The Council held at Milwaukee,
Feb. 11-12, will be memorable in the history of the American Church. The issue
involved brought out a large attendance of both clergy and laity, and the
proceedings were watched with interest by many outside our own pale.
THE NATURE OF
THE ISSUE.
The question to be decided was
neither more nor less than this: Shall the Diocese elect for her Bishop a
clergyman commonly regarded as having Romanizing tendencies? For some weeks it
had been apparent that there was a part willing to present and sustain a
candidate of this character. It is not meant by this that all who were induced
to join in the movement were aware of the exact views of the proposed
candidate, or that they all apprehended properly the nature and magnitude of
the question at issue. The more rational as well as more charitable conclusion
is, that the majority were influenced more by admiration and affection for an
individual than by the dictates of a calm judgment, or a just consideration of
the best welfare of the church.
It is to be feared, however,
that this does not apply at all. In years gone by, the Church in Wisconsin was
little troubled with extremists in any direction. By degrees a change has come
about, and without reciting its history, it is enough to say that a party has
appeared, here as elsewhere, whose more pronounced representatives are men
such as Bennett and Carter, Morrill and Ewer; men whom the Church at large
certainly looks upon as departing seriously from her standards, both in faith
and practice.
That an effort to place over
us as our Bishop a man who is understood to tend in the same direction, should
create excitement, is not to be wondered at; that counter-efforts should be
put forth, was to be expected; that the contest thus engendered should have
proved bitter and unseemly, is to be lamented, but
WHO IS TO BE
BLAMED?
One-half of the clergy and
two-thirds of the laity assembled in council, simply resisted an attempt to
elevate to the episcopate a man whom they regarded as dangerously unsound in
the faith, and whom, however admirable he may be in other respects, they could
not look upon as a suitable guide and leader of Christ’s flock. It was not
and is not pretended that his objectionable belief and teachings are in
accordance with the standards of the church, as commonly received and
understood, but only that they are tolerated
by the church; that as Mr. Bennett, when put upon his trial in England, for
teaching similar views, was not deposed, therefore a clergyman can lawfully
hold and teach the same views in Wisconsin. This does not follow by logical
necessity; but admitting that we must tolerate here what is tolerated there,
this is very far from proving that we can properly or safely make such a man
our Bishop.
Had the council not resisted
this attempt, it would have been recreant to duty, and justly exposed to grave
censure. For young men who may have been over-persuaded, or influenced by
personal admiration, there is some excuse; for older men, with mature and cool
judgment, it is difficult to find an excuse, unless indeed they claim
to hold and justify such views themselves. It cannot be doubted, however,
that many of them would admit that they do not hold such views. How then could
they vote to make such a man a Bishop in the Church of God? It will not do to
say hat amiability of character, holiness of life, devotion and zeal, learning
and eloquence—all which may be conceded to their candidate—atone for
unsoundness in the faith.
The blame then of the
excitement and of all other unseemly exhibitions that preceded or attended the
council, rests primarily upon those who put forward and supported a man whom
they knew would be unacceptable to a large number of their brethren, for the
reasons indicated. Those who opposed the election of such a man did it not
because they had some favorite to present, or some party to serve, for they
could have been united on any sound and suitable man who stands well before
the church; and it is noticeable that several clergymen, without any previous
concert, had simultaneously thought of Dr. Hoffman as such a man. Hence it
occurred that he was readily accepted as the candidate of those who would
adhere to our standards as they are.
But why would men who probably
would disavow any “advanced” views themselves, support a man like Dr.
DeKoven? Several reasons have been assigned, one of which is, that it was
thought right, by some of his friends to
DEFEND HIS
CHARACTER AND POSITION.
The Doctor, it was alleged,
had been unjustly assailed, and deserved this support. The fact is, however,
that nobody assailed him personally. It was earnestly urged that it would be
improper and dangerous to make a man holding his views, our Bishop, because of
the nature and tendency of those views. No slur was cast upon his personal
character or private life. Until it was known that he would be supported for
the Episcopate, no public comment was made upon his views, in Wisconsin. To
attempt, therefore, to find justification for pressing him as a candidate
because his views were then objected
to, is certainly a singular proceeding.
Others said,
HE PROBABLY
WON’T GO ANY FURTHER.
But such persons take counsel
of their feelings rather than of their judgment. When Ives, Newman, etc., had
gone a certain distance Rome-ward, it might just as reasonably have been
assumed that they would go no further. There is always reason to fear that
such men will go to the end. A false premise being taken, a logical mind, if
honest, must accept the logical consequences, unless, indeed, the primal error
is seen and abandoned. The better the man the more dangerous his example as an
errorist. The temptation is strong to some minds to believe that those who are
very amicable cannot be far wrong. Conversing with a girl just home from a
Romish Seminary, fear was expressed that she might be improperly influenced in
her religious views. Hastily disclaiming the existence of any danger, she
said, after a pause: “But I think the religion of people who are so kind as
they are, cannot be very bad.” This was the reasoning of a school girl, who
little understood the purpose of their kindness.
Reasoning in a similar way,
others said of their candidate,
“HE WON’T
PRESS HIS VIEWS,”
And he is so good a man, and
he has been so unreasonably opposed, that I must vote for him. But where is
the assurance that he would not press his views? Surely his friends do not
mean to say that he is a dishonest man; that although he holds, and has in a
most prominent manner avowed, a view of the eucharist of such a significance
as to excite intense interest and much alarm, he would not teach it if he
became a Bishop, nor encourage its promulgation by others! Still less can they
mean, that for the sake of a mitre, he would keep back from the people a part
of what he believes to be the truth!
It is quite conceivable that a
man holding extreme views, might, for prudential reasons, for a time, or in
certain places, refrain from giving them utterance. But the question is not
simply whether Dr. DeKoven, if made Bishop, would or would not teach the
localized presence of Christ in the consecrated elements of the Eucharist, and
eucharistic adoration, or whether he would recommend habitual confession to a
priest; the question rather is this: would it be safe or proper to elect a man
entertaining his views, our Bishop? To do so would be to give them such an
endorsement as would apparently justify every unstable, romantic mind in
adopting them in their extremest form, if so inclined.
It is a noticeable fact, that
in the discussions before the Council, no one (with an exception presently to
be noticed), defended Dr. DeKoven on the grounds of theology. But the
gentleman who nominated him urged that he had been “endorsed” by the
Diocese in former elections to responsible positions. Some of these elections
took place, however, before the extraordinary declaration made by him at the
last General Council. If others did not, it is difficult to see that they
indicate confidence in the soundness of his theology. Had all such expressions
of regard been withdrawn from a man so much beloved, the charge of persecution
would then have been made. There is a certain disposition in men, moreover, to
tolerate what is disapproved until an impulse is given to do otherwise. No one
likes to find fault for a defect where, in other respects, there is much to
commend. So much in explanation—though not in absolute justification—of
any seeming endorsement of Dr. DeKoven by those who nevertheless do not think
him a suitable man for a Bishop.
On the other hand, some of his
friends have urged that his election to the Episcopate
WOULD NOT BE AN
ENDORSEMENT OF HIS DOCTRINE;
And it is no doubt true, as
before intimated, that many who voted for him do not individually accept his
views. But an issue having been made,
on that specific matter, the church at large, and the world outside, would be
quite justified in regarding his election by the Diocese, as its Bishop, as an
endorsement of his views.
It has been asked: if Dr.
DeKoven was regarded as being unsound in the faith,
WHY WAS HE NOT
PRESENTED FOR TRIAL?
Why did his brethren, who now
charge him with serious error, wait until his name was mentioned in connection
with the Episcopate? In the first place it may be replied, that discipline,
even for the clergy, has become lax. Error has been suffered to grow and
spread itself, all about us; suffered in the hope, perhaps, that it would die
a natural death; or in the belief, perhaps, that it had not attained such
strength or importance as to make it imperative to resist its further spread
by the hand discipline. Then, as it regards Dr. DeKoven, he was not a parish
priest. There was a natural reluctance to disturb him, as the head of a
college reputed as doing good work. Perhaps he ought not to have been left
undisturbed by those who were privy to his views; but it is impossible to say
much on this subject without seeming to imply that our late lamented bishops
were less vigilant than they should have been. Then it is not to be forgotten,
that although Dr. DeKoven has not been presented for trial, his views have
been arraigned by more than one reputable divine.
It should be noted here that
his
NOMINATION WAS
SECONDED BY A FORMER LUTHERAN,
Namely, by the Rev. Dr. Falk,
a professor of Greek in Racine College. His speech on the occasion was
creditable to his heart. He undoubtedly loves and admires the President of the
College, and very likely thinks him entirely sound in the faith. This is not
surprising. Dr. Falk was born and bred a German Lutheran. Now the Lutheran
Reformation, as it took place in Germany, was quite a different thing from the
English Reformation, which was a legitimate and canonical return of the
English Church, under the lead of her Bishops, to her proper independence and
purity. But in the other case, a portion of the German people, under the lead
of the monk Luther, but without the lead of their Bishops, broke with Rome,
primarily on the matter of indulgences, and formed a schismatical body, in the
midst of the national church. [1] The doctrine of the Eucharist according was
not a prominent question at all in the controversy. According to the common
representation, the Lutherans adopted the dogma of consubstantiation in place
of that of transubstantiation, but the ritual of the Eucharist was not greatly
changed; insomuch that travelers in Germany to-day, it is said, on stepping
into a Lutheran church, not infrequently take it to be a Romish place of
worship. It is not difficult therefore to understand, that one one bred a
Lutheran might readily accept all Dr. DeKoven’s views as to the doctrine and
ceremonial of the Lord’s Supper, as corresponding with the Lutheran view and
practice—which after all is more than semi-Romish. [2]
THE PLEA FOR
TOLERATION.
There seems to be a notion
among the “advanced” and “advancing” men that toleration means a good
deal more than toleration; that if a man of extreme views is objected to, he
is persecuted. Probably the next claim will be that a prize ought to be
awarded for the boldness of those who hang farthest and with the slightest
hold upon truth over the abyss of error.
Another phase of this new
demand on charity is that is is in keeping with the broad, free tolerant
spirit of the west. This kind of talk is in keeping with that restlessness and
uncertainty which carries so many minds away from all the landmarks of the
catholic faith, and the toleration asked for is of all errors in all
directions.
It has been urged also that in
the choice of a Bishop
THE LAITY
SHOULD YIELD TO THE CLERGY!
If we have any valuable
principle in our ecclesiastical system, it is that which gives the laity a
distinct and independent voice in our councils. Whether the laity of Wisconsin
will meekly accept this new dogma which bids them, without question, to ratify
the vote of the clergy, remains to be seen. It is doubtless good Romish
doctrine.
NOT A MATTER
WHICH AFFECTS WISCONSIN ALONE.
To elect as bishop a man of
these “advanced views would be disastrous first to the diocese. An attempt
in this direction has already engendered strife and bitterness, and if the
council of June is a repetition of that in February, the peace of the diocese
cannot but be greatly injured and its growth seriously retarded. But the
mischief will not terminate here. What we do concerns the million of our
fellow beings within the state who are not within our fold, and the many
millions more of the same class spread over our broad land. Never had a church
a nobler opportunity than ours was reaching, for gathering a great harvest of
souls. But the American people are not likely to accept the Episcopal Church
if they must take it with a strong taint of Romanism. They are more likely, if
tired of the kaleidoscope of modern sectism, and so far as they have yearnings
for the catholicity of Christ’s flock, to wait for the coming of those old
catholics, who, by degrees, are purging
themselves from Romanism. [3]
The writer of this is not
afraid that the laity will be turned from their stedfastness and render it
necessary for the House of Deputies, or the House of Bishops, to stand between
the Diocese and the encroachments of error. They are not likely to forget, if
some of the clergy do, that Romanism, as a system of despotism over men’s
bodies, souls and consciences, culminates in the overthrow of all civil
liberty, dictation to civil rulers, the inquisition, and an enforced
confessional; as a system of espionage, intrigue and meddlesomeness in
jesuitism; as a system of impious arrogance, out-heroding Herod, in the papal
infallibility; as a system of monstrous errors in such dogmas as
transubstantiation and the immaculate conception, as a system of false
worship, in Mariolatry, invocation of saints and the worship of the host; as a
system of imposture, in such lying fables as the blood of St. Januarius, the
Holy Coat of Treeves, and the worse than fabulous pretensions about the
“Sacred Heart;” and finally in such a pernicious and corrupting system of
morals as that taught by Liguori and the Jesuits. Nor are they likely to
forget either, if some of their teachers do, that the church of their fathers
regained her ancient independence and purity not without the fires of
martyrdom.
But the writer does feel an
earnest desire that his brethren of the clergy may meet and act in a spirit of
wisdom and of moderation. Believing himself to have been in holy orders longer
than anyone else now in the diocese, he deems it his privilege, and possible
his duty, to speak that which he thinks.
One last word: There is a
brother among us, the presentation of whose name, in the present juncture of
affairs, would meet with more general acceptance in the diocese probably than
that of any other. The friends of Dr. DeKoven have a rare opportunity to do a
magnanimous thing, by withholding his name, and that of any one else who in
any way endorses his peculiar views, and by uniting with their brethren in the
nomination of one whose going in and out among us would tend to calm the
troubled waters and make us once more brethren in heart as well as in name.
JOHN B. PRADT,
Chaplain
at Hospital for Insane.
Madison, June 6, 1874.
NOTES
[1] The true
reformation of the German, and perhaps other branches of the Western Church,
has begun, apparently, with the Old Catholics.
[2] I once
applied for the use of a Lutheran place of worship in which to hold some
missionary services, offering to pay rent. The trustees were willing, but were
advised by some Lutheran ministers assembled there about that time, not to
accede to the proposition, on the ground that the doctrine of the Episcopal
Church, on the subject of the Eucharist, was erroneous.
[3] There is
another phase to this matter. We quote from a secular paper:
“The
Ritualistic controversy is not a new one to the Protestant Episcopal church,
but the present crisis has new elements of danger which seem to be fully
realized by the leaders of the contending parties. Not the least of these
dangers is found in the fact that a new church [the Cummins schism] under the
leadership of one who received his ministry and his bishopric in the old
church, stands with wide open doors to receive the malcontents. Under these
circumstances the religious world will look forward with great interest to the
next triennial General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, will
will assemble in this city a few months hence. Upon its action
largely depends not only the future of the Church as a body, but the
individual denominational relations of thousands of earnest Christians in all
parts of the United States.—N. Y. Tribune, May 30.