THE I^SUE OF FACT BET^JEEN BISHOP COXE AI'TD PROFESSOR SEYl-lOUR. X8L IL8h 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 ^ssion of the General Convention, is the forcing upon ine a direct 5ue of veracity with the Bishoi^ of Western New York. In regard this, I would cheerfully keep silence and bear the injustice, did it inceru only the question of the Bishopric of Illinois, which I never ^ught or desired : but since it bears wholly upon the discharge of [y present duties as acting Dean of the Seminary, it is unhappily [y duty, so long as I remain in this position, to defend myself from ly charges which woiild weaken the confidence of the Chiu'ch in the istitution. On the seventh day of the secret session and only about* two hours jfore the time first fixed for the decisive vote. Judge Sheftey of Vir- [nia read the first of the following letters. He had it in his posses- I have been told, four days before it was read ; and I am informed it when asked by one of my friends for a copy of it in advance, he bfused, on the ground that he was specially charged only to read it to jie House, and to .show it to none but to certain members. After it read, a copy was again refused, on the ground that it was "in the )ssession of the House," and that the proceedings were "secret." Then the obligation of secrecy was removed, a cojjy was unattainable, scause the documents were " in the hands of the printer." The fii-st fht of them was gained only on the Friday evening after the question decided, when I received jjroof-sheets containing the letters. And Inee then Mr. William Welsh of Pennsylvania, through whom the 3ond and third letters of Bishop Coxe were brought before the House Deputies, on the last day of the secret session, has published a Jtter in corroboration of them, which he inserted in the last number the Daily Churchman, to which, of course, that issue being the last. lere coiild be no reply through the same channel. I mention these 3ts, not to complain of anything which others have done conscien- >usly, or which they regard as the work of a special "Pro\idence"; it simply to explain the disadvantages under which I have labored learning the exact nature of the charges, and the necessary delay it has occurred in preparing my defence. Moreover, the charges ist me rest solely on the statement of one man ; and the only >rroboration is what Mr. Welsh says, that somebody else says, that he remembers lieariug said, a year and a half ago. On the contrary, every word of my statement which follows nest after the Letters of Bishop Ooxe, 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 resnlt is humbly left in the hands of God, and to the judgment of all honest men. GEOKaE F. Seyjioue. General Theological Seminary, Nov. 5, 1874. Bishop Coxe's Lettee. [Bead by Judge Sheffey, of Virginia, on Wednesday afternoon, the 21st of October :] New Yoek, Oct. 17, 1874. My Deae Judge Smith : The facts are substantially as they j-ave been reported to you. I could say niany things in favor of this Candidate with entire tnith, and testimonials might be multiplied in his favor without any du- plicity. But the lohole IrutJi. would reveal another class of facts, and I suppose Dr. S. himself would not deny that, as a Professor in the Seminary, he has steadfastly resisted the noble efforts of his col- leagues, such as Drs. Seabury and Vinton, who have labored to main- tain the doctrine of this Church, resj^ecting the Holy Eucharist, and the provisions of the Rubric for its solemn celebration, pm'e and un- These things became known to me in the discharge of official duty as a " Visitor " and a member of a Committee, and I regTet to say that the learned Professor was forced to confess to me that, with his knowleac/e and consent, 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 peculiar views of the " Holy Etjchaeist." It is Tvith 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 invesiigalion nf 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 cont^erns. Faithfully yours, (Signed) A. Cleveland\Coxe, Bishop of Western New York. The Hon. Judge Smith. n. [Mr. William Welsh, of Pennsylvania, on Thursday, Oct. 22d, in- troduced the following correspondence :] New Yoek, Oct. 21, 1874, My Deae 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 discretion. If you ever conversed -^-ith any of your students about the visits of the Eev. Mr. Grafton to the Seminary, or have any particulars of such Adsits, and the knowledge that the Eev. Dr. Seymour had of them, pray oblige me with such pai-ticulars. Yours, very sincerely, W. Welsh. To Bt. Eev. A. C. Coxe, D.D. New York, Oct. 21, 1874. My Dear Mb. 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 quite forgotten. But consult with my friend, Judge Smith, Avho knows the extreme reluctance with which I have permitted my testimony to be used in your dis- cussions. 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 mthin 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 Eiicharist were inculcated. Nothing biit a very extraordinary duplicity can l)ut any constiiiction on these facts, which good men can accept as satisfactory. Faithfully yours, A. Clevelanp Coxe, Bishop of Western New York. Wm. Welsh, Esq. Buffalo, Oct. 4, 1873. My Dear Dr. Forbes : Nothing could be more opportune — nothing more od rem — than the publication, cU this momen/, vnth historical notes, of this very val- uable document. I send it by the same post that takes this, having obtained Prof. Seabury's permission to hold it, against some such emergency, which I foresaw must arise before our Eeform work is much further advanced. I was sorry I could not see you when I was last in to\\'n ; 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 ^isit 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 make 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 Eev. Dr. Forbes, &c., &c., &c. STATEMENT IN REPLY. It is not teue that I ever ^'' introduced'" Father Grafton as "a vohmteer Professor " "within the walls of the Seminary," — having never introduced or even invited him to the Seminary in any ca- pacity. It is not tkue that I "i^ermitted" 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 i^ermission of the kind. It is not true that he " was permitted " by me " to lee: we to stu- dents of the Seminar)/ i)i n private roo7n," as if I were ashamed or afraid to ask him to do it openly. No person has ever been j)ermitted by me to lecture to the students except openly in the Chapel or Library, and mth the knowledge of the Faculty. It is not true that I ever ''confessed'''' to, or " acJcnozcledged,'' unj 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 weU draw from me, to my own prejudice, 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 "?»y oxm acknowledgment that I permitted 'Father Grafton ' to visit and indoctrinate " as aforesaid ; for I never made any acknowledgment of the sort. It IS NOT TRUE that Father Grafton lectured at the Seminary " icith my knoiclcdge and consent,'' for I knew nothing of his lecturing until some days after it was all over, and never gave any consent thei*eto. It is not true that the object of Father Gr.iton's lectures was to inculcate " his peculiar views of the Halrj 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 " 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 devout 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 exjilanation here given is drawn from notes of Father Grafton's lec- tures, taken at the time by one of the students jsresent, 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 exei'cise 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 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 too strong and clear to permit the possibility of mistake, that those lectures were delivered without my kno wledge or consent, and that if I had known of them in time / should certainly have prohibited them. The BishojD 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 ofif 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 CoUege undertakes to j)revent 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 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 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 siich extemporized private meetings among the students, though rare, have not been vinprecedented. 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 per- suaded him to relate the history of Nashotah, though the Dean and Professors knew nothing of it imtil some days after. Still later, a similar thing took place during a visit by Bishop Tozer ; and on nei- ther occasion was any fault found by the Dean or Faculty, though no permission had been asked or given. It is not texje 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 pursiied in opiDosing 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 unhappy contro- versy on the subject, and was finally abandoned by the very col- leag-ues who made it, when, in the presence of the Bishops 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 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 pres^ent 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 all unprejudiced and candid persons, to consider the above, together with the sworn evidence which follows, and then say wlietlier, iu regtird to my acts, there be any foundation for Bishop Coxe's assertion that "nothing bnt a very extraordinary du- plicity can put any construction on these facts, which good men can accept as satisfactory . " Geobge F. Seyivioue. Sworn to before me the 6th day of November, 1874. O. P. Smith, Notary Public, New York county. 1", Kandall Cooke HaU, a Presbyter of the 1 locese of New York, and a Professor in the General Theological Semin -ry, was present at the Visitation held by Bishop Coxe in the Spring of 1873, referred to by Professor Seymour in his above affida^'it, and I hereby testify under oath that to the best of my recollection, knowledge, and beUef, Pro- fessor Seymour's statement of what took place on that occasion is sub- stantially correct. Eandall Cooke Hax,l. Sworn to before me the 6th day of November, 1874. O. P. SivnTH, Notary Public, New York county. I, Charles C. Grafton, of Boston, Massachusetts, Presbyter, Rector of the Church of the Advent in that city, on oath say : I have been informed that the Eev. Dr. Seymour, acting Dean of the General Theological Seminary, New York, has been charged with in\dting or permitting me to deliver, or in some way countenancing 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 pri- vate, to the students of the Seminary. I hereby declare this to be untrue. I would further say that the only A-isits 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 in^dtation or otherwise. I talked with some of the students who came in to see me on the Eeligious 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 folloTving circumstances : Having occasion to be in New York while my brother's house was closed, I was asked by a student whom I had in^dted 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 pre\dous arrange- ment or plan on my part, several of the students came in (some in- vited 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 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 tliat Dr. Seymour liad any knowledge of this in- terview, in my friend's room, with the students. My acqiiaintance 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 bixsiuess only, and on neither occasion having any conference with any of the students on religious matters. These are all the visits I havt made to the Seminary. I have spoken of A-isits to the Seminaiy. It may be proper to add that I have never had any conference mth any of the students away from the Seminary, by the in\dtation, 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. Chables C. Gkafton. CommonweaijTH or Massachusetts, Suffolk County : At Boston, in said county, this 6th day of November, A. D. 1874, personally ap- peared the Eev. Charles C. Grafton, and made solemn oath that the , — ■— J foregoing affida\it, by him subscribed, is true, before me, ■j SEAL [ N. Austin Pabks, 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 Illinois, having seen in public print, certain statements having refer- ence to the Rev. 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 uttered 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 FaU 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 in\'ited 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, ani met besides the Rev. Mr. Grafton three or four of my fellow students whom I knew as the intimate friends of Mr. TorlDert ; 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 he allowed to meet liim again tlie next evening, and that he would tell us something of the work carried on by the Order of St. John the Evangelist ; that by permission of Mr. Torbert, asked and obtained, I invited other of my friends among the students to be present ; That on the second evening we met some additional students in- Adted by Mr. Torbert, and all ha-sdng 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 instruction 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 stiidents dispersed 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 propagated 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 stiidents mth a great deal of merri- ment, and I desire to state that, to the best of my knowledge and be- lief, the Eev. 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 Journal, 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 differs from the account given above and the statements made below, is utterly false and unreliable : 1. The visit of Mr. Grafton was of a private 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 uni^remeditated request made by us, the students present. 4. That nothing in regard to the Holy Communion 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. 8. Tliat the Bev. Dr. Seymour knew notMng whatever of the meeting. 9. That the whole matter of Mr. Grafton's address related to the personal purity of life necessary for those Avho are called to Holy Orders. . G. HENEY HIGGINS. ( —'— ) Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of j SEAL - October, A. D. 1874. ■ "~ Henry 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 Eev. C. C. Grafton, in a student's room, on the evenings of Dec. 11th and 12th, 1872. Wo were there, with 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 private 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 presented 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 aiiy one concerned. (Present Dec. 12th only,) F. W. Tomkins, Je., Frank Smith, Amos T. Ashton, (Present Dec. 11th only,) Egbert Wxluce. Eobt. B. Drane declined to be present because he understood that the Dean knew nothing about the matter. ( F. W. Tomkins, Jr., Sworn to before me this 2d day of Novem- I Frank SsnTH, ber, 1874. O. P. Smith, -j Amos T. Ashton, Notary Public, New York county. ] Egbert Wyllie, [EoBT. 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 ^vTote to the Eev. Mr. Grafton, and asked him to occupy my room. Mr. Grafton accepted my in\-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 no/ in reference to the Holy Eucharist, and 10 lie did not allude to the Coufrateruity of the Blessed Sacrament so far as I remember. Neither Mr. Torbert nor myself invited the Eev. Mr. Grafton to the Seminary for the iDurjJose of delivering a lecture on the Holy Eucharist. Mr. Torbei-t desired to consult him on personal matters. I was not jjresent 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 jjlace, 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 Kev. Geo. F. Seymour, D.D., knew nothing of the interview which the Eev. 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 Jeksey, County of Essex, ss. : WynautVanderj^ool, 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 "1^ ' 2d day of November, A. D. 1874, ( ^. , , ^^^ yj ^ ,,^^^^^ , lsEAi.1 before me, W. Vanderpooi, ' |-Wy^ant\andebpooi.. < — ' U. S. Commissioner. J Having heard from various soiirces that the Eev. George F. Sey- mour, D.D., Dean of the General Theolog-ical Seminary, has been charged with invating to that Institution, in the years 1872 or 1873, the Eev. C. C. Grafton, rector of the Church of the Advent, Boston, for the purpose of lecturing to the students of the Seminary iipon the subject of the Holy Eiicharist, I desire to make the following state- ment : I was a member of the General Theological Seminary in the years 1872 and 1873, and during that time the Eev. C. C. Grafton never re- mained but two nights at the Seminary, and to my certain knowledge that visit was made at the esjiecial request of the gentleman who en- tertained him. And I have the very best reason to believe that the Eev. Dr. Seymour did not know of the Eev. C. C. Grafton'8 intention to visit the Seminary previous to his arrival uj^on the ground. Fur- thermore, neither at that time or at any other time while I was in the Seminary, did the Eev. C. C. Grafton, either in a j)rivate 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 sjjoke 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 theory of the life to which he had devoted himself, and of the work in Avhich 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 Eev. Mr. Graf- 11 ton, tliat be was doing no more wrong in talking thus informally to ns upon the above subjects, than if he had chosen the prophecies or the insi^iration 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, ) 3d day of November, 187i, >- Joseph H. Johnson. James M. Knapp, Justice of the Peace. ) Newbukgh, N. Y., Nov. 2d, 1874. My Deae Dk. Seymour : 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 Depu- ties of the Lower House of the General Convention, which were read before the Convention, declaring that you had invited 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 known 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 surprise as it has me. One day during the latter part of the year 1872, my friend and classmate, Harry Torbei't, now abroad, came to my room and told me that Father Grafton was in the city, and that he intended to call on Jiim that evening at the Seminary ; and he further said wouldn't it be nice to invite a few of the fellows in my room 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. Thfe 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 EuchiHsi 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 sijeaking of the trials and temjitations of the Christian life. It is a very sad thing for me to know that Bishop Coxe could have made so untruthful a statement, because he must have been better informed. There were present three of his own men on one of the evenings referred to, and Iwo on the other. So had he chosen to have been informed of the exact nature of the lectures of the Rev. Mr. Grafton, he coiijd 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 mucli a surprise to himself as it was a pleas tire aud benefit to us. We did not think we were violating any o the rules of the Seminary. Trusting that this letter may prove o some benefit to you, I remain, my dear Doctor, faithfully your friencj and brother in Christ, Geo*. W. Hinkle. The Rev. G. F. Seymour, D.D. Sworn to before me, by Geo. W. Hinkle, this 2d day of Ncvembei 1874. M. H. HiNCHBEY, Notary Public in and for Orange county. In the Winter Of 1872 one of my fellow-students in the Geners Theological Seminary, now the Eev. H. M. Torberfc, informed meths he was expecting a visit from the Eev. C. C. Grafton of Boston, Mass I told Mr. Torbert that I would like very much to meet the Re\ Mr. Grafton. I also remarked that there were other students in thi Seminary of the same mind. The day the Rev. Mr. Grafton arrive* at the Seminary, Mr. Torbert and I agi-eed that we would each at suj per time invite such students to his (Mr. Torbert's) room, as w| thought would like to meet him. When we were assembled there were so many present, and ther| was so little opportunity for each individual to converse with the Re\ Mr. Grafton, that it was suggested that he make some sort of an a