holy days, shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, unto the end * Perry's Journals of General Convention, vol. 2, page 187 JOHN HENRY HOBART. 4& of the Gospel, concluding divine service in all cases when there is a sermon or Communion, and when there is not, with the blessing.' " * It is strange to notice how the position of parties in the Church has shifted. At that time (1826) Low-Churchmen never used the so- called ante-Communion service, except as a part of the celebration of the Sacrament, which was performed only at long intervals. The High-Churchmen, led by Bishop Hobart, were fighting vigorously to have that portion of the service used regularly in all churches. So successful were they, that to-day Low-Church clergymen are the most careful of any to say the ante-Communion service ; while the suc- cessors of Bishop Hobart are endeavoring to raise the standard still higher, and secure the regular use of the other half of the service, also, on every Sunday in every church. An- other sixty years may see that progress made. It may be remarked, in passing, that it is dif- ficult to understand why, if the Bishops be cor- rect in asserting that " there is no doubt as to the obligation of ministers to say, on all Sun- *Ihid, page 188. 50 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. days and other holy days, that part of the Com- munion office which is commonly called the ante-Communion," the "obligation of minis- ters " does not extend to finishing the Com- munion office as appointed, also ! There was opposition to these resolutions in the lower House, but they passed by a vote of 39 ayes to 19 nays. Three years later, how- ever, when General Convention re-assembled, South Carolina had presented a vigorous pro- test, and so great was the opposition that Bishop Hobart himself introduced a resolution declaring the proposed changes inexpedient, to which both Houses agreed. Time has long since brought about the more desirable portions of what thus failed in legislation — a striking instance of how much better it frequently is, to let abuses die a natural death, than it is to fan them into life by opposition. Some of the propositions truly were highly inexpedient. These were among the last works of Bishop Hobart. His death occurred at Auburn, New York, on the 10th of September, 1830. His body was taken to New York, and was interred under the chancel of Trinity Church. JOHN HENRY HOBART. 51 What the American Church owes, under Grod, to Bishop Hobart, can hardly be over- estimated. His work commenced a new era in the Church, when men began to wake up to its divine characteristics. That work, which is popularly supposed to have commenced with the Oxford revival, had really begun in America before Mr. Keble preached his famous sermon on the National Apostasy, in 1833. It was three years before this date that the earthly remains of John Henry Hobart were laid to rest. In fact, we do wrong to suppose that there was ever in the English or American Church, a total forgetfulness of her Catholic position. Before the first waves of the great Oxford movement had even started toward the Amer- ican shores, Hobart worked and died. Before Hobart,- Seabury; before Seabury, in England, Berkeley and Warburton, and Butler; before them, Ken, and the Non-Juring Divines. The results of such aggressive work on dis- tinctively Church lines, may be traced, not only in the character of the Churchmanship which has resulted from Bishop Hobart's labors, but even, it seems, in numerical calculations. New 52 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. York and Pennsylvania started under similar conditions. In 1792, when the clergy list was first published, there were nineteen clergymen in New York and fourteen in Pennsylvania.* The Episcopal administration of the two for the first quarter century, was of the same char- acter. Bishop Hobart began aggressive work in New York, in 1811. Subsequent conditions as to emigration and immigration were the same, with the balance probably against New York on account of the hordes of alien emi- grants who land and remain at New York City. But see the different results of the progress of the Church in the two States ! In 1890, there was in Pennsylvania one communicant to 113 inhabitants, and in New York, one to 60.f There were, in the three dioceses in Pennsyl- vania, 396 clergy, and in the five dioceses of New York, 822.:}: How can the results of real, uncompromising, aggressive Churchmanship — such Churchmanship as that of John Henry Hobart — be better demonstrated ? * Perry's Convention Journals, vol. 1, page 176. f Living Church Quarterly for 1891, page 356. X Ibid, page 255. BISHOP CHASE. (IV.) PHILANDER CHASE THE PIOtfEEB MISSIONARY. A MERICANS of the early part of the nine- teenth century were imbued with a rest- less spirit. They inherited it from their fa- thers, who had come to a New World of toil and hardship. The older parts of the East were now becoming too "crowded," too quiet and conservative, for this class. Thus commenced the emigration which settled the western por- tions of New York and Pennsylvania, moved westward through Ohio, Kentucky and Michi- gan, and gave to the country the hardy pio- neers of that day. Such a man was Philander Chase. He was born in New Hampshire in 1775, spent his early days in hard farm work, graduated at Dartmouth College in 1796, and was ordained deacon by Bishop Provoost in 1798. As a dea- con, he founded a number of parishes in North- ern and Western New York, including those at 53 54 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Utica. Later, after his ordination to the priest- hood, he was rector of Poughkeepsie and Fish- kill. In 1805, he went to New Orleans to take charge of a " Protestant Church," organized on a " non-sectarian " basis, but which was re-or- ganized under his direction as a Church parish, and became Christ Church — now the pro-cathe- dral of Louisiana. Being far distant from any Bishop, it was placed under the episcopal juris- diction of the Bishop of New York. In 1817, Mr. Chase crossed the Alleghanies and settled in the wilderness of central Ohio. There were no Churchmen anywhere in his vicinity, but he began missionary work, and founded a number of parishes, including Co- lumbus and Zanesville. He also took charge of an academy at Worthington, from which, with his farm, he derived his support. The few clergy and parishes of Ohio elected Mr. Chase to the episcopate in 1818, and al- though there was some objection in Philadel- phia and elsewhere to consecrating a Bishop for so far-away place as Ohio, it was overruled, and he was consecrated in 1819. PHILANDER CHASE. 55 Returning to Ohio, travelling mostly on horseback, he threw himself again heartily into missionary work. He hired a naan to work his farm, and himself worked hard when at home. Finally, he became unable to even hire his one man, and accepted the presidency of Cincin- nati College, which was offered him, in 1821. Now it was that he conceived the idea of founding a theological seminary for the West. The plan met with much opposition in the East. Bishop Hobart was enthusiastic about the proposed seminary in New York, and, with all his far-seeing statesmanship, could not see the necessity of another in Ohio. He was doubtful, too, whether its graduates, should it ever have any, would be sufficiently instructed. It was the same inconceivable ignorance of the East in regard to the West from which the West has always suffered, and still suffers ! None of the Eastern Bishops would indorse the plan. His only letters of encouragement were from the Bishops of North and South Carolina. Without friends, funds, influence or letters, Bishop Chase sailed for England to raise money. ■56 SOME AMERICAN CHUKCHMEN. His American opponents did everything to thwart his purpose, publishing in the English papers, warnings against aiding him or his yisionary scheme. Through the introduction of Henry Clay, Bishop Chase presented the matter to Lord 'Gambler, a generous nobleman, and influential in the Church Missionary Society. He gave him warm support. Through Gambler's aid, the claims of Ohio were presented to others of the British nobility. Bishop Chase, the hardy West- ern pioneer, a species of Bishop unheard of in England for a thousand years, became a lion of society. Lord Kenyon, Lord Bexley, Lady Eosse and others made liberal donations. The Archbishops and the leading Bishops were not •cordial, but the Bishops of S. David's, and Sodor and Man became friendly. The Bishop of Sodor and Man named his infant daughter "Mary Ohio." So, with the assistance so obtained, Bishop Chase returned to America. The present site was selected after some delay, and the "Theo- logical Seminary of Ohio and Kenyon College " Avas incorporated and established at Gambler PHILANDER CHASE. 57 But after the work was well under way, in- ternal dissensions arose. The Bishop looked upon the whole as a theological seminary, with the college simply as a preparatory depart- ment for that, and all under the immediate control of the Bishop. His co-workers dis- sented. The matter was finally laid before the diocesan convention. Their action, like that of many another such body, failed to give satisfaction. Bishop Chase then, in 1831, re- signed his diocese, and with it the presidency of the seminary. Of the Gambler troubles it is not necessary to write fully. Dr. John N. Norton, who wrote a brief memoir of Bishop Chase, thus summar- izes them : " Insinuations began to be slyly circulated that the college funds were badly managed, although those who ventured to make such statements might have known, if they chose to inquire, that the Bishop was obliged to render a strict account to the Trustees for every dollar which passed through his hands. These reports, which at first were circulated in distant places, at length Teached the Diocese of Ohio. Misunderstandings and dissensions arose there. The Professors of the Theolog- ical Seminary were arrayed against the Bishop. The 58 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. main ground of difference was this : Bishop Chase contended that the college had no being but as a Theo- logical Seminary ; and that it was, in fact, merely a preparatory branch of it ; and that, as a matter of course, it was under the government of the Bishop of the dio- cese. The Professors and their supporters complained that the patriarchal authority thus assumed by the Bishop was too undefinable and too absolute in its nature, and, therefore, they rebelled. Whatever may be thought, at this day, of the claim set up by the Bishop, or of the position assumed by the Professors, thus much is certain : that in 1839, ' Bishop Mcllvaine was driven by the experience of the evil consequences which resulted from the opposite principle, to adopt the views of his predecessor. Full justice was thus done to the wisdom and correctness of the opinions of Bishop Chase in this particular' (Caswell's American Church, p. 95)." * At the same time, it must be observed that the experience of the Church seems to have amply proved that, in this country, colleges should not be under the ex-officio administra- tion of the Bishop of any diocese, or of the diocesan convention. There are diversities of gifts, and not every one, even in high office, is * Norton's Life of Bishop Chase, p. 66. PHILANDER CHASE. 59 fitted to have the ultimate care of a college. President ISmith, of Trinity College, well says : " From such information as I have been able to gath- er, and from my own experience, I do not think that there is any probability that colleges which are, directly or indirectly, under the management or control of a single diocese can grow into colleges of strength or influence in the country or the Church. None of the large institutions of our day have become such, with an overlordship such as attaches to the Bishops of our Church in relation to institutions within their geograph- ical jurisdiction. I do not wish to dwell upon the logical defect of a system in which a body of Trustees puts the burden of responsibility on a man by appoint- ing him President, while his orders in the Church put him canonically under the hand of a party who is irre- sponsible as far as college interests are concerned ; who is Bishop by the action of an outside body, or conven- tion ; who has other interests to serve, and who is bound to use all the instrumentalities in his hand for the furtherance of those interests. It seems natural, if it be not indeed inevitable, in such a case, that the college interests, which are general and permanent, should be subordinated in the minds of the clerical Professors, and of the convention, to the diocesan inter- ests, which are local and transitory. Unless, therefore, it is deemed feasible to put the clerical officers of our 60 SOME AMERICAN CHUECHMEN. colleges in the same canonical position as the officers of the General Theological Seminary, and of the Gen- eral Missionary Society, and thus free them from the entanglements of the diocesan connection, I do not think that we shall change the old 'use,' which has been described as that of ' graduating more Presidents than students.' " * After Bishop Chase's retirement from Ohio, he moved further West and settled in Michigan. From his home, near Gilead, he acted as an itinerary missionary, as he had formerly done in New York and in Ohio. On one Sunday, on reaching a mission about nine miles from his home, he found the secta- rians had arrived ahead of him, and were hold- ing a "protracted meeting," which had already lasted a week. The Bishop called out the Pres- byterian minister. He came, accompanied by his brethren of the Congregational, the Metho- dist and the Baptist denominations. The Bishop announced his intention of holding service ac- cording to appointment, and asked them, with their flocks, to join. They objected that they * Church University Board of Regents paper, "Opinions of Educators and Others." PHILANDER CHASE. 61 had no Prayer Books. The Bishop thereupon opened up some dozens that he had brought with him. " But we do not know how to use them," they objected. " I will show you," re- plied the Bishop. Accordingly the service began. The Bishop explained each part as it was reached. The whole assembly responded as one man. He instructed them to kneel on their knees, citing the examples of David, Solomon, Daniel, S. Stephen and S. Paul. They all knelt. The Lord's Prayer was "as the voice of many waters." It was about this time that the diocese of Illinois was formed. A few clergymen had gone into that field, and there were several missions. Only one church had been erected — at Jack- sonville. There were thirty -five communicants reported in the State. The primary convention was held on March 9th, 1835, and Bishop Chase was elected Bishop. His election appears to have been a surprise to him, but was at once accepted. Leaving his family on the farm in Michigan, and accompa- nied by the Rev. Samuel Chase, who had lately 62 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. been ordained by Bishop Griswold; and by Mr. Chase's wife, tlie Bishop started by stage for his new diocese. At Michigan City, Indiana, he read the Church's service for the first time in that city. He then proceeded to Chicago, which had lately been founded. Thence to Peo- ria, where he held service; to Springfield, where Mr. Chase remained, and where, on the 28th of June, 1835, Bishop Chase celebrated the Holy Communion for the first time. Again the question of support troubled the Bishop. The General Convention, meeting in the fall of the same year (1835), had consecrated Bishop Kemper as missionary Bishop for the Northwest, and had recognized Bishop Chase's translation to Illinois, although irregular. They had provided Bishop Kemper with an ample salary, but given none to Bishop Chase, as he was a diocesan Bishop. So the Bishop bethought him to make an- other attempt to found in Illinois such a semi- nary as he had originally planned for Ohio. Accordingly he again started for England. Some of his old friends received him with pleasure. The Dowager Countess of Rosse, now PHILANDER CHASE. 63 an old lady, sent him £260, Lord Bexley helped him to some extent, as did others. Altogether, he raised about $10,000. The Bishop of Sodor and Man wrote jokingly that "Mary Ohio" would change her name to "Mary Illinois." On his return home, the Bishop obtained suitable lands and founded Jubilee College, calling the place " Robin's Nest." He made a great effort to obtain from Congress a grant of a portion of the public lands in Illinois, but without success. The bill passed the Senate, but failed in the House of Representatives. The Bishop then made an extensive tour through the South and East, raising money for his work in Illinois. During the lifetime of Bishop Chase, Jubilee College was fairly prosperous. It was almost the only college in the State, and the Bishop labored abundantly for it. Nor did he neglect the other missionary work of the diocese. We have seen that only at Jacksonville had a church been erected when he came to Illinois. In 1837 the Bishop conse'- crated S. James', the mother church, in Chi- cago. He notes with pride in that year that 64 SOME AMERICAN OHUKCHMEN. there are " now about thirty communicants in Chicago." In his seventy-eighth year — September 20th, 1852, Bishop Chase died. He was buried in the cemetery of Jubilee College, and upon a monu- ment erected over his grave are the words, so dear to him, "Jehovah Jireh." Bishop Chase was a man of marked personal- ity. He was essentially a pioneer and frontiers- man — restless, active, content to suffer hard- ship. He was one of the first of those noble missionaries, who at so great cost to themselves, planted the Cross in our Western land. Kenyon survives and is prosperous, though on some- what different lines from those marked out. by Bishop Chase. Subject to new conditions, by reason of change in the State of Ohio, it is doubtless in better condition for its present work, to-day, than it would have been had Bishop Chase's own views been strictly carried out. To him, however, is due the honor of founding the work, and Kenyon will always be the best monument to the memory of Philan- der Chase. GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE, BISHOP OF NEW JERSEY. (V.) GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE BISHOP OF NEW JERSEY. " I ^HE subject of this sketch was born in Trenton, New Jersey, May 27, 1799, and his boyhood was spent in Trenton, in New York City, and in Geneva, New York. He entered Union College, Schenectady, at an early age, and there came under the influence of the Rev. Dr. Brownell, soon after Bishop of Connecticut, through whom it appears to have been, that Mr. Doane directed his thoughts to the minis- try. He graduated in his nineteenth year in the same class with Alonzo Potter, afterward Bishop of Pennsylvania. Mr. Doane at once began his theological studies at the General Theological Seminary, which then occupied a second story room over a saddler's shop. Here began his intimate acquaintance with Bishop Hobart, whom Mr. Doane greatly admired, and who had a marked influence over his subse- quent life. Mr. Doane established a classical 65 66 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. school for boys, in New York, while engaged in his studies, and there laid the foundations of his subsequent career as an educator. He was ordained to the diaconate by Bishop Hobart on the 19th of April, 1821, in Christ Church, and was appointed by the Bishop as his assistant at Trinity Church. The young deacon's first sermon was preached at S. Philip's, the church for colored people, in the metropolis. He was advanced to the priesthood, in Trinity Church, on the 6th of August, 1823. In connection with Dr. Upfold, afterward Bishop of Indiana, he established S. Luke's Church, in New York. Soon after Bishop Brownell went to Con- necticut, he took steps for the establishment of Trinity College — first called Washington Col- lege — at Hartford. The college opened in 1824. When he arranged for the faculty, Bishop Brownell called Mr. Doane, who had been suc- cessful in his classical school, to assist him in the work. This call Mr. Doane accepted, and became professor of belles-lettres, and bursar, at the college. Throwing himself heartily into his new and congenial work, in which, though only in his twenty-sixth year, he made a GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 67 marked success, Mr. Doane succeeded in at- tracting wide attention to the college. He was also active in missionary work, founding, at this time, the parish at Warehouse Point, with others. When the Churchman' s Magazine, which had been founded by Bishop Hobart as an aggress- ive organ of true Churchmanship,* suspended publication, Mr. Doane began the editing at Hartford, of the Episcopal Watchman, which he designed to take the place of the former, and to support a staunch form of Churchman- ship, then not altogether common in the Church. Here he was first associated with the Kev. Dr. William Croswell, between whom and Dr. Doane a warm and lasting friendship sprung up. The Episcopal Watchman was an ardent ex- ponent of Church principles. In its opening ad- dress the editors, Drs. Doane and Croswell, said: " Taught by the Word of God thus to look to Jesus Christ as the Author, and, by the 'preventing' and assisting graces of His Holy Spirit, the Finisher of our Faith, we also learn from the same inspired source, to *See page 34, 68 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. recognize in that Church which He purchased with His Blood, the only authoritative channel of His saving grace — the one, suflELcient fold of covenanted salvation. " Unfashionable, and perhaps inexpedient, as it may be deemed to speak thus on a subject so much and so warmly controverted, we venture to express our con- viction, that the Church in which we worship, * * * * * is, whatever others may be, a sound mem- ber of that Holy Catholic Church of which Jesus Christ is the Head, from whom all the body, by joints and bands, having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. The elucidation and defense, therefore, of the doctrines, discipline and worship of the Protest- ant Episcopal Church — its divinely instituted minis- try, existing from the Apostles' time in three orders, with the power of ordination exclusively in the first ; its blessed sacraments, opening the kingdom of heaven and conveying the means of grace to the devout and faithful recipient; its primitive and apostolical rites and usages; its liturgy, simple, comprehensive, fervent and almost inspired; and its government (at least as it is constituted in this country) judicious, wholesome and equitable, will be, as in our judgment the scriptural and most eflBcient mode of promoting the salvation of souls, the subject of our constant efforts." * * Bisbop Doane's Memoirs, by his son, vol. 1, pages 100, 101. GEOKGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 69 The first issue of the paper began a series of articles upon the Christian Year, entitled, "The Ritualist." Other subjects that received editorial attention were, the revival of crosses in churches, a defense of the use of the term Dissenters as applied to non-Churchmen; the revival of Gothic architecture, etc. An early number contains a well-merited attack on the Sunday-school library books issued by the American Sunday-school Union, on the " unde- nominational " scheme. Another number re- bukes a common failing in refei'ring to " mem- bers of the Church" when meaning communi- cants, and of "joining the Church" when referring to Confirmation or First Communion. In 1827, there is a long and appreciative review of Bishop Hobart's fearless sermon on the Church, delivered at the consecration of Dr. On- derdonk as Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania. "Fraternizing with denominational ministers" was a topic argued against, the point having been brought out in Bishop Hobart's sermon. On this subject Dr. Doane's ideas were clearly that the clergy of the Church could have no communion with sectarian ministers. He said: 70 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. " It is one of the errors of the day to suppose that charity, or, as the more favorite expression is, liberality, is often inconsistent with a firm adherence to the truth, and that, when it is so, the latter must at once be given up. We are taught by the wise man to huy the truth and sell it not, and we do not believe that any exception to this rule was ever contemplated, even though it were possible that charity should be the price. But in mat- ters of religion, surely it is not possible. It can never be required of a man to sacrifice his principles to char- ity; because true charity would never make such a de- mand. Charity has nothing to do with opinions. It is with men that she is concerned. Her sacred precept is, love your enemies ; but she does not command you to. love their creed, or their practice; do good to them that hate you, but not a word about bringing our religious opinions into unison with theirs. ******** Let it not be supposed, then, that charity towards man requires, or that duty to God will allow of, any union with Christians of other denominations in ecclesiastical matters, by which the principles and institutions of our own Church may be endangered. ****** ^s we desire that the time of our sojourning here should ever be thus passed in harmony and love, let us attempt no amalgamation in ecclesiastical concerns. They have deliberately adopted their mode of faith. We hold ours by the same conclusive tenure. If either of GEORGE "WASHINGTON DOANB. 71 US can give up his belief and go over to the other, it is well. Short of this, there can be no 'mixture of adminis- trations' that will not endanger collisioa. The attempt to approximate, not being deliberate and thorough, will lead to a wider separation. The honorable regard of those who agreed to differ will give place to the fearful jealousies of those who still differ in their agreement. **=!:**** "There is another evil insep- arable from all attempts at such amalgamation, and one of inconceivable moment. I mean the encourage- ment which it affords to that most false and dangerous opinion, that it is indifferent what a man believes, or to what denomination of Christians he belongs. With what eye the God who ruleth over all looks down upon the various denominations which distract the Christian name, it is not for us to say. Certain we are that no man can agree with all; and that no man can be justified in attaching himself to any one, but upon sincere con- viction of the agreement of its faith and worship, its ministry and ordinances, with the Word of God. How, then, can he be indifferent to its distinctive principles? How can he appear to be so, and not give to the infidel and the scoffer occasion to triumph over the ground- less distinctions by which the Body of Christ has been divided ? " Finally, we presume not to judge for others, but for the Bishops and Clergy of our own Church, having 72 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. assented, at the solemn season of their ordination, to the clear and explicit declaration, ' it is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been three orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons ' — ' and no man shall be appointed or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest or Deacon, in this Church ' (no Church is spoken of but Christ's), ' or sufifered to execute any of the said functions, except he hath had episcopal consecration or ordination ;' we see not how any other offices, any other ordinances, any other worship, any other institutions, can claim to be recognized by them as valid and authorized, or how they can avail themselves of any other instrumentality for the propagation of the Gospel, than that of their own Church, and doing this, they will have done their part towards advancing what should be dearest to their heart, a substantial and fervent piety." Truly does Bishop Doane's son, the present Bishop of Albany, say: " My father's line of argument against fraternizing with the denominational ministers, shows how early he acceded to the Church's rule on that point, whose ob- servance exposed him all his life to much misunder- standing." * * Memoirs of Bishop Doane, by his son, vol.1, pages 112-3-4. GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 73 The motto of the Episcopal Watchman, was " The GrOSPEL of Christ in the Church op Christ." Dr. Muhlenberg's "Flushing Insti- tute '' plan was heartily commended ; the use of the word " Catholic " to include only Roman- ists, was warmly denounced, and our right to the name was vindicated. In short, the Episco- pal Watchman was a courageous and vigorous defender of the Faith. It was such a paper as the Church needs to-day; but it never brought wealth to its editors. In 1828, Dr. Doane became assistant minis- ter at Trinity Church, Boston, and on the death of the Rev. Dr. Gardiner, in 1830, he succeeded to the rectorship. He at once took the front rank among the Massachusetts clergy, and, notwithstanding his youth, was the recognized leader of the High-Church side, which was then in the ascendant, in Massachusetts. He took an active interest in missions, foreign as well as domestic, and was active in establish- ing a monthly missionary lecture in Boston, in di£ferent churches, to be followed by a mission- ary offering. Dr. Doane himself preached the first of the series, in Christ Church, of which 74 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Dr. Croswell, his Hartford friend, had lately assumed the rectorship. In Boston, Dr. Doane and Dr. Croswell were again brought together in editorial work, on the Banner of the Church, which took the same line as had the Episcopal Watchman, and re- newed as its motto. Bishop Hobart's watch- "word, "Evangelical Truth and Apostolic Or- 4er." Through this paper, Keble's "Chris- tian Year" was introduced to the American Church, and, in its issue for April, 1832, there was a plea for daily services, which at that time were nowhere held. This paper was only issued a year and a half, when it was sus- pended by reason of Dr. Doane's call to a higher office. Early in October, 1832, the convention of the Diocese of New Jersey met at New Brunswick, to elect a Bishop in succession to their late diocesan, Bishop Croes, whose eyes were closed in death in the August preceding. On the sixth ballot, Dr. Doane was elected, and, sub- sequently, the election was made unanimous. It came as a surprise to the Bishop-elect, but was accepted at once. Prompt action was GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 75 needed, as General Convention was about to convene. Dr. Doane had been passing through a troublous year in Boston, and there was some delay in the House of Bishops in passing on his testimonials. His election was, however, confirmed, and he was consecrated Bishop, with Dr. Hopkins, Bishop-elect of Vermont ; Dr. Smith, Bishop-elect of Kentucky; and Dr. Mc- Ilvaine, Bishop-elect of Ohio, on the 31st of October. Bishop Onderdonk, of Pennsylvania, was the preacher. It is difficult for us to realize how great have been the changes, even in the East, in the last ' sixty years. It was after Dr. Doane's conse- cration to the episcopate, that he notes in his diary under the date of December 17, 1832: " Saw for the first time the locomotive engine on the railway. Stupendous result of human ingenuity! What a world, if men were as skilful and as active in pro- moting holiness as in advancing their temporal inter- ests !" * As in many other dioceses in that day, there was no provision in New Jersey for the sup- * Memoirs of Bishop Doane, vol. 1, page 196. 76 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. port of the episcopate. Bishop Doane there^ fore accepted an election to the historic parish of S. Mary's, Burlington, and made his home in that city. Bishop Doane's previous ministry had taken four distinct aspects. These were, educational, editorial, parochial and missionary. When he had established himself in New Jersey, he re- newed all four of these phases of his usefulness, and added to them those branches of work which were strictly episcopal. He commenced the publication, in 1834, of a Church paper known as The Missionary, in which his well- known editorial abilities found ample scope. The missionary portion of his work was also fully carried on. The west end of New Jer- sey was considered a hopeless field for the Church. The Bishop, however, refused to so consider it, and built up and encouraged the feeble churches everywhere, and was constantly planting new ones. He was also active in the general missionary work of the Church, and was the chairman and leading spirit of the Committee of the General Convention of 1835, which declared that the Church is the Mission- GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 77 ury Society, and as a result of whose activity, the Board of Missions was organized. Bishop Doane was one of those who cordially approved of sending a missionary Bishop into the great Northwest, and he preached the sermon at the consecration of Bishop Kemper, who was elect- ed at that session. In 1841, largely through the work of Bishop Doane, a proposition to send missionary Bishops to Africa and to Texas passed the House of Bishops, but failed in the lower House, much to the regret of Bishop Doane. It was claimed that General Conven- tion had no right to send Bishops outside the United States ! In 1841, the British Parliament repealed the act under which American clergymen were prohibited from taking any official part, or preaching, in services of the English Church. The vicar of Leeds, Dr. Hook, thereupon in- vited the Bishop of New Jersey to be the preacher at the principal service of the conse- cration of the new and imposing parish church of Leeds. This invitation the Bishop accepted, and sailed from Boston on the 1st day of June. He was received in England with great cor- 78 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. diality. The invitation of Dean Hook, and its acceptance, were indeed important episodes in the intimate relations between the English and the American Churches. Bishop Doane records in his diary, interesting interviews with many of the best known Churchmen of that day. The celebrated Tract XC, of the Oxford Tracts for the Times, had just appeared, and the public mind was in a state of violent inflammation. Bishop Doane was in full sympathy with the Oxford leaders, and had vigorously defended them before. Nor did he now see any reason for changing his views. At Oxford, he met Dr. Pusey, for whom he had a great admiration. He also describes interviews with many others. The services at Leeds were great functions, and Bishop Doane's sermon was worthy of the oc- casion. In 1837, the Bishop, following his inclina- tion for, and belief in, Christian education, founded S. Mary's Hall, for girls, in Burlington, opening the hall on the 1st of May of that year. The outlook was most encouraging when, in the fall of the same year, the financial world was struck by a terrible panic which ■ arrested GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 79 progress everywhere. It was a great strain on the Bishop and on S. Mary's ; but in a few years the outlook again became hopeful, prosperity returned to the country, pupils increased, and extensive additions and enlargements were required. In 1846, the Bishop also opened Bur- lington College, for boys. In two years there were 127 students; but no endowment, no ade- quate provisions for work, no money for the necessary increase of the work. All this was a heavy burden to the Bishop, who was himself receiving a salary of only $700 a year from the parish of S. Mary's, one- third of which he gave toward the support of an assistant minister ; and next to nothing from the diocese. To add to his troubles, he was taken dangerously ill in the winter of 1848-9, and for a time his life was despaired of. By God's mercy he again came to life ; but the financial outlook was gloomy indeed. The debts upon the two schools could not be met. An attempt to receive an extension of time on certain obligations failed, and at length the Bishop was obliged to turn over all his own property without reservation, for the 80 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. benefit of his creditors. It was a dark day in- deed, when he was declared bankrupt. The schools, however, re-opened, under the manage- ment of the Bishop, but with the finances in the hands of others. Troubles now fell thick and fast upon the Bishop. Ugly rumors affecting his character, in connection with the failure, had been spread abroad; and were seized upon by his enemies. At home, where the Bishop was known, he retained the full confidence of his friends. A resolution introduced into the diocesan con- vention of 1849, to investigate the rumors, failed by a unanimous and indignant "No." Not a solitary " aye " was recorded. The opin- ion of his co-laborers at home was unmistak- able. But those were dark days in the American Church. There was a relentless, bitter war raging against all who were supposed to be in sympathy with the new movement emanating from Oxford. The Bishop of New York (B. T. Onderdonk), a leading High-Churchman, had been found guilty of immoralitj'' and had been suspended from the exercise of his Bishopric. GEOEGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 81 TJie verdict had been found entirely by Low- Church Bishops, with the single exception of the Bishop of Vermont (Hopkins), who certain- ly believed the defendant to be guilty. The High-Church minority had voted "not guilty," and believed that Bishop Onderdonk was un- dergoing persecution for his staunch Church- manship. Bishop Doane believed firmly in his innocence, and was most active in seeking to prevent his condemnation, but to no avail. The Bishop of Pennsylvania (H. U. Onder- donk) was then charged with drunkenness. He admitted the charge and was deposed. It was, however, a case where it would seem that clem- ency might profitably have been exercised. The Bishop had, on one specific occasion, taken an overdose of a stimulant prescribed by his med- ical adviser. To his dying day there was never again cause for complaint against him. And now, fiushed with their victories in New York and Pennsylvania, the Low-Church leaders attacked Bishop Doane, the noblest Bishop, perhaps, on the whole bench. " After Doane, Whittingham !" it was whispered. It is a terrible indictment against the Low- 82 SOME AMBKICAN CHUECHMBN. Church Bishops of that day, to charge them with the prosecution, on criminal charges, of innocent men, because their theological opin- ions did not agree with their own. We make, here, no charges against them. Doubtless they were blinded by their zeal to remove from the Church what they believed to be serious errors, and so, more easily became convinced of their guilt. Had their complaints against their oppo- nents been on the charge of heresy, it would seem less like persecution. But history always speaks for itself, and we need make no allega- tions against any of those who have now been called to give their final account. The canons of that day provided that charges against a diocesan Bishop might be made to the House of Bishops by the conven- tion of his diocese, or, failing that, by any three Bishops. We have already seen that the New Jersey convention of 1849 unanimously refused to even consider the matter, so firm was their trust in their Bishop. Two years passed by, and then, in Septem- ber, 1851, the same charges were taken up by three of the leading Low-Church Bishops, the GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 8S Bishops of Virginia (Meade), Ohio (Mcllvaine) and Maine (Burgess), in a letter to Bishop Doane alluding to the charges, and urging him to call a special convention of the Diocese of New- Jersey to consider them ; and stating that, should he not do so, they would feel obliged to proceed against him. The Bishops must, however, have known of the action of that convention in 1849, it having been widely pub- lished. In reply, Bishop Doane issued a warm letter protesting against the interference of those Bishops in his diocesan affairs, saying : " The undersigned is a Bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. There is nothing against which our whole reformed communion in England and America protests more strenuously, than against the right of any Bishop to interfere within the jurisdiction of any other. And, for himself, he must alike resist the intrusion into the fold which he has received from Jesus Christ, of the in- dividual papacy of Kome,and of the trium viral papacy of Virginia, Maine and Ohio. What ! Three Bishops, or three hundred, or three thousand, presume to dictate to him, under the menace of a presentment, the calling of a special meeting of the convention of his diocese I 84 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Presume to dictate the object for which such conven- tion shall be called ! ***** The three Bish- ops have misconceived their man. The undersigned has not asked their advice, and will not submit to their urgency. Least of all will he listen to their advice, or endure their urgency, under the enforcement of a threat. No such special convention will be called by him." * The Bishop then makes his "Solemn Protest and his Appeal, as solemn, to the Bishops every- where with whom he is in communion, against the uncanonical, unchristian, and inhuman procedure, of the three whose names are over- written." After the protest, which is quite extended, the Bishop makes a reply to the charges against him, detailing his several transactions and explaining all his actions in regard to them. Three days later, he issued a call for a special convention to be held in S. Mary's Church, Burlington, " to answer and express their judgment on the official conduct of these three Bishops as touching the rights of the Bishop and the diocese, in dictating a course of action to be pursued by them." The special convention met on the 17th * Memoirs of Bishop Doane, vol. 1, pages 474-5. GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 85 of March, 1852. In his opening address, the Bishop recounted the events which had led to the call. The convention, by an overwhelm- ing vote, resisted and protested against the intrusion of the three Bishops, and declared their confidence in their own Bishop. The Bishop had declared to them his readiness to undergo any investigation, but the convention declared that no investigation was necessary. The three Bishops named, then presented the Bishop of New Jersey for trial, and a sum- mons was issued to him to appear before the whole bench of Bishops, at Camden, on the 24th of June. Later, as many of the Bishops desired to be in England at that time, and as no provision was made in the canons for an adjournment or postponement, a new present- ment was made, and a new summons issued, to appear before the court of Bishops on the 7th of October. Without considering the details of the trial, it is enough to say that the complaint was dis- missed by the Bishops, without even proceed- ing to argument, on the ground that most of the matters had already been investigated by 86 SOME AMEEICAN CHURCHMEN. the convention of the diocese of New Jersey, which had yet refused to appear against their Bishop; and that another convention of the same diocese had already been called to con- sider the remaining specifications, which were new in the second presentment. On the 27th of the same month (October, 1852), the Diocesan Convention of New Jersey again met. The charges were fully investi- gated by a committee, and when the conven- tion re-assembled, in December, the Bishop was vindicated almost unanimously. Again were the charges formally made by the same three Bishops, and the Bishop of New Jersey was again cited before the Bishops for trial. It was a complete vindication for him. Seventeen Bishops composed the court, and at length, by an unanimous vote, the presentment was dismissed, and the respondent discharged. So the terrible clouds which had gathered over the Bishop's head, gradually lifted ; but not before long furrows had been drawn across his countenance. The iron had entered into his soul. But though these troubles from without GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 87 pressed hard upon him, a domestic sorrow was laid upon the Bishop of New Jersey in 1855, which truly bore heavily upon the already broken-down man. His eldest son, George Hobart, whom, only seven months before, he had admitted to the diaconate, now abandoned the Church of his birth and was admitted into the Roman communion. On the 15th of Sep- tember, Bishop Doane performed the unusual and terribly hard duty, of pronouncing deposi- tion on his own son. Only a few more years were left to the Bishop. It was in the spring of 1859 that he finally succumbed. He had been making a visitation of remote portions of his diocese, travelling by carriage in almost incessant rain. His last sermon was preached at Red Bank, on Passion Sunday. He was then called home, and for little more than two weeks he lay helpless on his bed. It was on Wednesday in Easter- week, the 27th of April, 1859, that he passed to his rest. Bishop Doane's literary works are extensive. They include, not only the ordinary sermons, charges and addresses of a Bishop, valuable 88 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. though those are, but also numerous orations deliyered on public occasions, speeches, essays, reviews, etc. A defense of the Oxford Move- ment, issued from his pen just at the time when men generally, and Bishops in particular, were loudly denouncing it, is particularly strong. He was fearless always — -so fearless, so pro- nounced, that upon him was heaped all the abuse which the Oxford movement received in its early days. The American Church may justly pride her- self on just such men as the elder Bishop Doane. They are the ones who, when tried, are not found wanting ; the ones who are not led astray by the popular voice, but remain firm as a rock, though turbulent storms of public opin- ion beat fiercely over them. It requires cour- age so to stand. Few are equal to it. One, at least, whose courage, whose steadfastness, whose firmness in maintaining the Faith can never be called into question, was Geokge Washington Doane. JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, Bishop of Vermont. (VI.) JOHN HENRY HOPKINS BISHOP OF VERMONT. "POUR priests knelt together at the altar rail in S. Paul's Chapel, New York, to receive consecration to the episcopate, on the 31st of October, 1832. Each was a leader among men, and destined, no two in the same way, to leave a lasting mark upon the Church. These four were John Henry Hopkins, Bishop-elect of Vermont ; Benjamin Bosworth Smith, Bish- op-elect of Kentucky; Charles Pettit Mcllvaine, Bishop-elect of Ohio, and George Washington Doane, Bishop-elect of New Jersey. John Henry Hopkins was born in Dublin, Ireland, January 30th, 1792, and, with his par- ents, settled in Philadelphia in 1800. On reach- ing manhood, he began the study of law, and commenced a successful practice in Pittsburgh. He was organist and Sunday-school superin- tendent, and a leading member of Trinity Church. In 1823, the rectorship of the parish 90 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. being vacant, Mr. Hopkins was invited to be- come rector, when at the time he was not even a candidate for orders. Giving up a law prac- tice worth $5,000 a year and growing, to accept a parish at $800, Mr. Hopkins was received by Bishop White as a candidate. He was ordained deacon by Bishop White, December 14th, 1823, and priest the next year. Western Pennsylvania was very destitute of Church privileges at the time. It was not un- til 1825, that Bishop White made his first visit- ation in that portion, being in the thirty-ninth year of his episcopate. Mr. Hopkins made an attempt to found a theological seminary such as Bishop Chase was building in Ohio, but with- out success. In 1826, he sat in General Con- vention as a deputy from Pennsylvania, and was a leader in the opposition to a scheme of Prayer Book Revision that was then proposed, which he believed to be fraught with much danger. The matter is referred to in the chap- ter on Bishop Hobart, who had introduced the measure. In October of the same year (1826) was held in Pennsylvania an election for an Assistant JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 91 Bishop, that created intense feeling. Mr. Hop- kins voted with the friends of Bishop White, who were known as " High-Churchmen." Only- one ballot was taken, without result, and the convention adjourned until the next regular convention, in May, 1827. The excitement in the meantime was at fever heat. Both sides caucused frequently. Among the High-Churchmen were Bishop White, Mr. Hopkins, Dr. De Lancey, afterward Bishop of Western New York, Mr. Kemper, afterward Missionary Bishop, and others. The High-Churchmen held a caucus and resolved to stand together. Nearly all of them favored supporting Mr. Hopkins for the Bish- opric. As, however, he declined to vote for himself in convention, they would thus lose one vote of their full strength. Accordingly, their support was given to the Rev. H. U. On- derdonk, D. D., a warm supporter of Bishop Hobart, in New York. The Low-Churchmen had originally sup- ported the Rev. William Meade, afterward Bishop of Virginia. At this time, however, he declined to allow his name to be used, disap- 92 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. proving of some of the partisan measures of his supporters. When it was known that 26 out of 51 cler- ical voters (a majority of one) supported Dr. Onderdonk, the Low-Church side endeavored to prevent his election by offering to support Mr. Hopkins, if the High-Churchmen would return to him, their original choice. It was too late. They were pledged to support Dr. Onderdonk, to a man. So he was elected by a majority of one,, of the clergy, and was at once confirmed by the laity. It was a decided victory for the High- Churchmen, but it was a mistake. The bad feeling resulting from the election, strength- ened party spirit in Pennsylvania, and the re- sult, in bitterness between the opposing sides, is felt throughout Pennsylvania, and particu- larly in Philadelphia, to-day. The failure of Mr. Hopkins' plan for the foundation of a theological seminary, induced him, in 1831, to accept a call as assistant min- ister to the Rev. George Washington Doane, D. D., at Trinity Church, Boston. His service here was short, as, in the succeeding year, JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 93 Bishop Grriswold having resigned his jurisdic- tion in Vermont, Mr. Hopkins was elected Bishop of Vermont, on the 31st of May. Dr. Doane, the rector, was elected Bishop of New Jersey on the 3d of October following. The General Convention of 1832 had before it the papers of four Bishops-elect. Of these, two elections were opposed. Dr. Doane's ene- mies had circulated false and malignant charges against him, and these must first be cleared. Dr. Mcllvaine's election in Ohio was believed by many to be unconstitutional, the validity of Bishop Chase's resignation having not yet been decided. The investigation of these two cases was not concluded until the end of the session. While, therefore, there was no objection raised to the confirmation of Dr. Hopkins, or of Dr. Smith, the Bishop-elect of Kentucky, they were forced to wait for consecration until all were passed upon together. On the 31st of October, the service was held in S. Paul's Chapel. A number of Bishops as- sisted the venerable Presiding Bishop in the service. Dr. Hopkins received his episcopal orders at the hands of Bishops White, of Penn- 94 SOME AMEKICAN CHURCHMEN. sylvania ; Griswold, of the Eastern Diocese, and Bowen, of South Carolina. Vermont was a hard field for a Bishop. Sparsely populated, it received little of the flood of emigration. The completion of the Erie canal and of early railroads, enabled the people to get away, and many of them moved on to the great West, then just commencing its wonderful development. The Church in Vermont had a small endow- ment which was under litigation. The Church won, but the feeling of the people was bitter against her. Having some money, but not enough, it was difficult to raise more. The Bishop attempted to inaugurate a plan for a theological seminary. He travelled abroad in search of assistance, but Bishop Chase had preceded him, with his wonderful stories of Ohio and Illinois, and Vermont, with its sparse and diminishing population, did not inspire enthusiasm. He was received kindly, but no one gave more than very small amounts. Among the subscribers were Dr. Pusey, Mr. Newman (whose guest the Bishop was in Ox- ford), John Keble and others. So also were JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 95 the leading Low-Churchmen, including Lord Ashley, afterward Earl of Shaftesbury. Perhaps the trouble was, that Bishop Hop- kins was not committed to either side in the great controversy which then (1839) shook Eng- land's Church to the very foundation. The Bish- op was not one easily excited into controversy, and at that time, although in America as in England, Churchmen were ranged into oppos- ing camps. Bishop Hopkins was not reckoned on by either party as a fellow-partisan. He had voted for Dr. Onderdonk in 1827, and had caucused with the High-Churchmen, but had himself received the votes of the Low-Church- men when balloting had taken place. Hence, the Low-Churchmen, though bitter in their disappointment, were friendly to him. Again, in Boston, though assistant to Dr. Doane at Trinity Church, then the leading High-Church parish, Mr. Hopkins was understood to have voted with the Low-Churchmen in an attempt to reverse the policy of the diocese, to prevent Dr. Doane, the High-Church leader, from re- election on the Standing Committee, of which he had for many years been the leading spirit, 96 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. and also to defeat his election as a deputy to General Convention. As Bishop, too, Bishop Hopkins had pursued an independent course. When, therefore, he proceeded to England, it was to find that Bishop Hobart had reaped the harvest from the High-Churchmen for the Gen- eral Seminary at New York, and Bishop Chase from the Low-Churchmen for Kenyon and then for Jubilee. Bishop Hopkins was received with courtesy from all sides, but the subscriptions were all very small. The plan for the estab- lishment of a theological seminary in Vermont failed, and the Bishop was thrown heavily into debt. He was indeed arrested in Boston for debt, but two friends at once went on his bail and released him. The Oxford Tracts were at first defended by Bishop Hopkins, but, later, after the secession of Newman, he seems to have changed his ground, and in " Letters on the Novelties that Disturb our Peace," he condemned them. Those were troublous days in the Church. The Bishop of New York was suspended for immorality, but many believed his staunch Churchmanship to have been the chief reason for his presenta- JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 97 tion for trial. The Bishop of New Jersey was also tried, but the evidence against him was ridiculously small, and he was acquitted.* The history of it certainly looks like persecution of a pure and able Bishop. Bishop Hopkins was not only active in the House of Bishops, but also in literary work. Among his works at this time were a valuable commentary, a History of the Confessional, and the " Law of Ritualism." He also deliv- ered and published a series of lectures on slavery, taking the ground that it is certainly not condemned by the Bible, and had been allowed by the Church Catholic for nineteen centuries. This explains somewhat of the attitude of Bishop Hopkins during the Civil War. His sympathies were with the Union, and yet he did not change his convictions upon the sub- ject of slavery. The constitutional question of the right of secession, he proposed should be left to the Supreme Court. Throughout the war he opposed "political preaching." He would not allow the Church and the State to be * See pages 80- 98 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. confused. With his full consent, however, one of his sons, one son-in-law, two grandsons and three cousins were in the Union army. The General Convention of 1862 met in New York in October, almost on the eve of the State elections. That the sta,te of the country should be considered, was but natural. Pres- byterians, Methodists and others had been pro- fuse in their resolutions of loyalty. As a result, their organizations are split to-day. The Catholic Church is higher than the State. She must survive, though empires fall or repub- lics crumble away. The acts of the General Convention of 1862 upon the subject of the war would have a great effect upon the re-union of the Church after the war. Thus, the Church must act with great discretion. The key-note was struck by the Bishop of Michigan (McCoskry) in his opening sermon, wherein he referred to the introduction of pol- itics into our Church councils as " high treason against God." Politics certainly did enter into the House of Deputies. It could hardly be otherwise. The sessions were held in October, in New York JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 99 City, and the State election, which would be held immediately afterward, was an event of untold interest throughout the country. Among the deputies from Western New York was the Hon. Horatio Seymour, the Democratic candi- date for Governor. Mr. Seymour's patriotism had been assailed by his political opponents. He must vindicate himself. The Democratic platform of that year favored the vigorous continuance of the war. In the Upper House the Bishop of Ohio (Mcllvaine) was in constant correspondence with the administration at Washington, and had even been abroad as the accredited agent of the United States. He had come directly from Washington to New York, and was under- stood to have submitted certain resolutions of loyalty, to Mr. Lincoln himself, before intro- ducing them in the House of Bishops. The Bishop of Maryland (Whittingham), too, agreed with his brother of Ohio, that General Conven- tion should pass resolutions indorsing the ad- ministration in the strongest terms. He had, indeed, lost many friendships in Maryland by his unswerving loyalty. 100 SOME AMERICAN CHUKCHMEN. Bishop Hopkins was equally determined in opposition to anything of a political nature being considered by the House of Bishops. In the absence of the Bishop of Connecticut (Brownell), Bishop Hopkins was the Presiding Bishop. All his influence was directed against the political movement. In the House of Deputies the contest was very bitter. Early in the session did it begin. Mr. Brunot, of Pennsylvania, introduced a fiery preamble and resolution, which precipitated debate. It requested the House of Bishops to "* * * set forth * * * ^ special form of prayer, confessing and bewailing our manifold trans- gressions, pleading for God's forgiveness, begging that it may please Him to be the Defender and keeper of our national government, giving it the victory over all its enemies ; that He will abate their and our pride, assuage their malice and confound their devices, and, giving them better minds, forgive them for the evils they have wrought," etc. The resolution doubtless reflected the opin- ions of the vast majority of the deputies ; but a large number, and among them many of the best of them, opposed taking any action that JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 101 would stand in the way of an ultimate friendly re-union between the North and the South. The first test of the house was on a vote to lay the resolution on the table, which was car- ried by a large majority of both orders. Gov- ernor Seymour, whose vote the politicians were eagerly looking for, voted with the minority against killing the resolution. It was the vote of the politician rather than of the Churchman. But the vast majority were agreed that no such action should be taken ; and among them were many prominent men, both in Church and State. Notwithstanding the vehement asser- tions of the enemies of the Church, the vote had no political significance whatever. Doubt- less there were among those voting with the majority a small number whose sympathies were with the South— notably the Maryland and Kentucky delegations, with a few others, which voted against the most carefully and kindly worded resolutions of loyalty, which finally prevailed. The number of firebrand resolutions subse- quently introduced was very large. These were referred to a committee of nine, who at length 102 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. unanimously reported a series of resolutions of loyalty, in which the only reference to the ene- mies of the government was made in carefully restrained and courteous language. These were finally adopted near the close of the ses- sion by a large majority. It was a triumph of Churchmanship over political partisanship. The House of Bishops had passed through a similar conflict, which had reached the same conclusion. It was a cause of great distress to Bishop Mcllvaine. When the time came for the Bishops to issue their pastoral letter, ac- cording to a time -honored custom, the five senior Bishops present were appointed a com- mittee to draft the pastoral. These were the Bishops of Vermont (Hopkins), Kentucky {Smith), Ohio (Mcllvaine), Wisconsin (Kemper) and Michigan (McCoskry). Bishop Hopkins drew up such a letter, which did not refer to the existing state of the country. Bishop Mc- llvaine also presented a letter, which con- demned the rebellion in the strongest terms. Bishop Smith and Bishop McCoskry agreed vrith Bishop Hopkins, while Bishop Kemper inclined to Bishop Mcllvaine. JOHN HENEY HOPKINS. 103 It was clear that Bishop Hopkins' letter was supported by three of the five members of the committee, including its author. But here Bishop Hopkins' modesty appeared. He de- clined to stay in the committee and vote for his own paper, and consequently retired. Bish- op Mcllvaine was not affected in that way (and certainly there was no good reason why either should have been), and stayed. Accordingly there was a tie vote. The result was, that both pastorals were laid before the House of Bishops without recom- mendation. That of Bishop Mcllvaine was adopted. It was now Bishop Hopkins' turn to look defeat in the face, and he felt it very sorely. He prepared and read a solemn protest against the pastoral. When the two Houses gathered, at the close of the session, in S. John's Chapel for the closing services, the chair of the Presid- ing Bishop was conspicuously unoccupied dur- ing the reading of the pastoral. The document was read by Bishop Mcllvaine. We have already referred to Bishop Hopkins' "Bible View of Slavery." 104 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. In 1863, the pamphlet was taken iip and cir- culated as a campaign document by the Demo- cratic party in Pennsylvania, which had reversed its sentiments on the conduct of the war. It was exceedingly unfortunate, in view of the Bishop's expressed desire to keep politics out of the Church. The Bishop of Pennsylvania, Dr. Alonzo Potter, was exceedingly annoyed by it. In connection with the Philadelphia clergy, he issued a Protest against the paper, and the Pro- test was sent to the country clergy of Pennsyl- vania with the request that they would sign at once and return it. General Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania and his defeat at Gettysburg had aroused Pennsyl- vanians to a fever heat. The Protest was widely signed. But Bishop Potter at once saw his mistake. He had practically required of his clergy, or at least invited, their signature to a semi-political document. To refuse was to in- vite the taunt of disloyalty, and, often, to be starved out by their parishioners. In a private circular to the clergy, therefore. Bishop Potter modified his request. The harm, however, had been done. JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 105 In justice to Bishop Hopkins, it must be said that his pamphlet was wholly devoted to a Scriptural examination of the subject of slav- ery, with no intention of making it a political document. The whole occurrence was one of those unfortunate affairs that are inseparable from so violent a state of public opinion as predominated of necessity during the war. When hostilities were over. Bishop Hopkins had become Presiding Bishop, by the death of Bishop Brownell. Then was perhaps his great- est service to the Church, in paving the way for the return of the Southern Bishops and deputies. The Bishop of Georgia, Dr. Stephen Elliott, was a close personal friend, and Bishop Elliott had acted as Presiding Bishop of the Church in the South. In Louisiana, Bishop Polk had left his dio- cese and accepted a commission in the Confed- erate army as Major General. He died in 1864, being killed in battle. New Orleans was occupied by Federal troops early in the conflict. Thus, even had Bishop Polk been at liberty, a meeting of the diocesan convention was impracticable. The Standing 106 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Committee was also scattered by the exigencies of war. Louisiana, therefore, never formally acted in union with the Church in the Confed- erate States. On January 1st, 1865, the eight clergy resid- ing in New Orleans joined in a request that Bishop Hopkins would visit them. The request was unanimous, and Bishop Kemper, among others, strongly urged him to go. Bishop Hop- kins, however, unwilling to force himself upon them, and doubtful how he would be received by the laity, made a condition that all the vestries of parishes within the Federal lines should unite in the request. The members of those vestries were individually willing, but declined to take corporate action. The Bishop therefore remained at home. In April, the Memphis clergy, seconded by the Standing Committee of Tennessee, made the same re- quest, Bishop Otey, their diocesan, having lately died ; but Bishop Hopkins, characterized by his excessive fear of forcing himself on others, declined this invitation also. Before the meeting of the General Conven- tion of 1865, Bishop Hopkins, as Presiding Bish- JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 107 op, addressed a letter of special invitation to all the Southern Bishops, including the Bishop of Alabama (Wilmer), who had been conse- crated during the war by action of the South- ern Bishops, and without making the promise of conformity to the Church in the United States. When the General Convention was opened in Philadelphia, Bishop Atkinson, of North Carolina, and Bishop Lay, of Arkansas, were present, and were received with joyful cordial- ity. In the House of Deputies, the Southern dioceses of Texas, North Carolina and Tennes- see were represented. The re-union was speed- ily made complete. The House of Bishops re- solved to receive Bishop Wilmer as Bishop of Alabama upon his making the required prom- ise of conformity, which he did. We can only briefly allude to the few re- maining years of the first Bishop of Vermont. His " Law of Ritualism " was widely discussed immediately after the war, and a number of Bishops signed a declaration against it, written by the Bishop of Western New York (Coxe). The opposition, however, fell flat when brought 108 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. into General Convention in 1868. On the other hand, the Bishop's book was reprinted in Eng- land, the "English Church Union" voted to present a copy to every English Bishop, and that distinguished jurist, Sir Robert Philli more, cited it as authority in the Mackonochie case as one of "the writings of the late most dis- tinguished American prelate, the Bishop of Vermont." Bishop Hopkins introduced the use of colored stoles and altar lights into Vermont, in 1867. So long before as his rectorship in Pittsburgh (1823-1831) he had used wafer bread and the mixed chalice. Bishop Hopkins created much excitement at the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in 1867, by his bold and outspoken words on the subject of the Colenso schism in South Africa. He died in Burlington, Vermont, on the 9th of January, 1868, and is buried within the grounds adjoining the episcopal residence. JACKSON KEMPER, Bishop of Wisconsin. [From a Painting at the State Historical Society, Madison, Wis.] (VII.) JACKSON KEMPER FIRST BISHOP OF WISCONSIN. A NEW era opened before the American ■^^ Church in 1835. It was in that year that she first entered upon real missionary work, by consecrating Bishop Kemper for the great and almost unknown Northwest. Jackson Kemper was born in New York State, December 24th, 1789, and was a disciple of Bishop Hobart, under whom he studied The- ology. Ordained deacon by Bishop White in 1811, and priest in 1814, he early entered into missionary work, making tours of Western Pennsylvania as far as the Ohio border. Dur- ing the exciting days of the Onderdonk elec- tion in Pennsylvania, touched on in the arti- cle on Bishop Hopkins, Mr. Kemper was an ardent supporter of Bishop White, and voted with his friends for Bishop Onderdonk. From 1831, until his elevation to the episco- 110 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. pate, he was rector of S. Paul's Church, Nor- walk, Connecticut. In 1835, Mr. Kemper was elected and conse- crated Missionary Bishop of Missouri and Indi- ana, with jurisdiction all through the North- west. Illinois had already elected Bishop Chase to its episcopate, and the few scattered congre- gations in Michigan territory had placed them- selves under the charge of Bishop Mcllvaine, of Ohio. Thus, the title of Bishop Kemper's wide field was intended to cover everything else west of Ohio. He was a tireless missionary. Travelling slowly through Indiana, and visiting the sev- eral stations in that State, he finally reached St. Louis on the 19th of December, 1835, nearly three months after he had started from Phila- delphia. Here he made his home, and became rector of Christ Church, which had already been established. In his parochial work he was aided by assist- ants. In his missionary work, travelling by stage or by river, between rude settlements at long distances apart, he was a constant laborer. It was almost impossible to get any clergy JACKSON KEMPER. Ill to cross the Mississippi river into Missouri. Tiie diflBculty was so great that in the year after his consecration Bishop Kemper visited the East in search of funds, with which to es- tablish a missionary seminary. A considerable amount was raised. Ac- cordingly, the Bishop bought a tract of 125 acres within five miles of St. Louis, and there Kemper College was built, and was named for the Bishop in his absence, and without his knowledge. For a few years the work prospered. Stu- dents increased — so did the debt. By the first of March, 1845, the debt was $17,500. The col- lege was closed on the first of April, and soon after, the whole property was sold for the debt. That property is now within the city limits of St. Louis, and is probably worth well up into the millions. It might have been an endow- ment for the whole diocese, if only the Church had sustained it ! In 1837, Bishop Kemper travelled through the Indian country, Kansas and Western Missouri. The great Southwest was in charge of Bishop Otey, of Tennessee. Early in 1838, the latter 112 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. proposed to Bishop Kemper that they should jointly make a trip down the Mississippi, and so through Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Geor- gia and Florida. The Bishop consented. On reaching Memphis, he received news of the ill- ness of Bishop Otey, with a request that he would himself make the visitation alone. Thus he boarded the steamer "Tuskina" and pro- ceeded down the Mississippi. He notes in his diary that he found a number of Church people at Memphis, with neither church nor minister. He held services at the school-house, at the Presbyterian church, and at a private house. At Vicksburg he found a clergyman settled, at which he expresses surprise. He describes the city as " a very busy, flourishing place, greatly improved in morals, although still a pretty bad place." At Natchez he ordained a Mr. Pinch- ing, and then travelled on by carriage, over muddy roads and through swamps. He ordained and confirmed at Woodville, Mississippi, conse- crated a church at St. Francisville, Louisiana, and finally reached New Orleans. From thence the Bishop moved eastward, confirming many persons,including some slaves. JACKSON KEMPER. 113 He travelled by rail to Mobile, up the Tombig- bee river to Columbus, Mississippi, thence by land across Alabama to Columbus, Georgia ; down the Chattahoochie river to the town bearing the same name ; thence to Tallahas- see and back to Chattahoochie again, finally reaching Pensacola. March and April were spent in travelling through Florida, Alabama and Mississippi, with innumerable adventures. Early in May he reached New Orleans, and proceeded back to St. Louis up the Mississippi river. After such a trip extending over four months, all of which was spent in "roughing it," it would seem as though the Bishop was entitled to a rest. But no ! He now turns northward and spends the summer of 1838, in his first visi- tation of Wisconsin. Two years before, the territory of Wisconsin had been formed, in- cluding not only the present State of that name, but Iowa and Minnesota also. Into that terri- tory large numbers of emigrants were now flocking, and a mission had been established at Milwaukee by the Rev. Isaac Hallam, rector of S. James' Church, Chicago. There was a resi- 114 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. dent clergyman at Fort Crawford, near Grreen Bay, the Rev. Richard F. Cadle. All through this immense territory Bishop Kemper travelled and held services, mainly at forts near the Indian reserves, and at small frontier settlements. Having thus spent the summer, he went to Philadelphia to the Gen- eral Convention, which was in session in Sep- tember. Returning to his work again, he started out in search of a tribe of Mohawk Indians who, he had heard, were Christians, and were using a Prayer Book. He had trav- elled by stage and on horseback through Mis- souri, stopping at Boonville and other places. Here is Bishop Kemper's description of one of the nights of this trip : " There were two rooms, or rather two log huts con- nected together, into one of which we and another trav- eller were placed. It had no window, consequently the door was left open for light. Some newspapers were nailed on the logs, perhaps for ornament, or perhaps to keep out some of the air which rushed in through many stn aperture. Every ten minutes two young men rushed in, with shoes covered with snow, to warm themselves, and thereby kept the floor and hearth wet. At our meals, the door was wide open to let in the JACKSON KEMPER. 115 light, and then we were chilled to the heart and shak- ing while we were eating. Six of us slept in this mis- erable room, two in a bed." * At another time he notes that he was one of eleven to sleep in one log room, of whom one was a negro. The Mohawk Christianity proved to be of a weak character. Services had once been held by a man named Bowles, and afterward by an Indian named George Hill, but both had died, and services had been discontinued for four years. Hill's widow was a drunkard, but through her, Bishop Kemper obtained, for five dollars, a copy of the Prayer Book that had been used. It had been printed in England. One page was Mohawk and the next English. There were eighteen engravings, with a frontis- piece representing George III. and his queen, surrounded by Bishops and nobles, presenting Prayer Books to two Mohawks, who were kneel- ing, while a party of the same Indians was in the distance. It was in this year that Bishop Kemper de- * From Bishop Kemper's Diary, published in the NasTiotah Scholiast, 1884^85. 116 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. clined tlie episcopate of Maryland, to which he had been elected, choosing rather the hard work upon the Western frontier. In the summer of 1840, Bishop Kemper again visited the East, and spoke before the students of the General Theological Seminary upon the need of men and money for the West. As a result of this talk, seconded by a power- ful sermon from Professor Whittingham, then Bishop-elect of Maryland, four young men of- fered themselves for the work of an associate mission, and so, two years later, Nashotah was founded in Wisconsin territory.* Why Nashotah succeeded when so many other efforts to found missionary seminaries to train men for the ministry in the far West failed, would be an interesting study. Perhaps one reason was that it was an associate mission, designed to do real missionary work after the style of the primitive Church. Be that as it may, Nashotah succeeded, and in a few years Bishop Kemper removed his home to that place. The work of the succeeding years was simi- * See chapter on James Lloyd Breck. JACKSON KEMPEK. 117 lar to this. Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, Minne- sota, were successively formed into indepen- dent dioceses, and elected Bishops of their own. Wisconsin had been a diocese since 1847, and had, at its primary convention, elected Bishop Kemper as its diocesan. He declined, and re- mained the Missionary Bishop of the North- west, having charge also of Wisconsin, until 1859. In that year he was again elected Bishop of Wisconsin, and accepted his election, retaining his old home at Nashotah. Wisconsin was still missionary ground for many years to come, and gave Bishop Kemper ample scope for the exercise of his missionary spirit. As a diocese it was rapidly becoming well known in the councils of the Church. By 1865, there were sixty clergymen in the State. The great DeKoven was at Racine, the faculty at Eashotah included the noble Dr. Cole, Dr. Adams, one of its original founders. Dr. Kem- per, the Bishop's own son, and Dr. Thompson, afterward Bishop of Mississippi. Wisconsin was preparing for an important part in the history of the Church in the next decade. Wisconsin is prominent in the American 118 SOME AMEEICAN CHUECHMEN. Church for the high standing of its several in- stitutions. The establishment of Nashotah and Racine, while yet the State was missionary- ground, brought to the diocese men of ability and talents seldom found on the frontier. An- other institution, for the planting of which the initial steps were taken during Bishop Kem- per's administration, was the Cathedral. There were at that time no Cathedrals in the American Church. There were dioceses and there were Bishops, but the idea of a cen- tral point from which the work of the diocese might proceed was lost sight of. A Bishop should have his own church wherein he can perform his oflBcial functions as by right. This should be the center from which should radiate the missionary work of the diocese. It should be in the city, the center of population, and its working staff should be active men with true missionary zeal. It should, in short, be a cen- tral missionary agency, with the Bishop at the head. This is the idea of a Cathedral as it early existed in Wisconsin. For a time, when yet Wisconsin was a wil- derness, Nashotah served as such a center. Or- JACKSON KEMPER. 119 ganized as an associate mission, it became, ere many years had passed away, the home of the Bishop. From Nashotah emanated the mis- sionary work of the diocese. Her clerical staff planted the standards of the Cross everywhere within a radius of more than two hundred miles. The missionary and educational inter- ests were one. All were served under the same head. While Wisconsin was without cities, Nashotah was a Western adaptation of the Cathedi:al idea set into practice. But the tendency of population is toward cities. Missionary work must be most active where there are the most people. The center of missionary work must be the greatest cities, which are the centers of learning, of arts, and of civilization generally. Milwaukee was now a city of some conse- quence. As compared with other towns in Wisconsin, it was many times larger, and it was growing rapidly. That Milwaukee was destined to be the metropolis of the State, was an evident fact. Following upon this, was the certainty that in time the administration of the diocese must 120 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. be from Milwaukee and not from Nashotah. It was not so by the arbitrary will of any one. Indeed, Bishop Kemper's home remained at Nashotah until the day of his death. It was, however, the irresistible tendency of the times It was therefore clear that the future Cathe- dral of Wisconsin, must be organized in Mil- waukee. Bishop Kemper was not blind to the fact. In 1866, he said in his annual address to the council : " I shall venture (perhaps from long habit) to view the whole Diocese as missionary ground, and shall probably continue so to do while bodily and mental strength are bestowed upon me. This view of duty, I must urge as an apology for not calling your attention to a Cathedral, an episcopal residence, and a fund for the support of your Bishop." Acting on the urgent request of the Bishop, who was now in his seventy-sixth year, the council at that same session, went into the election of an Assistant Bishop. The choice fell on the Rev. William Edmond Armitage, rec- tor of S. John's Church, Detroit, who according- ly received consecration, December 6th, 1866. One of the leading features of the work JACKSON KBMPEE. 121 assigned by Bishop Kemper to his Assistant, was the development of the Cathedral system in Milwaukee. It was work which Bishop Armitage's youth and talents especially fitted hira for, while Bishop Kemper, with his increas- ing years, and his residence at Nashotah, felt himself unequal to it. Bishop Armitage, acting under his superior, applied himself energetically to the work. There was, in Milwaukee, a weak organization known as Trinity Church, which was almost on the verge of failure. This Bishop Armitage took, changed the name to All Saints, and, arranging with the rector, wardens and vestry of S. Paul's Church, the nearest parish, as to boundary lines, made it the pro-Cathedral of the diocese. By 1868, he had obtained a more suitable location for the work, and proceeded to build thereon a small church edifice, which afterward became the chapel of the present Cathedral, and was torn down a few years since to make room for the new school and guild buildings. So favorably was this pro-Cathedral work received by the Bishop and the diocese, though 122 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. it was also not without opposition, particularly in the see city, that the council of 1868 ad- dressed to General Convention a memorial on the subject of cathedrals, of which the follow- ing are some extracts : " The Church in the State of Wisconsin, assembled in convention in the City of Milwaukee, with the Bish- ops, clergy and laity, do respectfully represent : " First, that the episcopate is the Missionary Order of the Church, and has been so constitutionally from the beginning ; Bishops being not only successors of the Apostles, but themselves Apostles. ***** " And furthermore, that it is evident that from the earliest time, after the miraculous powers of the first band of the Apostles of Christ, those chosen by Him- self, came to an end, the place for the Apostle or Bishop was in the city, as the center of population, of wealth, of intelligence, and all progress of doctrine and prop- agation of ideas. ******* ^n(j in tije city was the Bishop's Church or Cathedral, the Mother Church of the whole diocese, and the Bishop's residence at the center of his work, the very focus of all influences whereby the propagation of the Gospel can be organ- ized, pressed on, or facilitated. "The Church in Wisconsin, being convinced that these facts are true, and that they make the only basis whereupon the Church can be organized so as to have JACKSON KEMPER. 123 her full power to do the work that God has placed be- fore her in this great land, * * * * requests of the General Convention to enact an article with these provisions: "First. Recognizing the principle of the See, and providing that there should be ultimately a Bishop of the Church, with his Bishop's Church or Cathedral in every city of the land," etc.* That Bishop Kemper was in full sympathy with this Cathedral work, is shown, among other ways, by the following extract from Bishop Armitage's address in 1869: " I may be expected to speak of the progress of the work intrusted to me by the Bishop and virtually by the convention, on my first coming to the diocese, viz., the establishment of the See principle, the gradual erection of Milwaukee into the See of Wisconsin * * * * * * with the Bishop's approval in every impor- tant step, and with his kind confidence throughout. * ******* T^o years in All Saints' Church, the congregation of which has been forced reluctantly to organize as a parish, have furnished valuable experi- ence towards a Bishop's Church or Cathedral, when the time shall come for that." t ♦Journal General Convention, 1868, pages 389, 390. f Journal Diocese of Wisconsin, 1869, pages 29, 30. 124 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. On All Saints' Day of that same year, 1869, Bishop Kemper laid the corner stone of All Saints' Church — the chapel before referred to, which stood, when first erected, at the head of Division street (now Juneau avenue), overlook- ing the blue waters of Lake Michigan, and was afterward removed to the block now occupied by the Cathedral property, on the same street. But Bishop Kemper's days were fast draw- ing to an end. He died at his home near Nash- otah. May 24th, 1870, and was buried in the cemetery of Nashotah. When, later, Kemper Hall was founded at Kenosha, as a memorial to the first Bishop of Wisconsin, the 24th of May was set apart as a memorial day to its founders, and to the memory of Bishop Kem- per. " Founders' Day " it remains to-day. n ■ WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. [From a Steel Engraving.] (VIII.) William Augustus Muhlenberg TBB CHRISTIAN EDUCATOR. "VJOT a Bishop, but a Priest; and perhaps the most original character in the his- tory of the American Church. He seems to have been a disciple of nobody, and no one fol- lowed in exactly his footsteps; and yet his influence upon the Church was greater, per- haps, than that of any other man. Dr. Muhlenberg never professed to be a theo- logian. Sympathizing with the Low-Church- men of his day in theology, he yet revived the cardinal principle of worship as fully as did Pusey or DeKoven, and his practical work in the Church was the foundation and pattern of an untold amount of Church work to-day. Born of a well-known Grerman-Lutheran family, in 1796, in the city of Philadelphia, the young Muhlenberg early became associated with the Church, and, after receiving his edu- cation at the University of Pennsylvania, he 125 126 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. was ordained by the venerable Bishop White, and became his assistant at the united parish of Christ, S. Peter's and S. James', Philadel- phia. Mr. Kemper, afterward Missionary Bishop of the Northwest, was a senior assistant at the same time. After his advancement to the priesthood, in 1820, Mr. Muhlenberg became rector of S. James' Church, Lancaster, Penn- sylvania. It was while in Lancaster, that Mr. Muh- lenberg first began to obtain notice as a hymn writer. His well-known hymn, " I would not live alway," was one of his earliest and best known, though he himself, and other musical critics, pronounced it far from his best. The hymnology of the American Church at that time was most meagre, the Prayer Book con- taining fifty-six hymns, most of which were attempts at improvements of the Book of Psalms. Mr. Muhlenberg tried to have a hymnal commission appointed by the General Convention of 1821, but failing in this, he issued a selection of hymns under the title of "Church Poetry." The next General Convention ap- pointed Mr. Muhlenberg one of a joint com- WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 127 mittee on Psalms and Tunes. In 1826, the new selection of hymns was adopted, and included four of Mr. Muhlenberg's. It was in about his thirtieth year, that Mr. Muhlenberg began the first attempt in this country to found an institution of Christian learning. The " Flushing Institute," on Long Island, was established as a home school under Mr. Muhlenberg's personal care, and not only were the boys under him thoroughly instructed in grammar school accomplishments, but they were also trained up to follow the Church's idea of services and the Christian Tear. Daily services were held, and attendance was obliga- tory. The Sunday services were unique at that time, 1826-1835. They were strictly Churchly, and the ritual included pictures and flowers, altar lights and incense. The psalms were chanted, and litanies for the seasons, taken from ancient missals, were revived and sung. Christmas and Easter were gorgeous festivals. One of Dr. Muhlenberg's "boys," the Eev. Dr. Van Bokkelen, thus describes the services for those festivals: " Then the chapel was brilliant and fragrant. The 128 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. altar wore its vestment of white and shone with lights. There was the picture of the Madonna wreathed with evergreens, surrounded by flowers exhaling fragrance as incense to the Lord. This was the beginning and the perfection of aesthetic ritualism. ***** These chapel services, as has been said, antedated that general revival of ritual which came with the teaching of Keble's ' Christian Year,' when the Flushing Insti- tute was the only true Christian family school of our Church, when Lent was not kept with daily prayer, and when Christmas was a day of merry-making. Thus the school at Flushing was a teacher of the whole Church. " Lent was especially observed. " Holy Week was holy indeed, with penitential con- fessions and prayers ; its solemn Miserere culminating in the impressive ofifice of Good Friday, when the altar was vested with black, and over it hung the picture of the crucifixion." * This work expanded so that Dr. Muhlenberg obtained additional land at College Point, Long Island, and commenced the erection of a fine plant of buildings to be known as S. Paul's College. The financial panic of 1837 stopped the work, and it became necessary to erect humbler buildings for the institution. The Rev. J. B. Kerfoot, afterward Bishop of Pitts- * See Anne Ayres' Life of Dr. Muhlenberg. WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 129 burgh, himself a graduate of the Flushing In- stitute, was one of the assistants. The services were still kept up to their Churchly ideals. Much attention was given to the subject of music, and Dr. Muhlenberg's well-known carol, "Carol, brothers, carol," was written at this time, as well as several others. Fifteen years of scholastic life forced Dr. Muhlenberg to seek a rest, and accordingly he spent the summer of 1843 in England. Here, for a time, he fell under the influence of New- man and Pusey; but the secession of the for- mer from the Anglican communion seems to have turned him backward; and as we have be- fore remarked. Dr. Muhlenberg was no theolo- gian. His heart was leading him to a better con- ception of God and the Church than his mind ever knew; and it was the direct influence of the Flushing Institute and S. Paul's College, that made Christian education to be more fully developed in other institutions, particularly at S. James' College, in Maryland, and at S. Paul's School, at Concord, New Hampshire. The nest work of Dr. Muhlenberg was in New York City, and began a new phase of Church 130 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. life, which may be said to have ushered in al- most the whole of the Church life of to-day. The Church of the Holy Communion, in New York, was built by a sister of Dr. Muhlenberg, Mrs. Mary A. Rogers, as a free church where rich and poor might have equal rights as alike children of their heavenly Father in their Father's house. It was the first free church in the American Church, and was planned by Dr. Muhlenberg, who became its first rector. The corner stone was laid on the 24th of July, 1844. It was in 1846 that he removed from College Point to his new home in the great city. It was just before this that Dr. Muhlenberg organized the first sisterhood in the American Church. It took root from a sermon which he preached in the little chapel of S. Paul's Col- lege, on the subject of Jephtha's Vow. One woman who heard him resolved to consecrate the remainder of her life to religious work for her Saviour. She was accordingly admitted as the first of the Sisters of the Holy Communion. At the Church of the Holy Communion, Dr. Muhlenberg established the first weekly cele- bration of the Holy Communion in this coun WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 131 try. He was the first also to introduce daily services, the division of the ofiices on Sunday into separate services, chanting the psalter, the weekly offertory, congregational singing, preaching in the surplice, the especial solem- nities of Holy Week, the celebration of the Epiphany with an offering of silver and gold for Missions. He also was the first to give attention to practical work for the bodies of men, such as is now done in every parish. He organized an Employment society for women ; provision for assisting the poor at Thanksgiv- ing Day ; the " Fresh Air Fund," to give the poor people of the tenement house district a breath of fresh air on Long Island ; the work of the Sisterhood in the Church Dispensary, Church Infirmary and Church schools. In 1847, he lighted the first Christmas tree for poor children in a school room, gifts for them being provided by the children of wealthier parents, and at the festival, Christmas carols were sung. He also dispensed with the old-fashioned high soft hassock, designed to assist people to keep from kneeling, and substituted low kneeling- benches, teaching the congregation to kneel 132 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. upon their knees. He was horrified at the idea of ownership of pews in God's house. On this subject he once scribbled off the following : " Lines on a Pew Auction. " If the Saviour drove out of the temple of old Poor, ignorant Jews, who bought there and sold, What would He to Christians, so given to pelf. As traffic to make of the temple itself! Woe, woe to the Church ruled by Mammon-made lords, When He cometh again with the scourge of His cords." He thus described the origin of the high- backed pews: " Bishop Burnet complained that the ladies of the Princess Anne's establishment did not look at him while preaching his 'thundering long sermons,' as Queen Mary called them, but were looking at other objects. He therefore, after much remonstrance on their impro- priety, prevailed on Queen Anne to order all the pews in S. James' Chapel to be raised so high that the fair delinquents could see nothing but himself when he was in the pulpit." At another time, when some one objected to the use of a processional cross, Dr. Muhlen- berg replied : " Ah I well, then we will change the processional to: ' Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to War ; With the Cross of Jesus Stuck behind the door!' " WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 133 The first surpliced choir in America was organized by Dr. Muhlenberg at the Church of the Holy Communion. It created a great deal of opposition, but was successful nevertheless. S. Luke's Hospital was organized in connec- tion with the same parish. On S. Luke's Day, in 1846, without previous notice, he suggested that one-half the offertory for the day should be laid aside as the beginning of a hospital fund, and that the same thing should be done on each successive S. Luke's Day. The offer- ings amounted to $30.00, one-half of which was duly set aside. Cholera visited this coun- try in 1849, and the need of such a hospital was so intense that the money was speedily raised. The hospital was incorporated in May, 1850. Dr. Muhlenberg's plans included con- veniences for the sisters, who, he intended, should be in charge. The trustees unanimously declined to build in that way. When, how- ever, the hospital was opened, the sisters were placed in charge, and rapidly won the respect and the love of the public. The Sisterhood of the Holy Communion was regularly organized in 1852, the sisters having 134 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. before that been without any regular organiza- tion. It was necessary, however, to appear frequently in print in defense of the commu- nity. Protestant antagonism ran high. But the battle was won, and the sisters remained. The "Memorial Movement" of 1853 was the personal work of Dr. Muhlenberg. This was an appeal addressed by a number of clergy to the House of Bishops, praying them to take some steps looking toward the unity of Christendom, particularly by granting to individual Bishops a greater discretion as to whom they would or- dain, and by providing for a greater flexibility in the use of the Book of Common Prayer. " That they all may be one !" It was the eucharistic prayer of Jesus Christ on the eve of the great Sacrifice. Holy men have longed for it and worked for it, and to-day the great heart of the Church is sighing " How long, Lord? " and is yearning to draw closer to her- self all those wandering ones who know not their holy mother. Many an effort has been made toward the reconciliation of the sects with the Church. How much has come from these efforts, we cannot be sure. Many of WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 135 them seem to us ill advised. To ignore differ- ences between others and ourselves is not to erase them. To surrender one item of The Faith committed to the Church as a keeper, is impossible. Only God can tell what will finally bring together the divided elements. But of one thing we may be sure : to be untrue to the Church can never be of lasting service to her. Peace is pleasant, but better to fight valiantly for her, than to surrender one inch of her ground ! The Memorial had little immediate effect. A Commission on Christian Unity was appoint- ed by the House of Bishops. At the next ses- sion of General Convention, held in Philadel- phia in 1856, the House of Bishops made a declaration that "the order of Morning Pray- er, the Litany and the Communion Service, being three separate offices, may, as in former times, be used separately under the advice of the Bishop of the diocese." It seems strange now, that such a declaration was necessary ; but at that time the usual morning service was the combined use of Morning Prayer, Lit- any and ante-Communion, with infrequent and 136 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. oftentimes irregular, celebrations of the Holy Communion, added after the main service had been finished. The Commission on Christian Unity was au- thorized to confer with other Christian bodies, but no practical results came from it. Per- haps, however, the agitation of the subject of the division of Christendom did some good in an educational way. The last great work of Dr. Muhlenberg was begun in 1866, in his seventieth year. This was the establishment of a Church village on Long Island, which he named Saint Johnland. The intention was to transplant poor families from the tenement houses of New York, to the purer air in the country. The corporation was to erect cottages and rent them to such families at a very low rate. It was an experi- ment in Christian Socialism, and it was not altogether successful. The poor people refused to be transplanted, and preferred the poisoned air and the overcrowded condition of the tene- ments, to the fresh seaside home at Saint John- land. However, a successful home for aged men, several houses for children, an industrial WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 137 school, a school house, a library and village hall, a beautiful church, the "Church of the Testimony of Jesus," with a few cottages, were built and are successfully maintained to-day. It is out of debt, and has a considerable en- dowment. As a plan to counteract the social evils of the tenement houses, however, it did not succeed. Herein lies a condition for social reformers to consider. Saint Johnland, as conceived by Dr. Muhlenberg, had features very similar to those lately announced by "General" Booth, of the Salvation Army, in his much-heralded work, " In Darkest England." His scheme for a transplanted colony of the " submerged tenth " was very like Dr. Muhlenberg's dream of Saint Johnland, which was submitted to a practical test and was found wanting. The social re- former who would do something of lasting benefit — who would be a worker and not a theorizer — must keep in mind this strange ele- ment of the case : the tenement house popula- tion will not be removed from the cities. This was the last of the great works of Dr. Muhlenberg, and was the joy of his declining 138 SOME AMEEICAN CHURCHMEN. years. These were years of work, seeking to pour oil upon the troubled waters of ecclesias- tical seas, which in those days were turbulent. He died on the 6th of April, 1877, at his home in Saint Johnland, and was sincerely mourned by hundreds whom he had befriended. We have said before, that Dr. Muhlenberg was no theologian. He called himself an "Evangelical Catholic." He believed thorough- ly in standing closely by the name of " Cath- olic," and so far back as 1851 made a grand vindication of the name. His efforts to call down a new life into the Church, into her wor- ship and into her work, were wonderfully suc- cessful, and have permeated the whole Church of to-day. What he did, has been a tremen- dous power for good in the Church. The Flushing Institute, S. Paul's College, the Church of the Holy Communion, S. Luke's Hospital, were each the^rs^ to do a definite work, and a work that has now spread throughout the land. The Church can never have another Muhlen- berg. He was a unique character who will be remembered most for his own personality. His work remains as a perpetual monument to him. The Church will always honor his memory. JAMES LLOYD BRECK. (IX.) JAMES LLOYD BREOK OXE OF THE FOUNDERS OF NASHOTAH. " I ^ HE story of the founding of Nashotah ! It reads like a chapter from the history of the days of romance and poetry, of knights and of crusaders. It originated with a small band of students at the General Theological Seminary, after hearing an eloquent appeal of Bishop Kemper for men to go into the West and claim it for Christ. Among the students were James Lloyd Breck, the subject of this paper ; John Henry Hobart, a son of the great Bishop of New York ; William Adams, whom Breck described in a letter as "a young Irishman of very quick parts," and James W. Miles, of South Carolina. James Lloyd Breck was born within the present limits of the city of Philadelphia, and received his education under Dr. Muhlenberg at the Flushing Institute. When, therefore, 189 140 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. he took up theological studies at the General Seminary, he was fired with some of Dr. Muh- lenberg's zeal for the spread of Christ's king- dom. After Bishop Kemper's visit, the four young men named, resolved to unite in an associate mission, to be established under that Bishop, the members to live a religious life together, with suitable daily devotions, and to do active missionary work from their mission, as well as to train up for the ministry, such young men of the West as might be useful. Dr. Muhlen- berg was in full sympathy with the plan, as was also Bishop B. T. Onderdonk, of New York ; and Professor Whittingham, then Bishop-elect of Maryland, and closing up his work at the Seminary, assisted them with his advice. A private manual of prayers was prepared for their use by Dr. Whittingham. The Missionary Board approved the plan, and granted them small stipends. The young missioners re- solved that their habit should be a cassock, of coarse cloth in winter, and of lighter material in summer. As the religious life of a brother- hood is one of strict rule and obedience, the JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 141 choice of a Superior was important. The Rev. J. B. Kei'foot, Dr. Muhlenberg's most trusted assistant, afterward Bishop of Pittsburgh, was importuned to go, but could not leave his edu- cational work. At the recommendation of Bishop Kemper, therefore, the Rev. Richard F. Cadle, who was about to resign a chaplaincy in the United States Army, and who was stationed at Fort Crawford, near Green Bay, in Wisconsin territory, was invited to becoaae the Superior of the Order, and he accepted. But then difficulties arose. Deacons are subject entirely to their Bishops. The Bisliop of South Carolina, Dr. Gadsden, declined per- emptorily to allow Mr. Miles to go, saying South Carolina needed him. Mr. Breck and Mr. Hobart belonged to Pennsylvania. Bishop Kemper had already secured from the Bishop^ of Pennsylvania (H. U. Onderdonk), his promise to transfer Mr. Breck to the Northwest mission- To Mr. Hobart, however, he declared that he wholly disapproved of the mission, thought Hobart ought not to go, and desired him also to express his disapproval to Mr. Breck. Phases of Churchmanship have changed 142 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. very much since then'. Bishop Onderdonk had been elected in Pennsylvania as an " extreme " High Churchman, and was one of the leaders of that wing. His election* had filled the Low Churchmen with serious alarm. But the plans for Nashotah seemed the wildest deviations from the commonplace. An associate mission of celibate priests in the Episcopal Church ? Cassocks for the daily garb, a daily office of prayer, life under a Superior ? Why, that could only be the rising of a new order of Jesuits in the Episcopal Church, reasoned Bishop Onder- donk, the High-Church leader. What wonder, then, that Nashotah was almost the synonym of Popery to the Low-Church mind ? Bishop Otey, of Tennessee, also visited the Seminary, and discouraged the plan. Bishop Onderdonk, however, finally allowed his two deacons to go, and they, with Mr. Adams, placed themselves under Bishop Kemper and Father Cadle, their Superior. Wisconsin was fixed upon by Bishop Kem- per as the place for the associate mission. Mr. Hobart went on in advance. On Wednesday * See page 92. JAMES LLOYD BREOK. 143 night, September 1st, 1841, Messrs. Breck and Adams, having already been ordained to the diaoonate, left New York City for what was then the far West. Twenty-four hours later, they had just reached Syracuse. There they boarded a canal-boat, and by Friday morning were in Oswego. All day was spent there, and at 6 p. M. they started in a thunder-storm by steamer on Lake Ontario, and experienced the sensations of travelling on a turbulent lake. It was nearly noon of Saturday, when they reached Lewiston, at the west end of the lake. Horse cars took them from thence to Niagara Falls, twelve miles distant. Here, after trav- elling three days and three nights, all within the State of New York, they rested over Sun- day, preaching at the church for the rector, the Rev. Mr. Porter — Mr. Adams in the morn- ing and Mr. Breck at night. On Monday morning at six o'clock, the mis- sioners resumed their journey, travelling by rail to Buffalo. They made an early call on the Rev. Dr. Shelton, and at eleven o'clock, embarked by steamer on Lake Erie. Here, much to their surprise, they were joined by 144 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. their Superior, Father Cadle, who had been East, and started to return a few days in ad- vance of his younger associates, but missed the boat in Buffalo and had to wait three days for the next. By Tuesday morning, the boat touched Cleveland. Tuesday night was spent in the steamboat calmly lying off the dock at Detroit. Next morning, after passing into Lake Huron, Mr. Breck notes that a storm arose, and he was "taken sick with a bilious attack" — not an uncommon symptom. "Even Mr. Adams '' was sick, Mr. Breck adds. The steam- boat was obliged to put in at harbor, and remain a few hours. Mackinaw was reached in the night. On Thursday and Friday, little progress was made, owing to the storm. At midnight of Saturday, Milwaukee was reached, and after travelling more than ten days from New York, the weary travellers were at the end of the first part of their journey. At Milwaukee, the Rev. Lemuel B. Hull was rector of S. Paul's, the only church. He was doubtless glad to receive his clerical visitors, and Father Cadle preached in the morning, Mr. Adams in the afternoon, and Mr. Breck at JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 145 night. Mr. Hobart joined them next day, hav- ing walked in from Prairieville (now Waukesha) in which village, then young and " booming," he had held service. He reported that there was no room of any sort for them there, where they were to locate. After waiting a week or more, they went on to Prairieville, and located temporai'ily in a small room adjoining the post-office. The associate mission of JSFashotah was orig- inally founded upon something like monastic principles. T he missioners were un ited together for religious, devotional, and missionary work. Their poverty was assured by the conditions of the work, each was unmarried, and their joint- ly working together was a substitute (which proved inadequate) for the obedience in a mo- nastic order. Their first Superior, Father Cadle, remained with them only the first winter, be- fore Nashotah itself had been founded. Mr. Breck, who succeeded him, was young and inex- perienced, but was thoroughly devoted to the system in vogue. At the same time, there had been no formal vows of any sort. For a time the three young men worked to- 146 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. gether in perfect unison, and Bishop Kemper was much with them. In 1844, he removed his residence to Nashotah. He, however, was away from home more, even, than is usual for a Bishop of to-day. Travelling was slow, and his terri- tory was vast and was growing, as the hardy pioneers pushed on into the Western wilder- ness. Mr. Hobart returned after the first year, to the Bast. Mr. Adams also left Nashotah, but returned again in 1844. The educational aspect of the work was becoming more impor- tant, and the demands on Mr. Breck's time and resources were great. Then a board of trustees was formed, and the missioners were made sub- ject to them. Mr. Breck complained that all the work of the "religious system" other than the purely educational work, was left to him. About this time, Mr. Adams, his co-worker, married a daughter of Bishop Kemper. In 1850, Mr. Breck returned for the first time to the East, to solicit funds. He was enthusiast- ically received everywhere, Nashotah's fame having been well spread. He accomplished his purpose to some extent, but concluded finally JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 147 that the system under which he desired to work could no longer be tried at Nashotah. Still believing in the system, and anxious to do more work for the Church, he resolved, with the per- mission of Bishop Kemper, to resign his work there, and to penetrate still further West, into the territory of Minnesota, which was under the same Bishop. Only one clergyman of the Church was then in the territory — the Eev. Mr. Gear, chaplain at Fort Snelling. So a new associate mission was formed, the Rev. Timothy Wilcoxsen, of Connecticut, and the Rev'. John Austin Merrick, of Philadelphia, uniting with Mr. Breck. They made a short stay at Nashotah, where a touching farewell service was held, and then pushed on. Sunday, June 23d, 1850, was spent at La Crosse, Wiscon- sin, on the Mississippi River, where was held the first Church service ever celebrated there. Next morning, they crossed over into Minnesota territory, where they reared a rustic cross and celebrated the Holy Eucharist. The missioners located at Saint Paul, and at once purchased two acres of land overlooking the city, for which Mr. Breck notes that they 148 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. paid "the extravagant cost of $50 per acre." The tract is now in the heart of the city, and is worth a fabulous amount. From their head- quarters at Saint Paul, they made missionary journeys to all the country around, and estab- lished the Church everywhere, extending their care even as far as La Crosse, two hundred miles distant by river. On Good Friday, 1851, Mr. Breck notes with thankfulness, that " there are now eight communicants in Saint Paul." They had also built a little church, which Bishop Kemper conseci'ated in August. In 1852, work was commenced among the Indians — principally Chippewas. So promising did this become, that Mr. Breck removed from Saint Paul, and went among the Indians, locat- ing his home at Kahgeeashkoonsikag — whicli seems a euphonious and easy name, when we learn that another mission was planted atKah- sahgawsquahjeomokag, and that Mr. Breck fre- quently dated his letters from Nigigwaunowah- sahgahigaw ! A number of churches were founded in the Indian field, and many converts made. Mr. Breck finally retired altogether from the white field, and leaving that to others, JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 149 he gave his whole attention to the work among the Indians. In 1855, Mr. Breck married Miss Jane Maria Mills, a worker, like himself, among the Indians. The practically unrestricted sale of whisky among the Indians, and the withdrawal of troops by the United States government, nearly caused all traces of the missions to be wiped out. Unruly and drunken Indians made much trouble. Finally, his life and the lives of his family being in imminent danger, Mr. Breck withdrew from the Indian country, in 1857, and settled at Faribault. No theological work had heretofore been attempted in Minnesota, owing to a wish of Dr. Breck, not to appear to antagonize Nashotah in any way. But now the time seemed ripe when young men might be gathered in Minnesota and be instructed for the Church's ministry. Accordingly, the educational institutions of Faribault were founded. With these in view, Mr. Breck again visited the East. He organized in Faribault, a university and theological sem- inary, and also kept the oversight of the work among the Indians. Bishop Whipple was con- 150 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. secrated as Bishop of Minnesota in 1859, and was heartily interested in Faribault, establish- ing his Cathedral there. Mr. Breck became a D. D. in 1860. The Indian missions reached their crisis in 1862, when the Indians took advantage of the Civil War to perform horrible massacres and devastation. The Christian Indians suffered terrible persecution. All the missionaries es- caped, some of them by a hair's breadth. It was a terrible chapter in the history of Minne- sota. The reality of the conversion of many was proved, however, in that they stood firm in the day of trial. Once again Dr. Breck moved on to the ex- treme Western frontier. He had now spent twenty-five years in pioneer work, and the re- straints of civilization all around him were not easy to bear. 8o, again, the devoted missionary looked toward the setting sun, and took up his work. In the fall of 1867, he sailed from New York for California, by way of the Isthmus of Panama. After a voyage of twenty-four days, the party arrived in San Francisco, on Novem- ber 3d. JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 151 California had already been under a Bishop, the venerable Bishop Kip, for fourteen years. Where, at Bishop Kip's coming in 1853, there was only one clergyman, now there were thirty- eight. But these were for the most part men ordained in the East, and there was no training school for candidates for orders on the whole Pacific coast. At this time the buildings, furniture and site, of the " Benicia Collegiate Institute " were offered for sale at a low price. They were sit- uated at Benicia, comprised thirty-five acres, and were within thirty miles of San Francisco. At Benicia, therefore. Dr. Breck founded the " Missionary College of S. Augustine," purchas- ing the buildings already erected. The main building was devoted to theological studies, and was called Epiphany Hall. In four months Epiphany Hall had eight students. There was also a grammar school in operation. By 1870, the boys' school had eighty -five boarding schol- ars and fifteen day scholars. There was a weekly celebration of the Holy Communion, and a surpliced choir, at the chapel. From the first, Dr. Breck had been ambi- 152 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. tious to found a Church school for girls, in connection with a missionary foundation. At length, in 1871, he was successful, and S. Mary's- of-the-Paciflc was opened. In this year, 1871, Dr. Breck was elected a deputy to General Convention from the Diocese of California. He was also cordially invited by Dr. Cole to preach at Nashotah, at the celebra- tion of the thirtieth anniversary of the mission. Dr. Cole was Dr. Brock's successor as president of Nashotah, and had proved himself eminently worthy of the trust reposed in him. In order to accept these appointments, there- fore. Dr. Breck started for the East, visiting his former work at Faribault, and then proceeding to Milwaukee. Here, however, he was taken ill, and was cared for by his former pupil, the Rev. Dr. Keene, at S. John's Rectory. He was too ill to be at Nashotah on S. Michael and All Angels' Day, the day of his appointment, so his sermon, or address, was read by another. He remained some time in Milwaukee, and then went on to the East, but too late for General Convention. Early the next year, 1872, Dr. Breck was again in California. JAMES LLOTD BEEOK. 153 His remaining years were spent in his work in California, in which he was always faithful. The end came suddenly, in 1876. His last ser- mon, preached on Quinquagesima Sunday, was on the Preparation made by Christ for His death. He fainted one afternoon soon after, while saying Evening Prayer in the school chapel. He did not rally as hoped, and on the Third Sunday in Lent, he was unable to receive the Blessed Sacrament, which Bishop Wing- field, who had been consecrated Missionary Bishop of Northern California, was ready to give him. His viaticum was received on the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25th. A week later, he breathed his last. He was buried at Benicia ; the venerable Bishop Kip, assisted by Bishop Wingfield, read- ing the service, and celebrating the Holy Com- munion. If one could imagine Bishop Chase and Dr. Muhlenberg blended into one, with the Church- manship and fervor of Bishop Hobart added, he would have a man somewhat like Dr. Breck. Earnest, straightforward, anxious for the hard instead of the easy work, for the work of sow- 154 SOME AMERICAN CHUECHMEN. ing instead of reaping, he was the image of Bishop Chase. Devout in worship, anxious to show forth the beauty of holiness in the adorn- ments of the altar and the service, he was an apt pupil of his former teacher, Dr. Muhlen- berg. His conception of Churchmanship was truer and clearer than that of either of those. He labored earnestly to establish and to vindi- cate the catholicity of the Church of his birth. The Anglican communion was not ripe for religious communities of men, when Nashotah was founded. Dr. Breck was a great deal be- hind, or a great deal ahead, of his age, in sup- posing that a modernized, Anglican monastery could be founded in Wisconsin territory at that time. A man of intense — almost ascetic — fervor, he had thrown all his faculties into the devel- opment of his "system." That it would not succeed was as certain as was his intensity in working for it. A religious order requires absolute conformity to its threefold rule of pov- erty, chastity and obedience. The vow was not taken by the Nashotah missioners, and therefore the collapse of the system was in- evitable. Nor was the second attempt in Min- JAMES LLOYD BKECK. 155 nesota more favorable. Indeed, Dr. Breck's marriage shows that he himself had given up all hope for its success. But if he failed in the foundation of a new order, which seems to have been Dr. Breck's first ambition, he was yet eminently successful in laying the foundations in the West, of the educational and missionary institutions which he was instrumental in building. The influ- ence of Nashotah on the American Church would be an interesting topic did time and space warrant its consideration. In Minnesota, again, and in California, the associate mission idea ripened into much fruit. Dr. Breck's work was pre-eminently that of a founder. He was neither the first, nor the last, but he was one of the greatest of those pioneers who, under God, made the Western wilderness to blossom as a rose. Nor may we forget the valuable work of his colleagues and successors in this development. The learning and scholarship of Dr. Adams, and the eminent clearheadedness of Dr. Cole, were, no less than the fervor of Dr. Breck, necessary factors in the making of Nashotah. 156 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Men sometimes succeed, in places where their self-conceived plans fail. Not every structure is built according to the plans of its founders. Columbus sailed from Spain to find the Indies^ and he became forever famous as the discoverer of America. Colonial patriots, in 1775, pro- tested against an act of British taxation, and they became the founders of a new nation. Lincoln asserted the integrity of the American Constitution, and he became the emancipator of four millions of slaves. Bishop Chase's work at Gambler, Bishop Doane's work in New Jer- sey, Dr. DeKoven's work in General Convention, were all examples of ultimate success on a, broader scale, from immediate failures. Dr., Breck's experience was the same. What does it all prove, but that a Higher Power uses the work of men's hands, fashioning not according to men's plans, but according to a plan that looks, not necessarily to the realization of each conception of the workman, but to a vast, eter- nal, glorious purpose, even the building of the- heavenly Jerusalem, after the divine pattern ! JAMES DeKOVEN. [From a Photograph.] {X.) JAMES DeKOVEN WARDEN OF RACINE COLLEGE. TF one should ask who was the greatest product of the American Church during the century and more of its existence, the answer of one informed would almost cer- tainly be, James DeKoven. He was born in Middletown, Connecticut, •on the 19th day of September, 1831. He grad- uated at Columbia College, New York, in 1851, and at the General Theological Seminary in 1854. He was a classmate in the seminary, of Bishops Seymour, Brown and Knight ; of Dr. Hodges, of Baltimore ; Dr. Stevens Parker, his own successor at Racine ; Dr. Lance, afterward of Wisconsin ; and Dr. Richey, professor at the ■General Theological Seminary. He was or- dained to the diaconate by the present Bishop •of Connecticut (Williams), soon after his grad- uation, and came West at once to become tutor 158 SOME AMERICAN CHUECHMEN. of Ecclesiastical History at Nashotah, and rec- tor of the little church of S. John Chrysostom, Delafield, Wisconsin. So early as that, his di- aconate, he declined a call to Brooklyn and another to a beautiful parish on the Hudson, in order to take up work in Wisconsin. Soon after he began at Nashotah Seminary, of which Dr. Cole, the successor of Breck, was president, Mr. DeKoven established a prepara- tory school at Delafield, called S. John's Hall, which was intended as a feeder to Nashotah. After his first year, he was advanced to the priesthood by Bishop Kemper, at Delafield, on September 23d, 1855. Racine College, at Racine, as far south of Milwaukee as Nashotah is west of it, had been established in 1852, as a Church college and grammar school, and was under the charge of the Rev. Roswell Park, D. D. Dr. Cole, of Nashotah, had been largely instrumental in its foundation. The institution had been fairly successful in its early years, until the financial crisis of 1857-58 almost wrecked it. In 1859, DeKoven was called to the wardenship, and S. John's Hall was merged into the preparatory JAMES DEKOVEN. 159 department of Racine College. Dr. Park, the founder, retained his connection with the school as chancellor, but retired from administration. Dr. DeKoven assumed the full responsibility. James DeKoven was just twenty-eight years of age, and four years a priest, when he became the head of Racine College. Yet even so early as this, his genius and fame gave the college a wide reputation. Notwithstanding that civil war was raging and that all the colleges in the country were suffering from a consequent dearth of students, and that the college had no endowment whatever,Racine steadily advanced. It was chiefly as preparatory to the theological seminary at Nashotah, that the course was at first directed. But Dr. DeKoven was ambitious to make Racine what he afterward described it, "the Church University of the West and North- west." In 1865, the statement of theological preparation disappears from the catalogues, and, though for a number of years afterward, the greater number of students passed through Nashotah and received ordination, the number of students who did not, steadily increased. The immediate connection of the college 160 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. with the Diocese of Wisconsin as a diocesan institution, was changed in 1868, and Racine became a general institution, under the charge of Bishops and others, from several adjoining States. The university scheme was developed in 1875, when the college was more distinctly- separated from the grammar school, and new collegiate departments were established. But it must be admitted, that the original intention of Racine College, and the plan in placing Dr. DeKoven at the head, was rather to make Eacine preparatory to ISTashotah, than to form an independent university. The personal influence of the Warden on the students, is perhaps unparalleled in any college. Said the Rev. Dr. Locke of him, in a memorial sermon: " He had no trouble in gaining any young man's confidence, for he inspired immediately the feeling that such confidence would be given to a true man, with a loving heart actuated only by the purest motives, and with the sincerest desire to aid and strengthen the young and forming nature. He sought this confidence, for he thought it the basis of all influence ; and he has sometimes been faulted for it, and ugly things about JAMES DEKOVEN. 161 ' confesBionals ' were put out in the newspapers. But as a father I thank him for the interest he took in my boy's spiritual nature, and hundreds of fathers will do the same. When I think how little my instructors knew or cared about the struggles of my heart, and the character of my temptations, I thank God that this man did so greatly care for those who fell under his charge." * Nor was his interest in them confined to their soals. He was probably the first college president to make provision among the stu- dents for billiard and card playing, thus re- moving from them temptation to those amuse- ments in questionable places. He had also a very happy gift of story-telling, and the book "Dorchester Polytechnic Academy" was first told to " his boys " as a continued story. When Dr. DeKoven became widely known as a champion of what was vulgarly called "Ritualism," the services at the college chapel were much misrepresented. The service was always reverent, but at no time was the ritual ornate or unusual. Every detail of the service received the consent of the Board of Trustees, many of whom were not wholly in sympathy with. Dr. DeKoven's theological convictions. * Church Eclectic, May, ]879. 162 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. At the height of its prosperity, during Dr. DeKoven's administration, the college com- prised seventy students, and the grammar school about 150. The college itself never paid expenses, but the deficit was paid from the profits of the grammar school. After DeKoven's death, the attendance of students in both departments fell off, and finally it became necessary to close the collegiate de- partment entirely. How unfortunate it is that this, DeKoven's special work, should come to naught, may appear when the balance of this chapter has shown what manner of man he was. Racine still exists and is again on the upward path, but the collegiate department is still- under suspension (1892). The General Convention of 1868 was the first to which Dr. DeKoven was a deputy. This he attended, representing the Diocese of Wisconsin, together with the Rev. Dr. Adams, the Rev. Dr. Beers, and the Rev. F. R. Haflf, as clerical deputies. Dr. DeKoven was appointed chairman of the Committee on Christian Edu- cation, and as such endeavored to secure the passage of a series of resolutions favoring the JAMES DEKOVEN. 163 opening of grammar schools in all cities and towns. Such resolutions passed the lower House, but the House of Bishops concurred only in a general recommendation of "the establish- ment of Christian schools in every parish where it may be practicable." "Ritualism" was the topic of greatest inter- est coming before the convention. For two or three years before, the subject had been agitat- ing the Church. The publication of Bishop Hopkins' " Law of Eitualism,"* had, as we have seen, called forth much opposition as well as many indorsements. Just what was meant by " Ritualism," as the term was used by its opponents, was never dis- tinctly defined. The influence of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England had per- meated the whole Church, and was now bear- ing fruit in a deeper spirituality and a closer approach to the devotional standards of the primitive Church. Manuals for the altar were more widely distributed, the Blessed Sacrament was more highly venerated, and reverence for holy things, and particularly for the ornaments * See pages 107-8. 164 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. of the altar, was more observed. With these improvements, came of necessity a desire to ■enrich the services of the Church more plenti- fully, and to make the "beauty of holiness" apparent to all worshippers. Thus, in many ■churches, old slipshod methods gave way to better and more reverent usages. Churches were better adorned, the ecclesiastical colors were observed^ priestly vestments received more care, flowers and lights beautified the altar. But while these improvements were thor- oughly in accord with the early traditions of the Church, they were strenuously opposed by some who forgot that the Reformation of the English Church, instead of establishing a new religion, was a return to customs formally pre- vailing in days of greater purity in religion. A dignified ritual always characterized the ser- vices of the early Church. So, it was rightfully urged, should it be in the Church in America to-day. Dr. DeKoven was an earnest advocate of a return to the Catholic principle of beautifying worship. Therefore, though in General Con- JAMES DeKOVEN. 165 vention for the first time in 1868, he was very active in opposition to every measure that would prohibit such a return. The three years that followed were years of violent controversy in the Church, on this sub- ject. When the General Convention of 1871 m.et, in Baltimore, excitement was at a fever heat. Dr. DeKoven was now the acknowledged leader of those commonly called "Ritualists" — those, that is, who lay special stress on the Catholicity of the Church. A committee of Bishops, of whom the Bishop of Delaware (Lee) was chairman, submitted an elaborate report recommending the prohibition, by canon, of a considerable number of ritual acts, etc. The report was referred to a joint committee of both houses, of which the Bishop of Maryland (Whittingham) was chairman. Their report was awaited with great eagerness. At length the report was made, embodying a proposed canon which declared that " the provisions for Ritual in this Church are," the Book of Common Prayer, the "Canons of the Church of England agreed upon in 1603, and in use in the American Provinces and States before the year 1789, and 166 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. not subsequently altered or repealed," and the canonical or other legislation of the American Church. The canon seemed fair. But at once question arose as to what were the Canons of 1603 ; and especially, what parts were "in use" in the American Provinces ; and what it meant to be " in use." Dr. DeKoven spoke on the sub- ject but once. He first alluded to the different constructions which would certainly be placed upon the words " in use." Again he convulsed the house by reading from one of the " Canons of 1603 " a long description of what should he the apparel of a clergyman, including minute directions concerning long buttons, light-col- ored stockings, and nightcaps ! After thus ridiculing the proposition, be became serious, and said: " Mr. President, I believe that this Church of ours is going to wake up to another question than those that are agitating us now, and is waking up to it — the ques- tion of how it shall do its work in this land. And now I beg leave to ask this House whether this is a day and a time for us to be legislating about ceremonies, legis- lating against reverence, legislating against men who claim and believe that they are seeking the Lord Jesus Christ ? Is it too much reverence that is the curse of this land ? JAMES DEKOVBN. 167 Is it too much ceremony ? Is it too great devotion ? Go where you will, Mr. President, and the congregations, so far from being too reverent, are very wretchedly and dreadfully irreverent, and irreverent on principle; that is to say, they have paid choirs to tickle their ears, and to sing the service of Almighty God for them. They do not kneel in church ; they have not any incense. But I will tell you what you will find — women filling themselves with incense, so that there is an odor going up through the church, very sweet to smell, not for the honor and glory of Almighty God, but for the honor and glory of men and women !" * DeKoven accomplished his purpose. The canon which had passed the House of Bishops while it was being considered in the lower House, failed in the House of Deputies on a final vote. B at the battle was n ot yet over. The day before the close of the session, the friends of the "advanced" movement in the Church were surprised at a proposed canon passed by the House of Bishops, and sent to the House of Deputies, which was vastly more dan- gerous than that which had been defeated be- fore. It was one to forbid those reverential * Debates in General Convention, 1871. 168 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. acts in the celebration of the Holy Communion which imply a belief in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. The proposed canon was not even introduced in the House of Bishops until the day before final adjourn- ment, when it was presented by the Bishop of Florida (Young). It was evidently a surprise to the Bishops. The Bishop of Alabama (Wil- mer) attempted to have the matter laid over until another convention, but without avail. The proposition was reported from the commit- tee later on the same day, and passed the House of Bishops by a vote of 22 to 15. An attempt to add to it a condemnation of altar lights and incense, made by the Bishop of Nebraska (Clark- son), was not successful. When the proposed canon was received in the House of Deputies, many had already gone home. Those still remaining were taken greatly by surprise. Dr. DeKoven protested against its consideration in such a light house, but without avail. The question had been " sprung " on the House, and must be met at once. Dr. DeKoven was equal to the emergency. He first protested against the manifest unfair- JAMES DEKOVEN. 169 ness of considering the matter so late in the session. Then, after his time had been extend- ed (each deputy was only entitled to speak ten minutes under the rules) by a vote of 104 to 61, Dr. DeKoven answered the doctrinal objections. He showed that the custom of Eucharistic Ado- ration (worship of our Lord present in the Sac- rament) had prevailed in the Church long before the doctrine of Transubstantiation had ever been held. He showed the difference between the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence and the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation. He said plainly : " 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." * These words had been expressly ruled by the highest ecclesiastical court in England to be not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. Dr. DeKoven proceeded to distinguish be- ♦Debates in General Convention, 1871. 170 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. tween Transubstantiation and the Real Pres- ence. Speaking of the reverential acts of the faithful in the Holy Eucharist, he said : "They symbolize the Real, Spiritual Presence of Christ. The eloquent deputy from Massachusetts (Dr. A. Vinton) said that if he believed there was a material Presence of Christ upon our altars, there was no posi- tion too humble for him to occupy. If I believe in a spiritual Presence, is there any position too humble for me to occupy ? Am I to be less humble in a spiritual Presence than he would be in a material Presence ? Believe it, the difference between us is only this, that God gives to us who believe in the Spiritual Presence more faith. And if I prostrate myself — I do not do it — ■ but were I to prostrate myself before the altar, it would only be because I see, hidden behind all material forms, Him, my own Saviour, Whom I believe in, and love, and adore. And if I place upon head, upon lip, and upon breast, the sign of the Cross, it is only to remind me of Him and His crucifixion. And if I place upon the altar the lights that blaze and glow, it is only because they typify here on earth the seven lamps of fire which burn before the throne of God, which no Canons and no General Conventions can ever put out ; for there, Mr. President, there, is the worship of Heaven ! Strip this Church, if you will, of its glorious symbols ; I will tell you what it will remain. In that awful fire JAMES DBKOVEN. 171 at Chicago * the other day, the papers told us of one poor soul who, all blackened and scarred, was still found in the attitude of prayer. Blacken and scar this Church, if you will ; still, with outstretched hands upreaching, she will implore Him Who lives amidst the eternal worship of Heaven, where angels bear the vials full of odors, which are the prayers of saints ! t His peroration was truly grand : " This question before us, believe me, is not a question of Ritualism or anti-Ritualism, but a question of the grand forward march and movement of the Church of God, which is meant to be, not a Church for to-day, but a Church forever — the American Catholic Church. Ah I as I see the triumphal march and swing with which I believe that Church will do her work in this country, my heart beats with a quicker throb, and the giddy blood goes coursing through my veins. I see her marching; on across those broad, wide lands of the West, beyondi those prairies of Iowa, beyond the plains of Nebraska,, beyond the Sierra Nevada, until she stretches out her hands to the far-off East, where the world is waiting for conversion. And this Church of ours is to stretch out her hands on this side and on that, not in any narrow way. How our hearts thrilled when the Bishop of *This refers to the great Chicago fire which occurred while the General Convention was in session. f Debates in General Convention, 1871. 172 SOME AMBEICAN CHURCHMEN. Lichfield spoke of the Anglo-Saxon race as destined to be the race which would give peace to the world 1 Why may not this Church of ours give peace to the divided branches of Cheist's Church? — on this side stretching out her hands to the Protestant bodies, say- ing to them, ' We, too, are Protestant in certain senses ; we disbelieve in the supremacy of the Pope ; we disbe- lieve in his infallibility ; we disbelieve in the shutting up of Scripture in a tongue not understanded of the people ; we believe in a Liturgy that can be read and known of all men ; we do not believe in a compulsory celibacy ; we do not believe in enforced confession ; we only believe in the Grand Catholic doctrines.' And then, on the other hand, to say to people : ' The cere- monies of the broad world, the ceremonies that typify Christ, the ceremonies that tell of Him, the ceremonies that teach me to believe, not in any material Presence, but in Him Whom hy faith I see : these, these shall be the ceremonies of our branch of the Catholic Church of Cheist." The battle was fought. The House of Dep- uties refused to concur with the House of Bish- ops. The danger was over. Dr. DeKoven was now the central figure in the American Church. No name more fre- quently appeared in the Church papers ; no one received equal attention. JAMES DEKOVEN. 173 It was not strange, therefore, that when there was a vacancy in the episcopate in Mas- sachusetts in 1873, caused by the death of Bishop Eastburn and, subsequently, by the dec- lination of the Rev. Benjamin I. Haight, D. D., LL. D., of Trinity Church, New York, who was elected in his place, Dr. DeKoven was one im- mediately thought of. He was accordingly nom- inated in the convention by the Rev. Alexander Burgess, D. D., afterward Bishop of Quincy,and received a liberal support. But though the number of votes given him was nearly a majority, a few were lacking and DeKoven was defeated, the Rev. B. H. Paddock, D. D., being elected. The close vote showed, however, how strong Dr. DeKoven's supporters were, and it may be believed, opened the eyes of his opponents who had belittled the " advanced " movement. The crisis of the whole of DeKoven's history now came, and the eyes of the whole Church were turned toward Wisconsin. On the 7th of December, 1873, Bishop Armi- tage passed to his rest, in the prime of his manhood, when apparently he was at the period 174 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. of his greatest usefulness. A special council to elect a successor, was called to meet at the Cathedral in Milwaukee (the purchase of which had been one of Bishop Armitage's last and most notable acts) in February. The prelimi- nary campaign was both bitter and vigorous. It was characterized by a series of letters to the daily papers, for and against the candidacy of Dr. DeKoven. That the chiefest of these were anonymous, was discreditable to both sides. None of them were from the pen of DeKoven. The Church papers in the East, too, took an active part in the contest. The campaign was opened by the Chicago Times with a series of interviews with a num- ber of clergy in the diocese, including Dr. De- Koven. The latter gave it as his opinion that the contest would be rather between men of the same theological stripe, than between those of opposing principles. A few days later, a Milwaukee paper contained a long anonymous letter in criticism of Dr. DeKoven's several answers to his interviewer, charging DeKoven with various extreme practices and views, mis- ■representing him (as was claimed) in a number JAMES DEKOVEN. 175 of particulars, and appealing to the popular prejudice against Rome to defeat him as a *' Romanizer." The paper was afterward issued in pamphlet form over the signatures of six ■clergymen, with the title " Principles, not Men " prefixed. As the day of the council drew near, excite- ment reached a high pitch, and column after column of the daily papers was given up to discussions of the coming election. On the night before the council met, a ser- vice in commemoration of the late Bishop Arm- itage, was held by appointment at the Cathe- dral, which was draped in black, and Dr. De- Koven preached the memorial sermon. It was a most remarkable discourse. As it is contained in the sole volume of Dr. DeKoven's published sermons, no extracts need be given here.* Next day, Thursday, February 12th, the coun- cil met at the Cathedral. It was the centre of interest for the whole community. Secular papers of New York, Boston and Chicago had special correspondents present to wire them full particulars of the proceedings. Never be- * DeKoven's Sermons, pages 225-250. 176 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN, fore or since had a diocesan Church convention in America ever attracted such widespread attention. The opening service occupied the greater portion of the morning, and the after- noon was spent in wrangling over the roll of parishes entitled to vote. This, it might be remarked here, is a question which invariably causes confusion at an episcopal election, and which ought to be definitely settled by legisla- tion in each diocese. In the evening came the formal nominations. The first name presented was that of the Rev. Lewis A. Kemper, D. D., professor at Nashotah, and son of Wisconsin's first Bishop. Dr. Kemper replied by withdrawing his name, and present- ing that of the Rev. Eugene A. Hoflfman, D. D., rector of S. Mark's Church, Philadelphia. The nomination was seconded by the Rev. W. P. TenBroeck, rector of La Crosse. Then followed a long and exceedingly unfor- tunate debate upon the availability and merits of Dr. Holfman, who was less widely known in the Church than he is to-day. The debates in full may be found in the secular papers of the next day. They are certainly lacking in many JAMES DEKOVEN. 177 of the characteristics of a Christian convention, and an abstract of them would not be profitable here. At length, after a very disorderly session in the Cathedral itself, a recess was taken until next morning. The second day opened with undiminished interest. The chairman, the Rev. Dr. Ashley, made at the opening some timely remarks on the decorum proper to be observed in the de- liberations. The Rev. Dr. Everhart, chaplain of Kemper Hall, followed with an eloquent and calm address, presenting the name of the Rev. James DeKoven, D. D., to the council. The Rev. Dr. Falk, a professor at Racine. College, seconded the nomination and replied to the anticipated objections to the gentleman, on the grounds of doctrine and "Ritualism." Then ensued a repetition of the disorderly scenes of the evening before. Excitement was at fever heat when the Rev. Robert N. Parke, one of the six signers of the document "Prin- ciples, not Men," publicly withdrew his signa- ture. The very full report of the proceedings in the Milwaukee Sentinel thus gives a por- tion of his remarks : 178 SOME AMEEICAN CHURCHMEN. ■' He (Mr. Parke) came here three years ago from a purer moral atmosphere than he found here. He was frank to say that he differed from Dr. DeKoven as to certain points. On certain other points in the docu- ment he did not know whether the Doctor holds the views implicated to Dr. DeKoven ; and after prayerful consideration he wished to stand before the convention and relieve himself of that part of the accusation made without his personal knowledge. He desired to make an humble apology." * Tain would we draw a pen over the records of the remainder of the morning. But words spoken on earth, by whomsoever said, are words recorded in Heaven for the weal or the woe of him who speaks them. He who takes up his pen to write history, must write with absolute impartiality, and neither add to, nor subtract from, the exact occurrences. The next speaker was the Rev. Edward B. Spalding, head master of the grammar school at Racine College. In the course of his re- marks, he produced and read statements in writing from four students at Nashotah, to the effect that they had themselves heard the * Sentinel, February 14, 1874. JAMES DEKOVEN. 179 author and one of the signers of the document " Principles, not Men " admit — " That it was an exaggeration intended to influence the laity against Dr. DeKoven — an article of political intrigue ; and that no such results would follow from the election of Dr. DeKoven as he had therein stated. Dr. E excused himself by saying that in news- papers such articles were lawful." * The next column of the published report is not desirable matter to be reproduced. But that exact justice may be done, the defense of the gentleman against whom the students' charges were made is here given : '' After a certain document, which was subsequently signed in my name and the names of others, as pub- lished in a communication in the Milwaukee Sentinel, came to Nashotah, it was taken up as an anonymous communication at the table at which these gentlemen and I sat. It was treated facetiously, and bandied about until it accidentally came out that I wrote the thing. Those things that were stated facetiously have been put in here, that it was intended to have political effect, etc. It was commented upon as having political eflfect, perhaps by myself, and perhaps by them. I do not remember stating that it was for political efifect. * Ibid. 180 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. The thing that was brought here, was a dinner-table conversation. It was charged at that dinner-table, before the authorship of it was avowed, that that arti- cle stated what was not true in this particular, that it did not state that the High-Church party believed in the doctrine of the Real Presence. In the course of the dinner-table talk it was stated this article conveyed an evil impression, because it did not assert on the part of the High-Church party, a doctrine of the Real Presence." * When the council came together, after the noon recess, the pending question was on lim- iting debate. An acrimonious discussion fol- lowed, in which gentlemen more and more appeared to forget the sanctity of the edifice in which they were gathered and of the work they had to do. The afternoon debate surpassed all that had preceded it, in disorder, malignity and discourtesy. Extracts could hardly be culled from it that would form proper reading for this place. At length Dr. DeKoven took the floor to make his long-looked-for defense, and silence fell over the house. * Ibid. JAMES DEKOVEN. 181 After stating the reluctance with which he stood before them, arraigned, as he was, before the whole Church, he commenced an examina- tion of the document "Principles, not Men." He criticised the opening clause as insincere : " The undersigned have seen an article in the Milwaukee papers," etc., when one of them had admitted the authorship of it. After a brief interruption, the Doctor proceeded to state his belief in the doctrine of the Real Presence, repeating and explaining at length his language used in the General Convention of 1871, and before quoted. He showed that the words used were those which had been de- clared lawful in England by the Court of Arches, in the Bennett case. " Now the question," said he, " is, is such a doctrine tolerated by the Church of England ? And here I must say a few words about the doctrine of the Eucharist. I cannot enter into that with any fullness. There are three questions which may be asked in regard to the Holy Eucharist : " I. What is present ? " II. Where is it present ? " III. How is it present ? 182 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. " To each one of these interrogatories, three answers may be given: First, How is it present ? The Roman Catholic answers, by Transubstantiation. The Luth- eran answers, by Consubstantiation. The Zwinglian answers, Figuratively. The Churchman denies the three, and when pressed to say how Christ is present, he answers, ' I cannot tell how ; it is a mystery, and I believe and adore.' " He declared an answer to the question, " Where is it (the Body and Blood of Christ) present ?" to be : "After consecration and before reception, in sacra- mental union with the consecrated elements. This is my own view ; I cannot say how it is present. I deny that it is by Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or any other device of human reason. As to what is pres- ent, I say it is the Body and Blood of Christ ; and as to where it is present, I assert that it is in sacramental union with the consecrated elements, to be the spiritual food of the faithful. " The view is expressed in a speech made by one of my accusers, the Rev. Dr. Egar, in the General Conven- tion of 1871 (p. 464 of Debates):— u ****** ( jjow can gentlemen deny that there is a Real Presence if they have ever learned their Church catechism ?****** Now, when you define a Sacrament that is to consist of two parts, one of JAMES DEKOVEN. 183 ■which is the Body and Blood, I do not see how you can eliminate from that the one part and leave the other part alone. I object, then, to the doctrinal basis on which this argument has been conducted. I say the gentlemen who have given the definition of a Ritualist which it is designed to put down, are going in the face of the cate- chism, and are going in the face of the whole of the doctrine of this Church. That is to say, so far as they have given us a definition of the thing as a tangible thing, they tell you that if you admit that doctrine, which the great majority of us here do admit, all these other things follow logically from it.' " After thus showing the identity of his belief on the Real Presence with that of Dr. Egar, his leading opponent, Dr. DeKoven proceeded to vindicate that doctrine by extensive quo- tations from the standard English divines. The doctrine of Eucharistic Adoration, or Worship of our Lord in the Sacrament, he showed to flow logically from the former belief, and strengthened his statement, as before, by copious extracts. He also quoted from the remarks of another of his opponents, the Rev. Dr. Adams, who, in the General Convention of 1871, had said : " The doctrine which Dr. DeKoven holds, I believe, is the same as that of Dr. Pusey. It is identical, more 184 SOME AMEKIOAN CHURCHMEN. or less, with the old doctrine of Consubstantiation. I do not wish the clergy and laity of this house to get scared and talk about a diflBcult question, and get into an excitement and imagine that Dr. DeKoven is coming here and speaking heresy. ***** jyjy qqI. league (Dr. DeKoven) is not a heretic in any shape or form." Leaving the subject of the Eucharist, Dr. DeKoven continued : " Now, Mr. President, I have, as fully as the circum- stances admit of, stated the doctrine of the Eucharist which I hold. So far as this document has not misrep- resented it, I have no fault to find. I come now to its utter unfairness, as found in the following paragraph : '"Still it may be argued, on behalf of Dr. DeKoven and the Ritualists, that this is merely a speculative opin- ion, especially as the Dr. explicitly disavows a belief in Transubstantiation. But, unfortunately, the practical results of this belief are identical with the practical re- sults of Transubstantiation, and the difierence is merely speculative and nugatory as between his belief and that of the Church of Rome. For the acts of adoration ad- dressed to the Presence in the elements on the altar, are precisely those addressed by the members of the Church of Rome to the Host, and none other. This localization of the Presence, implies an arrangement of the service, with lights, vestments, prostrations, non-communicant adorations, a reserved Sacrament, processions of Corpus Christi, and all other incidents with which the attendants JAMES DBKOVEN. 185 ■on Roman Catholic worship are familiar, and which are foreign to our own "use." It implies an offering of Christ by the priest for the living and the dead ; it im- plies, in every respect, what the Ritualists call it, the Mass, and not the Holy Communion.' [' Principles, not Men '1 ***** * " Fully to investigate the accusation and to explain its grievous wrong, allt)w me to arrange these various sorts of ritual in three divisions : " 1. ' Lights and vestments.' " 2. ' Incense and prostrations.' " 3. 'A reserved Sacrament' (for purposes of worship). * Processions of Corpus Christi.' 'AH other incidents with which the attendants upon Roman Catholic wor- ship are familiar ;' including, I suppose, the Benedic- tion of the Blessed Sacrament, the forty hours' exposi- tion, etc., etc. " I classify them in this way to show the skill with which the paragraph is framed. Those under the third class alone are distinctly Roman. The Lutherans, who certainly are Protestant enough, have both lights and vestments. The Greek Church, and the Communions who have separated from it, the Nestorian and Jacobite Churches, have lights, vestments, incense and prostra- tions. The Lutheran Church holds the doctrine known as Consubstantiation. The Greek Church holds the Catholic faith of all ages as to the Eucharist. Accused as she is sometimes of holding Transubstantiation, it can 186 SOME AMEEICAN CHURCHMEN. only be said of her that she uses the term ' meloumm,^ but denies that it is to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord. [Neale's Int. to Hist, of the Holy E. Ch., p. 1173, note.] One would reasonably argue, therefore, that these four things were not necessarilj/ the ritual of Transubstantiatiop. There is proof, how- ever, on the matter which to a member of the Anglican Communion is absolutely unanswerable. "The doctrine of Transubstantiation was imposed upon the Western Church by the Fourth Lateran Coun- cil, A. D. 1215. The great Anglican Theologians prove most conclusively that this doctrine was a new one and cannot be proved by Scripture or the Fathers. Lights, incense and vestments date back at least to the fifth century, and probably to a far earlier period. I take the latest date. The Jacobite and Nestorian Commun- ions separated from the Eastern Church in that century, and probably have not since changed their usages. Both the orthodox Communions and these heretical bodies had them then, and retain them still. The use of them is seven hundred years and more older than Transub- stantiation. Now mark the argument. If they be nec- essarily the ritual of Transubstantiation, all the argu- ments of our theologians go for nothing, and the doctrine, instead of being a corruption of the Middle Ages, is at least as old as the age of the undisputed General Coun- JAMES DEKOVEN. 187 oils. So do these gentlemen, in their eager zeal, play into the hands of Rome. " Holding this view, namely, that they are not nec- essarily the ritual of Transubstantiation, but simply the ritual of the Real Presence, I have been the pastor of a college chapel. In such a service large liberties have always been allowed. The Rev. Dr. Kemper might have taken in the savour of incense, and I know not what besides, in his boyhood at Dr. Muhlenberg's famous school at College Point. Nay, the chapel of Racine Col- lege has never been consecrated. It has no legal posi- tion as a church. It is nothing more than a private room. Subject always to the authority of the trustees, 80 far as ecclesiastical authority was concerned, I might have had the 'use of Sarum ' had I desired to do so. " Now, mark me, Mr. President, when I say that with all this, the ritual at Racine does not materially differ, as these gentlemen well know, from tfiat which prevails at Nashotah Chapel, which is a parish church ; and is not so advanced in its character as the ritual in Trinity Church New York, and its chapels. "The Rev. Mr. Wilkinson,* from some remark of mine, has insinuated to this body that this moderation has been due to policy or timidity. Let me state to what principles of action it has been due : * The Kev. John Wilkinson, rector of Grace Church, Mad- ison, one of the signers of " Principles, not Men." 188 SOME AMERICAN CHUEOHMEN. " 1. While I hold that every rubric of the Prayer Book must be obeyed, I do not believe the Prayer Book to be a book of full ritual directions. " 2. I do not believe that by adding to the Prayer Book some vague notion of usage, the law of the Church on the subject of ritual is to be found. " 3. I do not think that the Church has a distinct and clear law of ritual. " 4. I hope the day may come when we can approach the question of what that law must be, in a spirit of charity ; and when we do, I hope we shall find room for both lofty ceremonial and for simple services. "5. Meanwhile individual action, and sometimes irregular action, has preceded, as it always does, corpo- rate action. " I, myself, in adopting any ornament or ceremony, have been governed by five distinct practical ideas : "1. That it should not contradict any doctrine of the Church. " 2. That it should have common sense in its favour. " 3. That it should not provoke vehement contro- versy among those for whose benefit it was intended. " 4. That it should not be unreal, but for the good of souls. "5. That it should not be against the command of the Bishop. " Inasmuch, therefore, as my principles do not neces- JAMES DEKOVEN. 189 sarily involve any one of the ceremonies which are dis- tinctly and exclusively Roman, inasmuch as with the exception of lights on the altar at early celebrations, and on some great festivals at a late one, I have never practised any one of the three classes of ceremonies enumerated, I charge my brethren with grave mis- representation in this paragraph.* Dr. DeKoven then spoke upon " Confession," quoting extensively, as before, from the Fathers, particularly those of the English Church. He referred to the charges against him, as follows: "All this does not need to be proved to any theolo- gian. The six Presbytersf are as well aware of it as I am, but the laity whom they have addressed are not. They have been scared with a word. This has been the first injustice. A graver wrong is to be found in the three following passages of ' Principles, not Men ' : " 1. That I teach 'Auricular confession as having a sacramental character, and therefore useful for all Christians as an ordinary means of the forgiveness of sins.' "2. That 'The members of the Church are to be persuaded, as an ordinary and frequent thing, to come *A white linen alb and chasuble are used at the celebration of the Lord's Supper in the chapel of Racine College. [This was a foot-note in the Theological Defense.] f The signers of the pamphlet, " Principles, not Men." 190 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. to auricular confession and to put their consciences in " holy obedience " uader the priest's " direction." ' " 3. ' If Dr. DeKoven is made Bishop of Wiscon- sin, the necessary tendency of his principles and asso- ciations will be to require an arrangement of the Episco- pal Cathedral identical with that of Bishop Henni's* Cathedral ; the altar must be decorated with lights ; the priest must be dressed in vestments, the people must prostrate themselves at the elevation of the Host, the confessional boxes must line the walls, the people will not know whether they are in one or the other,' etc. " If the last paragraph be so overstrained that it naturally produces laughter, none the less do the three passages make a charge against me of utter disloyalty and unfaithfulness to the Church. I have quoted the views and practices of a long line of divines of the Church of England. Any controversialist, by examin- ing the writings of some of them, notably of Hooker, Ussher and Jeremy Taylor, can bring forward the strong- est language against Confession. And why ? Because the Church of England has a distinct doctrine on the subject of confession, which clearly distinguishes it from that of Rome. When they advocate confession, they mean the confession their own Church permits, ap- proves and advises. When they speak against confes- * Bishop Henai was the Roman Bishop of Milwaukee. JAMES DEKOVEN. 191 Bion, they mean the system which the Reformation reformed. " There are five chief points in which the Church of England dififers from that of Rome : "differences between ROME AND ENGLAND ON CONFESSION. " 1. Rome believes that imperfect sorrow or attrition becomes contrition or perfect sorrow by means of con- fession. " The Church of England denies this as a necessary consequence ; and so do I. " 2. Rome teaches that there are two kinds of pun- ishment due to sin, eternal and temporal. It sub- divides the latter into the punishments to be borne in this life, and those in purgatory. Absolutions remit the former ; the latter are taken away by Penances. Hence sprang up the necessity of ' numbering sins,' and the whole theory of indulgences. " The Church of England denies this, and so do I, regarding with her, acts of penance as useful and de- sirable only as a means of deepening repentance, and as a test of its genuineness. " 3. The Church of Rome permits, at least, the addi- tion of direction to confession, namely, the laying bare of heart and motives, that the priest may guide the life. " Believing in the desirability of confession, accept- ing, too, the principle of such necessary guidance as 192 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. scrupulous persons may require, or extraordinary con- tingencies demand, I abhor the very notion of 'direction.'' " 4. The Church of Rome enforces confession ; the Church of England makes it voluntary, and so do I. " 5. And most important, the Church of Rome re- gards confession as necessary to the forgiveness of sins and therefore enforces it. "The Church of England, on the other hand, re- gards the voluntariness of confession as a necessary element in its usefulness, because, though often neces- sary to penitence and relief of the burdened soul, it z& not necessary to the forgiveness of sins; and as the Church teaches, so do I. " Do I need say more upon this subject? Let me ask you to consider that the only proof which has been brought forward on this floor of these unfair state- ments, is an accusation that in 1870, or thereabouts, I heard certain confessions at Nashotah — the object being to show that I intruded into the cure of souls, and usurped a jurisdiction to which I had no right. "Mr. President, to accuse me of wrong towards Nashotah, is like ' seething a kid in its mother's milk.* I came to this diocese, from home and friends, a newly ordained Deacon, drawn hither by the saintly story of Nashotah House. For five years I was a tutor there> and reorganized the Preparatory Department, which was a very necessary part of the work of the Seminary. In JAMES DEKOVEN. 193 1859, I moved to Racine College, which for about ten years after, continued to be the Preparatory Department of Nashotah. "I was bound to Nashotah by every tie. I had given it love, labour and self-denial. The youths to whom I had been father, friend and pastor, and whom I loved as my own soul, and they me, were there as can- didates. Was it surprising that now and then one whom I had trained and guided should look to me for spiritual help? In the course of years there came one or two others, who were recommended to me by their own pastors, and at last two who perhaps could not be thus classified. The Rev. Dr. Cole, then and now pres- ident and pastor of Nashotah, has informed you on this floor, that whatever I did, / did with his knowledge, consent and approval, and that I did no wrong. Do I need further justification ?" These were Dr. DeKoven's closing remarks: " But, in conclusion, let me ask, Mr. President, are these things after all the dangers of the Church of Wis- consin ? Do we need to warn our. people against Con- fession, Eucharistical Adoration, and too much rever- ence? Is Milwaukee full of penitents? Are the rural districts of Wisconsin inclined to superstition ? Must I say that even I, who am supposed to embody all this idea of overmuch religion — outside of my own College, and some few directly or indirectly connected with it, 194 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. as before mentioned — have never heard the confession of a lay man or a lay woman in the whole Diocese of Wis- consin ? Nay, under whatever circumstances I have been thrown in a ministry of nearly 20 years, outside of the same limits, I have not heard the confessions of more than twenty persons, clerical and lay, in this whole land. The average of one a year may be surely sufficiently exceptional. " My brethren, I see before me the mighty work the Church of God might do. I hear the cries of pain and anguish that go up to Heaven. This terrible record of crime and misery, this story of lost and ruined souls we do not save, rends my heart. I know that the chief dangers of the day do not He in too many confessions, or overwrought devotion, or too high an appreciation of the Sacraments of the Church. They are rather to be found in unbelief and sin, in corruption and dis- honour, in covetousness, lust and irreverence, in inac- tion, and stagnation, and quaking timidity, and ye all know it ! " But from such thoughts as these, from all that has passed in these sad days, from a bitterness I have not deserved, nay, even from these warm hearts whose human sympathy has sustained me in this, my time of trial, I turn myself away. I lift my heart to Him on Whose Almighty Arm I lean, and in Whose mighty power even my weakness is strong, and louder than the JAMES DEKOVEN. 195 din of angry words, nay, because of the prayers that so many have lovingly prayed, I hear the gracious promise: " ' Commit thy way unto the Lord, and He will bring it to pass.' " ' He will make thy righteousness as clear as the light, and thy just dealing as the noon day.' " * Balloting took place in the evening, the clergy voting first. On the first ballot, 35 votes were necessary for a choice, and Dr. DeKoven and Dr. Hoffman each received 32. On the fourth ballot, the clergy elected Dr. DeKoven by a vote of 35, to 33 cast for Dr. Hoffman. The roll of parishes was then called for the lay vote. Fifteen parishes voted to approve, 31 to disapprove, and 5 were divided. So the laity refused to elect James DeKoven as Bishop of Wisconsin. This practically ended the special session of the council and the question of the election of a Bishop went over to the next regular council, which met in June. *The quotations from Dr. DeKoven's speech are, for the most part, taken from his " Theological Defense," which com- prised his remarks afterward reduced to writing by himself. A stenographic report of the speech, as originally delivered, appears in the Sentinel of next day, and differs in no material respect from its written and published form. 196 BOmS AMERICAN OHUECHMEN. The war was now carried on by means of pamphlets. Dr. DeKoven's "Theological De- fense," his remarks in the council, was pub- lished, with the document " Principles, not Men," as an appendix. The Rev. Dr. Egar published a defense of himself and of his views, under the title of "The Eucharistic Contro- versy and the Episcopate of Wisconsin" — a lengthy pamphlet of 84 pages. Dr. DeKoven's defense was further examined by the Rev. Samuel Buel, D. D., a professor in the Gen- eral Theological Seminary of New York, in a bulky theological treatise entitled "Euchar- istic Presence, Eucharistic Sacrifice, and Eu- charistic Adoration : being an Examination of 'A Theological Defense,' etc." The Rev. Dr. Adams published "Three Letters upon the Confessional, to James DeKoven, D. D., with the Resolutions of the Faculty of Nashotah, and a Speech upon Eucharistic Adoration, read before the Special Council, held in February, 1874. By William Adams, D. D." After these had all been circulated. Dr. DeKoven reviewed and demolished them all in a paper entitled "The Eucharistic Controversy," published in The Church and The World for October, 1874. JAMES DEKOVEN. 197 When the regular council met in June, ex- citement was still at a fever heat. Dr. DeKoven would not permit his friends to continue to vote for him. At a conference of those who had voted for him, Dr. DeKoven named three clergymen, any one of whom would be perfectly satisfactory to him as Bishop. These were the Rev. John Vaughan Lewis, D. D., the Rev. Wal- ter Ayrault, D. D., and the Rev. John Henry Hobart Brown. The names of the persons present were then called, for their votes. Dr. DeKoven voted for Dr. Ayrault, but a majority favored the Rev. J. H. Hobart Brown, rector of S. John's Church, Cohoes, New York — after- ward Bishop of Fond du Lac. Mr. Brown had shortly before received and declined an urgent call to the rectorship of S. James' Church, Mil- waukee, a parish whose rector and lay deputies were numbered among the opponents of De- Koven. It was believed, therefore, that Mr. Brown's candidacy would unite the discordant elements, and so the friends of Dr. DeKoven resolved to support him. The opponents of Dr. DeKoven also held a conference, at which they resolved to vote for 198 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. the Rev. Lewis A. Kemper, S. T. D., son of Bishop Kemper, a professor at Nashotah, and one of the signers of the document " Principles, not Men." When the hour for nominations came, the Rev. George M. Everhart, D. D., the same who had at the previous council nominated Dr. De- Koven, presented the name of the Rev. A. D. Cole, D. D., president of Nashotah, Dr. Falk, of Racine, seconding the nomination. Dr. Cole at once declined, and placed in nomination the Rev. Mr. Brown, as determined at the confer- ence. Four times, in the afternoon, did the clergy elect Mr. Brown, and the laity decline to con- firm the election. It became evident that the deadlock could not be broken without a mutual conference. Accordingly, at the opening of the evening session, Mr. J. P. McGregor, a deputy from Portage, and an opponent of DeKoven, with the knowledge and approbation of Dr. DeKoven and of his friends, as well as of the opposing party, moved — " That the special order of the day, namely, the elec- tion of a Bishop, be postponed, and that the Rev. Dr. JAMES DEKOVEN. 199 DeKoven and the Rev. Dr. Kemper each select two discreet presbyters and two laymen, to form, with them- selves, a Committee of Conference to agree upon a candi- date for Bishop."* This resolution was passed. Dr. DeKoven accordingly named the Rev. A. D. Cole, D. D., Rev. William Bliss Ashley, D. D., Mr. J. B. Doe, and Mr. J. A. Helfenstein. Dr. Kemper named the Rev. William Adams, D. D., Rev. Wm. P. TenBroeck, Mr. Angus Cameron, and Mr. D. Worthington. Late in the same evening, this Committee of Conference reported through the Rev. Dr. Ash- ley, that — "On motion of the Rev. Dr. DeKoven, seconded by the Rev. Dr. Kemper, it was unanimously "Resolved, That this Committee recommend the Rev. Edward R. Welles, D. D., for the episcopate of Wiscon- sin."t Speeches of nomination of Dr. Welles were then made by Dr. DeKoven and Dr. Kemper. The ballot was taken, and 69 out of the 72 votes of the clergy were cast for Dr. Welles. Of the laity, every one of the 54 parishes repre- sented, voted to approve. The election was ♦Journal, Diocese of Wisconsin, 1874, page 23. 200 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. then made unanimous, and the whole council united in singing the Gloria in Excelsis. Seldom has the finger of the Holy Ghost been more plainly visible than in the result of this council. The deliberations were not marked by a Grod-like spirit throughout ; they were painfully lacking in reverence, even in courtesy. But the overruling power of the Holy Ghost, who " presided in the councils of the Apostles," worked even through such a dis- cordant element, and the result was Wiscon- sin's third Bishop. Bishop Welles could not be called a great man. He was neither an eloquent preacher, a profound scholar, nor a great organizer. His was the power that comes from an inward purity of character ; from a sole desire to do the work of his Master upon earth. His first few years in the diocese were spent in simply picking up the diverse threads of its affairs. When he had fully mastered every situation, he threw himself heartily into the work of the Cathedral — Bishop Armitage's special legacy to his successor — and made that work his own. Frequent as were the calls on Dr. DeKoven JAMES DeKOVEN. 201 for work in the Church at large, special ser- mons, papers, advice on an infinite variety of subjects, service at General Convention and on general Church commissions, with the daily round of duty at Racine College, no one was more attached to his Bishop and the work of the diocese, than was James DeKoven. He was perhaps the chiefest and most trusted ■counsellor and adviser of Bishop Welles. Before the opening of the General Conven- tion of 1874, several events had transpired to make that a session of unusual importance. During the years 1873 and 1874 a movement had been made by a few of the more radical of the Low-Church party, to secede from the Church and found a separate organization to be known as the ''Reformed Episcopal Church.'' The Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, Dr. Cum- mins, and the rector of Christ Church, Chicago, Mr. Cheney, were the leaders of the movement — indeed, the only influential persons involved in it. A sectarian organization had been effected, on the basis nominally of the " Pro- posed Prayer Book " of 1785. The sect denied the doctrines of Baptismal Regenei'ation, of 202 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. the Apostolical Succession, of Sacramental Grace, of the Presence of Christ in the Euchar- ist, and several others of the tenets of the Church. Worse even than these denials, per- haps, the sin of schism was committed, and the members of the sect abandoned the communion of the Church. Bishop Cummins was deposed by the Presiding Bishop (Smith) who, being Bishop of Kentucky, wa,s also his diocesan. Mr. Cheney was deposed in Illinois. When General Convention met, in October, 1874, much apprehension was felt as to the possible extent of this movement. The failure of previous conventions to enact laws to sup- press Ritualism, the alleged Ritualistic prac- tices of DeKoven and Racine College — a charge utterly without foundation — and the strength of the Ritualistic party, as shown in the Mas- sachusetts and Wisconsin elections, were among the reasons assigned for the secession. The seceders were very hopeful, and made loud claims. The great Low-Church dioceses of Yir- ginia and Ohio were expected by them to with- draw bodily from the American Church and join the new sect. Pennsylvania, Kentucky JAMES DEKOVEN. 203 and the South were expected to send large numbers of adherents. In fact, they believed that ultimately the whole Low-Church party would go with them. Accordingly, the deputies in 1874 went to General Convention in New York with the profound conviction that " something must be done." Something — anything. DeKoven must be put down! Ritualism must be crushed out! The first chance came early in the session. Bishop Whitehouse had died in the preceding August and the convention of the Diocese of Illinois had elected as their Bishop, the Rev. George Franklin Seymour, D. D., Dean of the General Theological Seminary. The election had occurred only a few days before General Convention met. The testimonials of the new Bishop-elect were presented in the House of Deputies on the second day of the session. Dr. Seymour was a classmate of Dr. De- Koven, and had always been his staunch friend. He was believed, rightly, to hold to the same be- liefs that DeKoven held. To elect him Bishop in Illinois, was to indorse DeKoven, it was said. Accordingly, word was passed around that Dr. Seymour's election must not be confirmed. 204 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. For eight days the debate was carried on in secret session. Dr. DeKoven did not speak, yielding to the persuasions of his friends, who believed that his advocacy would hurt rather than help the cause. The result was defeat. The House declined to confirm Dr. Seymour's election, and thus a sop had been thrown to Reformed Episcopalianism and a blow given to DeKoven. It was a blow which he felt keenly, as it was without doubt his close friendship with Dr. Seymour that led to the defeat of the latter. Dr. AVelles, Bishop-elect of Wisconsin, a man of entire agreement theologically with DeKoven and Seymour, was confirmed unani- mously on the motion of a deputy from Vir- ginia. That the defeat was intended to be per- sonal to DeKoven, was evident. That it was in the nature of a panic, is shown by the fact that Dr. Seymour himself was consecrated Bishop of Springfield less than four years later — an office that he still fills with great ability, and nobody has been "driven to Rome" in consequence. The subject of Ritualism came before the General Convention in the shape of a number JAMES DEKOVEN. 205 of memorials from dioceses praying that some restrictive action would be taken to " stamp it out." An elaborate report from the Committee on Canons, included a proposed canon which prohibited the use of incense and crucifixes and certain acts of adoration of "the elements in the Holy Communion." That some action would be taken was evident. Men had come to convention resolved to stamp out "Ritualism" at any cost. Dr. DeKoven's speech was one of great elo- quence. On the question of the prohibition of incense he said : " Are we to understand that incease, symbolizing the pure Eucharistic oifering, symbolizes false doctrine? Or again — and this is something more awful — when Aaron stood between the dead and the living with the censer in his hands, and the smoke of the incense was wafted to heaven, the people were saved ; what did he typify but that Eternal Son of God Who alone stands between the dead and the living, and Whose mediation for the souls of men forever ascends to the right hand of God ? And that ascending incense symbolized the atoning Sacrifice and the everlasting Mediation. And is this Church, then, prepared to say that the eternal Mediation and the awful atoning Sacrifice are false doc- 206 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. trines ? Or, when the priest, on the great Day of Atone- ment, went before the Mercy Seat, and clouda of incense covered it, typifying the ceaseless intercession of the Son of God, is this Church prepared to say that such a use of incense sytnbolized/aisedocirmes? But this canon, if it be passed as it stands, makes it so." Of Eucharistic Adoration, he said : " You may take away from us, if you will, every external ceremony. You may take away altars, super- altars, and lights, and incense, and vestments. You may take away every possible ceremony, and you may command us to celebrate at the altar of God without any external symbolism whatever. You may give us the most barren of all observances, and we will submit to you. If this Church commands us to have no cer- emonies, we will obey. But, gentlemen, the very mo- ment any one says we shall not adore our Lord present in the Eucharist, then from a thousand hearts will come the answer, 'Let me die in my own country, and be buried by the grave of my father and my mother !' For to adore Christ's Person in His Sacrament, that is the inalienable privilege of every Christian and Catholic heart. Hmo we do it, the way we do it, the ceremonies with which we do it, are utterly, utterly indifferent. The thing itsdf is what we plead for, and I know I should not plead to unkind or unfeeling hearts." His final appeal was a wonderful outburst of eloquence : JAMES DEKOVEN. 207 " Mr. Presid ent, we live in troublous limes, and around us are all sorts of terrible questions. It does seem to me the day is not now to legislate on nice points of doctrine, or to prescribe exactly the measure of a genu- flexion, or the angle of inclination which can express an orthodox devotion. The answer to all this panic and ■all this outcry is one and one only: It is work — work for the cause of Christ ; work for the souls of men ; a fuller, deeper, more noble sense of the obligation of the Church, developing its powers and sending it forth to mould and form this nation of ours, and to give new life and vigor to every effort it makes for the salvation •of men. I see the storm-cloud gathering. I see the lightnings flash. I hear the thunder roll afar. I hear the trumpet call. In my ears the bugle-blast is ringing. And I call you, brethren, in a time like this, not to nar- row-hearted legislation, but to broad. Catholic, tolerant ■charity, and to work, as men never worked before, for the souls of those for whom the Saviour died." * The canon passed ; but not until all ref- erence to incense and crucifixes had been omitted. That the canon, as it stands, is unconstitu- tional, almost no one doubts. No priest was ever condemned under it, no one ever disturbed * Debates in General Convention, 1874. 208 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. in his devotions by its provisions. The canon was passed as a result of the scare of the mo- ment. It is as dead to-day as though it had been wiped out of the statute book. The refusal of the House of Deputies of General Convention to consent to the consecra- tion of Dr. Seymour, caused much disappoint- ment in Illinois. A special convention was held in February, 1875, to consider the next step. Dr. Seymour wisely refused to permit, his name to be again used. The convention adopted strong resolutions of protest against the refusal of the House of Deputies, declared their warm indorsement of Dr. Seymour, and proceeded to elect Dr. DeKoven to the Bish- opric. When a Bishop is elected during the recess of General Convention, the testimonials are first laid before the Standing Committee of each diocese in the country. If approved by a ma- jority of these, the Bishops are then called on for their assent, before a Bishop may be con- secrated. A protest against his consecration was issued by a minority of the Illinois convention, who JAMES DEKOVEN. 209 represented that Dr. DeKoven was not sound in the Faith ; that his consecration in Illinois, the centre of the Reformed Episcopal move- ment, would greatly strengthen that move- ment ; and that certain technical flaws in the election presented grave doubts as to its validity. The election of Dr. DeKoven, after Dr. Sey- mour had been rejected, was considered by his enemies outside of Illinois to be a sublime act of insolence on the part of that diocese. Had not " Ritualism "been condemned ? Why did it not die ? The contest was waged very sharply, and the result was long in doubt. At length it became evident that DeKoven would be rejected by the Standing Committees. The choice of the Diocese of Illinois was again refused, not by Bishops, but by the representatives of the clergy and laity. In order to save the diocese from embarrassment. Dr. DeKoven at length recalled his acceptance of his election, which had of course been contingent on the election being confirmed by the Church at large. His letter contained a lengthy and calm statement of his position in reply to the doctrinal objec- tions raised against him. 210 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. The result was that when the Illinois Con- vention again met, on September 14th and 15th, the Rev. W. E. McLaren, D. D., was elected to the episcopate. Dr. McLaren had been in orders but little more than three years, having previously been a Presbyterian minister. He was at the time of his election rector of Trinity Church, Cleve- land, one of the oldest parishes in the Diocese of Ohio, which at that time was under the in- fluence of the extreme Low-Church wing, and the deputation from which had been among the most bitter opponents of Dr. DeKoven in General Convention. Dr. McLaren, however, was sound in the Faith, and, theologically, dif- fered little, if any, from Drs. DeKoven and Sey- mour. For all these reasons, it was felt that his election would not only be confirmed, but would also tend to unify the warring elements in Illinois. The result has been as had been anticipated. Dr. McLaren's election was confirmed without serious opposition, and the threatened danger of schism, of which so much had been said, was averted. JAMES DEKOVEN. 211 So the Church passed through those troub- lous years with the secession of only a mere handful to the Reformed Episcopal schism. Whether the defeat of the canon on Ritualism and the consecration of Dr. Seymour or of Dr. DeKoven to the episcopate, would have in- creased the number of perverts, may well be doubted. But many true Churchmen at the time believed that the Church was in great danger, both from Ritualism and from the new schism. That the first was not the danger it was generally believed to be, is now admitted on all sides. The greatest champions of the Anglican position as opposed to that of Rome, have been the very men in the front of the Ritualistic (more properly styled the Catholic) movement. Of these, none has been more useful, than Bishop Seymour himself.* The panic that had passed over the Church now began to lessen. Men began to perceive the intense loyalty of the Catholic school, and educated persons no longer spoke of its adher- ents as " Romanizers." The popular craze * See Bishop Seymour's "What is Modern Romanism ? ' 212 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. against Ritualism subsided. Other matters now occupied the attention of the Church. One such matter that began now to receive serious attention, was the name of the Amer- ican branch of the Church Catholic. The name " Protestant Episcopal " is open to very serious objections. The word Protest- ant is popularly supposed to mean not Catholic. In that sense, it is untrue as applied to the Church. It is undignified, as perpetuating the memory of the unhappy quarrel with Rome, which, far-reaching as are the results of that quarrel, hardly need to be incorporated in the very name of the Church. It breaks the con- tinuity of the Church's title by introducing into it a new proposition — and one merely neg- ative at that — after fifteen hundred years of the Church's work. Imagine S. Paul or S. John, S. Polycarp, S. Athanasius or S. Augus- tine, posing as Protestant Episcopalians! It is Bomish, as apparently admitting the Romish claims, that the communion of Rome is the only Catholic Church, and that all who are not Eomanists are not Catholics. Let Rome call herself Protestant where she disagrees with us. JAMES DBKOVEN. 213 Let her protest against what she conceives to be error in us. But let us stand upon the dig- nified platform of •positive Catholic truth, and let those who dissent from our Catholicity, protest if they will. To be sure, the name of the Church cannot affect or alter her identity. The Church is as truly Catholic as though she proclaimed it in her legal title. Mr. Little well says in his admirable "Reasons for Being a Churchman": " We might call overselves The Prayer-Bookers, or The Anti-Atheistic Ecclesiastical Church Militant here upon Earth, as a civil designation. It would, of course, be disrespectful to our Holy Mother ; but we would none the less continue to be the Catholic Church in the United States of America." * Bishop Welles, of Wisconsin, alluded to the subject in his conciliar address in 1877 — proba- bly the first to take oflBcial notice of it. He said, after suggesting a change of name : " Some of the wisest Bishops of old dioceses, who desire a return to a simpler style of nomenclature, as 'The Church in the United States of America,' will undoubtedly move in this matter, and I think it would * Little's " Reasons for Being a Churchman," page 176. 214 SOME AMERICAN CHUEOHMEN. be well for our own diocese, for such I think is the mind of the diocese, to put herself on record as favor- ing such a movement, leaving the details of the plan to be shaped by the wisdom of the General Convention." * The matter was brought before the council by the Rev. E. R. Ward, one ot the Cathedral staff, and a clergyman of more than usual erudition and ability. Mr. Ward offered the following : " Where AS, The American Branch of the Holy Church Universal includes within her membership, all baptized persons in this land ; and " Whereas, The various bodies of professing Chris- tians, owing to her first legal title, do not realize that the Church known in law as the Protestant Episcopal Church, is in very deed and truth, the American Branch of the One Catholic Church of God ; therefore be it " Resolved, That the Diocese of Wisconsin, sympathiz- ing with the efforts being made to remove the words ' Protestant Episcopal ' from the legal title of the Church, do request its deputies to the General Convention, to aid any and all efi^orts looking towards the restoration of her Catholic and Apostolic title as the Church in America." t * Journal of the Diocese of Wisconsin, 1877, page 35. •fJJj'd, page XXV. JAMES DEKOVEN. 215 There was some discussion on the matter, and the resolution passed finally took the fol- lowing shape, drawn up by Dr. DeKoven him- self: " Resolved, That the deputies to General Convention from this diocese be requested to ask of the General Convention the appointment of a Constitutional Com- mission, to which the question of a change in the legal title of the Church, as well as similar questions, may be referred." * The General Convention of 1877 met in Bos- ton, and was marked by less bitter controversy and a more friendly spirit, than any that had been held for many years. The past, however, had not been forgotten. New York had responded to Dr. Seymour's former defeat, by electing him as one of the deputies from that diocese. Dr. DeKoven sat, as previously, in the Wisconsin delegation. His clerical colleagues were Drs. Cole and Adams, of Nashotah, and Dr. John Fulton, rector of S. Paul's Church, Milwaukee, who had recently come into the diocese, and who had sat in the General Convention of 1874 as a *Ibid, page xxv. 216 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. deputy from Alabama. At the organization of the house, the Rev. Alexander Burgess, D. D., of Massachusetts, was elected president, and the Rev. Charles L. Hutchins, of the same dio- cese, secretary. Dr. Burgess was the one who had nominated Dr. DeKoven for the Bishopric of Massachusetts, in 1873, and Mr. Hutchins had been one of his supporters in the same election. It was clear, that Dr. DeKoven and Dr. Sey- mour were vindicated. On the third day of the session. Dr. De- Koven presented the Wisconsin resolutions relating to a Constitutional Commission and the change of name, and moved their reference to the appropriate committee — the usual course taken on matters presented as memorials from dioceses. So great was the opposition that even the courtesy of referring the matter to a com- mittee would have been refused by some ; but a better sentiment prevailed, and the resolutions were referred. The great debate was on the twelfth day of the session. The committee had reported that the appointment of a Constitutional Commis- sion was inexpedient. A lay deputy from New JAMES DeKOVEN. 217 York (the Hon. Hamilton Fish, LL. D.), who spoke in behalf of the committee, summarized the convictions of the committee in the follow- ing terse paragraph : " Of the two subjects (a change of name and a Con- stitutional Commission), I think the one is as much too late as the other is too early. It is too late, sir, for this Church to undertake to change the name of ' Protestant Episcopal.' (Applause.) That name came to us before our Constitution came. It was inherited. It is inher- ent. It is fixed in the hearts of the people of thin Church. Sir, if we are not Protestant, we are nothing. It is too late, therefore, to consider that question of change. Whatever might have been expedient at the first, we cannot now turn the dial backward."* In 1886, only nine years later, a resolution to expunge the words " Protestant Episcopal " from the title-page of the Prayer Book, obtain- ed a vote of nearly two-thirds of the clergy, but failed by non-concurrence of the laity. Had the dial begun to turn backward ? f * The Ghurchman, Daily Edition, 1877, page .139. f The last test vote on the subject, was that talien in 1886. In 1892, a lay deputy from the Diocese of Milwaukee, moved a similar resolution ; but it was hampered by a constitutional ques- tion as to the legality of a change in the title page by the actiou of one convention, and so the vote was in no sense a test on the subject matter of the resolution. 218 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Dr. DeKoven's remarks in favor of a Consti- tutional Commission to adjust some of the ine- qualities of the Constitution, were very lengthy and were characterized by his usual ability. Twice was his time unanimously extended. Only once did he refer to the change of name, and that briefly: " I hope that we may call ourselves ' Protestant Episcopal ' just so long as it actually represents our condition. Let us be true, whatever else we are. It may be in accordance with our state of mind to give a name to our Church which represents one feature in our manifold organization, and which represents one feature alone. It may suit our present condition to describe ourselves by that process whereby, in the course of its history, the Anglican Church washed its face ! That may suit our present condition ; but I believe that the day will come when this Church will demand, not that an accident of its organization should represent it to the world, but that its immortal lineage, which dates back to the time of our Saviour's sending the Holy Ghost upon His Church, shall truly represent it."* The final vote on the change of name was on the resolution reported by the committee: * Ibid, page 127. JAMES DBKOVEN. 219 '^Resolved, That no change be made in the name of this Church, as used in the Constitution." The roll of dioceses is always called alpha- betically to record a vote by orders. When, in this case, Alabama was called at the head of the roll, three clergy voted aye, and one, the Rev. George H. Hunt, voted nay. All through the rest of the long roll not another negative vote was cast until Wisconsin was reached , at the foot of the list, when Dr. DeKoven and Dr. Cole voted nay. Dr. Fulton voted aye, and Dr. Adams was not present when the vote was taken. Not a single layman voted against the committee's resolution, though Mr. Judd, of Il- linois, explained that he favored the main prin- ciple, but was opposed to change at the present, time. He need not have hesitated to vote ac- cording to his principles — the change would not then be made ! Dr. DeKoven's staunchest. friends forsook him at the vote. Even Dr^ Seymour, who had been so closely associated with DeKoven in the popular mind, voted nay. So did his associates in the New Tork delega- tion, Drs. Dix and Cady. So did the Hlinois delegation, who had been so indignant at the 220 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. rejection of DeKoven when elected as their Bishop — Drs. Chase, Harris, Locke and Leffing- well. So did the Massachusetts delegation, part of whom had tried so hard to elect Der Xoven in Massachusetts, including Dr. Burgess, who had nominated DeKoven for Bishop, and had been elected President of the House of Deputies as DeKoven's friend. So did every one else, who believed in the change— or was ■supposed to — as thoroughly as did DeKoven. Only Dr. Cole was excepted — brave, sturdy, grand Dr. Cole ! Wisconsin made a grand con- fession in General Convention that day. It was establishing a principle in the face of al- most unanimous opposition. Honor be to the clerical deputy from Alabama who voted nay at the start ! Perhaps he voted so because he believed it to be right, and did not know that others would vote on expediency! Defeated again ! Defeated almost unani- mously ! But DeKoven's strength was not in his immediate successes. He was pre-emi- nently a leader. If others did not follow, it did not cause him to draw back. He was twenty years ahead of his colleagues. Some have not yet caught up. JAMES DEKOVEN. 221 Other matters of legislation in which Dr. DeKoven was especially interested at this time, were a canon on Sisterhoods, which, though nominally intended to help them, really cast upon them such restrictions as to be a great hindrance ; and permission to use the new English lectionary for three years, on trial. The former was killed, as he desired it should be, and the latter was adopted nearly unani- mously. On the whole, the spirit of the General Con- vention of 1877 was very good indeed. It was the last one that DeKoven ever attended. His friend, the late Dr. John Henry Hopkins, says of him at this time : " In walking from our hospitable quarters to General Convention he would take my arm, and now and then, notwithstanding his smiling face and cheerful talk, I felt an uncontrollable nervous twitch in his arm. On speaking to him about it he said he could not help it ; and then, in language I can never forget, he said that no one could realize the weight of the burden that was perpetually upon his mind and heart and conscience. The entire work of Racine College rested upon him — educational, religious, disciplinary and financial. And besides this was the share he had been driven to take 222 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. in the affairs of the diocese and the general controver- sies of the Church. ' God alone knows,' said he, ' how long I shall be able to stand it !' It was not long ; this was his last General Convention ; but when, at last, the cord of life, so long overstrained, snapped in an instant, J, at least, was not surprised."* We are approaching now to the last days of our saint and hero. His fame was now second to none in the whole American Church. He had declined a call to important work in Trin- ity parish, New York; to the rectorship of the Church of the Advent, Boston; to the first par- ish in Cincinnati, and, only the day before his death, he wrote a letter declining a call to S. Mark's Church, Philadelphia. His last diocesan or general work was at the Wisconsin council of 1878, which was post- poned until November by reason of Bishop Welles' absence from the country, enforced by ill health. The diocese of Wisconsin was suffering from a violent controversy in its midst, over the establishment of the Cathedral. We have * In a series of short Reminiscences of DeKoven, published in the Nashotah Scholiast in 1885, page 151. JAMES DEKOVEN. 228 already seeu that the first action toward secur- ing a Cathedral for the diocese, had been taken in the latter years of the administration of Bishop Kemper.* It was Bishop Armitage, however, who commenced the active work of developing the Cathedral, and who purchased the present Cathedral structure. On Bishop Welles' succession to the episcopate, he had, after learning by observation all that the movement meant, thrown himself actively into the Cathedral work. The matter had sev- eral times been warmly discussed at the coun- cil, but there had been no legislation on the subject. The administration of the Cathedral had been entrusted by the Bishop, under his own direction, to the Rev. Erastus W. Spald- ing, D. D., an able canonist, organizer and administrator, afterward its first Dean. The opposition to this movement was intense, par- ticularly on the part of the old established parishes in Milwaukee. Time has shown that the contention against the Cathedral as tend- ing to infringe on the rights of parishes, was unfounded ; but at the time of which we speak, there was a very bitter feeling. * See page 120. 224 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. During the Bishop's absence, a pamphlet was circulated bearing the signatures of the lay deputies to the council from three parishes in Milwaukee, addressed to their several rectors, enquiring their views as to the cathedral. In reply to this, was issued by the rectors of the same parishes, a pamphlet bearing the title of " The See Principle and the Cathedral Church in the Diocese of Wisconsin." This document arraigned the whole Cathedral movement and its supporters, chief of whom was the Bishop, in the strongest terms. Bishop Welles was essentially a man of peace. His was not the forte of a controver- sialist. The attack on his work, which he could but feel to be an attack upon himself, coming as the culmination of a conflict of several years, was a heavy blow which his sensitive nature felt bitterly. He declined, however, to make any reply in person, though he considered the Cathedral movement very fully in his annual address to the council of that year. It was then that Dr. DeKoven performed his last public work. With the knowledge and approval of the Bishop,* DeKoven took the *See Burleson's Memoir of Bishop Welles, page xlii. JAMES DEKOVEN. 225 floor and defended the Bishop completely from the attack against him. Says Mr. Burleson of this speech of DeKoven's : "It was an unsparing exposure of misquotations from history, misconceptions of primitive usage, and malicious subtlety in logical deduction, contained in the pamphlet. It defended the Bishop against the charge of the diversion of means from the missionary staff, and enumerated and sustained the principle that a Cathedral church, in its inception and work, mu3t be to the fullest extent diocesan in its character, and not merely urban or local."* It was a great strain on Dr. DeKoven, for his work was nearly at an end. " On the morning of the 2l8t," continues Mr. Burle- son, " he (DeKoven) rapped at the door of the Bishop's sleeping room t and asked permission to enter. Tlie Bishop, who had not yet arisen, gave the permission. The Doctor entered and said : ' Bishop, I did not close my eyes last night. This strain and worry is more than I am able to bear. I must go home. I do not believe that I shall be able to come to a council again.' The words seemed almost prophetic, for before the next *Ibid. t Bishop Welles lived simply at the Cathedral clergy house, occupying a single room, as did the other Cathedral clergy. 226 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. council he was, in the words which he used concerning Bishop Armitage, in answer to the Rectors' pamphlet, 'at rest, where the Church is no longer militant; in Paradise there are no parishes, and only one cathedral, which needs no candle, neither light of the sun, because of the resplendent radiance of the Lamb without spot or blemish.' "* During the winter following, Dr. DeKoven ap- peared to be regaining his health, and it seemed as though he would be restored to his former use- fulness ; but an accident occurred to him while in Milwaukee, late in the winter. He slipped and fell, on an icy sidewalk on Cass street, breaking his leg. It was a serious matter. He was removed, after a little, to his home in Ra- cine, but only to die. On the 19th day of March, 1879, he breathed his last. Truly, the Church Militant mourned her most powerful champion! On the 22d he was laid to rest, in the shadow of the chapel of the college he so dearly loved. A driving snowstorm did not prevent the at- tendance of many friends, whose grief was as though they had lost a family friend. There were three celebrations of the Holy Communion, *Ibid, page xliii. JAMES DEKOVEN. 227 at the last of which Bishop Welles was cele- brant, making of it a solemn requiem service. The funeral service was read at eleven o'clock. Eight Bishops, a large number of other clergy and of the laity, a committee of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, the Mayor and City Council of Racine, and " his boys," the students of the college, were among those gathered to- gether. Never before or since, perhaps, in all the history of the American Church, was such a concourse gathered at the burial of a priest. His death attracted wide notice. The State Legislature of Illinois adopted resolutions of mourning and sent a committee to attend the funeral. Similar resolutions were adopted by the Wisconsin Legislature. Seldom in America did a political body ever take action on the death of a clergyman who lived in the same State. Never before, it is believed, did such a body take such action for a clergyman resident in another State. In Hacine, the day was made one of public mourning by proclamation of the Mayor. So was James DeKoven esteemed by his fellow citizens. A memorial service was held at All Saints' ■ 228 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Cathedral, Milwaukee — the same Cathedral which he had so strongly defended so shortly before — during the session of the council of 1879, in June. The preacher was the Rev. Fayette Durlin. From the remarkable sermon then preached, we extract the following :* " But we do not need his learning and his eloquence nearly so much as we need him — the ennobling, elevat- ing, inspiring influence of his personality — his living, speaking, loving presence. Oh ! we are bereaved indeed in the loss of this, for where shall we look for its like ? Who can fill this great void? " Yes, but remember we did not know him, never should have known him, excepting for his defeat, and defeat, and defeat. The world in its blindness would not, could not, cannot let such a mai alone. He is sure to be assailed on all sides and with all the weapons of its savage warfare. Oh ! how the blind giant will rage against the unresisting meekness, and purity, and love, and holiness of such an one ! He won a great victory, and he won it as all the saints have and must, by and through the world's victory over them. " But, you say, the world had no quarrel with James DeKoven, did not oppose him, did not fight against him, did not defeat him ; the Church did that. He suffered * The sermon was printed in the Nashotah Scholiast for July and August, 1885. JAMES DEKOVEN. 229 in the house of his friends. Yes, but the weapons that were used against him, were the weapons of this world. They were forged in its fires, sharpened on its files, and wielded with the strength of its own vindictiveness." ********** Seven years passed by. In 1886, the General Convention met in Chicago, the first time it had ever gathered in the West. On the 16th of Oc- tober, that august body made a special visit to Eacine College, by invitation of the warden, the Rev. Albert Zabrislde Gray, S. T. D. Eighteen Bishops and a large number of clerical and lay deputies, many of them accompanied by their wives, made up the party. One could not fail to compare the gathering, at the life-work and the tomb of DeKoven, with that at shrines of old, to which saintly pilgrims journeyed to offer their prayers. Said Dr. Gray, in welcoming the guests : " And lastly, there is another welcome — let me speak it with bowed head and reverent breath. I welcome you in the name of him beneath whose portrait I stand ; in the name of one who loved you all and the dear Church which you represent ; in the name of one who labored with you, as he labored for us, and died in the holy cause of Catholic education; in the name of one whose 230 SOME AMERICAN CHUECHMEN. remains sleep in peace beneath the shadow of our chan- cel ; in the sainted name of James DeKoven, I welcome you to his loved Racine." The Bishop of New Jersey (Scarborough) said, in replying : "There are two shrines — one on this side, one on the other side of the water — which always appeal to the hearts of Churchmen. One is the shrine of John Keble, in England; and the other is the shrine of James De- Koven, in America." (Applause.) The Mayor of Racine, the Hon. James R. Doolittle, also referred to DeKoven, in these words : " I have lived by the side of this institution when it was under the control and direction of Dr. DeKoven, that man most extraordinary among all teachers (ap- plause), having a power over young men which I have never seen equalled by any professor, in my life." It was a wonderful scene to one who remem- bered the past — the General Convention doing homage to DeKoven, and gathering around his tomb. Ask, if you will, where was DeKoven's secret power, that such things were come to pass ? ********* JAMES DbKOVEN. 231 Six years more passed by. In 1892, the sec- ond successor of Bishop Welles in the episco- pate of Wisconsin, the Et. Rev. I. L. Nicholson, S. T. D., in his annual address to the council, speaking in the hall adjoining the Cathedral, in Milwaukee, the same Cathedral in which, eight- een years before, DeKoven had stood to make his immortal defense, and yet had been de- feated, said : "Once James DeKoven was thought, in the judg- ment of a certain council of this diocese, not fit to be a Bishop in the Church of God. Perhaps no more pain- ful wound was ever inflicted upon a great and wonder- ful and almost majestic soul. Ail the more remarkable was that action, when since that day, three men, all of lesser light and smaller influence, but all following exactly in the same theological lines of DeKoven, have been elected and have been counted as fit ! One of them speaks to you this moment, feeling himself to be bo infinitely beneath the standard of that great master in Israel — one who feels himself as not fit even to unloose the latchet of DeKoven's shoes I Yet — it seems almost a marvel — you now call him fit, and welcome him to your midst as your leader and Bishop ! Surely, the less longs to be blessed of the greater ! And I do not know of any higher privilege, any loftier pleasure, that can fall to me in my future work in this diocese of 232 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. Milwaukee, than that which now comes to me, to speak again, and speak aloud, for Racine College ; and plead for its restoration, even for its permanent endowment. Let us work for this end, and make our reparations, around DeKoven's tomb, for the deed that once was wrongly done. I doubt not, some blight came upon this diocese, because of that madly partisan deed — and the blight is only now recovering. We will together make our reparations, and hope and pray some day to see DeKoven's great Memorial where it should be, where his large soul and prophetic eye saw it to be, the great Church University in our teeming Northwest." And what more ? He, the greatest of Amer- ican Churchmen, lies beneath the shadow of the chapel of the college that was to him so dear. But if you would see his memorial, look upon the Church to-day. See the new life in her, everywhere. See the increased reverence in services, the more frequent celebrations of the Holy Eucharist everywhere, and behold the vindication of DeKoven, as he stood like ada- mant in 1871 and 1874. See the Church in Wis- consin and in Hlinois, grand in her own true conception of her Catholicity, and behold De- Koven vindicated by time, as he stood when in JAMES DEKOVEN. 233 the Cathedral of Milwaukee he defended himself in 1874, and again to the Churchmen of Illinois, hy letter, when he had been rejected, in 1875. See the increased vote to discard the shameful note of protestantism from the Church's name ; and then see the apologetic report on the same subject, and the large vote favoring the change, in 1886, and behold DeKoven vindicated, as, al- most alone, with a practically unanimous vote against him, he stood in 1877. See the episco- pate of Milwaukee, crowned with its present leader in sound Catholic Churchmanship, and its Cathedral, the centre from which the Cath- olic idea of true worship is exemplified, and be- hold DeKoven vindicated, as he stood in 1S79 and defended his Bishop and his Bishop's Cathe- dral against the malignant assaults of men who would have wrecked both. Scan all these signs of the times, and answer the question, ivas De- Koven defeated ? Or was his defeat but the first skirmish in the great battle which was to come? Saints are not developed in a day. It takes a lifetime of fashioning in God's moulds, to form the saintly character. Neither does the close 234 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. view of men reveal true sanctity. It is like a grand, large painting in oil, which requires some distance in which to behold it in the true rela- tion of its parts. More truly, human sanctity is like a planet shining steadily in God's great firmament ; which, could we behold it at close range, would be but as the material organism of this earth ; but, viewed in the starry heavens from afar, it shines out with a brilliantly re- flected light from the sun. So the saintly life is not most perfectly viewed by those close to it, but by those who come after, and who behold it irradiated and encircled with a halo, from the immense splendour of the Sun of Righteousness Himself. Thus may it be truly said of James DeKoven, as it was said of a saint of old : "He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light." INDEX Persons Mentioned in this Book. Adams, Rev. Wm., D. D., 117, 139, 143, 144, 146, 155, 162, 183, 196, 199, 215, 319. Armitage, Bishop, 120, 131, 133, 173, 174, 175, 200, 233. Ashley, Lord, 95. Ashley, Rev. Wm. B., D. D., 177, 199. Atkinson, Bishop, 107. Ayrault, Rev. Walter, D. D., 197. Batterson, Rev. H. G., D. D., 47. Beers, Rev. H. W., D. D., 163. Berkeley, Bishop, 51. Bexley, Lord, 56, 63. Booth, " General," 137. Bowen, Bishop, 94. Bbeck, James Lloyd, 139-156, 158. Brown, Rt. Rev. J. H. H., D. D., 157, 197, 198. Brownell, Bishop, 65, 66, 100, 105. Brunot, Hon. Felix R., 100. Buel, Rev. Samuel, D. D., 196. Burgess, Rt. Rev. Alex., D. D., 173, 216, 220. Burgess, Rt. Rev. George, D. D., 83. Burleson, Rev. S. S., 325. Burnet, Bishop, 133. 235 236 INDEX OF PERSONS Butler, Bishop, 51. Byles, Matthew, 16, 17. Cadle, Rev. Richard P., 114, 141, 142, 144, 145. Cady, Rev. P. E., D. D., 319. CameroD, Hon. Angus, 199. Chase, Rt. Rev. Philander, D. D., 53-64, 96, 110, 153, 154, 156. Chase, Rev. Samuel, D. D., 61, 62, 220. Cheney, Rev. Mr., 301, 203. Claggett, Bishop, 19, 27, 39, 42. Clarkson, Bishop, 168. Clay, Heury, 56. Cole, Rev. A. D., D. D , 117, 152, 155, 158, 193, 198, 199, 215, 219, 230. Colenso, Bishop, 108. Columbus, Christopher, 156. Coxe, Bishop, 107. Croes, Bishop, 74. Croswell, Rev. Wm., D. D., 67, 74. Cummins, Bishop, 201, 202. DeKoven, Rev. James, D. D., 117, 125, 156, 157-234. DeLancey, Bishop, 91. Dix, Rev. Morgan, D. D., 219. Doane, George Hobart, 87. DoAUB, Rt. Rev. Gborojb W., 65-88, 89, 93, 95, 97, 156. Doane, Rt. Rev.W. C, D. D., 72. Doe, James B., 199. Doolittle, Hon. James R., 330. Duch6, Rev. Dr., 40. Durlin, Rev. Fayette, 338. Eastburn, Bishop, 173. Egar, Rev. John H., D. D., 182, 183, 196. Elliott, Rt. Rev. Stephen, D. D., 105. Bverhart, Rev. Geo. M., D. D , 177, 198. Falk, Rev. Alex., D. D., 177, 198. Pish, Hon. Hamilton, 217. Pulton, Rev. John, D. D., 315, 219. Gadsden, Bishop, 141. Gambler, Lord, 56. MENTIONED IN THIS BOOK. 237 Gardiner, Rev. Dr., 73. Gear, Rev. Mr., 147. Gray, Rev. Albert Z., D. D., 339. Griffith, Rev. David, 25, 26. Griswold, Bishop, 40, 62, 93, 94. Haff, Rev. P. R., 163. Haighl, Rev. BeDJ. I., D. D., 173. Hallam, Rev. Isaac, 118. Harris, Rt. Rev. S. S., D. D., 320. Helfenstein, Mr. J. A., 199. Henni, Bishop, 190. Hill, George, 115. Hoffman, Rev. B. A., D. D., 176, 195. Hook, Dean, 77, 78. HoBAET, Bishop, 28, 39-52, 55, 65, 66, 67, 69, 74, 90, 96, 109, 158. Hobart, Rev. J. H. 2d, 139, 141, 145, 146. Hodges, Rev. J. S. B., D. D., 157. Hopkins, Bishop, 75, 81, 89-108, 168. Hopkins, Rev. J. H., D. D. 2d, 221. Hull, Rev. Lemuel B., 144. Hunt, Rev. George H., 319. Hutchins, Rev. Charles L., 216. Ives, Bishop, 45. Jarvis, Bishop, 16, 39, 40. Jones, Rev. Cave, 41, 43. Judd, S. Corning, 219. Keble, Rev. John, 51, 74, 94, 230. Keene, Rev. David, D. D., 152. Kemper, Bishop, 62, 77, 91, 103, 106, 109-124, 126, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 158, 233. Kemper, Rev. Lewis A., D. D., 117, 176, 187, 198, 199. Ken, Bishop, 51. Kenyon, Lord, 56. Kerfoot, Bishop, 128, 141. Kilgour, Bishop, 15. Kip, Bishop, 151, 158. Knight, Bishop, 157. 238 INDEX OP PERSONS Lance, Rev. L. C, 157. Lay, Bishop, 107. Learning, Rev. Jere, D. D., 12. Lee, Bishop, 165. Lee, Genl. Robt. E., 104. Lefflngwell, Rev. C. W., D. D., 220. Lewis, Rev. J. V., D. D., 197. Lincoln, Abraham, 99, 156. Linn, Rev. Dr., 32. Little, Rev. A. W., 213. Locke, Rev. Clinton, D. D., 160, 220. Lowth, Bishop, 13. Madison, Bishop, 19, 27, 39. McConnell, Rev. S. D., D. D., 40. McCoskry, Bishop, 98, 102. McGregor, J. P., 198. Mcllvaine, Bishop, 58, 75, 83, 89, 93, 99, lOi, 103, 110. McLaren, Bishop, 210. Meade, Bishop, 88, 91. Merrick, Rev. Jno. Austin, 147. Miles, James "W., 139, 141. Moore, Archbishop, 27. Moore, Rt. Rev. Benj., D. D., 30, 37, 38, 39, 41, 45. Moore, Rt. Rev. R. C, D. D., 42. MuHLBKBBRG, Rev. W. A., D. D., 73, 125-138, 189, 140, 141, 153, 154, 187. Newman, John Henry, 94, 96, 129. Nicholson, Rt. Rev. I. L., S. T. D., 231. Norton, Rev. John N., D. D., 57. Onderdonk, Rt. Rev. B. T., D. D., 80, 81, 96, 140. Onderdonk, Rt. Rev. H. U., D. D., 69, 75, 81, 91, 92, 95, 109, 141, 142. Osbaldeston, Bishop, 10. Otey, Bishop, 45, 106, 111, 112, 143. Paddock, Rt. Rev. B. H., D. D., 173. Park, Rev. Roswell, D. D., 158, 159. Parke, Rev. Robt. N., 177, 178. Parker, Rev. 8amuel,.D. D., 16. MENTIONED IN THIS BOOK. 239 Parker, Rev. Stevens, D. D., 157. Petrie, Rt. Rev. Arthur, 15. Phillimore, Sir Robert, 108. Pinching, Rev. Mr., 112. Polk, Bishop, 105. Porter, Rev. Mr., 143. Potter, Rt. Rev. Alonzo, D. D., 65, 104. Provoost, Bishop, 18, 19, 36, 27, 30, 36, 37, 88, 39, 40, 41, 47. Pusey, Rev. E. B., D. D., 78, 94, 125, 129, 183. Richey, Rev. Thomas, D. D., 157. Rogers, Mrs. Mary A., 130. Rosse, Lady, 56, 62. Scarborough, Bishop, 230. Sbabtoy, Bishop, 9-20, 21, 22, 23,24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 51. Seymour, Bishop, 157, 203, 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 215, 216, 219. Seymour, Horatio, 99, 101. Sharp, Bishop, 15. Shelton, Rev. Dr., 143. Skinner, Bishop, 15. Smith, Bishop, 75, 89, 93, 103, 202. Smith, Rev. Geo. W., D. D., 59. Spalding, Rev. Edward B., 178. Spalding, Rev. Erastus W., D. D., 223. TenBroeck, Rev. Wm. P., 176, 199. Thomas, Bishop (of Lincoln), 10. Thompson, Rt. Rev. H. M., D. D., 117. Tillotson, Bishop, 40. TJpfold, Bishop, 66. VanBokkelen, Rev. Dr., 127. Vinton, Rev. A., D. D., 170. Warburton, Bishop, 51. Ward, Rev. B. R., 214. Washington, George, 11. Welles, Bishop, 199, 200, 201, 204, 213, 222, 333, 224, 335. Whipple, Bishop, 149. White, Bishop, 18, 19, 31-38, 29, 36,39, 40, 47, 90, 91, 93, 109, 126. Whitehouse, Bishop, 203. 240 INDEX OF PERSONS MENTIONED. Whittingham, Bishop, 81,99, 116, 140, 165. Wilcoxsen, Rev. Timothy, 147. Wilkinson, Rev. John, 187. Williams, Bleazer, 44. Williams, Rt. Rev. John, D. D., 157. Wilmer, Bishop, 107, 168. Wingfield, Bishop, 153. Worthington, D., 199. Young, Bishop, 168. S3C>^-j