^M^'i 
 
 ■A 
 
 i^-il;»j 
 
 -n^BMiLT QP THE 
 
 iiPON THE OE&R OF THE 
 
vT. 2-^. n 
 
 x*^ 
 
 s^ 
 
 ^ tV^t ®^^oIn9tf£t/ ^ 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 ''^t 
 
 "%. 
 
 Division. .■.yrr^y^.-^i OO 
 Section *-S7-D / 
 

ASSAU LT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BISHOP OF WESTERN NJW YORK 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 Jean of the General Theological Seminary 
 
 AND 
 
 THE DEANS REPLY. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 Styles & Cash, Steam Printers, Eighth Avenue and 14th Street. 
 
 1875 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 At the urgent request of many friends I have reluctantly con- 
 sented to print the following letters in a pamphlet form, in order to 
 give them a wider circulation than they could possibly have in the 
 columns of the C/iiirc/i»ian, in which they originally appeared. 
 
 The following verbal change has been made in my letters; in the 
 communication which the Clerical Deputy made to me on Wednes- 
 day, October 21st, 1874, respecting the charges which a Bishop had 
 preferred against me, he doubtless did not mention the name of the 
 Bishop, or the Diocese to which the Bishop belonged — nor could the 
 slip of paper have contained such information, since this would have 
 been a violation of the rules of secrecy, which the House had pre- 
 scribed during the discussion of my case — hence the impersonal 
 form is substituted, "it is charged," &c., for "the Bishop of Western 
 New York, or Bishop Coxe charges." I knew instantaneously, how- 
 ever, who the accuser was, and so did every one else. It needed not 
 that any one should tell me or others. This is the only verbal 
 change. A paragraph has been added near the close of my second 
 letter, which was written for publication in the Churchman, but which 
 I omitted in consequence of the great length which the letter had 
 reached ; it is now inserted because it is worthy of consideration in 
 forming an estimate of the character of the Bishop's assault upon me. 
 The paragraph referred to occurs on page 61 ; it begins with the 
 words, " To show the doubting, if there be any," &c., and concludes 
 with the words, " But I must forbear." With these exceptions the 
 letters are reprinted exactly as they originally appeared in the 
 Churchman. 
 
 In an appendix I have added the letter of the Rev. E. M. 
 Pecke, M.A., the letter of the Rev. Dr. Lewis of Washington, D. C, 
 my letter, addressed to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
 asking to be allowed to be heard in my own behalf, and the names 
 of the Trustees of the General Theological Seminary who were 
 present at the annual meeting in June, 1875, seventy-seven of whom, 
 in the extraordinary language of Bishop Coxe, " seemed to have voted 
 to make the new Dean." 
 
 I submit this correspondence to the judgment of my Brethren 
 of the Clergy and Laity, with entire confidence that they will do me 
 ample justice in this matter, and with the earnest prayer to God that 
 He will overrule this miserable scandal, in which I am compelled to 
 take so prominent a part, to the ultimate good of His Church. 
 
 GEORGE F. SEYMOUR, 
 
 General Theological Seminary, 
 
 West 20th Street and 9th Ave., 
 
 October IKA, 1875. 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive • 
 in 2009 witii funding from 
 Princeton Tiieoiogicai Seminary Library 
 
 littp://www.arcliive.org/details/assaultofbisliopoOOcoxe 
 
ASSAULT OF THE BISHOP OF WESTERN NEW YORK, 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 Dean of the General Theological Seminary. 
 
 BISHOP COXE'S FIRST LETTER, 
 
 From the Churc/iiiian, September ^t/i, 1875. 
 
 THE ILLINOIS CASE IN THE HOUSE OF DEPUTIES. 
 
 LETTER TO A DEPUTY, 
 
 My Dear Sir: 
 
 Nearly a year ago you and your fellow-Deputies 
 gave solemn judgment in the Illinois case. Your {)er- 
 sonal support was given to that judgment, and in so doing 
 you performed a great duty to the Church, or else you 
 did a great wrong. Since that time you have never 
 ceased to hear the accusation of injustice. The Church 
 has been flooded with complaints, and the sympathies of 
 the external public have been invoked. The aggrieved 
 party has had this field to itself. Nobody has replied. 
 In calm dignity or well-restrained disgust, the friends of 
 order and discipline have found their strength in the 
 " quietness and confidence" which can afford to sit still. 
 
 Though I have had the honor to share in these re- 
 proaches, I have steadfastly refused to pay any attention 
 to the vociferations of abusive men. The Church has spo- 
 ken once and again. If men will not " bear the Church," 
 * the Master has assigned them a place where we need not 
 pursue them. I have confided in the good sense of the 
 Church, and have pointed as my sufficient defence to the 
 
very publications that were designed to injure me. No- 
 body can read them with candor and judgment without 
 seeing that they refute themselves. Never before have 
 men taken such pains to contradict their own stories, and 
 to expose their own sinister practices. I have exhorted 
 everybody to read their " sworn evidence," and to note not 
 merely its astounding discrepancies, but the force it lends 
 to every charge it endeavors to disprove. 
 
 But, I am told by judicious friends that this calm 
 confidence may be carried too far : that while we mind 
 our business and accept the Church's decisions, there are 
 revolutionists at work who will not let the Church's voice 
 prevail. Nay, it is said that^ by silence and indifference 
 on the one side, and persistent activity on the other, the 
 Church's authority is diminished, and opportunity is 
 gained for fresh disturbances. It is urged, moreover, that 
 hundreds, who take no pains to inform themselves, are 
 persuaded that charges, in view of which the House of 
 Deputies acted, have been disproved and virtualy re- 
 tracted ; that our silence gives consent ; that we have 
 nothinof to sav ; that "sworn evidence" has overborne 
 and confounded all opposition. In these circumstances I 
 have been appealed to to show how futile are such out- 
 cries and how thoroughly established are the facts in view 
 of which the Deputies acted. It is urged that, as many 
 relied on my testimony in giving their judgment, I owe 
 it to them to show how wisely they acted, and how strong 
 they are alike in demonstrated facts and in the support 
 of the Church. Influenced by such views, I address yoa 
 as a Deputy and as a friend. I have been convinced, 
 until now, that the facts speak sufficiently for themselves. 
 Nor do 1 now suppose that it is in the power of wrong- 
 doers permanently to darken counsel by words without 
 knowledge. 
 
 But, I have always said that should any public oc- 
 casion be given, so that having shunned all jDcrsonal con- 
 
flict I might find myself called to support the Church's 
 decisions against overt acts of a revolutionary character, 
 I would not keep silence. For I have learned from that 
 great master in theology, the colossal Bishop of St. Da- 
 vid's, to follow St. Basil's maxim in all such cases : " We 
 are not always to keep silence under calumnies; not, in- 
 deed, that by contradicting them we may avenge our- 
 selves, but, lest we should give free course to falsehood. 
 
 I am informed that " free course" has been too long con- 
 ceded to those who despise government, and that by their 
 persevering efforts they are disturbing the peace of the 
 Church and the operation of law. It is said that a suc- 
 cessful stratagem has converted our " Trustees of the 
 General Theological Seminary" into a third House and a 
 Supreme Court of Appeal : and that, by ingenious con- 
 trivances, the action of a petty minority of this Board is 
 made to appear to the public generally, and to hundreds 
 of good men in the Church, to be a reversal of judgment : 
 the voice of our entire Episcopate and of hundreds of 
 picked men from all our dioceses, rebuking and over- 
 ruling the House of Deputies. In proof of this, and in 
 connection with evidence of the same sort, to which my 
 attention has been directed, I have received from a res- 
 pected presbyter of Illinois, as a specimen of what is go- 
 ing on in that quarter^ the following extract from one of 
 the newspapers of Chicago . 
 
 "BISHOP-ELECT OF CHICAGO. 
 
 " The majority of the Episcopal Church in IlUnois, will be 
 greatly pleased to learn that the Rev. George F. Seymour, D.D., was 
 on last Thursday elected Permanent Dean of the General Theologi- 
 cal Seminary at New York, by 77 out of 93 votes cast by the Trus- 
 tees of that chief institution of the Episcopal Church in this country. 
 The Board of Trustees embraces the Bishops and other prominent 
 men of the Church from each diocese in the United States, and thus 
 it will be seen that Ur. Seymour's election possesses great signifi- 
 cance, especially considering the fact that his consecration as Bishop 
 of Illinois was defeated last Fall by the Lower House of the General 
 
Convention. The result signifies a great ch.inge of sentiment \n the 
 Episcopal Church in favor of Seymour, and probably also in favor of 
 Dr. DeKoven, /or the two are said to stand together on doctrinal ques- 
 tions. Dr. DeKoven was elected Bishop of Illinois last February. 
 The sa ne influences that defeated Dr. Seymour's consecration un- 
 doubtedly induced many of the Standing Committees of dioceses 
 to reject Dr. DeKoven; but the latter is still Bishop-elect of the dio- 
 cese, and this action of the Bishops and other Trustees of the Gen- 
 eral Seminary at New York, in reference to Dr. Seymour, will 
 undoubtedly have a strong influence to induce the Standing Com- 
 mittees that have hitherto acted adversely, to reconsider and give 
 consent to Dr. DeKoven's consecration. Unless such shall prove 
 to be the case, there will be a manifest inconsistency in the treatment 
 of the two Divines. 
 
 " The action at New York would seem also to indicate that the 
 Bishops are not in sympathy with the crusade that was set on foot 
 against such great lights as Drs. Seymour and DeKoven." 
 
 To those who know anything of the facts, this is so 
 absurd as to provoke nothing worse than a smile. But I 
 am assured that few know the facts, and that many who 
 see through the faUacy are unable to demonstrate it : 
 while tcngues and pens and presses are employed actively 
 in circulating and exaggerating the impression that a 
 great wrong has been done to Illinois, and to its first 
 Elect, and that the Church is ready and an5:ious to re- 
 verse her decision. By taking advantage of popular 
 ignorance, it is believed that it is in the power of the in- 
 subordinate 'to weaken the force of Canons and of Legis- 
 lation, and to create a state of things which must prove 
 disastrous in many ways to the peace and prosperity of 
 the Church. 
 
 It may be so. I yield to the convictions of others, 
 and most reluctantly accept a task so painful that I would 
 take anv honorable course to escape it. Moral cowardice 
 is a very convenient fault, and I dare say I have my 
 share of it: but, it is grossly criminal in a Christian 
 Bishop, when any public interest of the Church is in peril, 
 to prove indifferent to his trust, or to leave its burdens to 
 
others. My share, in all this business, has been the pro- 
 duct not merely of strong convictions, but of Providential 
 circumstances, of thorough information as to facts, and 
 of a humble prayer to God that he would support me in 
 a work to which I have not called myself, and if need 
 be, in "patiently suffering for the Truth's sake " 
 
 So, then, it has come to this : the servant of the 
 Church is to be made its Master. An appeal is made, 
 from you Deputies, to the Trustees of the General Theo- 
 logical Seminary. Our Seminary Board, the creature of 
 our Legislation, is to overrule our great Synod: it is to 
 be erected into a third House, and a Supreme Court of 
 Appeal ; and the peaceful Academic Courts of Sacred 
 Learning are to be turned into an arena of Church Poli- 
 tics. What an engine of mischief is thus created ; what 
 a perversion of Church funds and of holy trusts ! What 
 perils threaten us, if, to all the evils of internal misman- 
 agement, is to be added such a prostitution of the corpor- 
 ate powers of the Seminary to the service of faction and 
 party. Let us first come to the facts which are so cun- 
 ningly made to appear as they are not. 
 
 The Journal of the late Annual Meeting of the Trus- 
 tees of the General Theological Seminary is now before me. 
 How delusive is the impression conveyed, in the Chicago 
 paragraph, as to the significance and weight of their ac- 
 tion, is apparent from the following facts : This Journal 
 informs us that the number of Trustees is 421, inclusive 
 of our 57 Bishops. Of these 400 Trustees, 77 seem to 
 have voted to make the new Dean. There were but sh 
 Bishops present : of these how many voted for him does 
 not appear. At all events, a mere fraction of the corpor- 
 ate body is responsible for a measure, of the importance 
 of which I do not now propose to speak particularly. 
 
 Of the constitution of our General Seminary, few 
 know anything at all ; of its practical management, 
 still less is understood. But it should be known that it 
 
10 
 
 is in no respect whatever a representative Council of the 
 Church. Of its 400 trustees, scattered over a continent 
 from Maine to California, only a small number is able to 
 attend the meetings of the Board. The local trustees and 
 their near neighbors are the only members who are always 
 able to be present ; and supposing these to be about 
 equally divided as to any measure, a few of the distant 
 members, summoned for the purpose, can generally turn 
 the vote in tavor of a moiety which is organized and 
 which is resolved to work the Seminary in its own in- 
 terest. The only check on this operation is to be found 
 in a large attendance of Bishops, who can insist upon a 
 vote by Orders. Rarely, however, are the Bishops able, 
 in the hottest days of the year, to assemble in New York, 
 coming from great distances with peril to health, with 
 large sacrifice of time and money, and with injury to 
 their more immediate work at home. Formerly there 
 was a triennial meeting, at the time of our General Con- 
 vention, and this enabled a full Board of Trustees, once 
 in three years, to give attention to business and to exer- 
 cise some control. Bat this has been abolished. A full 
 meeting of the Trustees is now a practical impossibility, 
 and a fluctuating minority, too frequently swayed by the 
 manipulation of a few persistent spirits, is virtually 
 clothed with irresponsible power. Over and over again 
 has it proved itself able to thwart the known wishes of 
 the Church, and even the recorded votes of the Trustees, 
 when, in exceptional cases, a fair attendance has been 
 secured. 
 
 These fects, which are notorious, sufficiently explain 
 the late action, and also the use which is made of it by 
 those who brought it about. That its "significance" is 
 widely different from the face that is put upon it, must 
 be evident from the Journal itself; from its record of 
 attendance and of the vote. 
 
 And thus observation is withdrawn from the real 
 
11 
 
 state of the case, to which I now direct attention. The 
 Illinois case was decided, in the House of Deputies, by a 
 most significant and emphatic vote. It has been again 
 decided by action still more deliberate and emphatic. 
 This occurred after the most persevering efforts of par- 
 tisans to create sympathy, while a patient silence was the 
 only answer of those on whom they poured the vials of 
 their calumny and abuse. This is the real history, and 
 it must no longer be thrust out of view. 
 
 Considering its solemnity, and the painful nature of 
 such a vote, the refusal of the House of Deputies to con- 
 firm the Illinois election is one of the most significant 
 actions of that House in the records of our great Synod. 
 To vote in favor of such a confirmation is easy and 
 agreeable. Everybody is anxious to find an excuse for 
 doing what everybody likes to do. To vote No is to 
 make enemies, and to provoke the spite of the worst 
 characters in the Church ; of that class of men rebuked 
 so often by St. Paul, and of whom we know, from our 
 Lord's parable of the Tares, there shall always be speci- 
 mens among the wheat till the end of the world. Now, 
 nobody likes to be hammered upon the anvil of ''Alex- 
 ander the Coppersmith." The petty terrorism of such 
 men is a real power. To resist them is to excite their 
 unscrupulous animosity. It requires nerve, as well as 
 principle, to defy them. In the Illinois case this class of 
 men was known to be enlisted in behalf of the candidate. 
 In the holy precincts of the Synod they were active night 
 and day. They, and their innocent but deluded instru- 
 ments, were able to practise on many gentle and un- 
 suspecting natures. The motives which were addressed 
 to the feeble and shallow were, in some cases, such as 
 might be paralleled only by the tactics of political dema- 
 gogues. I speak of what I know ; others know it as well. 
 
 Far be it from, me to censure those who voted for 
 the confirmation. On the contrary I shall plead their 
 
12 
 
 cause. While not a few were influenced by such opera- 
 tions, many good and true men were most honorably per- 
 suaded of the entire fitness of the candidate. Others, 
 again, were amiably disposed to give the candidate " the 
 benefit of a doubt." When I reflect on the issue that was 
 made ; on the many inducements that were presented to 
 fair and sound minds ; and on the perils and responsi- 
 bilities assumed by every one who voted in the Negative, 
 I consider the vote of the House solemn and significant 
 even to sublimity. If, in the circumstances, any comfort 
 can be extracted from the fact that this overwhelming 
 decision lacked a few votes of the " numerical majority," 
 by all means let that comfort be enjoyed. 
 
 I say, " in the circumstances" ; and by this I do not 
 merely refer back to what I have said to prove the heroic 
 character of a negative vote. I have a more serious mean- 
 ing than that. 
 
 How comes it to pass that many a true and worthy 
 name is found recorded in favor of the Confirmation, when 
 the same name is on the record in favor of " the Ritual 
 Canon " 1 The answer is plain. Those who managed 
 the struggle to obtain Confirmation did so, as you are 
 well aware, by a persevering course of suppression and 
 concealment. They resented the idea that their candi- 
 date was one of the class which the pending " Ritual 
 Canon" was aiming to chastise. Good men voted for him, 
 because they were lead to believe he was no " Ritualist." 
 They believed he had no sympathy with the outspoken 
 President of Racine. Who believes it now '? " The two 
 are said to siand together on doctrinal questions,'^ according 
 to the Chicago journalist, and that such is the case no- 
 body will now deny. 
 
 But, observe, the entire plea which was made for 
 their candidate in the House of Deputies, was based on 
 the persevering denial of such an idea. Who stood up 
 and took the fair ground, " Our candidate is as much a 
 
13 
 
 Ritualist as his friend, for whose express benefit you are 
 called upon to enact a Ritual Canon ; but we mean to sus- 
 tain Ritualism^ and we demand his Confirmation in view 
 of this position " ? This is said now defiantly enough. 
 But, at that time, their candidate was represented as an 
 old-fashioned '' Hooker " Churchman. A shrewd old 
 Deputy observed, '• I began to think him hardly High 
 Churchman enough for me." 
 
 Think, then, of what was involved in a negative 
 vote. It was a grave impeachment of the sincerity of all 
 those representations. It was something more serious 
 still : for the candidate himself was on solemn record. 
 He had assured the House that certain statements as to 
 his official conduct in the Seminary had no foundation in 
 fact whatever. Now, it was comparatively easy to credit 
 that those statements grew out of exaggerated im- 
 pressions, the result of prejudices ; of mistakes, honestly 
 entertained, but capable of biassing the judgment and 
 disturbing recollections. It was comparatively easy to 
 think this, concerning men like Seabury and Vinton ; but 
 it was a hard thing to believe that there was any con- 
 cealment, equivocation, or duplicity in the solemn denials 
 of a candidate expecting immediate Consecration, and 
 tendering a candid statement of facts, to a Council of the 
 Church about to vote for or against him, under the In- 
 vocation of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Such were the circumstances ; such was the issue, 
 and as such, I accept it If it appears, that, in these 
 circumstances the House of Deputies was honorably and 
 fairly dealt with ; if it appears that the candidate him- 
 self used no artifices, suppressed nothing which the House 
 had a right to know, and in all respects satisfied the 
 anxieties of the House, by a full statement of what he 
 professed to state candidly, and for their entire enlighten- 
 ment, as to the disputed facts ; if all this appears, from 
 what is now disclosed, then has an honest and true man 
 
14 
 
 been made the victim of unfounded prejudice, and all 
 who voted or counselled against him have done him a 
 cruel wrong. I accept this issue. 
 
 And because I have been held responsible in large 
 measure for the result^ I consent to speak now, when the 
 result is represented as reversed and repudiated, and 
 when all who contributed to bring it about are subjected 
 to such persevering insult and rebuke. I shall prove, 
 then, from the publications of the defeated candidate him- 
 self, that he has contradicted his own solemn statements 
 and refuted his own stories ; has filled in making any 
 one detailed statement to which he adheres, and has cor- 
 roborated by the statements of others almost everything 
 which he gave the House of Deputies to suppose untrue. 
 All this I shall be able to show from an analysis of his 
 affidavits, which I made immediately on the receipt of 
 them, but which I trusted I might not be called to 
 make public. I bore him no ill-will, and wished to leave 
 him to his own better disposition and calmer moments. 
 I was not his prosecutor. I was satisfied with the re- 
 sult, and I was sorry for the man. It was plain to me 
 that excitement and irritation had disturbed alike his 
 memory and his judgment. For his self-stultifying oaths 
 and affirmations I would not hold him entirely respon- 
 sible, and I am truly pained that his injudicious friends 
 have forced on a crisis which requires my further notice. 
 
 In the second Illinois case disguises were thrown 
 aside Those who had imagined that the original candi- 
 date was no "ritualist," and never had been one, and 
 never had any sympathy with the class against which 
 " the Ritual Canon " had been directed, were now 
 amazed to find the true state of affairs, and to observe 
 how coolly the old pretences were thrown to the winds. 
 The same parties who had pressed the confirmation of 
 their candidate because he was not a ritualist, were now 
 resolved to re-elect him because he was The extreme 
 
15 
 
 party, with no effort to conceal their contempt for the 
 House of Deputies, announced their abihty to re-elect 
 him, or, tailing to secure his consent, then to choose an- 
 other whose election might re-assert the propriety of 
 then- original choice, and whose consecration as a Bishop 
 would vindicate their former Elect and rebuke those who 
 had contributed in any way to his defeat. With this 
 avowed purpose they selected as their candidate the very 
 j)erson whose words and doings had called for the " Ritual 
 Canon," and, by " a technical majority," they elected 
 him In accepting the announcement, this second Elect 
 gracefully pronounced it a virtual vindication of his friend, 
 the former candidate. I ask, had the unity of their 
 views been fairly stated to the House by this reverend 
 gentleman during the discussion, what sort of a vote 
 would have been recorded in his favor 1 As for the pre- 
 tences then made, I ask again. Who believes them now 1 
 It is openly avowed and confessed, by the partisans of 
 both candidates, that the two elections in Illinois were 
 one in spirit and intent, and fell upon men of the same 
 extreme school and party. And now, I say, as my sec- 
 ond proposition, that the action of the Honse of Deputies 
 has been sustained by action still more deliberate and 
 emphatic. That this was done in spite of the most per- 
 severing efforts to create sympathy, and in the absence 
 of all rejoinder, will hardly be denied. I have already 
 shown that the second election in Illinois was an appeal 
 to the Standing Committees to rebuke the House of 
 Deputies, and thus indirectly to vindicate the candidate 
 they rejected. 
 
 It was little doubted that the second candidate would 
 be confirmed, and that thus a double triumph would be 
 secured. The Church had been flooded with pamphlets 
 and newspaper articles designed to overwhelm all opposi- 
 tion, and to bury opponents under a mountain of" obloquy 
 and reproach. These measures had not been without 
 
16 
 
 their effect. It was conjectured, therefore, that the 
 Standing Committees would be found less difficult to 
 satisfy than the Deputies. They were plied with assur- 
 ances that the silence of the other party was a confession 
 of impotency. They were flattered ; they were threatened. 
 With some, the poUtical process called "log-rolling" was 
 unblushingly resorted to : " You vote for our candidate, 
 and we will vote for yours." Under such a variety of 
 influences, it was expected that the Standing Committees, 
 removed from the excitements and the publicity of a 
 Synod, would naturally yield to the temptation of passing 
 the new candidate, by a mere routine vote on the regu- 
 larity of the papers, throwing the whole responsibility on 
 the Bishops. 
 
 I shared in this expectation. The case was a vexa- 
 tious one, and the Standing Committees might well wish 
 to be rid of it. The new Elect was a man entitled to 
 respect, and encompassed with personal friends. He was, 
 moreover, believed to be above trickery and deception. 
 Nobody accused him of " paltering in a double sense." 
 His position was unambiguous, avowed, and defiant. He 
 was a man whom all parties would have welcomed to the 
 Episcopate, had not his worse than doubtful theology 
 made it impossible for us to reconcile his confirmation 
 with fidelity to the Church's Law and Doctrine. But, 
 the question was, would the Church, by confirming his 
 alection, stultity herself, and rebuke the House of 
 Deputies for refusing a candidate of the same opinions 
 and the same party ? All who were not too stupid to 
 recognize this issue, felt its magnitude, and awaited the 
 result with anxiety. 
 
 God l)e thanked for the decisive response of the 
 Church b}' her constitutional representatives. Diocese 
 after diocese gave answer without wavering ; the excep- 
 tions were easily accounted for ; the decision was over- 
 whelming It amounted to a "vindication," not of the 
 
17 
 
 rejected candidate, but of the Deputies who rejected him. 
 For, as it was claimed that this case carried with it the 
 other, and that the success of the second would be a vir- 
 tual triumph and " vindication" of the first, so the defeat 
 of No. 2 was a fresh defeat of No. 1 ; " the two being said 
 to stand tegether on doctrinal questions." Thus it was 
 understood by all parties ; and so, while maintaining her 
 doctrines undefiled, by her repeated and decisive action, 
 has the Church rebuked all such as sully the sanctities of 
 an Episcopal election, and pollute her councils by artifices 
 and disingenuous manoeuvres. 
 
 I shall pass, in a succeeding letter, to other particu- 
 lars. Truly yours, 
 
 A. Cleveland Coxe, 
 Bishop of Western Netv York. 
 September 1, 1875. 
 
 BISHOP COXE'S SECOND LETTER, 
 
 From f/ir C/in?-c/ima/i, Septeiiiber 11///, 1875. 
 
 SECOND LETTER TO A DEPUTY. 
 
 My Dear Sir: 
 
 It has been admitted that unless the House of 
 Deputies was unfairly dealt with, they inflicted a wrong 
 in refusing the confirmation of the elected Bjshop of 
 Illinois. In other words, I can account for their decision 
 in no other way than this : They said, " There is proof 
 of much that requires explanation, and the explanations 
 proffered are ambiguous and unsatisfactory ; we cannot 
 confirm the election of a presbyter who, at such a crisis, 
 fails to tell us all he knows about serious occurrences and 
 abuses, and who leaves us under the profound impression 
 that he equivocates and suppresses truth." 
 
 That not a few reasoned thus, I have been well in- 
 
formed ; it is the natural conclusion that sucli were the 
 impressions that produced so solemn and pregnant a 
 result. 
 
 Were these impressions jusf? I answer, The Pro- 
 fessor himself has proved that they were so, and has left 
 abundant evidence in the hand of the future hititorian as 
 to the unfortunate course — the product, perhaps, of bad 
 advice — which he adopted in this serious crisis. 
 
 In the Professor's publications, since the adjourn- 
 ment of the House, he has directed public attention 
 chiefly to one point as the Crux of his whole case. He 
 claims to have been grossly misrepresented as to the 
 words he used when the Bishop of Western New York 
 asked him a certain question, at his official visitation in 
 the Spring of 1873. Instead of the expressions which 
 the Bishop recollects, he now makes oath to his own re- 
 collections as follows : 
 
 "At that visitation, the moment the fact of Father Grafton's 
 lectures was mentioned, I stated to him, in terms too strong and 
 clear to permit the possibility of mistake, that those lectures 7oere 
 delivered without my knowledge or consent^ and that if I had known of 
 them in time, I sJioiild certainly have prohibited themy 
 
 The italics are his own. This affidavit was solemn- 
 ly made, about three weeks after he had sent in his ex- 
 planations to the House. If his memory is good for 
 anything, and if his story is artless truth, we shall find 
 an entire agreement, therefore, between this testimony 
 and the statement he had sent to the House, signed with 
 his own hand. On the contrary, the two stories are flat 
 contradictions; if this affidavit tells the truth, it is im- 
 possible that his statement to the House was a faithful 
 account of facts. I am pained to direct attention to this 
 dilemma ; but my forbearance has at last ceased to be 
 consistent with duty. 
 
 I must leave the Professor, therefore, in the situation 
 he has made for himself. He swears he said certain 
 
19 
 
 words to me, in 1873, about which there can be " no 
 possibility of mistake." Observe, then, the issue is about 
 words : all that he and others may swear about his doings 
 may be true ; but that is not the point, though he shifts his 
 ground and makes it appear so. Whether through con- 
 fusion or design, I cannot say ; but he compiles his 
 pamphlet on the assumption that this issue is one as to 
 his conduct chiefly, whereas the primary point must be 
 as to what he told the Bishop "at that visitation." Major 
 Andre, when he was captured, might have told the scouts 
 that he was travelling under a pass from General Arnold ; 
 had he done so^ and produced it, he would have gone on 
 unmolested ; but he became confused, and let out a less 
 convenient truth, which he did not mean to betray. So, 
 allowing all that is now sworn to, to be true so far as 
 concerns his previous conduct it is possible^ at least, that 
 the Professor became confused and said what he does not 
 now recollect, because he is under the powerful impres- 
 sion of what he might have said. In the " issue of ver- 
 acity" which he so gratuitously made, all turns on what 
 he said " at that visitation." Primarily, as to the issue 
 he thus chose to make, this is the question : Are the Bis- 
 hop's recollections less worthy of credit than the Profes- 
 sor's, admitting both to be sincere, and that a great 
 mistake has been made by one or the other? This, then, 
 is the only question in the " issue of veracity," so-called. 
 Let us take the Professor's own sworn statement. 
 If his memory is correct, then, in the Spring of 1873, 
 (1) he knew that "■ Father Grafton's" Lectures were a 
 fact, and by accounting for them as a fact, he admitted 
 it ; (2) by using the title " Father," he admitted the some- 
 what anomalous position of " Father Grafton" among the 
 presbyters of our Church; (3) by the use of the plural 
 (" lectures"), he admitted that he had lectured on more 
 than one occasion: (4) by his explanations, he further ad- 
 mitted that " those Lectures" shoidd have been prohibited 
 
20 
 
 if possible ; (5) that he would have prohibited them if he 
 had known of them in time ; (6) that he had power to do 
 so as acting Dean; and (7) that nothing but want of 
 knowledge, in time to prohibit them, prevented him from 
 so doing. Refer back to his words, as above, and you 
 will see that they involve all these admissions. 
 
 Did he make these same admissions to the House of 
 Deputies? On the conirary he f/atl// denied thai an//fhi)i(/ 
 of the kind had occurred ; and he went on to give a detail- 
 ed and circumstantial account of what did occur, which, 
 071 the supposition that this oath is true, must necessarily be 
 the reverse of truth, in almost every particular. Such is 
 the record. 
 
 Thus, according to the certified record now before 
 me, he had been asked the following question : 
 
 "Did the Rev. Mr. Grafton, with your consent or knowledge, 
 ever lecture to or address the students of the Seminary upon any 
 subject, and under what circumstances .'' " 
 
 His reply is (1) '• He never did, with vay knowledge 
 and consent ;" after which, with a brief intervening am- 
 biguity, he proceeds i^l) to answer for •' the circum- 
 stances," in the following words : 
 
 "The facts were simply these: The Rev. Mr. Grafton — on one 
 occasion (1) called upon a siude/it, at his room in the Seminary, and 
 while there other students (2) /// neighboring rooms (3) heard ot his 
 presence, and came in to see him, and requested him to tell them 
 about Cotoley, and the plan and purpose of the brotherhood of which 
 Mr. Grafton is a member. The Rev. Mr. Grafton, as I was informed 
 after the occurrence, had no design (4) ^adien he called (5) of holding 
 any such (G) conversation; it was (7) simply accidental. I did not learn 
 of it (8) //////■/ some time after it took place, (9) and / had nothing 
 ■whatever to do with it.'' 
 
 The italics, which are my own, and the numerals 
 which I have introduced, mark particulars which deserve 
 special attention. 
 
 In the most solemn crisis of his life, when it seemed 
 impossible that the least suppression of truth could be re- 
 
21 
 
 sorted to, or the slightest equivocation tolerated by one 
 thus testifying before a Council of the Church, assembled 
 under the invocation of the Holy Ghost — the Professor 
 is responsible for having made this affirmation. Three 
 weeks later he makes oath to a statement, which^ if it be 
 true, convicts this statement of equivocation or untruth, 
 in almost every particular. According to the oath, he 
 knew, and the Bishop had been told " in terms too strong 
 and clear to permit the possibilUy of mis lake ^^^ that Lectures 
 had been delivered, that they were such lectures as should 
 have been prohibited, and that he would have prohibited 
 them himself, but for his want of timely information. 
 But he not only gave the House of Deputies to under- 
 stand that absolutely nothing of this kind had occurred : 
 instead thereof he tried to make them believe that the 
 whole story grew out (1) of a casual aUl (2) on one occa- 
 sion, when (3) students in " neighboring rooms" (4) heard 
 of his presence, (5) came in and had a conversation with 
 the Rev. Mr. Gralton, (6) the whole being simply accident- 
 al. In short, he led them to imagine, so far as his state- 
 ment was credited^ that (1) nothing had occurred which 
 he could have prohibited if he tmuld, and (2) that nothing 
 had occurred which he should have prohibited if he could. 
 
 I am amazed and mortified that this is matter of 
 history. But, I quote the record as I find it, and will 
 not aggravate it by printing the>e contradictory state- 
 ments in parallel columns. Let the reader try this ex- 
 periment. They defy explanation and all attempts to 
 harmonize them. 
 
 For alas, the attempts I have made to reduce them to 
 some pf)ssible solution, are blown to the winds by the 
 "sworn evidence." which multiplies details and brings 
 out fiicts of such irrepressible awkwardness as to dislocate 
 the most ingenious contrivances. The profes-or has taken 
 great pains to furnish this evidence against himself, and 
 I mention it in all charity, because it indicates a coufu- 
 
22 
 
 sion of iriind which may plead his apology. In the excite- 
 ment and irritation to which he had been subjected, this 
 is the very probable source of his otherwise unaccountable 
 conduct. 
 
 The House of Deputies, however, was not merely 
 trifled with by these detailed mis-statements of facts : it 
 was yet further mystified by equivocations. It was pub- 
 licly known that " Father Grafton" had been present at 
 a " High Mass" celebrated by the " C. B. S.," had preached 
 on the occasion and taken part in the business, as a mem- 
 ber, offering an important Uesolution ; all which had 
 been published by the Confraternity itself. That he was 
 a member of the G. B. S. was a natural inference, and no 
 apology is due for such an inference in view of these facts. 
 The Bishop of Western New York had stated, very cau- 
 tiously, that " an active agent of the C. B. S., or of the 
 system it sustains^ was permitted to lecture to students of 
 the Seminary, in a private room, on his peculiar views of 
 the Holy Eucharist." 
 
 The Professor was asked, accordingly, as to this point, 
 and he answered • 
 
 " I never allowed or k/ic-w of any Priest of the C. B. S. beifig in 
 the Seminary on any occasion to/iafsocver, since I have been in charge 
 of the Seminary." 
 
 Could any Deputy conceive that this meant anything 
 less than it seems to mean? Those who voted for the 
 confirmation of the Professor, had a right to infer that the 
 Bishop of Western New York was strangelj' and unac- 
 countably mistaken ; that " Father Grafton" had never 
 been in the Seminary on an}- occasion whatever ; or that, 
 if he had, the Professor never knew it. Many did infer 
 all this ; were convinced that the mere accidental m// was 
 no real exception to this sweeping affirmation ; they re- 
 garded the Professor as an injured man, and gave him 
 their vote^ and were grieved that he was not made a Bis- 
 hop accordingly. 
 
23 
 
 But lie now gives us sworn evidence that Father 
 Grafton was actually domiciled in the Seminary by his 
 official consent; lodged there and lectured there, and lec- 
 tured, in part, on the Holy Eucharist, with many other 
 aggravating circumstances. Admitting now that he never 
 consented to this, directl}^ or indirectly, how could he tell 
 the Deputies that " he never kneiv of any Priest of the C. 
 B. S. being in the Semiiian/, or lecturing to the students on 
 any occasion " Yet he did so in circumstances the most 
 solemn. To suspect an equivocation seemed uncharit- 
 able; and it is only by the great mercy of God that he 
 escaped being consecrated, a few days later, with words 
 in his mouth which he now swears were not strictly true. 
 
 How can it be explained that. Father Grafton's Lec- 
 tures being such as he swears he knew them to be, in tl^e 
 Spring of 1873, he could now affirm that he only made 
 a call on one occasion ; and that he never even knew of a 
 Priest of the C. B. S. being in the Seminary on any occa- 
 sion 1 If he meant that he did not know that he was such, 
 at that time, why did he not explain it so ? If he meant 
 that Father Grafton was no longer a Priest of the C. B. S., 
 in spite of all appearances to the contrary, why was this 
 point left in the dark 7 Was this dealing fairly with the 
 House of Deputies "? Was there no suggestio falsi in such 
 a pregnant suppressio veri ? The " sworn evidence" gives 
 us the very narrow chink through which conscience 
 makes an exit from the tight place in which it is com- 
 pressed by such inquiries. The Rev. Mr. Grafton imti- 
 mates as follows : 
 
 " Though a member of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacra- 
 ment when residing in England, I gave up all active connection with 
 it on, returning to this country," etc. 
 
 The answer is a plain one. However this may be, 
 the fact of membership is thus confessed, and among all 
 those who are not initiated into the scliool of " non- natur- 
 al interpretations," preaching, sitting in business meetings, 
 
u 
 
 and offering resolutions in any body, amount to active con- 
 nection with it. I cannot credit that, in his cooler mo- 
 ments, the Professor will derive any comfort from the 
 refuge he may have found, in a moment of agitation, from 
 such a pretext as this. 
 
 I have no disposition to press these appalling facts. 
 When I first read the Professor's petulant pamphlet, I 
 was amazed at the inconsistencies and contradictions to 
 which he was committed. I felt sure that everybody 
 who would read and compare the various and conflicting 
 stories would comprehend the case, and I rejoiced that 
 no necessity seemed laid upon me to expose it. I made 
 a careful analysis, however, of the whole mass of testi- 
 mony, to satisfy myself whether I ought, in any respect, 
 to qualify my own statements in view of it. If I had 
 been convicted of any serious mistake in so important a 
 matter, even that would have been crushing. I think 
 God would have enabled me to seek relief in humble and 
 frank avowal of my fault, and in zealous efforts to atone 
 for it. But, on the most careful examination, I can see 
 no reason why I should prefer the Professor's memory to 
 my own, and I am strengthened in every impression 
 which I entertained when I gave my brief unstudied note 
 to a Deputy of my diocese. It was given with no idea, 
 at the time, that it would ever be of any importance, ex- 
 cept to the individual who wanted it, for his personal 
 assurance only, in private intercourse with his friends. 
 Though I afterward permitted its more open use, in case 
 of necessity, as to which I was quite willing that my 
 honored friend should be the judge, such was its history 
 and original design. Thoroughly canvassed as it has 
 been, I have no grounds for suspecting that it contains 
 any considerable innccui acy as to fact, while its essential 
 truth has been circumstantially established by the Pro- 
 fessor himself and his youthfui compurgators. 
 
 I have observed that the Professor having gratuit- 
 
25 
 
 ously raised an " issue of veracity," the first question to 
 be settled was as to what passed between himself and the 
 Bishop of Western New York, " at that visitation." He 
 indignantly denied the account the Bishop had given of 
 it ; what, then, ought the Bishop to have said ? I have 
 already shown that if the Bishop had said the verij words 
 tvhich the Professor stvears he should have said — they would 
 have made a worse case for the Professor than that of 
 which he complains ; they are more flatly contradicted 
 by his (the Professor's) statement to the H<)use. But as 
 there were only three other persons present at that visi- 
 tation it is evident that these three are the only compe- 
 tent witnesses in the cas.\ Till these three are heard 
 from, other testimony is irrelevant. All this " sworn 
 evidence " goes for nothing, as to the matter in hand — 
 however valuable in other respects, and it is most valu- 
 able to me — unless, first and foremost, we find the Pro- 
 fessor calling in his colleagues, who were present at the 
 visitation, and asking them what ivas said. How simple 
 and inoffensive this process! Why did he not resort to 
 iti If I was wrong I should have been convicted — not 
 of intentional, but of very culpable error. Their testimony 
 must settle the question whether my recollections or his 
 own may be best relied upon. But instead of doing this, he 
 raises a gratuitous " issue of veracity." He then makes 
 out his ( wn story, swears to it, and next looks around for 
 support among his pupils and personal friends. Of the 
 three competent witnesses, we find onlij one testifying. 
 He, the youngest and a sympathizer, gives only a general 
 approbation, which means nothing unless cross-examina- 
 tion can elicit particular and specific testimony. The 
 other two witnesses, grave divines and experienced pro- 
 fessors, are conspicuouslij absent. Why so'? Either they 
 were summoned or they were not. If they gave testi- 
 mony, let us have it. If they did not, was it because they 
 were not asked ? That of itself is a cognovit^ and finds its 
 
26 
 
 only motive in conscious fears that their specific testi- 
 mony might prove inconvenient and damaging. Now, 
 the rule is, " against an elder receive not an accusation 
 but before two or three witnessesJ^ He brings but one 
 against a Bishop, and that one says only just enough to 
 make his testimon}^ worthless. It is general approval, 
 and it may mean everything or nothing. If the former, 
 then it covers the whole of the Professor's affidavit. But, 
 have a care ! We have seen how full}' the Professor him- 
 self has contradicted that. Besides, Mr, Welsh, who gave 
 himself the trouble to consult the two witnesses who 
 were left out by the negative, testimony stronglj' corrobor- 
 ating my own. I have preferred to rely entirely on Pro- 
 fessor, finds their positive, as well as their the Professor's 
 own publications, however, and it is chiefly from them 
 that I have made up my mind as to the unassailable posi- 
 tion of those Deputies whose vote w^as equivalent to a 
 want of confidence. Until the two witnesses, whom the 
 Professor has not consulted, are found to agree in con- 
 firming his recollections, I am not even touched ; and 
 until he and his young allies can agree as to which of 
 their various and manifold stories I ought to prefer to my 
 own convictions, I do not see why I should give myself 
 any personal concern in the premises. 
 
 Yet, it must not be forgotten, since the matter has 
 been forced upon our attention, that the Professor, now 
 permanent Dean of the Seminary, has furnished us' with 
 " sworn evidence" affecting his own statements, in which 
 the following particulars are of vast significance. He 
 proves : 
 
 (1) That instead of an accidental call, it was a case 
 of lodging in the Seminary for two nights ; 
 
 (2) That instead of his having nothing to do with it, 
 the Professor, as acting Dean, had formally and officially 
 consented lo the ^' Father's " being thus entertained in 
 the Seminary; 
 
27 
 
 (3) That instead of knowing nothing about it in time^ 
 he was applied to sometime before hand, to accommodate 
 the " Father" with the use of a lecture-room] 
 
 (4) Tliat though it was said that this room was to 
 be used for social purposes, the Professor, by his prudence 
 in refusing it, betrayed his conviction that this was said 
 in an non-natural sense ; 
 
 (5) That, the Professor having refused the use of a 
 lecture-room, with full time and warning to prohibit sueh 
 performances in awj room, the student who had consulted 
 with him felt himself at full liberty, nevertlieless, to 
 arrange for the social meeting in his own room, ; 
 
 (6) That, ?iQ,Q,ordim^y/' every st?tdejit in the Se7ni- 
 nary was invited ;" 
 
 (7) That, instead of a eall, which those in neighbor- 
 ing rooms " chanced to hear of, these invited guests came 
 as such, and heard, jiot a cojiversatzon, but a lecture ; 
 
 (^8) That in this Lecture the subject of the Holy 
 Eucharist was introduced, a proposition with respect to it 
 maintained, and certain objections met and answered by 
 an anecdote of the miraculous efficacy of the Sacrament, 
 in a particular case ; 
 
 (9) That another Lecture was formally delivered; 
 that some of the students took notes ; that religious exer- 
 cises attended these performances ; 
 
 (10) That these Lectures were notorious in the Sem- 
 inary, so much so that one of the professors formally 
 warned the students against such teachings, and was 
 derided for his pains ; 
 
 (11) That those who were active in these insubordi- 
 nate proceedings, so far from being reprimanded by the 
 Professor, as acting Dean, seem to have enjoyed his 
 special countenance, as they are evidently still distin- 
 guished by a high degree of his favor ; 
 
 (12) That such being some of the essential facts of 
 the case, nothing of the sort was communicated to the House ^ 
 
28 
 
 in reply to its anxious inquiries ; that the House proceed- 
 ed to its vote under the most solemn assurances that 
 iiotking of this kind had occur7'cd, and that the Pro- 
 fessor was as ignorant of anything to justif}- my reference 
 to such facts, as was the great majority of the Deputies 
 themselves. 
 
 Here, then, if I make a pause, it is out of simple 
 kindness and good will. I have not treated this matter 
 as a personal grievance, nor with any design to- place in 
 a strong light all that might justly be exposed. It is the 
 privilege of a Bishop to suffer wrong rather than to inflict 
 it; and in all cases to be forbearing, considerate, and 
 fatherly. I throw aside, then, a painful comparison 
 which I have made of oath with oath, and page with page, 
 of this " sworn evidence." I do not wish to make inde- 
 lible the stain with which so many young clergymen 
 have defiled their hands^ nor to point out how little they 
 seem to understand of the peril of that " vain and rash 
 swearing" which our Thirty-ninth Article condemns. By 
 a sort of poetic Nemesis, the very Journal which records 
 the election of the new Dean of the Seminary, informs us, 
 in a very significant report of the Examining Committee, 
 that " the study of the true principles for determining cases 
 of conscience" is entirdij neglected in the Seminary.* So 
 we might infer. The Professor and his young pupils 
 seem quite ignorant of the f^xct that even among heathen 
 moralists gratuitous oaths were held to be degrading. It 
 is an impeachment of one's own credibility to offer an 
 " oath for confirmation," so long as no magistrate requires 
 it. Noblemen have enjoyed the privilege of testifying 
 " upon their honor," and clergymen " upon their sacred 
 Orders." Lawyers object to all extra-judicial swearing 
 as affording a convenient pretext to the worst characters, 
 who can thus get up the appearance of a case without 
 subjecting themselves to cross-examination. Must I re- 
 
 * See Journal of 1875. p. 746. 
 
29 
 
 hearse all this when any expositor of the Thirty-nine 
 Articles is supposed to convey such knowledge to our 
 merest tyros in Theology 1 Yet here is a pamphlet filled 
 with ''sworn evidence" the most contradictory and self- 
 refuting, and the person who is responsible for it is the 
 person selected by seventy-seven Trustees, out of four 
 hundred, to form the manners, and mould the characters 
 of our future clergy, as permanent Dean of our General 
 Theological Seminary. 
 
 By another coincidence of poetical justice, the Pro- 
 fessor's collection of unfortunate oaths was supplemented 
 by an appendix of note-worthy character. It contains the 
 testimony of a young graduate of the Seminary, who, 
 being in England, and more anxious to come to the aid 
 of the Professor than to inform himself of the real state 
 of the case, volunteered an affidavit which has proved of 
 great service to me and of none at all to his friend. In 
 this attempt, however, he seems to have had his atten- 
 tion turned, for the first time, to one of those " true prin- 
 ciples for determining cases of conscience," which are so 
 much neglected in the Seminary. He found that the 
 majesty of English law regards such oaths as profane • 
 and so this intending swearer was only able to get in a 
 " declaration." It is made, under an amendment to re- 
 peated Acts of Parliament, "for the more effectual aboli- 
 tion of oaths and affirmations, and to substitute 
 
 declarations in lieu thereof, and for the more entire suppres- 
 sion of voluntary and extra judicial affidavits, and to make 
 other provisions for the abolition of unnecessary oaths. ^^ 
 The Professor prints his friend's " Declaration," under 
 this legal title,* every word of which brands shame upon 
 his whole pamphlet. This fact lends further countenance 
 to the excuse I have found for him, as nothing but con- 
 fusion of mind can account for such self-exposure and 
 practical fatuity. 
 
 * See his Appendix, No. 1. 
 
30 
 
 I close by directing him and the young brethren 
 whom he has so seriously compromised, to one of those 
 '' true principles for determining cases of 'conscience," 
 which seems, indeed, to have been " entirely neglected " 
 in their education It is not found in the impure pages 
 of Liguorian casuistry, which might seem to have sug- 
 gested the greater part of their testimony ; but in a " neg- 
 lected " book called the Bible ; and it is as follows (see 
 Eccles. V. 2-6) : "Be not rash with thy mouth, and let 
 not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God ; . 
 neither say thou before the angel that it was an error ; 
 wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy 
 the work of thine hands ?" 
 
 Truly yours, 
 
 A. Cleveland Coxe, 
 
 Bishop of Western New York. 
 Sept. 2, 1875. 
 
 DR. SEYMOUR'S REPIA' TO BISHOP COXE. 
 
 Frof/i the ChiircJniiaii, Septciiibcr "^.bf/i, 1875. 
 
 To THE Editor of the Churchman : 
 
 It is with inexpressible grief that I have 
 read in your paper the recent letters of the Bishop of 
 Western New York, making a fresh and vindictive 
 assault upon me. I would not trouble you or your 
 readers' with a reply, were the writer not a Bishop in the 
 Church of God. His office gives weight to his utter- 
 ances, and hence one is forced to notice what otherwise 
 he would treat with silent indifference. Let me begin 
 by bespeaking for the Bishop the generous and merciful 
 consideration of your readers and the Church at large. 
 He is the victim of a craze now, as he has been before. 
 This must be so, or he would not have been guilty, within 
 the past year, of repeated acts of injustice and outrage 
 
^1 
 
 toward me, which all honorable men must condemn, and 
 his own conscience and heart in calm moments would not 
 approve. In no other way can one account, for instance, 
 in a manner consistent with the preservation of the Bis- 
 hop's character as a Christian man, for his course during 
 the last General Convention. From rough notes, or from 
 recollection merely, of a desultory conversation which 
 took place more than a year before, he framed what he 
 considered to be very serious charges against a Presbyter 
 of the Church — charges which he knew would be regard- 
 ed, amid the excitement which then prevailed, as very 
 damaging to him at a momentous crisis in his life. And 
 these charges, of the truth of which he was not certain, 
 and which have since been proved to be false, he sent in, 
 through a Delegate, to the House of Deputies, to be used 
 against that Presbyter in secret session, where the 
 accused was not present. He did this when a brief 
 interview with the Presbyter, whom he was clandestinely 
 assailing, would have satisfied him of the groundlessness 
 of his assertions, and have saved him from doing what 
 has proved to be a great wrong. Even had these charges 
 been true, the Bishop of Western New York had his own. 
 House in which to prefer them, and where he would 
 have enjoyed the same protection, in the absence of the 
 party whom he was assailing, as sheltered him in the 
 secret session of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 The question has been asked again and again^ why 
 the Bishop was guilty of a breach of privilege and pro- 
 priety, in intruding, during a debate, his accusations and 
 opinions before a body of which he was not a member ; 
 and when he, as a member of the House of Bishops, had 
 his own legitimate sphere in which to wield his influence 
 and make known his views. He has answered it, I am 
 credibly informed, by saying that the House of Bishops 
 would undoubtedly have confirmed me, and that I must 
 by all means be crushed, or words to that effect. What 
 
32 
 
 else would account for such conduct on the part of a 
 Christian man and a Bishop, but the solution which I 
 have suggested — that he is the victim of a delusion 7 
 His suspicions and prejudices and passsions have unbal- 
 anced his judgment on this one subject, and turned his 
 head. Or again : What else can account for his conduct 
 now, in gratuitously assailing me, after well nigh a year's 
 profound silence, in the two letters which have recently 
 appeared in the columns of The Ohurchman ? He first 
 gratuitously and wantonly assailed me before the House 
 of Clerical and Lay Deputies, in October, 1874, with 
 charges which were unfounded in truth. To these I 
 calmly and quietly replied, in the early part of the next 
 month, November. The Bishop, however^ preserves the 
 strictest silence for nearly a year, when he, in his own 
 selected time, and for reasons best known to himself, 
 bursts forth with the reaffirmation of his old charges, and 
 with fresh ones of even greater gravity and heinousness. 
 The thunderbolt falls from a clear sky. Surely the 
 Bishop is the victim of a craze, and is not to be regarded 
 in this matter as ordinary men would be^ or he, under 
 ordinary circumstances, would be. I am not without 
 hope, too, that he will, when the excitement and heat 
 under which he now labors have passed, come to a better 
 mind, and endeavor, in his own eccentric way, to make 
 me the amende which is due to me. I am the more en- 
 couraged to take this favorable view of the future, from 
 the fact that the Bishop seems to have relented in the 
 case of the Rev. Dr. DeKoven, and to be awakening to a 
 just appreciation of his noble character. In a letter of 
 the Bishop of Western New York, now before me, written 
 in the Spring of 1874, he speaks of the Rev. Dr. DeKoven 
 as guilty of " Jesuit practices," and implies that he is 
 leagued with others, in England and this country, " to 
 destroy the Reformation and Jesuitize the Church." 
 Now, in the Autumn of 1875, the Bishop, referring to 
 
38 
 
 the same Rev. Dr. DeKoven, says of him: "He was a 
 man entitled to respect, and encompassed with personal 
 friends. He was, moreover, believed to be above trickery 
 and deception. Nobody accused him of ' paltering" in a 
 double sense.' His position was unambiguous, avowed, 
 and defiant. He was a man whom all parties would have 
 welcomed to the Episcopate, had not his worse than 
 doubtful theology made it impossible for us to reconcile 
 his confirmation with fidelity to the Church's law and 
 doctrine." After this radical change in the Bishop's es- 
 timate of the Rev. Dr. DeKoven's character, there is 
 some little hope for even me. Be that as it may, how- 
 ever, I am satisfied that the Bishop deserves in such 
 escapades as the present, rather pity than censure. Our 
 only grief is that, where his eccentricities are not known, 
 his unfortunate victims may suffer, and the Church, of 
 which he is a Bishop, must be scandalized. 
 
 I do not propose to follow the Bishop through his 
 two letters, occupying more than twelve columns of The 
 Churchman. It would be tedious and unnecessary. It 
 will be sufficient for me to relate, briefly, my connection 
 with the Rev. Mr. Grafton's visit to the Seminary, before . 
 and after his coming ; the circumstances under which I 
 gave my answers, which were read in the House of 
 Deputies ; to print these answers and my affidavit, to- 
 gether with the letters of the Bishop of Western New 
 York, in order that the public may make the comparison 
 which the Bishop suggests ; to endeavor to bring the 
 Bishop back to the real issue, from which he tries to 
 escape; and then, with a few words of explanation, to 
 close the correspondence. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Grafton visited the Seminary in the 
 month of December, 1872. Prior to his coming, Mr. 
 Torbert, a student, requested of me, as acting Dean, per- 
 mission to entertain him. This he did in accordance 
 with the regulations of the Seminary, which prescribe 
 
34 
 
 that no student shall allow any one to share his room 
 with him, as a guest, without the special permission of 
 the Dean, or in his absence, of a resident Professor. Some 
 days after this request was made by Mr. Torbert, the 
 Rev. Mr. Grafton paid his anticipated visit to the Semi- 
 nary, remained two nights, Tuesday and Wednesday, and 
 on Thursday, about one or two o'clock, p. m., called upon 
 nie at my house, and after a brief interview, left. Up to 
 the hour the Rev. Mr. Grafton called, I was not aware 
 that he was in the city, much less m the Seminary. 
 Nothing was said by him about the length of his visit, or 
 his intercourse with the students. Subsequently, after 
 the lapse of about a week, I learned that the Rev. Mr. 
 Grafton had, at the request of a number of the students, 
 delivered an informal lecture or discourse, precisely in 
 the way in which I stated in my answers, which were 
 read in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The 
 gentleman who gave me the information was present on 
 only one of the evenings, and referred to but one, and up 
 to October, 1874, after my answers to the House of De- 
 puties were submitted, and my case was decided, I sup- 
 posed that the Rev. Mr. Grafton's lectures had been 
 delivered on one evening, and that his stay had not ex- 
 ceeded one night. Subsequently, after October 22d^ 1874, 
 I was led to make minute inquiries into the matter, in 
 order to meet the charges of tlie Bishop of Western New 
 York, and then, for the first time, I became acquainted 
 with the additional information which I introduced into 
 my affidavit of November 6th. When I learned in the 
 Winter of 1872, what the Rev. Mr. Grafton had done, I 
 remonstrated with Mr. Torbert, and pointed out to him 
 that it was an impropriety for any one, unless with the 
 knowledge and consent of the Dean and Faculty, to deli- 
 ver lectures or give instruction in the Seminary ; that 
 unless such a rule were laid down and enforced, serious 
 abuses might arise. He acknowledged the truth of this, 
 
35 
 
 and promised that the thing should not occur again. Now, 
 it may be said that I did not go far enough, that I ought 
 to have convened the students, and in a public and very 
 emphatic way have rebuked them ; nay, perhaps, invoked 
 the action of the Faculty, suspended the young men-in a, 
 body, notified their Bishops, and created a great stir and 
 excitement throughout the entire Church. It may be so, 
 but this is not my way of governing young men, and at 
 the most, it was only an error of judgment. My mode of 
 dealing with the matter was eflfectual. The offence has 
 never occurred since, nor would it have been likely to 
 occur ever again, even though the Bishop of Western 
 New York had not made it the subject of grave, and, as 
 it turned out, false accusations against me, in thie recent 
 session of the House of Deputies. 
 
 Let it then be distinctly understood, that on Decem- 
 ber 10th and 11th, 1872, I was not aware that the Rev. 
 Mr. Grafton was in the city of New York and in the Sem- 
 inary. On one of these evenings, I was at the house of 
 my aged father, whom I was accustomed to visit twice a 
 week, on Tuesdays and Fridays; on the second I was en- 
 gaged up to a late hour in a distant part of the city, in 
 arranging for the transfer of a student to St Stephen's 
 College, Annandale. On the 12th of December, Thurs- 
 day, I first became aware of the Rev. Mr. Grafton's pre- 
 sence in the cit}^, when, just on the eve of departure, he 
 kindly called upon me. In the course of the next week, 
 I was told that he had met a number of the students in- 
 formally, and given them an account of Cowley and its 
 work. When Bishop Coxe visited the Seminary in the 
 Spring of 1873, I knew all this ; and to this extent and 
 no further my information went, when I made the answers 
 which were read in the House of Deputies on the 21st 
 and 22d of October, 1874. After that date I learned 
 on inquiry additional details of the Rev. Mr. Grafton's 
 visit, and heard for the first time an outline of his dis- 
 
36 
 
 courses, from notes which one of the students who was 
 present had made at the time. Some portion of the ad- 
 ditional information which I had thus gained, I naturally 
 and properly embodied in my affidavit, which was pre- 
 pared and sworn to on the 6th day of November, 1874. 
 The differences between my answers to the Deputies and 
 m.}^ affidavit will be found to be simply in the way of ad- 
 ditional information which I had gained from others, and 
 the additions thus made will be found, on examination, in 
 no respect to conflict with the previous statements. As re- 
 gards what I adduce as of my own personal knowledge, 
 there is not the slightest discrepancy from first to last. 
 
 It may be asked why I did not give the subject full 
 investigation, and spread the results before the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies. My answer is, because I had 
 no time to do so, and this brings me to the second point 
 of which I proposed to speak : the circumstances under 
 which my answers were prepared which were laid before 
 the House of Deputies. 
 
 On Wednesday, the 21st of October, after two o'clock 
 p. M., just as I was leaving my house to go to the House 
 of Mercy, of which I am Chaplain, for the purpose of hold- 
 ing my usual week-day service, the door-bell rang 
 violently, and on my opening it a Clerical Deputy, in 
 great excitement, and covered with perspiration, pre- 
 sented himself, and handed me a slip of paper, and bade 
 me read what was on it, and make my answer with the 
 utmost despatch, or else he would not be able to get back 
 to the House of Deputies before the final vote in my case 
 would be taken. It was fixed for four o'clock of that day. 
 The Deputy informed me that just before the hour of re- 
 cess, at one or half-past one o'clock, an entirely new 
 phase had been put upon the question of my confirmation 
 by charges which had been made against me in a letter 
 which had been sent to the Lower House, and which, at 
 almost the last moment, was read by an Honorable Lay 
 
37 
 
 Deputy from the Diocese of Virginia. The drift and pur- 
 port of the charges, he added, are on that paper ; what 
 is your response 7 The slip of paper has doubtless been 
 destroyed ; but, as nearly as I can recall the words, they 
 were these : " It is charged that a Priest of the C. B. S. 
 was allowed, with the knowledge and consent of Professor 
 Seymour, to lecture to the students in a private room in 
 the Seminary. Is that true V I had not the time to look 
 for another piece of paper, such was the haste of the De- 
 puty. I simply reversed the original slip, which I held 
 in my hand, and wrote my brief reply as best I could on 
 the other side. I knew at once who the accused was. 
 Had I been charged with murder or burglary, I could not 
 have been more surprised, since I was as guiltless of the 
 offence of which Bishop Coxe accused me, as I was of 
 those crimes. 
 
 My reply was prepared in reference to the question 
 propounded, and were that question in existence it would 
 be seen that my response was a legitimate and truthful 
 answer. The gravamen of the Bishop's charges was, as I 
 undertood it then and understand it now, not that lec- 
 tures were delivered, but that they were delivered with 
 my knowledge and consent. My imagined complicity with 
 the lectures constituted my offence. Hence, in the Bis- 
 hop's letter, the words, "with his knowledge and con- 
 sent," are italicized. It was to this point, the substance 
 of the charge, that my attention was directed, and I en- 
 deavored to make my reply meet just this allegation. 
 Had I been allowed time even to read over my answer, 
 so hastily written, I would probably have seen that the 
 word " knew," in the connection in which I used it, was 
 ambiguous, and I would have added "at the time," or 
 something to that effect, in order to determine its mean- 
 ing. As it was, however, I did the best I could under 
 the trying circumstances. Nothing was further from my 
 mind than the idea of deception. The Deputy snatched 
 
38 
 
 the paper from my hand, and ran from the Seminary, in 
 order to reach St. John's Chapel, where the House of De- 
 puties was sitting, full two miles away, before the final 
 vote was taken. He succeeded in doing this ; but only 
 after considerable opposition was he allowed to read my 
 replies. 
 
 The hour for taking the vote in my case had been 
 fixed by resolution, previously adopted, at/owr o'clock on 
 Wednesday, the 21st of October, the day on which the 
 Hon. Judge Sheffey, of Virginia, at one or half-past one 
 o'clock, p. M., read Bishop Coxe's letter (which I am in- 
 formed he had in his possession several days), for the 
 first time to the House. After the reading of my answers 
 to the charges of Bishop Coxe, the Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties kindly postponed action until the next day, Thurs- 
 day, at three o'clock. On the intervening evening, 
 Wednesday, several Clerical Deputies, in a spirit of true, 
 fraternal regard, waited upon me, and presented in writ- 
 ing, on their own responsibility, certain questions which 
 they had prepared. In the meantime, I had endeavored 
 to recall, as far as I was able, the circumstances connect- 
 ed with the Rev. Mr Grafton's visit to the Seminary 
 nearly two years before. The result of my efforts is em- 
 bodied in my answers, which were read to the House of 
 Deputies on the following day (Thursday), and which 
 will be found in my second letter. To one point I ad- 
 dressed myself in these answers, namely, to make it per- 
 fectly clear that no one, with vay knowledge and consent, 
 had ever been permitted to deliver lectures or discourses, 
 or give instruction to the students in private. In refer- 
 ence to this matter, which falls within my own personal 
 knowledge, I was entirely sure, since it has been, from 
 the outset of my connection with the Seminary, a fixed 
 principle in my administration to allow nothing that is 
 clandestine or concealed. All that I say besides, in my 
 replies, as to the incidents of the Rev. Mr. Grafton's visit, 
 
39 
 
 was drawn from information given to me by others many 
 months before. I was not present at the lectures, nor 
 did I know personally anything about them. It is possi- 
 ble for one to be misinformed ; it is also possible for one, 
 after the lapse of nearly two years, not to bear in mind 
 all the minute details of a narrative which was told to 
 him. If any one thinks, with the Bishop of Western New 
 York, that in these answers, the inaccuracies as to details 
 which I learned from others, and tried to recall to the 
 best of my ability, after a long interval, constitute " a 
 suggestio falsi iindi a pregnant suppre^sio veri^^ he is welcome 
 to his opinion. In regard to all such persons I would 
 only say, that I sincerely hope that they may never be 
 judged by the same rule. Let it be remembered, that 
 when all these answers were prepared by me, I had not 
 seen the letter of Bishop Coxe. The nearest I could get 
 to the indictment preferred against me by a Right Rev- 
 erend Father in God, before a secret session of the House 
 of Clerical and Lay Deputies, from which I was excluded, 
 was what others thought it contained. I saw Bishop 
 Coxe's letters, for the first time, after my confirmation 
 was refused. 
 
 A few words must be devoted to the C. B. S., about 
 which the Bishop of Western New York says so much, 
 and the Rev. Mr. Grafton's connection with it. In the 
 first place, I am not now, nor ever have been, a member 
 of this association. I was approached upon the subject 
 once, and only once, in 1864, and declined to join it, sim- 
 ply because it did not commend itself to my approval. I 
 never saw but one of its papers, and that was after the 
 close of the General Convention in November last. I 
 have never yet seen a list of its members. Strange as it 
 may seem, I had not read or heard of the Rev. Mr. Graf- 
 ton's officiating and preaching at a service of the C. B. S., 
 until I saw the account when reproduced in the daily 
 edition of The Churchman. In my answers, written in 
 
40 
 
 such terrible haste, they are the first two in the series, 
 and under great pressure the^C. B. S. and its concerns 
 were not prominent in my mind ; the Rev. Mr. Grafton's 
 name had not yet been mentioned. I knew with certain- 
 ty, that never, with my knowledge and consent, had any 
 one been permitted to lecture in private to the students, 
 and, therefore, I could safely say that no priest of the C. 
 B, S. had ever been so allowed. I did not know then 
 whether the Rev. Mr. Grafton was a member of the C. B. 
 S. or not, nor did it matter, since I had never permitted 
 him, nor invited him, nor introduced him, to lecture to 
 or indoctrinate the students, and, therefore, the prolix 
 remarks of the Bishop of Western New York on that sub- 
 ject are entirely irrelevant. 
 
 It remains for me, in my next letter, simply to pre- 
 sent the questions which were addressed to me during 
 the secret session of the House of Deputies, and my 
 answers to the same ; the letters of Bishop Coxe, con- 
 taining his charges and my affidavit, in order that my 
 brethren of the clergy and laity throughout the Church, 
 may make the comparison which the Bishop suggests, 
 and judge between him and me, with all the original 
 documents before them to enable them to come to a 
 righteous decision ; and then to conclude with a few ex- 
 planatory remarks. Praying that God may overrule this 
 unhappy discussion, which the Bishop of Western New 
 York has re-opened, to the good of the Church, and may 
 bring my assailant to a better mind, so that he may lay 
 aside his fierce anger toward me, and allow me to prove 
 by act, as I now assure him by word, that I can bury and 
 forget the past, and treat him with the reverence and re- 
 spect, and love even, which are due from a son to a 
 Father in the Church of God. 
 
 I am, very truly yours, 
 
 George F. Seymour. 
 Gen'l Theol. Seminary, Sept. 11, 1875. 
 
41 
 
 DR. SEYMOUR'S REPLY TO BISHOP COXE. 
 
 From ihe CJnirchman, October 2^, 1875. 
 
 To THE Editor of the Churchman : 
 
 I proceed now to lay before your readers 
 my statements which were read to the House of Deputies 
 in response to what I was told were the charges of Bis- 
 hop Coxe ; the Bishop's letters, which / tvas not allotved to 
 see until the day after my confirmation tvas refused ; and my 
 affidavit, drawn up and sworn to after I had read the 
 Bishop's letters, and inquired, with some degree of mi- 
 nuteness, into the circumstances of the Rev. Mr. Grafton's 
 visit to the Seminary, in December, 1872, and about 
 which, up to the time of the reverend gentleman's depar- 
 ture, I knew no more than Bishop Coxe himself I pro- 
 pose, also, to add the affidavits of the Rev, Professor 
 Hall and the Rev. Mr. Grafton. It is a sad pity that the 
 Bishop did not introduce these documents into his own 
 letters^ in order to make clear to his readers the contra- 
 dictions and folsehoods which he alleges that they con- 
 tain, and which he undertakes to establish by a plentiful 
 use of Arabic numerals. A learned Professor is said, on 
 taking leave of a favorite pupil, to have given him, with 
 great impressiveness, this advice : " Verify references," 
 and to have repeated it, after the example of Demos- 
 thenes, three times, in order to add to its force. The 
 probability of the Bishop's suggestion being acted upon 
 by one out of a hundred of his readers, in looking up the 
 papers and pamphlets of a year ago, and making a labori- 
 ous comparison, which would be very tedious to all but 
 experts, is vastly less than the likelihood of a man or 
 woman verifying references; and who verifies references? 
 The Bishop informs us that he does not exhibit the 
 alleged contradictions and falsehoods, which my state- 
 ments would disclose, if they were printed in parallel 
 
421 
 
 columns^ out of mercy to me. Does he believe this him- 
 self? Was this the reason 1 Well, then, I shall be more 
 cruel to myself than the tender-hearted, gentle, loving 
 Bishop of Western New York is disposed to be, and 
 spread these documents, in full, before the readers of The 
 Churchman, and I beg them, for mij sake, to do what the 
 Bishop suggests, read them carefully, and compare them, 
 and, taking into account the circumstances under which 
 they were severally produced, answer to their own con- 
 sciences^ not whether there is any contradiction or false- 
 hood, for no such thing will appear, but whether there is 
 any attempt at evasion, or prevarication even. 
 
 It may be well to explain here that, the Bishop of 
 Western New York made his visitations to the Seminary 
 in the Autumn of 1872 and the Spring of 1873, as a 
 member of the Committee of Seven, appointed under a 
 resolutio)! of the Bishop of North Carolina, passed at the 
 annual meeting of the Board of Trustees in June, 1872, 
 "to draught a practical plan for the development and 
 improvement of the Seminary." In making his visita- 
 tions. Bishop Coxe announced that it was his object in 
 doing so, to gain information which would aid him, and 
 his colleagues, in their labor of preparing the plan which 
 was requested by the Trustees. At the visitation held 
 in the Autumn of 1872, the Bishop submitted a series of 
 written questions, which were answered in writing. In 
 the following Spring, his visitation was not formal, but 
 the interview was taken up with a desultory conversation 
 between the Bishop and the Professors who were present. 
 Whether the Bishop took written notes of what passed, 
 or trusted entirely to his own memory, I know not. If 
 he took notes, he never submitted them to me, or read 
 them to me, in order to ascertain whether he had re- 
 ported me correctly ; if he trusted to his own memory, 
 he never intimated to me that he had learned anything 
 which he intended to treasure up, and when the suitable 
 
43 
 
 opportunity presented itself, produce against me, and 
 ask me whether he was right in his understanding of 
 what had been said. We had met together as Bishop 
 and presbyters in the Church of God, to take counsel 
 together for the benefit of its great theological school. 
 The Bishop manifested toward me, on that occasion, I 
 thought, an inimical spirit, but I left the room^ where we 
 had been in conference, without the most distant suspi- 
 cion that the Right Rev. Father had drawn from what 
 had passed anything which would jiggravate the ill feel- 
 ing which I knew he entertained toward me, much less 
 which he would formulate into charges, and present as 
 accusations against me in the future I was utterly un- 
 conscious of his purpose. But the weapon, it seems, he 
 had forged and sharpened and kept in reserve for his vic- 
 tim, to be used, as he hoped, with fatal eftect, when the 
 favorable opportunity offered. That opportunity came 
 eighteen months afterward. I was elected Bishop of Illi- 
 nois, and in accordance with the provisions of the Canons, 
 my papers came before the two Houses of the General 
 Convention for confirmation. The popular mind had 
 been wrought up to fever heat on the subject of Ritualism, 
 and the excitement which infected the masses, influenced 
 more or less the members of the General Convention. 
 At once it was determined to seize upon me, and make 
 me the representative of the odious and dreaded evil, 
 and then crush me for my imaginary offences. Every 
 effort was made to connect me with extreme men 
 and ultra associations ; and when all these labors 
 were likely to prove unavailing, then, at the last 
 moment, the golden opportunity, which the Bishop 
 of Western New York had long coveted, was pre- 
 sented, and was improved to the utmost. This is the 
 Bishop's account of the matter : " It " (his note to Judge 
 Smith) " was given with no idea at the time that it would 
 ever be of any importance, except to the individual who 
 
44 
 
 wanted it for his personal assurance only, in private in- 
 tercourse with his friends; though I afterward permitted its 
 more open use in case of necessity, as to which I was quite 
 willing that my honored friend should be the judge." 
 The italics are mine. 
 
 On the seventh day of the secret session, when every 
 resource to defeat my confirmation had, as was generally 
 supposed, failed, and the hour for taking the final vote, 
 which had been previously fixed by resolution for four 
 o'clock r. M., was drawing near, then the case of necessity, 
 anticipated by Bishop Coxe, had, in the judgment of his 
 honorable friend, arrived. At one or half -past one o'clock, 
 on the day when the final vote was to be taken at four 
 o'clock, at a point full two miles distant from my house, 
 and without any intimation to me that such charges 
 would be preferred against me, the Hon. Judge Sheffey, 
 of Virginia, as the mouth-piece of Bishop Coxe as to the 
 charges, and the exponent of Bishop Coxe, Judge Smith, 
 and others, as to the time chosen for producing it, read 
 the letter for the first time, which had been in private 
 circulation among certain selected Deputies for several 
 days. These Deputies doubtless believed the charges of 
 Bishop Coxe, and thought that they were doing God ser- 
 vice in resorting to any method, even though in cool 
 moments they would have seen that it was discreditable, 
 to keep a dangerous, if not unworthy, man, out of the 
 Episcopate. Perhaps their excitement and intense par- 
 tisanship for the moment blinded their eyes to the cruelty 
 with which they were treating me. Judges, who sit 
 upon the bench, should know at least that the law does 
 not condemn a man until he is allowed an opportunity of 
 being heard on his own behalf, and honorable laymen, 
 and a Bishop and presbyters, should not only be just but 
 generous, and take special pains to give the party whom 
 they intend to accuse of what they conceive to be grave 
 offences every advantage of time and place, for defending 
 
45 
 
 himself. These matters have been now alluded to in 
 order, in connection with what was said in my last letter, 
 to explain the circumstances under which the first two 
 answers in the list which follows, were given. 
 
 When the Clerical Deputy presented himself after two 
 o'clock^ on the day on which the final vote was to be 
 taken at four^ with the slip of paper containing what was 
 believed to be the substance of Bishop Coxe's charges 
 against me, I was taken utterly by surprise. The only 
 thing which I could recall, which could in any way sug- 
 gest such an accusation, was the visit of the Rev. Mr. Graf- 
 ton almost two years before^ and as I had fully explained 
 to Bishop Coxe that I had had no connection whatever 
 with his talks with the students on that occasion, I was 
 at a loss to conjecture to what he could possibly refer. I 
 was perfectly certain, however, that I had never allowed 
 anyone to deliver lectures,- or give instruction to the stu- 
 dents in private, since I had been in charge of the Semi- 
 nary, because I am, on principle, as much opposed to 
 such an impropriety as Bishop Coxe, or any one else, 
 could possibly be. The entire time that the Deputy was 
 in my house could not have exceeded eight minutes ; with- 
 in that brief interval, I was obliged to read the statement 
 on the paper handed to me, and make the replies which 
 follow as best I could. The paper contained^ as I have 
 said, as nearly as I can remember, the following words : 
 "It is charged that a priest of the C. B. S. was allowed 
 with the knowledge and consent of Professor Seymour, 
 to lecture to the students in a private room in the Semi- 
 nary. Is that so?" My answers (see The Churchman, 
 Daily Edition, p. 197,) are these : 
 
 " 1. I never allowed or knew of any priest of the C. B. S. being 
 in the Seminary, or lecturing to the students on any occasion what- 
 soever, since I have been in charge of the Seminary. I have never 
 permitted any one to lecture, or address the students in any case 
 whatsoever, without the consent of the Faculty. 
 
46 
 
 " 2. I also affirm that I never permitted any one to address the 
 students, or lecture to them on any occasion, without the knowledge 
 and consent of the Faculty, and that if such things have been done, 
 they have occurred without niy knowledge and consent, and in case 
 I had known them, would have been prevented by me." 
 
 In the first answer, I ought to have added, after the 
 word " knew," the words " at the time," or some equiva- 
 lent expression, so that the sentence would read, ' or 
 knew at the time of," etc.^ in order to make my meaning 
 perfectly clear ; but I imagine that no unprejudiced per- 
 son would misunderstand the answer as it now reads. 
 Bishop Coxe insists that I ought, in these answers, to have 
 incorporated all that I knew about the Rev. Mr. Grafton's 
 visit, and kindred occurrences, which ever took place 
 within the Seminary, otherwise I was endeavoring to de- 
 ceive the Deputies. In the first place, I reply, that it 
 would have been utterly impossible for me to do so, since 
 I had no time : the eight minutes were entirely consumed 
 in doing the little which I did. In the next place, I rep- 
 ly, that even had I had the time, it would not have been 
 necessary for me to enter into such particulars, since the 
 only point, which the Deputies were concerned to deter- 
 mine, was whether I had had any complicity with such 
 transactions, if they ever occurred, and when I answered 
 that I had not, I met directly and exhaustively the charge 
 which I understood had been made against me Lastly, 
 I reply, that, just as soon as I had the opportunity, on 
 the evening of the day on which the two answers 
 quoted above were given (Wednesday, October 21st), 
 I did tell the Deputies all that I could then recall of 
 the circumstances of the Rev. Mr Grafton's visit, as I 
 had up to that time learned them from others. I knew 
 no more of those interviews at the time when they took 
 place than did Bishop Coxe, or any member of the House 
 of Deputies, that is, Jtist nothing at all. The sum and 
 substance of my knowledge of the affair, on the night 
 
47 
 
 of October 2l8t, and up to Saturday, October 24th, 1874, 
 when I enquired of several of the students as to the 
 details of what took place, is embodied in the necessarily 
 brief answers which follow. These are five in number, 
 and complete my answers on this subject (seven in all), 
 which were communicated to the House of Deputies : 
 
 Quest ions to aud Ansivers from Dr. Seymour Presented 
 by Dr. String fellow. 
 
 "3. Q. Did you ever receive any gentleman or gentlemen well 
 known either as agents of the C. B. S., or the system it sustained, or 
 were any such person or persons permitted by you to lecture to the 
 students of the Seminary in a private room in (on) his or their 
 peculiar views of the Holy Eucharist ? 
 
 " A. No person or persons, male or female, have ever been per- 
 mitted by me to deliver lectures or addresses in private or in public 
 to the students, since I have been connected with the General 
 Theological Seminary, without the knowledge and consent of my 
 colleagues. So far as I can remember, the following persons only, 
 with my knowledge and consent, have delivered lectures or addresses 
 to the students, viz. : November 1, 1872, the Rt Rev. A. C. Coxe, 
 D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Western New York; Lent, 1874, the Rev. 
 James Long, M.A., on India, of the Archdiocese of Calcutta, India, 
 two lectures; June, 1874, Professor Charles Short, LL.D., on the 
 Vulgate translation of the Bible, one lecture. The Bishop of New 
 York delivers each Winter lectures to his candidates, and to such 
 other members of the senior class as choose to attend. 
 
 "4. Q. Did the Rev. Mr. Grafton, with your consent and 
 knowledge, ever lecture to, or address, the students of the Seminary 
 upon any subject, and if so, upon what subject, and under what cir- 
 cumstances ? 
 
 " A. He never did with my knowledge and consent. 
 
 " 5. Q. Did you confess or acknowledge the affirmation of these 
 facts to any person. Bishop, priest, deacon, or layman, as specified in 
 Question No. 4 } 
 
 "A. I never did so confess or acknowledge, since such a con- 
 fession or acknowledgment would have been contrary to the truth. 
 The facts were simply these : The Rev. Mr. Grafton on one occasion 
 called upon a student at his room in the Seminary, and while there 
 other students in neighboring rooms heard of his presence, and 
 came in to see him, and requested him to tell them about Cowley, 
 and the plan and purpose of the brotherhood of which Mr. Grafton, 
 
AS 
 
 is a member. The Rev. Mr. Grafton, as I was informed after the 
 occurrence, had no design when he called of holding any such con- 
 versation ; it was simply accidental. I did not learn of it until some 
 time after it took place, and I had nothing whatsoever to do with it. 
 All the interviews I have ever had with the Rev. Mr. Grafton, since 
 I have known him, would not amount in extent of time to four hours. 
 I was introduced to the Rev. Mr. Grafton years ago, when he was 
 assistant to the Rev. Dr. Wyatt, of St. Paul's church, Baltimore, Md., 
 and have seen him only occasionally since. 
 
 " 6. Q. Did any person. Bishop, priest, deacon, or layman, ever 
 challenge your acknowledgment or confession to having permitted 
 the Rev. Mr. Grafton, or any other person not connected with the 
 Seminary, to listen to or address the students .'' 
 
 "A. I never acknowledged or confessed to having done so, and 
 hence, I do not see how any one could ever have so challenged. 
 
 " 7. Q. Did any person speak to you upon the subject ; if so, who ? 
 
 " A. Yes ; Bishop Coxe, in a visitation which he held in the 
 Seminary in the Winter or Spring of 1873, inquired about the visit 
 of the Rev. Mr. Grafton, and I gave him, in substance, the informa- 
 tion which I have submitted in my answers as above. (See Answer 
 5.) At that visitation the charge was made that a presbyter had 
 been prowling about the Seminary for several days. On inquiry, I 
 found that reference was made in this allegation to a presbyter who 
 had come to the Seminary for the purpose of being with the mour- 
 ners, and attending the funeral of the daughter of the late Professor 
 Seabury, and while in the Seminary was the guest of the widow Sea- 
 bury, then residing in the Seminary grounds." 
 
 These answers were read to the House of Deputies 
 on the morning of Thursday, October 22, 1874 ; and be it 
 remembered, at this time, and up to Friday evening, 
 October 23d, the day after my confirmation was refused, 
 I was not allowed to see the letters of Bishop Coxe con- 
 taining my indictment, or obtain copies of them, although 
 I earnestly requested to be allowed access to them. That 
 I received copies of them as soon as I did, was chiefly 
 due to the courtesy of Tazewell Taylor, Esq., of Virginia, 
 to whom I desire to return my thanks for his kindness. 
 
 The following are the letters of Bishop Coxe : The 
 first was read, for the first time, to the House of Deputies 
 on Wednesday, the 21st of October, within three hours of 
 
' 49 
 
 the time originally fixed for taking the final vote ; it is 
 dated, New York, October 17th ; the remaining two were 
 read on Thursday, the 22d of October, the day on which 
 my confirmation was refused : 
 
 New York, October 17, 1874. 
 Afy Dear Judge Smith : 
 
 The facts are substantially as they have been reported to you. 
 I could say many things in favor of this candidate with entire truth, 
 and testimonials might be multiplied in his favor without any dupli- 
 city. But the whole truth would reveal another class of facts, and I 
 suppose that Dr. Seymour himself would not deny that, as a Profes- 
 sor in the Seminary, he has steadfastly resisted the noble efforts of 
 his colleagues, such as Drs. Seabury and Vinton, "who have labored 
 to maintain the doctrine of this Church, respecting the Holy Eucha- 
 rist, and the provisions of the Rubric for its solemn celebration, pure 
 and undefiled. 
 
 These things became known to me in the discharge of official 
 duty as a " Visitor " and a member of a Committee, and I regret to 
 say that the learned Professor was forced to confess to me that, ivith 
 his knoivledge and consent^ a reverend gentleman, well known as an 
 active agent of the C. B. S., or of the system which it sustains, was 
 permitted to lecture to students of the Seminary, in a private room, 
 on his peculiar views of the " Holy Eucharist." 
 
 It is with extreme regret that I mention these facts which I have 
 desired an opportunity of stating in the Board of Trustees of the 
 Seminary, and only there. As you well know, however, the impossi- 
 bility of assembling that Board, or any fair proportion of them, has 
 operated to render the investigation of facts an impossibility for many 
 years. The facts ought to be known, however, and the Church 
 must be awakened to her responsibilities in such momentous con- 
 cerns. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 (Signed) A. Cleveland Coxe, 
 
 Bishop of Western New York. 
 The Hon. Judge Smith. 
 
 Mr. William Welsh, of Pennsylvania, on Thursday, 
 October 22d, introduced the following correspondence : 
 
 New York, October 31, 1874. 
 My Dear Bishop : 
 
 By a remarkable Providence, a letter of yours dated October 4, 
 1873, came into my possession this evening. I enclose it to you, and 
 
50 
 
 ask permission to use it at my discretion. If }^ou ever conversed with 
 any of your students about the visits of the Rev. Mr. Grafton to the 
 Seminary, or have any particulars of such visits, and the knowledge 
 that the Rev. Dr. Seymour had of them, pray oblige me with such 
 
 particulars. 
 
 Yours, very sincerely, 
 
 W. Welsh. 
 To the Rt. Rev. A. C. Coxe, D.D. 
 
 New York, October 21, 1874. 
 Afy Dear Mr. Welsh : 
 
 I do not feel at liberty to refuse you the use of my letter of 
 October 4, 1873, the existence of which I had quite forgotten. But 
 consult with my friend Judge Smith, who knows the extreme reluc- 
 tance with which I have permitted my testimony to be used in your 
 discussions. 
 
 I might have made my statement much stronger and more de- 
 tailed ; for the case was a very gross abuse of power. We do not 
 send our candidates to the Seminary to be instructed by emissaries 
 from foreign societies ; but when I expressed my surprise to Dr. Sey- 
 mour that a volunteer Professor had been introduced by him within 
 the walls of the Seminary, he defended himself on the general ground 
 that the person was " a presbyter of the Church." 
 
 In reply to another question, I must add that in examining one 
 of my candidates, who reluctantly admitted his knowledge of the 
 facts, I found that he had been present at one of these volunteer lec- 
 tures, in which extravagant and false views of the Holy Eucharist 
 were inculcated. Nothing but a very extraordinary duplicity can 
 put any construction on these facts, which good men can accept as 
 satisfactory. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 A. Cleveland Coxe, , 
 
 Bishop of Western New York. 
 Wm. Welsh, Esq. 
 
 Buffalo, October 4, 1873. 
 My Dear Dr. Forbes : 
 
 Nothing could be more opportune — nothing more ad rem — than 
 the publication, at this moment., with historical notes, of this very val- 
 uable document. I send it by the same post that takes this, having 
 obtained Professor Seabury's permission to hold it, against some such 
 emergency, which I foresaw must arise before our reform work is much 
 further advanced. I was sorry I could not see you when I was last 
 in town ; but things have gone on w^ell, in some respects , and this 
 explosion of the " C. B. S." will work mucji good. 
 
51 
 
 I think historical notes are needed, and the whole should be 
 prefaced by an extract from that document, showing the nature of 
 their intrigues, and how they glory in stultifying the discipline and 
 destroying the official relations of the Dean to the students. 
 
 I have the present (acting) Dean's own acknowledgment that he, 
 permitted " Father (xrafton" to visit and indoctrinate the students 
 last Winter. 
 
 If you don't publish the accompanying document, please give it 
 back to Professor Seabury ; only asking him to consider my permis- 
 sion to make further use of it as not withdrawn. We may have to 
 convince the whole Church of the impossibility of working the Semi- 
 nary as it is now going on. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 A. Cleveland Coxe, 
 
 Bishop of Western New York. 
 The Rev. Dr. Forbes, etc. 
 
 On the Saturday following the decision as to my case 
 in the House of Deputies, I gathered about me a number 
 of the students, who had been present on the occasion of 
 the Rev. Mr. Grafton's visit to the Seminary, in Decem- 
 ber, 187^, and learned from them certain particulars 
 which I had not before known, as for instance that his 
 sojourn extended to two nights instead of owe, and I then 
 heard for the first time an outline of the talks which he 
 had had with the students. Some of this information, 
 which I had thus obtained, I embodied in my affidavit of 
 November 6th, which will be found below, together with 
 the affidavits of my colleague, Professor Hall, and the 
 Rev. Mr. Grafton. 
 
 Dr. Scyino2ii''s Affidavit in Reply to Dr. Coxes Charge. 
 
 It is not true that I ever ''' introduced" Father Grafton as "a 
 volunteer Professor" "within, the walls of the Seminary," — having 
 never introduced or even invited him to the Seminary in any capa- 
 city. 
 
 It is not true that I "permitted" Father Grafton " to visit and 
 indoctrinate the students last Winter," or at any other time, having 
 never been asked for, and having never given, any ])erniission of the 
 kind. 
 
52 
 
 It is not true that he was " permitted" by me " to lecture to stu- 
 dents of the Seminary in a private room,'' as if I were ashamed or afraid 
 to ask him to do it openly. No person has ever been permitted by me 
 to lecture to the students except openly in the Chapel or Library, 
 and with the knowledge of the Faculty. 
 
 It is not true \\\dX\ qv&x'''' confessed'" \.o or ''acknowledged,'" 
 any such action as is denied in the above three paragraphs ; for I 
 have never thought it honest to confess or acknowledge what I never 
 had done. 
 
 It is not true that I was "'forced" to confess it: for no com- 
 pulsion can well draw from me, to my own prejudice, a false confes- 
 sion of a thing which I never had done. Every statement ever made 
 by me at any time on this subject, has been freely and voluntarily 
 made. 
 
 It is not true that tlie Bishop has " my own acknowledgment 
 that I permitted ' Father Grafton' to visit and indoctrinate" as afore- 
 said ; for I never made any acknowledgment of the sort. 
 
 It is not true that Father Grafton lectured at the Seminary 
 " with my knotvledge and consent" for I knew nothing of his lecturing 
 until some days after it was all over, and never gave any consent 
 thereto. 
 
 It is not true that the object of Father Grafton's lectures was 
 to inculcate " ///V peculiar views of the Holy Eucharist,'" for the 
 students who were present testify that there was only one incidental 
 allusion to the Holy Eucharist during the two evenings. 
 
 It is not true that, in this incidental allusion, " extravagant 
 and false views of the Holy Eucharist were inculcated," unless it be 
 " extravagant and false " to say that the benefit received in the Holy 
 Communion will be in proportion to the intensity of the faith of the 
 devout receiver, conducing sometimes even to the recovery from 
 bodily disease. This remark was made in disproof of the assertion 
 of Romanists that sacramental grace among us is without efficacy. 
 The explanation here given is drawn from notes of Father Grafton's 
 lectures, taken at the time by one of the students present, but which 
 I never saw or heard of until after my Confirmation was defeated. 
 
 It is not true that in this matter there was " a very gross 
 abuse of power" on my part; for there was no exercise of power at 
 all, nor any knowledge, at the time, on which any power could be 
 exercised. 
 
 It is not True that Bishop Coxe obtained his version of the 
 matter when he was in the Seminary as a " Visitor " of the same in 
 the Spring of 1873. For at that Visitation, the moment the fact of 
 Father Grafton's lectures was mentioned, I stated to him, in terms 
 
53 
 
 too strong and clear to permit the possibility of mistake, that those 
 lectures were delivered without my knowledge or consc?it, and that if I 
 had known of them in time / should certainly have prohibited them. 
 The Bishop then asked how such a man was allowed to set foot upon 
 the Seminary grounds at all ; and used very harsh language touching 
 Father Grafton, saying that I ought to have " taken him by the neck 
 and marched him off the grounds," or words to that effect. It was 
 in reply to this denial of a right even to visit a student whom he 
 happened to know, that some things were said, which have been 
 altogether misapplied. It should be remembered that the Seminary 
 students are almost all college graduates ; and that the Seminary 
 course corresponds to a post-graduate course. No American college 
 undertakes to prevent students from ever receiving a friend as a 
 visitor in their private rooms, unless previous permission has been 
 received from the President. In a post-graduate course such a 
 severity of exclusion would not be submitted to for a moment, and 
 ought not to be, by any body of American young men. It would be 
 more absurd, if possible, to require it of young men preparing for the 
 Holy Ministry than of those preparing for any other profession, such as 
 the Law or Medicine. It has never, at any time, been attempted in 
 the General Theological Seminary, since its foundation to the pre- 
 sent day. And when the Bishop stated that it was my duty to eject 
 Father Grafton summarily by physical force, I ventured to remind 
 him that the Rev. Father Grafton was a Presbyter of the Church, in 
 good standing, that he was second to no man in the Church or out 
 of It in all that appertains to personal character, social position or 
 holiness of life; and that every respectable person — Bishop, priest, 
 deacon or layman — had the free entree to visit his friends among the 
 students, as in every other American Seminary, without obtaining 
 special permission for each special visit. Th's was the only connec- 
 tion in which anything was said of Father Grafton's right ;is "a 
 Presbyter of the Church." 
 
 I would add here that, such extemporized private meetings 
 among the students, though rare, have not been unprecedented. 
 Some years ago, the Rev. Dr. Breck found himself beset by a crowd 
 of young men in the room of a student whom he was visiting, and 
 they persuaded him to relate the history of Nashota, though the 
 Uean and Professors knew nothing of it until some days after. Still 
 later, a similar thing took place during a visit by Bishop Tozer ; and 
 on neither occasion was any fault found by the Dean or Faculty, 
 though no permission had been asked or given. 
 
 It is not true that I have "steadfastly resisted the noble 
 efforts of my colleagues ... to maintain the doctrine of this 
 
54 
 
 Church respecting the Holy Eucharist." This construction of 
 the course which I pursued in opposing an entirel)^ novel, des- 
 potic, an un-American policy of iiiscipUne^ was energetically dis- 
 claimed by me at the beginning, was reiterated by me at every 
 stage of our unhappy controversy on the subject, and was finally 
 abandoned by the very colleagues who made it, when, in the pre- 
 sence of the Bishops as Visitors, they signed their names to a declar- 
 ation that what they had done " was not intended to impeach the 
 general conduct and teaching of Dr. Seymour, either as a Professor 
 of the Seminary, or as a Presbyter of the Church." 
 
 // 7nay be true that Bishop Coxe has " desired an opportunity 
 of stating in the Board of Trustees, and only there," his version of 
 the Grafton incident. But he has been present at all the three meet- 
 ings of the Board held since his visitation, and has never given the 
 slightest evidence of his desire, by word or deed. 
 
 It is now left to all unprejudiced and candid persons, to consi- 
 der the above, together with the sworn evidence which follows, and 
 then say whether, in regard to my acts, there be any foundation for 
 Bishop Coxe's assertion that " nothing but a very extraordinary 
 duplicity can put any construction on these facts, which good men 
 can accept as satisfactory." 
 
 George F. Seymour. 
 Sworn to before me, the <Jth day of Nove iiber, 1874. 
 
 O. P. Smith, 
 Notary Public, New York County. 
 
 The Rev. Professor HaWs Aficiavit. 
 
 " I, Randall Cooke Hall, a Presbyter of the Diocese of New 
 York, and a Professor in the General Theological Seminary, was 
 present at the visitation held by Bishop Coxe in the Spring of 1873, 
 referred to by Professor Seymour in his above affidavit, and I hereby 
 testify under oath that, to the best of my recollection, knowledge, and 
 belief, Professor Seymour's statement of what took place on that 
 occasion is substantially correct. 
 
 Randall Cooke Hall. 
 Sworn to before me, the 6th day of November, 1874. 
 
 O. P. Smith, 
 Notary Public, New York County. " 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Grafton's Affidavit. 
 
 " I, Charles C. Grafton, of Boston, Massachusetts, Presbyter 
 Rector of the Church of the Advent in that City, on oath say : 
 
55 
 
 I have been informed that the Rev. Dr. Seymour, acting Dean 
 of the General Theological Seminary, New York, has been charged 
 with inviting or permitting me to deliver, or in some way counten- 
 ancing me in the delivery of a lecture or address on the subject of the 
 Holy Eucharist, or on the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, 
 in private, to the students of the Seminary. I hereby declare this 
 to be untrue. 
 
 I would further say that, the only visits I have ever made to the 
 Seminary, since Dr. Seymour's connection with it as Dean or Profes- 
 sor, are the following : When I was in this country for a few weeks 
 in 1867, I spent two evenings in a friend's room in the Seminary. 
 Dr. Seymour was not Dean, and had nothing whatever to do with 
 my visits by invitation or otherwise. I talked with some of the stu- 
 dents who came in to see me on the Religious Life, and said nothing 
 concerning the Holy Communion. I never learned from any one 
 that my visit was objectionable to any of the Faculty. 
 
 I was there again in 1872, on my return to this country from 
 England, under the following circumstances : Having occasion to be 
 in New York while my brother's house was closed, I was asked by 
 a student whom I had invited to become one of my curates, and who 
 was considering the matter, to come and occupy, for a night or two, 
 a vacant bed-room that was at his disposal, his room-mate being 
 absent. I did so, and quite informally, and without any previous 
 arrangement or plan on my part, several of the students came in 
 (some invited by him, others at their own motion) ; and, at their 
 request, I talked to them on the Spiritual Life and its temptations. 
 I believe I said something afterward agalinst the claims of the Roman 
 Church, and I may have answered a question about the Holy Com- 
 munion. I have forgotten what. 
 
 I am the better able to recall the subject of the evening's topic, 
 because I stated it to the students of the Protestant Episcopal Semi- 
 nary at Cambridge, Mass., in the presence of one of the Professors, 
 the Rev. Dr. Wharton, when I visited that Institution and addressed 
 the students, at his invitation and in his presence. I have no reason 
 whatever to believe that Dr. Seymour had any knowledge of this in- 
 terview, in my friend's room, with the students. 
 
 My acquaintance with Professor Seymour is very slight; and on 
 the one or two occasions when we have met, I have never mentioned to 
 him the fact that I had an interview, such as I have described, with 
 the students, for I never supposed it a matter of importance. 
 
 Since 1872 I have been at the Seminary but twice, each time on 
 private business only, and on neither occasion having ^ny conference 
 
56 
 
 with any of the students on religious matters. These are all the 
 visits I have made to the Seminary. 
 
 I have spoken of visits to the Seminary. It may be proper to 
 add that I. have never had any conference with any of the students 
 away from the Seminary, by the invitation, permission, or procure- 
 ment, directly or indirectly, of Dr. Seymour. 
 
 I will further state that, although a member of the Confraternity 
 of the Blessed Sacrament when residing in England, I gave up all 
 active connection with it on returning to this country, and left it, 
 declining, on this ground, an invitation extended to me by the Con- 
 fraternity here to join it ; and on no* occasion have I talked to the 
 students concerning this Society, its organization, workings, or belief. 
 
 Charles C. Grafton. 
 
 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County : At 
 Boston, in said county, this 6th day of November, A. D. 1874, per- 
 sonally appeared the Rev. Charles C. Grafton, and made solemn 
 oath that the foregoing affidavit, by him subscribed, is true, before 
 
 me. 
 
 [6'm/.] N. Austin Parks, 
 
 Notary Public." 
 
 In addition to all this I submit the following letter 
 from my honored friend, the Rev. Dr. Burgess, of Spring- 
 field, Mass., which he kindly sent to me in response to 
 an inquiry which I addressed to him on the subject of 
 the Rev. Mr. Grafton's visit, as I learned that he was 
 accidentally present, at the time, on the Seminary grounds. 
 This letter has not yet appeared in print, and deserves 
 the special attention of all who desire to reach a de- 
 cision as to the issue of fact between Bishop Coxe and 
 myself 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Burgess s Letter. 
 
 " In the early part of the Winter of 1872, I was at the General 
 Seminary ; I met in the Hall of the Western Building a near relative, 
 at that time a student in the Seminary. After some remarks he said, 
 'Whom do you think I have just seen?' I said, 'Whom.?' He 
 replied, ' Father Grafton, of the Advent, Boston.' I said, ' Has he 
 come here to lecture at the request of the Dean or Faculty .? ' He 
 replied, ' Oh, no, he is making a little visit, and a few of us have been 
 talking with him and listening to him.' I said, ' I hope he is not 
 presenting strange ideas about the Eucharist, or recommending un- 
 
51 
 
 usual or fanciful ways while at service.' He replied, 'Oh, no, he has 
 been telling us about the Fathers, and their plans for ])reaching and 
 doing good; he has not mentioned the Eucharist at all.' I said 
 something as caution about the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacra- 
 ment, and the importance of getting doctrine from the appointed pro- 
 fessors, and the reply was, ' Nothing has been said about the Con- 
 fraternity, and the address has been conversational and very practical, 
 tending to help us to greater faithfulness and purity ; you or any one 
 might properly come and say all that he has said.' 
 
 The idea, too, was received by me very clearly that Mr. Grafton 
 was at the Seminary, as I was, on a visit to one or more students, and 
 not at the request of the Dean or any Professor. Where I have men- 
 tioned language as used by myself or the student, as above, I believe 
 that I have recalled very nearly the words. Witness my hand at 
 Springfield, Mass., the 17th day of March, a.d., 1875. 
 
 (Signed) ' Alexander Burgess, 
 
 The charges of Bishop Coxe, if they had any drift 
 and purpose, amounted to this: that I had invited, and 
 introduced, the Rev. Mr. Grafton to lecture to the stu- 
 dents in a private room in the Seminary, and that with 
 my knowledge and consent he had done so. That I 
 should have known of the transaction, after it took place, 
 in no way commits me to complicity with it, any more 
 than it commits my colleagues, or any one else. The 
 Bishop tries to escape from the awful position in which 
 he finds himself: he intimates that, after all, it is only a 
 question of accuracy and fidelity of memory between 
 himself and me, and that he prefers to trust his own 
 memory rather than mine. I have no doubt he tells the 
 honest truth when he says that he so prefers ; but, un- 
 fortunately for him, that was not the issue which he 
 raised before the House of Deputies ; in his letters written 
 deliberately and spontaneously, and intruded before a 
 body with whose deliberations he had no right to inter- 
 fere, he volunteered, among others, these positive accu- 
 sations, without any qualification or limitation, namely, 
 that I had permitted, invited, and introduced the Rev. 
 
68 
 
 Mr. Grafton ta lecture in a private room to the students. 
 There is no intimation that such assertions rest upon the 
 writer's recollection merely of what occurred more than 
 eighteen months before, unsupported by any corrobora- 
 tive evidence. Every one would suppose, when a man 
 of any character and position in the community made 
 such charges against a fellow-man, behind his back, in a 
 secret session of a body which was weighing that man's 
 fate in the balance, at a very important crisis in his life 
 — any one would suppose, I say, that under such circum- 
 stances, the self-appointed accuser would be able, in the 
 most convincing and satisfactory manner, to prove his 
 charges. But no, the Bishop had not one particle of 
 evidence to adduce in support of these positive assertions 
 at the time he made them, and now, after the lapse of a 
 year, he breaks forth again, and in the face of demonstra- 
 tion against him, he repeats his charges, and suggests 
 that, even if they be not true, it is of no consequence, it 
 is a mere question of words, an issue as to whether his 
 memory is more to be depended upon than mine. 
 
 Fortimately it is not such an issue, even if we allow 
 the Bishop to have his own way in the matter. For con- 
 sider what follows, if the Bishop's memory be correct ; 
 why nothing less than this : that I confessed to a charge 
 which I knew was false, and which was damaging to my- 
 self, and which I knew, in the Bishop's hands, would be 
 used by him to do me all the harm which he could pos- 
 sibly accomplish. Now be it observed, a man may be 
 forced to confess an unwelcome trutli^ which tells against 
 himself; but it is scarcely within the limits of belief that 
 any one in his senses would be compelled, by anything 
 short of bodily torture, to acknowledge a faUehood^ which 
 was personally injurious ; yet such must have been the 
 case with me, if the Bishop's memory is correct This 
 would go to establish a charge, which the Bishop suggests 
 against me in his letters, that I am an idiot. 
 
59 
 
 Bat leaving this point, when we come to the rela- 
 tive value of our respective memories, without wishing 
 to make any boast as to my own, the Bishop's is notori- 
 ously treacherous. I can adduce abundant proof to sus- 
 tain this statement ; but I will go no further than to say 
 that I prefer to explain the Baltimore scandal relative to 
 Bishop (then Doctor) Coxe by attributing the solution, 
 however large a demand it may make upt;n our credulity 
 and charity to a very treacherous memory. The Stand- 
 ing Committee of the Diocese of Maryland, however, at 
 the time of the Doctor's election to the Bishopric of 
 Western New York, seemed to take a different view, for, 
 although they agreed with him in churchmanship, they 
 refused to give their consent to his Consecration. And 
 then again, the bitter and intense hatred, which the Bis- 
 hop of Western New York has for yeai s borne toward 
 me, has predisposed him to seize eagerly upon anything 
 which he could use to my disadvantage ; to treasure it 
 up ; turn it over in his mind ; and with his diseased ima- 
 gination to exaggerate it, and dress it up to suit his fancy 
 until at last he persuaded himself into the belief that it 
 was really so. That Bishop Coxe has cherished toward 
 me, for a long time, fierce animosity, is a melancholy fact. 
 How to account for it, I am at a loss, since we were once 
 friends, and took sweet counsel together. For several 
 years we edited jointly the Churchman's Calendar. The 
 Bishop, for reasons best known to liimself, withdrew him- 
 self from me, and has pursued me since with relentless 
 hate, watching his opportunity to do me harm, and im- 
 proving every occasion, when he could conveniently and 
 safely do so, to speak to my disadvantage. 
 
 As an illustration of the Bishop's eagerness to dis- 
 cover something which he could employ to my huit, I 
 quote the following extract from a letter of a presbyter, 
 now in a position of high trust and usefulness, who was 
 while in the Seminary a candidate from the Diocese of 
 
60 
 
 Western New York, and consequently under the jurisdic- 
 tion of Bishop Coxe. He was, moreover, ordained both 
 to the Diaconate and the Priesthood by Bishop Coxe. 
 He wrote to me spontaneously, under date of October 
 27th, 1874, as follows : 
 
 " During my Seminary course Bishop Coxe came several times to 
 the Seminary to visit me. He never left without trying to find out 
 in some inquisitorial way whether Dr. Seymour did not teach so and 
 so, etc. I always gave him very indefinite answers as to the affairs 
 of the Seminary. He has tried several times since I left the Semin- 
 ary to draw out of me something which would in some way or other 
 fasten upon you the charge of Ritualism, that horrid bugbear. . . . 
 I answered Bishop Coxe's questions emphatically, No. I told him 
 once that Dr. Seymour was the strongest opponent that the Church 
 of Rome had in the Theological Seminary." 
 
 This is a very sad disclosure, but it is in perfect har- 
 mony with much that went before, and all that has fol- 
 lowed, I am grieved, but not surprised, nor shall I be 
 in the future with any fresh displays of the same malici- 
 ous and vindictive spirit. But to come back to the issue 
 between Bishop Coxe and myself It is not, it never 
 was^ a question of words, or of memory ; it is a question 
 o^ fact J oi stern ^ sober fact. The Bishop asserted as posi- 
 tive facts and wrote them out under his own official sig- 
 nature, " A. Cleveland Coxe, Bishop, Western New York," 
 and caused them to be presented as charges against me 
 to the House of Deputies, that I had done certain things. 
 These charges are absolutely and without qualification 
 untrue. I have demonstrated this. The burden of proof 
 rested upon the Bishop. Still I felt that it was due to 
 myself, and to the institution of which I was a Professor, to 
 go beyond what was required of me, and refute, as I for- 
 tunately was able abundantly to do, the Bishop's false 
 accusations. I have done this so effectually as to demon- 
 strate beyond the possibility of just cavil their utter 
 worthlessness. Still, in the lace of the clearest evidence 
 which must carry conviction to every unprejudiced mind, 
 
61 
 
 after nearly a year's interval for reflectino and repen- 
 tance, the Bishop reaffirms these charges, and heaps upon 
 me abuse, which in one point of view brings relief, since it 
 suggests that the Bishop must be beside himself with ex- 
 citement, or he would not be guilty of conduct so unwor- 
 thy of a Christian gentleman, not to speak of a Bishop in 
 the Church of God. I have not attempted to answer the 
 Bishop's letters in detail, it would take up too much val- 
 uable space in The Churchman, and tax the patience of 
 its readers, beyond endurance ; besides it is not necessary. 
 The only matter of importance is the issue of fact be- 
 tween the Bishop of Western New York and myself. I 
 am not in the least degree excited. I am not conscious to 
 myself of entertaining the slightest feeling of unkindness 
 toward the Bishop. I mean the Bishop no disrespect 
 when I say that my only feeling toward him is that of 
 unfeigned pity. 
 
 To show the doubting, if there be may such, that it 
 would be a very easy matter to refute the irrelevant as- 
 sertions of the Bishop, let me refer to a specimen of his 
 logic. Bishop Coxe says of me, commenting on my affi- 
 davit, " by using the title ' Father,' he admitted the some- 
 what anomalous position of Father Grafton among the 
 Presbyters of our Church." Now the facts are these, I 
 never used the title, '^ Father," until with the letters of 
 Bishop Coxe before me I copied his language, thus when 
 he charges, " that I permitted Father Grafton, &c.," I 
 reply, quoting his words, "it is not true that I permitted 
 Father Grafton, &c." In my answers to the Deputies, 
 who waited upon me, I uniformly call the gentleman, ^^tJie 
 Rev. Mr. Grafton.''^ Even if I had used the title spontan- 
 eously, it would not commit me to anything, any more 
 than when Bishop Coxe calls Pius IX, "Pope," it com- 
 mits him to the doctrine of the supremacy, or styles Arch- 
 bishop McClosky, ^'Cai-dinal," it commits him to the dog- 
 jT^iv of i))fii]libilitj ; or wben^one .^^peaks pf the months m 
 
62 
 
 January, February March, &c., or the days of the week 
 as Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, &c., it commits him to the 
 systems of heathen mythology, which these names re- 
 spectively represent. 
 
 Even the date of the Bishop's first letter is a poetic 
 fiction. At the time the Bishop informs the readers of 
 The Churchman, that he wrote his letter September the 
 Firsts the issue of September 4th, which contained the 
 letter, was not only in type, but actually in the mail on 
 its way to the subscribers. Curiously enough with a false 
 date for the beginning of his letters, and false charges 
 and rash vindictive assertion as their characteristics 
 throughout, the Bishop closes with a dissuasive against 
 Liguorian casuistry, and a recommendation of truth, and 
 sobriety of speech. This is indeed wonderful, one is 
 forcibly reminded of the passage in the " Fortunes of 
 Nigel " where King James I, relates to George Herriott 
 his experience, " Geordie, Jingling Geordie, it was 
 grand to hear Bab}^ Charles laying down the guilt of dis- 
 simulation, and Steenie lecturing on the turpitude of in- 
 continence." Were it not so infinitely sad, it would be 
 equally grand to hear the Bishop of Western New York 
 discoursing on the sins of prevarication, slander, deceit, 
 treachery, falsehood and rashness in word and deed. 
 But I must forbear. 
 
 No one can regret more than I do the sad necessity 
 which has constrained me to follow the Bishop of Western 
 New York before the public. But let it be remembered 
 that he spontaneously and gratuitously assailed me, in 
 the first instance, and that I simply acted on the defen- 
 sive, and calmly refuted his charges. Now again, after 
 the lapse of nearly a year, he suddenly breaks silence, 
 and without any provocation from me or any one else , so 
 far as I am aware, he has assailed me once more. Whe- 
 ther he has been goaded on by injudicious sympathizers, 
 or of his own volition has indulged in this wanton attack, 
 
63 
 
 I neither know nor care, the fact remains that he has so 
 done, and that he is a Bishop in the Church of God. 
 
 In conckision, I wish to say two things ; first, that 
 in reference to these charges of Bishop Coxe against me, 
 I challenge investigation at the hands of any responsible 
 body, provided such investigation is open and public, 
 where I can meet my accuser face to face. I fearlessly 
 challenge such investigation, whether it be before the 
 House of Bishops, the Trustees of the Seminary, a Com- 
 mission of Presbyters, or the Civil Courts. The other 
 thing which I wish to say is this : that I rejoice that the 
 bitter experience of last Autumn, and of the present time 
 has fallen upon me, rather than upon any other Presbyter 
 of the Church I have been in a better position, in some 
 respects, than almost any one else could have been^ to 
 endure it ; and God has given me strength to bear my 
 trials with composure, and a quiet mind; and when this 
 tyranny is overpast, as soon it will be, we shall doubtless 
 all see that it was good for me to be in trouble. If in my 
 letters I have been unduly severe, in speaking of or to 
 my Rt. Rev. antagonist (alas ! that I should be obliged to 
 call him so), my language has misinterpreted my heart. 
 His letters are of such a character, that in dealing with 
 them, it is difficult to avoid catching their spirit ; and the 
 wrongs, which I have suffered at his hands, have been 
 so wanton and cruel, that in thinking of them, or speak- 
 ing of them, it is not easy to keep from being provoked j 
 yet in a moment this feeling passes, and I can sincerely 
 say, God bless the Bishop of Western New York and turn 
 his heart. 
 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 George F. Seymour. 
 New York, Sept 22d, 1875. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 From the Chiirchiiian, Septefnber llf/i, 1875. 
 THE ILLINOIS CASE IN THE HOUSE OF DEPUTIES. 
 
 LETTER TO A BISHOP. 
 
 To the Bishop of Western New York : 
 
 Right Reverend Sir — I have read your " Letter to 
 a Deputy," under the above caption, in The Churchman 
 of September 4, 1875, the letter bearing date September 
 1, 1875, and, therefore, presumably, written for publica- 
 tion, rather than for the instruction of "« Deputy." 
 
 With a Bishop's letter to one of his cure, I could have 
 nothing to do, and could have nothing to say. But a 
 Bishop's letter in a newspaper, so furnished as to be read 
 by the public, nearly as soon as it could have been read 
 by the " Deputy" to whom it is addressed, is public pro- 
 perty ; and the Bishop, who so furnishes it, lays aside his 
 mitre, and enters the lists on equal terms with any other 
 correspondent. 
 
 Suppose that everything that you have written and 
 published in your letter of September 1st, were true — 
 suppose that you could prove it by the kind of evidence 
 that would be received in a court of justice ; why should 
 you, a Bishop of this Church, write such a letter as that 
 for publication ] 
 
 If you have been assailed by the " vociferations of 
 abusive men," why should you now, after a year of pa- 
 tience, break silence ? "If men will not hear the Church," 
 which has "spoken once and again," why should you, 
 just now, on the 4th of September^ 1875, consign them to 
 
65 
 
 the place "which the Master has assigned them'?" Can 
 it be because the Illinois Convention meets this month ? 
 
 " Tantcv ne irw in animis ccclestibus V 
 
 But, even granting the emergency, could it have 
 been your duty to wash such dirty linen, in public, as you 
 claim to have found 7 
 
 I beg you to review these epithets, quoted from your 
 own letter: "Sinister practices;" — "astounding discre- 
 pancies in sworn evidence ;" " wrong doers" . . seeking 
 to " darken counsel by words without knowledge ;" — 
 " overt acts of a revolutionary character ;" — " free course 
 has too long been given to those who despise govern- 
 ment;" — "to provoke the spite of the worst characters 
 in the Church ;" — " the pettj^ terrorism of such men ;" — 
 " their unscrupulous animosity ;" — " In the Illinois case, 
 this class of men were known to be enlisted in behalf of 
 the Candidate ;" — "political demagogues;" — The Candi- 
 date's "self-stultifying oaths and affirmations;" — "log- 
 rolling;" — "worse than doubtful theolog}- ;" — "artifices 
 and disingenuous manoeuvres." 
 
 My Dear Bishop, if you were not a Bishop, wri ting- 
 about Churchmen, you could not print such things with 
 impunity, though they were as true as Gospel. But, 
 conceding their truth, where is the sorrow and shame 
 with which a Christian Bishop should make such charges 
 against priests and laymen 7 It is not in your letter. 
 Your letter rings with defiance, resentment, partisanship, 
 and wrath. It is calculated to stir up strife, divisions, 
 variance, and every evil work. It arraigns a considerable 
 portion of the Church in Illinois as ^' worst characters." 
 It arraigns two presbyters, at least, as guilty of the most 
 dishonorable practices ; and they two, who have been 
 nominated to the Episcopate. 
 
 Suppose it were all true. Had you no recourse, in 
 
66 
 
 the discharge of your duty as a Bishop in the Church of 
 God, but to rush into the newspapers, and to publish our 
 shame to the world? You have alleged enough, if you 
 can prove it against any clergyman in any diocese, to en- 
 sure his degradation from Holy Orders, and his subjec- 
 tion to the contempt of every right-minded man. If it 
 be the only duty of a watchman on the walls of Zion to 
 blow a trumpet, you have done it ; but I fear that men 
 will fall to fighting without asking the cause of the alarm. 
 
 But suppose it should turn out that it is not all true. 
 Suppose that even a Bishop is liable to misconceive and 
 misinterpret men ; that even a Bishop may harbor a 
 prejudice, or think that wisdom shall die with him. Sup- 
 pose that Dr. Seymour, or Dr. DeKoven, should happen, 
 by some strange accident, to be Christian gentlemen, not- 
 withstanding the fact that their theology differs consider- 
 ably from that of the Bishop of Western New York. Sup- 
 pose that they two should be as ready to deplore any 
 questionable " artifices " of indiscreet and self-constituted 
 champions of their cause, as the Bishop of Western New 
 York is to nail them to the counter; is it not a rather 
 serious breach of charity, to use the weight of your of- 
 fice to emphasize assertions which, however you may be- 
 lieve them to be true, are scarcely capable of demonstra- 
 tion, unless you can so demonstrate their truth as to drive 
 these men out of the Priesthood and out of society, into 
 the infamy and obscurity which belong to such charac- 
 ters 7 
 
 I do not discuss the main question as to the " sound- 
 ness " of Dr. DeKoven or of Dr. Seymour in their the- 
 ology. 1 do not symbolize with either of them in doc- 
 trinal definition," as I understand their definitions. But 
 I am thoroughly aggrieved and scandalized by the whole 
 tone and temper of your letter, as I read it in The Church- 
 
67 
 
 MAN, and, if you were ten Bishops, I should say so as pub- 
 licly as possible. 
 
 I am, 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 John Vaughan Lewis, 
 >S'^. John's Parish, Washingtoii^ D. (7., 
 Sept Uh, 1^1^. 
 
 From The Churchman of September 11///, 1875. 
 ELECTION OF DEAN IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 
 
 To the Editor of The Churchman : 
 
 In the last issue of The Churchman there appears a 
 letter from the Bishop of Western New York in which 
 these words following are used, viz. : 
 
 "This Journal [Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the 
 General Theological Seminary, at their Annual Meeting, June 24, 
 1875], informs us tliat the number of Trustees is 421, inclusive of 
 our fifty-seven Bishops. Of these 400 Trustees, seventy-seven seem 
 to have voted to make the new Dean. There were but six Bishops 
 present : of these how many voted for him does not appear. At all 
 events, a mere fraction of the corporate body is responsible for a 
 measure, of the importance of which I do not now propose to speak 
 particularly." 
 
 Of course it is quite impossible that the Bishop of 
 Western New York should intentionally mislead the read- 
 ers of The Churchman ; and yet some who do not know 
 all the facts necessary for the deduction of a right conclu- 
 sion may be misled by the words which I have quoted. 
 For the information of all who care to have a right esti- 
 mate of the action of the Trustees of the General Theo- 
 logical Seminary, I would ask you to publish the follow- 
 ing table made up from the official minutes of the Board 
 of Trustees of the hxst timntt/ meetings during the ten yeai\s 
 last past. 
 
68 
 
 There were present : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 June 
 
 27, 1866, 
 
 3 Ki 
 
 shops 
 
 an( 
 
 d 55 
 
 other 
 
 Trustees 
 
 t( 
 
 26, J 867, 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 (( 
 
 52 
 
 " 
 
 a 
 
 u * 
 
 23, 1868 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 (( 
 
 39 
 
 a 
 
 >( 
 
 il 
 
 25, 1868 
 
 2 
 
 (( 
 
 li 
 
 56 
 
 a 
 
 k( 
 
 February 
 
 3, 1869, 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 76 
 
 " 
 
 (( 
 
 April 
 
 7, 1869, 
 
 4 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 81 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 June 
 
 24, 1869, 
 
 8 
 
 u 
 
 li 
 
 99 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 October 
 
 12, 1869, 
 
 16 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 97 
 
 <i 
 
 u 
 
 J anuary 
 
 19, 1870, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 " 
 
 72 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 June 
 
 30, 1870, 
 
 7 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 103 
 
 u 
 
 t( 
 
 October 
 
 20, 1870, 
 
 2 
 
 (( 
 
 it 
 
 32 
 
 ;( 
 
 u 
 
 " 
 
 28, 1870, 
 
 13 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 94 
 
 u 
 
 (( 
 
 May 
 
 25, 1871 
 
 1 
 
 (1 
 
 u 
 
 34 
 
 i( 
 
 u 
 
 June 
 
 29, 1871, 
 
 8 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 110 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 27, 1872, 
 
 9 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 120 
 
 u 
 
 i( 
 
 November 7, 1873 
 
 13 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 94 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 June 
 
 26, 1873, 
 
 10 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 113 
 
 u 
 
 (i 
 
 " 
 
 23, 1874 
 
 12 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 65 
 
 (( 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 25, 1874 
 
 8 
 
 " 
 
 <l 
 
 92 
 
 <( 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 24, 1875 
 
 6 
 
 iC 
 
 u 
 
 108' 
 
 u 
 
 (( 
 
 From this table it is evident that all the business of 
 this Board of Trustees for ten years last past has been 
 transacted by " a mere fraction of the corporate body." 
 
 That at only three meetings during the same period 
 has the number of Trustees present been greater tha)i at 
 the meeting at which the Dean was elected. 
 
 That the only meetings which have brought toge- 
 ther more than one hundred Trustees, other than the Bis- 
 hops, have been the annual meetings in June. 
 
 There are other facts, desirable to be known, con- 
 tained in the proceedings of this Board at these twenty 
 meetings above noted, to which I desire to call attention, 
 viz. : 
 
 Three times has there been an election of Dean : (1) 
 In June, 1869, the Rev. Dr. Lyman received the votes 
 of 7 Bishops and of 53 out of 93 other Trustees ; (2) in 
 October, 1809, the Eev< Pr. Forbes received tbft Yoi^H 
 
fi9 
 
 of 15 Bishops and 52 out of 90 other Trustees ; (3) in 
 June, 1875, the Rev. Dr. Seymour received the votes of 
 77 out of 93 Trustees, the Bishops not voting separately. 
 
 Nine times has there been an election of Professor, 
 and twice an attempt to elect: (1) In February, 1869, the 
 Rev. Dr. Vinton was elected Professor of Ecclesiastical 
 Polity and Law, by a majority vote (no numbers are gi- 
 ven), 79 Trustees being present; (2) in April, 1869, the 
 Rev, Dr. Walton was unanimously elected Professor of 
 Hebrew and Greek, 85 Trustees being present; (3) in 
 October, 1869, the Rev. Dr. Mahan was elected Professor 
 of Systematic Divinity receiving the votes of 15 Bishops 
 and 68 out of 96 other Trustees ; (4) in June, 1870, the 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan was again elected Professor of System- 
 atic Divinity, receiving the votes of 7 Bishops and of 48 
 out of 85 other Trustees ; (5) in October, 1870, the Rev. 
 Dr. Cady was elected Professor of Systematic Divinity, 
 receiving the votes of 7 Bishops and 43 out of 76 other 
 Trustees; (6) in June, 1871, the Rev. Dr. Buel was elec- 
 ted Professor of Systematic Divinity, receiving 71 votes 
 out of 107, the Bishops not voting separately ; and (7) at 
 the same time the Rev. Mr. Hall was elected Professor of 
 Hebrew and Greek, receiving 75 votes out of 105, the 
 Bishops not voting separately ; (8) in June, 1873, the 
 Rev. Dr. Oliver was elected Professor of Biblical Learn- 
 ing, etc., receiving 57 votes out of 95, the Bishops not 
 voting separately ; and (9) at the same time the Rev. Mr. 
 Seabury was elected Professor of Ecclesiastical Polity and 
 Law, by 45 votes out of 89, the Bishops not voting separ- 
 ately. In the two attempts at election which failed in 
 result, the largest number of ballots cast was 88. 
 
 From all this it is evident that the 77 votes which 
 were cast for the present Dean of the Seminary would 
 have been a majority in any ballot which has been held 
 for any officer for ten years ; and is a greater number of 
 
70 
 
 votes than any Dean has ever before received, and also 
 greater than any Professor has received, excepting only 
 the Rev. Dr. Mahan, and possibly the Rev. Dr. Walton. 
 
 E. M. Pecke. 
 Richfield Springs^ N. F., Sept. ith, 1875. 
 
 From the Churchman, Daily Edition, October olst, ISI^^ page 198. 
 
 PROFESSOR SEYMOUR'S LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF CLERICAL 
 AND LAY DEPUTIES OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Reverend Brethren and Brethren of the Laity : 
 
 The unprecedented course, which has been 
 adopted and pursued by the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies, in reference to the question of my confirmation 
 to the Episcopate, justifies me, I venture to submit, in 
 addressing this note to your Reverend and Honorable 
 Body, to crave the privilege of being allowed to be pre- 
 sent on the floor of your House to answer for myself the 
 charges which may be made against me, as to anything 
 that I have ever said or done. 
 
 Vague rumors reach me of serious accusations, which, 
 so far as I have been able to ascertain the drift of them, 
 are without exception founded on mistake, and are easily 
 corrected and refuted. But in most points they touch 
 upon things fully known only to myself, or to others who 
 are not members of your House, so that no explanations 
 sent through third persons can be entirely satisfactory to 
 you, or just to me. 
 
 I can truly say from my heart that I never, sought 
 or desired the Episcopal office. My present painful posi- 
 tion as a Bishop-elect, is one into which I was suddenly 
 forced by circumstances over which I had no control. 
 Gladly would I, had I the power, replace myself where I 
 was when the Diocese of Illinois elected me^ but this I 
 cannot do at this stage of the proceedings. 
 
n 
 
 For nineteen years and more I have served the 
 Church as Deacon and Presbyter, and I leave it to my 
 Bishop, and my Brethren of the Clergy and Laity, who 
 have known me from the first, to tell how I have lived, 
 and how I have labored. But I will say for myself that 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church has never had a more 
 loyal son than she has in me. I will say for myself, and 
 all who know me will bear me witness that it is true, that 
 there is nothing which is further from my nature than 
 concealment or evasion. 
 
 The question with me is not whether I am to be 
 made a Bishop or no. My anxiety is altogether for my 
 life and usefulness as a Clergyman, and my character as a 
 man. 
 
 With great respect, 
 
 Very faithfully and truly yours, 
 
 George F. Seymour. 
 General Theological Seminary, 
 New York, Oct. 22d, 1874. 
 
 This letter was read by the Secretary to the House, 
 but the request was not granted. 
 
 At the Annual meeting of the Board of Trustees of 
 the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, held in the City of New York, on 
 Thursday, June 24th, 1875, the following Trustees were 
 present. (See Proceeding, Vol. IV., pp. 715, 716.) 
 
 T^he Rt. Rev. the Bishops of New York, Maine, Long- 
 Island, Albany, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. 
 
 The Rev. Drs. T. Edson, E. M. P.« Wells, N. Hoppin, 
 A. Burgess, P. Williams, J. L. Clark, D. H. Short, F. J. 
 Hawley, W. G. Spencer, E. N. Mead, J. H. Price, W. E. 
 Eigenbrodt, I. H. Tuttle, Alfred B. Beach, T. A. Eaton, 
 C. R. Duffie, R. S. Howland, M. Dix, F. Ogilby, T. M. 
 
n 
 
 Peters^ G. H. Houghton, S. HoUingsworth, C. E. Swope, 
 J. B. Gibson, S. H. Weston, G. F. Seymour, S. Buel, A. 
 Oliver, W. H. Moore, D. V. M. Johnson, T. S. Drowne, 
 S. Cox, J. A. Paddock, N. H. Schenck, J. H. Hopkins, F. 
 Harison, W. T. Gibson, W. Ayrault, J. A. Williams, A. 
 Stubbs, R. M. Abercrombie, W. G. Farrington, E. B. 
 Boggs, E. Y. Buchanan, H. Stanley, J. S. B. Hodges, S. 
 C. Thrall, J. De Koven, and F. W. Boyd. 
 
 The Rev. Messrs. S. Upjohn, F. W. Smith, R. H. 
 Paine, R. Whittingham, L. French, W. A. Johnson, S. 
 Clark, C Clapp, W. W. Olssen, Randall C. Hall, E. D. 
 Cooper, W. A. Snively, G. W. Smith, E M. Pecke, F. M. 
 Cookson, J. Cary, R. Weeks, R N. Merritt, J H. Smith, 
 S. W. Sayres, S. Parker, E. K. Smith, N. Pettit, A. U. 
 Stanley, H. S. Bishop, A. B. Baker, T. G. Littell, Richard 
 C. Hall, W. F. Brand, A. J. Rich, M.D., J. Chipchase, E. 
 G. Weed, and J. H. Knowles. 
 
 Messrs. T. H. Canfield, Dr. G. C. Shattuck, C. Cur- 
 tiss, E. Butler, H. Drisler, S. P. Nash, A. B. McDonald, 
 J. Buckley, W. A. Davies, C. Livingston, John A. Dix, 
 T. W. Ogden, W. C. Gilman, H. E. Pierrepont, J. A. King, 
 0. Meads, J. C. Harison, J. Forsyth, G. C. McWhorter, H. 
 V. Bostwick, J. C. Garthwaite, G. C. Hance, W. B, Mott, 
 H. Burgwin, L. B. Otis, and W. F. Whitehouse. 
 
 Of these Trustees 93 voted in the election of perma- 
 nent Dean, and of the 93 votes thus cast, 77 were given 
 for the Rev. Dr. Seymour, and 16 for various candidates 
 as follows : the Rev. Dr. Eigenbrodt, 6 ; Rev. Dr. Alfred 
 B. Beach, 4 ; Rev. Dr. E. A. Hoffman, 3 ; Rev. Dr. Henry 
 A. Coit, 1 ; Rev. Dr. A. Burgess, 1 ; Blank 1. ^ 
 
EXPLANATORY NOTE. 
 
 I have been informed that the Bishop of Western New York 
 intended to continue the correspondence which he began in the 
 Churchman of September 4th, 1875. I have delayed, in conse- 
 quence, the issuing of the present publication, in order that I might 
 include his forthcomin'g letter or letters, with such remarks as I 
 might deem it necessary to make in reply. As much more than a 
 month, however, has now elapsed, and the Bishop has not again 
 renewed his assault, I submit that I have good reason to assume 
 that the correspondence is closed. 
 
 I think there are very few who will not agree with me that, 
 newspapers are, as a rule, a very unsatisfactory channel through 
 which to argue a question involving personal issues ; and when, as 
 in the present instance, the parties concerned are a Bishop and a 
 Presbyter in the Church of God, let the merits of the case be what 
 they may, the discussion is prejudicial to the best interests of reli- 
 gion, and devolves a very grave responsibility upon him who pro- 
 vokes and compels it. 
 
 A Bishop is in a peculiarly favorable position for bringing any 
 one whom he may believe to be delinquent to trial, and I am provi- 
 dentially in a situation where it would be pre-eminently easy for any 
 Bishop to institute proceedings against me. 
 
 I have only to say that, if the Bishop of Western New York, or 
 any other Bishop, or any one else, should deem it necessary or 
 advisable to pursue this course, I should heartily welcome such an 
 investigation, and would afford every facility in my power for mak- 
 ing it thorough and exhaustive ; and moreover, I can well under- 
 stand that a Presenter, under such circumstances, might act from 
 a high sense of duty, and without any personal animosity, and hence 
 I could meet him before the tribunal as a friend, who was seeking at 
 the cost of what might be exceedingly painful to himself to benefit 
 the Church, and who would rejoice with me, were I able to make my 
 righteousness, through God's help, as clear as the light, and my just 
 dealing as the noon-day. 
 
 GEORGE F. SEYMOUR. 
 
 General Theological Seminary, 
 November 10//^ 1875. 
 
STATEMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REV. SAMUEL B, JOHNSON, D.D. 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION OF BISHOPS 
 
 DEPUTED BY THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS TO 
 
 VISIT THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL 
 
 SEMINARY, JANUARY, 1872. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 Styles & Cash, Steam Printers and Stationers, 77 Eighth Avenue. 
 
 1875. 
 
REV. PROF. JOHNSON'S STATEMENT. 
 
 QUESTIONS— CONTENTS— INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 How came Prof. Johnson to write his Statement ? - - - - 5 
 
 What is the cause of the Seminary troubles ?----- 5 
 
 How came there to be no such troubles in the 19 years previous ? - 5,6 
 
 What about the irregularity of Dr. Seymour's Report in 1870 ? - 6 
 
 Has the Faculty ever committed similar irregularities ? - - - 6 
 
 Have other Professors done the same (Proc. pp. 362-447, 1870-71) ? 7 
 Did the Faculty bring up any Student for his Sermon Exercises 
 
 formerly ? ......-.-- 7 
 
 Did the Professors treat equally well all the Schools of Theology ? - 7 
 
 Was the Seminary distinguished for its liberality to all ? - - - 7 
 
 Are there Seminaries acting on the reverse principle ? - - - 8 
 
 What was Bishop Burgess' opinion on this point ? - - - - 8 
 
 What was the effect of a liberal policy in the treatment of Students ? - 9 
 
 What would you include under the Church's school of thought ? - 9 
 Were the Students of one school treated severely of late in the 
 
 Seminary ?---------- 9 
 
 What about Mr. 's case ? 10 
 
 What concerning Dr. Seymour ?-.----- H 
 
 Are there cases resembling Dr. Seymour's .-' ----- 11, 12 
 
 Is Dr. Seymour accurate in his statements in his pamphlet ? - - "12 
 
 Was the Seminary better off before the permanent Deanship ? - - 13 
 
 Were the Recitations better attended under the permanent Dean ? - 14 
 
 What was the history of the Seminary's early Communion .' - - 14, 15 
 
 What were the charges against our early Communion } - - - 15, 16 
 
 What about the audience rising at presenting the alms ? - - - 16, 17 
 
 What about the charge that wafer bread was used ? - - - 17 
 
 What various expectations were formed concerning the Dean ? - - 17 
 
 What his consistent course has been, .--.-- 18 
 What was the History of the Retreat just before the Ordination ? - 18, 19, 20 
 
 What was the discipline in Mr. 's case .'' - - - - 20, 21 
 
 How about the Scholarships'? -.-.-■--- 21 
 
 Or about the Seminary Catalogue ? ------ 21, 23 
 
 Student vestures 1 • - - 32 
 
 The use of personal illustrations ]------- 22 
 
 About the Faculty decision against Prof. Johnson's voting \ - - 28 
 
 The closing wish, -.- 23 
 
PREFATORY NOTE 
 
 The House of Bishops at the General Coiwention of 1871 appointed a Com- 
 mission of their own body to visit the General Theological Seminary in the course 
 of the ensuing winter, and investigate the troubles which had arisen in the Institu- 
 tion during the previous two years, and, if possible, adjust the difficulties. 
 
 The Commission consisted of the Rt. Rev. Bishops Atkinson (Chairman), 
 Whitehouse., Lay, Bissell, Morris, Niles, and Pinkney. All the members of this 
 Commission accepted the appointment, and discharged the duty assigned them, 
 except Bishop Morris, whose distant mission field had prior claims upon his time 
 and attention. 
 
 The Commission of six Bishops, as above enumerated, representing the House 
 of Bishops, met at the Seminary in New York, January 11th, 1872, and remained 
 in session one week. They brought their labors to a close by a happy adjustment 
 of the differences which had existed. The basis of agreement which the Bishops 
 submitted was understood to be the composition of the late Professor Seabury. 
 
 The Bean and all the Profegsors present signed this paper in the jDresence of the 
 Bishops and of each other, and the questions which had been in dispute up to that 
 time were amicably arranged — settled, it was supposed, to the mutual satisfaction 
 of both parties. In the recent General Convention, however, these issues were 
 reopened and reviewed by those who opposed the Confirmation of the Bishop- 
 elect of Illinois, as though the House of Bishops through their Commission had 
 not settled them — as though the parties involved had not signed an agreement 
 closing the discussion for ever. 
 
 The following statement was prepared by the late Rev. Samuel R. Johnson, 
 D.D., and was by him sent to the Bishops who sat as a Commission for the visita- 
 tion of the Seminary in January, 1872. The Rev. Dr. Johnson served as a Professor 
 in the Institution for twenty years. This document is now published under the 
 stress of recent events, in order that one who knew more of the Seminary, its 
 history, its traditions, its internal life and management, than any other person that 
 could be named, may be heard upon the subject of the troubles which arose under 
 the administration of the late Dean. The Rev, Dr. Samuel R. Johnson " being 
 dead yet speaketh," 
 
S TAT E M E N T 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Rev. Samuel R. Johnson, D.D., 
 
 Submitted to the Commission of Bishops deputed by the 
 
 House of Bishops to Visit the General Theological 
 
 Seminary, January, 1873. 
 
 For the Rt. Rev. Visitors of the General Theological Seminary., 
 appointed by the General Convention of 1871. 
 
 Right Reverend Fathers : I understand that a Visitation of 
 the General Theological Seminary is to begin on the 11th January, 
 A.D. 1872, by certain Bishops appointed by the General (Convention. 
 As I have been for twenty years Professor in the Institution, and was 
 in Professor duties until July 1st, 1870, and was present on several 
 occasions, and conducted certain religious services which may be 
 subjects of investigation, I hold myself in readiness, in case my 
 presence should be requested or required, to give personal answer to 
 all questions which might be asked of me. But as such investigation 
 did not come on, and I am now far removed from the Seminary, and 
 it is winter time, I have thought that perhaps my written statement 
 might be sufficient without my presence. I first thought of prefixing 
 questions and answering them, but prefer to give a more current 
 statement, and then to refer to certain pages as containing the replies 
 to certain questions which might be asked. If I were asked what 
 first gave occasion for trouble in the Faculty, I would say, I think it 
 came from reversing the temper and habits of those former days of 
 peace, when the several various theological schools of thought were 
 all treated with equal generosity ; when each Professor taught what 
 he considered the truth, and there the matter rested — the variations 
 of Professors and students not being made subjects for the action of 
 the Faculty. During all the years of Professor Turner, this differ- 
 ence amongst the Professors was considerable. But he used to say 
 pleasantly, and in his own quaint way, " Gentlemen, we may differ in 
 our views ; but I feel myself perfectly independent in my recitation 
 room and when consulted, and I presume you do the same. We 
 have each our own rights here. But I am responsible for mine, and 
 you for yours, gentlemen, — if you do not tread upon my toes, I will 
 
6 
 
 not upon yours." So, though the views of our Professors were more 
 widely apart then than ever since his death, yet there was no collision 
 and no contradiction, and real friendliness of intercourse. There 
 seemed more danger of controversy as we listened to the sermons 
 preached in the Seminary Chapel, and did not agree with the 
 preacher. I have seen good Dr. Turner shake his head occasionally 
 while Professor Haight argued, and known him to express his dissent 
 afterwards when Professor Mahan had beautifully interpreted the 
 types of Sampson's history. But subjects were seldom controversial ; 
 and the feeling and the criticism were merely private affairs of the 
 individual. The Faculty was not then the body which propounded 
 doctrine or the limitations of doctrine officially, as it has done since 
 the late agitation. {See Proc. \%l^,page 403.) 
 
 I cannot help thinking, that if Professor Seymour might be charged 
 with irregularity in appending to his Professorial Report his own 
 Resolutions, which were otherwise excluded from meeting the eyes 
 of the Trustees, and which he himself did not deem irrelevant, much 
 more might it be said that the Faculty passed beyond the limits of 
 their office and their proper line in publishing to the Trustees and to 
 the Church their own Dogmatic Definition as to the Holy Eucharist. 
 On this sacred mystery we know that there has been all manner of 
 diversity of opinion among our pures't and ablest Divines. Men have 
 never been able to agree here. Here the Church of Rome took the 
 highest extreme, and compelled acceptance of its one formi'la. Its 
 error was greater in the compulsion than in the extreme ; and the 
 painful results in history were from the persecutions which ensued, 
 and the violations of the law of freedom. Never will the Church of 
 God have peace, never come to anything like unity, unless they allow 
 liberty upon this sacramental theme. If the Israelites kept the Great 
 Passover, it was sufficient. At all events it is the Church itself which 
 propounds doctrines, not the Individual, not the College Faculty. 
 The question how far the liberty of opinion as to what the Church 
 allows concerning the Eucharist, it is not for such to decide. Emin- 
 ent Judicial authority, as by Sir R. S. Phillimore in the case of Dr. 
 Bennett, decided just the very opposite of the Faculty's third Resolu- 
 tion ; and it referred to the large class of eminent Bishops and 
 Divines, in successive line from the early Reformation down, who 
 held and hold the contrary. Sir Robert referred to the very Bishop 
 who "had the penning" of our 28th Article on that very subject of 
 the Lord's Supper, and to his famous letter as using the very phrases 
 which our Faculty Resolution deems unlawful. It is not for the 
 Faculty by a majority vote to tell the Professors and the students 
 what we are entitled to believe. This I know for myself, that if you 
 separate from my consciousness our Lord and Saviour as " personally" 
 
present to my faith, you kill out the very life of my religion. It is the 
 Eternal Son of God who is the one only "Person," not to be separ- 
 ated, not to be divided from the nature which He took, no, not for 
 the twinkling of an eye, as ancient Liturgy has it. But the true 
 question here is not as to Doctrine, but Liberty. 
 
 Besides, the Professor might point to the Professor's Reports 
 published in the Proceedings of the Trustees, where on pp. 363 and 
 447, sentiments are expressed bearitig upon the very subject which 
 was handled by Dr. Seymour as to a liberal policy in the Seminary 
 discipline, but testifying on the other side to the advantage of the 
 repressive system. If improper in him at length, the same in others 
 in brief. While for nineteen years of my Seminary life there was, as 
 I have said, peace among the Professors, so there was no official 
 difficulty as to the views of the students. Students, of course, had 
 their personal troubles occasionally. There were also real quarrels 
 among them on the subject of Church music and plain-song chants. 
 Of course there was every shade of sentiment as to Church views 
 from the extreme low to the very high. There were often crude 
 statements, imperfect, wrong, confused, ignorant and amusing in all 
 varieties. But the Professors had faith in their own influence and 
 teaching, in the growth of the mind, in the alterative processes of the 
 Seminary's healthful atmosphere. They did not summon the youth- 
 ful imprudent divine, or the flourishing rhetorician, before the Board, 
 nor report him to his Bishop for castigation. As the rough agate 
 stone is driven through the tall tower, subject to the whirling and 
 the grinding all the way ; then is carried back to the top to undergo 
 the same friction, and to come out fairly rounded at the second turn ; 
 and yet once more, the third time, passes the same ordeal, and comes 
 out generally a finely formed and handsome agate marble : so by the 
 time the Middle Class was through, we all marked a vast improve- 
 ment ; and by the time the Senior Class had graduated at the third 
 repeat, the ignorances were gone, the roughness had been removed, 
 the notions had been corrected, and we felt happy in presenting the 
 class well balanced, well furnished and promising, prepared for useful 
 work and honorable in the Church of God. I boldly affirm that no 
 one fell into displeasure because he belonged to this or that school 
 of theology ; never did a student feel that the cold shoulder was 
 turned to him, or that he was a subject of suspicion on that account. 
 The most extreme low churchman never could mark any difference 
 in affectionate treatment. We worked as strenuously to get a scholar- 
 ship for the one as for the other ; we put out freely our welcoming 
 arms, and afterwards folded in our arms of love each and all. 
 Neglects, short-comings, violations of duty or proper moral or 
 religious behaviour alone subjected a student to discipline. 
 
1 know that in other theological institutions it was often reported 
 that the rule was different — that high churchmen, for instance, were 
 suspiciously and unkindly treated. Students left these institutions 
 and made these complaints when they came in to us. They had 
 been called up, charged with using, certain expressions as to baptism, 
 for instance, and asked what they meant by it. We trusted in the 
 three years instruction and influence ; and if the student at the end 
 differed from us, we considered that he had a right to his position. 
 As to ordination, that was an after investigation, for which the 
 Episcopate was responsible, with the Canonical Examiners and the 
 Standing Committees. 
 
 It is not long since in one of our educational societies, the con- 
 dition of certain theological students elsewhere was painfully exposed. 
 While yet uninformed, they had been obliged to pledge themselves to 
 partizan views. Their reading, their study led them, or kept leading 
 them on, in the opposite direction. They depended upon a society 
 which was exclusive ; they felt that they had lost their freedom, that 
 they were working with a collar ; that almost all other students of 
 divinity in the Church were bound by no other restriction .than the 
 Church itself imposed — free to decide within the lines of the lowest 
 low, or the highest high, or the intermediate anywhere. But they 
 could not, unless they parted with their only means of support, which 
 in the other churchly institutions would have been secure to them. 
 
 I remember a deeply interesting interview I had with the late 
 lamented Bishop Burgess. He had nephews to place in a Theological 
 Seminary. He visited two institutions which accorded most nearly 
 with his own personal conclusions. But he found them exceedingly 
 partizan and narrow, only the one side was presented. Variant views 
 were treated harshly. Suspicions and prejudices surrounded those 
 who held them. They were educated for a party. There was no 
 free, manly exercise of enquiry or debate allowed. " But I came 
 over," said he, "to your General Seminary, and I found it just the 
 reverse. The low were treated as affectionately as the high ; you 
 worked as much for the student of one type as of another. Books 
 belonging to either side were freely circulated and read. I went into 
 your reading room, and I found the Church Journal and the Protestant 
 Churchman^ with other papers, side by side. I hope my young friends 
 will come out Evangelical Churchmen ; but I want them to under- 
 stand themselves, and to be clear and free for just and manly 
 decision." 
 
 On this happy principle the Seminary had been conducted. And 
 it is by far the safest way to secure the average result. Under the 
 kindly influences of the Seminary extremes abated. By Graduation 
 time there were few decided ultraists at either end. And the 
 
9 
 
 student's life was happy, and the Professors were at peace. The 
 classes of Theological Schools may be called, the low, the moderate, 
 the high, the broad, the Catholic. With regard to the last, I heard 
 our venerable Professor Seabury say, that when he led ofl" so openly 
 in behalf of young Arthur Carey, who stood just where Drs. Pusey, 
 Liddon, and Bishop Hamilton and the men of the advanced school 
 were and are, " it was a mistake to conclude him as agreeing in his 
 special views. It was," said he, " simply the question of liberty, and 
 I maintained his right, with his ideas, to be a candidate for orders, 
 and to be ordained a minister." 
 
 Our present reverend Dean in his Inaugural laid down the same 
 generous propositions. Now since these later days, while all other 
 views have been indulgently allowed, the last or advanced class has 
 been treated just as I stated students had been treated in some other 
 Theological Seminaries. Their ideas were pronounced unlawful, not 
 allowed by the Church, as if they had no right to such position — in 
 fact as if they ought not to be ordained. Wishes were expressed on 
 the floor of the Trustees and elsewhere, that they would hurry over 
 to Rome, where they belonged. Denying all allegiance to the Bishop 
 of Rome ; maintaining that the bread and wine were elements remain- 
 ing ; unwilling to embrace specific statements of Roman Councils on 
 subjects where the one Catholic Church had left the questions open ; 
 longing for what they considered the perfection of a nati(mal Church, 
 of course not infallible and always open to improvement ; claiming to 
 be tried by the famous pronouncement of Bishop Ken, which our own 
 Bishop Coxe so boldly and eloquently lately urged before a great 
 Religious Association of the Continent ; they yet felt themselves 
 ungenerously crowded out of their liberty, of possession in the large 
 comprehensive Catholic Church of their inheritance and their national 
 stock. I suppose some might question this. But I state here, as I 
 stated to the Dean in person, that no one else, however otherwise 
 extreme, was questioned or made to feel uncomfortable ; no other 
 was treated suspiciously; no other opinion was presented for censure 
 but theirs ; no other persons were obstructed practically as to ordina- 
 tion but they; no others but they were interfered with. Strong 
 words were used that all this must be put a stop to, that the thing 
 must be put down — even reported that it must be stamped out. 
 Young men who were looking to the Seminary, and hearing this, pre- 
 ferred not to enter under such circumstances. We had hoped that 
 one of the special advantages of elevating to the sole Deanship a 
 reverend brother who had learned all the nicest difficulties and 
 intricacies which beset the Roman question, would be lovingly to 
 guide, and skilfully to protect any student who might be thought to 
 be in some danger of extremes. But he seemed afraid of such, rather 
 
10 
 
 than glad to care for them. When a person whose eyes had been 
 opened to renounce Rome presented himself, he gave him no 
 encouragement. It had been the habitual use of the Seminary, if a 
 person towards the close of the Seminary year, meaning to apply for 
 the Middle Class on the next October, wished the privilege of attend- 
 ing the Junior Class recitations, so as to prepare himself better under 
 Seminary guidance, to grant the request. Such privilege had been 
 
 just conceded co several in the Seminary. But in Mr. 's* case 
 
 the opposite course was taken. He was a passed candidate for orders. 
 He was the son of an English clergyman. His examination, literary, 
 before Dr. Ogilby and myself was far better than the average. But 
 he had when very young, when away from the sanctions of his 
 missionary home in India, fallen into Roman society and influence ; 
 and, like many others, betrayed himself into joining the Roman 
 Church. Much doubting, never cordial or content in his new de- 
 cision, he was led by a minister of the advanced school to reconsider 
 the subject. The very strong opposition to the supremacy of the 
 Pope, and to the infallibility of the Church of Rome, which that 
 school makes, and which they study with special care and sturdily 
 press up, soon told upon the young man. He would have been safer 
 under the roof of the Seminary, and under the tender protection and 
 guidance of the Dean. No umbrage would have been given as, by 
 the refusal, evidently was to the Bishop of New York, who had sent 
 him to us. The young man was introduced by the Dean to Dr. 
 Seabury, as one who had left Rome to go no further away than the 
 advanced church which he attended. His request was not granted. 
 Not only was the application refused, but new rules were adopted 
 which prevented the application of persons desiring this preparatory 
 privilege. The Rev. Dr. Van Kleeck brought his son, who had been 
 a student of law but had decided to study Divinity in the Seminary, 
 to apply for the privilege in the same way. The new rule excluded 
 him. Under the old practice both would have been allowed, and to 
 both would the advantage of a better culture have been secured. 
 The young man who had renounced Romanism had to study privately 
 under many disadvantages. The Bishop of New York did not en- 
 courage him to enter the unwelcoming institution. I do not know 
 enough of him to pronounce concerning his later preparation, but the 
 Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Nassau ordained him, and employs him as 
 his Deacon. Now on all these cases, when they came up, Dr. Seymour 
 and myself harmonized. We stood on the old seminary ground, and 
 considered the new position and the manner and treatment consequent, 
 
 * He afterwards served with credit as a Presbyter in the Diocese of Florida; and 
 is now a missionary in India in the employ of the S. P. G. 
 
11 
 
 an initiation of a new, narrow and unwise policy. I say zue, for I had 
 the valued privilege of speech in the Faculty, though I had not the 
 right of vote. 
 
 The next chief cause of troubles was the strong feeling of the 
 Professors in personal opposition to Professor Seymour, which led 
 them, so to speak, to corner him and not allow his position to be 
 defined. The majority were steadily against him, he could find no 
 courtesy extended to second any motion he might make. No liberty 
 was allowed him to present his view upon the minutes. We had 
 formerly sat at Faculty meetings as a company of four friends, and 
 what either wished was naturally allowed. But now the four were 
 stiffened into a formal legal body, and the Professor of Law appealed 
 to Parliamentary and General Convention laws of order, and with 
 consent enforced them. Dr. Seymour always speaks with intensity, 
 and fearlessly expresses his ideas even when not expecting the sup- 
 port of the majority. Perhaps they took offence at the quality — 
 perhaps at the manner. But his admirers love him for his truthful- 
 ness, and rejoice in his outspoken candor. Just as I honor my old 
 classmate, the Rev. William Shelton, D.D., for his grand hearty 
 pronouncement, so I who love and honor both, rejoice in the reality 
 and freshness and vigor of each. I said to my friend of long, long years, 
 who educated me in theological thought more than any other man, 
 whdse name I commended from the pulpit to my congregation of 
 St. John's Church, Brooklyn, as the candidate for the Episco- 
 pate of New York, and when the election was evidently to be 
 decided in favor of Bishop Wainwright, gave my closing vote 
 for him, exclaiming that I would go down with his name nailed to 
 my mast — I mean the Rev. Samuel Seabury, by whose ancient teach- 
 ing I abide — I said to him, " Doctor, Seymour resembles Bishop 
 Hobart more than any clergyman I ever met with ; now could you 
 ever imagine that Bishop Hobart would have submitted to such 
 cornering } You know it would have been impossible. He would 
 leap over the wall." It was thus that Dr. Seymour made his case 
 known to the Trustees by appending his own neglected resolutions 
 to his Professor Report, and afterwards penned and had printed all 
 his history of various transactions, and his general and particular 
 views. Just so Bishop Hobart published appeal after appeal in large 
 pamphlets, in individual controversies, and on theological and ecclesi- 
 astical questions. I might have added how impossible it had been 
 of old to bind the strong arms of T/w Churchman in any such 
 manner. The Editor was not only the champion of the advance 
 movement of old, but he was just as able and just as resolute to be 
 the champion of himself. The case I am about to refer to had its 
 parallels with Dr. Seymour's. 
 
12 
 
 When Dr. Seabury was a teacher in the General Theological 
 Seminary, in charge of The Evidences^ he was also the Editor. 
 Writing some elaborate views about the Generality of the Redemp- 
 tion, the universal gift of the Holy Spirit sufficiently to become a 
 basis for probation, and the consequent salvability of the heathen — 
 views certainly in accordance with our most approved Divines, both 
 our own Bishops White and Hobart, as well as great theologians of 
 England's Church — he found himself unexpectedly assailed (and 
 perhaps in some side statements he may have been vulnerable) by 
 one of the regular Professors of the Seminary ; I rather think he was 
 the Dean at the time, certainly a very leading and influential Pro- 
 fessor. It 'seemed too that the Faculty rather stood on the part of 
 the powerful assailant. He was charged with Heresy. And the 
 voice of condemnation seemed the voice of the majestic Seminary 
 itself, although certain ones regretted the attack had been made. 
 Did he allow himself to be enclosed with the net, or quietly to 
 surrender .'* Not for a moment. Witness the page of the old Church- 
 man at its next issue, where he pronounces that he has the truth on 
 his side, that '"''The General Theological Sefninary is in Heresy!!" 
 all spread out in large staring letters on the open page. 
 
 If any question arises as to Dr. Seymour's pamphlet or Dr. 
 Seabury's pronouncement, am I to blame if I stood with Seabury 
 then as I do with Seymour now ? I look upon the pronouncement 
 and the pamphlet as almost inevitable products of the strength and 
 fearlessness of the assailed, and the induced circumstances which 
 surrounded them. 
 
 Some criticism has been passed upon the accuracy of the state- 
 ments made in certain instances by Dr. Seymour in his printed 
 pamphlet, to a portion of which I had given in my name as witness. 
 It is seldom in a long history that some person may not make an 
 opportunity to raise exceptions. The writer himself is abundantly 
 able to give explanations'or to prove his assertion when needed, as 
 he did so emphatically in the fly leaf which he added to his pamphlet, 
 on a statement of his which was denied. In the portion attested by 
 myself, I have only this to say, it was drawn up by Dr. Seymour 
 within a very few days of the transactions, while the whole was fresh 
 to my memory, and I deemed it to tally with all that had occurred. 
 In the instance excepted. Dr. Seymour had opposed a certain phrase 
 in a resolution, and argued at length against it. In the turn of the 
 discussion he consented to the necessity of the. adoption, as it left 
 the resolution more in his hands and under his shaping. Y{&,allowea 
 a defeat in the left wing to save the centre and the right. Thus he 
 did not state in his pamphlet the literal fact that the objectionable 
 word was adopted by all. I who knew how he had opposed and 
 
13 
 
 argued was impressed by the substantial reaHty more than the mere 
 formal expression. Technically correct, unanimity was substantially 
 absent nevertheless. It is a case where an acute pleader might put 
 in an exception, but where judicial experience would waive it. 
 
 If the question is put whether the Seminary was better off under 
 the old arrangement, where a resident Professor was Dean, my 
 opinion is decidedly in favor of the old. True, the duty of the year 
 was much more oppressive to the Professor Dean, and the office was 
 attended with indirect expenses not inconsiderable. A thousand 
 dollars should have been added to the annual income of the Pro- 
 fessor who held it. But this Professor was one who met the classes 
 daily, who listened to the recitations of the individual students, who 
 solved their questions, directed their researches, visited them in their 
 rooms, met them in the library, talked with them about books, 
 occasionally attended their debates, learned from themselves and 
 chiefly from others their history, their circumstances, their occasional 
 necessities. Familiarity thus insensibly grew up — not such as breeds 
 contempt, but such as created mutual sympathy and respect. The 
 Dean being then a resident, of course took his regular turn in 
 all devotional services and discourses, such as religiously win and 
 favorably aff"ect the student mind. But besides his turn in order, he 
 felt inclined to be present on such occasions habitually. If a student 
 were delinquent in attendance it was named to the Dean at the meet- 
 ing of the Faculty, or if he failed in just mastery of his studies. A 
 mere occasional absence or failure was not deemed worthy of dis- 
 cipline; for much should justly be left to the judgment and con- 
 science of religious young men, approved as candidates for Holy 
 Orders, soon to be ministers of the Gospel. They were not col- 
 legians to be called before the board, but friends and sons to be 
 counselled, to be directed, to be lovingly appealed to, to be entreated 
 even. I only speak for myself, but I had an unusual share of the 
 Dean's alternate offices, resulting from the sickness or absence of 
 the others. When I had a case of discipline I went as a friend to 
 the student's room, and tried to weave in at some fortunate turn of 
 the conversation the disagreeable subject. Seldom did I find an 
 impracticable case, or leave myself or the student in an off'ensive 
 attitude. I remember but one instance where I lost a worthy 
 student's love, and that was not a case of discipline, but a private 
 difference and individual irritability of my own where I deemed the 
 Seminary injured. 
 
 Now I ask not who is or shall be the Dean, under existing circum- 
 stances it must come to the same thing ; never meeting the students 
 in any of those exercises which reveal the temper and the faculty of 
 the man ; seldom appearing before them in any of those positions 
 
14 
 
 which interest and win the mind ; present as a visitor to his Dean's 
 room five mornings of the week, and that mainly at hours when the 
 Recitations are going on, or the hour or two before when the study 
 in preparation has to be most exacting — it is, I say, impossible 
 that the Dean of the new arrangement can be equal to the Dean of 
 the olden time. He does not, he cannot, come in contact with the 
 lines of real effectual influence and government. Even if by an apti- 
 tude for commanding he may reprove and direct firmly, he cannot be 
 the father in the family of sons. The powerful element of love is too 
 largely absent. There is only the officer, warning, examining, 
 punishing — dignified in attitude, severe. I did not think the result 
 fortunate the year I was in the Seminary, as now arranged. Since 
 then I have been but an occasional visitor, and only at evening 
 prayer. The attendance was less than of old. The preaching ser- 
 vices are less. The Holy Communions are less. I was not struck 
 with any superiority in the public examinations which indicated that 
 the students had been more interested in pursuing their studies. In 
 one thing, however, a decided and evident improvemenc was made, 
 viz., in attendance upon Recitations. The Professors were required 
 to give to the Dean monthly reports of attendance, and those who 
 were reported as absent on any given day or hour were summoned 
 by the Dean from the class room by a list of the names to be called 
 out by the Professor. I could not help but feel deeply for the pre- 
 siding officer, whose almost sole business in the Seminary was dis- 
 cipline. I said to myself, who of us could stand so painful a test, or 
 be comfortable to others or himself.' But students, knowing they 
 were held responsible for attendance each separate hour, did attend 
 more faithfully. They preferred to bear their private exactions and 
 put up with personal inconveniences and attend, rather than meet 
 the Dean in his room as accused or offenders. 
 
 When the Dean first met the Faculty, he made some admirable 
 and feeling remarks upon the chief duty which he felt belonged to 
 his more special care. " He had nothing to do in the Recitations, 
 and he hoped to bestow his chief care upon individual students, to 
 have them unbosom themselves to him with the most entire con- 
 fidence, to be directed in the way of sanctity and a higher life." 
 The students had by their own request, Ananimous almost, asked the 
 Faculty over two years before for the privilege of a weekly Com- 
 munion on the Sunday. As many had to attend the superintendence 
 of Sunday schools at a distance at 9 o'clock, the hour of the holy 
 service had to be an early one. Later hours were tried and failed, 
 and it settled habitually at 6 or half-past 6, I forget which. The 
 Faculty did not act upon the request, for one was sick and another 
 engaged, and so they said if any one chose to attend to it the way 
 
15 
 
 was open. Dr. Seymour and myself attended for a time, and then 
 the early service at the House of Mercy where he was Chaplain 
 interfered, and the welcome privilege fell on me, I being free from 
 other Sunday exactions except on a few occasions. When the sub- 
 ject was introduced in the Faculty, the Dean was unfriendly to it, 
 and urged its abandonment, arguing that in the Roman Church they 
 did not have frequent Communion, though they had mass very 
 frequently indeed with their idea of sacrifice. Even their devotees 
 did not receive more than once a month or so. Dr. Seabury said he 
 was in favor of frequent Communion, but not where it was evidently 
 impracticable, ag it would be when my retirement, which we then 
 thought immediately impending, should take place. Dr. Seymour 
 said he would take the responsibility of the duty, but could not 
 officiate himself. But the Dean thought it unadvisable to introduce 
 clergymen from without, some imprudences having already excited 
 remark, resulting from occasional supplies. Here I could not but 
 lament in my own mind that the non-residence of the Dean com- 
 pelled the disuse of this weekly celebration, even in a religious house, 
 not of laymen but of candidates for the ministry — a sacred honie 
 where the level of religious privilege and devotion ought to be far 
 higher than in a common mixed congregation. I lamented that the 
 Dean would find that he could not succeed in carrying out his devout 
 intentions while the Holy Eucharist was seldom celebrated — while it 
 was thus even interrupted and discontinued. But it was hard to say 
 how it could be otherwise. The Dean in the Seminary resident could 
 have met the case at once, and his superintendence could have pro- 
 tected from all practices he deemed questionable. 
 
 As this early celebration has been made the subject of much 
 remark — as some students who never or seldom attended it made 
 charges of extreme Ritual, without just knowledge, rather as a 
 demonstration against Ritualism than with a more particular aim, 
 and as I was the one who regularly celebrated — I will take this 
 opportunity to say that the service was of the simplest kind. I wore 
 my plain bla-ck citizen's dress ; I had neither cassock nor clerical 
 coat ; I used the surplices of the Seminary with the plain black stole- 
 to meet a scruple of the Professor of Pastoral Theology, I used to 
 give a very short sermon which I called a sermonette. I did nothing 
 which any could question, except that I considered the frontage of 
 the altar the important part at which the officiating priest ,should 
 stand, and that to move around to the ends was not in itself so 
 proper, though custom makes it sufficiently excusable, so resolved by 
 high judicial statement and by the ordinary arguments used to sustain 
 it. I read the Ante-Communion at the right side of the frontage. 
 My face was towards the people in the Commandments, Gospel and 
 
16 
 
 Epistle, Exhortations and the like ; towards the Holy Table in ttie 
 Prayers. I observed lately that Professor Francis Vinton, whose 
 department is the Church's latti, did exactly as I did. The students 
 did not rise at presenting the Offertory till the last year. After the 
 Pan Anglican Council I gave up the opinion that the Sermon might 
 be maintained as necessary, and then seldom if ever wrote my 
 sermonette. For as one who had attended the Council was relating 
 all the circumstances there, the question was publicly asked, and in 
 reference to the very doubt before noted, " On their regular daily 
 early Communion, held during the Council, did they use the Morning 
 Prayer before it.?" The answer was ^^ No." "Did they have a 
 Sermon.?" The answer again was "iV^?." So I deemed the Council 
 use a sufficient authority to give me freedom of choice. And even 
 the last Seminary Professor had interpreted the Rubric that this was 
 simply the place where a Sermon should come in if there was one. 
 So I presume no fault could be found with the Seminary practice 
 here. Though interpreters might differ, the question was an open 
 one. But sometimes Professor Seymour officiated, and his method 
 was like mine, except that as in Morning Prayer for all " distressed 
 in mind, body or estate," he made a brief pause as if recalling some 
 individuals in whose sorrows he sympathised, so after some such 
 sentence he did the same. It was hardly noticeable, but brought 
 home to our feelings a touch of sympathy. Three times three young 
 Presbyters took my place when absent ; one resided at the time in 
 my house, the other two in the city. I knew nothing of any peculi- 
 arities used by them. But a new occasion arose when I acted simply 
 according to my best judgment. The Rev. Son of our late presiding 
 Bishop wished to present to the Seminary for use two costly memorial 
 metallic candlesticks, to his venerable father's honor, and first to give 
 them as an offering at the altar. He was to present them by his own 
 hand, and lighted as' more significant. Mistaking the hour he came 
 too late. I received the candlesticks with lighted candles in them, 
 and placed them upon the Holy Table as I did the alms. The next 
 Sunday I was absent, and one of the young students, seeing the 
 candlesticks on the Faculty room table, where they were placed for 
 a while that friends might see them, made a mistake and brought 
 them in again. But after the service was concluded on the first 
 morning, I had taken the special pains to inform the students at the 
 desk publicly that these were presented as any other offering, and not 
 as the introduction of them for use in the Sanctuary. During the 
 last year the students present adopted the usage of rising as the alms 
 and oblations were presented. This the Dean shortly after his 
 entrance upon his duties reproved and forbad. Some continuing to 
 rise upon an occasion of Communion in the Chapel, the reproof ot 
 
17 
 
 the Dean was again repeated, and with uncommon severity. The 
 subject was discussed in a very friendly way in the Dean's room one 
 day when I was present, with the Scottish Liturgy and the opinion of 
 the House of Bishops as to proper postures. Sentiments varied. / 
 thought our Bishops had recommended kneeling by the expression 
 that when no other posture was ordered kneeling was understood to 
 be the posture. The Dean courteously allowed my kneeling ; but 
 he thought the rising at that point of time was an interruption to 
 peaceful devotion, and that it was a novelty in our practice, and that 
 the movement of the presenting was in the prayer for Christ's 
 Church Militant. 
 
 One of the Trustees addressed me not very long ago to this 
 effect, that the Dean had found things very extreme in our Seminary 
 communion, and that they had even introduced the wafer bread of 
 Rome. For over two years while still at housekeeping in the Semi- 
 nary, I had the elements prepared in my own family, and the bread 
 was prepared in the usual way. It continued so afterwards, till cer- 
 tain of the young men undertook the care of the elements. Then 
 at last, for about a month the bread was compressed so as to prevent 
 its crumbling, I made some remark about it, but took no order, as 
 our new Pastoral head was so soon to be upon the ground, and the 
 compression was not severe. Here I must be pardoned for explain- 
 ing certain impressions existing in the Seminary at this time as bear- 
 ing on this point. Our Dean came in regarded by others in various 
 lights. Some thought, that under his special experience he was the 
 safe guide to protect the young men against dangers from Rome. 
 Some went still further, and reported him as so disgusted with 
 Rome, that he would lead in the opposite extreme ; while others, of 
 the advanced school, or with tendencies that way, claimed him as 
 thoroughly their own ; that he favored the confessional, that those 
 clergy who desired to confess sought him out, that when father Pres- 
 cott left for Europe he received from him absolution and went from 
 him with his benediction. Of the Trustees, the high and low, both 
 of Bishops, presbyters, and laymen, united on him each with differing 
 persuasion. Dr. Seabury himself told me that he had no idea which 
 course he would decide to take. The young men with whom he af- 
 terwards had difficulties, imagined that he would be pleased with 
 their every demonstration, and with every view which they were ac- 
 customed to favor. He had renounced Papal authority they said, 
 but he preserved the ideas which were catholic; at the communion 
 which he soon celebrated, under these feelings doubtless, they treat- 
 ed him to their best. 
 
 But it is not just to think, that either Dr. Seymour or myself were 
 committed with them, or that we had a service which was at all ex- 
 
18 
 
 treme. We were not low, of course, or radical, but we were modefate 
 and undemonstrative. We did not have the elements placed on the 
 holy table but on the prothesis. We did not set the paten with the 
 consecrated bread upon the floor as occasion chanced. We did not 
 leave the elements unconsumed, but reverently partook of them. 
 But our custom was such as generally prevailed in our New York 
 established congregations known as churchly and conservative. 
 
 Thus perhaps the Dean received impressions which were not 
 justified by our past general practices. Indeed we had gone so far 
 as to direct two or three who received otherwise to receive the cup 
 "into their hands," although the touch by the lips was and is quite 
 extensively the case in many churches near us ; and though ritualists 
 of reputation interpret that direction as applying only to the bread. 
 We wished not to commit the Seminary to a questionable practice. 
 
 Having thus endeavored to clear this three years' service of early 
 communion from popular mistakes, I will add that the young men 
 of the advanced school soon found out their mistake. The Dean 
 has been consistent throughout. He declined to receive their con- 
 fessions unless there might be some special grief. He let the weekly 
 communion be given up. He discouraged early communions as in- 
 terfering with the noon communions on the first Sunday of the 
 month. He thoroughly opposed the idea of communicating fasting. 
 Especially was he zealous against every doctrinal statement which 
 he considered unprotestant. If any person retains a prejudice 
 against him, as inclining to Roman ways, it is entirely unfounded. 
 I would rather imagine the tendency to be, from the very nature of 
 a great reaction, towards the opposite extreme. He has perfect lib- 
 erty in that direction, nor has any one a right to watch, or suspect, 
 question or censure. Only the liberty which the Church allows we 
 claim for others as well as ourselves ; and for candidates in their 
 studies and inquiries, as well as for clergymen. If Bishop Ken's 
 pronouncement be approved, we have a right to see where it will lead 
 us. For myself I have never presumed to go so far. But if the 
 eloquent prelate who asserted it should, I would not dare to say to 
 him " nay ;" or to suspect ////// of Romanizing. I have that firm 
 faith in him. And he would have a right to his position. 
 
 One other difficulty occurred in the Seminary in which we were 
 all interested, but in which Dr. Seymour and myself differed from the 
 Dean and the Professors. Of all occasions in life the Ordination of 
 the candidate for Holy Orders is the most solemn : he is to assume 
 a responsibility for himself, and a great spiritual trust for others. 
 The Seminary neither of old nor now has properly provided for the 
 time. The fearful charges of Bishop Wilberforce used as a text 
 book in the course, overwhelm the soul with dread. But Ember 
 
19 
 
 days, and ordinations pass unnoticed and unimproved by any special 
 retirement, confidential council or unbosoming or other than the 
 common devotion. 
 
 I take my share of blame for the neglect, and am ashamed as I 
 look back upon the past, that no attempt was made at improvement 
 here. 
 
 A short time before the proposed ordination, two presbyters, re- 
 cognized to be of the advanced or Catholic school, invited several 
 of the Seniors and as many as would come to a three days' meeting 
 for prayer and holy communion, in special reference to their spirit- 
 ual preparation for ordination. At the time, the Seniors were 
 relieved from recitations and their predecessors had been accustom- 
 ed under such authoritative exemption to consider themselves free 
 in the use of their hours. I have known them to retire without re- 
 proof to the New Jersey or Long Island shores, and shut themselves 
 up to prepare for their approaching Seminary and Canonical Exam- 
 inations. This Devotional Recess was popularly called a Retreat. 
 Most of those who went had consulted their Bishop or their Pastor. 
 But they did not consult Dean or Professors. When this was discov- 
 ered, by the letter of a Presbyter in the vicinity, the Faculty were 
 suddenly summoned, the action was considered very offensive, and 
 severe resolutions of censure were passed ; and without any informa- 
 tion of the nature of the offence, their Bishops were instructed by 
 the letter of the Dean that by a unanimous vote these their candi- 
 dates had incurred the censure of the Faculty, leaving them under un- 
 happy suspicions of immorality or crime. I was in the midst of the 
 scene at home, and it was perfectly evident, that the displeasure of 
 the Dean and Professors Vvas not on account of absence from meals, 
 or from the morning and evening prayer, for they themselves were 
 absent too ; but because they considered the two Presbyters who had 
 invited them to be dangerous men, and disloyal to Protestantism. 
 
 Now had they met this point fairly and squarely, it would I 
 think have been the true course. But here difficulties met them. 
 The Presbyters were in good Canonical standing. There was no 
 law forbidding a special devotion, nay that seemed almost a duty, 
 certainly a spiritual propriety before ordination. They could not 
 interfere with the students for placing themselves under other minis- 
 ters of the Church, for the Seminary had no provision whatever for 
 the Lord's day, and so the students were universally understood to 
 be subject to their rectors and regular pastors whose ministry they 
 attended. They knew that had they attended a series of devotions 
 under the Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg, they would never have been cen- 
 sured. Then another issue was made. Whatever old usages might 
 plead, or the student's own impression might excuse, it was seen 
 
20 
 
 that by the customary wording of the resokition, the Senior Class 
 was excused from Recitations^ so they were brought forward under 
 the charge of absence from Morning and Evening Prayer without 
 leave. Technically by statute they were found guilty on this point. 
 They were not tried, nor questioned, that their course might be un- 
 derstood or excused, or be capable of harmless construction. The 
 censure passed. Their Bishops were immediately notified. Till 
 the explanation could reach them, their pastor and friends and 
 even i|Bishop suffered under cruel misconstructions, which two lines 
 of kind and generous statement would have relieved. To add to 
 the unreality of the charge, there were others who had absented 
 themselves for a longer time without leave, who had gone for mere 
 refreshment or social intercourse, and these were excused immedi- 
 ately, while the others were held under the censure. I may be dull 
 in clear, moral and spiritual perception ; but I think that a few years 
 hence, the memory of this transaction will to some seem to partake 
 of the amusing, to others of shame, and to all of surprise. 
 
 There was another case of discipline, which I know would have 
 been more tenderly and indulgently managed under the former days. 
 A young candidate of New Jersey had been a teacher in De Veaux 
 College, Western New York, and had gained there a healthful influ- 
 ence umong the pupils. A disturbed condition of the pupils had 
 arisen, the assistant teachers had left, the Rev. Principal at the head 
 of the Institution was alone. The case required delicate manage- 
 ment and an experienced hand. In his distress the Principal tele- 
 graphed his old assistant, our student. It was our Recess, Christ- 
 mas, I think. The student entreated to come to the rescue went on 
 immediately. He was so necessary just for a short while, that he was 
 prevailed upon to stay after his recess had ended, and to write to the 
 Seminary requesting leave of absence for a brief stated time. The 
 reply, justly enough, refused the request. Then the Principal wrote 
 urging it anew. The Faculty meanwhile met, and after the Dean's 
 statement, requested the Dean to inform the pupil's Bishop of the 
 absence which had been only, however, for a few days. The letter 
 was sent to the Bishop barely stating the disobedience, as absence 
 without leave, and the non-compliance with the order to return. No 
 word explaining the history A^as given, no possible construction was 
 intimated qualifying the guilt. It was only holding up a criminal to 
 a Judge. Down came instant the Bishop's strong arm upon the 
 offender. Then followed letter upon letter to the Bishop from the 
 venerable Dr. Wm. Shelton, from the presiding head of the Institu- 
 tion, from Presbyters who knew the history, and the worthiness of 
 the man, deprecating punishment, and affectionately interceding. 
 The student retired from the General Seminary, and when he re- 
 
31 
 
 Sumed his theological course, he entered a Diocesan Theological 
 Seminary of reputation not far away. I understand that he is a 
 young man of more than ordinary promise. What I would observe 
 is, that under the old arrangements, the treatment would have been 
 more paternal. When we consider that a Bishop has the power to 
 erase the name of a candidate from his list, and it cannot be legally 
 restored without going through the formal renewal of the canonical 
 testimonials and application, and that application subject to the doubt 
 and disparagement resulting from the former erasing, we can easily 
 understand that the interests of the candidate ought to be very consider- 
 ately handled ; and that even if we know that the letter of a statute has 
 been violated, there are principles of justice and kindness which 
 underlie statute itself, and give its main dignity and obligation. Tne 
 Lawgiver is greater than His law. I mention this case to show there 
 may be more discipline and yet nothing gained by it. In matters of 
 minor regulation there must, of course, be many things liable to be 
 omitted or mistaken when a new person unaccustomed to the life of 
 the Seminary comes in to take charge — things which a resident in the 
 Seminary would have known almost unconsciously — matters of detail 
 which can be learned by a new incumbent only by literal enquiry 
 made and information given. Such is the knowledge about the 
 Scholarships of the Seminary, and the appropriations made by the 
 New York Society for Promoting Religion and Learning, and the 
 Society for the Increase of the Ministry, and Diocesan Arrange- 
 ments and Assistances. This knowledge and the practical aid of 
 the students is apt to run into certain channels, and to fall into 
 certain hands. But all the necessary information can be easily 
 gathered up. The preparation and distribution of the Seminary 
 catalogues is a matter involving many troublesome items, which call 
 for exact accuracy. The Dean and a student from each class attend 
 to the particulars, the former directing, investigating, and carefully 
 reading the latest proof-sheets. Sometimes an evident erratum 
 creeps in, which requires closest study of the former lists and of the 
 matriculation book. I remember cases where the tax on time was 
 severe, involving very late work, far beyond midnight, with an expert 
 student to help, so as to be ready to give the pages truly correct to 
 the printer's boy early the next morning. Then came the distribu- 
 tion according to traditional usage. So many copies to each Pro- 
 fessor, so many to each student, so many to the pay subscribers for 
 extra copies, a copy to leading Church papers and Church institutions, 
 a copy to each Theological Seminary, including the Princeton and 
 Union, with request to exchange, a copy to leading Universities and 
 Colleges. Especially a copy was sent to each of our Bishops, to each 
 member of the Seminary's Standing Committee, to each of the Com- 
 
32 
 
 mittee on Examinations, and to certain eminent friends. It was 
 charged of old, out of special respect to the Bishop, that his copies 
 should be delivered to him in person, and not sent by mail, so also 
 all the notifications of the Matriculation and Commencement. And 
 a particular injunction was given to lay aside in the Trustee Docu- 
 ment room some 30 copies, to be ready for use to be put into the 
 hands of examiners and distinguished visitors at the time of the 
 public examination. These traditional instructions are the outgrowth 
 of the necessities and proprieties of the Seminary life and its occasions. 
 One living in the scene learns them. He masters them by enquiry 
 at once, or gathers them by degrees. A distinguished divine intro- 
 duced lately, and not breathing the institutional atmosphere effectually, 
 nor in the way of the information, can hardly manage such details 
 successfully. At the last examination, after Morning Prayer was 
 ended, the visitors and Examining Committee called for catalogues. 
 None could be found. They applied to me. I answered, send for 
 the Janitor, who regularly used to bring the supply to the room 
 where the Examining Committee distributed their work. He replied 
 that none had been stored up as usual in the Document Room, which 
 was always within his reach and of which he held the keys, but that 
 they must be in the Dean's room and under his keeping. Then call 
 on the Dean, for we must have them ; vve can't get along without 
 them. But the Dean has not yet appeared. He does not reside in 
 the Seminary, you know ! The hour to meet the classes and begin 
 the examinations was pressing, and they had to go, depending upon 
 blank paper and their private note of the names. There was some 
 little difficulty about paper, but that was soon met. But the 
 exact name of the student, his diocese and his college, all points of 
 interest, were not in possession. Under the former arrangement this 
 could scarcely happen. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to touch upon all the themes which 
 might bear upon the subjects of enquiry, I have meant to produce 
 the impression that before the present arrangement of the Seminary 
 it was in fair healthful average condition ; and that I do not accept 
 some popular statements that evils were more rife, more carelessly 
 allowed, or less effectually reached than now. In some matters of 
 dignified demonstration, the new is rather more imposing, while the 
 old was more familiar and effective. In the case of attendance on 
 Recitations, as I have stated, the improvement is considerable. In 
 the discouragement of a more clerical or academic dress, and the 
 general habit of all citizen varieties of fashion, one who has read of 
 the English universities, or has visited Annandale, with its chaste 
 and churchly usages, might feel a doubt perchance. I have en- 
 deavored to resolve the present exceptions which I have made not 
 
23 
 
 into the personal element, but into the operation of a new principle 
 adopted, and a new, harder, ironcast system insinuating itself, and a 
 substitution for a resident and familiar friend of a dignified, stately, 
 and almost of necessity, unrecognizing visitor. 
 
 As to my personal intercourse, the Professors have been for many 
 years my oldest and best friends. My intercourse with the Dean 
 has been agreeable and courteous, and his civilities have been mark- 
 ed and gratefully received. At this very Matriculation day just 
 passed, he invited me to deliver the Matriculation discourse. Even 
 when the Faculty decided my right to a seat, but not to a vote, 
 the Dean though not called upon to do either, both argued that he 
 thought the probabilities in my favor, and voted so accordingly ; nor 
 did I take the voters in the negative, my ancient fast friends, as per- 
 sonally agressive to me, for I rather thought myself, that they had 
 the right in the question; and I saw clearly enough that they were 
 not aiming at me, but at another, with whose judgment I accorded 
 and whose motions I was prepared to second. If I have sometimes 
 referred to the personal history, I have meant to give no offence ; but 
 to illustrate the sentiment by the real actual transaction, the system 
 or condition, the policy or government, necessarily producing such 
 results under any ordinary state of incumbency. If I think the 
 troubles' of the last two or three years have been far greater than of 
 all my long years in the Seminary beside, I would far rather take a 
 philosophical view of the position than a personal one. 
 
 I now bring my long document to an end, with the hope and the 
 prayer, that the Rt. Rev., the Visitors, may be so graciously guided 
 as to protect our beloved Seminary; to secure and extend its benefits 
 on the most liberal scale for comfort of Professors, and the happiness 
 and best culture ot students ; and that the result of all the event 
 may be, that of its able, learned, workful, sympathizing, influential 
 friends, as we cannot spare one, so we may lose none. 
 Most respectfully submitted, 
 [Signed,] SAMUEL ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, 
 
 Emeritus Professor. 
 
 Bainbridge, Chenango Co., N. Y. 
 
 The Feast of the Epiphany, A. D. 1873. 
 
 The day of my Ordination, 48 years ago. 
 
THE ISSUE OF FACT 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 BISHOP COXE AND PROFESSOR SEYMOUR. 
 EVIDENCE UNDER OATH. 
 
 One of tlie most painful and distressing results of the long secret 
 session of the General Convention, is the forcing upon me a direct 
 issue of veracity with the Bishop of Western New York. In regard 
 to this, I would cheerfully keep silence and bear the injustice, did it 
 concern only the question of the Bishopric of Illinois, which I never 
 sought or desired : but since it bears whoUy upon the discharge of 
 my present duties as acting Dean of the Seminary, it is unhappily 
 my duty, so long as I remain in this position, to defend myself from 
 any charges which would weaken the confidence of the Chiu-ch in the 
 Institution. 
 
 On the seventh day of the secret session and only about two hours 
 before the time first fixed for the decisive vote, Judge Sheffey of Vir- 
 ginia read the first of the following letters. He had it in his posses- 
 sion, I have been told, four days before it was read ; and I am informed 
 that when asked by one of my friends for a copy of it in advance, he 
 refused, on the ground that he was specially charged only to read it to 
 the House, and to show it to none but to certain members. After it 
 was read, a copy was again refused, on the ground that it was "in the 
 possession of the House," and that the isroceedings were "secret." 
 ^lien the obligation of secrecy was removed, a copy was unattainable, 
 because the documents were " in the hands of the printer." The first 
 sight of them was gained only on the Friday evening after the question 
 was decided, when I received proof-sheets containing the letters. And 
 since then Mr. WiUiam Welsh of Pennsylvania, through whom the 
 second and third letters of Bishop Coxe were brought before the House 
 of Deputies, on the last day of the secret session, has ptiblished a 
 letter in corroboration of them, which he inserted in the last number 
 of the Daily Churchman, to which, of coiirse, that issue being the last, 
 there could be no reply through the same channel. I mention these 
 facts, not to complain of anything which others have done conscien- 
 tiously, or which they regard as the work of a special "Providence": 
 but simply to explain the disadvantages under which I have labored 
 in learning the exact nature of the charges, and the necessary delay 
 that has occurred in preparing my defence. Moreover, the charges 
 against me rest solely on the statement of one man ; and the only 
 corroboration is what Mr. Welsh says, that somebody else says, that 
 
he remembers hearing said, a year and a half ago. On the contrary, 
 every word of my statement which follows nest after the Letters of 
 Bishop Coxe, and every word of the evidence given by the Eev. Mr. 
 Grafton and others who were present, and knew the facts of their 
 own knowledge, is given under the solemn sanction of an oath. The 
 result is humbly left in the hands of God, and to the judgment of all 
 honest men. Geokge F. Seymoxje. 
 
 General Theological Seminary, Nov. 5, 1874. 
 
 Bishop Coxe's Letter. 
 I. 
 
 [Read by Jtidge Sheffey, of Virginia, on Wednesday afternoon, 
 the 21st of Oiitober :] 
 
 New York, Oct. 17, 1874. 
 My Dear Judge Smith : 
 
 The facts are substantially as they r.ave been reported to -you. 
 I could say many things in favor of this Candidate with entire truth, 
 and testimonials might be multiplied in his favor without any du- 
 phcity. But the whole Irulli would reveal another class of facts, and I 
 suppose Dr. S. himself Avould not deny that, as a Professor in the 
 Seminary, he has steadfastly resiste'd the noble efforts of 'his col- 
 leagues, such as Drs. Seabury and Vinton, who have labored to main- 
 tain the doctrine of this Church, respecting the Holy Eucharist, and 
 the pi"o visions of the Rubric for its solemn celebi'ation, pure ami un- 
 defiled. 
 
 These things became known to me in the discharge of official 
 duty as a "Visitor " and a member of a Committee, and I regret to 
 say that the learned Professor was forced to confess to me that, uutli 
 Ids k/ioideage and co>isei/t, a reverend gentleman, well known as an 
 active agent of the C. B. S., or of the system it sustains, was permit- 
 ted to lecture to students of the Seminary, in a private room, on his 
 Ijeculiar views of the " Holy Eucharist." 
 
 It is "with extreme regret that I mention these facts, which I have 
 desired an opportunity of stating in the Board of Trustees of the 
 Seminary, and only there. As you well know, however, the impossi- 
 bility of assembhng that Board, or any fair proportion of them, has 
 operated to render the investignlinn nf f'lc/x an impossibility for many 
 years. The facts ought to be known, however, and the Church must 
 be awakened to her responsibiUties in such momentous concerns. 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 (Signed) A. Cleveland Coxe, 
 
 Bishop of Western New York. 
 The Hon. Judge SmTH. 
 
 n. 
 
 [Mr. WiUiam Welsh, of Pennsylvania, on Thursday, Oct. 22d, in- 
 troduced the following correspondence :] 
 
 New York, Oct. 21, 1874, 
 My Dear Bishop : 
 
 By a remarkable Providence, . a letter of yours dated Oct. 4, 1873, 
 came into my possession this evening. I enclose it to you, and ask 
 permission to use it at my (iiscretion. If you ever conversed AA-ith 
 
any of your students about the visits of the Kev. Mr. Grafton to the 
 Seminary, or have any particulars of siieh visits, and the knowledge 
 that the Rev. Dr. Seymour had of them, pray oblige me with such 
 particulars. Yours, very sincerely, W. Welsh. 
 
 To Rt. Rev. A. C. Coxe, D.D. 
 
 New Yoek, Oct. 21, 1874. 
 My Dear Mr. Welsh : 
 
 I do not feel at liberty to refuse you the use of my letter of Oct. 
 4, 1873, the existence of which I had q^iite forgotten. But consult 
 with my friend, Judge Smith, who knows the extreme reluctance 
 with which I have permitted my testimony to be used in your dis- 
 cussions. 
 
 I might have made my statement miich stronger and more de- 
 tailed ; for the case was a very gross abuse of power. We do not 
 send our candidates to the Seminary to be instructed by emissaries 
 from foreign societies ; but when I expressed my surprise to Dr. Sey- 
 mour that a volunteer Professor had been introduced by him wdthin 
 the walls of the Seminary, he defended himself on the general 
 ground that the person was " a presbyter of the Church." 
 
 In reply to another question, I must add that in examining one 
 of my candidates, who reluctantly admitted his knowledge of the 
 facts, I found that he had been present at one of these volunteer lec- 
 tures, in which extravagant and false views of the Holy Eucharist 
 were inculcated. Nothing but a very extraordinary duplicity can 
 put any construction on these facts, which good men can accept as 
 satisfactory. Faithfully yours, 
 
 A. Cleveland Coxe, Bishop of Western New York. 
 Wm. Welsh, Esq. 
 
 Buffalo, Oct. 4, 1873. 
 My Dear Dr. Forbes : 
 
 Nothing could be more opportune — nothing more ad rem — than 
 the publication, at iliis moment, with historical notes, of this very val- 
 uable dociTment. I send it hj the same post that takes this, ha\dng 
 obtained Prof. Seabury's permission to hold it, against some such 
 emergency, which I foresaw nnist arise before our Reform work is 
 much further advanced. I was sorry I could not see you when I was 
 last in town ; but things have gone on well, in some respects ; and 
 this explosion of the " C. B. S." will work much good. 
 
 I think historical notes are needed, and the whole should be pre- 
 faced by an extract from that document, showing the nature of their 
 intrigues, and how they glory in stultifying the discipline and de- 
 stroying the official relations of the Dean to the students. 
 
 I have the present (acting) Dean's own acknowledgment that he 
 permitted "Father Grafton" to visit and indoctrinate the students 
 last Winter. 
 
 If you don't publish the accompanying document, please give it 
 back to Prof. Seabury ; only asking him to consider my permission 
 to Inake further use of it, as not withdrawn. We may have to con- 
 vince the whole Church of the impossibility of working the Seminary 
 as it is now going on. Faithfully yours, 
 
 A. Cleveland Coxe, 
 
 Bishop Western New York. 
 The Rev. Dr. Forbes, &c., &c., &c. 
 
STATEMENT IN EEPLY. 
 
 It is not true that I ever "■introduced''' Fatlier Grafton as "a 
 volunteer Professor " "■witliin the walls of the Seminary," — having 
 never introduced or even in\'ited him to the Seminary in any ca- 
 pacity. 
 
 It is not true that I "permitted" Father Grafton "to \dsit and 
 indoctrinate the students last Winter," or at any other time, having 
 never been asked for, and having never given, any permission of the 
 kind. 
 
 It is not true that he "was permitted" by me "to led we to stu- 
 dents of the Seminnnj in n private room,''' as if I were ashamed or afraid 
 to ask him to do it openly. No person has ever been permitted by 
 me to lecture to the students except openly in the Chaj)el or Library, 
 and with the knowledge of the Faculty. 
 
 It is not true that I ever "confessed'" to, or " acknowledged," anj 
 such action as is denied in the above three paragraphs ; for I have 
 never thought it honest to confess or acknowledge what I never had 
 done. 
 
 It is not true that I was "forced''' to confess it : for no compul- 
 sion can well draw from me, to my own jirejudice, a false confession 
 of a thing which I never had done. Every statement ever made by 
 me at any time on this subject, has been freely and voluntarily made. 
 
 It is not true that the Bishop has " my own acknoidedgment that 
 I permitted ' Father Grafton ' to ^isit and indoctrinate " as aforesaid ; 
 for I never made any acknowledgment of the sort. 
 
 It is not true that Father Grafton lectured at the Seminary "with 
 my knowledge and consent," for I knew nothing of his lecturing until 
 some days after it was all over, and never gave any consent thereto. 
 
 It is not true that the object of Fatlier Gr.aton's lectures was to 
 inculcate " his peculiar vieios of the Holy Eucharist," for the students 
 who were present testify that there was only one incidental allusion 
 to the Holy Eucharist during the two evenings. 
 
 It IS NOT TRUE that, in this incidental allusion, "extravagant and 
 false views of the Holy Eucharist were inciilcated," unless it be " ex- 
 travagant and false " to say that the benefit received in the Holy 
 Communion will be in proportion to the intensity of the Faith of the 
 devovit receiver, conducing sometimes even to the recovery from bod- 
 ily disease. This remark was made in disproof of the assertion of Ro- 
 manists that Sacramental Grace among us is without efficacy. The 
 explanation here given is drawn from notes of Father Grafton's lec- 
 tures, taken at the time by one of the students present, but which I 
 never saw or heard of until after my Confirmation was defeated. 
 
 It is not true that in this matter there was " a very gross ahuse of 
 power " on my part ; for there was no exercise of power at all, nor 
 any knowledge, at the time, on which any power could be exercised. 
 
 It is not true that Bishop Coxe obtained his version of the mat- 
 ter when he was in the Seminary «.s a "Visitor" of the same in the 
 Spring of 1873. For at that Visitation, the moment the fact of Father 
 Grafton's lectures was mentioned, I stated to him, in terms too strong 
 and clear to permit the possibility of mistake, that those lectures were 
 delivered without my knowledge or consent, and that if I had known of them 
 in time I should certainly have prohibited them. The Bishop then asked, 
 how such a man was allowed to set foot upon the Seminary grounds 
 at all ; and used very harsh language touching Father Grafton, saying 
 
that I ought to have "taken him by the neck and marched him off the 
 grounds," or words to that effect. It was in reply to this denial of a 
 right even to visit a student whom he happened to know, that some 
 things were said, which have been altogether misapplied. It should be 
 remembered that the Seminary students are almost all college graduates; 
 and that the Seminary course corresponds to a post-graduate course. No 
 American College undertakes to prevent students from ever receiving a 
 friend as a visitor in their private rooms, unless previous permission 
 has been received from the President. In a post-graduate course 
 such a severity of exclusion would not be submitted to for a moment, 
 and ought not to be, by any body of American young men. It would 
 be more absurd, if possible, to requii'e it of young men preparing for 
 the Holy Ministry than of those preparing for any other profession, 
 such as the Law, or Medicine. It has never at any time been at- 
 tempted in the General Theological Seminary, since its foundation to 
 the present day. And when the Bishop stated that it was my duty to 
 eject Father Grafton summarily by physical force, I ventured to re- 
 mind him that the Eev. Father Grafton was a Presbyter of the Church 
 in good standing, that he was second to no man in the Chui'ch or out 
 of it in all that appertains to personal character, social position or 
 holiness of life ; and that every respectable person — Bishop, priest, 
 deacon, or layman — had the free entree to visit his friends among the 
 students, as in every other American Seminary, without obtaining spe- 
 cial permission for each special visit. This was the only connection 
 in which anything was said of Father Grafton's right as "a Presbyter 
 of the Church. " 
 
 I would add here that such extemporized private meetings among 
 the students, though rare, have not been unijrecedented. Some years 
 ago, the Eev. Dr.Breck found himself beset by a crowd of young 
 men in the room of a student whom he was \dsiting, and they per- 
 suaded him to relate the history of Nashotah, though the Dean and 
 Professors knf;w nothing of it until some days after. Still later, a 
 similar thing took place diiring a \dsit by Bishop Tozer ; and on nei- 
 ther occasion was any fault found by the Dean or Faculty, though 
 no j)ermission had been asked or given. 
 
 It is not tbue that I have "steadfastly resisted the noble efforts 
 of my colleagues .... to maintain the doctrine of this Church re- 
 specting the Holy Eucharist." This construction of the course which 
 I pursued in opposing an entirely novel, despotic, and un-American 
 policy of discipline, was energetically disclaimed by me at the begin- 
 ning, was reiterated by me at every stage of our unhajjpy contro- 
 versy on the subject, and was finally abandoned by the very col- 
 leagues who made it, when, in the presence of the Bishoj)S as Visit- 
 ors, they signed their names to a declaration that what they had 
 done "was not intended to impeach the general conduct and teach- 
 ing of Dr. Seymour, either as a Professor of the Seminary, or as a 
 Presbyter of the Church." 
 
 It may be true that Bishoi) Coxe has " desired an opportunity of 
 stating in the Board of Trustees, and only there," his version of the 
 Grafton incident. But he has been present at all the three meetings 
 of the Board held since his visitation, and has never given the slight- 
 est evidence of his desire, by word or deed. 
 
 It is now left to aU unprejudiced and candid persons, to consider 
 the above, together with the sworn evidence which follows, and then 
 
say whether, in regard to my acts, there be any foundation for 
 Bishop Coxe's assertion that "nothing but a very extraordinary du- 
 plicity can i^ut any construction on these facts, which good men can 
 accept as satisfactory. " Geokge F. Seymour. 
 
 Sworn to before me the 6th day of November, 1874. 
 
 O. P. Sjhth, Notary Public, New York county. 
 
 1, Kandall Cooke Hall, a Presbyter of the I locese of New York, and 
 a Professor in the General Theological Seminary, was present at the 
 Visitation held by Bishop Coxe in the Spring of 1873, referred to by 
 Professor Seymour in his above affidavit, and I hereby testify under 
 oath that to the best of my recollection, knowledge, and belief, Pro- 
 fessor Seymour's statement of what took place on that occasion is sub- 
 stantially correct. EandaijL Cooke Hail. 
 
 Sworn to before me the 6th day of November, 1874. 
 
 O. P. Smith, Notary Public, New York county. 
 
 I, Charles C. Grafton, of Boston, Massachusetts, Presbyter, Kector 
 of the Church of the Advent in that city, on oath say : 
 
 I have been informed that the Rev. Dr. Seymour, acting Dean of 
 the General Theological Seminary, New York, has lieen charged with 
 inciting or permitting me to deliver, or in some way countenancing 
 me in the delivery of a lectiu-e or address on the subject of the Holy 
 Eucharist, or on the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, in pri- 
 vate, to the students of the Seminary. I hereby declare this to be 
 untitle. 
 
 I would further say that the only visits I have ever made to the 
 Seminary, since Dr. Seymour's connection with it as Dean or Pro- 
 fessor, are the following : When I was in this country for a few 
 weeks in 1867, I spent two evenings in a friend's room in the Semi- 
 nary. Dr. Seymour was not Dean, and had nothing whatever to do 
 with my visits by invitation or otherwise. I talked with some of 
 the students who came in to see me on the EeKgious Life, and said 
 nothing concerning the Holy Communion. I never learned from 
 any one that my -visit was objectionable to any of the Faculty. 
 
 I was there again in 1872, on my return to this country from Eng- 
 land, under the following cii'cumstances : Having occasion to be in 
 New York while my brother's house was closed, I was asked by a 
 student whom I had invited to become one of my curates, and who 
 W'as considering the matter, to come and occupy for a night or two a 
 vacant bed-room that was at his disposal, his room-mate being absent. 
 I did so, and quite informally, and withoiit any previous arrange- 
 ment or plan on my pavt, several of the students came in (some in- 
 vited by him, others at their own motion) ; and, at their request, I 
 tallied to them on the Spiritual Life and its temptations. I believe 
 I said something afterwards against the claims of the Roman Church, 
 and I may have answered a question about the Holy Communion. 
 I have forgotten what. 
 
 I am the better able to recall the subject of the evening's topic, 
 because I stated it to the students of the Protestant Episcopal Semi- 
 nary at Cambridge, Mass., in the presence of one of the Professors, 
 the Rev. Dr. Wharton, when I visited that institution and addressed 
 the students, at his invitation and in his presence. I have no reason 
 
whatever to believe that Dr. Seymour had any knowledge of this in- 
 terview, in my friend's room, with the students. 
 
 My acquaintance with Professor Seymour is very slight ; and on 
 the one or two occasions when we have met, I have never mentioned 
 to him the fact that I had an interview, such as I have described, 
 with the students, for I never supposed it a matter of importance. 
 
 Since 1872 I have been at the- Seminary but twice, each time on 
 jjrivate business only, and on neither occasion ha\ing any conference 
 mth any o| the students on rehgious matters. These are all the 
 visits I hav ^made to the Seminary. 
 
 I have spoken of ^dsits to the Seminary. It may be proper to 
 add that I have never had any conference with any of the students 
 away from the Seminary, by the invitation, peiTQission, or procure- 
 ment, directly or indirectly, of Dr. Seymour. 
 
 I "ndll further state that, although a member of the Confraternity 
 of the Blessed Sacrament when residing in England, I gave up all 
 active connection with it on returning to this country, and left it 
 declining, on this ground, an invitation extended to me by the Con- 
 fraternity here to join it ; and on no occasion have I talked to the 
 students concerning this Society, its organization, workings, or belief. 
 
 Charles C. Geatton. 
 
 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County : At Boston, 
 in said county, this 6th day of November, A. D. 1874, personally ap- 
 peared the Rev. Charles C. Grafton, and made solemn oath that the 
 
 t —■ — J foregoing affida\T.t, by him subscribed, is true, before me, 
 < SEAL > N. Austin Paeks, Notary Public. 
 
 I, George Henry Higgins, a presbyter of the Diocese of Illinois, 
 rector of the Parish of Trinity in the city of Lincoln, in the State of 
 Tlh'nois, having seen in public print, certain statements having refer- 
 ence to the Eev. G. F. Seymour, D.D., and the General Theological 
 Seminary in the city of New York, and knowing of my own knowl- 
 edge that such statements are false, and as I believe, are uttei'ed with 
 intention to deceive, do now, from a sense of right and duty make 
 the following true relation of facts : 
 
 1st. That I entered the Junior Class in the General Theological 
 Seminary in the Fall of the year 1870, and that I graduated there- 
 from and received my diploma in the year 1873 ; that during the 
 terms of each year I was resident in the Seminary, occupying during 
 my whole coiu-se room 5 in the East Building ; 
 
 That during my course I was socially intimate with one Henry 
 M. Torbert, now a priest of the Diocese of New York, then a mem- 
 ber of my class, and resident in the same East Building of the Gen- 
 eral Theological Seminary ; 
 
 That at the time mentioned in the false statements above referred 
 to, I was inWted by the said Mr. H. M. Torbert, to meet in his room 
 the Rev. C. C. Grafton of Boston, who was temporarily in the city of 
 New York, on his way to or from Boston ; 
 
 That I accepted the invitation, and met besides the Rev. Mr. 
 Grafton three or four of my fellow students whom I knew as the 
 intimate friends of Mr. Torbert ; the evening was passed in pleasant 
 general conversation, and towards its close, a suggestion was made 
 either by myself or by one of the students present, that if Mr. 
 Grafton's stay in New York was prolonged over the one night, we 
 
8 
 
 might be allowed to meet liim again tlie next evening, and that lie 
 would tell us sometliing of the work carried on by the Order of St. 
 John the Evangelist ; that by permission of Mr. Torbert, asked and 
 obtained, I in\ited other of my friends among the students to be 
 present ; 
 
 That on the second evening we met some additional students in- 
 vited by Mr. Torbert, and all having been introduced to Mr. Grafton, 
 we recited the hymn "Come, Holy Ghost," and the Lord's Prayer, 
 after which Mr. Grafton gave a short lecture of instniction and 
 advice relative to the ministerial life, which he founded on the coun- 
 sels of our Lord mentioned in the 7th and 19th chapters of St. 
 Matthew's Gospel. After singing the hymn, and the benediction, the 
 students disj^ersed with remarks of approbation and thanks to the 
 reverend gentleman for his timely and acceptable counsels ; 
 
 That I am fully persuaded this was the only time during my stay 
 in the Seminary that Mr. Grafton met any of ,the students in such 
 manner, and I positively assert that on this occasion it arose solely 
 from the courtesy of Mr. Torbert and our own utterly unpremeditat- 
 ed action thereupon. 
 
 Furthermore, That about two weeks after the event just related, 
 the Professor of Systematic Theology stated to our class during reci- 
 tation that the Head of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament 
 had been visiting the Seminary, and had there jjropagated its abom- 
 inable opinions, or words of like effect, and this statement being so 
 utterly foreign to what really took place as above stated at Mr. Graf- 
 ton's visit, was received by the students with a great deal of merri- 
 ment, and I desire to state that, to the best of my knowledge and be- 
 lief, the Rev. Dr. Seymour was totally ignorant of all and any part of 
 the occurrence, until the rumor of the assertion made by the Professor 
 of Systematic Theology brought the matter to his notice. 
 
 Since that time I have twice seen in the columns of The Church 
 Joiu'nal, the same utterly false statement in regard to the C. B. S. 
 and the visit of Mr. Grafton to the Seminary ; Therefore I desire to 
 state as one of the parties by whom the matter originated, that each 
 and every statement of the matter which dijffers from the account 
 given above and the statements made below, is utterly false and 
 unreKable : 
 
 1. The visit of Mr. Grafton was of a j^rivate social nature and to 
 Mr. Torbert. 
 
 2. The first evening we met Mr. Grafton socially as the -friends of 
 Mr. Torbert. 
 
 3. That the meeting of the second evening was simply the result 
 of an unpremeditated request made by us, the students present. 
 
 4. That nothing in regard to the Holy Commimion was the subject 
 matter of either evening. 
 
 5. That nothing in regard to the existence, the affairs, or the doc- 
 trines of theC. B. S., was so much as mentioned, nor was anything 
 said which could possibly be construed or misconstrued into having 
 any relation thereto. 
 
 6. From the manner in which the meeting originated, it was im- 
 possible for any one to have knowledge thereof except the students 
 invited. 
 
 7. The meeting was in no wise secret, but was the subject of gen- 
 eral conversation for two or three days afterward. 
 
9 
 
 8. That the Rev. Dr. Seymour knew nothing whatever of the 
 meeting. 
 
 9. That the whole matter of Mr. Grafton's address related to the 
 personal piiritv of Ufe necessary for those who are called to Holy 
 Orders. "^ "^ G. HENEY HIGGINS. 
 
 , — — J Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of 
 
 ] SEAi. - October, A. D. 1874. 
 
 '- — .— ' Henky W. Dana, Notary Public. 
 
 We, members of the Senior Class in the General Theological Sem- 
 inary, make the following statement of facts : 
 
 We were present on the occasion of the delivery of two discourses 
 by the Rev. C. C. Grafton, in a student's room, on the evenings of 
 Dec. 11th and 12th, 1872. W»j were there, ^ith some twenty others, 
 at the invitation of the occupant of the room, whom Mr. Grafton was 
 visiting. 
 
 We had no reason to believe that the meetings were effected or 
 authorized by the Dean ; and the fact of their being held in a jjrivate 
 room would give the impression that the student acted on his own 
 responsibility. 
 
 The discourses were, on the first evening, on the temptations 
 peculiar to the clerical life ; and on the second evening he jDresented 
 the arguments for the so-called religious life. No mention was made 
 of the " C. B. S.," and only an incidental allusion to the Holy Eu- 
 charist. 
 
 We have digests made immediately after the discourses were de- 
 livered, which are at the disposal of any one concerned. 
 
 (Present Dec. 12th only,) F. W. Tomkins, Jr., 
 
 Frank SanTH, 
 Amos T. Ashton, 
 (Present Dec. 11th only,) Egbert Wyllie. 
 
 Eobt. B. Drane declined to be present becau.se he understood that 
 the Dean knew nothing about the matter. 
 
 fF. W. Tomkins, Jr., 
 Sworn to before me this 2d day of Novem- | Frank Smith, 
 ber, 1874. O. P. Smith, -| Amos T. Ashton, 
 
 Notary Public, New York county. | Egbert Wtllie, 
 
 1^ Ro'bt. B. Drane. 
 
 In the Fall of 1872, my room-mate, now the Eev. H. M. Torbert, 
 Priest of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, invit- 
 ed the Eev. C. C. Grafton of Boston, Mass., to call on him at the 
 General Theological Seminary. 
 
 At this time I was boarding outside of the Seminary, and having 
 no use for my bed there, I TVTote to the Eev. Mr. Grafton, and asked 
 him to occupy my room. 
 
 Mr. Grafton accepted my inA~itation, and spent the nights of 
 Wednesday and Thursday, Dec. 11th and 12th, 1872, in my room. 
 
 On Wednesday evening, Dec. 11th, Mr. Torbert invited some of 
 the students to call on the Eev. Mr. Grafton in our room. 
 
 There, at the request of some of these students, the Eev. Mr. 
 Grafton talked, in an informal manner, on the subject of the Spirit- 
 ual Life. 
 
 His conversation was not in reference to the Holy Eucharist, and 
 
10 
 
 lie did not allude to the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament so 
 far as I remember. 
 
 Neither Mr. Torbert nor myself invited the Eev. Mr. Grafton to 
 the Seminary for the piiiiDose of delivering a lecture on the Holy 
 Eucharist. Mr. Torbert desired to consiilt him on personal matters. 
 
 I was not present on Thursday evening. 
 
 This was the only occasion, during my Seminary course (from 
 the Fall of 1871 until June, 1874), that any such thing took place, so 
 far as I know or believe. Had any such thing occurred, I should 
 doubtless have heard of it. 
 
 The Dean of the Seminary, the Rev. Geo. F. Seymour, D.D., 
 knew nothing of the interview which the Rev. Mr. Grafton had with 
 the students, from me, until after Mr. Grafton had left the city, and, 
 so far as I remember, I never told him of it. 
 
 State of New Jersey, County of Essex, ss. : Wynant VanderjDool, 
 of full age, being duly sworn, on his oath saith that the above state- 
 ment, so far as his own acts are concerned, is true and accurate, and 
 that so far as the acts of others are concerned, he believes the same 
 to be true, according the best of his knowledge and information. 
 Sworn and subscribed, at Newark, N. J., this] 
 
 .-^' 2d day of November, A. D. 1874, 1 ^. . , ,^^ xr . ,,^^^^^^, 
 
 I I 1 i TTT TT r W YNANT V ANDEKPOOL. 
 
 I SEAL 1 before me, W. Vandeepool, [ 
 — V — ' .., U. S. Commissioner. J 
 
 Having heard from various sources that the Rev. George E. Sey- 
 mour, D.D., Dean of the General Theological Seminary, has been 
 charged with inviting to that Institution, in the years 1872 or 1873, 
 the Rev. C. C. Grafton, rector of the Church of the Advent, Boston, 
 for the jjui-pose of lecturing to the students of the Seminary iipon the 
 subject of the Holy Eucharist, I desire to make the follo-\ving state- 
 ment : 
 
 I was a member of the General Theological Seminary in the years 
 1872 and 1873, and during that time the Rev. C. C. Grafton never re- 
 mained but two nights at the Seminary, and to my certain knowledge 
 that visit was made at the especial request of the gentleman who en- 
 tertained him. And I have the very best reason to believe that the 
 Rev. Dr. Seymour did not know of the Rev. C. C. Grafton's intention 
 to visit the Seminary previous to his arrival upon the ground. Fur- 
 thermore, neither at that time or at any other time while I was in the 
 Seminary, did the Rev. C. C. Grafton, either in a private room or any 
 other room connected with the Institution, lecture upon the subject 
 of the Holy Eucharist. 
 
 He did, however, at the request of a number of the students, talk 
 to the gentlemen who, by invitation of the person who was entertain- 
 ing him, were assembled in the room where he was stopping. The 
 subject upon which he sj^oke was suggested by ourselves. It was 
 " The Temjitations and Trials incident to a Student's Life. " Ashe 
 was to remain in the Seminary over a second night, at our request he 
 talked to the young men the following evening. At that time he spoke 
 of the theoi-y of the life to which he had devoted himself, and of the 
 work in which he was engaged. 
 
 The community life had, and continues to have, the most decided 
 approval of a number of the Bishops of the English and American 
 Churches, and the students felt, as doubtless did the Rev. Mr. Graf-. 
 
11 
 
 tou, that be was doing no more wrong in talking thus informally to 
 us upon the above subjects, than if he had chosen the prophecies or 
 the inspiration of Holy Scriptures as his topics. If he mentioned the 
 subject of the Holy Eucharist, it was in the most incidental way. Cer- 
 tainly he did not give enough prominence to it to arouse any feeling, 
 or even comment, from those who possibly may have differed from him. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me on this, 1 
 3d day of November, 1874, >- Joseph H. Johnson. 
 
 James M. Knapp, Justice of the Peace. ) 
 
 Newbukgh, N. Y., Nov. 2d, 1874. 
 My Deae Db. Seymoub : 
 
 Having noticed in the New York Times a statement to the effect 
 that Bishop Coxe had sent a letter, or letters, to one or more Dei)u- 
 ties of the Lower House of the General Convention, which were read 
 before the Convention^ declaring that you had in\dted the Rev. 
 Father Grafton of the Church of the Advent, Boston, to lecture to 
 the students on the subject of the Holy Communion, for the pur- 
 pose of having them indoctrinated in what are kno'WTi as '' advanced " 
 views on this holy mystery, I determined to write to you, to correct 
 as far as I am able this false statement of Bishop Coxe, and to ex- 
 plain to you the real facts of the case, and how Father Grafton came 
 to be within the Seminary close. I feel that this statement of Bishop 
 Coxe must have taken you as much by surj^rise as it has me. 
 
 One day during the latter part of the year 1872, my friend and 
 classmate, Harry Torbert, now abroad, came to my room and told me 
 that Father Grafton was in the city, and that he intended to call on 
 him that evening at the Seminary; and he further said wouldn't it be 
 nice to invite a few of the fellows in my I'oom to meet him, and he 
 might give us a little talk. 1 said it would be very nice indeed. But 
 let us make it a general invitation to all the men, no matter what their 
 views may be. He agreed with me, and we invited every man in the 
 Seminary. The Father remained two days, and on the two succes- 
 sive evenings he spoke to us upon the elementary principles of the 
 Christian Life, and " The Religious Life." The first evening it was 
 a very general talk on the trials and temptations of the Christian 
 Life and how to meet them. The second evening it was on the 
 Religious Life, referring to the Order of St. John the Evangelist. 
 I declare most emphatically that the subject of the Holy Euch'irist 
 was not once mentioned, in a controversial manner or otherwise, and 
 if alluded to at all, it was in the most incidental manner, on the 
 first evening, when speaking of the trials and temptations of the 
 Christian life. It is a very sad thing for me to know that Bishoji 
 Coxe could have made so untruthful a statement, because he must 
 have been better informed. There were jwesent three of his own 
 men on one of the evenings referred to, and two on the other. So 
 had he chosen to have been informed of the exact nature of the 
 lectures of the Rev. Mr. Grafton, he could easily have done so. - 
 
 During my entire course at the Seminary, I have never known of 
 any other Presbyter of the Church (or layman) to give talk or lec- 
 tures to the students without the knowledge or consent of the Faculty. 
 I regret exceedingly now that we had not first obtained your consent, 
 for the Rev. Mr. Grafton's ; but coming as he did as a friend of one 
 of us, and without any intention or idea of meeting any of the 
 
12 
 
 students, his talk was as much a surjJiise to himself as it was a pleas- 
 ure and benefit to us. We did not think we were violating any of 
 the rules of the Seminary. Trusting that this letter may prove of 
 some benefit to you, I remain, my dear Doctor, faithfully your friend 
 and brother in Christ, Gteo. W. Hinkle. 
 
 The Rev. G. F. Setmoijk, D.D. 
 Sworn to before me, by Geo. W. Hinkle, this 2d daj of November, 
 
 1874. M. H. HiNCHBEY, 
 
 Notary Public in and for Orange county. 
 
 In the Winter of 1872 one of my fellow-students in the General 
 Theological Seminary, now the Eev. H. M. Torbert, informed me that 
 he was expecting a visit from the Rev. C. C. Grafton of Boston, Mass. 
 
 I told Mr. Torbert that I would like very much to meet the Rev. 
 Mr. Grafton. I also remarked that there were other students in the 
 Seminary of the same mind. The day the Rev. Mr. Grafton arrived 
 at the Seminary, Mr. Torbert and I agreed that we would each at sup- 
 pei time invite such students to his (Mr. Torbert's) room, as we 
 thought would like to meet him. 
 
 When we were assembled there were so many present, and there 
 was so little opportunity for each indi'\4dual to converse -ndth the Rev. 
 Mr. Grafton, that it was suggested that he make some sort of an ad- 
 dress. Upon his inquiring what he should speak about, " The Spirit- 
 ual Life" and " Personal Religion"' were suggested as topics. Accord- 
 ingly he addressed us at some length in quite an informal way on the 
 above-mentioned subjects. 
 
 Having concluded he asked us to unite mth him in prayer. 
 
 The prayers used were Collects from the Prayer Book. 
 
 The next evening at supper I again assisted in inviting students 
 to Mr. Torbert's room. 
 
 When all were assembled, twice as many being present as on the 
 pre\-ious evening, all shades of Seminary theological opinions being 
 represented, the Rev. Mr. Grafton introduced his remarks by saying 
 that there were certain counsels in Holy Scripture which were intend- 
 ed by our Blessed Loi'd for those who could receive them. He cited 
 St. Matthew xix. , 16th to end, as substantiating the statement. He 
 illustrated his remarks principally by means of St. Matthew x. He 
 closed by calling our attention to the lives of the Holy Apostles, and 
 spoke of the revival of the " Religioiis Life " in our own Church. 
 
 I am unable to recall any allusions to the Holy Eucharist in either 
 address. 
 
 The C. B. S. Was not mentioned. 
 
 There was some discussion the next day among the students with 
 regard to what had been said, but it arose principally from his inter- 
 pretation of St. Matthew xix. 
 
 It was without the permission, consent, or knowledge, of the Rev. 
 Geo. F. Seymour, D.D., Dean of the Seminary, that the offer of hos- 
 l^itality was extended to the Rev. C. C. Grafton, that the several stu- 
 dents were invited to the room for the purpose of meeting him, and 
 that the suggestions as to the topics upon which he should, talk were 
 made. Waltek Russell Gaednek, Deacon 
 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New York. 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 7th day of November, 1874. 
 William L. DeLacet, Justice of the Peace, Amenia, N. Y. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 TO THE ISSUE OF FACTS BETWEEN BISHOP COXE AND 
 PEOFESSOE SEYMOUR 
 
 The following affidavits of the Eev. Heury M. Torbert, arrived too 
 late for insertion in "The Issue of Fact between Bishop Coxe and 
 Professor Seymour," receatly published. These affidavits, together 
 with a letter from the Eev. C. C. Grafton, M.A., corroborative of the 
 second affidavit of the Eev. Jlr. Torbert, are now added as an Appen- 
 dix. It may be worth while briefly to state the points in the case. 
 Bishop Coxe charged Professor Seymour, before the House of Clerical 
 and Lay Deputies of the General Convention, with having ' ' permitted 
 and invited the Eev. C. C. Grafton, M.A., to deliver lectures in a 
 private room in the Seminary," and with having "introduced him rh 
 a volunteer Professor." Bishop Coxe is the accuser ; in support of his 
 accusations he and his friends adduce not one single word of positive 
 testimony. In reply to Bishop Coxe's allegations the Eev. Professor 
 Seymour swears that he never permitted the Eev. Mr. Grafton to 
 deliver lectures in the Seminary at any time or on any subject ; that 
 he never invited him to do so, or introduced him into the Seminary 
 for the pui-pose. The Eev. Mr. Grafton, the person whom Professor 
 Seymour is alleged to have thus "permitted, invited, and introduced," 
 swears that these allegations are not true. This positive testimony of 
 the two jDrincipal parties involved in the charges of Bishop Coxe, who 
 know with certainty the facts, and whose character and standing are 
 unimpeached as Presbyters in the Church of God, must settle the 
 matter in the minds of all Christian gentlemen. In addition, however, 
 to this, eleven students who were in the Seminary at the time the 
 lectures of the Eev. Mr. Grafton were delivered, and ten of whom 
 were present at either one or both lectures, and one who refused to 
 attend "because he understood that the Dean knew nothing about 
 the matter," unite in their testimony, corroborating in the strongest 
 possible manner the statements of Prof. Seymour and the Eev. C. C, 
 
Grafton. Besides, Prof. Seymour declares under oath tliat at the vis- 
 itation of Bishop Coxe, in the Spring of 1873, when the Bishop claims 
 to have obtained the information wliich he embodied in his letter of 
 accusation, which was read in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
 he (Prof. Seymour) stated in terms too strong and clear to admit the 
 possibility of mistake, the real facts of the case, and Professor Hall, 
 who was present, swears that this statement is correct. 
 
 On the side of the accuser there is nothing save his own assertions 
 and the negative testimony of two witnesses. It has been pointed out 
 that there are discrepancies in the affidavits of the different students, 
 as to minor details ; this is true, and is to be expected when a number 
 of persons undertake to recall transactions even after a few days, not 
 to say two years, as in the present instance. Had the testimony of all 
 these witnesses agreed in every particular, lawyers would at once have 
 suspected collusion, and said that either one hand drew the affidavits 
 or one person revised them. 
 
 Again it has been remarked that some of the witnesses swear that 
 the Rev. Prof. Seymour did not know of the lectures of the Rev. Mr. 
 Grafton ; this is true : but it is to be remembered that persons unac- 
 customed to the theory and laws of evidence are apt to fall into the 
 mistake of stating absolutely that of which they are morally sure. 
 Probably in several instances these were the first affidavits these gen- 
 tlemen ever made. 
 
 The testimony speaks for itself ; the circumstances were such that 
 it would have been in the last degree unlikely that the acting Dean 
 should have known anything of the impromptu lectures, and to the 
 best of their knowledge and belief, every student who was then in 
 the Seminary, and cognizant of the facts, would be ready to swear 
 that Prof. Seymour knew nothing about the delivery of the lectures 
 at the time, that it could hardly have been within the limits of possi- 
 bility for him to have known beforehand of what occurred as it were 
 in the way of accident. 
 
 Once more : the Rev. Mr. Torbert, in anticipation of a visit from 
 the Rev. C. C. Grafton, not knowing within the limits of two or three 
 weeks when he would come, asked the acting Dean's permission to 
 entertain the Rev. Mr. Grafton as a guest in the Seminary during his 
 brief stay in the city. This permission was given. Mr. Torbert 
 
3 
 
 made this request in obedience to a rule of the Faculty which directs 
 that ' ' No student or occupant of a student's room in the Seminary 
 shall allow any one to share his room with him as a guest without 
 the special permission of the Dean, or in his absence of a resident 
 Professor." In making the above request, Mr. Torbert desired, in 
 addition, the use of a lecture room, that the Bev. Mr. Grafton might 
 meet socially a mimber of the stiidents who wished to call upon him. 
 Even this request was refused ; how much more woxild a veto have 
 been put upon lectures, had any such idea been broached. No re- 
 quest for permission "to visit and indoctrinate" the students, was 
 therefore ever made to the acting Dean. Nor when in this case, 
 as in many others, he permitted the reception of a guest, did he 
 conceive that he received any such request, or gave any such permis- 
 sion. It may be added that the acting Dean receives on an average 
 full thirty or forty requests each month of various kinds from the 
 seventy students in residence, and it is scarcely possible for him to 
 keep them all distinctly in remembrance after the lapse of two years. 
 The Rev. Mr. Grafton subsequently came to the Seminary, remained 
 two nights as the guest of Mr. Torbert, and when about to depart 
 called upon the acting Doan. Then for the first time the Rev. Prof. 
 Seymour became aware that the Rev. Mr. Grafton had been in the 
 Seminary. In that interview nothing vAatever was said by the Rev. 
 Mr. Grafton about his talks with the students, nor did the Rev. Prof. 
 Seymour learn that he had held such conversations with them imtil 
 some time after he had left. 
 
 If any one thinks it strange that the acting Dean should not 
 know what is being said and done in the ffly different rooms of the 
 two Seminary Buildings, it will suffice to state in the way of explana- 
 tion that in the first place the Professors' houses are as distinct from 
 the apartments occupied by the students as are the separate dwellings 
 in an ordinary street of a city from each other : and in the second 
 place, that the present incumbent is a Professor, as well as acting 
 Dean, and is obliged in consequence to do something else, even if it 
 were necessary thus to look after Candidates for Holy Orders, than 
 to keep the students constantly under his eye. 
 
 It is worth while to remark that while in the General Theological 
 Seminary, the Rev. C. C. Grafton was not '"■ permitted, invited or 
 
introduced lo deliver lectures " to tlie students, a great outery is made ; 
 at the Tlieological School at Cambridge, Mass., he did deliver a lecture 
 before the students in the preseyice of one of the Professors of the Institution, 
 and the fact occasioned no complaint or even remark in any quarter. 
 
 Rev. Mk. Tokbert's Affidavits. 
 
 I, Henry Martyn Torbert, a Presbyter of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church of America, solemnly and sincerely declare as follows : 
 
 1. In the Winter of one thous^and eight hundred and seventy- 
 two, I was n, member of the Senior Class at the General Theological 
 Seminary, New York City. 
 
 2. I was acquainted with the Rev. C. C. Grafton, and had visited 
 him at his own residence. 
 
 3. I invited him to call np(m me at uiy rooms in the Seminary 
 any time he might be in New York. 
 
 4. In the month of December, one thousand eight hundred and 
 seventy-two, in expectation of a visit from him during his proposed 
 stiiy in the city. I requested the then acting Dean, Professor Sey- 
 mour, to grant the use of a Lecture Room in order that the Reverend 
 C C. Grafton might meet socially a number of the students who 
 wished to call upon him ; and that request was distinctly denied. 
 
 5. The visit of the Rev. C. C. Grafton on the tenth and eleventh 
 of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, was a 
 private one, and that the meeting of a number of the students in my 
 rooms was entirely a matter of jjrivate friendship, and without advice 
 sought or permissiim reqiiired from any Seminary authority ; nor was 
 the Dean, Prefessor Seymour, aware of the meeting taking place until 
 after it had happened. 
 
 6. That was the only occasion in which the Rev. C. C. Grafton 
 met the students and had talks with them. 
 
 7. The talk of the Rev. C. C. Grafton upon that occasion was en- 
 tirely impromptu, by request of one or more of the students, and 
 had reference to piety and regnolation of heart and life, and to the plan 
 and object of the Brotherhood of which he is a member, and not lo 
 any matter of doctrine. 
 
 8. In particular in reference to the Holy Eticharist which is 
 asserted to have been the subject of a Lecture, any allusion made to 
 it on that occasion was purely incidental and transitory, and that 
 there was no exposition of the doctrinal views of the Rev. C. C. 
 Grafton touching the Eucharist. 
 
 9. I am not now, nor ever have been, a member of the Confrater- 
 nity of the Blessed Sacrament, and that the Rev. C. C. Grafton's 
 visit had not the slightest connection with that Society, nor were my 
 rooms used for any of its purposes, nor was the subject once men- 
 tioned during his visit. 
 
 And I make this solemn Declaration, conscientiously believing 
 the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act made 
 
and passed in the 5tli and 6th years of the reign of His late 
 Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled "An Act to repeal an Act 
 of the jjreseut Session of Parliament, intituled 'An Act for the more 
 eflfectual abolition of Oaths and Affirmations taken and made in Yari- 
 OU3 Departments of the State, and to siTbstitute Declarations in lieu 
 thereof, and for the more entire suppression of voluntary and extra- 
 judicial Oaths and Affidavits,' and to make other provisions for the 
 abolition of unnecessaiy Oaths." 
 
 Declared at Oxford, in the County of Ox- ") 
 
 ford, in England, this seventeenth day | 
 
 of November, one thousand eight hun- }- Henbt Maktyn Tobbeet. 
 
 dred and seventy-four. Before me, | 
 Thomas M. Davenport, Notary Public. J 
 
 To ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHLiVLL COME : I, Thomas Mar- 
 riott Davenpoi-t, Notary Public, duly authorized, admitted and 
 sworn, residing and practising in Oxford, in the County of Oxford, 
 in the United liingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, do hereby 
 certify that Henry Martyn Torbert, the person named in the Paper, 
 Writing, or Declaration on the other side written, did duly and 
 solemnly declare to the truth thereof, before me on the day of the 
 date thereof, and that the name "Henry Martyn Torbert " thereto 
 subscribed is of the proper handwriting of the said Henry Martyn 
 Torbert. 
 
 In Testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name 
 , -— ■ — . and affixed my Seal of Office this seventeenth day of 
 
 < SEAL i November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
 
 ' — v^ ' hundred and seventy-four. 
 
 Thom^vs M. Davenport, Notary Public. 
 
 I, Henry Martin Torbert, a Presbyter of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church of America, solemnly and sincerely declare as follows : 
 On the fifth of February last (one thousand eight hundred and 
 seventy-four) at a reception given by the Rev. Professor Seymour, in 
 his house, I had a conversation with the Rev. Professor Buel, in 
 which I explained the nature of the Rev. C. C. Grafton's visit ttj me 
 at my rooms in the General Theological Seminary fourteen months 
 before — corrected bis false imi:)ressiona, and received from him the 
 assurance that no impropriety^ had been committed, and was told by 
 him "You may tell Mr. Graftou what my impressions were." 
 
 And I make this solemn Declaration, conscientiously believing the 
 same to l)e true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act made and 
 passed in the 5th and 6th years of the reign of his late Majesty 
 King William the Fourth, intituled "An Act to repeal an Act of the 
 present Session of Parliament, intituled 'An Act for the more eflfectual 
 
OORRESPONDENOE 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 REV. GEO. F. SEYMOUR, D.D., 
 
 Report of the Committee of Thirteen 
 
 TTIERF.LTON AND 0!f 
 
 T1ie Powers of the House of Deputies of the General 
 Convention, and the Standing Committees 
 
 IN CASES OF BISHOPS-ELECT. 
 
 KXTRACTED FROM THR 
 
 JOURNAL OF THE SPECIAL CONVENTION 
 
 or THK 
 
 ,1, 
 
 HELD IN 
 
 THE CATHEDRAL, CHICAGO. 
 
 l-phruary .id, 4th and 5th, A. D. 1875. 
 
OOERESPONDEI^OE. 
 
 On the Second Day of the ^Special Convention the following 
 was presented, read, and on motion, adopted : 
 
 Whereas, A correspondence between certain members of the ConTentioK 
 and the Rev. Geo. F. Seymour, D. D., elected Bishop of this Diocese at the last 
 Annual Convention, has been brought to the notice of this body, as follows: 
 
 "Chicago. Dec. 29, 1874. 
 " Reverend and Dear Sir: 
 
 " Feeling that great wrong was done to yourself by the refusal of the Honse 
 of Deputies, at the late General Convention, to consent to your conseeration as 
 Bishop of Illinois, as well as in the cruel attack made upon you pendi»g the 
 discussion, and regarding also the action of that House, in some respects, was 
 witliout precedent, unjustifiable, and revolutionary, and conscious, moreover, 
 that your vindication was ample and complete, and satisfied more than ever of 
 your high character as a Christian gentleman and scholar, and of your peeulsai- 
 fitness for the great office which we would rejoice to see you fill, we have taken 
 part with other of your friends in efforts to ascertain the voice of this Diocese 
 in respect to again submitting your name to the authorities of the Church as 
 our Bishop-elect. The result is, after the receipt of reliable information from 
 the entire Diocese, that we are convinced that you can be re-elected at oui- ap- 
 proaching Convention by a very decided majority. 
 
 "But under existing circumstances our sense of propriety dictates ihat 
 your name ought not to be used before that body in this connection, unless yo« 
 are first advised of the fact that such use is in contemplation. 
 
 " In thus communicating with you, the undersigned would beg to foe ander- 
 stood as acting and speaking not in any representative relation, but only for 
 themselves as individuals. Numerous friends of yours in every part of this 
 Diocese would, without doubt, cheerfully join us in this letter wete the oppor- 
 tunity oflered, but this would require so much delay that, in view of the rapidly- 
 approaching time of our Convention, we venture thus to address you without 
 postponement for further signatures. 
 
 " With sincerest esteem, we are your brothers in Christ, 
 
 GEO. F. CUSHMAN, ©. I>. 
 CLINTON LOCKE, D. I>„ 
 J. H. KNOWLES, A. M. 
 LUCIUS B. OTIS. 
 S. CORNING JUDD. 
 C. R. LARRABEE.'" 
 
" (Jknkrai, Tni;oi,o(iic al Seminauv. Jjiu. 15, 1875. 
 " My Dear Bkethkkn : 
 
 " When I had the honor, hist Septeinlier, to receive at the hands of a com- 
 mittee of the clergj' and hxity of Illinois, in convention assemliled, an invitation 
 to accept the office of Bishop of the Diocese to which I had just been elected, 
 I made use of the following words in the course of the reply wliich I 
 returned : ' I shall wish you all to give yourselves with me to the things vvhioli 
 make for peace, and to devote yourselves with all your powers to promote the 
 spread of God's kingdom throughout the great Empire entrusted to our common 
 care.' 
 
 " Had it been the will of God that I should have been consecrated your 
 Bishop, this cherished wish of my heart to harmonize and unite the Diocese in 
 working together for the salvation of all men would have been the controlling 
 principle of my walk and conversation among you. As it is, although withheld 
 from serving you as your chief pastor, I am nevertheless bound by every con- 
 sideration of inclination and duty to regard the interests of your Diocese as of 
 ])aramount importance, and to prevent, as far as I can, the personal kindness and 
 o'enerositv of friends from becoming a cause of division, and bitterness and 
 strife. 
 
 " I may mention in this connection that one of the reasons, not least in its 
 weight, in bringing me to a decision to accept the high office with which the 
 Diocese of Illinois had honored me, was the fact that the opposing candidate in 
 the election had signed my testimonials, and was one of the Committee of Invi- 
 tation who pledged to me, in the event of my acceptance of the Episcopate of 
 Illinois, ' a cordial welcome a)ui hearty support.' 1 felt assured by the presence 
 of his name that the opposition in the Convention was simply such as is very 
 likely to appear in any large body of men, and that when the election was made 
 all parties gracefully, cheerfully, and magnanimously acquiesced in the result ; 
 and that hence it would be my delightful privilege to find a united Diocese 
 ready to go forward with heart and hand to prosecute the great work which 
 God had given it to do. Such, I believe, would have been the case, and in 
 thinking so 1 have in mind the kindness and generosity of the clergy and laity 
 of Illinois, rather than any personal qualitication or merit on the part of him 
 who would have been your Bishop. 
 
 "After what lias occurred, however, within the past three or four months, 
 it would scarcely be possible for rae to be presented as a candidate for re-elec- 
 tion in Illinois without raising questions which would generate debate, perhaps 
 bitter strife. This I could not endure, and hence I must beg that my name be 
 not used in the approaching Convention in Illinois. 
 
 " Let me add one or two things, dear brethren, in conclusion, which I deem 
 to be due to you and to myself. I shoidd never for one moment have embar- 
 rassed the Diocese of Illinois, as the event has proved that I unwittingly did, 
 by accepting the office to which I was chosen, had I been aware of the feeling 
 of many of my bretliren of the clergy and laity throughout this country toward 
 
me, as was manifested in the technical majority but numerical minority of tlie 
 House of Deputies against my consecration. 
 
 " My life and ministry had been passed for twenty years in the midst of 
 my own people, and, conscious of my own integrity and innocence without 
 reproach or breath of disappfoval from the first, and holding the highest and 
 most responsible office which a Presbyter can occupy, as representing the whole 
 Church, in presiding over the General Theological Seminary, I allowed my name 
 to go before the General Convention as the Bishop-elect of Illinois, with entire 
 confidence as to the result, because there was not then, to the best of my knowl- 
 edge and belief, nor is there now, any just reason why 1 should not be con- 
 secrated. 
 
 " Irrespective of all personal considerations, the course pursued toward me 
 by my brethren of tlie House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in the recent General 
 Convention will not, 1 have firm faith to believe, be sustained by the sober sec- 
 ond thought of the present generation, or the impartial judgment of posterity. 
 1 do not wish to be understood in saying this to reflect in the slightest degree 
 upon the motives of the members of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 Doubtless they thought they were doing God service, and I sincerely pray thai 
 their grievous mistake, as I consider it, may not be laid to their charge, and 
 that no harm may in consequence redound to the Church, but that He who 
 maketh the wrath of man to praise Him may overcome this action to the ulti- 
 mate good of all concerned. 
 
 " 1 thank you, dear brethren, for your generous interest in me, and your 
 very kind note ; and 1 beg you, if the fitting opportunity be presented, to assure 
 all my brethren of the clergy and laity of Illinois of my sincere respect and 
 aflFectionate regard. 
 
 " Praying God, dear brethren, to have you and the Diocese of Illinois ever 
 in His holy keeping, and to guide your counsels, and pour upon you His choicest 
 blessings, I remain faithfully your brother in (.'hrist, 
 
 •'GEORGE F. SEYMOUR." 
 
 And, whkrkas, Such correspondence presents grave questions bearing not 
 only upon the course pursued hy the House of Deputies of the late General 
 Convention with reference to the case of said Rev. Dr Seymour as Bishop-elect 
 of Illinois, but also indirectly upon the extent of the authority devolving upon 
 the Standing Committees of the various Dioceses in regard to any Bishop-elect ; 
 therefore. 
 
 Resolved. That said correspondence be and is hereby referred to a Select 
 Committee of thirteen members, to consist of seven clergymen and six laymen : 
 and which committee shall consider and report whether any, and, if any, wiiat 
 action is expedient to be taken by this body in the premises. 
 
6 
 
 The President appointed said Committee of Thirteen as 
 follows : 
 
 The Rev. Geo. F. Cushman, D. D. 
 The Rev. Clinton Locke, D. D. 
 The Rev. Wm. B. Corbyn, D. D. 
 The Rev. C. H. W. Stocking, D. D. 
 The Rev. Robt. McMurdy, I). D., LL. D. 
 The Rev. Walter F. Lloyd, LL. D. 
 The Rev. Frank M. Gregg. 
 
 Mr. S. Corning .Judd. 
 Mr. S. H. Treat. 
 Mr. L. B. Otis. 
 Mr. .James K. Edsall. 
 Mr. Edwin S. Fowler. 
 Mr. E. M. M. Clarke. 
 
EEPORT OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 On the Third Day of the Special Convention the Committee 
 of Thirteen, to Avhom was referred a correspondence between 
 certain members of the Convention and the Rev. George F. 
 Seymour, D. D., elected Bishop of this Diocese at the last Annual 
 Convention, presented the following 
 
 REPORT: 
 
 The uiidei-signed Committee of Thirteen, to whom was referred the corre- 
 spondence between certain members of the Convention and the Rev. Dr. Sey- 
 mour, wlio was elected Bisliop of this Diocese at the last Annual Convention, 
 lield in September — and which correspondence was so referred with instruc- 
 tions to consider and report whether any, and, if any, what action is expedient 
 to be taken by this body with regard to questions referred to in such corre- 
 .spondence and in the preamble of the resolutions making the reference — having 
 possessed ourselves of the facts in the premises, and having, in view of its 
 gravity, given the subject matter deliberate consideration, beg leave to report 
 as follows : 
 
 In the course pursued by the House of Deputies of the late General Conven- 
 tion, in reference to the Bishop-elect of Illinois, inquisitorial or judicial powers 
 were assumed and acted upon. Indeed, the President of that House, since the 
 adjournment of the Convention, having iirst decided for himself that a certain 
 view of the Holy Eucharist involved false doctrine, has publicly declared that 
 "the question which engrossed that eight days" secret session was to ascertain 
 how far Dr. Seymour was implicated in holding or encouraging that false 
 doctrine;" that he has "never known an investigation conducted with more 
 patience, fairness, and deep anxiety to ascertain the truth;" that "the evi- 
 d<ncc was painfully conflicting ;" that his " own mind, and that of many others, 
 tiuctuated for a while between contending impressions;" that, "in the out- 
 come, till' soundest and best men arrived at opj}vsite conclusions ;" that he "never 
 acted with move Judicial clearness and calmness;" that he is -'persuaded 
 that this is true of every member" of what he calls "the majority" [but 
 which, in fact, was the minority, and only technically a majority through a sys- 
 tem which counts in the negative certain individual votes cast in the affirmative ^i 
 that the "rejection of the man so influentially sustained was" * * * -'a 
 clear, decided and judicial condemnation of that doctrine;" that "by tliat 
 judicial act the Church stands forth in the glory of her faithfulness and in- 
 tegrity," &c. It thus appears, from the open avowal of the Presiding Officer 
 of that body [himself a lawyer before he became a priest; and hence his 
 
s 
 
 testimony regarding the capacity in which his House acted is all the more siig- 
 nificant] — it thus appears, we say, from his avowal, as was unquestionably the 
 case, that the House of Deputies, in eifect, if not in fact, resolved itself into an 
 ecclesiastical court, and pronounced "judicial condenmotion" upon Dr. Sey- 
 mour and of " that doctrine." The chief objection against the consecration of 
 the Bishop-elect was the imputation of "holding or encouraging" "that 
 doctrine," which Dr. Craik choose)* to denounce, as if i.r catlvdni, .is being 
 "false." 
 
 What the House of Deputies may rightfully do iu the case of an election to 
 the Episcopate within six months preceding a session of the General Conven- 
 tion, the same may the Standing Committees of the variotis Dioceses lawfully 
 claim as their prerogative in regard to such an election occurring at any other 
 time during the recess of the General Convention. It follows, therefore, that 
 if the Ijower House of the late General Convention had the right to assume 
 judicial functions, and try Dr. Seymoui-, ami pronounce "judicial condemna- 
 tion" of his supposed doctrines, then forty-tive Standing Committees may re- 
 solve themselves into as many courts, and try any Bishop-elect, and pronounce 
 judgment of "condemnation" upon A/.v supposed doctrines. The trial of Dr. 
 Seymour was in secret session, without citation to the accused; and, he not 
 being allowed, when inf(n-med of the extraordinary proceedings, to be present, 
 to hear the accusations made, or to confront the witnesses brought .igainst him. 
 or to have one word of explanation ; nor, yet, even to be informe<l, in liLs ex- 
 clusion, as to the proceedings of the investigation. And what must be the tor- 
 ture of any Bishop-elect, if, instead of one investigation, he must pass 
 the ordeal of forty-five? Let us, therefore, examine, and see what in reality 
 are the rights of the Diocese and of the House of Deputies, or of Standing 
 (V)mmittees (as the case may lie), in regard to a JJishop-elect : and let us nl.so 
 ascertain if there be iiny such inquisitorial authoriTv. 
 
 It has been claimed, in substance, by the foremost of those vvho opposed 
 the consecration of the candidate, that the (Convention of a Diocese can only 
 nominate the candidate for Bishop, and that it then remains for the House of 
 Deputies or the Standing Committees (as the case may be) to confirm the nomi- 
 inee, or to refuse to do so, as they may see fit, in the way of granting or with- 
 holding "their assent to his consecration ; ' or, in other words, to elect or reject 
 the candidate nominated, at their own good pleasure, and whether their action 
 be foimded in reason or unreason. If this be true, we have a system of cen- 
 tralization in the Church, as dangerous as it is odious ; and it is upon this 
 theory that the House of Depiities seem to have acted in the late case of Dr. 
 Seymour, it would seem that his election or rejection, under this theory, was 
 made to depend upon whether or not he could survive the ordeal of a secret, 
 e:x parte "judicial investigation." But against such theory your Committee 
 interpose the Fou)tli Article of the General Constitution, which provides that — 
 
 " The Bishop, or BLshops, in every Diocese shall be chosen agreeably to 
 such rules as shall be fixed by the Convention of that Diocese." 
 
9 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that the choice of the Bishop rests with the Conven- 
 tion of the Diocese. This being made, Canon 13, of Title II, of the Canons of 
 the General Convention treats of the person chosen as " Bishop-elect," who is 
 required, before his consecration, to produce to the Bishops of the Chvircli, 
 " from the Convention bi/ whom he is elected, evidence of such election ; and 
 from the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in General Convention " (or from 
 the Standing Committees of the diflerent Dioceses if the election took phioe 
 " during tlie recess of the General Convention," and not •■ within six month.'< 
 before the meeting" of the same) "evidence of their approbation of his testi- 
 monials, and of their assent to his consecration;" also certain certificates. Th^ 
 canon thereupon proceeds to give the form of such certificates as •' Testimon/f 
 from the members of the Convention in the Diocese from whence the person is 
 recommended foi- consecration." and as " Testimony from the House of Clerical 
 and L;\y Deputies in General Convention." It will thus be seen that, by the 
 letter of the canon, the Bishop-elect must produce from the House of Deputies 
 or the Standing Committees (as the case may require) : Jirst, evidence of their 
 probation of his testimonials (not of the choice of the Diocesan Convention;) 
 secondly, evidence of " their assent to his consecration ' (not that they confirui 
 the nomination:) and, thirdly, certificates containing certain "Testimony." 
 The object of re((uiring these certificates is two-fold. The one must be the 
 credentials or " testimonials " from the Diocesan Convention ; the other is the 
 method by which the "assent to the consecration" is to be expi-essed — or, ia 
 other words, is the " form prescribed " for tlie " evidence of the consent." 
 
 To the proposition that the House of Deputies, or the Standing (Commit- 
 tees, whichever are to act, may or may not give their '• assent to the consecra- 
 tion " as they may please, we answer that such a construction was never in- 
 tended by the law-makers ; for that, if tenable, would subject the choice of the 
 Diocesan Convention to the arbitrary will of the House of Deputies or of the 
 Committees, and would be in manifest conflict with the constitutional provision 
 giving the choice of the Bishop to the Diocese. The eifect would be, in reality, to 
 transfer the choice from the Dioceses to the House of Deputies or the Standing 
 Committees ; for the latter could arbitrarily refuse assent until the man of theii- 
 preference should be selected. There would no longer be freedom of choice in 
 tlie Dioceses ; and the question would be, not who is the best man, but who 
 would the House of Deputies, or the Standing Committees, consent to? If, 
 therefore, the provision indicated is susceptible of such construction, then it 
 must fall to the ground, as being in direct antagonism with the (.Constitution. 
 But it is not so susceptible. The " assent " must follow, as a matter of course, 
 if the " testimony " of the required certificate can be justly given. In con- 
 struing a statute, all its parts must be considered. The emphatic point to be 
 regarded, and upon which the " assent" must depend, is based upon the con- 
 sideration as to whether or not the "testimony" specified in the required 
 certificate can be rightfully given. No other condition of assent can be inter- 
 posed without a palpable disregard of the law. The certificate is the " evi- 
 dence of conscTit "" intended, and. in fact, prescribed by the law-makers. This 
 
10 
 
 is manifest from the various provisions of the canon, but particularly so from 
 elause 2 of section 5, wiiicli expressly declares that •■ the evidence of the con- 
 xent of the different Standing Committees shall be in the form prescribed for 
 the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in General Convention " — that is, the 
 form of " the evidence of consent of the different Standing Committees " shall 
 be the same as that prescribed for " the evidence of the consent " of the 
 '• House of Clerical and Lay Deputies." Surely, in the light of this provision, 
 it cannot be argued that the " evidence of the consent " provided for the one 
 case w^as not intended to apply to the other. This -'form'" of the ••testi- 
 mony," thus required, is as follows : 
 
 "We," * * •' fully sensible how important it is that the'sacred office 
 o<' a Bishop should not be unworthily conferred," * * " do, in tlie presence 
 of Almighty God, tr.siifi/ that A. B. is not, so far as ivc are informed, justly liable 
 to evil report, either for error in religion, or for vicioi/sness of life; and that we 
 do not know or believe there is any impediment, on account of which he ought 
 not to be consecrated to that holy Office, but that he hath, as we believe, led 
 his life, for three years last past, piously, soberly, and honestly." 
 
 The recital in this " testimony " that the Bishop-elect "is not, so far as 
 we are informed, justly liable to evil report" "for error in religion."" is tlio 
 only one in respect to which the late House of Deputies assumed to put Dr. 
 Seymour upon his trial as indicated, and is the only one which v/ill be likely 
 to involve any serious question. And it was the only possible basis of tlie 
 so-called "judicial" investigation, except so far as it may have proceeded un- 
 der cover of what we have shown to be the utterly untenable idea that "the 
 assent to his consecration " might be given or withheld, according to the 
 irresponsible will or pleasure of tliis fancied court of "investigation." 
 
 When the Bishop-elect goes before the House of Deputies for ■• their ap- 
 probation of his testimonials " and for their "assent to his consecration," and 
 the House, either in open or secret session, disapprove of the one and refuse 
 assent to the other, it is due to the Diocese that made the election, to the Bishop- 
 elect, and to the Church at large, that they should place before the Church, in 
 sjme authentic form, the reason for their non-approval or dissent. If "for 
 error in religion." it becomes a trial and judgment. If for mere caprice or 
 personal dislike of the Bishop-elect, then it becomes a refusal to "assent" 
 without sufficient reason— an exercise of mere arbitrary will power, which 
 would cause any House of Deputies to hesitate before it would venture t<j make 
 it public. And this view coniirms what has ah'ead}' been suggested, that it 
 never coidd have been the intention of the canon to clothe the House of Depu- 
 ties with the arbitrary power, by their own volition, to refuse approval or 
 consent. And what is true of the House of Deputies, in this regard, is also 
 true of the Standing Committees, when they are called upon to act in such 
 case. 
 
 We have ascertained that the certiticate embraces merely •'testimony," in 
 the form prescribed for the "evidence of the consent" to the consecration. Can 
 it be pretended by any one, in his sober senses, that the item of " evidence " 
 j'cfeiTed to, that the Bishop-elect "is not, so far as we are informed, justly liable 
 
11 
 
 to evil report for error in religion'' — can it be pretended, we say, that this item 
 of " evidence" authorizes the witnesses to resolve themselves into a court for the 
 purpose of gaining further information, by a secret and ex parte trial, the accused 
 and his witnesses not being heard, or even allowed to be present ? Does this item 
 of " evidence" clothe the witnesses who are asked to testify so far as they are 
 " informed " — does it clothe them with the powers of inquisition, and authorize 
 them to pi'onounce "judicial condemnation" "for error in roligion ?" The 
 very statement of the proposition is a reductio ad absurdum. The House of Depu- 
 ties were asked to " testify " "so far as" they were " informed," &c. They 
 refused to so testify ; but instead instituted ex parte investigation, and, as we 
 are informed, pronounced "judicial condemnation." As well might a witness 
 called, in a secvilar couit, to give evidence of his information, put himself, be- 
 fore responding, upon inquiry for prejudicial gossip, and then imagine that his 
 office was "judicially " to condemn. As well might a witness to a will, wlien 
 called upon to prove its execution, decline to answer whether at the making of 
 .the in.strument the testator was of sound mind and memory, resolve himself 
 into the mockery of a fiincied court of probate, privately consult the views of 
 those who desire to break the testament, and then, with gravity and conse- 
 quence, pronounce an imaginary "judicial condemnation" of the will, for 
 want of testamentary capacity in the maker. 
 
 The simple truth is, that neither the House of Deputies, nor the Standing 
 Committees, possess any judicial powers whatever. The former is merely a 
 legislative body, and may also, as may the Standing Committees, in certain 
 cases, bear witness ; but any, even the slightest, assumption of judicial powers, 
 by either, is nothing short of usurpation. That this is true, especially in 
 reference to any manner of trial of presbyters or deacons, is all the more mani- 
 fest from tlie fact that the laws of the Church make speciiic provision for such 
 trial, and in which neither House of the General Convention, nor the various 
 Standing Committees, have any part or lot. The mode of any such trial is, by 
 the Gth Article of the General Constitution, left to the Dioceses respectively ; 
 and the different Dioceses have provided therefor. Expressio unius, est exclusio 
 alteriiis. More than this, by Section 1st, Canon I, of Title II, of the Canons of 
 the General Convention, it is expressly provided that " every minister shall be 
 amenable, for oiFenses committed by him, to the Bishop, and, if there be no 
 Bishop, to the clerical members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese in 
 which he is canonically resident at the time of the charge." Being so amena- 
 ble, it follows that he is amenable to no other authority. In addition to all 
 this, it must be remembered that the House of Deputies, and the various 
 Standing Committees, are composed in part of laymen. The theory that such 
 bodies may exercise judicial powers in cases of Bishops elect, is violative of 
 that well established principle of law, both in church and state, that every man 
 is entitled to be tried by his peers for offenses charged — at least that he shall not 
 be tried by his inferiors. That laymen may sit in judgment upon ministers in 
 this Church of ours, especially when questions as to " error in religion" are 
 involved, is a proposition that may be fitly characterized as monstrously absurd. 
 
12 
 
 Your Committee would not feel called upon — indeed would not deem the 
 expenditure of so much time justifiable — thus to discuss the want of judicial 
 powers in the House of Deputies, or in the Standing Commitees, were it not 
 for the fact that the House of Deputies of the late General Convention gravely 
 assumed such powers, and, as we are assured by the Presiding Officer of that 
 body, made an "investigation" during " eight days' secret session," in which 
 " the piw'rfence was painfully conflicting," and in which, "in the outcome, the 
 soundest and best men arrived at opposite conclusions ;" and in which also the 
 technical "majority" (but arfual minority) acted with "Judiciul clearness," 
 and perpetrated a "judicial act," hj pronouncing a "judicial condemnation^' 
 of Dr. Seymour, because of a certain assumed "false doctrine" which the 
 technical majority of that body imagined, without any real evidence in that 
 direction, he "was implicated in holding or encouraging." The fact of such 
 assumption of powers must be our apology. 
 
 But it may be objected against this argument showing the want of judicial 
 authority in the bodies indicated that, nevertheless, the House of Deputies or 
 the Standing Committees are to "testify" that the Bishop-elect " is not, so far 
 as"" they " are informed, justly liable to evil report"' " for error in religion,"' 
 kv.; and that, therefore, they ought to be permitted to ascertain if, or not, he 
 be so liable. Our reply is, first, that we have already demonstrated that the 
 right to testify as to "information" does not involve authority to institute in- 
 quisition, in order that the witness may charge himself, before testifying, with 
 more information, especially ex parte and secret information, that the possessor 
 shrinks from exposing to the light of open day; seer ndli/, that the "informa- 
 tion" contemplated must be such as the laws of the Church will i-ecognize as 
 competent for the purposes of evidence ; and, thirdly, that the " error in relig- 
 ion" for which the party must be "justly liable to evil report," in order ti> 
 justify the withholding of the certificate, must be such as the Church authori- 
 tatively pronounces to be "error in religion" — not merely what certain indi- 
 viduals in the Church conceive to be such error. The first of these propositions 
 needs no further illustration. As to the second — the "information" contem- 
 plated in the certificate — we remark that it must be cleai- to every reasoning- 
 mind that in so grave a matter the law-makers did not have in view mere idle 
 rumors or secret gossip, but "information," such as the Church regards and re- 
 ceives through her constituted authorities, unless it may be in extraordinary cases^ 
 hereinafter considered. If a minister of the Church be accused, even by public- 
 rumor, of any of the oifenses for which Canon 2, Title II, of the General Canons,, 
 declares him liable to presentment and trial, it becomes the " duty of the Bishop,, 
 or, if there be no Bishop, of the clerical members of the Standing Comraittee. 
 to gee that an inquiry be instituted as to the truth of such public rumor,"' i*!:c. 
 One of the ofiFenses enumerated, for which such minister is liable to be tried, is 
 lliat of "holding and teaching, publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine 
 contrary to that held by the Protestant Episcopal Churcli in the United States 
 of America." This will embrace any "error in religion" contemplated by the 
 certificate under discussion, in reference to a Bishop-elect : and the provision 
 
13 
 
 of the canon tii-st quoted above is the method Jixed by the laws of the Church for 
 ti^fertaining and being ^^ informed" as to ivhether or not ang minister of the Diocesf 
 is '■'■justly liable to evil report" ''/or error in religion" &c. The canons, there- 
 fore, having determined the method in which the members and authorities of the 
 <''hurch may be " informed" in this regard, the information thus to be gained 
 is, unquestionably, the only information contemphited in the same body of 
 ■canons as to the liability of such minister to "evil report" for such " eri-or in 
 religion," except it may be under the extraordinary circumstances yet to be 
 ■considered. So long as the "inquiry" provided for by law is not had, for want 
 of the "public rumor," or otherwise, just so long the minister remains, in the 
 eye of the law, in good and "regular standing" in his Diocese, and according 
 to the records of the same. In the State a man's good character is presumed 
 until the contrary is made legally to appear; and in the Church, o fortiori a 
 clergyman's good and "regular standing" is likewise presumed until the con- 
 trary is manifested in some mode known to ecclesiastical law. And, moreover, 
 the information that would warrant a refusal to gi-ant the testimonials of a 
 Bishop-elect must be equal in weight and degree with that which would justify 
 his Bishop in denying him Letters Dimissory. The form required for such 
 T,etters Dimissory is as follows : 
 
 " I hereby certify that A. B., who has signified to me his desire to be ti-ans- 
 
 ferred to the ecclesiastical authority of , is a presbyter (or deacon) of 
 
 , in regular standing, and has not, so far as I know or believe, been justly 
 
 liable to evil report for error in religion or viciousness of life, for three years 
 last past." 
 
 Thus a Bishop, in granting such letters, is required to certify in regard to 
 " error in religion," &c., in quite as strong terms as are expressed in the cer- 
 titicate in favor of a Bishop elect; and so it will be seen that if a jjresbyter is 
 •entitled to Letters Dimissory from his Bishop, he is equally entitled, if calleil 
 to tlie Episcopate, to the certiticates in such case provided. Can there be any 
 so rash as to contend that Dr. Seymour was not entitled to Letters Dimissory 
 from his Bishop last October, or that any Bishop-elect is not entitled to such 
 letters from his Bishop at the present time ? 
 
 We have now clearly ascertained the rule fixed by canon law in regard to 
 the "information'' contemplated in the certificate for a Bishop-elect. The 
 only circumstances under wliich the House of Deputies, or the Standing Com- 
 mittees, could be justified in departing from this salutary rule — a rule of law, 
 and not of irhim — would be in case the history of early days and other lands 
 should repeat itself here in this country of ours, and a whole Diocese, with its 
 Bishop, become heretic, or lapse into schism, and from these heretics or schis- 
 matics a Bishop should be chosen ; or under some other such extraordinary con- 
 dition. Under such circumstances, the restrictions of ordinary laws are sus- 
 pended ; and that would be justifiable which under other conditions would be 
 unlawful and revolutionary. 
 
 The third, and last, point to be considered is, what is the •' error in relig- 
 ion " for which the Bishop-elect must be "justly liable to evil report," in order 
 10 warrant the House of Deputies, or the Standing Committees, in refusing to 
 
14 
 
 grant his certificate ? The answer is palpable, that it must be such as the Church 
 standards and authorities have pronounced to be "error in religion," and not 
 merely what individual opinion classifies as such error. If doctrines are false, 
 there is no authority short of a Council of the Church that can so authoritatively 
 declare. An ecclesiastical court may decide whether doctrinal statements are- 
 repugnant to the articles and formularies ; but it has no authority to pass upon 
 the truth or falsity of the doctrines themselves. It follows from what precedes, 
 that neither the House of Deputies of the General Convention, nor the Standing 
 (Committees, in any aspect of the case, nor under any circumstances, have any 
 right to determine that he who holds to extreme views and doctrines is "justly 
 liable to evil report for error in religion." Nor, yet, have they any authority 
 to hold that the very lowest view of such doctrines involves " error in religion," 
 by reason whereof they may refuse the required certificate to a Bishop-elect- 
 If they may refuse the certificate to one who holds to high views of the Sacra-,- 
 ments, they may likewise refuse it to him who adheres to low views thereof; 
 so that church partisans, in the majoiity, may, in this way, put the minority 
 "in the course of ultimate extinction," so far as Bishops of their schoolarc con- 
 cerned. The law-makers of the Church never contemplated, nor will comnion 
 sense give any countenance to the view, that the form of certificate prescribed, or 
 any canonical provision, authorizes either the House of Deputies, or the Stand- 
 ing Committees, under the pretext of "error in religion," to require that the 
 views of a Bishop-elect must conform to those of the majority who are calleJ 
 upon to grant the necessary certificate. The idea of any such authority is all 
 the more monstrous from the fact that such a construction would leave a Bishop- 
 elect at the mercy of the Laity, even on questions of do< trine ; for the Laity, 
 constituting half the membership of these bodies, could prevent a majority vote 
 in favor of granting the certificate. 
 
 The proper testimonials being granted, it then remains for the Bishops of 
 the Church to judge of the candidate, and to grant or withhold their consent to 
 the consecration. They are not limited to the strict rules that govern the House 
 of Deputies and the Standing Committees; and in their hands the matter will 
 be safe. 
 
 In view of these considerations, your Committee recommend the adoptioia 
 by this body of the following resolutions : 
 
 I. Resolved, By the Convention of the Diocese of Illinois, that the forego- 
 ing report be and is hereby adopted, as expressive of the sense of this Iwdy in 
 respect to the matters therein discussed. 
 
 II. Resolved, further. That this Convention hereby enters its respectful 
 but solemn protest against the course pursued by the Lower House of the late- 
 General Convention, in the case of the Rev. Dr. Seymour, our then Bishop-elect, 
 as being unprecedented, unjustifiable, and, in some respects, revolutionary. 
 
 III. Resolved, That we hereby declare that, in the judgment of this Con- 
 vention, nothing has appeared to impair our confidence in Dr. Seymour, or sra 
 
liis fitness for the high office of Bishop of this Diocese, for which we originally 
 chose him. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Rev. Geo. F. Ctshman, D. D. 
 
 Rev. Clinton Locke, D. D. 
 
 Rev. Wm. B. Corbyn, D. D. 
 
 Rev. C. H. W. Stocking, D.1». 
 
 Rev. Robert McMurdy, D. D., &c. 
 
 Rev. Walter F. Lloyd, LL. D. 
 
 Rev. Frank M. Gregg. 
 
 S. Corning Judd. 
 
 S. H. Treat. 
 
 Lucius B. Otis. 
 
 Edwin S. Fowler. 
 
 E. M. M. Clarke. 
 
 On motion, the third resolution presented by the Committee, 
 referring to the Rev. Dr. Seymour, was adopted. 
 
 Thereupon, the following resolution was presented, read, and, 
 on motion, unanimously adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That this report be, and hereby is, respectfully submitted to the 
 the deliberate judgment of the Church at large, it being too late in the session 
 of this Convention for a full and free discussion of the principal proposition 
 therein stated and the argument based upon it, and that its further considera- 
 tion be postponed to the next Diocesan Convention. 
 
Note of the Committee announcing officially to the Rev. Dr. Seymour 
 Jus election to the Bishopric of Illinois. 
 
 Chicago, September 20th, 1874. 
 
 IlEVEnENo AND Deah Siu : 
 
 We, the undersigned, were appointed a committee 
 of the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Illinois in 
 Convention assembled, to inform you that on the 16th of 
 September, 1874, in said Convention you were elected 
 Bishop of Illinois, and that the Testimonials were signed 
 by all the Clerical and Lay delegates present at the con- 
 vention. 
 
 We ask in the name of all our Brethren your accept- 
 ance of that high office, assuring you of a cordial wel- 
 come, and hearty support in the work of our common 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and His Bride the Catholic Church. 
 
 SAMUEL CHASE, D.D., 
 
 CLINTON LOCKE, D.I)., 
 
 ROBERT McMURDY, D.D., LL.D., 
 
 EDWARD SULLIVAN, S.T.D., 
 
 F. M. GREGG, 
 
 GEORGE W. DEAN, D.D., 
 
 L. B. OTIS, 
 
 WM. FITZHUGH WHITEHOUSE, 
 
 GEORGE H. HARLOW, 
 
 To the 
 
 Rev. George F. Seymour, D.D. 
 
THE REV. DR. SEYMOUR'S REPLY. 
 
 General Theological Seminary, N. Y. 
 
 September 25///, 1874. 
 My Dear Brethren : 
 
 Your official notice of my election to the Bishopric of Illinois, 
 the signing of my testimonials by all the Clerical and Lay Delegates 
 present at the Convention, and your request on their behalf that I 
 would accept the high and holy office thus tendered me, and pledg- 
 ing on their and your part a cordial welcome and hearty support, 
 has been received. 
 
 No one could have been more surprised than I was, when I 
 learned a little more than a week ago of the result of the election in 
 the Convention of the Diocese of Illinois, which you have so kindly 
 communicated to me. I was utterly unprepared for such a sum- 
 mons. I could not bring myself to listen to the call were it other 
 than it is. I am now charged with many trusts, and have my heart 
 bound up in many works. The General Church has bidden me 
 teach her Candidates for Holy Orders Ecclesiastical History, and 
 for nine years I have been at my post, growing to love my duties 
 more and more, and finding in my pupils in their gratitude and 
 aftection an ample recompense for all my toils. Through God's 
 providential dispensations I have been called upon to take the over- 
 sight of this great Theological School for nearly half the period of 
 my service as a Professor, and its interests and work, by the divine 
 blessing, have prospered in ray hands, and now there open before 
 me brighter prospects of success than ever before. 
 
 The House of Mercy in this city, of which I have been Chap- 
 lain for full seven years, has a claim upon me which I cannot put 
 aside without genuine anguish of spirit. The helplessness of the 
 
inmates appeals to me, and the heroic ministry of the Sisters of 
 St. Mary, in charge of the Institution, makes it hard for me lo lay 
 down the work which it has been my great privilege to do so long. 
 
 The Diocese of New York is very dear to me, it has ever been 
 my ecclesiastical home ; and my Bishop — I began my ministry as a 
 deacon with his accession to the episcopate ; among the first of his 
 official acts was to lay his hands upon me— my Bishop holds me by 
 many cords, which bind me with a veneration and affection to him 
 which could not easily be exceeded. It would be tedious to men- 
 tion other considerations of an official and personal character, which 
 combine to exert upon me a powerful influence to persuade me to 
 remain where I am. But it seems to me that the voice of God, the 
 Holy Ghost, has spoken in the choice to which the Diocese of Illinois 
 was led in the election at the recent Convention, and if that voice is 
 confirmed by the approval of the General Church, I shall feel 
 assured that, unworthy as I am, the divine call bids me go to you. 
 In that event let me say to you dear Brethren, and through you to 
 the Clergy and Laity of Illinois, that I shall come among you to be 
 yours for life, and for death ; to be over you in the Lord for your 
 spiritual welfare, to have you, as the great Apostle says, ever in my 
 heart. I shall wish you all to give yourselves with me to the things 
 which make for peace, and to devote yourselves with all your powers 
 to promote the spread of God's Kingdom throughout the great em- 
 pire entrusted to our common care. I shall desire to know and love 
 vou all, without exception or distinction, as my dear Brethren and 
 Children in Christ, united in the Communion of that portion of His 
 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of which in the good 
 providence of God we are members. 
 
 Twice in the most solemn and momentous hours which can pos- 
 sibly occur in the experience of any human being, when admitted 
 successively to the Orders of Deacon, and of Priest, I have borne wit- 
 ness to my acceptance of the doctrine, discipline, and worship of our 
 Church, and once again, after an interval of many years, should I be 
 consecrated Bishop, I shall have to record the same testimony in the 
 presence of God and the Congregation. No one could do so with 
 more entire loyalty free from every reservation than I shall, and 
 hence I shall come to you expecting from you the same unreserved 
 and unwavering fidelity to principle, and obligation and duty. It 
 will be my aim, the desire of my heart, to share with you in all your 
 labors, trials, difficulties, and if need be, distresses in behalf of 
 God's Church : to take the lead, to be the first in these things and 
 
such as these, this will be my ambition, this I shall ever pray to God 
 to grant me as a sacred and blessed privilege. 
 
 In any event, dear Brethren, I am speaking to the Clergy and 
 Laity of Illinois, I entreat you to pray for one, whom you have hon- 
 ored with a choice, which conferred, so far as you had the power, 
 the best which you had to give, pray for him that he may have giace 
 to follow, even though it be afar off, his adorable Lord, and make 
 him even to the end his example, his ever present help, and that it 
 may be granted him to be united with you in the future eternal 
 world, it will be infinitely beyond his deserving, as the least, and low- 
 liest in the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 Invoking God's choicest blessings upon you dear Brethren, and 
 the Diocese which you represent, I remain with great respect and 
 sincere regard faithfully and affectionatelv your Brother in Christ. 
 
 GEORGE F. SEYMOUR. 
 
 For 
 
 Rev. Samuel Chase, D.l)., 
 
 Rev. Clinton Locke, D.I)., 
 
 Rev. Rokt. McMurdy, D.l). LL.D., 
 
 Rev. Edward Sullivan, S.T.D., 
 
 Rev. F. M. Gregg, 
 
 Rev. George W. Dean, D.l)., 
 
 L. B. Otis, Esq., 
 
 Wm. Fitzhugh Whitehouse, Esq., 
 
 George H. Harlow, Esq., 
 
 Committee. 
 
iX5935.C87 
 
 Assault of the Bishop of Western New 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 ^1012 00149 4873 
 
 il