he ly te ‘PREFACE to what body such resignation should be cain the Committee beg leave to recommend to the Convention: ‘the adoption of the POW Ine, resolution:x— £6 Resolved, ‘Vnat the Right Rev. Philander Chase, by. his let- ter of resignation addressed to the Ohio Convention, and by his. removal from that State to the Territory of Michigan, | has effectu- ally renounced and relinquished. his. Episcopal charge of the Dio- cese of Ohio. and that the Episcopacy of the said Diocese was in fact vacant previous” to the Sth of September, 1832.7 a ease - “All which 1 is respectfully submitted, TE ar ere te, ee ot ogee on order of the iGonuitleess ek i sy x : | “WILLIAM WHITE, Chairman.” | oe A true copy. of the Report of the Committee. ee (Attest) «= HENRY ne Secr etary o the House ig Clerical and Lay Deputies. : Rk E p 0 R To | of the Minority of the Committee on Bisuor Cuasr’s Case. NEw York, October 20, 1832. “The Minority j in ie Juint Committee on the subject of. Bishop Chase’s rumored relinquishment of the Episcapal charge of the Diocese of Ohio, constituting one half of the Committee appoint- ed by this House, concurring with the majority of the joint Com- mittee in the general statement of facts reported to the Conven- vention, but not concurring in the opinion expressed or. implied in the said Report, beg leave respectfully, to present their judgment on the matters brought before them in joint Committee. The Minority are of opinion that the adoption of the following resolutions will constitute the pw istat and safest measures to be taken in the premises. Resolved, 'Vhe House of Bishops concur rring, that i in 1 the opinion of this Convention, itis expedient that the House of Bishops should address a pastoral letter to the Diocese of Ohio, and a fr afernal communication to the Right Rev. Philander Chase, with a view to healing the existing separation between Bishop Chase and the Diocese of Ohio. | Ee PREFACE. | : v Resolved, “That until such a - step shall have been taken, this ‘Convention ought not to sanction, by any act, the existing Sag ration of Bishop | Chase from the Diocese of Ohio. | "Resolved, That, as the Diocese of Ohio has been nahen Epis: “copal services since September 9th, 1831, and is at present desti- tute of the : ‘same, it is the opinion of this” Convention, that unless _ the existing separation. between Bishop Chase and the Diocese of - Ohio, be settled by a re-union of the said: par ‘ties | before the first day. of May next, the Standing Committees of the different dio- _ ceses oughtto sanction the election of any clergyman who may be on elected to ‘the office of Bishop of the Diocese of Ohio after that é date. « se Pe Re eed. That. any. ‘Canon eased by Pe Convention touching cab “the subject of the resignation of Bishops, shall not be constr ued __ to apply to the existing separation of Bishop Chase from Ohio. Al which is ig. nee submitted. an | WILLIAM H. DELANCEY, Be oe ‘THOMAS LYELL, ee SAMUEL J. DONALDSON.” A true copy of the Report of the Minority of the Committee. ie (Attest) _ oe HENRY. ANTHON, _Seerctary of t the House cof Clerical and tay ‘Dep ulses. “and solicit: the attention, of the Wouike 4 feel that ‘he question I am to ‘approach, is one of the most important, and one of the most ‘ a lelidatey that eons come before this: body. Yet, asit is one ‘to which I have devoted. no little reflection, and given some study, and in the decision. of which I feel ‘a deep concern, I must beg our indulgence while I | present to you the train of thought which as passed through my own tind, and by which I have been led to the determination how to act when the question shall be taken, Lavow that the resolution recommended by the Joint Committee, 2 ‘expresses ‘exactly my views | of. the Case, and of the. decision to which this house should come. To the resolutions of the minori- — y of the Committee, which ar also” under. consideration, there : ppear. to my mind strong” and. palpable. objections. I consider it” ~ impossible to accomplish. ‘the reconciliation they propose. The — _ground. already taken by. Bishop Chase, and. the measures taken ~by the Convention. of Ohio, leave no: hope of such an issue. And were it possible, 1 really cannot believe that it would be expedi- ent, Matters have gone too far to furnish the least hope that there can ever be restored that harmony, that affection, and that confidence, which ought to exist between a Bishop and his Dio- cese. Ido not intend, however, to go over the whole ground co- vered by these resolutions ; nor do I design to examine the i ingeni- ous arguments which fee been advanced by the gentlemen who have adyocated the report of the minority. ‘This will be done _ with more ability by those who will succeed me. I intend to confine myself to the inquiry. whether there iS,. and was at the ', time of Dr. MclIlvaine’s election, a vacancy in the Episcopate of Ohio. If it shall be proved that there ‘was, it remains for us to proceed exactly as we do in other cases, according to the canon- ical directions provided by the Church, and uninfluenced by any considerations of mere expediency, =~ m4 i from bie Discese! tious ne animus a "Bat 1 shall dertake to shew, that the Diocese is: vacant by. the fact of his Te z signalion. alone. independently of the abandonment. And ly thin : it very ‘important that the resignation. should be. urged, because L find that many members of this house are not satisfied that there is an abandonment, —that i is, a removal without the. animus ‘rever- fendi ; and hesitate i in the case, merely because of doubts about the Iavinines and propriety of Episcopal resignations, — be shall, therefore, confine myself to the inquiry whether a Bishop can lawfully and properly resign ‘the jurisdiction of his Diocese. «I think I shall make iPappear, that there was no just impediment to the exercise of such an act on the part of Bishop Chase ; and that his withdrawal from the Episcopate by resignation has crea- ted a true and. canonical vacancy - in his Bishopric. The gentle- man who. opened this debate, (President Duer, of N. ¥ has al- ready delivered. an elaborate and. learned argument on this sub- ject, of which T shall only. say, ‘omne tulit punctum.”? But there are some views of the matter to which he did not advert, and. some upon which he only briefly touched. These, I shall endea- vour to present, avoiding, as much as possible, the ground over which he has already so “ubnaghaely, Sone. - That a Bishop cannot divest himself. of his Apostolic character, a n hi —— powersy Ao weall agree. The elected him to be its ts head. | The former i is ee because divine: —the latter i isa mere matter of ecclesiastical regulation ; ‘and of hu- man agreement. — This distinction need not hy oe upon: we all understand it, and. all: “admit it. _ Now, then, I come to the grand, ‘master-question, can a Bishop Bone. resign ‘the Jurisdiction of his Diocese? ‘To settle this ques- Hon, we must ascertain several par ticulars. | gab t here is. any law of the Church which prohibits the resigna- care of a Bishop, the production | of that law. must at once silence. debate, and produce conviction. No 0 one here will sanction a - proceeding which the Church has. forbidden. But [ have never # yet seen, or heard of, any such law. At: will not be asserted, ae will venture to say, that there i is an y express statutory prohibition — : which bears'upon this point—any canon which prevents a. Bishop’ Ss > “resignation, If there i is any. such canon, let it be produced, and all debate will end. It is true, it has beea said” that the decision made by the house of Bishops at the Convention. at ‘Trenton in the year 1801, has the force of law. That reverend body then declared their conviction that episcopal resignations are inad- missible. If it was a law, it was an ex post facto law, and there- fore wholly null. But they themselves never intended to give to their mere opinion even officially expressed, the force of law. It was a decision upon which the lower house did not act, and in which they never concurred. And though | it may be said, and has been said, that the Bishops then made no new. law, but mere~ ly exercised their jurisdictional prerogative, ‘and. declared what the law already was; eyen this act of adjudication can have no obligatory force, because it was altogether extra-official and ex- tra-canonical, and never received the concurrence of the lower house: whereas the $d article of the Constitution provides, that ¢ all acts of the Conyention shall be authenticated by both houses.” All “acts,” of whatever character—even acts of adjudication, and declaratory resolutions, must be thus sanctioned. There is 4 a ee EES Abaya ha OEE a oy Sp hm RS TO REO nd OD Mie SESE Rryg = See eat Granary ee Ae. OM ee 10 no force in what the Bishops may declare as their opinion, except in the merits and correctness of the opinion ‘itself. As Bi shop: Hobart mol said, Ahe Ee Church paca PEE ively, only. tion,—and no fons for inferenees from: oes themselves. merely implied. Yet I am i bate, to the epeeniliy: “dae | I was Spry, to hy E anys we sal only ina certain way. If there are any ‘of o our. ron n minded as all this, {lt will-not allow myself to. suppose t hat is even-one,) Iam sure that. wé have in the character of the re-_ yerend and ‘enlightened body. assembled here, good Re while I disclaim, ain re ‘do solemnly disclaim,all party contends Z : tions, Imust avow that I am a thorough Episcopalian; that Lam - for preserving the ancient landmarks ; 3 and am. for carrying. out- Episcopancy to its full extent. : T ‘never could see the wisdom of refusing to follow a fact as far as it will go; or of hesitating to adopt the consequences “of : a truth, as well as the truth itself.— This i is a timid policy. which I do not intend shall ever influence: me. I say again, that 1 am a thorough Episcopalian—I am for practical Episcopacy, not for mere abstract, theoretical E:piscopa- cy. As amere theory, or even as a mere naked fact, it is not worth contending for. In this respect at least,—so far as a tho- rough conviction of the truth of Episcopacy, and a high regard for its principles, and its principles. -in their legitimate practical bearings, are the question, I do not scruple to say 1am as high a churchman as any body. I, therefore, can never consent that any thing : shall be done that i is inconsistent with the great: princi- ples of. Apostolic order which have | ‘ever been received: by-‘ the Holy Church throughout all tlie world.” I must, then, be satisfied whether or not there is: any thing i in the resignation of a Bishop that is repugnant. to the fundamental principles of Episcopacy, before I can be prepared to act in the business before’-us.— It is upon the ground that it is at variance with these valued principles, that some rest all their objections to the resignation 1g I shop’ Chase. ~Tyenture to” express: the: ‘opinion that there is io such. inconsistency a as is alleged i in the case before us; and I think that Iam able to fortify and sustain my opinion by facts that’ cannot be: controverted. T feel that T ought t speak with diffidence and: caution, ‘under: the circumstances. in which | [ stand. AS different opinion has been “expressed by high: -authority—and” authority _ which from “my: childhood ‘Thave been taught to reverence, and which all m my ‘life I have been accustomed to respect. But we are not to be influenced by authority here:—we are to be guided ye facts’ only. ‘The venerable house of Bishops when, in the Con- vention: assembled. at Treuton in September 1801, the matter of ‘Bishop Moore’s ‘consecration was brought before them, expressed the opinion that a Bishop’s resignation was not ‘consistent with ecclesiastical order.’ I must dissent from this opinion, though f do so with deference. It is with great deference, I dissent from the. ‘respectable members of this. house who have advanced the 2 same sentiment. The best way, ‘and ‘indeed ‘the only way, toe discover whether Episcopal | resignations - ‘are ‘inconsistent with ecclesiastical order, or the principles of Episcopacy, will be to as-— certain what has been ecclesiastical practice in the matter. The opinion of the Bishops at Trenton that the resignation of Bishop Provoost was not consistent with ‘ecclesiastical order,’ was. founded upon their belief that the practice of the Church did not sanction such a measure. At the conference which they had with the clerical delegates from New York on that occasion, it seems that not one of the seven divines present, including the three Bishops, could inention or recollect a single case of the kind furnished by eccle- siastical history. It was, therefore, at once concluded, (for I suppose there was no time for research,) that: there had been no such practice, and that consequently the measure of Bishop: Pro- voost was anti-episcopal and void. I hope, however, to be able to shew, that episcopal resignations have been sanctioned” ‘in all ages of the Church; and that they are, therefore, by no means at variance with eceleniitatical order, | or ‘the established principles of Episcopacy. The well settled and undisputed usage of the Church, it is presumed, is the criterion of Church order and episcopal principle. Now let us see how stand the facts. I say that the resignation of a Bishop does not conflict with ecclesiastical: order, or pal the principles of Bie eeyee fae now - permit e to sta Vhs is ie pcs fe be onc we tells us indeed, that ies some tee thought Sa iauat ae ful for; a Bishop to forsake his first « see;’ *—but he says, * this was but the private opinion of one or. two authors,” and never gener- Bale prevailed | Some few. ancient. Bishops too, it is admitted, refused to exchange their “sees, upon conscientious grounds ; and ‘among. them, was the celebrated historian ‘Eusebius,+ who declin- ed the rich. patriarchate of Antioch, and preferred retaining the “comparatively insignificant diocese of Cesarea, on. the ground that the practice. was disreputable and improper. ‘Translations, however, we know, were frequent in ancient times, and were al- _lowed by the general sanction of the early Church, and the can- nons of ancient councils. By the Apostolical canons, as they are called, which were in existence, according to the best opinions, as early as the 2d_ century, and without doubt as early as the 3d, and. which certainly embody the laws by which primitive ecclesi- astical discipline was administered, translations. were expressly allowed. for reasonable cause.|}. @ “And” in the African Church, a Bishop ' was sometimes: panistied. for. preetpents = in his office, by by Conc. Nic: c. 15. cone: Sardi: . and 2. Cone. Antiveh: c. 21. TB. vice 4. vol. 1, p. 565, ed. Lond: 1829. ’ + Euseb. De vita ‘Gonstanting: lib. iii cap. 60, 61, 62, appended to his Ecele. siastical History. Edit. Fol. Valesii, Paris, 1659, p. 516 "et seqq: { See Canon xi in & good: translation | of -the whole in the Prot. Episcopalian for October, 1832, .p.. 381; % = 3 tee ee at “ec al _witl S. 1S better settled by. the practice of the Church i in modern gia § oo to trouble you with parti- culars, T need only remind you how - common a thing it is at this day in England, for a Bishop to travel through two, three, or te s way to Lambeth ; pand © how frequent translations | are ‘in. the "venerable. ‘Church: of a half-dezen different Bishoprics, on his Scotland.|} On_ this subject. there cat be no. _ dispute. _ Now, 4 8 how shall a Bishop be translated. to. a new see, = without previous resig nation of ‘the one he: held. before?” “Tt. may be ae objected tu me that the case ofa: translation — is. different from that of a resignation, because | the latter contemplates an entire relinquishment of jurisdiction, while the former does not. There is, indeed, so far.a difference ; but,” as to the princi- ple in question, they are precisely the same. The fact of a trans- lation requires a resignation, and establishes, i conceive, the principle for which Iam contending, that to resign a bishopric i 1S not to violate the principles of Ecclesiastical order, or the funda- mentals of Episcopacy, All this, it may be said, is mere infer- ence. Letus go, then, to more direct and unexceptionable proof. Now, it can be shewn,, that episcopal resignations have been prac-— tised and allowed i in all ages. Tn my examination of the historical % NP, a ei fA, ve Augustin. Epist, 261. f. Antiq. vol. 1, -p. 567. — me + Milner states this fact in val. Se pedponn Fistory of the Chuck, and re- fers for authority to the 42 Epis. of ‘the first. Book of Gregory’s letters. I have not been able to find the fact in my copy of ‘Gregory’s works, (the black letter folio edition published at Paris in 1518,) in the place referred to by Milner. “I presume there is an inaccuracy in the reference, ‘or some ty POgEARMNee error, as the historian’s veracity does not admit of question. j Skinner’s Truth and Order, &c. reg = I, p. 342. £ ~~ that the only difficulty i is, not tiem proper and Jucid pinereement and pr allowed to reste’ Pe hdee ey have wished to de so; and ¥ case in which a- resignation has been refused on the 4 . ple of the ‘measure’s being inconsistent with order, or with the g * _ know owledged practice ‘of the ‘Church. ~The objection has. alway ee been Eeeahire: personal: or: the Je alae k of the hers enemies aot the Ghirch: and Famtcalsidy for a ‘bold letter which ie wrote to. the Lord Treasurer remonstrating against the uncalled for interference of the Privy: Council in’ ecclesiastical matters. This ‘‘go0od bishop. of Ely,” as he i is well called by the annalist Strype,* who “had deserved passing well of learning and the Church,”’} ‘was a man of inflexible firmness of principle and of purpose, as a bishop ought | to be; and nothing daunted by the calumnies heaped upon: him, or the malice and machinations of his enemies, went on ifescl ety, and faithfully i in his duty. He tri- he cngnnutereds ‘he tendered his resignation | “ee the Queen. * The resignation indeed was: not accepted, but it was solely because no Ag suitable person) could be ‘induced t to. accept t the ges? ‘it Having been aes ‘Aninale of the Reformation, Bo, vol - art i, Bg ae: 1824— Anno 1574, ia 9 ; ae en ~ Fee = bj + Id. p: 533. i7 d by several.* But no objection was made to it on any ‘other ground. Could a successor have been found to him, he would have been permitted to retire. But, as the Rev. gentleman from Pennsylvania, sitting before me, says to me in a whisper, Bishopricks were not caught atin those days with the avidity with which they are sought after now. Anda similar case occurred in the reign of William and Mary. Dr. Crew, Bishop of Dur- ham in the reign of King James II, absconded on the abdication of this monarch, in 1688, fearing the displeasure of the new king, in consequence of his unmanly compliances at the former court, in favouring popish practices. He was a very different man from the intrepid Bishop Cox. During his voluntary retreat, he of- fered to ‘‘compound for his offences by a resignation of his Bish- opric” in favour of Dr. Burnet. Dr. Burnet declined the offer; and Dr. Tillotson, then Dean of Canterbury, interceding for him, he was received into favour, and left in the enjoyment of the ho- nours of his see.t When Bishop Berkeley wished to resign the Bishopric of Cloyne, that he might remove to England to super- intend the education of his son at Oxford, his resignation was re- fused indeed—but it was not objected to upon the score of princi- ple, but solely upon personal grounds. Dr. Berkeley was the man for the see, and no one else so fit, and he must be its Bishop. So in the case of Eustathius, the aged Metropolitan of Pamphylia in the fifth century. He had resigned his see, thinking himself disabled by his years for its numerous duties. A successor, ‘Lheo- dore, was chosen in hisroom. The council of Ephesus condemn- ed the resignation as an uncalled for act, but did not set it aside or object on any other ground. The act finally received their sanction ; his successor was confirmed; and he was permitted to retain the title, the honours, and the functions, of a Bishop, and to officiate as such with the consent of his successor. ‘There may be cases of which I know nothisg, in which other resignations ~have been refused, or objected to ;—and some in which possibly < * See Lives of the Compilers of the Lithrey: Re! by Downes, pa to Spar. row’s Rationale. Lond. 1722, p. 129, + Burnet’s History of his own Times, vol. 1, p. 822. Also Birch’s Life of Arch bishop Tillotson, prefixed to his works, vol. 1 1, p. 99. Lond. ed. 1820. 3 is they have been objected to on the ground of their being at Vi ance with ecclesiastical order. But I have met with none su Whereas cases of allowed and sanctioned resignation are innu- merable. We may find in ecclesiastical writers that Bishops have resigned their sees, when disabled by sickness or by age; that sume have quietly yielded them to turbulent usurpers; that some have resigned to put an end to schisms and promote peace; that some have left their Bishoprics to devote themselves exclu- sively to devotion in the solitude of monasteries; that some have abdicated for conscience sake, because required to perform officially acts which they could not do with an honest conscience; and that a variety of considerations have influenced Bishops at different times, to retire from the offices they held. We have se- veral times heard, in the course of this debate, of the case of War- cissus, the venerable Bishop of Jerusalem, in the second century. Whateyer gentlemen may say against its bearing upon the matter in hand, it was a plain case of resignation. ‘The substance of his history, so far as it relates to the subject before us, and as I ga- ther it from Eusebius the historian,* is briefly this. Narcissus was accused of a grievous crime by some malicious persons, His guilt, although the charge was made under oath by three men, who imprecated upon themselves the heaviest divine judgments in case of perjury, was believed by nobody. He was, however, so affected by the infamous accusation, disbelieved as it was, that he resigned his episcopate, and lived in solitude and concealment several years. I do not know, because the historian does not say, that he resigned by any formal process, any written or verbal renga anmen of his bishopric. But he left it certatnly—d:adpas mew 5) Ths sxaancias wagtos,—and remained away from it along — ‘time, During his absence, though it was known he was alive, three successive Bishops were appointed to the see, Dius, Ger- manius, and Gordius. During the Episcopate of Gordius, the | old Bishop suddenly returned fron his seclusion, to the great sur- mrise of all, and was solicited again to accept the government of | the Church he had left. I have already mentioned the case of | Eustathius, the Metropolitan of Pamphylia. .A number of simi- | * Euseb, Eccles. Hist. Lib. vi. cap. 9, 10, 11, p. 211 et seqq. 19 jar cases will be found in Bingham’s Antiquities,* the authority of which no one here will dispute. He tells us that Gregory Na- sianzen renounced the see of Constantinople, because the people were dissatisfied at his-being a stranger, and that the act was ap- proved of by the gencral council of Constantinople. This same Gregory Naxianxen had previously resigned his. situation as co- adjutor to his father in the diocese of Nazianzum. ‘He had ac- cepted the.office, under the express condition that he might retire on his father’s death,— which he accordingly did on that eyent.f The same antiquarian tells us of Meletius, who abandoned the diocese of Sebastia, in Armenia, because he was offended with the factious temper of his people. He tells us of Murtyrius, the Bishop of Antioch, who resigned his jurisdiction for the same reason. The great Chrysostom offered to quit his see ;t+—and Flavian, the Diocesan of Antioch, offered to do the same. All these, and others, may be seen in the high authority I have quoted. And from these facts he comes to the conclusion, that ‘‘it was lawful for men to renounce even the Episcopal office, and betake them- selves to a private life,”? when ‘ the benefit and edification of the Church” could thereby be promoted,|| We are told too by eccle- siastical historians, that Aurelius, the Bishop of Carthage, and Augustine, the famous Bishop cf Hippo, and almost all the rest of the prelates of Africa, made a proposition to the Donatist Bishops at, the Conference at Carthage, held in 411 by order of the Emperor Honorius, that in eyery diocese in which there were an orthodox and a Donatist Bishop, both should resign; and let another person be chosen, to heal the schism.§ But there is ano- ther instance to the point, which I have never seen referred to in any of the numerous dicussions of this question. It is that of Cle- ment, Bishop of Rome, the companion of the Apostle Paul, whose name that Apostle declared was ‘‘written in the Book of Life.” ¢ B. 6, C. 4, s. 2, vol. 1, p. 555. { Bingham, Book ii. ch, 13, sect. 4, vol. 1, p- 136. + Homil. xi. in Epist. ad Ephes. cap. 4. Tom. iv. p. 1043. Edit. Paris. 1581. Fol. i B. vi. C. 4. S. 2 Pp: 561. Vs ]. § An account of the material proceedings of this Conference, is given by Au- gustine in his Brevicuk Collationum cum Donatistis, which will be found in the 6th volume of his works, Fol. Ed. Basle 11 vols. black letter, 1506. Pai) (Philipp. c. 4. vy. 8.) In his’ Epistle to the Corinthiats, a work which in early times, was read publickly in the Churches,* which was held in such high estimation, that, by some, it was even enumerated among the books of the sacred Canon,f of which the’ only Manuscript extant is in the same yolume, with the books of the New Testament,t which isso ancient, that it was writ- ten before the cessation of the Temple Service,|| and therefore during the life of the Apostle John, and which has been pronounc- ed ‘fone of the noblest monuments which the Church has after the Holy Scriptures,’’6 trnly ‘* becoming an Apostolical age,’ and a “blessing to our present times;” that ancient father lays it down as a rule, that every station in the church should be re- linquished to put an end to clamour, and procure peace.* Having referred to the acts of those fathers, let me ask whe- ther itis to be believed that they would have done what was not consistent with ecclesiastical order, and with the practice of the Church; and whether it is to be supposed for a moment, that they, and especially that Clement, the Apostle’s pupil and companion, and himself so high an authority that he was by some styled an Apostle,t could have been ignorant of what were the true and es- sential principles of Episcopacy ? To come down to later times, and to the practice of the Church of England, with which we are so immediately connected, and the principles and usages of which we profess to love, to revere, and to follow. In the reign of Henry VIII (Anno 1539,) there was passed the famous “ Six-Article Act,’ or ‘* the Bloody Statute” as it was well called, which sentenced to burning or hanging any one who should deny transubstantiation, maintain the necessity of communion in both kinds, defend the marriage of priests, say that vows of chastity were not binding, that private masses were unprofitable, or that auricular confession was not necessary to * Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 3 Cap. 16. Ed. Valesii Paris. 1659, p. 88. ft It is enumerated among them in the last of the Apostolical Canons. + Archbishop Wake’s Apostolic Fathers, p. 11, Ed. N. ¥Y. 1810. — | Clem, ad. Cor. C. 41. § Dupin, Hist. of Eccles. Writers, &c. vol 1. Art. Clement. { Abp. Wake’s Apostolical Fathers, &c, p.16, p. 22. * Epist. Clement. Sec. 54. t He is called * the Apostle Clement’? by Clement of Alexandria. Stromata, lib. 4, p. 516 a. ed. gr. et lat. Paris, 1641. 21 wy g salvation.* ‘To this atrocious act, there was great opposition made by Archbishop Cranmer in open Parliament, and by other influential prelates. But it passed into a law ; and, in their dis— pleasure, two of the Bishops, Shaaton, Bishop of Salisbury, and the celebrated Latimer, Bishop of Worcester, resigned their sees. Now did not these worthy and distinguished men, and Bishop Latimer especially, one of the lights of the Reformation, under- stand ecclesiastical order, and know what was the practice of Episcopal Churches?+ Subsequently, on the death of Edward VI. and the accession of his sister Mary, several of the Protestant Bishops retired from their sees to avvid the fury of the Papists, and among them Bishop Barlow, who afterwards, with Bishops Coverdale and Scory, consecrated Archbishop Parker. And again, on her decease, and the accession of Elizabeth, who fa- voured the reformation, Bishops who retained their popish preju- dices, did the same. The particulars may be seen in Burnet’s History of the Reformation, and are fully given by the Annalist Strype. Every one must recollect, when L advert to the case, the resignation of Archbishop Leighton, in the days ef Char les II. a determination to which he came, as we are told by his biogra- pher. Pearson, and indeed by himself, after long reflection, and a thorough examination of the lawfulness of the measure. Bishop Burnet says that Archbishop Leighton ‘had gathered many in- stances out of Church history of Bishops who had left their sees.”’£ Any one who will take the trouble, may find many similar cases in the past history of the English Church. Among the most re- markable instances, we find that of Cuthbert,§ Bishop of Lindis- fern, an island on the coast of Northumberland, in the 7th cen- tury; that of John,|| Bishop of York in the 8th century, known in history as St. John of Beverly, being Abbot of the Monastery ‘there, and being canonized, who A carenied in the year 721, and | * Baker’s Chronicle, &c. p. 315, Lond. ed. fol. 1660. . ¢ For these facts, consult Rapin’s Hist. Eng. vol. 1, p. 821, 823. Burnet’s Hist. of Ref. vol. 1, p. 205 and 308. Collier’s Ecclesiastical Hist. p. 211, and Strype’s Life of Archbishop Cranmer. + Hist. of His own Times, v. 1, p. 342. § Rapin’s Hist. of Eng. vol. 1, p. 73, p. 482. fId. v. 1, p. 74. Collier’s Eccles. Hist. p. 123. i222 retired into monastic seclusion ; that of Robert Kilwarthy,* Arche bishop of Canterbury in the 10th century, who resigned his see to live at Rome, being made a Cardinal; that of Archbishop Lang- Aum,t in the 14th century; that of Bishop Shirburnet in the 16th century; and that of Dr. Reps, Bishop of Norwich, in the reign of Edward VI. who was persuaded to resign to make room for the promotion to that see of Dr. Thirlby.|} And these are only a few hastily gleaned from among many ancient precedents. And in our own times, within a very few years, Bishop Stansur, of Nova Scotia, abdicated that see, and was succeeded by the pre- sent incumbent, Dr. Inglis. And still later, Bishop James, the successor of Bishop Heber, after a short residence in India, re- signed his situation in consequence of broken health, and was re- turning home when he died. His, resignation was accepted, and asuccessor actually appointed before the intelligence of his de~ cease had arrived in England. No one dreamed that his abdi- cation was improper in any sense. Indeed, not only is theaprac- tice allowed, but there is a special act of Parliament which gives to the Bishops sent out to occupy the see of Calcutta, the privi- lege of resigning, and returning home upon a pension of £1500 per annum, after a service of 15 years in India. [fam not quite sure, but belicve, that a like provision is made for the retirement of the Bishops sent to the West Indies, after a ten years’ service there. Indsed I cannot discover that Episcopal resignations have ever been disallowed, or even disapproved of, in the Eng— lish Church. All the facts I have been able to gather on this sub- ject, prove directly the reverse to have been the case. When Wilfred, Bishop of Leicester, in the reign of Ethelred in the be- ginning of the 8th century, was accused before a council convened upon his case, he was absolutely advised by his brethren to retire; and the Bishops endeavored by entreaties and threats to induce him to resign the Bishopric of his ownaccord.§ We are told by Bishop Burnet, that Arehbishop Tillotson accepted the primacy with the fixed, ayowed, and known, intention to retire from it, whenever circumstances should allow him to do so, or the infirmities of age “Id. vol. 1, p. 354. ° ¢ Collier’s ibe eee p- 561. ¢ Id. p- 130. } Burnet’s History of Reform, vol. 2, p. § Re: s Hist. spt vol. 1, p. 73, 23 should overtake him.* So much for the practice of the English Church. As to the views and practice of the Church of Rome, they are fully in accordance with those of the other branches of the church to which I have referred you. ‘To say nothing of the innumera- ble cases of the resignation of ordinary bishops which its history furnishes, it is notorious that even the very heads of the church haye abdicated the papacy. I have no doubt that I could make out a long list of Popes who have withdrawn from their office. — All must recollect that in the 11th century, Gregory VI resign- ed, Gregory VII (the famous Hildebrand,) resigned, and Victor Ill resigned; and inthe 13th century the amiable and_ pious Celestine V resigned. I cannot find that the lawfulness of Episcopal resignations has ever been even questioned or suspect- ed by its divines; and there is a remarkable incident in its histo- ry which I must beg leave to recall to your recollection, because it fully sustains the views Iam defending, so far at least as its authority can go. You remember that, in the 15th century, the Latin church was distracted and torn by violent contentions re- specting the claims of rival Popes. In the beginning of that century, there were two rivals, both claiming to be Pontiffs,— Bonifiace IX, who resided at Rome, and Benedict XIII at Avignon. Boniface dying, there was elected a successor who took the name of Innocent VIE ; and he dying very soon was suc— ceeded by Gregory XII. A council held at Pisa in 1409 de- nounced them all, and appointed Alexander V. Sovereign Pontiff. But Benedict and Gregory spurned the decree of the council, and still claimed the Pontificate. So that there were now three Popes,—Benedict XIII, Gregory XII, and Alexander V. Alex- ander died the following year, and was succeeded by John XXIII. so that there still remained three Popes, all fiercely condemning each other, and strenuously claiming the Popedom. ‘This shame- ful state of things excited the horror and disgust of all Europe; and a council was called at Constance in the year 1414, at the instance of the German Emperor Sigismund, to terminate these broils. The council removed Jolin, on account of his notorious *Bornet’s Funeral Sermon at his death, p. 24, And Birch’s Life of him p. 162. SA crimes, and among other reasons, because he had not redeemed a pledge he had made to the council to resign the Pontificate.— Gregory voluntarily resigned; and Benedict was deprived by the decree of the council. . Benedict however still resisted until hts death, which occurred six years after; and a Spaniard, who as— sumed the title of Clement VIII, succeeded him, by the election of avery few cardinals. Clement at last, in the year 1429, was prevailed upon to resign the Church entirely to Martin V, whom the council of Constance had elected after the deprivation of Ben- edict and John, and the resignation of Gregory. And thus the scandalous contest was -brought to anend. But in this singular piece of history, we have the noticeable facts, that there were no less than two resignations of the bishopric of Rome;* that one of the Pontiffs promised+ the council to resign, though he did not keep his word; and that twot of them actually pledged them- selves under oath, to do so, should the interests of the Church require such a measure. These are scandalous facts, which F should never have men- tioned here, but for the bearing of some of them upon the point in hand, But shameful as were the proceedings to which I have ~-adverted, in no historian or ecclesiastical writer that 1 have ever read, have Iseen Gregory or Clement censured for resigning, or tbe others for promising to resign. ‘This was never reckoned among their faults by any one. Nor did the great council of Con- stance, the fame of which drew together 18,000 ecclesiasties, and many thousand laymen of learning and distinction, ever raise a question, or insinuate a doubt respecting the lawfulness of resig- nations. That a bishop could resign was a point taken for grant- ed, and universally received then. I verily believe that it has never been seriously called in question in any age, orin any church but our own. -And the more I think of it, the more I am surpris- ed, that it should be necessary to debate it in this body. But the facts I have adduced from the history of the Romish Church, may possibly have little force in the view of some, be- cause they are furnished by what we are accustomed to consider and tocall a corrupt part of christendom. More than once in this *Grogory XIL& Clement VUE. tJohn XXIII. +Benedict XIN & Gregory XI. 25 debate have we witnessed the attempt to prejudice the minds of the members of this house, by what I must call the illiberal and un- just cry of ‘“Popery.”? The ‘judicious Hooker’? speaks of some in his day, who “ measured religion by dislike of the Church of Rome, and thought every man so much the more sound, by how much he could make the corruptions thereof to seem large.’”’* I must tell my reverend brother who has so eloquently appealed to the prejudices and the pride -of those of us especially who with himself boast of having in their veins the hlood of the Huguenots, that such was not the spirit of his sires. I trust it will never be the temper of their descendants. A more liberal spirit becomes those who can claim so holy and illustrious an ancestry, With ereat propriety and wisdom does the Church call upon us every day of our session, in the beautiful collect she has provided for the purpose, to pray that we may be saved from ‘‘pride and pre- judice.”” And considering how apt the very best of men are to be insensibly swayed by such influences even in an august body like this,t I am grieved to hear any thing that looks like an ap- peal to such feelings. And what have our just objections to po- pery, or our inherited prejudices against it, to du with this ques- tion? At any rate, even though the facts I have mentioned should not prove that episcopal resignations are not at variance with the essential principles of episcopacy, they do shew most clearly that there never was a declaration less accurate, or mere entirely des- titute of proof, than that which has so often been quoted to us in this discussion as coming from high authority, that an epispocal resignation is not consistent ‘‘with the practice of episcopal church- esin any ages!” If these facts from the history of the Romish Church are to pass for nothing, I presume that those which have been presented from the practice of early ages, and from the his- tory of the Church of England, will not be considered of no ac- count. Iam willing to rest the question upon them; and to leave the others entirely out of view. I might adduce to you other cases of Episcopal resignation, in other branches of the Church, as that * Ecclesiastical Polity, B. 4, s. 8, vol. 2, p. 359. Ed. Lon. 1825. { See the various motives by which the members of ecclesiastical councils may be influenced, in Dr, Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, p. 185. 4 So of Bishop Campbell of Aberdeen, who resigned that. see in 1724,¥ and that of the Swedish Prelate Matthie,} Bishop of Strengnes, in the 17th century; but I have already been tediously minute, I fear, and 1 think additional facts must be unnecessary. The fact is established, that Episcopal resignations are not inconsistent with ecclesiastical order, and do not violate the practice of the Church; and are, therefore, not at variance with the essential principles of Episcopacy. I must. again express my surprise, that such positions should. ever have been maintained a moment, in contradiction to all history. The cases I have adduced are not merely a few isolated instances, regarded. by the Church as irre- gular proceedings, and tolerated only as exceptions. It is unde- niable that standard writers on ecclesiastical law, unequivocally | recognise the principle that a Bishop may resign, and discuss and -explain the circumstances and manner in which the act is to be done. I have the authorities at hand, should any one require them ; but otherwise, shall do nothing more than refer for satis-_ faction on this point, to Bishop Gibson’s Codex Juris Eccles. | Ang. v. 1, passim; Lord.Coke upon Littleton, $29; Judge Black- © stone’s Commentaries, 1, 582; and especially to Dr. Burns’ Ec- clesiastical Law, v. iii. p. 321, title “Resignation.” mt think I have not failed to shew, as I proposed to do, that | Episcopal resignations have been practised and allowed in all ages, and that, consequently the resignation of a Bishop does not conflict with ecclesiastical order, or contravene the essential prin- | ciples of Kxpiscopacy. If it has been proved, as I trust it has, that there is no canon law which prohibits such a measure, nothing repugnant to the tenor ‘and spirit of the office of consecration, no law of understanding which binds for life a Bishop to his see, and no variance with the essential principles of Episcopacy, it follows that a Bishop may) lawfully resign the jurisdiction of his diocese. ‘This being ascer-| tained, no exception can be taken upon these grounds to the act/of| Bishop Chase; and there is certainly, and was at the time of Dr. Mcllvaine’s election, a true yAcANCY in the Bishopric of Ohio, * See Appendix No. 1. to Skinner’s Primitive Truth and Order, p. 342, N. ¥. 1808. | { Mosheim’s Eccles. Hist. vol, 4, p. 13. yf To the objection made by those who contend that the resigna- tion ought to have been tendered to the house of Bishops, or to this body, and that the Diocesan Convention of Ohio was not compe- tent to receive it, f can hardly think I need reply. It is for them fo prove, that the Church requires a resignation to be presented to the House of Bishops, or to the General Conyention ; and that the body from which Bishop Chase received his jurisdiction, which was also the only body by which it could be conferred, had no au- thority to receive back what it gave, when tendered to them by him. ‘This has not been proved—it has merely been asserted, or suggested, And proved, I am sure, it never can be, or it wonld already have beeu established in this debate by the learning, the ingenuity, and the eloquence, which have been arrayed against the Report of the Joint Committee. Indeed, if the gentlemen were pushed a little, I suspect they would find it yegy diflicult to as- sign any competent reason, why a Bishop’s resignation would not be a sufficient and valid act, by the mere fact that it is the exer- cise of his own will and purpose, and independently of its accep- tance or approval by the bedy to which it is delivered, or any other authority whatever, But I Jeave this objection to itself, until it be sustained by something besides the opinions of those who have advanced it. To the vacant Bishopric of Ohio, vacated by a lawful act of its late Bishop, Dr. McIlvaine has been called by the vote of its Con- vention. Ido not see that we are authorised by the canons, un- der these circumstances, to devise means to restore Bishop Chase, to reconcile the differences between him and the Diocese from which he has severed himself by his own act, or to entertain any question but the immediate consecration of the gentleman chosen his successor. We are competent, I conceive, to do nothing else in the case, but the plain duty committed to us by the canons. “I trust, therefore, that this House will accede to the Report of the Joint Committee; that we may at once proceed to sigu the docu- ment which will recommend the Bishop elect to our venerable fa- thers, for admission to the high and holy office which they fill. \ Mr. PresipENT,— When I addressed you the other day on the subject now in debate, I was both unable and unwilling to oc- -cupy you long. I had been several days confined to my room by | an attack of fever, which came upon me while attending the house, and was, consequently, unable to sustain a long effort. And the debate had heen already protracted to so great a length, that I pre- ferred omitting some things which I had wished and intended to say, rather than to fatigue the patience of the house by a long speech. But I am called upon by the attack which has been made upon a part of my remarks by my reverend friend from Pennsyl- vania, (Dr. Delancey,) to address you again in self-vindication: After a brief reply to him, [shall avail myself of the opportunity of saying a few words on some points which I had neither time, nor direct and pfper occasion, to touch in my previous observa- tions. You will recollect, Sir, that I adduced the high authority of Clement of Rome, in favour of Episcopal resignations; and re- ferred to a passage of his famous epistle to the Corinthians as lay- ing down a principle favourable to the position I was defending. The reverend gentleman acknowledges that when he heard the au- thority of Clement adduced against him, he felt that his cause was gone. In the course of the observations he addressed to you, he felt it to be necessary, therefore, to weaken the force of the authority adduced by me; and reading a solitary sentence from Clement’s epistle, severed from its connexion with the whole pas- sage to which it belongs, exulted no little in my imagined dis— comfiture, and declared that Clement said no such thing as I had made him say. He made himself somewhat merry too at my ex- pense, and rallied me a little upon my haying hit upon this ‘sleepy case,’ as he was pleased to call it, * late at night,”’ when exhaust- ed with the labour of study. Even had he vanquished me upon this point, I do not see that he had much cause to triumph, since he did not venture to call in question a solitary fact besides, out ~ of the many I had stated. For surely a besieging enemy who for- tunately dismounts one of the guns of a fortress, does not triumph as though he had stormed the ramparts, carried them by assault, 29 and put the whole Rarrison to the sword, But he has not gained the least advantage even here. My friend was correct in his con- jecture that I had studied this case “at night.” Ihave not the good fortune to have the learned leisure which he enjoys in 80 en- viable a degree ; nor is it my privilege to possess, as he does, thie “‘ otium cum dignitate.”’ Amid the cares and labours which come upon me from my pastoral connexion with an extensive congre— gation, I find myself often compelled to study “at night,’”’ because I have little time for study in the day. But he wasentirely wrong in supposing that I was oppressed with any tendency to “sleep,” in my investigation of the case in question. I confess, I can some- times sleep under a long speech, and even under a dull sermon; and I do not know that this is wrong. ‘ Opere in longo, fas est obrepere somnum.” But I have never yet found myself inclined to sleep over a volume of the fathers; and I hope that what he has been led to suspect of me, has not been suggested to him as probable, by his own experience. Iam convinced, that if the fa- thers were less slept over than they are, and were not permitted to sleep as they so often do upon our shelves, we should have de— cided the question before us long ago, because we should have un- derstood it better. But to the authority of Clement. Let any one read the whole passage referred to by me, and not the single dismembered sentence which the gentleman has selected, and it will be plain that I am fully sustained by the authority of that an- cient Father. It is exceedingly unfair to take a single isolated sentence of an author, and force it to speak a language, which, viewed in connexion with its context, it does not speak. At any rate, I recollect that I was taught by Dr. Turner, when pursuing my theological studies, always to consider the context and the scope of a passage to ascertain its meaning, Now let me read to you the unmutilated passage as it stands in Archbiskop Wake’s translation. ‘© Who is there among you that is generous? Who that is com- passionate? Who that has any charity? Let him say, if this se- dition, this contention and these schisms, be upon my account, f am ready to depart; to go away whithersoever ye please; and do - whatsoever ye shall command me: only let the flock of Christ be __in peace, with the elders that are set over it. He that shall do this,. SO shall get to himself a very great honour in thé Lord; and there is no place but what will be ready to receive him: for the earth és the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. (Vsalm xxiv.) ‘These things they who have their conversation towards God not to be repented of, both have done, and will always be ready to do. | «« Nay, and even the Gentiles themselves have given us exam— ples of this kind. For we read, how many kings and princes, in times of pestilence, being warned by their oracles, haye given up themselves unto death; that by their own blood, they might deli- ver their country from destruction. Others have forsaken their cities, that so they might put an end to the seditions of atl Clement. Ep. ad Corinth. sec. 54, 55, p. 178. T submit it without comment—All must see that I am sustained by the high authority which my friend acknowledged was suffi- cient to overturn his cause. I am glad that the reverend gentleman has given me this op- portunity to place the authority of Clement in a still stronger light. Now, Sir, Iam able to shew, that this ancient Bishop has actually afforded us a precedent for Episcopal resignations, by his own example. ‘The early history of the Church at Rome, and of its first Bishops in particular, is involved in some obscurity. Its records are not as full as we might desire, because, to believe, to love, to suffer, and to die,—not to write, was the primitive taste. But we have historical records from which the following facts may be gathered. Linus, Anacletus, and Clement, were all invest- ted with the Episcopal office, by the Apostles Peter and Paul; and left at Rome to supply their places during their absence, Clement being designed to be their permanent successor. But, practising the rule which he lays down in his truly admirable epistle, he re- nounced the episcopate of Rome, and refused to execute that office till he was obliged to assume it after the death of both Linus and Anacletus. He thus remained upwards of twenty years, without exercising jurisdiction over the Church of which he had been made Bishop by Apostolic designation, that no difficulties should arise on his account. A very full detail of these facts may be seen in the 2d volume of Tillemont’s “ Ecclesiastical Memoirs of i the six First Centuries,” in the very minute account which he gives “ there of St. Clement. And there may be seen the references to ie oi the original authorities upon which they rest.¢ Substantially the same account is given by Calmet in his Dictionary of the Bible, under the article Clement. So far, then, as the authority of Clement goes, the pr packs of Episcopal resignations is fully established. I must again thank + the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the opportunity he has made for me to exhibit itthus fully. And as he has himself said that it would be sufficient to put down his cause, I trust we shall re- ceive from him at least no further opposition. Iam sure he must now be convinced that Clement is against him. From the turn this debate has taken, it is evident that the issue of the matter before us depends mainly upon the settlement of the question of Episcopal resignations. I do not intend to trouble you with the repetition of what has already been said upon that point by myself or others. But there is one fact which has been almost entirely overlooked in this discussion, although it has a most important bearing upon the subject under debate; and it is that a precedent for Episcopal resignations has been established in | ‘our own Church. This, I think, can easily be shewn. In the year 1801, Bishop Provoost, the then Bishop of New York, verbally re- signed his episcopal jurisdiction of that diocese, in open Conyen- tion then assembled. ‘The Convention, not indeed in terms, but by acts of the most unequivocal meaning, accepted his resigna— tion, or rather, concurred in his abdication; and elected Dr. Ben- jamin Moore to succecd him. A few days after this election, the ‘General Convention assembled at Trenton, and Dr. Moore was consecrated. ‘The house of Bishops, consisting of Bishop White, Bishop Claggett, and Bishop Jarvis, expressed their opinion that the resignation of Bishop Provoost was not ‘consistent with ec- clesiastical order, or with the practice of Episcopal Churches in ~ any ages, or with the tenor. of the office of consecration ;” and re- fused **to recognise the Bishop’s act as an effectual resignation of his Episcopal jurisdiction.” Nevertheless they agreed to con- ‘secrate Dr. Moore, stating that they should consider him as ‘*as- eestane or coadjutor during Bishop Provoost’s life.” ‘The lower house hy © The copy of Tillemont which I have used, is the English translation, publish. a ee in folio at London in 1733. The place is at pp. 116—121, vol. 2. es ‘ expressed no Opinion in the matter: the Bishops did not ask them to do so, and, therefore, they could not, with delicacy or deco- rum, obtrude their sentiments. But they proceeded to sign Dr. ‘Moore’s testimonials,—upon which he was consecrated. He re- turned to New York, took the Episcopal superintendence of the diocese, and remained ten years in undisputed possession of Dio- cesan authority. There was not one solitary official act in any section of the Church, for ten years, which went to cast a suspi- cion upon his claim to be the principal Bishop of New York ; but, on the contrary, he was universally recognised in that character, privately and officially. In the lists of clergy appended to the Journals of the General Convention from the session of 1801 on- wards, he was always marked as the Bishop of New York, and Bishop Provoost never. In the Journal of 1801, Bishop Provoost is put down at the end of the clergy of New York, as ‘residing in New York.” In the lists of 1804 and 1808, his name occurs merely in alphabetical order among the clergy of New York. In the list of 1811, he is placed at the head of the catalogue, with the title of “‘ Bishop,” which is also given to Bishop Mcore im- mediately after, and also to Bishop Hobart. In the list of 1814, Bishop Provoost’s name is put at the head, with no title but ** Rt. Rey.” and “D. D.” Bishop Moore’s follows, marked as “Bishop,” and Bishop Hobart’s next, as * Assistant Bishop.’”’ This last en- try is particularly worthy of notice. Nor are these lists mere informal acts of the Secretaries under whose direction the jour- nals were published,—and for which they alone are responsible, They are lists declared to be officially ‘* delivered in and publish- ed agreeably to the Canons.’’ ‘And we do not find that the Secre- taries were ever called to account for falsifying the lists of the clergy, or accused or suspected of any misrepresentation of the truth in any one respect. ‘These, then, are officially sanctioned catalogues of the clergy, and a part of the public, authenticated records of the Church. I repeat it, then, the fact that Bishop Moore was Diocesan of New York, was acquiesced in every where in this country ;—and there was not one proceeding which went to impugn his authority for more than ten years. In the year 1812, however, Bishop Proyoost, in a written communication to the Con- vention of New York, and by another document addressed toa _ in a ¥ . te AB Dy iG % sty Ant i 33 ¥ ah Pes presbyter of that: diocese, cama; and proposed to resume, ju- -risdiction over the. Church in that State, The Convention passe » ed a spirited protest against any such right on his parts and des — clared that they acknowledged Bishop Moore, and ‘no Other person, to be their true and lawful Diocesan Bishop.”’? Here the whole matter ended. Bishop Proveost never urged his claim any further ;—the General Convention never interfered to establish “it;—even the house of Bishops, who had declared in 1801, that his resignation was not ‘effectual,’ never even adverted to the business. But all parties seemed to acquiesce in the propriety of the resolution passed by the New York Convention of 1812, and to recognise Bishop Moore, and * no other person, as their true ayd lawful Diocesan Bishop.” And let it be particularly remark- ed, that in 1814, even after Bishop Provoost had claimed, and offered to resume, the jurisdiction of New York,—his name was entered upon the list of the clergy merely as the “Rt. Reverend Samuel Provoost, D. D.;” and that Bishop Moore was put down immediately after him as * Bishop.”’. Even those who afterwards disputed Bishop Moore’s Diocesan character, and claimed it for Bishop Provoost, never took this ground, until more than. ten years after the resignation of the latter, and after Bishop Moore had been consecrated. Here, then, is a settled case—a precedent fully established in our own Chourch,—from which it clearly ap- pears, that fur more than thirty years, it has been the sense of the Church in the United States, that a Bishop may resign, and that there may be a Bishop without a jurisdiction. Indeed; the very Bishops who objected to Bishop Provoost’s Hemonau ott, seem to have receded from the ground they took at first:—for in the letter of consecration which they gave to Bishop Moore, dated Atth September 1801, the very day after their decision, they say that they had consecrated him “into the office of Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New York.” They declare also in the same document, that he was elected to that office by the Convention of New York, *¢in consequence of the in- ability of Bishop Provoost. and of his declining all Episcopal ju- risdiction within the said State.” Herc, then, I contend, isa sete tled case—a precedent fully established in the Church in the United States, that a Bishop may resign, and that there may be a 3 jg At ye a aes Bishop without a diocese. And, even more recently than this, the Bishop of the Eastern Diocese, with a magnanimity and dis- interestedness truly deserving admiration, has, without the least opposition, or even a murmur of disapprobation, resigned his ju- risdiction over Vermont. All bave acquiesced in the lawfulness and propriety of the measure; and the Reverend gentlemadelect- ed to succeed him, will, uo doubt, be unanimously recommended by the house for consecration. I confess I am not so keen sight- ed as to discover, what there is to prevent a Bishop's resigning his whole diocese, when, without the least suspicion of improprie- ty, he may resign a part. Before I end these protracted remarks, I must say a few words on another point, which has been made a prominent one in this matter. Inthe private and public discussions to which the resig- nation of Bishop Chase has given rise, it has been very generally conceded by those who disapprove the proceedings of the Church in Ohio, that their objections to Dr. McIlvaine’s consecration as his successor, are founded chiefly upon the ineapediency of the measure. Much has been conjectured by the alarmed imagina— tions of some, as to the evils which may result from it to the future peace of the Church; and in proof of its expediency, a great deal has been said about the anomalous and inadmissible character of a ‘‘ BISHOP AT LARGE,” which the resigned Bishop must necessarily be, should the General Convention agree to the consecration of the proposed Bishop elect. That there ought not to be “ Bishops at large” in the Church, in this country at least, | am ready to grant; and Iyhope that measures may be at once taken to prevent _ the existence of any such characters in future among us. Indeed, I am utterly opposed to rambling ecclesiastics of every grade; and heartily wish that some such laws as existed in the ancient Church against the Caxevz-Cor, were in force now to restrain the roving propensities of itinerant clerks. And then the “runagates” would ** continue in scarceness.”— It is certainly not desirable to have among us * Bishops-at large.” But, that a Bishop at large is an anomaly in the Church, is as clearly contrary to historical facts, as the assertion that a Bishap has never lawfully resigned. Beyond a doubt.there were * Bishops at large,” that is, Bishops without dioceses, and exercising no local jurisdiction, in the early aad Church, It was no uncommon case for coadjutor Bishops to be chosen, with the distinct proviso that their authority was to cease on the demise of the diocesans they were elected to assist. Al- though this has often been denied, it is distinctly said by the his- torians, that Gregory Nazianzen accepted the office of coadjutor to his father, the Bishop of Nazianzum, on the express condition that he might resign on his death ; and that he actually did resign on that event, retired to Seleucia, and remained several years in private life.* And Bishop Gibson, a standard authority on all matters of ecclesiastical law, declares, that a coadjutor was ‘at first” given to a WWshop, “in order to succeed him; but in later | times, only to be an assistant during life.t’? Every such assistant Bishop became, of course, a *‘ Bishop at large,” on the demise of his principal; and so remained until chosen to succeed him, or appointed to another see. It is hardly to be supposed that they were all thus imvested immediately with a new jurisdiction. In the case of Gregory, which | have already mentioned, he remain- el sume time in private life. And what but Bishops at large,’? were the oyeadio: or eyord Corres extoxowe:, * vacant Bishops,” men- tioned by ancient ecclesiastical writers, and for whose case the Apostolical Canons and the council of Antioch made provision, declaring that, though refused by the people for whom they were consecrated, they should still be Bishops?t What were the Vul- latenenses of subsequent times? And what shall be said of those who in the ancient Church were ordained expressly #xroacavpevan, to be confined to no particular district?) That such Bishops were consecrated in ancient times, can admit of ‘no qifstion. ~ Such certainly must have been all those who were appointed Bishops fur heathen lands; and for whose ordination at Constantinople, the council of Chalcedon passed a special canon. I dare say the case of Frumentius, whose singular history and pious labours lave given so much interest to his name,|| is remembered by most * See Cave’s Historia Literaria, &c.—Art, Greg. Naz. t See Gibson’s Codex Juris Eccl ops plnnitia’ bine dio 3 ‘Cappadocia, i in the fourth « ae of Basi i, Bishop: of Caesarea in iw century, there were no less” than fifty such! But the “« country Bishops” of ancient: days: had not the rank and influence which Bishops have among us, and were ‘scarce- , i ly more ‘than country parish: ministers of a higher grade. It has | e even been thought by some that they were ‘only presbyter S, SO In- ferior were they in the Church. To prevent the dangerous in— crease. ‘of Bishops, we must put an end, or at least a check, to : Episcopal resignations. But we can do nothing to bear upon the tum ‘valet. ” “As thus applied by them it was a cowardly ma case. ‘before us. The act ‘is done, and cannot be prevented,—or even, that I see, rectified. We cannot pass an ex post facto law. It must stand ;—but I trust, it will not be suffered to stand as a precedent. All that we can do, is to apply to such cases the maxim of the Fathers on the subject of lay-baptism : ** fieri non a and, in my judgment, it was false. Part of it indeed was ume. _“ Fieri non debet,”’—that was true,—lay-baptism ‘ ought not to be performed : °°—_** factum valet,”’ that was false. At least I think so. But to the case of an Episcopal resignation, it fully and Just- ly applies. I have only to say, that I do not see how the house is to refuse to sign the testimonials of Dr. McIlvaine. The only possible rea- son that can be advanced against their doing so, at least so far as I understand the matter, and so far as any thing has yet been made to appear, is the inexpediency of sanctioning the oceedings in Ohio, As to the inexpediencies of this case, th differences of opinion. By many well acquainted w >of that diocese, and the recent transactions there, it is viewed as a matter highly expedient, and indeed absolutely necessary, that Bishop Chase should retire, and that a successor sligyjd enter at once upon the superintendence of the diocese. The ™onvention of the Diocese, and Bishop Chase himself, are evidently of this_ opinion, and perhaps they are the best qualified to judge of this point. But, whatever scruples may be entertained upon the ground * The number of the Chorepiscopi was no doubt greatly increased by the pro- vision made by the council of Nice, in its famous 8th Canon, that the Novatian Bishops coming over to the Church, should be received and allowed to officiate in that capacity. The same provision was made for the Meletian Bishops, and Subsequently for some others, to encourage their return to the unity of the Church. yi in Piatti in it ord ae Bishop Sherloc Ho sou in what L have offered, it will prevail with rez if there be not, I am not s so unreasonable as to ‘desir i ae - *Rishop sheriveks “Arguments pe the fe pebh of the Con ‘Dp (Gat the end. Pe alae be sf ¥ ot % a ° ' \ ~ sii e i i - He ‘ a A S &@ we e een 4 ih + lies 5 ‘ ; . fi I i h yi i eh * Pr . iy ‘ eos oe i 4 y Age 2 ‘ ; ASS a | * ’ . re iN re Vig Nod c 5 | as Bes) 3 NG is ) ; eee . a i *% \ ie be WO) ' " & i i r bat r i ¢ si bs (B» i) ve ¥ \ AH t