Class $3%. Book_X_L_ 3*9 V. ^^L wning, George Case, T. J. Crowen, Daniel Marvin, Samuel J. Willis. Frederick A Gaion, Isaac 0. Barker, Alexander L. McDonald, E. Wainwright Butler, W. Corp, Philip Dater, Harman Wesrervelt, P. A. Schermerhorn, R. J. Vanderwater, John Rut liven, Edward G. Ludlow, William S. Popham, John Snowden, Thomas L. Oj;den, Joseph W. Barker, Wm. H. Ilarison, New-Yokk, March 29, Oscar Bullus, F. E. Ellison, Edward Bullus, Jotham Smith, Robert U. Ward, Charles Taylor, Robert Bayard, Frederick J. Betts, Edward S. Innes, Richard Sterling:, Gouv. Morris Wilkins, John Battin, Frederick Sill J. Litton, William A. Duncan, Echvard W. Candee, S. I. Husted, William H. Phelps, P. Ford, William E. Ross, Henry Mason, J. W\ Johnson, James Guyon, Sen., H. S. Bedell, Isaac Seymour, William H. Vermilye, James J. Jones, Townsend Cox, Charles W. Carmer, James Reawick, Jr., William Henry Priest, William R. Tavlor, L. M. H. Butler, William H. Bell, Joseph P. Pirsson, G. E. Baldwin, William E. Dunscomb, Teunis Quick, C. F. Buhler, Smith Barker, William N. Dvckman, John W. Mills, Edward P. Torrey, William Castle. William Van Norden, Wm. C, Dayton, 18U. Charles Davis, Edward Coles, Henry Suydam, Jr., William G. Williston, Robert Dickson, Edmund Moorewood, Daniel Oakey, E. Boonen Graves, Charles Walker, John A. F. Rachau, A. 0. Parmelee, John Ferguson, Robert S. Goff, John H. Lyell, William Delaneld, P. Reynolds, Robert C. Wetmore, F. B. Cutting, F. R. Tillcu, John J. Moore, Richard Sill, George Tomes, Joseph Battin, John H. Swift, Edgar Brodhead, I. W. Fowler, Merit Welton, Nelson Jarvis, Theodore M. Tuthill, James E. Johnson, Henry I. Seaman, Jr., David A. Edgar, Joseph Bedell, Walter Betts, Richard Whittingham, David S. Jones, Edmund H. Pendleton, Isaac D. Vermilye, Charles Beardsley, Columbus Lane, Isaac G. Osden, Jr., J. W. Mitchell, E. W. Laight, William Bakewell, John S. Barker, Charles Fitz Wetmore. REPLY OF BISHOP ONDERDOXK TO THE ABOVE. To David D. Ogden, Clement C. Moore, LL. D., and other Laymen, "WHO ADDRESSED TO ME A COMMUNICATION, DATED MARCH 29tH ; 1844 Brethren — In every department of duty peculiar satisfaction is attached to its conscientious discharge, when it is found to be approved by the wise and good. This is especially true of those duties which involve peculiarly heavy responsibilities, and peculiar exposure to misapprehension or mis- representation by those who, from inability, unwillingness, or other cause, may fail properly to appreciate them. There are a delicacy, a sacred- ness, and a character and extent of consequences, attached to pastoral functions which inyest them with a still more especial interest in this prin- ciple. Nor is its value at all abated when the course approved has been adopted without regard to man's opinion. Therefore, my dear brethren, have the time and occasion of your address 66 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. added greatly to the gratification which I should always experience from evidence of your interest in the Church, of your approval of my course, and of the kind regard and sympathy of bo many of the best laity of my Diocese, of those whom, for a series of years, it has been my privilege to rank among my most valued personal friends, and the most active friends of the Church, and of those with whom it was once my high satisfaction to think and act when troublous times agitated the administration of my great and good predecessor. Your desire for peace, and determination to maintain it, no reasonable and just man who knows you will for a moment attribute to any other than a conscientious and independent sense of duty. The circumstances and important subjects connected with that desire and determination have long been familiar to you, and been thoroughly weighed by you. And I risk nothing in saying that they have found among you, in their investiga- tion, a knowledge of the subject, a strength and clearness of understand- ing, an independence of principle, a virtuousness of purpose, a purity of Christian conscience, and a devoted and enlightened Churchmanship, greater than which is not to be found in any body of American citizens. I thank you, brethren, for the principles, feelings, and views, which you have manifested ; and hesitate not to say, in the very best sense of the ex- pression, that I feel proud of them. Your address, so numerously signed, and so signed in a brief space of time, is a most welcome confirmation of the evidence I am perpetually re- ceiving from all parts of the Diocese, that the great body of my brethren of the laity are very far from sympathizing with the spirit which would represent me as adverse to lay influence, and disposed to interfere with lay rights, in the Church. They know this is false. Neither in my lan- guage nor conduct have they observed anything to justify the aspersion. It is well known that I receive our ecclesiastical constitution as a great blessing handed down to us by our fathers, and have often expressed de- vout gratitude to God for having dealt so mercifully with this branch of His Holy Church, under the peculiarly disadvantageous, trying, and ad- verse circumstances which beset it when our country emerged from its long struggle against the oppressions of that wherein was seated the Church of our affections, but of the deadly hostility of the great mass around us ; and which it was difficult for even ourselves to sever from the influence of political principles, views, and prejudices. Of the happy balance established between Episcopal, clerical, and lay influence in our ecclesiastical concerns, I have ever spoken with approbation, and with gratitude for constantly accumulating evidence that it works well. I should be unthankful, indeed, were not my feelings on this subject warmed by the recollection of the valuable counsel I have taken with pious, en- lightened, and devoted laymen, of the important services they have often rendered to the Church in her Conventions, and of the noble stand which the laity of this Diocese took around their Bishop and clergy, when, in former years, an effort, similar to that now on foot was made to array the former against the latter ; and by the assurances — let me gratefully add — now reaching me from every quarter, that they are still good and true. The insinuation that they are then oniy independent and honorable when they array themselves against their pastors, has too unworthy a source to entitle it to a moment's consideration. I am aware, however, brethren, that you are often met with the remark, that all this was proved to be nothing worth in the matter touching Mr. Duer's procedure towards the close of the last Convention. Let us look a little into this. Mr. Duer rose and stated in substance, that he had a matter to propound NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 67 which he did not bring forward for discussion. This sentiment, namely, that he did not design to furnish material for debate, was repeated by him more than once. I beg you to bear this particularly in mind. He then read a document which he said had some names attached to it, and would probably have more. This document, no matter in what style expressed, brought against me the charge of abetting, in strong terms of commendation, doctrines and a spirit not entitled to the confidence and sup- port of Protestant Episcopalians — in other words, false doctrine, and an ungodly spirit ; and this in a way directly tending, not only to the cor- ruption of my own Diocese, but also to the extensive diffusion of error throughout the Church. The document having been read, Mr. D., after repeating that he did not present matter for discussion, but simply desired the insertion of the docu- ment on the Minutes with such signatures as were or might be attached to it, took his seat. What followed on my part has been denounced as a daring attempt to violate the rights of the laity. It is entirely obvious, however, that this connection of the matter with the peculiar rights of the laity could not have been thought of by sensible men, if it were not to be rendered subservient to collateral purposes. It had in no just sense a peculiar reference to the laity. It is true, a lay member was the spokesman, but not in his lay capacity. He represented clergymen as well as laymen. The working up of the event into an especial attack by me upon tl|e laity, is obviously gratuitous and unwar- ranted. No one, I presume, doubts that had the signers put forward a clergyman instead of a lay-aian, he would have met with the same recep- tion. The charge against me, therefore, of an infringement of lay rights, may safely, as it should injustice, be dismissed. And now, what was the document ? It was not a paper fairly before the Convention. Mr. Duer could not have considered it such, or he certainly, as an intelligent man, would not have said time and again, that he did not offer it for discussion. He has vastly more than sense enough to be well assured that such a paper, offered to the consideration of tlie Convention, could not have failed to elicit warm and protracted debate. He meant what he certainly expressed, that it was to be merely read and entered on the Minutes. If this was not pre- suming upon a right, what was it ? Again. The gentleman thus acting as the representative of clerical and lay associates, has not a little just reputation for an accurate knowledge of the principles of parliamentary order and propriety. He, therefore, of course, knows that no subject is fairly before a deliberative body except in the shape of a resolution made and seconded. He offered no resolution ; but simply read a document which he expressed a desire should go upon the Minutes without discussion, and therefore without any conventional ac- tion. It would be derogatory to his good sense, and his knowledge of the subject, to suppose that he considered the word " request" occurring to- wards the close of the document, as tantamount to a formal resolution, and, therefore, bringing the subject, in orderly manner, before the Conven- tion. He knows that no written request is ever in order for action by a deliberative body unless a resolution is offered and seconded, either favorable to the request, or otherwise. He, therefore, must have intended that the document was, of course, and without action by the Convention, to be handed over to the Secretary for insertion on the Minutes. Surely I was not wrong in construing the whole transaction into a claim of a right. The term u request" could not, for the reasons stated, have been intended by Mr. Duer to bring the subject under the cognizance of the Con- 68 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. vention. It was a courteous mode of signifying the demand of the signers. I was reminded of it when I read in a communication of a. late number of The Churchman, an extract from Clarendon's History of the Rebellion. Speaking of the right of protest in the British House of Lords, he says, " It is an old custom and privilege of the House, that upon any solemn de- bate, whosoever is not satisfied with the conclusion and judgment of the House, may demand leave to enter his protestation, which must be granted. ;; "Leave" is defined by Richardson to mean '-'permission, concession, sufferance." These terms necessarily suppose a right to grant or with- hold the leave. And yet courtesy of expression led to that being called tl leave v which was claimed by "demand," and which, it was understood, tl must be granted.' 7 Very much like this is the meaning, if it has any meaning, of the term " request'' introduced into a document which its pro- pounder clearly supposed w T as to be received without discussion, and, therefore, as a matter of course. Is it too strong language to say that a right was herein assumed ? If it is not, an assumption was put for- ward to which I could not, as President of the Convention, listen for a mo- ment. In the very terms of the document, and by the express desire and intention of its propounder, it was shut out from the cognizance of the Convention. Nothing was in order before that body. All that the gentle- man said — and he was patiently heard through the whole, and until he had taken his seat — presented nothing that was in order. On the con- trary, the shape in which the protest was pu*t, offered an indignity to the Convention by the supposition which it involved, that that body was pre- pared quietly to succumb to such a high-handed effort to exercise control over its Minutes. I felt that this indignity was offered, and that my brethren of the clergy and laity had a claim upon me to repel it. But this was not the only duty which the emergency devolved upon me. The document thus offered, to find its way upon the Minutes through the ignorance, fear, or supineness ot" the Convention, contained aiv attack upon me. It accused me of earnest endeavors to disseminate fals^ doctrine throughout my Diocese, and throughout the Church. I will not repeat, brethren, what is advanced in my late Pastoral Letter to the Laity of the Diocese, in proof of the unlawfulness and injustice of this. It gave to the document, besides its absence of all claim to the consideration of the Con- vention, the character of a personal matter between the gentleman intro- ducing it — for he named no others — and myself. The Convention had nothing to do with it. An attack had been made by him upon me as Bishop of the Diocese. I repelled it in few words — words indeed of honest warmth, but not disproportioned, I trust, to the indignity thus rendered to my office.* My appreciation of the intelligence of the mover in the busi- ness would not allow me to imagine for a moment that he was unaware of the real character of the transaction, and of the position in which it placed him. He did not intend, as he said he did not, to propose a subject for discussion, that is, for the consideration of the Convention. He meant to reach me through a shorter process — a document which, under his manage- ment, the Convention, its President and Secretary, were to allow to go quietly on the Minutes, and thus to hold me up to public censure without even the form of a trial. That gentleman would probably regard it as no compliment to have imputed to him the weakness of changing his ground, and thus owning the illegal character, as well as the failure, of his tactics. I could sup- See note on p. 13. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 69 pose him to rise a second time for no other purpose than explanation, and such I clearly understood to be his object in rising. But it was a matter not in order before the Convention. It was one solely between him and myself. I was not willing to impose the farther consideration of it upon the Con- vention. Neither time nor place was fitting for this. Regarding it as a personal matter, in which I had been very wrongfully treated, my honest wish was either to let it there drop — for I have no desire to remember injuries — or to reserve further explanations for a more fitting time and place. Although, however, this gentleman could not be justly suspected of a desire or endeavor to give such a shape to the business, as, bringing it within the Convention's rules of order, to acknowledge the disorderly nature of his first movement, yet, if his friends felt strong in the conscious- ness of right, there was abundant opportunity to present the subject in such a way that it might come in order before the Convention. What I have to say on this head shall be arranged under supposed cases. Order having been restored, a resolution might, of course, have been submitted by any member. If the resolution had been one of censure upon The Churchman, I would probably have reminded the Convention that the discussing of the merits of theological works hardly came within their constitutional and Canonical prerogatives ; that the constituents of the lay members could hardly have contemplated that as an object for which they were appointed; and that it certainly appeared to be at variance with the spirit of our ecclesiastical system, which might, in many ways, be shown to be adverse to the ordinary introduction of doctrinal discussions into our Conventions. I should therefore have been justified in pronouncing the resolution out of order, subject of course to an appeal to the Convention. It is not im- probable, however, that I would have waived this, and left the question to the direct decision of the House. If the resolution had embodied, in form or substance, the matter of Mr. Duer's protest, so far as it involved an accusation of doctrinal unfaithful- ness on my part, I should at once have declared the resolution out of order, for reasons which I have laid before the Church. If an appeal had been made from my decision, I should, of course, have taken the ques- tion on that appeal. Had it been sustained, I should — I hope respect- fully and kindly, but certainly conscientiously and firmly — have signified my utter protest, as Bishop of the Diocese, against so high-handed an infringement of my rights as any censure, save in the shape of Canonical impeachment, upon my official acts ; declared my determination in no way to sanction so flagrant a violation of our ecclesiastical compact, and there- fore not to be present in any deliberations or acts connected with it; given fair and honest warning that I should pay no respect to any action by which my rights should be thus invaded; and left the Convention, never again to appear in it, until it had recovered its character for Christian justice and Church order. To my Diocese, however, I should of course continue to do my duty as God might give ability, though having to follow my Master and His first ministers in the midst of an unjust and per- secuting generation. I need not say, brethren, how near, for the purpose of illustrating a principle, I have carried supposition to the utmost bound of possibility. Of anything bearing the most distant resemblance to such a case I have not the least fear. I am not so unjust to my beloved Diocese. Its Christian and Church-like character forbids this. My understanding and my heart unite to assure me that there is no danger of it. The spiritual pastors of the 70 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. Diocese are too true to their sacred obligations. Its laity are too thor- oughly imbued with the principles and spirit of the beloved brethren whom I now particularly address, and the multitudes of others who I know, sympathize with them entirely. May God bless them all, remember for good their devotion to His cause, and increase and multiply upon them those influences of His Holy Spirit, whereby they may truly love and serve the Church, and be carried onward, in the cherishing of its holy faith, and the practical manifestation of its sober and efficient piety, to its eternal rewards in heaven ! From your faithful, affectionate, and grateful Pastor, Benj. T. Oxderdoxk, New- York, Monday in Easter Week, April 8, 1844. Bishop of New- York. PASTORAL LETTER ON THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF 1844. To the Clergy and Brethren of My Spiritual Charge : Dear Brethren — It is well known to some of you that when, a few years ago, differences and agitations, long excluded from our Diocese, were unhappily introduced into it, threats were made, in reference to my real or supposed connection with them, of action against myself, having in view nothing short of my official destruction. These were repeated from time to time, as occasions were taken for opposition to my friends or myself. As our late Diocesan Convention, and the late General Conven- tion, approached, and during the latter, those threats were renewed, with the obvious design of producing an influence on the action of that body. "While I was engaged in my duties there, it came to my knowledge that plans had been formed, and untiring means adopted, having in view the object of the threats to which 1 have alluded. The most industrious efforts were made to injure me by false reports, and by statements which I was not allowed to see. The same course, I understood, was pursued in this city. I have expressed a desire for a Canonical investigation of the case ; and know you too well, dear brethren, to doubt for a moment that 3-ou will do me the justice to suspend your opinion until the result of that investiga- tion is known. Commending you to the blessings of God's providence and grace, and soliciting, now and at all times, your prayers in my behalf, I am, dear brethren, Your affectionate Pastor, Bexj. T. Onderdoxk, Bishop of New- York. New-York, Oct. 25, 1844. P. S. — The above was prepared the day after my return to New- York, but its publication has been withholden a few days by the advice of judi- cious friends. b. t. o. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 71 TREATMENT OF BISHOP ONDERDONK IN THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS. On the first day of last October [1844] I left home for the city of Phila- delphia, to attend to my duties as a member of our General Ecclesiastical Convention, which was to meet in that city. The Convention of my own Diocese had just closed its annual session. It had been unusually large, and distinguished by a very marked degree of unity and harmony. The circumstances under which it assembled, were such as to render its pro- ceedings a very special proof of the kindest feelings of confidence and affection on the part of the clergy and laity of the Diocese, toward their Bishop. The reports laid before it, and there made to me, gave strong evidence of the divine goodness in blessing the Diocese with a large meas- ure of spiritual and temporal good. Rejoicing in the consolation and encouragement thus afforded, I repaired to the General Convention, and gave myself to its duties in a spirit of humble and grateful devotion to the Church. Soon, however, it became manifest, from the deportment of several of my Right Reverend brethren, that they had somewhat against me. They said nothing. Not a word did I hear of any rumors or accusations against me ; not a word of a brother's anxiety to be set right; not a word of fraternal warning, caution, or admo- nition. Cold, repulsive, discourteous manner, told a dark and uncertain tale on which Christian converse might and should have thrown light. Some six or seven days after the opening of the Convention, when the House of Bishops were about coming to order, Bishop Meade approached me, and suggested that I had better leave the House. I expressed my surprise, and asked why he made the suggestion. He said he could not explain the reasons, but again urged me to absent myself. On my repeat- ing my surprise at a proposition so dark and suspicious, and so little com- porting with the courtesy of a gentleman, the duty of a friend and brother, and the proprieties of a Christian, he said that if I continued in the House my feelings might be hurt. This increased my surprise, and I demanded of him his reasons for so strange a procedure. He hesitated about giving any explanation. I warmly expostulated with him on the injustice and wickedness of the course he was pursuing. At length, as if reluctantly compelled, he said that there were reports unfavorable, to my character, respecting which he wished to take the counsel of the Bishops. I felt what I trust was just indignation, and expressed myself to this effect: — Now my course is clear. I will not shrink. I will remain at my post. If any man has aught against me, let him look me in the face, and say what it is. I also spoke strongly of his unworthy design of inducing me to withdraw, that he might, in my absence, make my character and conduct the subject of discussion in the House of Bishops. He replied, Not in the House of Bishops, but before the Bishops informally ! ! This unholy evasion was the subject of severe remarks ; but I trust not more severe than it deserved. I asked what were the charges against me ? He said he was not at liberty to tell; and there our conversation ended. This was all I ever heard from this brother of his having aught against me until he was about to become one of my presenters for trial. Yet I have good evidence that Bishop Meade had, for years, been speaking against me, and con- tributing towards public rumor to my prejudice. After some time, Bishop Meade came to me again, and said, in substance, You were right. I will have nothing more to do with the matter. They must attend to their own business. These last words satisfied me that he had been acting in concert with others. And when we consider the darkness and secrecy with which he acted his part, how can an honorable 72 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. and Christian man think otherwise than that he was connected with a con- spiracy against me ! On, I think, Monday, October 14th, the Presiding Bishop, in his place in the House of Bishops, held in his hand a paper, of which a copy had been previously sent to me, directed to him as President, which he asked if it was the pleasure of the House to have read. Its purport was demanded by one of the Bishops. Bishop Chase, the Presiding Bishop, said that it related to the character and conduct of the Bishop of New- York, and he asked me if I wished to retire. Of course, so extraordinary an inquiry was answered in the negative. Earnest remonstrance was made by several of the Bishops against the propriety of such a paper having been brought into the House, and against its being received, opened, or read ; because it was uncanonical and disorderly to bring a Bishop's character under the official notice of his brethren, except in the mode pointed out by law. The ultimate result was a refusal to receive the document, and its being returned unopened to the persons who had presented it. I need hardly say, that I felt myself deeply injured by the Presiding Bishop in his allowing himself to be an agent in so irregular and unjust a procedure, as bringing such a document into the House. — Statement of Facts, January, 1845. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE BISHOP AND THE PRESENTERS. LETTER OF THE PRESENTERS. New-York, November 5, 1844. Right Reverend and Dear Brother — During the investigation of the painful charges which have been laid before us, affecting the purity of your conduct, a short Pastoral Address to the clergy and laity of your Diocese [see p. 70] has been handed us, which leads us to suppose, that notwithstanding the clear definition of the position in which we now stand in relation to yourself, made in your presence in the House of Bishops, you misunderstand that position, and assume it to be connected with per- sons and circumstances with which it has no concern whatever. These charges, you may remember, were laid before the House of Bish- ops in a memorial purporting to come from two highly respectable clergy- men, and three equally respectable laymen of the Church, and all holding the responsible office of Trustees of the General Theological Seminary. Of these memorialists, two or three had been solemnly charged by the Diocese of South Carolina to investigate rumors affecting the welfare of the Seminary; and in the course of that investigation, these charges against your moral purity had come before them in such a responsible shape, that they felt compelled, by a sense of duty, to lay them before the House of Bishops as Visitors of the Seminary. You may remember likewise, that upon the appearance of that memorial, an excited discussion was likely to arise respecting the right of the Bishops to receive such a paper coming in such a shape, when one of us, your brethren, and in your presence, submitted certain questions determining the position of any three Bishops, who might entertain for presentment the charges of the said memorialists. These questions laid over for a whole day, during which the propositions of the Bishop of Western New-York, respecting alterations in the Constitution of the Foreign and Domestic Missionary NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 73 Society, were discussed ; and upon the next morning a full and free dis- cussion was had in your presence, you yourself taking part in the conver- sation, in which these points were considered as combining the views of the House of Bishops : 1. That the three Bishops presenting occupied very much the position of a grand jury, who are to take care that the evidence submitted to them was such as to make out a prima facie case against the accused. 2. That these Bishops should not be considered justifiable in presenting, except upon the testimony of responsible persons, delivered before them- selves personally, or duly witnessed before some civil magistrate qualified to administer an oath. 3. That the acts charged, or if constituting a sequence, some of them at least, should come within a period of time not barred by an equitable stat- ute of limitations. Under these circumstances, and with these news, we, as your brethren, and with the purpose of shielding you from rumors which were deeply affecting your character, and preventing a public exposure of you upon ex parte evidence, as well as for the protection of the House of Bishops against the imputation of refusing to listen to charges against any one of its body, have been placed in the painful position which we now occupy in relation to yourself. We can assure you that we have none other than the kindest feelings towards you as a man, and trust in God that you will be enabled to answer to the satisfaction of the House of Bishops the charges which we shall feel bound, as things now appear, to present against you to the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church. From your Pastoral, you seem to labor under another misapprehension, which we hasten to remove. And that is, that there has been any secrecy in this matter, or any hunting after evidence on our part. Every paper received by us in Philadelphia was frankly and freely read by one of our number to Bishop Ives, Dr. Wainwright, and Dr. Berrian, with the under- standing that their contents should be communicated fully to yourself, and with the promise which we now perform, that no final action should be had in this case, until you and your friends had been advised of the same. Since our arrival in New-York, we have not been collecting, but receiv- ing and sifting testimony; and by this caution have been enabled to clear up, satisfactorily to ourselves, one of the most disagreeable of the charges which had been laid before us. We are compelled, however, to state, that enough remains, as will appear from the articles accompanying this communication, together with the names of the witnesses, to render it incumbent upon us to lay the matter before the House of Bishops, that you may, God helping you, forever put at rest these charges against your moral purity, or else receive humbly the punishment which may be meted out to you in the premises. We sincerely trust that you will not misconceive our motives, nor mis- understand our course of action. Our desire is, we repeat it, for your sake and the Church's sake, to bring out the truth, and nothing but the truth, a.nd to pray you to help us in it, that your character may stand before the world, as that of a Christian Bishop should, blameless and spotless. We have delayed making this communication until we ascertained, sat- isfactorily to ourselves, that it was necessary to trouble you at all upon this painful matter. And now commending you to God, we remain, very sincerely and affec- tionately, Your brethren in the Episcopate, William Meade, D. D., Ja. H. Otey, Stephen Elliott, Jr. 74 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. BISHOP ONDERDONK'S REMARKS. The above letter was accompanied by a document containing — not copies of the affidavits, which I had particularly desired to see, and the granting of the request to see which had been guaranteed by Bishop Elliott's promise and pledge, but — the charges intended to be embodied in the presentment; and a verbal message that they would receive any com- munication from me the next morning at ten o'clock* This was the only redemption of Bishop Elliott's repeated pledge, that before the affidavits were used for the purpose of presentment, any request should be granted for my friends and myself to see or hear them, with opportunity of offering to the presenters explanations or counter-state- ments. My friends in this city were patiently and respectfully waiting, in sure expectation of an honorable redemption of the pledge, when I was told, at ten o'clock at night, that we were allowed until ten o'clock the next morning ! I need not say how useless was this offer, and how utter the fallacy of any distinction that may be imagined between the sending of this letter and document, and the serving upon me at once of the presentment. Thus it appears, that although it had been boastfully vaunted, as early as about the middle of October, that proof of guilt was in posses- sion sufficient for my official destruction, and was deposited with Bishop Elliott, with whom Bishops Meade and Otey were soon connected, yet was it not until November 5th that I was apprized of their readiness to pro- ceed. Meanwhile, if I am rightly informed, they gained no new affidavit, nor could aught be found against me for a period more recent than nearly two years and a half. Ample opportunity, however, had thus been afforded to my enemies for prosecuting their designs. Nor was it unimproved by them. Every effort was made to ruin me in the estimation of the Church and the world. The most barefaced falsehoods were circulated verbally and through the press. Through the influence of the latter, my character and conduct were subjected to the most scurrilous abuse in all parts of the country; an evil which, it is obvious, pampering as it does the basest and most malignant, but not on that account the least welcome, passions and affections of the natural heart, it is hard and toilsome for virtue and integrity to arrest. Such was the cruel treatment to which I was subjected by the delays of the presenters, and the abominable practices against me which those de- lays encouraged ; when, as appears by the issue, their work could have been as well done at least a fortnight earlier. No one need be told how much, through press and tongue, a fortnight may accomplish, in the work of evil-speaking, lying, and slandering, when an aggravated case is sought to be made out. and the ruin of an obnoxious individual is the object. — Statement of Facts, January, 1845. * At thi3 time two of my presbyters called on the presenting Bishops, and remonstrated with them on the shortness of the time allowed. They offered another day. So evident, however, was their haste to make up for past delay, and indeed so incompetent even the additionally allowed time to answer the purpose originally designed by my request and Bishop Elliott's promise — seeing that my past ignorance of the particular charges had allowed me no opportunity of preparatioa— that the real character of the procedure was not thua materially altered. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 75 BISHOP ONDERDONK's REPLY TO THE PRESENTERS. To the Right Reverend Bishops Meade, Otey, and Elliott : Brethren — Your communication of yesterday was handed to me last evening. You are mistaken in supposing that in what I say of u plans, means, and efforts," in my short address to the clergy and people of my charge SBee page 70], I had any reference to yourselves. I referred to what I un- erstood to be the movements of the two clergymen and three laymen of whom you speak, and of others prompted by them ; and especially the plans and efforts for obtaining the presence and services of the Rev. James C. Richmond, a brother who, for whatever erroneous course he may pur- sue, is probably more entitled to pity than blame ; and who, I may observe here, not a month before the meeting of the General Convention, had called on me, and expressed a warm desire to return to my Diocese, that he might stand by me in my troubles, and be my friend. Whether, how- ever, they who make use of such a one are equally exempt from blame, I leave to sound principle and correct feeling to determine. In what I say of not being allowed to see statements made against me, I frankly confess that I do refer, in part, to Bishop Elliott. He had the papers. He knew I wished to see them. He knew I asked to see them. He knew I desired an interview with him respecting them. He refused both to let me see them, and to converse with me about them. I consider what was at length done in reading them to some of my friends by no means an equivalent to the act of justice and brotherly regard which I asked. It was yielded, as I was told, not without difficulty. The like was refused to others of my friends who earnestly sought it ; and in the measure and mode in which it was conceded, I was not allowed the com- mon justice of selecting the friends to whom that would be granted as a boon which was equitably due. I have no fault to find with the choice which was made ; but I contend that the choice should have been my own. In this matter of refusing me a sight or hearing of the accusations brought against me, and leaving me to gather a knowledge of them from the im- pressions made on, and the recollections had by, friends not of my own choosing, Mr. Trapier, and those associated with him, are connected in my mind with Bishop Elliott ; and I am not aware in what exact measure they are respectively to be held responsible. Your view of the opinions expressed by the Bishops, touching the true character and relations of presenters, is, according to my recollection, not strictly accurate. It appears to me that it was generally understood that presenting Bishops sustained a position differing in many important re- spects from presenters or prosecutors in civil or criminal courts. While their relation to the Church is that of jealous guardians of its purity, good repute, and interests, they should also sustain to the accused the relation of friend and brother, bound to him by very near sympathies, and acting as a shield and defence for him against the malice of the world, and the persecutions of public rumor and accusation. Hence I certainly gathered it to be the general opinion of the Bishops, that the fraternal relations be- tween the accused and those who may move in the matter of his present- ment, were not to be sacrificed : but that he should expect, and they should concede, all opportunity on his part to place his explanations and counter- statements in the opposite scale to that in which the assertions of his accusers were cast, for such consideration as to those his Episcopal breth- ren may seem right in the full acting out of their solemn obligation so to 76 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. minister discipline as not to forget mercy, and be so merciful as not to be too remiss. It is a matter of unfeigned surprise to me, that in your enumeration of the opinions of the Bishops, relative to the character, relations, and duties of presenters, you should have omitted an item of very great importance, included in Bishop Elliott's able and clear remarks on the subject. I allude to malicious motive. He emphatically stated this as a matter to be looked into before any Bishops should consent to be presenters. I have heard it spoken of by brother Bishops as evidence of his high, honorable, and just principles and views. How could you have omitted it ? It neces- sarily supposes an opportunity to the accused of being heard. In the present case, brethren, if the opportunity were given which BMiop Elliott's repeated pledge was justly deemed to secure. I assume that a clear case of malicious motive may be made out; that other views than regard for the purity of the Church may be shown as lying at the foundation of this movement ; and that a well-defined conspiracy, not, it is to be feared, falling short of our own house in its comprehensiveness, may be made manifest. Your expressions, brethren, of kindness and friendship, are very well. There are a practical extent and operation, however, in these virtues, en- forced by sound morals and Christian principle, which require something more than words as evidence of the truth and sincerity of the profession of them. Now, what evidence have I had in reference to yourselves ? For the last few days of my continuance in Philadelphia, the conduct of each of you towards me was the reverse of fraternal, friendly, or courteous ; and anything but indicative of your being governed by the essentially just maxim of esteeming a man innocent until he is proved guilty. It was very obvious that you had prejudged my case, and secretly pronounced me guilty. Of Bishop Elliott I sought a brotherly interview, which he denied me. Since your arrival in this city, not one of you has been near me. You have been among my people, preached to them, to a certain ex- tent sought their money for your Dioceses ; used the sanction which myself gave you for doing so ; and yet not paid me the ordinary official courtesy of a call at my residence. You have had your ears open to all the gossip and scandal which men reducing themselves to the low caste of informers and panders could seek out and scrape together for the use of my inveterate enemies. It being thus known that there were Bishops here who made it their business to receive, examine, and sift, such testimony, has done more to bring public scandal on the Church than all else connected with this business ; and has given an intensity of malignant effort to men desperately set upon my ruin. You have thus been the means of creating the public rumor which is, I understand, an assumed ground of action for the defence and purifying of the Church. Thus have you contributed to make me, and through me our office, our Church, and our religion, a scoffing to the pro- fane : and done not a little to aggravate my wretchedness, and help the purpose of my enemies to bring on my ruin. Contrast with all this what you say of friendly and Christian feelings towards me. You speak of having "been enabled to clear up satisfactorily one of the most disagreeable of the charges which had been laid before" you- What this is, you say not. Report, before I left Philadelphia, and since I came home, has said that you were in possession of an affidavit charging me with presence in a house of ill-fame. The report, as was to be expected, spread widely. As was also to be expected, it swelled in character until the act was magnified into a habit. As my friends, you were bound to give me at once the name of my false accuser, that he might be summarily NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 77 prosecuted for his villainy. Is it possible that this is the " disagreeable^ thing to which you so coolly advert ? Had you allowed me the opportunity which Bishop Elliott's pledge made my right, I might have enabled you to clear up other charges against me. The subject of your professed kind and friendly feelings toward me is inseparably connected in my mind with peculiar circumstances relating to two of your number. Of Bishop Meade I was asked, two or three days ago, whether I considered him my friend. The question was put by a gentleman who had been in Virginia, and who said that his doubts on the subject were the result of what he had there heard, I think from the Bishop himself. I cannot but connect this with his present position, and particularly with his effort, at the late General Convention, to get rid of me, that he might, in my absence, make my character the subject of re- mark among my brethren. Of Bishop Otey, too, I am compelled to speak, in this connection, though with great pain. At different times an inmate of my family, much be- loved and esteemed by them, he has not now called to see us. He has avoided all intercourse with me. He has, as one of you, been accessible to all sorts of stories against me, and such as he must know my enemies design to push to my ruin and degradation, and to the wretchedness and penury of my family. He can yet find it in his heart to give me no chance of explanation; and still unite in professions of brotherly regard and Christian kindness. Had Bishop Elliott's pledge, brethren, been redeemed in its true spirit and meaning, I could have added various considerations not unmeet to have been regarded by you in connection with the question of present- ment. So obvious, however, is it that your minds are set, and your deter- mination formed, that I cannot but regard such considerations as useless. I leave the whole matter in your hands ; willing to meet any investigation which you may think fit to institute. Deeply grieved at what I cannot but think the unjust and ungenerous treatment which I have received at your hands, I still beg you to be assured of the continued prayers for your individual welfare, and for a blessing on your official functions, of Your brother in Christ, Benjamin T. Onderdonk. New-York, November 6, 1844. ANSWER OF PRESENTERS. New-York, November 9, 1844. Right Reverend and Bear Brother — Yours of the sixth instant, received by us on the evening of the eighth, requires only a few words in reply. "We consider the promise made by one of our number in Philadelphia as fulfilled in letter and in spirit by our communication of the fifth in- stant. "We reiterate what we stated in that communication, that we havfe acted throughout this whole matter, in a frank and generous manner to you and your friends, and that there has been no secrecy, at any moment, in regard to our position, .or the evidence received by us. We regret to per- ceive in your reply that the motives of our action are questioned; but in this stage of the business we deem it inconsistent with our duty to enter upon any discussion of that matter. We trust that the conduct of the trial will be such as to satisfy you that our single desire is to bring out the truth, and nothing but the truth, and settle these painful charges one way 78 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. or the other. As the case is now in the hands of the Presiding Bishop, we must decline any further correspondence upon these matters. Reciprocating your prayers and good wishes, We remain your brethren in the Church, William Meade, James H. Otey, Stephen Elliott, Jr. PASTORAL LETTER ON THE PRESENTMENT. To the Clergy and People of My Spiritual Charge : Brethren — The object of the threats to which I referred in my recent letter to you, [see p. 70] has been in a measure accomplished. After several weeks given to diligent hunting up of causes of accusation against me, a few specifications, all assigned to years gone by, have been deemed sufficient to warrant the further and more formal investigation of a trial. Your Bishop, therefore, is now the subject of a Canonical Presentment.^ My humble trust, through Christ, in Him of whom the inspired word saith, " the righteous Lord loveth righteousness : His countenance will behold the thing that is just," affords me a consolation, support, and confidence, for which I cannot be sufficiently thankful. Never, dear brethren, could I, with clearer conscience, and never with purer and more heartfelt devotion, than now, minister among you. In my present position, however, an avoidance of public ministrations may be rea- sonably expected. I submit. For the present I suspend all Public Ser- vices. Believe me, however, that on that very account, my prayers in your behalf will be the more frequent and earnest. This is a privilege and con- solation of which, thank God, my enemies cannot deprive me ; and that I shall be the subject of your faithful fervent prayers is an assurance full of comfort to the heart of Your affectionate Pastor, Benj. T. Onderdonk, New-York, November 11, 1844. Bishop of New-York. VERDICT OF MAJORITY OF COURT. The undersigned, being the majority of the Court of Bishops, convened under the authority of the 3d Canon of A. D. 184-t, passed in the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, to try the Presentment addressed to the Bishops of the said Church by the Right Reverend William Meade, Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, the Right Reverend James Hervey Otey, Bishop of the Diocese of Tennessee, and the Right Reverend Stephen Elliott, Jr., Bishop of the Diocese of Georgia, against the Right Reverend Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, Bishop of the Diocese of New- York — do hereby declare that the said Court, having fully heard the allegations and testimony of the parties, and deliberately considered the same, after the parties had withdrawn, did declare respectiveby, whether, in their opinion, the accused was guilty or not guilty of the charges and specifications contained in the Presentment, in the order in which they are set forth ; and the undersigned, being a majority of the said Court, were thereupon found to have concurred in pronouncing that the said Right Reverend Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk is guilty of the first, the second, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth articles, containing the charges and specifications therein expressed of the said Presentment, as by reference to the same will more fully appear ; and do, thereupon, declare him guilty of immorality and impurity, as the same is charged in the Presentment, and set forth in the said specifications. " * The Presentment and Canonical summons to attend the trial were served upon Bishop On- derdonk on November 9, 1S44. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 79 In testimony whereof, the said majority have hereunto set their hands, at the session of the said Court, holden in the city of New- York, on the 2d day of January, A. D. 1845. Phtl. Chase,* Bishop of Illinois., and Sen. Bishop and President of the Court. Thos. C. Brownell, Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut. John H. Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont. B. B. Smith, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Kentucky. Chas. P. McIlvaine, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Ohio. Leonidas Polk, Bishop of the Diocese of Louisiana. Alfred Lee, Bishop of the Diocese of Delaware. John Johns, Assistant Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia. Manton Eastbuen, Bishop of the Diocese of Massachusetts. J. P. K. Henshaw, Bishop of Rhode Island. Geo. W". Freeman, Missionary Bishop for Arkansas, &c. * The foundation of Bishop Chase's hostility to Bishop Onderdonk ha3 already been pointed out (See p. 47), and it began to be manifested when Bishop Chase, eager to become tbe accuser of his brother, published a pamphlet charging Bishop Onderdonk with bringing alarming evil3 upon the Church, by the ordination of the Rev. Arthur Carey. Bishop Onderdonk j ustly com- plained of this censure of his official acts, and demanded that Bishop Chase, together with Bish- ops Hopkins and Mcllvaine, who had united as his accusers before the world, should either virtu- ally withdraw their charges or present him for heresy (See p. 54) This latter alternative they did not dare to accept ; but, a3 the reader will have observed, they, in connection with his other enemies, attained their object by trying him, at a subsequent period, for " immorality and impurity," while they really meant " Puseyism," and "Tracts for the Times." Bishop Chase, however, answered Bishop Onderdonk's complaint and challenge in the following extra- ordinary manner: " I did not think I was injuring you personally or officially, when I wrote my " Caveats " against Popery in the pamphlet alluded to. As to the crime of blaming a Bishop for his official acts (if it be a crime), I had your example to lead me to it. When I was in England in 1824, try- ing to obtain funds for an institution of sacred learning in my then Diocese of Ohio, you wrote a much thicker pamphlet against me, and sent that pamphlet across the Atlantic, even to Lon- don, that great city, wherein it was distributed with much zeal and great numbers among the Bishops, and Lords of the Council, Universities, and clergy, and people at large, so that if the good God had not raised up friends who thought differently from yourself, in a way almost miraculous, my cause would have been ruined, and myself sent back in disgrace. You were then a "Presbyter," and signed your pamphlet as such. You therein publicly attacked me, a Bishop ; and in no measured terms, held up my conduct to public contempt. 1 ' — Churchman, March 9, 1S44. To attempt to institute an analogy, a3 Bishop Chase has done, between his conduct and that of " Presbyter," is, to say the least, unfair and worthy of censure, even supposing the Bishop to have been ignorant of the fact, that Bishop Onderdonk's pamphlet was written in reply to an attack made on Bishop Hobart, by the vestry of Christ Church, Cincinnati, in behalf of Bishop Chase. Perhaps, however, the analogy may be excused on the ground that Bishop Chase did not see that his going to England to collect funds was not an Episcopal act. As to the merits of this contro- versy, it should be enough to say, that a majority of the Bishops had, previous to the departure of Bishop Chase, expressed to him their disapprobation of hi3 proposal to apply to the English Church for the funds required to establish his favorite local institution of learning. In addition to the adverse opinions of Bishops White, Hobart, Moore, Kemp, Croes, and Brownell, respecting hi3 scheme, he was also opposed by the Standing Committee of the General Theological Seminary, and the Board of Directors of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, both of which bodies passed resolutions conformable to the view3 advanced by the majority of the Bishops to whom, as before intimated, he had unsuccessfully applied for letters of approbation. And still he went ! 80 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. BISHOP ONDERDONK'S SOLEMN PROTEST.* The folio-wing paper, read by Bishop Onderdonk in the Court of Bishop?, January 3, 1845, " offering his reasons in excuse or palliation of the sen- tence to be passed ' J upon him, though doubtless familiar to his old friends will be new to many into whose hands this pamphlet may fall : — Right Reverend Fathers and Brethren — By the decision of a majority of your Bight Reverend body, I am pronounced li guilty" of several charges which have been preferred against me ; and in conformity with the Canoni- cal provision, I am now before you to declare whether I have aught to say in excuse or palliation. Human courts, Right Reverend Brethren, can take cognizance only of outward actions. It is by these I am to be righteously judged by you, or by any human tribunal : for God alone seeth the heart. The acts laid to my charge are declared by a majority of your Court to be proved: nor does it now become me to question the truth of your decision — but in excuse, or palliation, I hereby protest, before this Court, and before Al- mighty God, my entire innocence of all impure or unchaste intention. It is the intention, Right Reverend Fathers and Brethren, which consti- tutes guilt ; but it is not every outward act that interprets the inward in- tention. There are, indeed, acts, such I mean as adultery, incest, fornica- tion, which are undoubted proofs of indwelling impurity ; and these acts are wisely and mercifully defined, and forbidden under adequate penalties by human laws. Such acts are justly punished by human tribunals, be- cause they have been previously defined and prohibited; and they are safely punished by human tribunals, because they are unquestioned proofs of guilt, and may be adjudged so to be without clanger of encroaching on the rights of man, or the prerogative of God. But the acts for which I am arraigned before you are not of this description. They are of a new and unprecedented class for judicial cognizance ; and I further plead that they are not, necessarily, proofs of impurity, and that, therefore, they are not safely punishable ; that they are not defined and forbidden by pre- script laws, *and that, therefore, they are not justly punishable by any human tribunal. As the acts laid to my charge are not of that decisive character as to be safe matters of judicial cognizance, so neither are they of that number in their kind as to be proofs of habitual impurity. Habitual impurity of thought, such as to condemn a man before God, may exist without showing itself in gross crimes ; yet surely it can never be proved to exist by six or seven acts, not amounting to forbidden crimes, separated, some of them, by an interval of one, two, or more years, and extending altogether through a space of more than five years. On this ground, I further plead in excuse or palliation, that the acts charged are too few in number to constitute hab- itual impurity. As the acts laid to my charge are few in number, so are they remote in time, retrograding from two and a half to seven and a half years ago. And though my conscience does not upbraid me with impurity in the acts * Bishop Onderdonk afterwards published the following, respecting this document, in his State, merit of Facts : "■ It has be sufficiency of the evidence for the verdict which had been found. This is the amount of the alleged admission. There will also be found in the address proof that in- quiry into the evidence wa3 only waived, not abandoned." NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 81 alleged, (the most of which. I heard for the first time in October last, as al- leged to my discredit,) yet have I long lived in a state of repentance for all my sins, known and unknown, and habitually sought forgiveness for them from the mercy of God, for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ. And as no act, for nearly two years and a half, is or can be appealed to, to show the insincerity of my repentance, or profession of repentance, I further plead in excuse or palliation, that the acts charged on me are too remote in time to convict me of present guilt. If suffering were an atonement for faults, I might plead the anguish of mind to which myself, my family, and, I will add, my Diocese, which is dearer to me than both, have been subjected by interruption of my pas* toral labors, and the injuries and indignities to which, from the first step towards a presentment, I have been constantly exposed. If the consciousness of human fallibility, the fear lest, by possibility, the innocent may be punished, should restrain the confidence or mitigate the rigor of judgment, I would beseech my Right Reverend Brethren to remember that there is not, as in most other judicatories, an appeal from their decision. The sentence which you will pronounce, Right Reverend Brethren, will be reconsidered by no other court in the Church, but is at once the first and the last which the existing laws of the Church provide. As punishments, in all human justice, are graduated to crimes, I re- spectfully request that the Court will bear in mind these grounds of excuse or palliation, (if they be accepted as such), in order that they may right- eously proportion my sentence to the offences of which, by a majority of their number, I am convicted. Thus much, Right Reverend Fathers and Brethren, I have thought that I might say, consistently with Christian humility, and due respect for the decision of a majority of your Court. To enter into a consideration of the evidence on which this decision is founded, and of the influences which, in my humble, though perhaps too partial judgment, have combined to pro- duce it, would be neither respectful to you, nor consistent with the Canoni- cal privilege which is now awarded to me. On these points, therefore, I am at present silent, as in duty bound, and am content to wait with meek- ness the sentence which you are about to pronounce. That I look forward to this sentence with deep anxiety, I do not affect to disguise. But believe me, Right Reverend Fathers and Brethren, my anxiety is not solely for myself; but also for the Church, and for this Court. As respects me, your decision is final for this world, and your power supreme. But, brethren, solemnly protesting as I have protested, and do now protest, be- fore Almighty God and this Court, my entire innocence of all impurity, unchasteness, or immorality, in the acts laid to my charge, and confiding, as I firmly do, in the justice of Almighty God, and the honest judgment of His Church, I of course believe that an unjust sentence of this Court will neither be ratified in Heaven, nor sustained on earth, after the light of rea- son and truth shall have dispelled, as it surely will dispel, the mists of pre- judice and passion. That the sentence which my Right Reverend Breth- ren are now to pronounce on the most unworthy of their number may not alienate from our body the confidence of the Church, and plunge her into irretrievable distraction, may God. of His infinite mercy, grant through Jesus Christ. ACTUAL VOTES OF THE COURT 1. The Bishop of Illinois (P. Chase.) 2. Tue Bishop of Connecticut (Brownell.) 3. The Bishop of Noeth Cabollna (Ives.) 4. The Bishop of Vebmont (Hopkins.) 5. The Bishop of Kentucky (Smith.) 6. The Bishop of Ohio (Mcllvaine.) 7. The Bishop of New-Jeeset (Doane.) 8. The Bishop of the Noeth Westebn Mis- sionaby Diocese (Kemper.) 9. The Bishop of Louisiana (Polk.) 10. The Bishop of Westeen New-Yobk. (De Lancey.) 11. The Bishop of South Caeolina.. (Gadsden.) FlBST SCBUTINY. Bishop of Illinois : Deposition. Bp. of Connecticut : Let the Respondent be Suspended. I have declared by my vote that I consider the Rt. Rev. B. T. Onderdonk, Bishop of New- York, not guilty of the charges alleged in the Presentment ; but, as I am called upon by the Canon for my sentence, I hereby pronounce that he receive as slight an admonition as the Canon will admit, L. Silliman Ives, Bp. of Xo. Ca. Deposition. John H. Hopktns, Bishop of Vermont. Let him be suspended. B. B. Smith, Bp. of the P. E. Ch. in the Dio. of Rrj. Bishop of Ohio : Deposition. I have declared the Respondent not guilty, and so believe him ; but, as a majority of the Court have decided otherwise, and sentence must be passed, mine is : Let him receive the lightest admonition con- templated by the Canon. G. W. Doane, Bishop of New- Jersey. Admonition. Jackson Kempee. Jan., 1845. The Bp. of Louisiana votes for Deposition. Admonition. W. H. De Lancet. Inasmuch as the Canon seems to make it ne- cessary that some penalty should be awarded, the Bishop of South Carolina is in favor of Admonition. 12. The Bishop of Mabyland.. (Whittingham.) My sentence is for the lightest degree of Admonition. William Rolllnson Whittingham, Bishop of Maryland. 13. The Bishop of DelAwabe (A. Lee.) Deposition. Alfeed Lee. 14. The Assistant Bishop of Vieglnia. (Johns.) For Deposition. * J. Johns. 15. TnE Bishop of Massachusetts... (Eastburn.) Deposition. M. Eastburn. 16. The Bishop of Rhode Island. ..(Henshaw.) Let him be deposed. J. P. K. Henshaav. 17. The Bishop of the South Westebn Mis- sionaby Diocese (Freeman.) Let him be suspended. Geo. W. Fbeeman, Miss'y Bp. of Arkansas. UPON THE SENTENCE Second Scbuttny. Thied Scbutiny. Deposition. Bp. of Illinois. Bp. of Illinois : Deposition. Bp. of Connecticut : Suspension. Bp. of Connecticut : Suspension. Admonition. L. Silixman Ives, Bp.ofKo. Ca. Suspension, to ward off Deposition. L. Silltman Ives, Bp. of No. Ca. Deposition. John H. Hopkins, Bishop of Vermont. Deposition. John H. Hopkins, Bishop of Vermont. Under the conviction that the effect of convic- tion must be forever to destroy the usefulness of the Respondent, I accede to the vote of those who are in favor of Deposition. B. B Smith, Bp. of the P. E. Ch. in the Dio. of Ky. Deposition. B. B. Smith, Bp. of the P. E. Ch. in the Dio. of Ky. Bp of Ohio : Deposition. Bp. of Ohio : Deposition. Admonition. G. W. DOANE. There being twice a failure to unite in any sentence, I accede to Suspension. G. W. Doanb Admonition. Jackson Kempee. Kempee : Suspension. Bp. of Louisiana : Deposition. Bp. Louisiana : Deposition. Slight admonition. W. H. De Lancet. Suspension. W. H. De Lancet. I accede to Suspension. Bp. of the Diocese of South Carolina. 3d Vote : I accede to Suspension. Bp. So. Carolina. My sentence is for admonition, but perceiving that there is no hope of securing a majority of votes for that, I accede to the sentence of Suspen- sion. William Rolllnson Whtttingham, Bishop of Maryland. My sentence is for admonition, but in the conviction that a majority will not be given for that sentence, I accede to the sentence of Sus- pension. William Rollinson Whtttingham, Bishop of Maryland. 2d Voting : Suspension. Alfred Lee. Deposition. Alfeed Lee. For Deposition. J. Johns. For Deposition. J. Johns. Suspension. M. Eastbuen. Deposition. Manton Eastbuen. Deposition. J. P. K. Henshaw. Suspension. J. P. K. Henshaw. Let him be suspended. Geo. W. Feeeman. Suspension. G. W. F. 84 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. ANALYSIS OF THE VOTES. " After an entire failure, a complete rout of all the efforts of the Puritanical clique, both in the Now- York Convention and in the General Convention, and when, by such failure, Bishop Onder- donk's course had finally been virtually approved, one last desperate effort was made, and the of- fending member cut off, by the very votes of some who had openly arraigned and denounced hia conduct in the Ordination of Mr. Carey." — Voice of Truth, jVo. V., p. 7. Bishops. Opposed to the Bishop First Scrutiny. Second Scrutiny. Third Scrutiny. Personally and doctrinally. Doctrinally. Deposition. Suspension. Admonition. Deposition. Suspension. Deposition. Admonition. Admonition. Deposition. Admonition. Admonition. Admonition. Deposition. Deposition. Deposition. Deposition. Suspension. Deposition. Suspension. Admonition. Deposition. Deposition. Deposition. Admonition. Admonition. Deposition. Admonition. Suspension. Suspension. Suspension. Deposition. Suspension. Deposition. Suspension. Deposition. Suspension. Suspension. Deposition. Deposition. Deposition. Suspension. Suspension. Deposition. Suspension. Suspension. Suspension. Deposition. Deposition. Deposition. Suspension. Suspension. Personally and doctrinally. Doctrinally. Personally and doctrinally. 6. Ohio. 8. NOBTH WEST Doctrinally. Doctrinally. Doctrinally. Doctrinally. Doctrinally. Doctrinally. 14. Assistant Vibginia. 15. Massachusetts 16. Rhode Island 6 3 8 4 6 7 9 8 PRESENTING BISHOPS. Meade of Virginia, doctrinally. Otet, of Tennessee, doctrinally. Elliott, of Georgia, doctrinally. NT BISHOPS. McCoskbv, of Michigan. Chase, of New-Hampshire. Cobbs, of Alabama. Hawks, of Missouri. The following remarks upon the voters appeared in an editorial in The Churchman'' s Newspaper, published in London, February 18th, 1845 : " At hast six of the judges should not, from what we understand, have sat upon that bench to condemn their brother. Three* of them, if they had fol- lowed the usage of civil or military courts, would have declined to act ; and all were fit subjects for challenge, if challenge had been allowed. Those three stood before the Church as his accusers on another matter, each also having his private griefs to sway him. Of the other three, one was absent while nearly all of the testimony for the defence was submit- ted;! one is the assistant and expected successor of the Bishop who headed the prosecution,^ and one could enter upon the records of the Court an argument for a lighter punishment, and vote twice for the high- est.?" * Bishops Mcllvaine, Philander Chase, and Hopkins. t Bishop Johns, Assistant of Bishop Meade. t Bishop Brownell. § Bishop Smith. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 85 BISHOP DOANE ON THE VOTE FOR ADMONITION. The undersigned has declared his " opinion" that the Respondent in this case is not guilty of " immorality and impurity," as charged in the Present- ment. He holds to that conviction. A majority of the Court, however, have declared that, in their "opinion," he is " guilty;" and by the Canon, * the Court," of which the undersigned is one, must now " pass sentence, and award the penalty of admonition, suspension, or deposition." The undersigned, and those who agreed with him in " opinion," must withhold themselves from the further action of ft the Court," and so expose the Re- spondent, who, in their " opinion," is not guilty, to the highest sentence which the Canon knows; or else they must unite in consenting to a lower sentence on one, who, in their opinion, is deserving of none. Between these two, the undersigned does not permit himself to hesitate. ll Deposi- tion," by the present Canonical provisions of this Church, is irrevocable. Should such be the decision of a majority of this Court, not only the Re- spondent, but themselves would be cut off from any future beneficial action. The undersigned is bound in conscience, so far as in him lies, to avert a result so unjust and so unhappy. Therefore, although he has voted that the Respondent is "not guilty," and still believes him so, his "sentence" is, that he receive the lightest a admonition" permitted by the Canon. G. W. Doane, Bishop of New-Jersey. ON THE VOTE FOR SUSPENSION. The Court having failed, in two several scrutinies, to "'pass sentence" on the Respondent, by a majority of their votes, the undersigned now con- sents to " suspension," to avoid " deposition." G. W. Doane, Bishop of New-Jersey. DR. SEABURY ON THE SENTENCE. The subjoined extracts' are from a sermon by the Rev. Samuel Seabury, D. D., in reference to the trial of the Right Rev. Bishop Onderdonk, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of New-York, preached in the Church of the Annun- ciation, on Sunday, January 5th, 1845. " I was dumb with silence : I held my peace, even from good ; and my sorrow wa3 stirred." Ps. xxxix. 2. About two months have passed since, under one of those instructive figures which the Sacred History furnishes, I alluded to the fortunes of the Bishop of this Diocese, as one who, as I verily believed, was assailed by enemies, for no better reason than because an excellent spirit was in him. The presentment which was then brought against him, appeared to me to be the last of a series of party measures, and I had little doubt that, like previous measures of the same sort, it would fail, and recoil on the heads of the agents. I held my Bishop to be innocent of the charges brought against him ; and I hoped that the good providence of God would make his innocence manifest to the world Indeed, I then doubted whether the Court which was convened, would even enter upon the investigation which is now concluded. For I said to myself, and wiser and better men than I said the same, Here is a charge brought against my Bishop of im- 86 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. morality; a charge that he is now an immoral MAN, unworthy of his office ; and this charge is attempted to be supported by a few specified acts — I believe six in number — the latest of -which is alleged to have occurred two years and a half, and the first nearly eight years ago. Not one of these acts was a crime such as is properly cognizable in human courts : all were at the worst such offences against the decencies and manners of life as society is sufficiently shielded against by private expressions of displea- sure, and the established rules of social intercourse. On the supposition that they flowed from a wrong motive, and so were sinful in the eye of God, they were, as it seemed to me, too few in number to prove a habit of sin, and too remote in time to sustain the charge of present immorality. And I therefore argued that the Court, looking only at the face of the presentment, and without going at all into the investigation of the facts, might equitably dismiss the matter on the ground that the facts alleged, even if true, failed to support the charge. Or, if the investigation were made, and the specifications proved, I still did not believe that the charge would be held to be sustained. Or, at the worst, supposing the facts to be proved, and the charge sustained, I confess I did think that the immorality how believed to attach to the accused in consequence of acts so few in number, and so remote in time, would be regarded as meriting only the slightest form of punishment which the Canons provide. An admonition, or a short suspension, such as would allow time for a retreat from the absorbing cares and distractions of the Episcopal office, in order to a severe examination of conscience, and a new and holier preparation for the faithful discharge of its duties, seemed to me to be the extremest sentence which, in the worst view of the case, the Court would pronounce. Aware how prone the minds of men are, in tim^s of excitement, to be warped by the prejudices and heat of party animosities, and knowing that between a large portion of the Court and the accused there was neither personal nor party sympathy, but strong points of personal and theological repulsion; and aware also of the powerful pressure from without of a public opinion formed on principles adverse to the Church, and fearing that other members of the Court were not so far above human infirmity as to be independent of such influences, the thought of deposition did occasionally cross my mind. But I could not believe that such a sentence would be seriously contemplated. For it seemed to me to be an obvious dictate of Justice, that there should be some proportion between punishment and crime ; and a dictate of wisdom also, for surely it must greatly discourage, if not utterly blast, the virtue of penitent and ingenuous confession, and lead to studied dissimu- lation and hypocrisy, if offences comparatively (and only comparatively, for all sin is hateful in the eye of God) light, should be visited with the extremest rigors which the Canons provide. And besides, I supposed that degradation — a sentence which should never be contemplated save in those cases of aggravated crime which forbid all reasonable hope of clear and lasting repentance and restoration to usefulness, which would blast the prospects of the accused for life, and overwhelm himself and his family with dismay, anguish, and desolation — would be avoided by those members of the Court who had the least sympathy with the accused, if not from con- siderations of justice and wisdom, at least from considerations of prudence, since such a sentence could be reasonably viewed in no other light than as the evidence of a proscriptive and vindictive temper. Such, I say, were the honest expectations with which I awaited the approach and termina- tion of this trial. As the trial went forward, all that I had heard about the testimony of the witnesses went to excite my hopes for the best ; all that I heard about the temper of the Court went to excite my fears for the worst. But throughout the whole I have abstained from public comment. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 87 H I held my tongue, and spake nothing ; I kept silence, even from good words," though "my sorrow was stirred.''* But the trial is now ended; and the result is that our Bishop is adjudged Guilty hy a majority of the Court; and that while eight of its members voted, on one ballot, for degradation, a majority concurred, on a third bal- loting, in the sentence of suspension — unlimited, indefinite suspension — not only from his Episcopal office, but also from the exercise of his Ministry. I shall read the sentence, as I find it already, and for the first time, in a newspaper. OFFICIAL SENTENCE IK THE CASE OF BISHOP ONDERDONK. The Court of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, convened under the authority of Canon III. of 1844 of the General Convention of said Church, for the trial of the presentment of the Right Reverend Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, Bishop of the Diocese of New-York, by the Right Reverend William Meade, Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, the Right Reverend James Hervey Otey, Bishop of the Diocese of Tennesee, and the Right Reverend Stephen Elliott, Junior, Bishop of the Diocese of Georgia, upon certain charges and specifications in said presentment set forth ; having fully heard the allegations and testimony of the parties, and deliberately considered the same, and a majority of the said Court having declared, that in their opinion the accused is guilty of certain of the charges and specifications contained in the presentment ; which decla- ration of a majority of the Court has been reduced to writing, and signed by those who assented thereto, and has been pronounced in the presence of the parties ; and the Court having proceeded, after hearing the accused, to pass sentence upon the accused, in con- formity with the provisions of said Canon ; and having determined that the penalty to be affixed and pronounced in said case shall be that of Suspension, — It is hereby ordered and declared that the sentence of this Court upon the respondent is suspension from the office of a Bishop in the Church of God, and from all the functions of the Sacred Ministry ; and this Court do hereby solemnly pronounce and declare that the Right Reverend Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk is suspended from all exercise of his Episcopal and ministerial functions ; and do order that the notice of this sentence, required by said Canon, be communicated by the Presiding Bishop, uuder his hand and seal, to the ecclesiastical authority of every Diocese of this Church. Given under my hand and seal this the third [seal.J day of January, A. D. 1845. Philander Chase, Senior Bishop, and President of the Court. Brethren, I bow to the decision of* the Court ! With my confidence in the purity of the man unshaken, I bow to the decision which suspends the Bishop. With a firm belief that the verdict of this Court, which adjudges the Bishop to be guilty, will be reversed at the tribunal of God, and by the calm and deliberate judgment of the Church, I submit to a result brought about in conformity with her Canonical provisions. I offer no resistance, I make no complaints, I harbor no revenge against the instruments who have accomplished this result. Saving to myself my own right of opinion — my own right to repose confidence in what man soever I please — my own right, in all proper ways, to labor in vindication and support of one who (God be praised for this signal mercy) is my Bishop still, and having an eye only to the outward Court, I bow to this decision; and I ask you to look it fully and fairly in the face ; and reflect on your responsibility to God, how you ought to feel, and what you ought to do. It is told of Socrates. I believe, that while he was in prison, under sen- tence of death by a frenzied multitude, his friends provided for him a way of escape, and that he refused to avail himself of it, but preferred to remain and drink the hemlock in obedience to the law. It is said of Fenelon that he read from the pulpit, and declared his concurrence in, the sentence of the Pope who condemned his book. And we all know the story of the martyr Laud ; who was condemned, with the formalities of justice, by a 88 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. bigoted Puritanical faction, and cheerfully bared his neck to the axe of the executioner. Socrates was not guilty of the crime imputed to him, but he submitted to his sentence as if he were guilty. Feuelon did not believe his book to be erroneous, but he treated it as if it were erroneous. Laud did not believe his sentence to be just, but he prayed for his judges, blessed his executioner, and composed his mind, und laid his head on the block as cheerfully as if his sentence were just : and in fact far more cheer- fully than he could have done if the sentence had been just. So in relation to our Bishop. I believe that he is not guilty, but I am willing to conform to the sentence, as if he were guilty. I submit to the deprivation of Epis- copal services as long as the deprivation lasts. It is a confessed rule that the authority of an Ecclesiastical Council, con- sidered as influencing private judgment, should be estimated by the char- acter of its individual members, the influences under which they assemble and pursue their deliberations, the animus apparent in their proceedings, and by the reception accorded to their decision by the collective Church, after its grounds shall have been fully scrutinized. I am not inwardly bound, therefore, by the decision of this Court; I am not bound by any Church principle to conform my opinion to its judgment, but am free to think and to say, as I do think and say, that it deserves not the weight of a feather. THE " BANNER OF THE CROSS" ASSERTS THE ENTIRE INNOCENCE OF THE BISHOP. We commend to the notice of the present editor of the Banner of the Cross the following paragraph, which appeared editorially in that paper in 1845. If he had been so fortunate as to have seen this before penning a recent article, ungenerously reflecting upon the Bishop, it might have saved his readers the surprise and mortification produced by the perusal of senti- ments so foreign to the views of his predecessors — the Banner having here- tofore been a staunch defender of the persecuted prelate : tl Since the final adjournment of the Court, we have had particular and authentic information as to its proceedings ■ and the result is our present discharge of what we feel to be a high and solemn duty before God and the world, in calmly and deliberately proclaiming our thorough conviction of the entire innocence of Bishop Onderdonk. We say this with a full knowledge of all that is implied in it — with a just sense of the responsibil- ity we thus incur — and with all due respect and reverence for the major- ity of the Ecclesiastical Court. But we cannot hesitate a moment as to what the cause of truth and righteousness requires of us; and, whatever may be the consequences, sooner would we lay down our life than listen to that prudent policy which advises us to suspend our opinion. No; we have ' suspended' the expression of that opinion long enough ; satisfied we were, from the beginning, that such frivolous and unjust charges as were made the basis of the ' presentment 7 would never have been dreamed of, had it not been for the Ecclesiastical events of the last two years ; and were we still to ' hold our peace' when we see the Bishop the temporary victim of those who saw fit to maintain a profound silence, year after year, until, as their organ and leader (Col. Webb, of the New York Courier and En- NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 89 quirer) had the strange candor to avow it, they had ' arrived at the conclu- sion that the moment was auspicious' — ' the very stones would immediately cry out against us. J ;; THE "BUFFALO COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER" ON THE TRIAL. In arriving at a conclusion to my strictures on the evidence of the various charges against the Right Reverend Bishop Onderdonk, of New- York, I am conscious of having passed silently over much which would further tend to cast the whole affair into ridicule ; but the results are of too serious a nature to depart for a moment from the great object in hand — that of proving the Bishop innocent, and his opponents to be the tools and front of a deep-laid conspiracy, to succeed in which they have sacri- ficed modesty, virtue, honor, and truth. There is ample evidence to show, that all the charges, though occurring in different places and different periods, are closely allied, not through the women, but through their husbands and coadjutors.. There is evidence of these charges being nursed, from time to time, until the "propitious" day should arrive when they could pounce on their victim, as the tiger on his prey. What virtue, what station, what intellect, could resist such sys- tematic schemes of destruction ? And were three avowed enemies, of the Bench of Bishops, all men of ability, not sufficient to taint the minds of all the other Bishops, united together in Low Church principles ? It cer- tainly proved sufficient. Mr. Graham in his defence as Bishop's counsel, while advancing strong and substantial reasons for his client's acquittal, shows, in every line of his argument, that he knew how vain were all his truths and efforts, for he evidently felt that he was speaking in favor of a prejudiced man, and to a Court whose prejudices were so deeply implanted in them as not to be shaken by any appeal of either truth or mercy. We cannot be too grateful to those Bishops who decided that Bishop Onderdonk was innocent, for a difference of opinion in Court encourages public discussion on the merits of the charges ; and we should thank the convicting Bishops for publishing the evidence, as, by doing so, they unwit- tingly gave us the tools with which to expose either the weakness of their heads or the lurking sin of their hearts ; and I cannot help believing that the greatest slip in their proceedings was this publication. That a major- ity of unthinking people would, on the first perusal of these nauseous pages, decide the Bishop to be a very bad man, is true ; they foresaw that ; but, after a time, different heads exchange sentiments on the sub- ject, until, by and by, the whole public not wickedly prejudiced, will build around the venerable Prelate a bulwark of public favor, which will awe his enemies into doing him the only justice now in their power, Sad as the consequences of this terrible decision is, it would be more awful still, should the Bishop desert the cause of the rights of man, so far as to resign his office. May God give him courage to maintain his ground, and may he never forget that his resignation would be the first knell of departing freedom from the inhabitants of the most promising Republic of the world; and, whatever his injured feelings may be, let him, by adhering to his Diocese as their Bishop, pay beforehand that public, who will, ere long, do him most ample justice ! To see a great man, who has spent his whole life for others, crushed unjustly; to think of the blushing shame and misery of his faithful wife and daughters, if he has any; to think of the merciless doom to which he has been cruelly assigned, are enough to rouse, and it will rouse, the con- tempt and execration of the whole educated world against his sentence. 1845. Amicus Veritatis. 90 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. THE BISHOP'S REITERATION OF HIS ENTIRE INNOCENCE. There appears to have been, in the whole of the preparation for sub- jecting me to the late trial, a singular, and certainly a most unchristian effort, to evade the possibility of failing in that design, by not allowing the chance which our Divine Lord provides for his followers, of avoiding pub- lic discipline by the beneficent influence of private remonstrance. And surely not less singular and unchristian is the disposition thus manifested, to resist the Saviour's gracious purpose, in this blessed provision, of ward- ing off scandal to His Church. Three of the prominent actors in this matter, the Rev. Messrs. Paul Trapier, John B. Gallagher, and Clement M. Butler, had been connected with me by the sacred tie of Christian instructor and Christian pupils. Not one of them ever uttered to me a word indicative of wounded feeling, of knowledge of charges against me, or of solicitude for what might be the consequence of evil report on one who had ever treated them as a father and a friend. The first that that father and friend knew that any of them had aught against him, was his finding them, as his formal accusers, arrayed for bringing down upon him the strong arm of the Discipline of the Church. How far their conduct admits, not of the excuse (for there can be none), but of the explanation, that there were malignant promptings behind them, not jet fully brought to light, is what, in the providence of a just and righteous God, may here- after more clearly appear. Had they adopted the course which was bounden upon them as Christian men and Christian ministers, it is morally certain that they had not been guilty of inflicting such wounds on the Church, and bringing such wicked scandal on its holy cause. Having been the means of producing excitement against me in a distant part of the country, heightened and rendered efficient by co-operation with en- mity to my religious principles, they found willing coadjutors in the work of stirring up strife within my own Diocese. An agent from another dis- tant State was employed, who, loudly proclaiming his work, in domestic circles, in places of public resort, among the masses congregated in travel- ling vehicles, any where and every where affording a hearing ear, spread the matter far and wide, and set ten thousand tongues at work to spread it further. The press took it up, even in the lowest and most malignant form and spirit in which that mighty engine can do its work. Thus was there made a public rumor to which, three weeks before, this Diocese was an utter stranger, and which was assumed as ground for instituting the trial, and pushing it to the conviction and punishment said to be demanded by the thus disturbed community. I was the victim whose sacrifice was to meet the demand. My original plea of not guilty is here solemnly renewed. It respects both the purpose of my heart and the misconduct alleged. But let me not be suspected of putting forth any proud claim to exemption from frailty and sinfulness. While truth would be sacrificed did I profess conscious- ness of having justly incurred the verdict which has been awarded me, God knows that I presume not to absence of guilt before Him, in the per- petual sinfulness of my heart, and in daily leaving undone what I ought to do, and doing what I ought not to do. And God forbid that I should not be humbled under a sense of the too successful betrayments, in each of these classes of omission and commission, into which I am often thrown. They are perpetual calls for contrition, humility, and repentance. May I have grace not to suffer them — God forgive me if I am wrong in the hum- ble hope that I do not suffer them — to pass unheeded ! It has pleased my Maker to give me — friends and enemies unite to tell me so — a heart inclined warmly to reciprocate friendly affection, to yield to its reality or appearance in others, and to be unsuspicious of deceit in NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 91 professed friends. I have carried this too far, and trusted too fully that my own unconsciousness of any other than right emotion, entered also into the apparent sympathy with which I was met. As the result, exaggerations, distortions, mis-statements, have turned to ill what was so neither in intent nor in deed- Evil, totally undesigned and unthought of by me, and not justly attributable to me, has, by this means, been done to a cause dearer to me than life. I humbly trust that I have profited by the bitter experience, and earnestly pray — and ask the faithful, fervent prayers of the beloved clergy and people of my Diocese in my behalf — that this profiting may appear in all that, in my character and conduct, may per- tain to the glory of God, the cause of His Gospel, and the purity and pros- perity of His Church. I know not how extensively efforts may still be in progress, and yet be multiplied, against me. There are propensities in the human heart which foster even a love for rendering the unhappy still more miserable, for trampling the fallen still more deeply in the dust, for closing the door to all influence of the reacting spirit of Christian justice and mercy, and for pushing malevolent design to the utmost gratification. In the Lord put I my trust. To Him, as the Searcher of hearts, I commit my cause. I thank God that my connection with the Diocese which I love so much, whose love to me has contributed so largely to my happiness, and in whose behalf I have so gladly and heartily, but ; alas, so imperfectly labored, is not severed. I feel that this imposes upon me a most serious responsibility. I ask the union with my own, of the prayers of the Dio- cese, that I may be rightly guided; may be ready and willing to sacrifice to duty all personal considerations ; may not forget to cherish, as they should be cherished, reverence and submission to authority; may have grace to be free from unchristian resentment for efforts that have been made, that may now be making, or that may yet be made, to destroy my character and influence ; and may be led, in all that may devolve upon me, to such decision and such action, as will be approved by the Lord the Righteous Judge. Benj. T. Onderdonk. New-York, January, 1845. THE SMOTHERED CANON. The following article, from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Seabury, appeared in The Churchman of March 1, 1845 : The unlawfulness of a trial under a Canon enacted subsequently to the time when the offences charged against the person tried are alleged to have been committed, seems to us to be conclusively made out by a corre- spondent, on the principles of common morality and common sense as well as of law. There is another question on which men may form an intelli- gent opinion with no other lights than those of common sense, knowledge of human nature, and love of moral equity ; and that is whether all the legislation and attempted legislation on the trial of a Bishop were not liable to be biassed by the simultaneous agitation, among the members of Convention, of the question of the presentment of so marked a man as the Bishop of New-York. This is one of those subjects on which it is difficult to write without either exposing one's self to the charge of insinuating what one is afraid to avow, or holding back opinions which it is due to truth and justice to express. In the way of explanation, therefore, we 92 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. deem it proper to premise, that "while we do not believe that the theologi* cal opponents of Bishop Onderdonk were capable of entering into a con- tract, verbal or written, to effect his destruction by insidious legislation, we do believe that they were not so far above the passions and infirmities of human nature, as to shut out from their minds all influence of his contemplated presentment. If we are unfair in this belief, we are unfair to human nature, and not to the opponents of Bishop Onderdonk, person- ally considered. We hold it to be extremely improbable, on the acknowl- edged principles of human nature, that the prospect of Bishop Onder- donk ; s presentment should not have biassed the legislative proceedings of all those who entertained the prospect pending those proceedings. Our remark is general and applicable to the friends as well as the opponents of the Bishop ; neither of whom, we are persuaded, could have taken part in the passage of a Canon on the Trial of a Bishop, or any kindred sub- ject, without being influenced by considerations bearing on Bishop Onder- donk's particular case, if his trial were in prospect. Certainly there are several features in the Canon of the last Convention which, if his friends, and especially the New- York delegation, had suffered to pass in silence while they expected him to be tried under it, they would have been con- sidered, right or wrong, to have shown a culpable remissness. But they had no expectation of such an event as the impeachment of Bishop On- derdonk. This we know to be true of the New-York delegation, and we have no reason to doubt that it is equally true of a large majority of those Clerical and Lay Deputies with whom they might be expected to act in concert ; and it is on the ground of their not having any such prospect before them that we account for their having made no attempt to secure a two-thirds vote (instead of a majority) for a verdict, a clause of limita- tion, a right of challenge, and other matters which might have been equi- tably inserted in the Canon, or at least proposed. On the other hand, it appears from Bishop Onderdonk ; s " Statement/ 7 from Bishop Meade's Statement, and from the pamphlets of the Rev. Messrs. Trapier and Rich- mond, that the opponents of Bishop Onderdonk were, during the time that the Convention was in session, engaged in measures, to which indeed the Bishop and his friends attached at the time very little importance, but which have since turned out to be preliminary to his impeachment, trial, and indefinite suspension. Is it then, at all inconsistent with charity to be- lieve that the opponents of the Bishop during the Convention, entertained the expectation of his presentment ? Or that entertaining it they acted under its influence ? Or that its influence might have predisposed them to devise or favor those very features of the Canon which a counter-influ- ence would most unquestionably have led his friends strenuously to op- pose ? We see nothing in the opinion inconsistent with Christian princi- ples and sound reason ; nothing which is not perfectly natural. In the remarks which we are about to offer, we mean to insinuate noth- ing which we are unwilling to express ; but we mean to bring together facts in the order in which they really occurred, and to make ourselves, and to suggest to our readers, such inferences from the combination as we think to be warranted by the known principles of human conduct. The General Convention met on the second of October. From Bishop Onderdonk' s statement, confirmed by Bishop Meade, it appears that "some six or seven days after the opening of the Convention," Bishop Meade re- quested Bishop Onderdonk to leave the room in which the Bishops as- sembled in order, as it afterwards appeared, that the former might bring before his brethren sundry matters to the disparagement of the former. On the fourteenth day of October, Bishop Chase introduced to the atten- NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 93 tion of the House of Bishops a paper relating to the character and conduct of the Bishop of New-York, and asked him if he wished to retire. Bishop Onderdonk remained, and the paper, after an earnest discussion, was not received, but returned unopened to the persons who presented it. On the twelfth of October, that is between the attempt of Bishop Meade and the attempt of Bishop Chase to make the character of Bishop Onderdonk, in his absence, a topic of discussion with their brethren, Bishop Mcllvaine, from the Committee on Canons, (consisting of Bishops Mcllvaino, Gadsden, and Elliott), reported the following Canon: Of the Effect of Suspension from the Ministry upon Jurisdiction. Section 1. Any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, who shall incur the penalty of indefinite Suspension from the exercise of the Ministry by the proper authority, shall be thereby held incapable of Jurisdiction, whether Parochial or Diocesan, during the continuance of such suspension, and shall be void of any Jurisdiction vested in him at the time of such suspension, by the sentence duly awarded and pronounced. Section 2. In case of the limited suspension of any Bishop, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of such suspended Bishop may apply to any Bishop or Bishops of this Church to perform Episcopal duties within such Diocese ; which duties shall be re- ported in writing to the Convention of said Diocese, at its annual meeting, by the Bishop or Bishops performing the same. Section 3. In case of the limited Suspension of any Presbyter of this Church having charge of a Parish, the Wardens and Vestry of the Parish of such suspended Presby- ter may apply to any Presbyter or Presbyters of this Church to perform the Parochial duties within such Parish, which duties shall be reported in writing to the Bishop of the Diocese in which such Parish is located, at its annual meeting, by the Presbyter or Presbyters performing the same. ' On motion of Bishop Ives, seconded by Bishop Doane, this Canon passed the House of Bishops. On the same day it was sent to the House of Depu- ties. On the 17th, Dr. Upfold, Chairman of the Committee on Canons reported, and offered a resolution to the effect that the House concur in the enactment of the Canon, striking out its first section. The House having considered the same — on motion, Resolved, That this House do concur with the House of Bishops' in the enactment of the Canon entitled, "Of the Effect of Suspension from the Ministry upon Jurisdiction," with the following amendments : 1. Strike out the first and third sections thereof. 2. Strike out the word "limited " in the first line of the second section. On motion, Ordered, That the said Canon thus amended be sent to the House of Bishops. The concurrence of the House of Deputies in the Canon as thus amended, was reported on the same day to the House of Bishops. Whereupon, on motion of Bishop Onderdonk, of New- York, seconded by Bishop Brownell, Resolved, That this House non-concur with the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, in their amendments to the Canon entitled, "Of the Effect of Suspension from the Ministry upon Jurisdiction. " Resolved, Tliat notice of this non-concurrence be sent to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and that this House propose to said House, a conference on the subject of "the above-mentioned Canon, and that the Committee of this House on the Canons be appointed on said conference. The conference was held, and on the 18th, Bishop Mcllvaine made the following report: The Committee on Canons appointed to act as a Committee of Conference with a Com- mittee of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies on certain amendments made by said House, in the Canon sent down from this House entitled, " Of the Effect of Suspension from the Ministry upon Jurisdiction," report that they have conferred as directed, and 94 NARRATIVE OP EVENTS. *ee no prospect that this House will be able so to modify the Canon under consideration, a.s to free it from the objections made by the other House, without destroying its es- sential character. Your Committee therefore move that they be discharged from the further considera- tion of this subject. Chas. P. McIlvaixe, Chairman. "Whereupon, on motion of Bishop Mcllvaine, seconded by Bishop Gadsden, the above motion was agreed to. It appears then that Bishop Mcllvaine reported a Canon, the effect of which would have been to make a Bishop under sentence of indefinite sus- pension incapable of jurisdiction; that the objections made by the House of Deputies were such as, if concurred in, would defeat this operation of the Canon ; that an attempt was made in a conference to remove these ob- jections; and that after the conference, Bishop Mcllvaine reported that it was found impracticable so to modify the Canon as to free it from the ob- jections brought against it, "without destroying its essential character." But for the objections made to this Canon in the House of Deputies, Bishop Onderdonk would at this moment be incapable of jurisdiction, and stand in no other Canonical relation to the Diocese of New- York than to the Diocese of Ohio. Surely it is remarkable that Bishop Onderdonk should himself have moved the House of Bishops to non-concur in those very ob- jections but for which he would not now be the Bishop of New- York. Surely it is incredible that if he had had an upbraiding conscience, or the least ground for suspicion or fear of the result which a few short weeks af- terwards developed, he would not have concurred in and maintained those objections of the Lower House which have saved him from total destruc- tion. It is not in human nature that it should be otherwise. But Bishop Elliott who was with Bishop Mcllvaine on the Committee of Canons and Conference, and Bishop Meade, who with Bishop Chase attempted in an informal way to bring Bishop Onderdonk' s alleged delinquencies before his brethren, were his presenting Bishops : and for the same reason that we believe that Bishops Onderdonk, Ives, and Doane, if they had at all ex- pected the'trial and the indefinite suspension which followed it, would have been led by such expectation to oppose the defeated Canon, we also be- lieve that Bishops Mcllvaine and Elliott, if they at all expected the trial and the indefinite suspension which followed it, were led by such expecta- tion first to urge the adoption of the Canon and afterwards to abandon it. Thinking it probable that an indefinite suspension might soon take place, they passed a Canon which made such suspension vacate jurisdiction; and finding that this end of the Canon could not be gained, they abandoned it altogether. There are some other notanda in this smothered Canon. 1. Referring to " indefinite suspension," the first clause provides that the person suspended shall be held incapable of jurisdiction, " during the continuance of such suspension.' 7 Now if the framers of the Canon meant by indefinite suspension the same as perpetual suspension, this clause would not have been inserted ; it would either have been omitted, or so expressed as to imply that the suspended person should be incapable of jurisdiction during the remainder of his natural life. Hence we argue that this indefinite suspension was intended to be a suspension unlimited by a pre- scribed time or condition, and to continue during the will of some body or some person or persons supposed to have the power to remove it. In this view we are confirmed by a remark attributed to one of the Bish- ops in reference to the suspension (also indefinite,) of Bishop H. U. On- derdonk, intimating that the sentence might be removed by the House of Bishops at the next General Convention. Now to make a sentence of NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 95 suspension determinable neither by a limit of time nor the performance of a fixed condition evidencing contrition and amendment, but by the mere will, possibly the caprice of a higher power, is an insidious license of tyranny. The man or men who may keep another suspended at will, have him completely in their power ; and though the sentence be awarded by the rules of law and liberty, yet if it may be instantly reversed or op- pressively continued by the sic volo sic jubeo of an irresponsible power, the ends of law and liberty are defeated. Our opinion is that the Low Church Bishops anticipating for themselves a majority in the House of Bishops, devised this Canon as the means of exercising arbitrary power ; and though we regret that the design should have escaped the observation of their colleagues, we are none the less thankful thatit was frustrated in the House of Deputies. 2. Why did the House of Deputies require the word limited to be ex- punged from the second section ? We see no meaning in the omission, except it be that suspension is in its nature limited, and therefore the word is superfluous. And in this view we are confirmed by several mem- bers of the late General Convention, that the word was in fact objected to on this very ground. 3. It is remarkable that if this Canon had passed in the form in which it was approved by the House of Deputies, it would have invested the Standing Committee of this Diocese, by express letter, with the very au- thority which they have now felt themselves constrained to assume, and to fortify by ingenious though questionable construction. Without the re- motest apprehension that New-York would soon have a suspended Bishop, and with no other than a general view, the House of Deputies voted for the Canon in a form in which it would now benefit our Diocese and meet the wishes of our Standing Committee. Bishop Mcllvaine, however, from the Committee on Canons, reported, that in this form the Canon was use- less. Now whether Bishops Mcllvaine and Elliott did or did not enter- tain the opinion that our Diocese might probably soon be in the position in which it now is, it is certainly remarkable that by stifling the Canon in this form they have enabled the most violent opponents of Bishop Onder- donk to take precisely the ground which in fact they have taken in order to drive the Bishop into a resignation ; the ground, namely, that the Dio- cese must be deprived of all Episcopal services as long as Dr. Onderdonk continues to be Bishop. The first aim of the Canon was to make indefi- nite suspension void jurisdiction; and being foiled in this, Bishops Mcll- vaine and Elliott report against the Canon in a form which, if it had been adopted, would have taken from their friends in this Diocese the strongest argument which they now use to compass the same end, viz. : to void the jurisdiction of our suspended Bishop. Bishop Mcllvaine might well re- port that concurrence with the House of Deputies would rob the Canon of a its essential character." We have the charity to believe that it required the excitement (in door and out door) of the late trial to work up a portion of the Court to the point of degradation ; and that when the presentment was getting up, and be- fore the public mind was pre-occupied with rumors, nothing worse was contemplated than the less odious, though equally effectual, terminus of an indefinite suspension which should vacate jurisdiction. Of course we do not know that even this view was held, but we will state another fact — valeat quantum, &c. — that a gentleman of great eminence and foresight in another Diocese, wrote, pending- the trial and at a time when we had no thought of any thing but an acquittal or at worst an admonition, to a friend in this city, pointing out the invalidity of a sentence of indefinite suspension, it being his opinion that the Court would terminate its pro- ceedings with the infliction of this identical sentence. Jfirst lt0httuni EESTOKATION OF BISHOP ONDEEDONK. Soon after the unjust sentence of suspension was pronounced upon Bishop Onderdonk, he determined to address, in the first instance, the Bishops, as soon as their House should be organized, on the first day of the Session of the General Convention of 1847. It was his object in this address to them to take the most general ground, avoiding all points or references which might hinder Christian love and peace from qualifying the rigor of justice where this might be supposed to present counter-claims : and to request action on any ground of law, justice, or mercy, which to his brethren re- spectively might be deemed the proper one, and in any capacity which they might choose, either as the body of American Bishops competent to act in their own right, or as the House of the Convention proposing joint action to the House of Deputies. Accordingly, on Wednesday, October 6th, the Bishop addressed to his Right Rev. brethren the following com- munication : BISHOP ONDERDONK ; S LETTER TO THE BISHOPS. To the Right Reverend the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, their suffering brother, the Bishop of New- York, respectfully and earnestly tenders this his request, that they will, by such act as may seem to them right and proper, open the way for his relief from the operation of the sentence of suspension from the Min- istry, passed upon him by a portion of their body, forming an Ecclesiasti- cal Court in the city of New-York, in January, 1845. I make this request, brethren, with an ardent desire again to serve our Master in the functions of our holy office. Severely as I have been afflicted, I humbly hope that, by the overruling providence and grace of God, the period— now nearly three years — of my present heavy trial, has not been, and will not be, without a blessing. In a state of almost entire seclusion from the world, I have earnestly endeavored, in reliance on the Holy Ghost, and with constant prayer for His influences, to keep a per- NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 97 petual guard over my heart, to detect its evil tendencies, to discover, for greater future watchfulness, wherein these have led me astray, and to cultivate the spirit of humble penitence, meek submission, and evangelical faith, devotion, and charity. I trust I am not presumptuous in hoping; that hence, as well as from the sacred duties and meditations to which I have applied myself, God will graciously allow fruit to grow, both in my personal devotion to a godly life, and in earnest and faithful pastoral labor, should I, in His merciful Providence, again be permitted to minister among His people. Praying that the Lord will so incline your hearts, and direct your coun- sels, in a matter fraught to me with such deep and painful solicitude, and such momentous interest, as will most accord with His glory and your duty, I am, Brethren, Yours, in the bonds of Christian respect and love, Benj. T. Onderdoxk. New-York, October 6, 1847. It was a part of Bishop Onderdonk's plan to wait, after having sent the above, for the remainder of the week, and if then uninformed as to its favorable effect, to send to the General Convention a Memorial praying for its interposition in his behalf, on the ground of the illegality and invalidity of the sentence. He therefore, on Monday, October 11th, sent the follow- ing to each House of the Convention : BISHOP OXDERDONK'S FIEST MEMORIAL.* To the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in General Convention assembled, the Bishop cf the Diocese of New-York, respectfully presents this Memorial : It is known to your venerable body that your memorialist was, on the third day of January, in the year 1845, declared by a Court of Bishops, organized under a Canon of the General Convention, and holding its ses- sions in the city of Xew-York, to be suspended from all Episcopal and ministerial functions ; as appears by the printed record of the proceedings of said Court, to which (the same having been published and extensively circulate 1) your memorialist respectfully refers your venerable body for the details of his trial by the said Court. Firmly persuaded that the sentence then passed on him was not justified by the laws of the Church, and that the privations and sufferings to which he has been and is thereby subjected, are at variance with principles which lie at the foundation of the rights and liberties of American citizens, and with those which, by the Protestant Reformation, effected the deliverance of both clergy and laity from the tvranny of unjust and anomalous judicial proceedings; your memorialist appeals for relief to your venerable body, as representing the wisdom, righteousness, and authority of the Church which has constituted it, as well as for remedy of illegal proceedings, had under the supposed sanction of its laws, as for providing just and whole- some legislation. * The following note accompanied the Memorial : The B shop of New- York i3e of B: hops, to lay the e Ne*t-Yo2k, Oct. 12, 1S47. "The B shop of New-York respectfully requests the Right Rev. the Presiding Bishop of the House of B: hops, to lay the enclosed Memorial before that House. 98 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. Without adverting to other existing grounds for relief, but specifying one which concerns the future as well as the past, and the Church, and every Bishop and minister of the Church, as much as it does himself, and which has equal substance and validity in every supposable state of facts ; your memorialist objects to the said sentence, which is suspension without any period or condition of limitation, as follows : Our Canons clearly distinguish between suspension and deposition. The former, therefore, cannot be justly so regarded, or inflicted, as to be ren- dered practically the same with the latter, in points in which, according to the established meaning of words, there is between them an essential dif- ference. Functions, powers, or rights, personal or official, cannot be de- stroyed by the same law which only suspends them. When the thirty -ninth Canon of the General Convention of 1832 declares, "No degraded Minis- ter' 7 (or, which the Canon makes the same thing, no deposed Minister) 11 shall be restored to the Ministry," it inflicts an awful extremity of pun- ishment and suffering on a particularly defined class of persons, which no man, or body or men, has, without express permission of law, a right to in- flict on any other class of persons. Suspension cannot deprive a Minister of a claim to restoration, except upon the principle which would subject the kind and degree of judicial punishment, without restraint of law, to the will and discretion of a Court. Hence, your memorialist argues, that if there is no power appointed by law to terminate a sentence of suspension, and if there is no general law regulating the term of suspensions, and if such sentence, passed by any Court, does not contain within itself provi- sion for its termination, either at a prescribed time, or on prescribed conditions, it is passed contrary to law and equity, or at least in independ- ence of law : either of which must be considered as rendering it null and void, while its tendency cannot but be to tyranny and oppression. Your memorialist, therefore, respectfully pleads, that he is now suffer- ing under the shame and reproach, and under the manifold privations and afflictions, of an illegal sentence, passed upon him by a Court instituted under the authority of your venerable body; and that, in the ab- sence of any canonically appointed Court cf Appeals, he has an equitable claim upon the Supreme Council of the American Church, for redress of the grievous injury and wrong thus done unto him. In respectfully calling the attention of your venerable body to this sub- ject, your memorialist will not pretend to independence of the personal considerations connected with himself individually, with his domestic and social relations, and with the happiness he has experienced in many years of honest and cordial efforts to be faithful and useful in the several grades of the Christian Ministry. Still deeper, however, he trusts, is the solicitude with which the occa- sion fills him for the cause of truth and justice, and for the Christian rep- utation and interests of our portion of the Church of Christ. Other branches of that Church, and the world, will now have an opportunity of judging of our character for deference to law and order, and for equitable regard to the rights and liberties of all sorts and conditions of men in our communion. Nor, in judging of this, will they forget our peculiar respon- sibility as a protestant branch of the Church, and one established amidst the free institutions, and the just and equal laws of the North American Republic. Your memorialist confidently trusts that he will be understood to raise no question respecting his Right Reverend Brethren who pronounced sen- tence upon him, excepting in regard to their judgments. These, it is well known, are often erroneous, in entire consistency with general intelligence. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 99 and with purity and uprightness of motive and intent. The questioning of the legality or equity of judicial proceedings and decisions, he regards as the sacred right of every Christian freeman: which ; when exercised respectfully and courteously, cannot be justly impeached on the ground of its personal relations and bearings. Its exercise in the present instance, your memorialist regards as an indispensable requirement of a conscien- tious sense of what is just and right. It is a duty, in the honest discharge of which, in the fear of God, he throws himself upon the Christian princi- ples and feelings of your venerable body. That in this, and all other matters that may come before you. you may be guided by the Holy Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, and the fear of God, your memorialist devoutly prays. Benj. T. Onderdonk. New- York, October 11, 1847. After a careful perusal of this document (says Rev. Dr. Seabury),* we cannot but think that it is above just exception, and that its temper must commend it to th« approbation even of such ingenuous minds as do not acquiesce in the correctness of its arguments. It brings no accusation against the court, the law, or the witnesses, which have been instrumental in putting the Bishop in his present position. It breathes not a word of censure against the Canon under which he was tried, or the Bishops who took part in the trial. It says not a word of the ex post facto operation of the Canon, and makes no allusion to the agencies under which the trial is well understood to have been got up. Never, we believe, did man write under circumstances which invited more various and more severe cepsure, and yet not a word of censure has escaped from his pen. It is a fair, manly, respectful argument, confined to the single point of the ille- gality of the sentence, and evincing even on this point an earnest solicitude to be understood as questioning neither the intelligence, nor the piety and charity of the court, but only its judgment in the particular matter at issue. On October 12th the Memorial was read before the House of Bishops, and on motion of Bishop A. Potter, seconded by Bishop Hopkins, was laid upon the table for the present. On October 1 5th, on motion of Bishop A. Potter, seconded by Bishop Brownell, it was resolved that the Letter and Memorial be referred to a Select Committee of five, to consider and report thereon. ^ On the 28th, the day of the adjournment of the Conven- tion, the Committee reported as follows : REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON BISHOP ONDERDONK'S MEMORIAL. The Committee to which was referred the Letter and Memorial of the Right Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk, D. D., beg leave to report, that they have taken those Docu- ments under their most serious and deliberate consideration, and have come to the following conclusions : The application of the Memorialist to be ralieved from the sentence of the Eccle- siastical Court, by which he stands suspended, without limitation, from the office of the Episcopate and the Ministry, cannot be favorably regarded by your Committee for several reasons. First, B?cause the Memorialist, once convicted, on nnimpeached and ample testi- mony, of the charge of immorality, can hardly hope to exercise again his high and holy office, to the honor of God and the edifying of the Church, in the face of the same community. From The Churchman, Dacember 4, 1S4T. 100 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS- The office of a Bishop was conferred upon the Memorialist, not for his own sake, but for the benefit of the Church ; and, therefore, it is not for his sake, but for the welfare of the Church, that the exercise of it should ever be committed to him again. Your Committee do not maintain the impossibility of his restoration, nor deny that he may hereafter satisfy the Church of the strength of his claims ; but they do not conceive that it would 'be consistent with the high and solemn responsibility of the Episcopal character, for the Bishops to entertain the application of the Memorialist, until ho can lay before them the most ample and satisfactory testimonials. Secondly. Whilst your Committee do not perceive that the repentance and reforma- tion of the Memorialist would, of themselves, entitle him to be restored to the full exercise of his Episcopal functions and his charge of the Diocese, yet they are bound in candor further to say, that he does not stand in the position of a penitent. So far from this is the fact, that he has chosen, in his Memorial, to be an accuser of the law, of the court, and of the witnesses ; and, instead of confessing his faults, and pro- fessing repentance for them, he assumes the character of an injured man, and claims the remission of his sentence as a matter of right. Such being the ground on which the Memorialist has chosen to rest his application, it is manifest that the House of Bishops could not grant it without incurring the reproach, either of admitting the justice of his complaint, or of shrinking from the defence of the truth through the force of clamor. If they were capable of deserving either of these imputations, they would show themselves unworthy of the confidence of the Church, and altogether unfit to guard the holy administration of its discipline, whk:h is committed to their care. But in none of the censures of the Memorialist can your Committee concur. As to the Canon of 181-4, under which he was tried and condemned, the main principle, that a Bishop might be presented by any three Bishops, as well as by his own Con- vention, was introduced nine years before. The Constitution of the Church was altered in order to admit the change, and the first Canon in which the principle was embodied, was passed in 1811, with the most entire unanimity. "The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in 1811 made no altera- tion in that principle, but only supplied the details which many conceived to be neces- sary to its practical operation. And the Canon passed by them was approved in the House of Bishops by the Memorialist himself, and met with no opposition from any quarter. And on the trial of the Memorialist under that Canon, not one word was said by him or by his able counsel, about its supposed unconstitutionality, nor about its ex post facto operation. Neither was there the slightest exception taken, or attempted to be taken, against any of the Bishops that composed the Court. Neither was there an} 1 " assault upon the character of the witnesses, or any attempt to impeach their repu- tation for veracity. Neither, after the verdict of "Guilty" \ras declared, and the respondent was called upon to assign his reasons why sentence should not be pronounced, did he suggest a word against the Canon, nor against the legality of the whole proceeding ; nor did he even a^k for a new trial, or review, as he manifestly should and would have done, ii he or his counsel had supposed that injustice had been done him. The sentence which followed was pronounced by nine of the Court, while the other eight voted for his degradation. And of the validity and effect of that sentence, your Committee cannot have a moment's doubt. It stands, and must stand in full force, until it is remitted by the competent authority. But while your Committee sustain the proposition, that the remission of that sentence is a possible event, in contempla- tion of law, they deem it but justice to the Memorialist, and to the Diocese of New- York, to add, that they consider the probability of its occurrence so slender and remote, as scarcely to afford a reasonable basis for fu f ure action. In conclusion, your Committee respectfully recommend the adoption of the following resolution : Resolved, That the Memorialist have leave to withdraw his Letter and Memorial. All which is respectfully submitted. T. C. Brownell, John H. Hopkins, J. P. K. Hknshaw, Geo. W. Freeman. House of Bishops, Oct. 27, 1817. The undersigned, without taking part in the argument of the Committee, concurs in the resolution presented. Sam'l A. McCoskry. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 101 The foregoing resolution was adopted by the House, and the Report en- tered upon the Minutes, and a copy ordered to be sent to Bishop Onderdonk. This Report, it will be seen, charges Bishop Onderdonk, in words, with being, " in his Memorial, an accuser of the law, of the court, and of the witnesses." Where is the proof of this charge,? There is not a syllable of the kind in the Memorial. As to the law, indeed, how can he be an accuser of it, who appeals to it, and asks to have judgment conformable to it ? And as to the court and the witnesses, they may have been accused by the public, by the Church, and by their own consciences, but most certainly they have not been accused in the Memorial of Bishop Onderdonk The Report then adds, "In none of the censures of the Memorialist can your Committee concur/'* and having thus represented the Memorial as containing " censures," it proceeds to particularize and examine them, as if they were contained in the Memorial, while in fact the Memorial contains nothing of the sort. A more extraordinary proceeding we never knew. The Committee bad a Memorial referred to them which they profess to consider ; and yet, without assigning a solitary reason against the illegality of the sentence under the Canon — the only point which the Memorial affirms — they make it the occasion to vindicate themselves from certain pretended " censures," of which the Memorial says nothing. Where has the Memorialist censured the Canon for its unconstitutionality? or for its ex post facto operation ? or for its allowing a Bishop to be presented by any three Bishops? Wliere has he censured any Bishop or Bishops for taking part in the proceedings of the Court ? Where has he censured the wit- nesses by making an " assault on their character,' 7 or by an u attempt to impeach their reputation for veracity ?" That such censures have been made, is true enough ; and that the Committee felt their force is but too evident, from the very feeble attempt they have made to answer them. But can anything be more unjust and ungenerous than for this Committee to take advantage of their position to hold up Bishop Onderdonk to public odium, as the author of these censures, when he is as innocent of them as the dumb sheep before his shearers ? But the most painfully astonishing part of this most extraordinary docu- ment, is that in which the Committee deny to Bishop Onderdonk, in the very face of his own meek profession to the contrary, the character of a penitent. u He does not stand in the position of a penitent !" Let the reader compare with these words of the Committee the Bishop's own declaration, that "in a state of almost entire seclusion from the world, he has earnestly endeavored, in reliance on the Holy Ghost, and with constant prayer for its influences, to keep a perpetual guard over his heart, to detect its evil tendencies, to discover, for greater future watchfulness, wherein they have led me astray, and to cultivate the spirit of humble penitence, meek submission, and evangelical faith and devotion." Of a document which denies the author of these words the position of a penitent, we shall only say, that if it breathes the spirit of the Gospel of Christ, we have yet to learn what the Gospel is. True, Bishop Onderdonk has not confessed himself guilty of the particular acts charged on him by his Presenters, and of immorality and impurity, as found by the Court. But when a most respectable minority of the Court declared at the time their total dissent from the majority ; when appeal has been made to the Church at large and the public, and followed by a like division of opinion; and when, after three years spent in seclusion and the most exemplary devotion, Bishop Onderdonk most solemnly declares that he has earnestly endeavored, during all this time, to cultivate the 102 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. spirit of humble penitence, did the Gospel of Christ require this Committee to repel him, with the rude declaration that he is not a penitent, and thus, by manifest implication, to declare their own triumphant majority infallible in judgment, and their prostrate brother a hypocrite at heart ? The truth of Bishop Onderdonk's plea of Not Guilty gains strength, and must continue to gain strength, by time. Every new contumely heaped upon him makes him a brighter example of Christian humility and sin- cerity. The six Bishops, also, who found him innocent, have done nothing to impair confidence in their original judgments, which are more and more commending themselves to the approbation of the Church. Can we say so much of the majority? To say nothing of past developments, what proof does the above Report furnish of sound and impartial judgment on the part of its signers ? — Churchman, Dec. 4, 1847. RESOLUTIONS OF THE NEW- YORK CONVENTION OF 1847. At the General Convention of 1847, the Deputation from the Diocese of New-York presented the following resolutions from the Convention of that Diocese, passed September 30th, 1847 : On motion of the Rev. Dr. Forbes, it was unanimously Resolved, as the solemn conviction of this Convention, That justice to the Church in the Diocese of New-York, as well as its best interests, demand that it be relieved from its present anomalous position. Resolved, That the General Convention be, and is hereby requested to give to the Church in this Diocese such relief as may be consistent with its powers. Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing Resolutions be transmitted to the next General Convention. Attest, Benjamin I. Haight, Secretary. PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF 1847. The action taken by the General Convention upon the above resolutions is well set forth in the following able paper, from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Seabury, which appeared as an editorial in The Churchman, of November 13th, 1847 : In reviewing the proceedings of the General Convention in relation to the affairs of our Bishop and Diocese, we cannot refrain from an expression of satisfaction to find that most of the principles contended for by this journal have been confirmed and put beyond dispute. We have contended that Dr. Onderdonk, though suspended, is still the Bishop of the Diocese, so that the Diocese is not vacant; and this view has been clearly taken by the General Convention. We have opposed the scheme of an election by the Diocese of an Assistant Bishop possessed of full Episcopal powers and authority, and this scheme has received no countenance from the General Convention. We have contended against the lawfulness of the sentence of indefinite suspension, and the General Convention has sustained the correct- ness of this view for the future, having provided by Canon that hereafter no such punishment shall be known in the Church, On all these points the General Convention has been manifestly governed by principle ; and it is satisfactory to us to know that in those matters in which they could freely legislate from principle alone, and without having their course warped by NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 103 a regard to present expediency — that is to say, in every measure which would not lead to an instant resumption of duties on the part of our unfor- tunate Bishop — they haye arrived at the conclusions which we have main- tained and advocated. It must he owned that these points are of great importance ; and though the House of Deputies have not come up to the measure of our expectations, yet we gratefully acknowledge that much of their action has been in the right direction, and tended, in some degree, to check encroachments on our ecclesiastical liberties. 1. The first result which we notice is the decision that the Right Rev. Dr. Onderdonk is, in law and fact, the Bishop of the Diocese. This point had been virtually settled in our own Diocese. It is true that the Trustees of the Episcopal Fund had refused to pay the Bishop his salary except under instruction from the Convention, though the refusal may have been, and we believe was, rested on other grounds than that of his having ceased to be Bishop of the Diocese ; it is true, also, that attempts have been made in Convention to prove the vacancy of the Diocese. But the Convention itself has done nothing to sanction this view. On the con- trary, by authorizing the payment to the Bishop of a portion of the income of the Episcopal Fund,* 1 the Convention have recognized his title to the office. Moreover, the Bishop, during the whole time of his suspension, has occupied the Episcopal residence without let or molestation. The ques- tion of vacancy, therefore, may be regarded as having been virtually settled in our own Diocese. Still, it was a question which was agitated, and it is impossible to say to what disastrous results the constant agitation of it might have led. Now, however, that the sense of the General Con- vention has been had on the subject, we may consider the question as effectually set at rest. At least, if the question is to be agitated, we shall be now in a stronger position than ever to meet it ; so that, in any event, the Bishop, and the sound principles which are, as we conceive, identified with the recognition of his right to his Diocesan office, have gained much by the action of the General Convention. Xot only Bishop Onderdonk, but every Diocesan Bishop in the Church, is, in virtue of this action, more firmly seated on his throne ; for once let the doctrine prevail, that Episcopal jurisdiction comes from the people, and a Diocese which has become, from whatever cause, dissatisfied with its Bishop, will never want for an excuse to revoke the jurisdiction which it fancies it has conferred. We have reason, therefore, to congratulate the Church that an adherence to principle on the part of the Clerical and Lay Deputies, and a just perception of their interests on the part of the Bishops, have arrested and effectually put down the infatuation which aimed to expel Bishop Onderdonk from his See. 2. The plan of an Assistant Bishop to be invested with full Episcopal power and authority and independent of the lawful Bishop of the Diocese, is another rock on which we might have been wrecked, and which we are thankful to have escaped. We have objected to this plan as at variance with sound views of Episcopacy, and as tending to aggravate the condition of the Bishop by leaving him on the termination of the operation of the sentence, deprived of a portion of the rights which he had before the sen- tence was pronounced. 3. The third result effected by the Convention, is the prohibition of all indefinite suspensions for the future. "We can imagine no circumstances under which such suspensions are justifiable ; no good reason why every sentence of suspension ought not to be limited by a time, at the expiration * $2,500 pzr annum, ^ith the Episcopal residence. 104 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. of which, or a condition, on the performance of which, it should expire. "We cannot see that it is any less tyrannical to punish a man without trial than to keep him punished without trial. To suspend a clergyman on any charge, say of intemperance, on the accusation of secret informers, and ■without allowing him a fair trial, would he thought an exercise of tyran- ny, but if a clergyman has been suspended on this charge, is it less tyran- nical to retain his sentence on the accusation of secret informers, and without allowing him the opportunity of a public trial to rebut these accusations? We trow not; and we therefore rejoice, with a joy propor- tioned to our hatred of tyranny, that the General Convention has provided against the occurrence of any such sentence for the future. For this result our thanks are exclusively due to the House of Deputies, whose firm and manly resistance to the encroachments of the Bishops in this matter are above all praise. In proportion, however, as we admire the conduct of the Deputies on this point, we must deplore the inconsistency by which they have given with one hand what they have withheld with the other. They have taken the ground that for the future there shall be no indefinite suspensions, and to this ground the Bishops came, though with manifest reluctance. But, on the other hand, they have consented to empower the Bishops to "remit or terminate" a judicial sentence, or to c< modify the same so far as to des- ignate a precise period of time, or other specific condition, on the occur- rence of which such sentence shall be of no further force or effect.'' In other words, they have empowered the Bishops to retain a judicial sen- tence during their pleasure; to continue a man in a state of punishment from year to year without assigning themselves, or giving him the oppor- tunity to know and refute, the reasons which they may have for this con- tinued renewal of his punishment. The Canon, as first reported by the joint Committee, vested this power with the House of Bishops; but as the House of Bishops cannot be constitutionally recognized as a judicial body, the Canon was so modified as to vest the authority in the Bishops not acting as a House. But if the Bishops do not meet as a House or Court, who has the right to inspect their Minutes ? or who can know aught of the proceed- ings ? They may not only sit with closed doors, but their doings may be kept secret till the Day of Judgment. Thus, in order to escape from one difficulty our legislators have run into a greater, and erected a body which has no analogy in history, except in the Inquisition of Venice, or other om- nipotent irresponsibilities ! So utterly vain is the attempt to get round an illegal sentence , every expedient to escape from it, save the only hon- est one of declaring its nullity, only serving to add one incongruity to another. By providing against indefinite suspensions for the future, the General Convention have plainly declared their disapprobation of such sentence, and virtually condemned it in the two instances in which it has been actually imposed. By empowering the Bishops by Canon to terminate such sen- tence, they have, in effect, acknowledged that no such power before existed under our Canons. The Convention has thus sanctioned the premises from which the illegality of the sentence, in the case of Bishop Onderdonk, is a necessary conclusion. We certainly must regret that the Convention has not declared expressly, what they have declared by the strongest implica- tion. We regret it for the sake of the Bishop of this Diocese, whose hard fate it is to be the only man in our Church on whom an Ecclesiastical Court ever has imposed, or, while our Canons stand as they are, ever can impose a sentence of indefinite suspension. We regret it for the sake of this Diocese, a majority of which would, we believe, have rejoiced in the lib- HAfcRATlVE OF EVENTS. 105 ©ration of their Bishop ; and we regret it still more for the sake of the General Convention, whose reputation for equal legislation has not, we fear, been raised by their allowing the Bishop of this Diocese to continue under a disability, the inj ustice of which they have acknowledged, and the possibility of which they have prevented in all other cases; in other words, by their virtually excepting one man from the benignant operation of a salutary law. We are aware that the Deputies, in adopting this measure, did not act (for they could not have acted) from the counsel of the Jewish High Priest Caiphas, that " it is expedient that one man should die for the peo- ple, and the whole nation perish not. ;; They did not consent to sacrifice Bishop Onderdonk to the clamor that his return to the active duties of the Episcopate would be injurious to his Diocese and to the Church at large. On the contrary, they were led, some of them at least, into this very mea- sure from an honest desire to serve Bishop Onderdonk and effect his liber- ation. They knew that the fourteen Bishops who were committed against him, would set their faces like flint against every direct attempt to termi- nate the sentence, and they hoped to gain from these Bishops ultimately, by conciliation, an end which they could not obtain directly by opposition. We are far from thinking that this was the only motive, but we have reason to believe that it was one of the motives which led to the clothing of the Bishops with the power of remission and modification of judicial sentences. But, grateful as we are for the motive, we think the course wrong, both in principle and policy. It is wrong, we think, in principle to subject the liberty and interest of one man to the arbitrary will of others, and equally so to deprive a Diocese of the benefits of the presence of its lawful Bishop, in the House of Bishops, during the arbitrary will and pleasure of an irresponsible body. And equally fatal, we fear, is the mistake in pol- icy; for had the House of Deputies boldly and firmly planted them- selves on the ground of right and law; had they said expressly, what they have said by the strongest implication, that it was never designed by the Canon that a Bishop should be virtually deposed under the name of sus- pension, and that a Diocese should have its Bishop indefinitely excluded from the Hou^e of Bishops, and its parishes indefinitely deprived of Episco- pal supervision, they would have arrayed themselves, as it seems to us, in a panoply of reason, justice, and law, too strong for the fourteen Bishops to resist. But what have our Bishop and Diocese now to hope from the Bishops, when our strong ground has been taken from under us by the concession of the House of Deputies, and the Bishops arc left to act out toward us their own good pleasure and discretion. It is a pretty safe maxim, we think, that men who are inexorable to the voice of reason, are not less inexorable when placed in a position in which stat pro ratione voluntas. We hope that these remarks will not be taken to indicate a disposition to cast blame on the Deputies, or a feeling of discontent with the result. When we look back at the course of our own Diocesan Convention ; when we remember that the clergy and lay delegates of our own Diocese did not expressly assert the wrongs done to their Bishop and Diocese, and did not demand redress for their wrongs from the General Convention ; that not even an effort was made by either of the contending parties in our own Convention, in behalf of the principles by which they were respectively governed, but that both consented 1o merge their differences and coalesce in an unanimous request for " relief,'' it would be strange, indeed, if we were disposed to blame the House of Deputies for availing themselves of the latitude of a request which would be satisfied with any form and degree 10G NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. of relief which, consistently with tho Constitution and Canons of the Church, might he granted. And when we consider that the main anxiety has been in many quarters to obtam relief for tho Diocese with little or no regard to the Bishop, it -would he stranger still if avc who confess to tho deeper solicitude for the party who is in the greater need, should not he satisfied with a result which, without relieving the Diocese ; puts the Bishop in a stronger position than he was before. The position of the Bishop is stronger, not only' because it is now be- yond reasonable dispute that he is the Bishop of the Diocese, but because, as such, he will now be tho centre of unity around which all sound Church- men will rally ; some from mere principle, and only with the resolution to do nothing to aggravate his condition; and others, whose confidence in his integrity is unshaken, not only from principle, but from affection also, and with a determination to use every honorable means to promote his interests. But we cannot see that the position of the Diocese is changed for the better by the action of the General Convention. The proceedings of the Standing Committee have been legalized; and so far the Diocese is prac- tically in the same condition as before. The Convention, indeed, is au- thorized to put the Diocese under the charge of the Bishop of another Diocese, or of a Missionary Bishop ; but supposing that the Convention consents to have this one See tilled, for a time, by two Bishops, it will yet be but for a time, and they will still be looking forward to " relief." To whom are they to look ? Not. as before, to the General Convention, con- sisting of a House of Bishops and a House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, governed by known rules and Canons, but to a majority of the Bishops acting from their own good pleasure and discretion. The "relief" then, which the Diocese has obtained, is a change of the tribunal to which it looks for "relief." It had a General Convention, in which it was itself represented, to which it could apply for " relief." It has, pro hac vice, a provincial council in which its voice will be powerless except it be raised in the tone of entreaty and supplication. We have made up our mind that this state of things is to continue, in all human probability, for a long time to come. With so large a number as fourteen previously committed against him, Bishop Onderdonk has small reason to expect a relaxation of his sentence on the part of the Bishops. The sentence, indeed, remains the same as ever ; if it were un- lawful before the last General Convention, it is unlawful now ; an ex post facto law cannot legitimate an ex post facto sentence; but as the Diocese has not, so it is fair to suppose it will not, dispute the lawfulness of the sentence. These, we believe, are the only two ways in which an honorable or desirable u relief" can be obtained ; and as we have no hope for either, we have concluded to be content with our lot, thankful that it is no worse, and to discharge the duties belonging to it with as much evenness and com- posure as if it were to last for life. Stability is one great end of legisla? tion, and to that, we believe, the General Convention has contributed. Suottfo Hohmtnf KESTOKATION OF BISHOP ONDEEDONK PRELIMINARY MEASURES. The Rev. Dr. Sherwood offered certain resolutions in the New- York Convention of 1848, concerning the restoration of the Bishop, which were laid over for consideration until the Convention of 1849, when the subject was again introduced. Among the resolutions offered was one by the Rev. Dr. [now Bishop] Whitehouse, " earnestly and affectionately begging the Right Rev. Bishop Onderdonk to resign the jurisdiction of the Diocese of New-York," and in that event pledging the Diocese to pay him two thou- sand dollars per annum for the term of his natural life, and in the event of his decease, with her survivorship, the sum of one thousand dollars, yearly, to Lis widow ; and also promising that the Convention would then unite in an earnest petition that the said Bishop may be relieved from all disabilities, and restored to the full exercise of such clerical and Episcopal functions as are allowed to a Bishop who has resigned his jurisdiction. The vote upon this resolution was as follows : Ayes. Noes. Clergy 30 98 Laity 44 70 74 "l68 So the motion was lost. The Rev. Dr. Sherwood's resolutions were superseded by that of the Rev. Dr. Higbee, which was more concise, requesting the Standing Com- mittee to present, at an early day, an address to the House of Bishops, praying them to adopt such measures as might render the wise intent of the provision of the 3d Canon of 1847 (enacting that thereafter all sen- tences of suspension should specify on what terms, or at what time, the penalty should cease) available to the relief of the Diocese of New- York. Although the Canonical application was made, in October, 1849. request- ing the calling of a special meeting of the Bishops, such meeting was 108 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. not convened till the 1st of October following, the day before the regular meeting of the General Convention : an evasion of the Canon which called forth strong censures from some of the ablest members of the House of Deputies. In pursuance of the authority committed to them, the Stand- ing Committee caused to be prepared by a Sub-Committee of their num- ber, and adopted the following very able document. The facts of the case are faithfully and impartially stated, and the principles involved are most powerfully and lucidly set forth. The injustice done to the Diocese and its Diocesan is written clearly, as with a sunbeam; and is more forci- bly stated by the few masterly strokes of the able pen of the accom- plished author, than could be done by volumes of declamation. THE PRAYER Of the Diocese of New-York, to the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, for relief from sufferings consequent on the Sentence of the Episcopal Court, in January, 1845. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND THE BISHOPS OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \ Right Reverend Fathers : In a notice transmitted to you through our Secretary, in October last, we had the honor to apprise you severally that we had been instructed by our Convention to address you as a body, in reference to the present sad state of our Diocese, and to ask of you that relief which the legislation of the Church has opened the way for you to afford. As preliminary to the matter in hand, we submit the following facts : The General Convention of 1844, passed a Canon (the third of that year) entitled, " Of the Trial of a Bishop/' which provides for the infliction of a penalty in the following, and no other words : u And if it be that the accused is guilty, the Court shall, at the same time, pass sentence, and award the penalty of admonition, suspension, or deposition, as to them the offence or offences proved may seem to deserve." The General Convention of that year adjourned on the 22d of October, and on the 9th day of the month following, a presentment was served on our Bishop, the Right Reverend Dr. B. T. Onderdonk, charging offences alleged to have been committed at sundry specified times between June, 1837, and July, 1842. On the 10th of December, 1844, a Court of Bishops met in this city for the trial of our Bishop, under the aforesaid Canon ; and having tried and adjudged him " guilty," pronounced his sentence, on the 3d of January, 1845, in the following words : "It is hereby ordered and declared, that the sentence by this Court upon the Respondent is suspension from the office of a Bishop in the Church of God, and from all the functions of the sacred ministry — and this Court do hereby solemnly pronounce and declare, that the Right Reverend Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk is suspended from all exercise of his Epis- copal and ministerial functions." In September, 1847, the Convention of our Diocese adopted unanimously the following resolutions, to be transmitted to the next General Conven- tion : " Resolved, As the solemn conviction of this Convention, that justice to NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 109 the Church in the Diocese of New-York, as well as its best interests, de- mand that it be relieved from its present anomalous position. " Resolved, That the General Convention be, and is hereby requested to give to the Church in this Diocese, such relief as may be consistent with its powers.' ; In October, of the same year, the General Convention met, and on con- sideration of the application of this Diocese, enacted the following Canons, the only ones bearing on our case, which are known as the second and third Canons of that year : " Of the Remission or Modification of Judicial Sentences/ 3 11 The Bishops of this Church who are entitled to seats in the House of Bishops, may altogether remit and terminate any judicial sentence which may have been imposed, or may hereafter be imposed, by Bishops acting collectively as a Judicial Tribunal, or modify the same so far as to desig- nate a precise period of time or other specific contingency, on the occur- rence of which, such sentence shall utterly cease and be of no further force or effect : Provided 31 etc. " Of the Penalty of Suspension."' u "Whenever the penalty of suspension shall be inflicted on a Bishop, Priest, or Deacoa in this Church, the sentence shall specify on what terms, or at what time said penalty shall cease." In September, 1849, the Convention of our Diocese adopted — by a vote of clergy, ayes 91, noes 37, and of laity, ayes 69, noes 46 — the preamble and resolution (already transmitted to you and presently to be quoted) under which we address you. In October following, the canonical num- ber of Bishops united in a respectful request to the Presiding Bishop to call a special meeting of your body in the month of February, 1850, at such time in the month, and at such place as might seem to him fit and convenient; whereupon the Presiding Bishop convoked your venerable body at Cincinnati, on the day next preceding that appointed for the open- ing of the General Convention in October, 1850 ■ at which time and place the present address is designed to reach you. From these facts the position of your memorialists may be readily inferred : The third Canon of 1844, by distinguishing suspension from deposition, evidently intended that a sentence of suspension should define its limit, This opinion, which was intimated in 1845 by the body now addressing you, in connection with a reference to high legal opinions to show that a sentence of suspension, without a limit in terms, was void and inoperative in law, has been since ruled by the third Canon of 1847. Agreeably, however, to the letter of the Canon, the Court which tried our Bishop in- flicted the penalty of " suspension," without a limit in terms. Had the sentence declared the limit of the penalty, the Diocese of New-York would have had no occasion to look beyond itself for relief from the evils which it entailed. But the sentence did not declare the limit of the penalty; nor, on the adjournment of the Court, and the consequent expiration of its powers, was there any tribunal in the Church canonically competent to declare it. Commensurate in duration with the penalty were the evils which followed it ; and it was under the pressure of these evils, (evils, be it observed, growing not out of suspension, in the definite sense since ruled by the Church, but out of an unlimited suspension,) that the Supreme Le- gislature of the Church, on the first occasion of its meeting after the decla- ration of the sentence, was approached by our Diocese with a unanimous 110 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS prayer for relief. The General Convention promptly provided a remedy for these evils, by clothing your venerable body with a canonical power either to remit and terminate the penalty altogether, or to affix to it the limit which the sentence had failed to express, but which the Canon now requires shall be expressed in every similar sentence. Since the adjourn- ment of the General Convention of 1847, which made this provision, the present is the first occasion of the meeting of your body ; and on this oc- casion we come before you, in the name of our Convention, with the prayer, that you would exert for our relief the power with which you have been, for this purpose, canonically invested. That the scope of our instructions, and the mind of our Diocese may be the better understood, we lay before you a copy of the preamble and reso- lution which have led to the present address : " Whereas, the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in the General Convention of 1847, passed a Canon in the words following : " ' Whenever the penalty of suspension shall be inflicted on a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church, the sentence shall specify, at what time or on what terms said penalty shall cease.' "And whereas, the Diocese and Diocesan of New- York, have been for a long time suffering under the disabilities which it was the design of the Canon to prevent in future; Therefore, " Resolved, That the Standing Committee be requested to present, at an early day, an address to the House of Bishops, praying that venerable body to adopt such measures as may render the wise intent of the provi- sions of said Canon of 1847, available to the relief of our Diocese : that so the objects maybe accomplished of the unanimous prayer of this Conven- tion to the General Convention of 1847.' ; The preamble, as will be seen, contains two clauses which are the bases of the resolution. The first shows the equitable principle of legis- lation on which we rely for relief; and the second shows the end or object for which the application of this principle is invoked. The principle is, that the penalty of suspension should have a declared limit; and the end of the desired application of this principle, in the present instance, is to relieve " the Diocese and Diocesan of New-York. JJ The actual provisions of Canon III, of 1847, are, of course, not applicable to a sentence which was pronounced before the Canon was adopted ; but the " wise intent,'' or equitable principle of these provisions is applicable to the sentence, and your venerable body have been canonically empowered to apply it. The actual provisions of the Canon demand that hereafter, in every sentence of suspension, the limit of the penalty shall be declared ; the " wise intent" or equity of these provisions leads us to hope that a suspension inflicted before the adoption of the Canon, and having no declared limit, will also have its limit declared now that your venerable body have the canonical power to declare it. If the limitation is made, the effect of it will be to remove the suffering which has induced us to pray for relief; that is to say, the suffering of our Diocese and Diocesan. We are not aware that the suffering of both, the Bishop and the Diocese, can be relieved in any other way (except, indeed, by an entire remission of the penalty) than by a limitation of the penalty : so that both the principle on which we rely for relief, and the end for which we solicit it, concur in pointing to a specific- measure for the accomplishment of the objects of our unanimous prayer to the General Convention of 1847. Before we make our request, it is proper to open up its grounds by ask- ing your attention to the nature and extent of our grievances. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. Ill Suspension, as commonly understood and as now ruled by our Canons, is a temporary deprivation of office ; differing from deposition in nothing except that it lias a limit of time or condition. Equally with deposition it incapacitates the person who is suffering under it for the exercise of office ; and it is distinguished from deposition only by its reserving to him the right to resume the exercise of his office on the efflux of the time, or the fulfilment of the condition, which is the term or limit of the penalty. In the case of our Bishop, however, this penalty has been inflicted without the declaration of the time or condition which is necessary in order to its limitation. In this respect, ours is a peculiar hardship ; no other Diocese ever has been, or, under our existing Canons, ever can be subject- ed to evils flowing from the same cause ; the power of your venerable body to hold the Bishop of a Diocese suspended at pleasure, and to keep his Diocese under a sentence which works all the evils of a vacancy without actually creating a vacancy, having been, on the first and only occasion of its exercise, and with your own consent, abridged and limited forever by Canon III., of 1847. And we desire, that in considering our prayer, the unlimited nature of the sentence, and the equitable bearing on it of this Canon, may be kept distinctly and constantly in view. The effect of this sentence on our Diocese has been most disastrous. By a fundamental principle of the Catholic Church, adopted in the fourth article of the Constitution of our own Church " every Bishop" is required to " confine the exercise of his Episcopal office to his proper Dio- cese, unless requested to ordain, or confirm, or perform any other act of the Episcopal Office by any Church destitute of a Bishop.' 7 The Church of New-York was wholly deprived of the services of its own Bishop, either in person or by deputy; bur it was not destitute of a Bishop, and conse- quently not in a condition to make that request without which no other Bishop on earth could lawfully .exercise his Episcopal office within her borders. Thus were we totally cut off, not for a limited time (this we could have borne in silence.) but for an unlimited time, from the benefits of that institution, which we believe to be, under God, the fountain of life to the Church. From the moment of the promulgation of the sentence, in January, 1845, the Diocese of New- York was thrown back into a state similar to that in which it was placed while New-York was a colony of Great Britain, without even that shadow of Episcopal supervision which existed when, during our colonial dependence, we were placed under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. We had, indeed, a Bishop ; but a Bishop whose hands were tied ; who was unable to confirm the young, to ordain candidates for orders, to consecra.te churches, to inspect our parishes, to exercise discipline, or to perform any one act of Episcopal supervision; and all this for a time of unlimited duration. And although by a liberal construction of the fourth article of the Constitution, and by special legis- lation grounded on the necessity of the case (a necessity which could never have been assumed to exist had the sentence contained a limitation), the rigor of our condition has been so far mitigated that we have been enabled to invite other Bishops into our Diocese for the performance of certain Episcopal duties, yet the evils which flow from the want of Episcopal supervision and jurisdiction still remain in their full force and operation. The Bishops who are invited to officiate in our Diocese are restrained from every act, proper to their office, which involves the power of jurisdiction Our clergy consequently have no head who is authorized to watch over them, to advise or to admonish, to warn or to rebuke; and our parishes have no common head to inspect their condition. Our candidates for the Holy Ministry are deprived of the paternal guidance which the Church 112 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. contemplates and which they especially need. Confirmations are no longer appointed by the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese, but are held at the pleasure of the clergy and performed by a Bishop who comes in, at the re- quest of the Standing Committee, to give effect to their wishes. Our dis- cipline is reduced to the cold and mechanical operation of legal processes, without a breath of that paternal and discretionary authority, which, when wisely exerted, is more efficacious for the prevention of evil than are Canons for its cure. In a Diocese so large as ours, the want of this pater- nal supervision is severely felt : nor can we refrain from expressing the sorrow with which we have beheld instances of clerical delinquency, not cognizable by the Canons, tending toward and at length resulting in defec- tion from the Church, while the only voice which could be raised in an effort to arrest the evil by authoritative inquiry or remonstrance, was for- bidden to speak ; and difficulties between rectors and parishes, which might, in all human probability, have been healed by timely and authori- tative interposition, suffered to go unchecked until they had bred confu- sion and scandal, and involved the parties in a litigation which ended in their great estrangement or in the rupture of the sacred tie which united them. A special effect of this sentence is to deprive the Bishop on whom it operates of his seat in the House of Bishops; and we deem it a grievance that the Bishop of our Diocese shall have no voice in the body which is so important a branch of that legislature to whose laws we are subject, and by whose acts we are bound. Had this deprivation been limited, and had the limit extended beyond the meeting of one General Convention, we had been silent : but when this address reaches you, a second General Conven- tion will have met, from which the Bishop of our Diocese is excluded : and the exclusion, unless you shall be pleased to order otherwise, will con- tinue to be for an unlimited time. And what help is there for these evils ? None within our reach. If our Bishop possessed a right to jurisdiction, and were disqualified for its exer- cise through bodily or mental infirmity, we might choose for him an as- sistant or coadjutor; but he is totally, only not forever, deprived of this right, and consequently, so long as the deprivation lasts, of all capacity of receiving assistance or cooperation. If he possessed the right, and were disqualified for its exercise through his own fault, through any acts which brought discredit or dishonor on his character, a resignation of his juris- diction, either of his own motion, or at the instance of his Diocese, would naturally ensue. But the case has been taken, not by our act, but by the act of members of your own body, from the bar of public opinion to the bar of Ecclesiastical Law. Where you have put the case, there we have been fain to leave it; without lifting a finger to divert the current of eccle- siastical justice from that channel through which the constituted authorities of the Church have ordained it to flow. If you see fit to loose the case from its legal bands, and remit it to the moral sense of the community, which has heretofore been deemed sufficient to guard the reputation of our American Episcopate, the Diocese of New-York will know, as it ever has known, what is due to itself from its Bishop ; and knowing this, will not fail, as it never has failed, to maintain its own dignity and self-respect. But while the case remains in its present state we are powerless, and can look only to your venerable body for relief. It is doubtless, however, your pleasure, Right Reverend Fathers, no less than our duty, that we bring our prayer within the bounds marked out for our relief, by the Supreme Legislature of the Church. To this end we purpose to forbear to ask of you the adoption of any measure in our be- NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 113 half, which the General Convention has forborne to sanction, and to ask of you only such a measure as the General Convention has sanctioned. On the prayer of our Diocese to the General Convention of 1847, this body enacted no Canon either to void the jurisdiction of a suspended Bishop, or to authorize the Diocese of such Bishop to choose another Bishop, who, during this suspension, should exercise jurisdiction in his stead. In a word, the General Convention, after due deliberation, forbore to sanction, and by so doing tacitly condemned any and every measure for our relief, which would be questionable in principle, or which would re- lieve the Diocese without also relieving its Bishop. Confining ourselves, as in duty bound, within the limits marked out for us by the collective wisdom of the Church, we ask : 1. For no relief to our Diocese at the expense of any principle of the Church, We regard the See of New-York as filled; and since the House of Bishops has been canonically empowered to remit or limit the penalty which restrains its Bishop from the exercise of his functions, the plea of necessity cannot be urged for any further departure from the Fourth Ar- ticle of our Constitution, or rather from the fundamental principle on which this article is founded, that the Church of every Diocese is one body, of which its Bishop is the head. It is enough that our Diocese, though not vacant, invites other Bishops to perform within it Episcopal acts not involving jurisdiction. To acknowledge another centre of jurisdiction until the Diocese shall have been lawfully vacated, to transfer to another Bishop the canonical obedience which, although temporarily interrupted, is yet due to our present Diocesan, is a measure for which, we believe, our Diocese is not prepared. We ask : 2. For no relief to our Diocese at the expense of any of the rights of our Bishop. Without presuming to indicate the views of the Diocese, or of any por- tion of it, on questions involved in the trial of our Bishop, such questions being foreign to the duty at present devolved upon us, we do not hesitate to say that there is one principle by which, since the termination of the trial, our Diocese has been governed; and that is, to do nothing which would either increase or diminish the legal force and effect of the sentence. Duty to the authority which pronounced the sentence has forbidden the one, and duty to him who suffers the sentence has forbidden the other; and in the equal discharge of both duties we have sought to abide by the penalty, the whole penalty, and nothing but the penalty. The lawful force of the penalty, however, allows and requires, that the subject of it, in the event of its expiration, shall be possessed of all the canonical rights which he had before its infliction. To solicit or instigate any infraction of the pen- alty would be an act of contempt to the tribunal which awarded it : to solicit or instigate any measure which would involve a forfeiture of rever- sionary rights, or lessen the chance of their recovery, would be an act of bad faith and injustice to the suspended Bishop : and as no past act of our Convention has cast disrespect on the Court, so none has given us reason to believe that a measure which would aim to relieve the Diocese, at the expense of the rights of the Diocesan, would meet the wishes of the Diocese, or receive its active concurrence. But the guidance of the General Convention in this matter is not mere- ly negative. It has legislated positively in view of our case, and its legis- lation embraces two, and only two provisions available to our relief. Of 8 114 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. these the one empowers your body to "altogether remit and terminate any judicial sentence which may have been imposed;" and the other to u modify the same so as to designate a precise period of time, or other spe- cific contingency, on the occurrence of which such sentence shall utterly cease and be of no further force or effect." The former provision author- izes you to grant an instant and unconditional remission of the penalty under consideration ; and it authorizes yo\i, also, it is believed, as a House of Bishops, to review the proceedings of the Court, and, should you see fit, to rescind its sentence : while the latter provision invites us to the more moderate course of praying you, without raising a question on the proceedings of the Court, to assign to the penalty the limit which the sen- tence has failed to express. It is also worthy of note, as indicating more precisely the intention of the General Convention, that the latter provision is, while the former is not, adapted to the case of our Diocese alone, ex- clusively of all other Dioceses now and forever. For your body will be forever liable to be called on to remit and terminate a judicial sentence ; but you are not now, nor, inasmuch as every future sentence of suspension must contain its own limitation, will you ever hereafter be moved, as a House of Bishops, to limit a suspension in the case of any other Diocesan than the Bishop of New-York. Guided, then, by the Supreme Authority of the Church, and by the res- olution under which we address you, which point to one and the same specific measure of relief, we come now, Right Reverend Fathers, dis- tinctly to prefer our prayer : which is, that in consideration of the suffer- ings of our Bishop and Diocese, under a sentence of suspension which has no declared limit, you would proceed in virtue of your power under the second Canon of 1847, to declare the limit of the penalty by the designa- tion of an early day on which the penalty shall cease, and be of no further force or effect. We ask for a limitation, instead of a remission, because a limitation of the penalty provides for its exhaustion. When the limit of the penalty under consideration shall have been defined by competent authority, and that limit shall have been reached, the whole amount of punishment de- creed by the Court will have been suffered ; and the honor of the Court and of the Church will have been amply vindicated. We ask for a limitation of time, instead of condition, because : 1. A limitation of time is a direct and effectual method to secure the de- sired relief; and the same reasons which move us to pray for relief, move us also to pray for the adoption of such a measure of relief as is direct and effectual, in preference to any other which is indirect and uncertain. Be- cause : 2. A condition involving the merits of the case, when the case is not to be rejudged, ought in equity, we think, to be declared by no other tribunal than that which declared the sentence. That tribunal, however, is no longer in existence ; and if it were, there is no harshness in supposing that in the interval of nearly six years, events may have transpired which it would desire to take into consideration in any new action involving the merits of the case. The House of Bishops have the power, indeed, to modify the sentence by annexing to it a condition of this nature ; but we respectfully submit to their consideration, whether a condition which could have been justly inserted in the sentence, might not now, after the lapse of nearly six years' patient and submissive endurance, operate as an aggravation of the penalty ; and whether it would not be in effect to re- affirm the decision of the Court without granting the suspended Bishop the benefit of a rehearing. And because : NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 115 3. A condition not involving the merits of the case, unless, indeed, it were merely nominal, would have the effect either, 1. To peril a funda- mental principle of our Church, and the sacred rights of our Diocesan : or, 2. To take the ultimate determination and issue of the penalty from your venerable body, with whom we desire to leave it, and make it de- pendent on contingencies less favorable to the peace and tranquillity of the Church. Bat that our motives in this particular may not be misunderstood, we beg to assure you of our distinct and unwavering conviction that, as re- spects the subject of this penalty, all the ends contemplated by a condi- tional limitation, will have been attained in the fulness of their spirit. He has borne his protracted sufferings with the most patient and dutiful sub- mission; and whatever opinions he, in common with others, may have honestly entertained on abstract questions deeply affecting his interests, he has led, beyond question, from the time he was so unhappy as to incur the displeasure of his brethren, a most devout, guarded, and exemplary life. It must be understood, however, Right Reverend Fathers, that we ap- proach you on this present occasion, not as parfizans of the suspended Bishop, but as representatives of the Diocese. In all that we have depre- cated, and in what we have solicited at your hands, we have been swayed by no other motives than by those which we have frankly avowed. Ulterior purposes do not enter into our present application. Questions of a mere personal bearing have had no power either to draw us to, or to turn us from, the point of our request. To this we have been led, as we believe, solely by the general legislation of the Church, by the dictates of immuta- ble justice and equity, and by the spirit of the instructions under which we act — all which have concurred to fix our minds on the specific measure which we have urged, as the only one by which the desired relief can be equitably and honorably attained. It is due to you, also, that we here state, with entire frankness, what we suppose to be the precise effect of this measure which we ask you to adopt, and the relative responsibility devolved by it on your venerable body and on our Diocese. The immediate and necessary effect of the limitation and consequent expiration of the penalty will be, we apprehend, simply to reinstate our Bishop in the full possession of his rights of office and jurisdiction by re- moving all legal let or impediment to their exercise. The actual perform- ance of Episcopal services in the Diocese, may or may not be consequent on the expiration of the penalty, but will not, we apprehend, be its imme- diate and necessary effect. As matters now stand, every avenue to relief is closed ; the penalty, while it operates, presenting an impassable barrier of indeterminate duration, not only to the full communication of our Dio- cese with any other Bishop, but to all communication of the Diocese with its own Bishop. But if the penalty be limited, the immediate and neces- sary effect of the limitation, when the limit shall have been reached, will be, we suppose, simply to bring the Bishop into living connection with his Diocese, and to put both Diocese and Diocesan in a capacity to unite and co-operate in the adoption of measures for the common good. And in this effect we recognize the line which divides the responsibility of your venerable body from that of our Diocese. On this point, we would have it considered, that the suspension of a Diocesan Bishop is a punishment which the Church has decreed. It was decreed by the General Convention of 1841, and again decreed by the Gene- ral Convention of 1844. Your own House, also, in 1844, adopted a Canon, which provided that, " In case of the limited suspension of any Bishop, 116 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. the Standing Committee of any Diocese of such suspended Bishop may apply to the Bishop or Bishops of this Church to perform Episcopal duties within such Diocese ; ;; and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies also, although it did not concur in the Canon, yet adopted the section of it which contains the above provision, expunging only the word limited, on the ground, as is believed, that suspension is, in its own nature, a limited penalty. In vie\V of all this, it was further enacted in 1847, that every suspension, that of a Diocesan Bishop included, hereafter inflicted, shall be limited. This repeated action shows that the whole subject has been distinctly and maturely considered. Now, it is hardly to be expected that the penalty of suspension should work itself out on any Diocesan Bishop without rendering a portion, and possibly a large portion, of his Diocese averse to the reception of his services; such a consequence is natural and too obvious to have escaped attention ; but the Church has decreed, notwithstanding, that, on the expiration of the penalty, the Bishop and his Diocese shall again be brought into active connection. The infer- ence which we draw from this is, that all ulterior questions, all beyond the immediate and necessary effect of limitation, are to be settled by the Bishop and Diocese between themselves. The supreme authority of the Church inflicts the punishment, guards it in its progress, and brings it to an end, and there leaves the parties more immediately concerned in it to take care of themselves. A Bishop and Diocese, on coming together again after such an interruption of their intercourse, must expect to contend with some difficulties and perplexities ; but the cure for these evils would seem to be in local and Diocesan regulations, and not in the higher and more general authorities of the Church. It may be that the state of the Diocese will be such as to render the voluntary retirement of the Bishop from his charge desirable for his own peace and the good of the Church; or it may be deemed expedient that the Bishop should give the Diocese the benefit of his counsel and general supervision, but refrain from the visitation of parishes ; or, again, it may be thought best that he should visit some parts of his Diocese in person, while the visitation of other parts should be delegated to another Bishop. It is impossible to predict, with any degree of precision, what the state of a Diocese, in such an event, would be, or what measures would be best adapted to promote its peace and welfare. But be the difficulties of the case what they may, as the Church did not need to be particularly informed of them before she pre- scribed limitation in every case in which a Diocesan Bishop shall be sus- pended, so it cannot be necessary, in the present instance, to press them on your attention. The Church, in her collective capacity, has assumed that the limitation of the penalty is the point at which her immediate re- sponsibility ceases and that of the Diocese begins; and if the evils natu- rally consequent on such an event have not deterred her from making limitation the universal rule, they will be of no force, we apprehend, to deter your venerable body from applying the equity of this rule to the particular case under consideration. The Church herself has placed that confidence in every Diocese as to suppose that, when an emergency, such as is here contemplated, shall arise, it will be able to cope with its diffi- culties in the spirit of wisdom and charity; and we trust that you. Right Reverend Fathers, have no reason to withdraw from the Diocese of New- York that confidence which the General Convention has reposed ia her, in common with other Dioceses. Let the equitable provisions of the General Convention take their natural course, and we fear no evils which may not, by God ; s blessing, be averted, and made to redound to the welfare of the Church, and to furnish new proofs of her stability. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 117 We find ourselves, Right Reverend Fathers, addressing you under very remarkable circumstances. We had supposed that the benefits of the Episcopacy, subject only to such temporary interruptions as are caused by vacancies, had been secured to us forever; and we have been taught to be thankful to Divine Providence for the blessing, and to hold in honor the names of the great and good men, now -gone to their rest, through whose pious labors and sacrifices it was obtained. But we now find our- selves deprived of this blessing by an interruption which has no limit, and the end of which, unless your venerable body shall declare it, no human foresight can predict. We had supposed that the rights and liberties of every member of our Church were secured by law, and not left dependent on the will of arbitrary and irresponsible power ; and we have rejoiced in the confidence which this security imparts. But we now find oub- selves, in a matter involving the rights and liberty of a Bishop of the Church, and the rights and welfare of a Diocese which numbers its clergy by hundreds, and its communicants by thousands, thrown entirely on your mercy, suing for what we believe to be a simple act of justice, without a Canon to enforce our suit, and before a tribunal which may grant or re- fuse our prayer of its own mere pleasure, and on its responsibility to God and its conscience alone. In this most extraordinary position we have two sources of consolation. The first is, that of all our confederated Churches, the Church of New-York is alone in this state of dependence, and that all are now shielded, by express canonical provisions, from simi- lar privations in future. The other is, that a power so dangerous and capable of abuse in unworthy hands, is, in the present instance, vested in the Order of Bishops, and in members of that Order who belong to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. These con- siderations go far to reconcile us to our position, because they assure us that the power at whose disposal we are placed, and whose interposition we invite, will be exercised in the spirit of wisdom and clemency, "not for destruction, but for salvation — not to hurt, but to help," and under a due sense of responsibility to the great Shepherd and Bishop of Souls. In conclusion, we beg to assure you, Right Reverend Fathers, of our sincere and fervent wishes for your health and prosperity in Christ Jesus our Lord. On behalf and by order of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New-York. William Berrian, D. D., President. Benjamin I. Haight, D. D., Secretary. New-York, September 19, 1850. The foregoing Address was adopted at a meeting of the Standing Com- mittee of the Diocese of New-York, duly convened, on Thursday, the 19th day of September, A. D. 1850, and ordered to be transmitted to the Right Reverend the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, at their meet- ing in Cincinnati, on Tuesday, the 1st day of October. (Attest), Benjamin I. Haight, Secretary. New-York, September 25, 1850. 118 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. REPLY OF THE BISHOPS. House of Bishops, > Cincinnati, October 12th, 1850. J Rev. "William Berrian, D. D., President of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New-York : Rev. and Dear Sir: Agreeably to instructions of the Bishops in Council, I have the honor to transmit to you the accompanying Report and Resolutions. The Resolutions were passed by the Bishops in Council, Friday, October 11th, 1850. Yours very respectfully, George D. Gillespie, Secretary pro tern. The Committee, to whom was referred the papers relating to the Diocese of New-York, and the case of its suspended Bishop, beg leave respectfully to report : That they have had the same under consideration. These papers con- sist of a resolution, adopted by the Convention of New-York in 1849 ; of a memorial, drawn up and adopted at a meeting of its Standing Committee, regularly convened in the city of New-York, September 19th, 1850, solicit- ing a modification or remission of the sentence pronounced by the Court of Bishops upon the Right Rev. B. T. Onderdonk ; and of two memorials, the one numerously signed by individuals, the other from the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry of St. George's Church, in the city of New-York; both praying this body not to restore the suspended Bishop to the exercise of his Epis- copal functions, and especially to the exercise of jurisdiction in the Diocese of New-York. In none of the memorials is immediate restoration asked for, nor is it implied that it is the general wish of the Diocese that the suspended Bishop should again become its active head. On the contrary, it is distinctly inti- mated in the memorial of the Standing Committee, that the remission of the sentence might not be sufficient to enable the suspended Bishop to resume his visitations, but might necessarily be followed by his abstaining permanently from them, or by the resignation of his jurisdiction, to which resignation he has, in the opinion of your Committee, ever been competent; and whatever doubts may have been entertained on this point by some t)thers, must now be removed by the Canon passed at this session of the General Convention, making special provision for such a case. Still the Standing Committee argue, that a limitation of the penalty, by the desig- nation of an early day on which the penalty shall cease, and be of no fur- ther force and effect, is the only measure of relief which is consistent with sound principles, or likely to afford full satisfaction. It will be remembered that, so far as the Diocese is concerned, an appli- cation for relief, from what was termed its anomalous position, was made to the General Convention of 1847, by the Diocesan Convention of New- York ; and that at the same session application was made by the Right Rev. B. T. Onderdonk to the Bishops, praying that they would open the way for his personal relief from the sentence of suspension, under which he was laboring. In answer to the first of these applications, as well as out of regard to high considerations of duty and expediency, the General Convention of 1847 did enact three Canons (known as Canons 2, 3, and 4, of the General Convention of 1847), which would compromise, it was understood, no im- portant principle maintained by any of the parties interested, and which, if fairly tried, might be expected to afford to the Diocese sufficient relief from the difficulties under which it was thought to labor. NAEKATIVE OF EVENTS. 119 To one of the most important of these Canons (the 4th of 1847), no refer- ence is made in the argument of the Standing Committee ; there has been no attempt, it is believed, to secure the full care and jurisdiction of a Bishop, as provided for in its second section ; and the Canon itself is treated as if it had no existence. The Committee conceive, that before renewing its application for relief, the Diocese ought to have made trial of the means already provided, especially as they are means which were adopted on the basis of a fra- ternal compromise, and which were understood to have received the con- currence of the representatives of that Diocese at the time. If, however, additional legislation shall seem good to the wisdom of the General Convention now assembled, the individuals composing the Com- mittee will cheerfully co-operate in their capacity as members of the House of Bishops. In regard to the suspended Bishop himself, it is sufficient to remark, that his case received the careful and anxious consideration of his brethren, the Bishops of this Church, in 1847. It was then distinctly declared in the Report of the Committee, that in the absence of any proof or even allega- tion of his innocence, of any profession of penitence, and of any sufficient evidence that the penalty, under which he was suffering, was inconsistent with law or equity, a remission ought not to be expected, and could not be allowed. In all these respects the position of his case remains unchanged. The Committee are therefore at a loss to conceive on what grounds the Bishops could justify themselves in fixing any precise time at which the force and effect of the sentence should cease. No mere lapse of time can transform guilt into innocence, nor make him worthy to exercise the office of a Bishop in the Church of God, who, by the solemn sentence of its highest tribunal, has been once declared to be unworthy. The Committee, in conclusion, propose for adoption the following reso- lutions : — Resolved, That the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New-York, and the other memorialists, have leave to withdraw their memorials. Resolved, That a copy of this report, and the accompanying resolutions, be transmitted by the Secretary of this House to the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New- York. (Signed), T. C. Brownell, John H. Hopkins, Alfred Lee, J. P. K. Henshaw, Alonzo Potter. A true copy. (Attest). Geo. D. Gillespie, Secretary pro tern. This document, and the proceedings in relation to it, do not appear in the Journal of the General Convention — the House of Bishops having resolved (see Journal of 1850, pp. 101, 102), to provide "a Special [secret] Journal of the Proceedings" of the Council into which they were about to resolve themselves. It will be observed that their reply to the Standing Committee was, characteristically; based upon opposition memorials, outside influences, and 120 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS- the infallibility of the original judgment of the Court. No comment is required in this place — the able article from the pen of Dr. Seabury, on the answer of the Bishops to the Memorial, in 1847 (see p. 101), having effectually disposed of the arguments here repeated respecting the Bishop himself. ACTION OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF 1850. At the General Convention of 1850, a Canon (see Digest, Section 6, Canon 13 of Title I.), was passed, providing for the election of a Provisional Bishop, who should exercise all the power and authority of the Bishop of the Diocese during the suspension of such Bishop, and who, in case of the remission of the sentence of the Bishop, and his restoration to the exercise of his jurisdiction, should perform the duties of Assistant Bishop prescribed by Canon VI. of 1832,* and who, in all cases, should succeed to the Bishop on his death or resignation. The New-York Deputies (Rev. Drs. Sherwood, Higbee, and Seabury), voted against this Canon ; and the dissatisfaction of the Diocese respecting the arrangement may be gathered from the fact that the Special Convention, called for the purpose of taking action under it ; adjourned without being able to accomplish their object. The Rev. Dr. Creighton was elected by the Convention of 1851, but he afterwards declined. In 1852, the Rev. Dr. "Wainwright was elected, and consecrated November 10th, of the same year. He departed this life on the 21st of September, 1854 ; and, at the next meeting of the Convention, the Rev. Dr. H. Potter was elected to succeed him in the Provisional ad- ministration of the Diocese. * This Canon provides that " the Assistant Bishop shall perform such Episcopal duties, and exercise such Episcopal authority in the Diocese, as the Bishop shall assign to him." Jrjposeb CiHI Suit. In the year 1853 a layman of the Church in this city employed counsel, who prepared an elaborate Opinion, designed for trial before a civil court, with a view to ascertain the right of Bishop Onderdonk to the full amount of the salary provided for his office, as well as to test the validity of the sentence of suspension passed upon him, a question, by the way, of grave importance ; for, surely no American citizen should rest satisfied with the present organization of Ecclesiastical Courts, whose so-called judicial proceedings, based as they frequently are upon the rancor of strife and party feeling, oftentimes convert the court itself into an instru- ment of persecution; and, as a general thing, are much more likely to re- sult in tyranny and oppression and in damage to the State, than in any good to society, or the Church. It is no trifling illustration of what we say, that the House of Bishops have, since the sentence was passed upon Bishop Onderdonk, acknowledged their proceedings, as an ecclesiastical court, to have been hasty and ille- gal ; and that, too, with special reference to their action in regard to the case of Bishop Onderdonk. We allude to the passage of the Canon against themselves, to the effect that such a thing as a sentence of indefi- nite suspension shall never again be inflicted upon a minister of the Church. To do this, to acknowledge the wrong, and yet withhold relief from the injured party, whose pitiable case demanded action against the further invasion of individual rights, affords additional evidence of the danger to be apprehended from what we must again designate as a bur- lesque on judicial proceedings of ecclesiastical bodies. The Church should not, by injudicious legislation, deprive individuals of civil rights, if she would have her tribunals unmolested by the civil arm. Neither ought she to expect that when she sees her faults and mends her legislation* but withholds mercy and justice from the subject of her acknowledged error, that she will continue to grow in favor with her Divine Head. And, if the Church would look lovely in the eyes of her children, she must do justly and love mercy; in short, she must follow the example of her Lord. 122 NARRATIVE OF EV ENTS. This Opinion, which was not published until September 29, 1859, throws much valuable light upon important points, some of which, after so many years of quiet submission, have come to be but little understood, and some, though not the least of which, have never received the slightest public attention — the case having never been tried. The Opinion con- cludes with these words : ft On the whole, I am satisfied that the sentence in question has become inoperative — has long since performed its office. That the construction which has been given to that sentence, as imposing and continuing disa- bilities upon the Bishop, was erroneous. That by virtue of the Canon of 1844, a penalty and punishment not before authorized, could not be im- posed for offences or acts prior to that year. That the contract made by this Diocese with the Bishop, was binding, and was not affected or rendered invalid by the suspension; and that the Bishop, in proceeding to enforce his rights, would be performing a duty, and would be doing the Church a real service by settling a matter now held in doubt and uncertainty." After its submission to such men as Horace Binney, Esq., of Philadel- phia, Chief Justice Jones, of this city, Judge Redfield, of Vermont, and others no less distinquished, the Opinion was returned by each and all of them with unqualified approval and assurance that the Bishop's applica- tion to the Court for relief, by virtue of a writ of mandamus, could not fail to accomplish the end in view. In laying the Opinion before the public, the editor of The Churchman says : " We now present the readers of The Churchman with an interesting legal document, which, though written some years since, has never before seen the light. There need, however, be no apology offered for exhuming this paper. Its marked ability and striking application to the present position of our aged Diocesan, as well as the vital interests of the points discussed, to the State, the Church, and to every individual, have secured for it a large share of our columns, and will warrant an attentive and wide-spread perusal. " It would be unkind in us not to say that Bishop Onderdonk has no knowledge whatever of our intention to publish anything concerning this matter. Indeed, we risk little in saying that he is unapprised of the fact that the papers in relation to the proposed case have been preserved, and are now in our possession, nor do Ave hesitate to express the conviction, that if he had been consulted about their publication; his natural instincts would have prompted the sturdiest resistance to the same. * " After saying thus much, and printing the reply of the Bishop to his disinterested friend (who projected the movement and submitted the case to him, all prepared at his own risk and cost), we cannot but hope that the grounds of his refusal to accept the proffered aid, and make the con- templated application to the Supreme Court, will not only elevate him in public estimation, but will serve to check in some degree those unfavorable ebullitions of feeling now beginning to manifest themselves in the public prints, touching the restoration of this afflicted prelate to the exercise of his official duties in the Diocese with which he stands connected, and from which it is impossible for him to separate himself without the commission of an act involving official suicide, and fraught with danger to the Church. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 123 The restoration of Bishop Onderdonk, however worthy he may be consid- ered, is by no means a personal matter. The interests of the Diocese are paramount to every other consideration, and this view is well stated in the following reply to the Bishop's letter • and, so far as its Division is concerned, the Diocese is bound hand and foot. It cannot be divided without his consent ) and this he cannot give, in its* present anomalous position. " But for the publication of what has been so carefully prepared and designed for trial before a civil court, it would not appear, as it should, what strong assurances the Bishop has had, and what weighty reasons for believing that the proposed application for relief would be success- ful : and yet, after prayerful consideration, to see it all overruled by him in a spirit of self-sacrificing submission and love of peace — such a state of things, we say, is quite enough to inspire us with just such generous impulses and feelings which seem to have moved the hearts of those who participated in the present (1859) benevolent enterprise of Restoration. Bearing this in mind, the reader will the better appreciate the following letter from the Bishop, declining, as above stated, to be made a party to the prosecution." LETTER FROM BISHOP ONDERDONK. Franklin -street, September 15, 1853. My Dear Mr. ; As the time seems to have arrived when it is proper for me to say whether I am willing to become an appellant to a civil tribunal against the Eccle- siastical sentence under which I have so long suffered, I feel compelled, after long, deep, and serious reflection — such as the solemnity of the case required, and such, I humbly hope, as behooves a Christian who recognizes his dependence upon a Higher Power," and the necessity of His inspiration and guidance — to inform you that I can- not, at present, regard such an appeal as my duty. You who know exactly how the case has stood between us, will not, I am sure, impute blame to me for my delay in doing so, nor consider my decision as disappointing any expectation which I have justified you in forming. Before, however, proceeding to state the reasons for this conclusion, I must indulge the expression of my deep and grateful sensibility to the disinterested and generous friendship and kindness toward me which the subject has elicited from you. For this I shall ever be thankful. It strengthens the claim you have long had to my respect and affection. That God may bless you for it, will always be, as it has been, my earnest prayer. Some things are duties under all circumstances, because they are, in themselves, morally binding. Some, not having this abstract moral character, become duties only under certain circumstances. Under others, they are either indifferent, or, perhaps, wrong. The Bible, the only genuine code of morals, is to furnish our rule of judgment in the matter. It does not appear from that sacred volume, that going to law, even in a righteous cause, is a duty in itself. Indeed, as far as my memory serves, the only direct refer- ence to that procedure, in the counsels of the New Testament, are rather adverse to it. (See 1 Corinthians, vi. 1-7.) When I add that the Bible is full of strong commendation and requirement of long- suffering and non-resistance, as Christian duties, I by no means wish to be considered as supposing that it condemns resisting and seeking redress as always wrong. They may often b^ right, and sometimes a duty. Clearly, however, it is also true that the path of duty sometimes lies in the direction indicated by St. Paul, when he says, " Why do ye not rather take wrong." Going to law, even to remove an unquestionable wrong, or gain an unquestion- able right, is or is not a duty, according to the circumstances of the case. The cir- cumstances of the present case are such, that after the deepest and most anxious con- sideration of them — deeper and more anxious because of my thorough conviction that the end proposed is an entirely righteous one — I cannot see that I ought to accede to } r our very kind and disinterested proposal. A preliminary difficulty— one, however, that would, of itself, be by no means power- ful — is tha irresistible repugnance I have always felt to clerical strifes about salary, and to bringing ecclesiastical matters before the civil courts. I can readily conceive, however, that there may be occasions requiring, and circumstances justifying such things. 124 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. In a caso so entirely new to me, and: on which I feel myself incompetent to form an intelligent opinion by my own unaided j udgment, I naturally think of those learned in the law, enlightened and experienced in judicial matters, and well versed in eccle- siastical matters, who, for j'ears, have favored me with their counsels, sympathy, and co-operation in things relating to the Church. Gratefully acknowledging the kind and efficient interest which my valued friend has taken in the case, and the favor- able opinion of making the appeal which he has expressed, I find, nevertheless, that my friends have very generally entertained views unfavorable to it. This cannot but have weight with me. Among such of the clergy as have touched upon the subject, the most that I have found has been cold acquiescence, amounting, in one or two cases, to as cold approval ; rather, however, as a desperate measure, than one in itself desirable. And this opens a view of the caso to which few circumstances could induce me to refer, except the just claim which you, my valued friend, have upon me for a frank and ingenuous avowal of the reasons which compel me to decline the import- ant and solemn step on which your heart has been so long and so kindly set. I cannot shut out the obvious consideration, that the contemplated appeal would involve me in a kind of action, or rather, perhaps, class of actions, and in thoughts, cares, and states of mind, entirely foreign from my natural inclinations and cherished habits ; and which I cannot contemplate without great repugnance. Nor is it to be doubted that the resulting excitements in the Church and the community, would be often very vexatious and mortifying. In the disquietude, perhaps depression of mind, very likely to be the consequence, I trust I may be pardoned for saying that I should greatly need the solace and support of a refuge in the earnest and affectionate sym- pathy of my clerical brethren around me. It may be a weakness ; but so it is, that, shut out as I am, from the ordinary resources of society, and of the chosen and be- loved occupations of the Holy Ministry, I feel more and more my dependence on those best of human consolations and supports, which flow from the experience of tha intelligent, generous, and proved sympathy of those about us whom we esteem and love, i" do not now see reasonable ground of confidence that I should be thus sustained and encouraged. This painful remark has not reference simply to the point now in hand. It is prompted also by experience of a wider range — there being, however, cases of exception for which I feel warmly and affectionately thankful. Under all the circumstances of the case, I confess I feel an irrepressible repugnance to the idea of being drawn before the public in a new, and, to me, particularly dis- tasteful way. It hurts me much, my dear friend, to fear that this decision will greatly disappoint 3'ou ; but I trust you know me too well to allow it to be also displeasing. Few sub- jects have ever occupied my mind more seriously and solicitously ; and my conclusion has been reached honestly, sincerely, and in the fear of God. It would be unjust in itself, as well as inconsistent with the promptings of my heart, to close without expressing my respectful and grateful sense of the ability and excel- lence of the Legal Opinion of Mr. , with the perusal of which you favored me. Commending you to God's blessing, and asking your prayers that I may be sus- tained and guided by His grace in the multitude of the difficulties and trials which lie in my path, and that He will overrule them all to His glory, and my spiritual good, I am, my dear Mr. . , Affectionately and truly yours, Benjamin T. Onderdonk. REPLY. New- York, October 4, 1853. To the Right Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk : Dear Sh — The severe and dangerous sickness of several members of irTy family has prevented an earlier response to your communication of the 15th of September last. I have perused the document with deep interest, and have seriously pondered the decision it announced, fortified as it is with the highest authority known'to the Church. Viewed as a merely personal matter, your resolution to take wrong, and suffer your- self to be injured, is worthy the character of the Bishop of the most important Dio- cese in the New World, and must challenge the admiration of every Christian. So far as the subject is a private concern between the Bishop and his persecutors, it seems to be directly within the scope of the Apostle's admonition, which you so appo- sitely quote. Your able support of the position has, in some degree, modified my previous view of the case. But I have ever looked at the question from a higher and more com- manding stand-point, one from which the individual sufferer appeared as the victim NARRATIVE OF EVENTS 125 of a high-handed injustice, inflicted in the name of the Church, and originating in a conspiracy -which seemed utterly reckless of the consequences to the cause of Christ and His Church, if it could but accomplish the destruction of the object of its hate. I saw that it was the Church which was suffering, when her institutions were made the instruments of wrong-doing. By the usurpation and injustice which decreed the indefinite suspension of our Bishop, the subject is taken out of St. Paul's category, and placed on a higher ground than even the injunction of an Apostle — the establishment of equity and justice. The appeal to our civil tribunals for the vindication of rights which had been set at naught in the name of the Church, ought not to be considered as going to law before "unbelievers," which seems to have been a principal objection in the mind of the Apostle. Besides, our judges, though far from being perfect, are doubtless superior to those before whom the primitive brethren preferred their com- plaints. Notwithstanding the importance I attach to the establishment, through the civil courts of our country, of the principles contended for in the legal document submitted to your inspection, still I feel bound to abide by the decision you give, which seems to have been made up with care and in a Christian spirit ; yet the welfare of the Church was assailed in overwhelming the rights of its Bishop, and however much the individual holding the office for the time being might regret an appeal to the civil tribunals, and be willing to suffer wrong, I still believe that, in his representative character as Bishop, he should defend the rights entrusted to his care in the only way that the defence could be made. In the present case, such a proceeding would be important to the well-being of the Church ; but a time may arrive, and circumstances concur, when not only the unity, but also the very existence of the Church, might depend on the decision of a point like that proposed for settlement by the court. An intelligent community could easily be made to appreciate the difference between a merely personal matter, and the stern requirements of official duty. The evil ex- ample would be rebuked, and a vicious precedent nullified. And, even if an adverse decision should be rendered, of which I have not the least fear, the attempt to vindi- cate undoubted rights could not but have a salutary influence, while it would not be the first righteous cause that failed to receive a verdict in its favor. That you may have a continuance of that strength of mind and reliance on God, that have so well sustained you thus far in }^our affliction, is my earnest prayer. Ever cherishing as I have the warmest friendship for you, from the day of my Confirmation at your hands to the present hour, I remain, Right Rev. Sir, Your obedient servant, fast lUfremtnt FOB THE RESTORATION OF BISHOP ONDERDONK PRELIMINARY MEASURES. The decease of Bishop Onderdonk has invested with melancholy and peculiar interest the last effort for the removal of his sentence. It will not be out of place, therefore, to record the proceedings of those who had the matter in hand, and thus preserve the facts connected with their laudable but unsuccessful efforts to remove a dark spot from the page of American Ecclesiastical History. At the meeting of the Board of Missions, in October, 1858, the subject of the restoration of Bishop Onderdonk was, by God's good Spirit, suggested to the mind of the Rev. Dr. Hawks, who, upon inquiry, be- came satisfied that so desirable an end was possible. He thereupon caused certain proposals to be made to the Bishop, respecting the prepa- ration of a Memorial to the House of Bishops. This was accomplished a few months afterwards, through the agency of the Bishop's friends, Dr. Hawks, having, as he said in the Diocesan Convention, neither seen the Bishop nor had any communication with him during the fourteen years of his suspension, save once, and then casually. At the request of Bishop Onderdonk, Dr. Hawks made a sketch of what he considered an appro- priate Memorial, which was substantially approved by the Bishop. This rough draft was afterwards read by Dr. Hawks to several clerical brethren, and also to the Right Rev. Dr. Potter, the then Provisional Bishop, when, with one exception, all expressed themselves gratified with the state of mind exhibited by the tone of the document. Bishop Onder- donk then prepared a Memorial to the House of Bishops (based upon the original sketch), which is given on the following page. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 127 BISHOP ONDERDONK'S MEMORIAL. To the Right Reverend the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America : Brethren : — Fourteen years have elapsed since, by the Canonical ac- tion of an Ecclesiastical Court of Bishops, I was suspended from the office of a Bishop and from all the functions of the Sacred Ministry. To that sentence I have quietly submitted, and now present myself before you, respectfully to ask for its remission. In making this request, I deem it right, before God and man, frankly and truly to lay before you the present state of my feelings, and the grounds on which I ask the removal of the penalties under which I suffer. In the excitement of feeling consequent on my trial and sentence, it was natural that much should be said, on both sides, that in the more dispas- sionate moments of calm Christian judgment would afterwards be re- gretted and disclaimed. You will, however, brethren, permit me to say that deeply aggrieved as I felt at the time, by a sentence which I thought to be unduly severe, I have yet no recollection of having endeavored to jus- tify my own view by attributing to my brethren unworthy motives. If the feelings of any of them have been hurt by the supposition that I had in this way done them injustice, I sincerely regret it, and hope that I maybe par- doned for any expressions which may have been supposed to bear such a construction. I censure them not for upholding, as they believed; the honor of the Church, by the administration of discipline when they conscien- tiously thought it was deserved. I should very little deserve, brethren, what I solicit at your hands, if I were ready at once to acknowledge all the crimes which may have been imputed to me by enemies, and to pro- fess penitence for that of which I am really not guilty. I cannot consent to purchase even restoration at the price of falsehood and hypocrisy. And yet, I presume not to say that I am entirely faultless, and have de- served no censure. I am not exempt from human infirmity, and, in the calmer reflections to which the lapse of time has contributed, I ac- knowledge that I cannot but believe parts of my conduct to have betrayed indiscretion, and that my demeanor must, in some instances, have been cal- culated to produce impressions injurious alike to the Church and myself, however such effect may have been unintended and unperceived on my Sart. I say that I cannot but believe this, because some of my fellow- hristians, and, among them, some of yourselves, brethren, felt bound to this extent to condemn me. I beg you, however, to believe me, when I most solemnly declare that, in this matter, I was not the slave of deliberate impurity of intention. But be my offences small or great, to whatever extent, brethren, I have brought reproach on the cause of our Master, or given just offence to any of my fellow-Christians, even without a purposed intention of wick- edness, I am, without reference to your action on this request, heartily sorry, and desire to humble myself in penitence before God and man. I can say truly, and I thank God for it, as I now do, without any reference to man or his doings, that I have long endeavored to live in a state of habitual repentance for all my sins, known and unknown, and have dailv sought forgiveness for them, from the mercy of God, for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ. I have borne the sentence imposed on me with bitter anguish, I con- fess, and a painful sense of humiliation, but without murmuring or com- plaint, and with constant and earnest prayer for the pardon of all my sins, 128 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. and grace for amendment. Of the effect of this repentance on the hidden man of the heart, there is but one Judge. Of its effects on my outward life, there are those who can speak with more propriety than myself. And herein I am bold 4o refer you not only to those who have been generally considered as my friends, but to those also of a different class. Those who have known me will, I humbly trust, bear me witness, that ever since the sentence has been imposed, my life has been quiet, my doings unobtrusive, and my conduct, as a member of Christ's Church, not liable to reproach. I now beg, Christian brethren, the mercy of a removal of my sentence. So far as the honor of the Church is involved, I have hoped that all would see it had been amply vindicated by fourteen years of punishment, borne in silence and seclusion, and that Christians, knowing the object of ecclesiasti- cal punishment to be reformatory and not vindictive, would willingly see the Church, after vindicating her purity, exercise her blessed privilege of showing mercy by restoring a brother whom she had once felt obliged to blame and rebuke, rejoicing more over his happy return than over the "ninety and nine which went not astray. ;; Brethren, if any man be over- taken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. ' I need not say how deeply my heart is interested in the object of this application — what a painful and oppressive burden would be removed from it, and with what joy and gladness it would be filled, if, before the short remainder of my life has passed, 1 would be again allowed the hap- piness which, for so many years was imparted, of exercising the functions of the Holy Ministry. Look, brethren, into your hearts ; consider their loves of the duties of our office, and then judge ye. ()f the consequences of my rest5ration, should you grant it, I have little to say. You would very justly despise me if, for the sake of enforcing this, my application, I should, on this subject, volunteer promises concern- ing my action in the Diocese of New- York. All I can say is, however, that age and suffering have done their work on me, and that I hope I am humble enough, and know that I am sincere, enough in my love of the Church of Christ, never wantonly, by any act of mine, to disturb its har- mony or obstruct its progress. Beyond this I can say nothing without seeming to seek clemency by gratuitous offers, disrespectful towards you and unworthy of myself. My application, brethren, is now before you. May God, for Christ's sake, dispose you to view it favorably. Believe me, that I but express the sentiment of my daily prayer for my brethren in the Episcopate, when I conclude with the Apostle's words: "Mercy unto you, and peace, and love be multiplied." In the spirit, I humbly hope, of this, my heart's desire and prayer to God, I subscribe myself your faithful brother in Christ, Benjamin T. Onderdonk. This Memorial was shown by Dr. Hawks to Dr. Tyng, who expressed his willingness to sign a petition advocating the prayer of the "Memorial- ist, provided that Bishop Onderdonk, although still retaining jurisdiction, would commit the administrative portion of his Episcopal duties to Bishop Potter. The next day (September Cth, 1859), Dr. Tyng received a note inviting him to the house of Bishop Onderdonk, at which he was " astonished," as he had never been inside the Bishop's house, and had not seen him but NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 129 twice since he had "been in the Diocese. An interview, however, was accordingly had between the Bishop and Drs. Hawks and Tyng, in the presence of Dr.Eigenbrodt, when Bishop Onderdonk agreed to sign the following letter, to be sent to Bishop Potter, in the event of favorable action by the Bishops on the preceding Memorial : BISHOP ONDERDONK'S LETTER TO BISHOP POTTER. New- York, Oct —, 1859. Right Rev. and Dear Sir: — The House of Bishops having responded favorably to my prayer for a remission of my sentence of suspension, their action places me in the position of Diocesan, and the third Canon of 1850 changes your relation from that of Provisional to Assistant Bishop. It hence becomes my duty, under Canon VI. of 1832, to " assign" (such is the language of the law) to you, as Assistant Bishop, the Episcopal duties and exercise of Episcopal authority, which I desire at your hands. I therefore lose no time, my dear brother, in assigning to you — subject to such regulations as may be made on mutual conference between our- selves — the entire possession of the administrative portion of Episcopal duty in the Diocese, to act precisely as you have been acting. Your faith- fulness aud zeal I know full well, and I have entire confidence in your ability and disposition to do wisely and well in the general administration of the "Diocese; and I am thankful that, in my old age, I have such a friend and colleague as yourself on whom to lean. In case of doubt or spe- cial importance I know it will be your own desire to have the aid of such counsel, as upon a joint consultation, I may be able to give; and I have only to say that I shall be ever ready to give such services as I can in counsel, and in every way to co-operate with you most heartily in endeavor- ing to promote the peace, and advance the prosperity of the Diocese. At my advanced age, the heavier duties of the Episcopate must devolve on you, and my performance of Episcopal acts must, of necessity, be less frequent than yours. Hence, I authorize you, under the Canon — subject as before stated — to retain the entire general administration of the Dio- cesan affairs in the regular routine, including the exercise of Episcopal Canonical consent — when such consent may be required ; on my part, cheerfully agreeing to confirm and ratify such consent when thus exer- cised by you, it being my heartfelt desire and determination that, in no case, shall there ever be any difference or collision, or aught but harmony between us in any Church matter or question. For myself, I propose only the performance of such Episcopal duties as on our mutual conference may be deemed expedient. I am, dear Bishop, very truly and affectionately, your brother in Christ, Benj. T. Onderdonk, Bishop of the Diocese of New- York. Right Rev. Horatio Potter, D. D., LL.D., Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of New- York. This being entirely satisfactory, the petition was then signed by Drs. Hawks, Tyng, Cutler, and many others, when it was also presented to the Rev. Dr. Anthon, who affixed his signature thereto on the 9th of Sep- tember. It was then agreed that Dr. Hawks, Tyng and Anthon, should each caH ; ten laymen together as a Committee of Consultation. 9 130 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. Drs. Hawks and Tyng were, in the meantime, appointed to call on Bishop Potter, and lay before him the draft of the letter proposed to he sent to him by Bishop Onderdonk ; and confer with him fully on the sub- ject of restoration. Dr. Anthon soon afterwards withdrew his name from the petition, asserting as his reason that " the matter, in its present shape, did not provide fully and effectually against the resumption of Bishop Onderdonk ; s jurisdiction/ 7 '* The Committee of Consultation also disagreed, and Bishop Potter, as appears from the following letter, which, at his re- quest, was read by Dr. Tyng before the Diocesan Convention, declined having anything to do with what, to him, most strangely, seemed to par- take of the nature of a " private bargain. 57 BISHOP POTTER'S LETTER TO DR. TYNG. New-York, 33 West 24th-street, Sept. 23. My Dear Dr. Tyng : — When you and Dr. Hawks, and Dr. Eigenbrodt, called on me last Monday, to state what had occurred in relation to a move- ment to procure the remission of the sentence of Bishop Onderdonk, and exhibited to me the Bishop's Memorial to the House of Bishops, and his letter, aute-dated, to me, you desired, apparently, to obtain my formal assent to what seemed to be in the nature of a private compact. As this matter had been initiated and thus far conducted without consulting me, and the particulars were then so new to me, had been so entirely private, as far as I was concerned, you may well suppose I was unprepared with an an- swer. On reflection, my judgment is clear. I have duties in the House of Bishops where this question must go, which should not be complicated by previous arrangements of any kind, and certainly not for my own benefit ) besides, I can never consent to prejudge an official question, and bind my- self to a private contract on a matter of public duty. I confess that much of this transaction seems to me to be in the nature of a private bargain. As such I can have nothing to do with it. It is con- trary to the whole scope of our ecclesiastical system, is irregular and un- canonical. The position in which that bargain seeks to place me, is un- known to the Law of the Church, is indefinite, is full of perplexity, and must inevitably lead to confusion and wrangling. Let the Church do sim- ply what is right and fitting for herself, without regard to me. Let my relations with the Diocese be the result of the free and impartial action of the authorities of the Church. If it be desired to restore Bishop Onder- donk to his jurisdiction, let it be done, and let me take the place of an As- sistant in the ordinary sense, the full power and responsibilities of the ad- ministration and public offices remaining in the hands of the restored * Statement read by the R^v. Dr. Anthon, at the Diocesan Convention. The following " note" appeared in the New-York Times : To the Editor of the New-Yoke: Times : Ne\\--Y t oek, Thursday, Sept. 22, 1S59. Will you permit me to state, through your columns, that, being satisfied, upon further reflec- tion, that the peace and advancement of the Diocese require the resignation of Bishop Ondee- donk's jurisdiction over it, previous to the removal of his suspension, I have •withdrawn my name from the petition in circulation. Respectfully yours, B.ENRY A>"THON. NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 131 Bishop. Such an arrangement would be clear. No other restoration to jurisdiction can be. Most faithfully yours, Horatio Potter. To the Rev. Dr. Tyng. It -will be borne in mind that the Memorial asked for unconditional res- toration at the hands of the Bishops of the Church. This alone was what Bishop Onderdonk desired. This, and nothing short of this, he felt was due to himself, to his Diocese, and to the Church at large. Bishop Potter would thus have become the Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of New- York, and it would then have been the duty of the Diocesan to " assign' 7 to the Assistant, in accordance with the Canon, such portion of Episcopal duty as he might have thought proper, still, however, retaining jurisdic- tion. The proposed letter to Bishop Potter contained such assignment, and for the satisfaction of some, it was prepared in advance, and shown to Bishop Potter for the purpose of assuring him that no " difference or collision" could ever occur in connection with the arrangement. Little was it expected that a letter thus Canonically drawn up would have been stigmatized and condemned as a " private bargain." Bishop Potter having thus set himself against the proposed movement for restoration, the enemies of Bishop Onderdonk, encouraged thereby, exerted themselves to the utmost to overthrow the good work, and so far succeeded as to cause the Bishop to withdraw his Memorial, as will appear from the letters which follow : BISHOP ONDEEDOXK'S FIRST LETTER TO THE REV. DRS. HAWKS, TYXG, AND EIGEXBRODT. New-York, September 25, 1859. To the Rev. Fraxcis L. Hawks, D. D., LL.D., the Rev. Stephex H. Tyng, D. D. ; axd the Rev. William E. Eigexbrodt, D. D. Rev. and Dear Brethren : — In reference to the cordial and active interest you have been kind enough to take in the now much discussed subject of my restoration. I beg to address you this letter. It is a matter of most grateful recollection to me that the taking of that interest and incipient action thereon, were without any prompting or sug- gestion, or even a knowledge of the fact on my part, bat the result of your own solemn and deliberate convictions of what was right. I desire also to express my sensibility to the delicate and respectful manner in which, when the course of things rendered communication and conference with me proper and necessary, these were conducted by you. It was the taking of sweet counsel together by brethren, on matters justly regarded by each and all of us as invested with much sacredness, and deep and solemn re- sponsibility. I thank you for the truly Christian manner in which, through- out the whole, you recognized my peculiar share of that responsibility, and the respect you were therefore kind enough to pay to my judgment and feelings. The natural result was, that the issues thus attained became fully and entirely my own acts. It has been to me a source of holy satisfaction and gratitude, to see how 132 NARRATIVE OF EVENTS . deeply you were moved by conviction of Christian duty, and a desire to pro- mote the good of the Church, and serve the cause of its peace and harmony ; and I humbly trust that therein you have found in me a cordial sympathizer and co-worker. We have all seen enough of the world to know, that in practically ap- plying the principles and affection of love, peace, harmony, and good order, and of attachment to truth and right, especially in sacred matters, unlooked for changes, and developments of circumstances, require correspondent changes of purpose — and this in proportion to conscientious convictions of the rectitude, solemnity, and importance of the object desired. I beg to say, therefore, brethren, that I commit to your discretion, in full confi- dence, the subject of the propriety, under existing circumstances, of arrest- ing all proceedings in the matter in hand. Should you think this the proper course, I will cheerfully adopt the decision as my own also, and respect- fully request the return of such papers of mine as may be in the possession of Dr. Hawks. Humbly commending you to the blessings of God's providence and grace, I am, Kev. and dear brethren, Truly and affectionately yours, In the love of Christ and His Church, Benj. T. Onderdonk. REPLY TO THE ABOVE. New-York, September 25, 1859. Bight Rev. and Dear Sir : — We have to acknowledge the reception of your private and friendly note of this morning. When we assumed the position which we have occupied in relation.to your application for a remission of the sentence of suspension imposed upon you, we did it with our own per- fect satisfaction with the expression of your mind and feelings, in your Memorial to the House of Bishops, and also with the proposed arrange- ments for securing peace and harmony in the administration of the Dio- cese, in the event of a favorable- reply to the prayer of the Memorial ; and we have, therefore, carefully, with much pleasure, contributed our efforts to the attainment of the result desired. On these points our individual minds remain unchanged. In those arrangements which had been pro- posed by you for the harmonious administration of the Diocese, we hoped to have found an universal concurrence and satisfaction. This, in the prose- cution of our efforts, we regret to say, we have failed to obtain; and we have encountered difficulties which, in the good providence of God, we hope the further lapse of time will completely overcome. And though our minds remain unchanged in all the points previously referred to, we regret to say that we are constrained to adopt the suggestion of your note, Crebtodl ©ntetamk, BISHOP OF NEW- YORK, §■§; AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. BY A NEW-YORK CHURCHMAN. | New-fork: PUBLISHED BY II . B. PRICE. 884 Broadway. 1862. m /> Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: April 2006 PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724)779-2111 Library of Congress Branch Bindery, 1903