James DeKoven.

A theological defence for the Rev. James De Koven to the Council held at Milwaukee, February 11th and 12th, 1874 online

. (page 6 of 8)
Online LibraryJames DeKovenA theological defence for the Rev. James De Koven to the Council held at Milwaukee, February 11th and 12th, 1874 → online text (page 6 of 8)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

this also, he and his party make a distinction to ward off the charge of Romanizing, which
is void of any practical result in distinguishing his theology from that of Rome. The dis-
tinction he makes is, that confession with him is voluntary, while with the Romanist it is en-
forced. But if confession be of that advantage which Dr. De Koven and the ritualistic party,
with the church of Rome, believe, they cannot consistently and conscientiously rest until they
have made it enforced and not voluntary. For to leave their flocks without so great a bene-
fit, for the want of its enforcement, must be, according to their view, a dereliction of duty.
Their position with respect to the confessional is only provisional, and not final, and the "ad-
vanced" man in this direction, must necessarily be an "advancing" man, until he stands
fairly and squarely with the Church of Rome.

With respect to the invocation of saints, and prayers for the dead, the position of the
party and of Dr. De Koven, is not uncertain, though less is said about these things, until
they have made sure of their position upon the mass and the confessional.

If Dr. De Koven is made Bishop of Wisconsin, the necessary tendency of his princi-
ples and associations will be to require an arrangement of the Episcopal Cathedral, iden-
tical 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 ele-
vation of the host, the confessional boxes must line the walk, the people will 'not kn^nu
whether they are in the one or the other. And if Dr De Koven be held back from this,
by the necessity of conceding to the public opinion of his clergy and laity, he must feel
trammelled and uncomfortable in the position he will hold, and the restraint will be the
more irksome, the more honest and earnest he is.

I have written this, Mr. Editor, not out of any unfriendly feeling for Dr. De Koven, of
whose honesty and sincerity I have the highest appreciation ; but because I believe Dr. De
Koven to be advancing in a wrong direction, and being so, to be in greater danger, the more
honest and sincere he is. A dishonest man can be inconsistent, an honest man cannot. And
I want the High Churchmen of this Diocese, if they are led by Dr. De Koven's great person-
popularity to give him their vote, to see just what they are doing. The High Church


party and the Ritualistic party are toto ccelo apart, and if Dr. De Koven permits himself to
be identified with the latter, we, who are of the former, must let no personal affection or ad-
miration for him Hind us to the possible consequences.

A systematic attempt has been made to give the impression that in the approaching
n of a Bishop for this Diocese, the question to be settled is simply one of men, not of
doctrines and principles. The undersigned do not so regard it. They have seen an article
in the Milwaukee papers of Janualry 31*1, which they think sets forth correctly the points to
be decided in the coming election. They have reprinted it in its present form for general
circulation in the Diocese, as a document well calculated to give a right view of the issues in-
volved in the present contest.
February 2<\, 1874.

LEWIS A. KEMPER D. D., Professor of Hebrew and Biblical Literature at

Nnshotah, and Rector of St. Paul's Church, Ashippun.
WILLIAM ADAMS, D. D., Professor of Systematic Divinity at Nashotah.
JOHN H. EGAR, D. D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Nashotah.
ROBERT N. PARKE, Rector of Trinity Church, Oshkosh.
JOHN WILKINSON, Rector of Grace Church, Madison.
MARISON BYLLESBY, Rector of St. James Church, Milwaukee.


An attempt has been made in the Churchman of Feb. 7, 1874, to prove
that Bishop Andrewes did not believe in the presence of the Person of our
Lord Jesus Christ, in Sacramental Union with the Elements after Consecration.
The article as a whole is directed against a circular of the "Confraternity of
the Blessed Sacrament," and I only propose to treat of this point and of the
phrase "under the form of bread and wine," leaving the rest untouched. The
paragraph is as follows I quote from the Churchman :

" What does Bishop Andrewes teach on this subject? In his sermon VII, on the Resur-
rection, he is speaking of what we receive in receiving the Consecrated Elements, and he
expresses the act of receiving by the word Eprilemur. He then says, " Will ye mark one
thing more, that efuleiKttr doth here refer to immolatus ? To Christ not every way con-
sidered, but as when he was offered. Christ's Body that novu is. True, but not Christ's as
now it is, but as then it was,when it was offered, rent and slain, and sacrificed for us. Not as
now He is glorified ; for so He is not, cannot be immolatus, for he is immortal and impassi-
ble. But as then He was when he suffered death : that is passible and mortal. Then in His
Eassible estate, did He institute this of ours to be a memorial of his Passible and Passio
oth. And we are in this action not only carried up to Christ (sursuin corda) but we are
also carried back to Christ, as He was at the very instant and in the very act of His offering.
So and no otherwise doth this text teach. So and no otherwise do we represent Him. By
the incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, not He alone, but He, as at the very act of
His offering, is made present to us, and we incorporate into His death, and invested in the
benefits of it. If an host could be turned into Him, now glorified as he is, it would not serve ;
Christ offered is it thither we must look. To the serpent lift up, thither we must repair,
even ad cadavcra: we must, hoc facere, do that is then done. So, and no otherwise, is this
epularelo be conceived: And so, I think none tvill say they do or can turn Him." [Sermons,
Vol. ii, page 306.]

Leaving the Latin words in italics of course, T have ventured to alter the
italics of the Churchman and to put some of mv_ own. I do this to show
that whatever views Bishop Andrewes held about the Sacrifice, they did not
exclude the idea of the Presence of Christ's Glorified Body in Sacramental
Union with the Consecrated Elements. This fact is evident from this very
quotation. I purpose to show from other quotations that it does not admit of
a doubt. The writer in the Churchman goes on :

" Now this teaching is distinct. It shows that Andrewes held that the body and blood in
the Eucharist were " the Crucified Flesh of Christ, and not His Glorified Perscn ;" and
since this flesh, qua, crucified is not in actual being, it is present, not in substance, but in a
mystery and representatively; i.e. "in spiritual power not by material contact."


In the passage the quotation marks and the italics are those of the writer
in the Churchman.

Of course the ordinary reader would suppose that the quotation marks
showed that the passages quoted -were from Bishop Andrewes. This however
is not the case They are to be found in a little book styled " Sacrifice and
Participation of the Holy Eucharist" by Canon Trevor, published in 1869
(see p. 90, also pp. 72 and 73), and are in part as foreign to the teaching
of Bishop Andrewes, as they are to the teaching of antiquity.

I purpose now to show what Bishop Andrewes really taught. To this end
I will venture myself to quote the book of Canon Trevor, p. 15.

" To the first article of this Decree (Decree of the Council of Trent concerning the Sac-
rifice of the Mass) the objections may be reduced to a question of words rather than things. The
' Body and Blood ' of Christ, mean in Scripture and in all Catholic Antiquity, the crucified
Body, and outshed Blood of the Sacrifice of the Cross ; and it is admitted by Roman Catholic
Divines that in this condition they are not really contained in the Sacrament but are repre

Cr ....

taking of the Communion.

Canon Trevor proves this assertion in regard to Roman Catholic Divines,
by two quotations, one from Cardinal Cajetan, and the other from Cardinal
Perron, as follows :

" The Sacrament is not really the Body of Christ constituted in the actual state of one
slain, dead and inanimate; neither in that respect does it contain it, but so far represents it
only." [Ordinal Perron, de loc. Aug. iii.] LP atr ' ck ' s F U " View, 213.]

I quote the passage from Canon Trevor not as endorsing the words
"The Body and Blood of Christ mean in Scripture and in all Catholic An-
tiquity, the crucified Body and outshed Blood of the Sacrifice of the Cross,"
and that alone; but simply to show what the view of Roman Catholic
Divines and of Cardinal Perron in particular was upon the subject of the

In the same way Bishop Buckeridge in the funeral sermon he preached
for Bishop Andrewes, quotes Thomas Aquinas to the same effect, as saying :

" That this Sacrament is called a Sacrifice inasmuch as it doth represent the Passion of
Christ ; it is likewise called Hostia, an ' host ' inasmuch as it containeth Christ Himself,
who is Hostia Salutaris."

No one will suppose for a moment that these Roman Catholic Divines
did not hold "that the Body and Blood of Christ together with the Soul and
Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ," are
present after consecration.

My argument thus far is simply to show, not that Bishop Andrewes agreed
in all respects with these Roman Divines on the Eucharist; no one could
have more earnestly denied Transubstantiation than he; but that it is not in-
compatible to hold the two things as present, Christ's Body as slain representa-
tively, and Christ's Glorified Person.

I will now advance one step further and assert that in the matter of the
Sacrifice, Bishop Andrewes did not disagree with this very Cardinal Perron
whom Canon Trevor quotes. In his answer to Cardinal Perron the bishop
says in remarkable language:


" i. The Eucharist ever was and by us is considered both as a Sacrament, and as a

"2 A Sacrifice is proper and appliable only to divine worship.

" 3. The Sacrifice of Christ's death did succeed to the Sacrifices of the Old Testament.

" 4. The Sacrifice of Christ's death is available for present, absent, living, dead, (yea,
for them that are yet unborn*.

" 5. When we say the dead, we mean it is available for the Apostles, Martyrs, and Lon-
fessors, and all (because we are all members of one Body ;) THESE NO MAN WILL DENY.

" 6. In a word we hold with St. Augustine in the same chapter which the Cardinal
citeth, 'guod hujus sacrificii Caro et Sanguis, ante Adyentum Christi,per victimas simili-
tudinum promittebatur ; in passione Uiristi, per ipsam veritatem reddtbatur ; post
adventum (leg. ascensum,} Christi, per Sacratnentuni memoria celebratur." > pp. 19 and
20 of Bishop Andrewes' Minor Works, Anglo Cath. Lib.]

The small capitals are my own, the italics are Bishop Andrewes and are


intended to show, I suppose, the points of agreement between himself and the

In the summary at the end of the answer to the i8th chapter of Cardinal
Perron's reply (p. 35 of the same) in summing up the points of agreement
and difference between himself and the Church of England on the one hand,
and Cardinal Perron on the other, he mentions the Eucharistic sacrifice as a
point on -which they agree.

In his reply to Cardinal Bellarmine also he says (p. 251 of the Respon-
sio. Angl. Cath. Lib ):

" Take you away from the Mass your Transubstantiation and we shall not long quarrel
about the Sacrifice."

Agreeing therefore with Cardinal Perron and Cardinal Bellarmine as to
the Sacrifice, though he denied Transubstantiation, it is evident that no remark
of Bishop Andrewes, in regard to the Sacrifice, can be used to show that he nec-
essarily therefore disbelieved in our Lord's Personal Presence in Sacramental
Union with the Holy Elements.

Bishop Andrewes was too great a theologian to be content with the one
sided view of the presence of Christ, merely as slain. He knew that if "Christ
died for our sins " " He rose again also for our justification." According to
his view Christ himself the inward part of the Sacrament was present in Sac-
ramental union with the Holy Elements, in two aspects, as risen and glorified,
as well as the " Lamb as it had been slain."

On this subject there is positive proof.

1. In the xvi Sermon on the Nativity (vol. i, of the Angl. Cath. Lib.
pp. 282 and 283,) already quoted in this defence, p. 14, Bishop Andrewes
compares, as he does also again in other places, the union of the sign with
the thing signified in the Holy Eucharist, to Ihe union of the Divine and Human
Natures in the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. He uses the argument
negatively against Transubstantiation, and positively for the Sacramental union
of the sign and the thing signified, by means of consecration and before re-

2. The thing signified, signatum, res Sacramenti, is with Bishop
Andrewes. not merely the Body and Blood of Christ, but "Christ Himself."

In the famous passage on Eucharistic adoration, already given in full,
(p. 22-24,) which the Churchman did not allude to, he says:

"Christ Himself the inward part of the Sacrament, in and with the Sacrament, out 01
and withoyt the Sacrament, wheresoever he is, is to be adored."

Let it be noted also that this statement is from a controversial Treatise,
and not merely from a Sermon.

So too in the xvi Sermon on the Nativity, from which we have just
quoted, he says:

" For there (in the Holy Mysteries) we do not gather to Christ, nor of Christ, but we
gather Christ Himself, and gathering Him, we shall gather the ttee and fruit and all upon

So too in the xii Sermon of the Nativity (pp 213 and 214, vol. i, Angl.
Cath. Lib.):

" The Sacrament we shall have besides, and if the Sacrament we may well say, Hoc
erit signum. For a sign it is, and by it, inTenietis Puerum, 'ye shall find this child.' For find-
ing His flesh and blood ye cannot miss \>u\.find Him too. And a sign not much from this here.
For Christ in the Sacrament is not altogether unlike Christ in the cratch. To the cratch we may
well liken the husk or outward symbols of it. Outwardly it seems of little worth, but it is
rich of contents, as was the crib this day with Christ in it. For what are they but infirnta,
et egena elementa 'weak and poor elements of themselves ?' Yet in THEM FIND WE CHRIST.
Even as they did this day inprtesepijumentorttntpanem angelorum,"'m the beasts crib the
food of angels," which very food our signs both represent and present."

And lastly and conclusively in the gth Sermon of the Resurrection (vol.ii,
Angl. Cath. Lib., p. 340,):

" Not to do it (bow) at His name ? Not at the Holy Mysteries themselves, not to do it.
Where His name is, I am sure and more than His name, even the Body and Blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ ; and these NOT WITHOUT His SOUL ; NOR THAT WITHOUT His DBITY ;
nor all these without inestimable high benefits of grace attending on them."


Therefore with Bishop Andrewes in His thanksgiving after the commun-
ion (see devotions) we will pray.

" It is finished and done, so far as in our power, Christ our God, the mystery of Thy dis-
pensation. For we have held remembrance of Thy death, we have seen the figure of thy
Resurection, we have been filled with Thy endless life."

In the article in question there is also a criticism upon the phrase "under
the form of bread and wine."
Bishop Andrewes says :

" The terms sous les tspece* or dans Us especes sacramentales (under the forms) it
would pose the Cardinal (Perron) and all the whole college to find ihey were ever heard or
dreamt of in St. Augustine's time or many hundred years afterwards." [Minor Works, p.
14, Lib. Angl. Cath. Theo.J

The quotation is a correct one. But it must be noticed that it is no argument
against the use of the words in a proper way Cardinal Perron uses them
in proof of Transubstantiation. Bishop Andrewes replies they do not prove it
because they are not ancient words. He took the Cardinal's terms in the
sense in which the Cardinal used them, of accidents of which the substance
was gone. In this sense the phrase " under the form of bread and wine" is
equivalent to Transubstantiation ; and in this sense I have not used it.
There is authority for it however in the Church of England in the true
sense, as denoting a spiritual Presence in Sacramental Union with the Holy

Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century while it was held that the
" Body of Christ is truly and principally in the Sacrament under the form of
bread and wine," it was still an open question whether the substance of bread
remained or no. Cranmer and Ridley were familiar with the expression in
the writings of Bertram as denoting a Presence, the substance of bread and
wine still remaining. Used and disused in the reign of Henry VIII, Cranmer
and the other Bishops brought back the language at the end of the first Book
of Homilies. ''Hereafter shall follow sermons of the Nativity, Passion, Re-
surrection, and Ascension of our Saviour Christ; of the due receiving of His
Blessed Body and Blood under the form of bread and wine " And after
the interval of the reign of Queen Mary, the Bishops in the beginning of the
reign of Elizabeth, refer to that notice in the title to the second Book of Hom-
ilies, "of such matters as were promised and entituled in the former Book of
Homilies." Nor will it do to dispose of this matter in the cavalier way in
which Canon Trevor gets rid of it, by saying that it has only the authority of
the King's Printer; and that the Homily when it appeared did not bear this
title, (note p. 90,) for though the latter fact is true, the first Book of Homilies has
since its publication beeu twice revised, but this theological statement has not
been interfered with. The same form moreover appears in Queen Elizabeth's
Primer, which was a revision of that of Henry VIII, and while one word was
altered in the sentence in which the phrase " under the form of bread and
wine " occurs, that phrase itself was not altered. The words are:

" Our Saviour and Redeemer, Jesu Christ, which in Thy Last Supper with thine Apostles
didst deliver Thy Blessed Body and Blood under the form of bread and wine." [Private
Prayers set forth by authority during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, p. 87, Parker Society.]

It is true that the same Primer when printed again in 1566 dropped the
phrase, but it occurs in varying senses in Bishop Nicholson's Treatise on the
Catichism (p. 178, Angl. Cath. Lib.) in Sherlock's Practical Christian (p. 252,
Oxford 1844,) and in Sutton's (lodly Meditations on the Most Holy Sacrament
of the Lord's Supper (p. 28, edition of 1844-)

Indeed Mr. Stephens, the counsel against Mr. Bennett, while arguing that
the phrase as used in the English Church does not bear out Mr. Bennett's
view, is constrained to acknowledge :

" It has not been contended by the Counsel in this case that the phrase -' under the
form of bread and wine,' does per se express the doctrine of Transubstantiation ; but that
the phrase has always expressed the doctrine of the real Presence of the Body and Blood of
Christ in the Elements, which is a different doctrine from Transubstantiation." [Argument
of A J. Stephens, Q. C. etc., in Shepard vs. Bennett, pp. 36 and 37.]


It must also be noted that both the Court of Arches and the Judicial Com
mittee of the Privy Council decided that these words did not contravene the
articles of the faith. As expressing the doctrine of the Real Presence and
only so, have I used them.

Since writing the above I have read the editorial in the Churchman of
March I4th upon Bishop Andrewes. The writer shows conclusively enough
what Bishop Andrewes' views as to the Sacrifice were, and gives full quota-
tions in proof.

To prove his second point, that Bishop Andrewes did not believe in the
Presence of Christ's glorified Humanity, in Sacramental Union with the Holy
Elements, the writer makes no allusion to any one of the quotations we
have given; but simply repeats the solitary passage from Sermon vii on the
Resurrection, quoted in the previous article, and which we have already an-
swered. Christ Himself according to Bishop Andrewes is the inward part of
the Sacrament, present as a Sacrifice representatively, present in His glorified
Humanity, to feed us with Himself.

In Note C the Editor repeats the story, that the quotation made by myself
in the General Convention was an incorrect quotation. The writer states this
on the authority of the judgment in the case of Shepard vs. Bennett found in
the work entitled "Six Judgments, etc" and "reprinted from an official copy."
The writer does not state, however, that Mr. Brooke's "Six Privy Council
Judgments," nowhere gives the "Phillimore Judgment," for the simple reason
that it was not a judgment of 'the Privy Council at a//, but of the Court of Arches.

I could not, I must repeat, have quoted from the " Privy Council Judge-
ment" in October, 1871, because it was not delivered till Jtme, 1872. My
quotation is taken from the "Judgement delivered by the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert
Phillimore, D. C. L. Official Principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, in
the case of the office of the Judge promoted by Shepard vs. Bennett," edited
by Walter G. F, Phillimore", B. C. L., the son of Sir Robert, and published
by the Rivington's in 1870. The preface states that it is "published with the
permission of the Judge." The second Edition of the Phillimore Judgement,
published in 1871, when a year's time had been given to correct the mistake,
if it were one, has the same words, and there is not the slightest reason to
doubt their accuracy.



In the Document, "Principles, not Men," nothing is said about Absolu-
tion. Nothing, too, was said upon the floor of the House, except what I may
nave said myself upon the subject. I might, therefore, pass it over, and yet
it seems as if the subject were incompletely stated, without mentioning it.

It ought to be said, that it is generally believed, that the views of the three
Professors are the same as my own on this subject, and it was a fact
which was evident to all, that in attacking me on the subject of Confes-
sion, they did not object either to Confession or Absolution, but to their own
travesty of what I hold, or to some supposed irregular exercise on my part of
an undoubted function of the priestly office.

I. Let me say, that while I cannot but blush that the ignorance of
people, and the want of fairness of much modern controversy should compel
one to say it; I firmly believe that no one can forgive sins save Almighty

God. To Him only doth it appertain. Nor in anything that I say about Ab-
solution do I mean to limit the privilege of the sinner, to go with the burden ,
of his sins directly to God, and in proportion to his penitence, receive forgive-
ness from his Father in Heaven.

2. I also believe that the "Son of man hath power on earth to forgive
sins," and ordinarily exercises that power by His Priests and in His Sacra-


ments. I believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins." I believe that
in the Holy Eucharist "we and all Thy whole Church obtain remission of our
sins and all other benefits of His Passion." I hold too, in the words of the
Homily of "Common Prayer and Sacraments," that absolution, "although no
such Sacrament as Baptism and the Communion," still has "the promise of the
forgiveness of sin."

I firmly believe also what our Lord said to His apostles and what the
Church has said to her priests ever since, whatever form of words may
be used in ordination, ''Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them,
and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained." In other words, whenever
God's ministers, in public or in private, in the two Sacraments or in Absolution,
according to God's word, and on the conditions which He has prescribed,
namely repentance and faith, tell a penitent that God forgives him,
God confirms the word of His ambassadors and does forgive. In short, I do
not believe all the solemn things the Bible and Prayer Book say about absolu-
tion, to be a mere sham. The form of words by which Absolution is pro-
nounced is immaterial. It may be precatory, or indicative, or declaratory;
the only point is that if it prays, God answers ; if it indicates, it is God, not
man who indicates ; if it declares, the declaration carries with it, what the
declaration implies. An individual Christian, a father, a mother, a friend, a
teacher, does not hesitate under certain circumstances to assure a broken and

1 2 3 4 6 8

Online LibraryJames DeKovenA theological defence for the Rev. James De Koven to the Council held at Milwaukee, February 11th and 12th, 1874 → online text (page 6 of 8)