W^. ■*•'!•.; 
 
 TJ 1g^!^' 
 
 Review of the Protest end. 
 A-npeal of Bishop Doane, 
 as agg-rieved by Bishops 
 Meade, Burgess, and 
 irdlvaine; ajid of ^sjrts of 
 
 his re-oly to the 
 Representations of Messrs. ^^ 
 Halstead, Perliins, Coppuck 
 and G-ill, 
 
 'w.^'Ss:. 
 
 I 
 
 BX5960 
 .D63R46 
 
 '.^f* 
 
 m 
 
 ,^ 
 

 o^. 
 
 A 
 
 

 REVIEW 
 
 PROTEST AND APPEAL OF BISHOP DOANE, 
 
 AS A.iGRIF.VED BY 
 
 BISHOPS MEADE, BURGESS, AND McTLVAINE ; 
 
 PARTS OF HIS REPLY 
 
 REPRE??ENTATIONS OF MESSRS. HA-.STEAD, PERKINS, 
 COPPFCK AND GILL. 
 
 B ^' A N O m () L K Y M A N 
 
 CINCINNATI : 
 
 \\K)V>XV. h ANDERSON, 28 WEST FOURTH .STREET. 
 
 IH52. 
 
6, 2-0. yo 
 
 ^ 
 
 •»#^ 
 
 ^i \u mm\osi(»f ^ 
 
 ^%: 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 ** 
 
 % 
 
 Presented by i^^ ,(S^ . 0<::ArrA<f^X~Oy~^ ^~^^FV\ ,"3) 
 
 Division .. ..P./S.O. i IC O 
 
 i^^^F^' 
 
 '^ 
 
 1 
 
REVIEW (* JUN2O1910 
 
 E£C/CAL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PROTEST AND APPEAL OF EISHOP DOAM, 
 
 AS AGGRIEVED BY 
 
 BISHOPS MEADE, BUKGESS, AND McILVAINE; 
 
 PARTS OF HIS REPLY 
 
 REPRESENTATIONS OF MESSRS. HALSTEAD, PERKINS, 
 COPPUCK AND GILL. 
 
 BY AN OHIO LAYMAN 
 
 CINCINNATI : 
 
 MOORE & ANDERSON, 28 WEST FOURTH STREET. 
 
 ■ 1852. 
 
^y 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 Morgan cf- Overend, Printers. 
 
REVIEW 
 
 BISHOP DOANE'S PROTEST AND APPEAL. 
 
 If the incipient steps recorded in his pamphlet shall hereafter lead 
 to a public trial, bitterly will Bishop Doane regret the folly of its pub- 
 lication. We will not say that on his own showing he may be convicted ; 
 but of all the points he has made, we affirm there is not one from Avhich 
 his innocence can be inferred. If the solemnity of the Bishop's OAvn de- 
 nial be equivalent to a verdict of acquittal, then indeed he is an innocent 
 and much abused man. But strike out from the pamphlet these un- 
 supported denials, what remains, if not a confession of guilt, is very 
 like an apology for all but admitted indiscretions. , 
 
 The three Bishops who unite in the letter are handled very unceri- 
 moniously, — their conduct is denounced as uncanonical, unchristian, and 
 inhuman. " For himself, he must alike resist the intrusion into the 
 fold Avhich he received from Jesus Christ, of the individual papacy of 
 Rome, and of the triumviral papacy of Virginia, Maine and Ohio." 
 Bishop Doane's authority is deservedly great with the Church of Rome, 
 but we doubt whether Pope, Cardinal or Archbishop, will recognize 
 any resemblance to themselves, in the Right Reverend Fathers of Vir- 
 ginia, Maine and Ohio. But admit these gentlemen to be all that Bishop 
 Doane asserts them to be, does such admission involve his innocence 
 of the charges preferred against him, from his own diocese ? They 
 may constitute a triumviral papacy, and yet Bishop Doane may have 
 obtained money under false pretences. We are repeatedly told of the 
 length of time which has elapsed since the commission of the alleged 
 frauds, and then somewhat triumphantly asked, why an investigation 
 has not been earlier had ? Does the Bishop look so exclusively on one 
 side of this grave matter, that he does not see with what damning force 
 
4 KEVIEW OF 
 
 that argnment may be retorted upon him ? Nearly three years since, 
 in his own village, in his own convention, he himself presiding, a reso- 
 lution was introduced by a respectable member, referring to rumors 
 affecting the character of the Bishop, and asking a committee of inves- 
 tigation — the resolution was resisted by his friends and unanimously 
 rejected. Why did he not silence his friends and demand an inquiry ? 
 He says, " He never has avoided an investigation." On the day before 
 the resolution introduced by William Halsted, he was told of his inten- 
 tion, by a friend who had endeavored to prevent it, (Charles King, 
 Esquire, President of Columbia College.) His answer was, 'that 
 must not be. Recall whatever you have said. By all means let him 
 have his way.' And the Avhole convention will bear witness that he 
 never said one word to influence their decision." And why did he 
 not influence their decision ? Why did he not say to the convention 
 as he said to Mr. King, " By all means, let him have his way," and 
 the resolution Avould have been unanimously adopted, as it was unani- 
 mously rejected. Two conventions have since been held in New Jersey, 
 and that "silence deep as death which fell upon the assembly" in 1849, 
 has not been broken by the interceding voice of the Bishop, that his 
 friends would investigate the charges and relieve him from their odium. 
 An Irishman might be excused for asking, if this "silence" is the voice 
 of innocence ? The passage of time may give room for repentance ; it 
 has no power to transform a guilty act into an innocent one — nor does 
 any presumption arise that the alleged frauds were fair and honest 
 transactions, because they were perpetrated three years ago. If there 
 were any badge of fraud upon them then, it remains upon them now. 
 If there be any force in this lapse of time, it is only in analogy to a 
 statute of limitatons, which the church has wisely omitted to provide 
 in cases like this. Wisely, we say, for we apprehend, that in an eccle- 
 siastical court, unlike a civil, repentance, reformation and restitution 
 would be a good plea. A plea of the statute of limitations in a criminal 
 court, if not a positive admission [of guilt, leads to the awkward con- 
 clusion, that there is no evidence of innocence. The lapse of three 
 years then, with so much emphasis urged by the Bishop against this 
 investigation now, leaves painful doubts upon the mind, that the trans- 
 actions are not susceptible of very ready or satisfactory explanations. 
 There is no tendency to remove these doubts in the reflection, that this 
 investigation was with equal pertinacity resisted when it was new and 
 fresh, as now, when it is averred to be obsolete and stale. The delay 
 
BISHOP DOANE S PEOTEST AND APPEAL. 5 
 
 wliicli lias occurred, raises quite as strong a presumption of the guilt 
 of the accused, as of the falsity of the accusation. 
 
 In the next place we are asked, why did not the three Bishops remon- 
 strate with Bishop Doane, when they met in the General Convention 
 at Cincinnati, in 1850 — and why did Bishop Mcllvaine, when at Bur- 
 lington, in November last, " give no hint of any distrust in his mind, 
 of any paper in his pocket, of any movement in his heart ? And why 
 did he not then inquire into the truth of these charges ?" Really we 
 can not answer these questions — nor if we could, do we perceive how 
 the answer would throw any light upon the matter before us. 
 
 Thus we might go through all the abuse, assertions, and explanations 
 of the pamphlet, and show how entirely they fail to remove the suspi- 
 cions which for some years have attached to the character and conduct 
 of Bishop Doane. 
 
 The interest of the church demands a more minute examination of 
 the protest, appeal, and reply, which we now proceed to make. 
 
 The title page sets forth with some precision, and some opprobrious 
 epithets, the object of the pamphlet. A protest and appeal of G. W. 
 Doane as aggrieved by the three Bishops, Meade, Burgess and Mcll- 
 vane — and a reply to the charges of Halsted, Perkins, Coppuck and 
 Gill. 
 
 That we may do entire justice to the Right Reverend Gentleman, we 
 insert the matter which has called forth this protest, appeal, and reply. 
 They are taken from the Bishop's pamphlet, where alone they are 
 accessible to the public. They are not published by the Bishops, who 
 wrote the letter, nor by the laymen, who present the charges. They 
 were guilty of no such flagrant impropriety, to use no harsher term. 
 To anticipate the public trial, to pre-occupy all minds in favor of the 
 accused ; to fill beforehand, with sympathy the hearts of his judges, 
 for an innocent man, thus dragged from the sanctuary of domestic 
 affliction, and obliged to submit to an investigation which he had sedu- 
 lously shunned ; to turn the very common prejudice from himself, the 
 alleged perpetrator of these frauds, against those who had suffered 
 from them, and to discredit in advance the witnesses who may be called 
 to sustain them. This, at all events, may be the effect ; and Avere we 
 to surrender ourselves to the spirit of detraction which shows itself on 
 every page of this pamphlet, we would add, this effect, we doubt not, 
 its publication was intended to produce. Why else its publication ? 
 General charges were spread upon the records of his own convention 
 
6 EEVIEW OF 
 
 in 1849, and there they might have slept forever, their repose undis- 
 turbed by himself or his friends. The moment the charges assume a 
 more specific form, and are given a direction which canonically makes 
 an investigation no longer avoidable, then it is. Bishop Doane comes 
 before the public, and abuses all connected vrith the prosecution, in 
 terms of exaggeration, which have no parallel, but those in which he 
 extols all connected with the defense. Why this publication now? 
 Why this public defense, before he is publicly tried ? Why reply to 
 the charges before he is arraigned ? Why appeal before he is con- 
 demned ? These questions will require some other ansAver than 
 " a silence deep as death." 
 
 Letter from the Bishops of Virginia, Maine and Ohio, to the Bishop of 
 
 New Jersey. 
 
 September 22, 1851. 
 
 TO THE EIGHT KEv'd GEOKGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 
 
 Right Rev. and Dear Sik: 
 
 We the undersigned, your brethren in the Episcopate, have recently received from 
 certain lay members of our Chuch in the Diocese of New Jersey, a communication call- 
 ing upon us, to perform the painful duty of making inquiry into the truth of reports in 
 relation to yourself, which have been in circulation for some years past. This we are 
 requested to do, in order that we may determine whether it may not be proper to insti- 
 tute a trial according to the canon of the General Convention provided for that purpose. 
 Such is the character, and so great is the number oi the charges specified in that docu- 
 ment, that we do not feel ourselves at liberty to decline the call thus made upon us, 
 unless the object thereof can be attained in some other way, which shall satisfy the 
 reasonable demands of complainants in your own diocese and in the Church at large. 
 
 In order to relieve ourselves from a most distressing duty, we have determined to ap- 
 peal to you, in the hope that you will take prompt and efiectuul measures, for carrying 
 into operation, what must have been the expectation of the church in her canon for the 
 trial of a Bishop: — viz.. That action shall first take place in Diocesan Conventions. 
 
 It appears to us, that it is only when a Diocesan Convention refuses to institute in- 
 quiry, or neglects to do it for too long a period, or performs the duty unfaithfully, that 
 the Bishops can be reasonably expected to interfere. It is true, that in the present case, 
 as the above mentioned document sets forth, and as has been otherwise made known 
 to us, it has been wished and attempted to induce the Convention of New Jersey to take 
 this subject into consideration, and that the effort has been resisted and prevented; 
 nevertheless so reluctant are we to engage in a task so painful as that set before us, that 
 we have resolved to advise and urge you to have, without delay, a Special Convention 
 for the purpose of a full investigation of all that has been, or may be, laid to your charge 
 whether in the document we transmit to you, or otherwise. It is also our duty, as your 
 brethren, and as bishops of the church, most earnestly to impress it on your mind, that 
 such is the nature of the charges made against you in that document, and of the same 
 and similar reports, which for years have been in circulation to the great grief of many, 
 and the injury of religion, that nothing else can satisfy others, and relieve yourself from 
 
BISHOP DOANE's protest AND APPEAL. 7 
 
 the suspicion of great guilt, but the appointment, by the Convention, of an impartial 
 and intelligent committee, in whom great confidence will be reposed— with instructions 
 to make the fullest investigation of the evil reports which are, and have been, assailing 
 your character and conduct. Wo feel bound to say, that no mere report of a commit- 
 tee, or vote of a Convention, declaring a belief of your innocency, and that an inquiry is 
 unnecessary, will suffice for your own reputation, or give satisfaction to the public. 
 We are persuaded that nothing but such an investigation as that which we have de- 
 scribed and recommended, can either satisfy those whom you may deem unfriendly to 
 you, or relieve the minds of many an.xious and distressed friends. Should such a course 
 as we have pointed out be pursued by you, and either a presentment made, or sufficient 
 reasons bo assigned why it is not merited— we, your brethren, who have been sought 
 out for the purpose, and have most reluctantly consented to take any part in it, will 
 rejoice to be relieved from the most trying duty which could possibly be laid upon us. 
 
 Sincerely praying, that you may be able to disprove, or satisfactorily e.xplain, the 
 things laid to your charge, or else have grace from God to acknowledge whatever has 
 been done amiss— we remain your friends and brethren in the ministry of Christ. 
 
 WILLIAM MEADE, 
 
 Bishop of the P. E. C. of V—a. 
 
 GEORGE BURGESS, 
 Bishop of the Frot. Epis. Church in JSlaine. 
 
 CHA'S P. McILVAINE, 
 Bishop of the Prot. Epis. Church in Ohio. 
 
 Communication— from William Hahted, Caleb Perkins, Peter V. Cop- 
 2)uck, and Bennington Gill — to the Bishops of Virginia, Ohio, and 
 Maine. 
 
 To the Right Reverend William Meade, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia; the 
 Right Reverend Charles P. McLlvaine, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Ohio ; and 
 the Right Reverend Geokge Bukgess, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Maine. 
 For a long period, more especially for the two years last past, grave and serious 
 charges, injuriously affecting the moral character of the Bishop of this Diocese, tending 
 to impair his usefulness, and to bring our Church under reproach, have been rife, and 
 they have continued to increase until they have reached a magnitude and assumed a 
 form which the blind can scarcely fail to see, or the deaf to hear. Believing that the 
 best welfare of the Church requires that the charges should be promptly met, and the 
 Church be relieved of the odium under which she rests, while the same continue to 
 circulate undenied and unrefuted, we had fondly hoped that the individual implicated 
 would have sought the earliest opportunity of relieving his own character from the 
 imputations which are almost daily made against it, and of dissipating the dark cloud 
 of obloquy which, in consequence of these imputations against its ecclesiastical head, 
 now grievously mars the fair character of our Church. 
 
 We deeply regret that the Bishop did not embrace the opportunity which was offered 
 him by the resolution of inquiry presented to the Convention of the Diocese, at the City 
 of Burlington, in 1849, of meeting and repelling the rumors and charges which were 
 then known to be in current circulation against him. The course then taken served to 
 confirm, rather than diminish, the suspicions, that these charges had foundation in 
 truth. Since then we have waited till two other annual Conventions have passed, at 
 either of which the Bishop has had a full and free opportunity of demanding an investi- 
 
8 REVIEW OF 
 
 gation of the truth of these charges. But instead of demanding an investigation as 
 every honorable man in society feels bound to do when imputations are made against 
 his character, we discover a manifest intention to avoid investigation, and to leave 
 these rumors and charges to circulate for another year unchecked, uncleared, and unre- 
 futed. 
 
 Acting in the spirit of the 26th Article of our religion, which declares. That it apper- 
 taineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiries be made of evil ministers, and that 
 they be accused " by those that have knowledge of their offenses," we felt ourselves 
 called upon to make such an investigation into the nature and truth o( these charges, as 
 to enable us to perform our duty ; and, upon such investigation, we are compelled, 
 reluctantly, to say that there are many charges publicly made against the Bishop of this 
 Diocese, which ought, in our opinion, to be investigated under the Canon of the General 
 Convention in such case made and provided, in order that, if false, their falsity may be 
 made manifest, or, if true, that further measures may be taken under the same Canon 
 to relieve the Church from the odium which they inflict upon her. Amongst others of 
 these charges visited by public rumor upon the Bishop and the Church in New Jersey, 
 the following have come to our knowledge : 
 
 [ Here follow the charges, which are inserted in the Keply.] 
 
 We believe that the foregoing charges and specifications can be sustained by proof, 
 and we therefore present them to you, three of the Rt. Rev. the Bishops of the Church, 
 in order that you may take such measures in accordance with the Canons of the Church, 
 in relation to the same, as your official duty and your well known devotion to the wel- 
 fare of the Church, may seem to you to require. 
 
 In this communication, we have by no means embraced all that is charged against 
 Bishop Doane by public rumor. Other matters of a like dishonorable and unbecoming 
 character, we have reason to believe, will develop themselves to your official notice, 
 whenever you shall see fit to act upon this investi<{ation. 
 
 In making these charges, we are actuated by no motives of personal hostility against 
 the Bishop, but our motive is to sustain and vindicate the reputation of that Church of 
 which we are humble members. 
 
 New Jersey, August, 1851. Signed, 
 
 WM. HALSTED, 
 CALEB PERKINS, 
 PETER V. COPPUCK, 
 BENNINGTON GILL. 
 
 We add the first section of the canon of 1844, entitled "Of the 
 trial of a Bishop:" 
 
 Section 1. The trial of a Bishop shall be on a presentment in writing, specifying the 
 offense of which he is alleged to be guilty, with reasonable certainty as to time, place, 
 and circumstances. Such presentment may be made for any crime or immorality, for 
 heresy, for a violation of the constitution or canons of this Church, or of the Church 
 in the diocese to which he belongs. Said presentment may be made by the Convention 
 of the diocese, to which the accused Bishop belongs, two-thirds of each order present 
 concurring : Provided, that two-thirds of the clergy entitled to seats in said Conven- 
 tion be present : and provided also, that two-thirds of the parishes canonically in union 
 with said Convention be represented tlierein ; and the vote thereon, shall not in any 
 case take place on the same day on which the resolution to present, is offered ; it may 
 
BISHOP DOANES PKOTEST AND APPEAL. \) 
 
 also be made by any three Bishops of this Church — When made by the Convention, it 
 shall be signed by a committee of prosecution, composed of three clergymen and three 
 laymen, to be appointed for that purpose ; and when by three Bishops, it shall be signed 
 by them respectively, in their official characters. 
 
 This letter and this communication have occasioned the pamphlet ; 
 in which, Bishop Doane first addresses to the three Bishops a joint 
 protest, appeal, and reply. He says : 
 
 That he received, through an unknown hand, on this second day of February, a docu- 
 ment with their signatures, addressed to him, and dated, without place, on the twenty- 
 second day of September, 1851, a copy of which with the document accompanying it, 
 signed, "William Halsted, Caleb Perkins, Peter V. Coppuck, and Bennington Gill," is 
 prefixed ; and that he has read th-; two, with mingled surprise and indignation. With 
 surprise, that three persons, bearing the responsibilities of Bishops, in the Church of 
 God, could be lound to take action, against a Bishop, on the showing of four persons 
 With indignation, that three persons bearing the responsibilities of Bishops in the 
 Church of God, and presumed to be acquainted with the principles of diocesan and 
 episcopal relations, should venture on a proceeding, so utterly inconsistent with both. 
 
 This surprise of Bishop Doane ^ye think will not be participated by 
 any Avho will read the section of the canon which we have inserted. 
 A presentment shall not be made against a Bishop by a convention, in 
 which there is no member of his own order, and generally if not always 
 a majority of laymen, except under circumstances so strong and by 
 a vote so large, as to preclude all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the 
 accused. These precautions were thought necessary to guard a Bishop 
 against the hasty action of a diocesan convention. Not so, however, 
 when the canon provides that a presentment " may be made by any three 
 Bishops of this church." There was no danger of precipitate action 
 from this quai'ter. Sufficient guards are found in the unwillingness to 
 disturb the peace of the church of which the Bishops are the overseers, 
 sympathy for an accused brother, and especially that esjyrit de corps, 
 which acts so powerfully in all associations. Let the motive, however, 
 have been what it may, the church has authorized three of her Bishops 
 to make a presentment of another Bishop, for any of the causes speci- 
 fied in the canon ; with no other limitation upon their discretion, than 
 that the presentment shall be in writing, specifying the offense of which 
 he is alleged to be guilty, with reasonable certainty as to time, place 
 and circumstances, and that it shall be signed by them respectively in 
 their official characters. Had the action taken by the Bishops been a 
 formal presentment, not "on the showing of four persons," but with- 
 out the showing of any person, upon their own knowledge, or upon 
 
10 KEVIEW OF 
 
 facts communicated by others, it would have been sufficient to put 
 Bishop Doane upon his trial ; it could not have been, canonically, the 
 cause of any surprise. "We apprehend that under the canon, the 
 action of the presenting Bishops is not to be governed by the number 
 of the accusers, but by the character of the charges and the probability 
 of guilt. What degree of this probability will justify a presentment, 
 is left by the canon to the consciences of the Bishops who make it. 
 And for their action in this behalf, they are responsible to the church 
 and to their God. But there is no presentment yd. When that shall 
 be made, and the court organized, and the accused arraigned, then will 
 be the time for Bishop Doane and his legal advisers to object to the 
 sufficiency of the presentment ; that it was made upon "the showing 
 of four persons," only. However plausible or strong even this objection 
 may appear to those who have learned the responsibilities of Bishops 
 from "the voice of primitive antiquity," or from any other source than 
 the clear and well defined constitution and canons of our own church, 
 we now record the prediction, to be fulfilled or falsified hereafter, that 
 no respectable lawyer will be found to urge it upon the court, when 
 sitting for the trial of these charges. Such a court is now inevitable. 
 So much for the surprise. Now for the indignation, which has been 
 excited by a proceeding so utterly inconsistent with the principles of 
 diocesan and episcopal relations. We have shown that the proceeding 
 is in accordance with the canon of our episcopal church, and therefore 
 can not be inconsistent with the principles which that church recognizes 
 of diocesan and episcopal relations. 
 
 Bishop Doane then proceeds : "to multiply charges and to make 
 them odious, seem thus sufficient in the judgment of the three, to war- 
 rant and indeed compel proceedings against a Bishop." And if against 
 any other man, why not against a Bishop ? There is nothing in a 
 Bishop's nature which exempts him from the commission of crimes ; 
 nor is there anything in his office which screens him from their trial 
 and punishment. Can the Bishop be serious in urging that he ought 
 not to be put upon his trial, because the charges against him are 
 numerous and odious ? If his logic be sound, then he ought to have 
 been put upon his trial, if the charges had been few and venial. We 
 know of but one precedent for this reasoning, "If to be fat be to be- 
 hated, then Pharaoh's lean kine are to be loved." Our surprise at the 
 folly of this reasoning is almost "heated into indignation" by the 
 arrogance of its episcopal presumption. We should like to stop and 
 
BISHOP DOANe's PKOTEST AND APPEAL. 11 
 
 inquire by what process heat converts surprise into indignation, did 
 we not fear our indignation might cool before it had vented itself upon 
 the monstrous pretension, that their number and odiousness which 
 aggravate all other men's crimes, have the opposite effect, — to exten- 
 uate those of a Bishop. 
 
 Again, Bishop Doane asks, " will it be endured that they shall speak 
 of * complainants' in the diocese of the undersigned, and then be able 
 to produce but four? " What would the Bishop have ? The allega- 
 tion that there are complainants in the diocese of New Jersey, is 
 certainly sustained by producing four. Had they produced but one, 
 he might have reasonably objected. This point in the Bishop's pam- 
 phlet is merely captious, and we think will have no tendency to help 
 his cause. But, to such as it is, there are several sufficient answers. 
 It was not the object of the letter, nor did it profess to give, or its 
 authors to know the names of all the complainants in New Jersey, any 
 more than "in the church at large." In the very sentence in which 
 the word complainants is found, at the use of which the Bishop cavils, 
 direct reference is made to the document accompanying their letter, 
 and signed by the four, leaving the inference irresistible, that they 
 were the complainants referred to in New Jersey. The point is scarcely 
 worth the explanation. 
 
 The following sentence savors a little of sarcasm: "How far the 
 churchmen of New Jersey will permit the four whose names are 
 written above, to be their representatives, the undersigned most cheer- 
 fully consents that they should say." The four do not claim to be the 
 representatives of the churchmen of New Jersey. They do not ask 
 permission to be such representatives, and therefore it it unnecessary 
 for the churchmen of New Jersey to avail themselves of the gracious 
 consent cheerfully accorded to them by the Bishop, to say w^hether 
 they permit it or not. It is not necessary to a trial that the four should 
 be representatives of the chui'chmen. Charges may be made by indi- 
 viduals, though a presentment by a convention is ex vl termini made 
 by the church. There is in this paragraph a tendency if not design, to 
 prejudice the churchmen of New Jersey against the four. We think 
 it will scarcelv avail the Bishop. The trial is not to be had before the 
 churchmen of New Jersey. The Bishop of New Jersey will have no 
 seat with his peers. The church has provided an independent tribunal, 
 out of the reach of prejudice ; under the most solemn obligations to, 
 try the issue between the parties without fear, favor or affection 
 
12 REVIEW OF 
 
 Before a court thus composed let Bishop Doane be assured, that no 
 abuse of the prosecutors, no impeachment of their motives, no asser- 
 tion of innocence however loud, no official airs however imposing, will 
 avail him. There will be but one question, of innocence or guilt, and 
 the determination of that question will depend upon the oaths of disin- 
 terested witnesses. 
 
 "But surprise is heated into indignation when the three Bishops 
 announce their resolution." 0, that we were dealing with the Bishop 
 in his philological character, rather than his episcopal ; we resist the 
 temptation, and pass on. 
 
 In the examination we propose to make of the Bishop's protest it 
 will be necessary to refer largely to the letter of "the three ; " Ave 
 therefore omit the long quotation from that letter, which here follows 
 in Bishop Doane's pamphlet. We proceed to his indignant exclama- 
 tion — "What! three Bishops, or three hundred, or three thousand, 
 presume to dictate to him, under the menace of a presentment, the 
 calling of a special meeting of the convention of his diocese." (There 
 is a touch of Jersey blue in this.) We shall hereafter show that there 
 is in the letter no dictation, merely a friendly suggestion — no menace, 
 merely a kind hint of a disagreeable alternative. But admit it to be a 
 dictation, what is its purport ? Why, that after these charges have been 
 publicly made in the convention of New Jersey and iavestigation 
 refused, the church will be satisfied with nothing less than a thorough 
 investigation by an impartial and intelligent committee, and either a 
 presentment made, or ' ' sufficient reasons assigned why it is not merited.'* 
 Would an innocent man, conscious of his innocence, find anything hard 
 or offensive in these terms ? would such a man be satisfied with any- 
 thing less himself ? and if not, why complain that his OAvn terms are 
 required by others ? 
 
 "Not even if the convention of New Jersey as in 1849, should 
 by a vote unanimous, declare themselves contented with their Bishop, 
 and refuse to investigate, would that content the three." And why 
 should "a refusal to investigate" content the three ? Does a presump- 
 tion of innocence arise from a refusal to submit to the only test by 
 which innocence can be established ? We forbear at present, as we 
 shall be obliged hereafter to refer to the Avonderful results claimed from 
 this refusal to investigate by the convention of 1849. 
 
 " And all the while, might not the real secret of their earnestness 
 to have the presentment made by the convention, be their anxiety to 
 
BISHOP DOANe's protest AND APPEAL. 13 
 
 save their own three votes, for use upon the triaL" See how this httle 
 battery (little in its power and range, but mighty in its malice and 
 imcharitableness) may be turned against Bishop Doane. And all the 
 while may not the real secret of Bishop Doane's refusal of an investi- 
 gation by his own (we may add partial) convention, be a determination 
 on his part to exclude from the court three Bishops, who by this 
 refusal, Avould be compelled to make the presentment. 
 
 "But the three Bishops have misconceived their man." " No such 
 special convention will be called by him." Be it so. He accepts the 
 alternative. The court must assemble. He will be tried by his peers, 
 and God grant him a safe deliverance. 
 
 He concludes in the following words : "And in the name and pres- 
 ence of Almighty God," he now proceeds to make, to record and to 
 proclaim his solemn protest, and his appeal as solemn, to the Bishops 
 everywhere with whom he is in communion, against the uncanonical, 
 unchristian and inhuman procedure of the three whose names are 
 above written. Pass we on to this 
 
 PROTEST. 
 
 In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. The 
 undersigned, George Washington Doane, D. D., LL. D., by Divine permission, Bishop 
 of the diocese of New Jersey, humbly ministering before God, in the twentieth year of 
 his Episcopate, in the name of His crucified Son, and in the power of his Sanctifying 
 Spirit ; and not without tokens of the Heavenly blessing, on his unfaithful and unwor- 
 thy ministrations : makes, now, as in the immediate presence of the Holy Trinity, 
 adorable and ever to be blessed, his solemn Protest, as aggrieved by the Right Reverend 
 William Meade, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia; the Right Reverend George 
 Burgess, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Maine ; and the Right Reverend Charles Pet- 
 tit M'llvaine, D, D., Bishop of the Diocese of Ohio, by their uncanonical, unchristian 
 and inhuman procedure, in regard to him, as herebefore set forth, in the document, bear- 
 ing their signatures. 
 
 He protests against their action as uncanonical. The undersigned is the Bishop of a 
 diocese. The three signers are Bishops, in three several dioceses. The limit of the 
 diocese, in every case, is the limit of official action. There is nothing clearer in the 
 voice of primitive antiquity, than the prohibition of episcopal intrusion. Nothing with- 
 in our age, has been the cause of more excitement, than the aggression of the Bishop o 
 Rome, upon the dioceses of the Bishops in England. The Council, which set forth the 
 Nicene Creed, A. D. 325, prefixes, to the Canon of Episcopal limitations the emphatic 
 sentence, "Let the ancient customs be maintained!" And the second Canon of the 
 second General Council, A. D. 381, at which the Creed of Nicasa was completed, refer- 
 ring to the decree of the former Council, distinctly says, " the Bishops must not go 
 beyond their dioceses, nor enter upon churches without their borders, nor bring confu- 
 sion into their churches." And, again, " Bishops may not, without being called, go 
 beyond the bounds of their diocese, for the purpose of ordaining, or any other eclesias- 
 tical function." The TrpccTov ■^iuJ'o; of the Papacy is the claim of the Bishop of Rome 
 
14 KEVIEW OF 
 
 to jurisdiction beyond his diocese : and this first lie has been the fruitful source of every 
 Romish error and corruption. By the fourth Article of the "Constitution," ''for the 
 government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America," it is 
 ordained, that " every Bishop of the Church shall confine the exercise of his episcopal 
 office to his proper diocese" And, when the Apostle Peter, in the first of his holy 
 Epistles, which, by their divine inspiration, are higher than all Canons or any Constitu- 
 tions, enjoins on the believers, "let none of you suffer, as a murderer, or as a thief, or 
 as an evil doer, or as a busy body in other men's matter;'' the character last described 
 is, in the original, aKXoTpio ima-xcTro;, which literally means a Bishop, out of his own dio- 
 cese. That the action now complained of is the action of these three, as Bishops, is 
 manifest, in all the paper, which they send, as well as in the style, with which they sign 
 it. That their sole office as Bishops, in any case, where discipline is called for, towards 
 a Bishop, is to make a presentment, the Canon, " Of the Trial of a Bishop," clearly 
 shows. That the right of any three Bishops, to present the Bishop of a diocese, is lim- 
 ited to cases, where a Diocesan Convention, for some cause, disregards its duty, in the 
 premises, is manifest, from the whole structure of the Canon ; which, on any other con- 
 struction, could never have permitted three Bishops, in a Church, where there are more 
 than thirty, to stand, as the alternative, of two-thirds of each order, in a Diocesan Con- 
 vention, where two-thirds of the Clergy, entitled to seats, and two-lhirds of the parishes 
 canonicaliy in union, were present. And yet, departing from their place, transcend- 
 ing all tueir rights, invading another diocese, and dictating to another Bishop, they pre- 
 scribe, as the condition of their not presenting him, the course which he shall pursue, 
 the course which his diocese shall pursue, the course which his Convention shall pursue, 
 and the course w;iich its Committee shall pursue. They reject, before hand, the dec- 
 laration of the Convention, among whom their Bishop has gone in and out, for twenty 
 years, that they believe him innocent. They reject, before hand, the determination of the 
 •Convention, that inquiry is unnecessary. They must have the very investigation which 
 ithey " advise and urge;" which they " have described and recommended ;" which they 
 "have pointed out;" or, else, the undersigned must be presented. Against this aggres- 
 sion on the diocese of New Jersey; against this invasion of the most sacred rights of the 
 undersigned ; against this dictation to him to pursue a course marked out by them, 
 and to his Convention, to pursue that course, under the threat of a presentment, if such 
 dictation shall not be obeyed ; and thus, the fear of a presentment be admitted; the un- 
 jdersigned most solemnly protests as uncanonical ; and utterly refuses to submit to it. 
 
 The Bishop asserts that he is aggrieved by the letter of "the 
 three," and protests against it, as uncanonical, unchristian, and in- 
 human. 
 
 There was no necessity for going back to the period of "primitive 
 antiquity," nor to appeal to the canons of ancient councils, to show 
 a constant prohibition in the Church of Episcopal intrusion. The con- 
 ^stitution of our own Church, as Bishop Doane shows, forbids such 
 ■intrusion. Upon this prohibition, a plain man would have rested his 
 case. But Bishop Doane is not a plain man, and, like Mr. Shandy, he 
 prefers a reason recondite and remote, to one obvious and present. 
 -*' The son ought to pay her respect," as you may read, Yorick, at large 
 in the first book of the Institutes of Justinian, at the eleventh title, and 
 
BISHOP DOANe's protest AND APPEAL. 15 
 
 the tenth section, "lean read it as well," replied Yorick, "in the 
 catechism." 
 
 We readily concede that the letter of "the three" is uncanonical, 
 so far as this, that the canon for the trial of a Bishop does not con- 
 template such a letter, nor can it be defended under the authority of 
 that or any other canon of our Church. If the writing and addressing 
 that letter to Bishop Doane by "the three," were an uncanonical 
 "procedure," then it could not have been the exercise of their 
 Episcopal office out of their own diocese ; and, therefore, no violation 
 of the constitution. If uncanonical, it was ex necessitate unofficial. 
 But official acts alone are interdicted to one Bishop in the diocese 
 of another. One Bishop may lawfully pass through the diocese of 
 another — one Bishop may lawfully write a letter to another in his own 
 diocese, and though the subject of that letter may be the general inter- 
 ests of the Church, or the conduct of the Bishop addressed, yet such 
 letter is clearly not the exercise of the Episcopal office. Bishop Doane 
 takes this view of it himself, for, at pages 12 and 13, he complains 
 that Bishop Mcllvaine, when in Burlington, did not take that oppor- 
 tunity of inquiring into the truth of the charges ; and that the Bishops 
 of Virginia and Maine, "with the multiplied and multiform occasions 
 which the rail road and the mail supply, without one previous word, 
 did approach the undersigned, whom they describe as a 'brother,' 
 in February, 1852, in an official paper with their official signatures." 
 Now, if either or all of these gentlemen had done the specific things 
 which Bishop Doane intimates they should have done, and complains 
 they did not do, it would not have been for him to denounce such 
 things as an exercise of their Episcopal office, and a violation of the 
 constitution. If Bishop Mcllvaine had inquired at Burlington into 
 the truth of these charges, — if Bishop Meade or Bishop Burgess had 
 availed themselves of the railroad, and personally remonstrated Avith 
 Bishop Doane against the course of conduct with which he stood 
 charged ; or, if by mail, either or all of them had written him an 
 unofficial letter upon the subject, it is clearly admitted that, in neither 
 event, would there have been an exercise of the Episcopal office. He 
 complains that there was not "one previous word," that is, not one 
 word previous to this "official paper," thereby drawing a very proper 
 distinction between a private and an official act. Now, if the letter 
 complained of and denounced as an official act, be not in fact an 
 official act, but private and individual, then that letter itself being 
 
16 REVIEW OF 
 
 private, becomes the "previous word," whicli Bishop Doane intimates, 
 in other places than this, ought to have been spoken. If so, the 
 speaking or writing that previous word would not have been an act 
 of Episcopal intrusion. 
 
 "We agree, therefore, with Bishop Doane, that the decision of 
 the controversy, between himself and "the three," turns upon the 
 character of their letter. If it be an Episcopal act, it is unauthorized ; 
 if non-episcopal, it takes from him any ground of complaint ; for, if 
 unofficial, it can not be forbidden by the canon, and we shall be able 
 to show, that it is the reverse of unchristian or inhuman. 
 
 We deny the letter in any sense to be official. We are not disposed 
 to lay much stress upon the argument drawn from technical defini- 
 tions ; but still, we can not decide this question without ascertaining 
 what it is that constitutes an official act. Webster and Johnson both 
 define official, "pertaining to an office or pubHc trust." Try the 
 character of the letter by this test : — was it any part of the Episcopal 
 function of "the three" to write that letter, if not, then it did not 
 pertain to their office or public trust ; and if it did not so pertain, it 
 was not official — it was not written virtute officii. 
 
 Now, whether it pertains to the office of a Bishop to write such 
 a letter, depends upon the constitution and canons of the Church. 
 We shall content ourselves with affirming that there is nothing in the 
 constitution and canons of our own Church, which makes it the duty 
 of a Bishop, or gives him any authority to write such a letter. So far 
 is this from being the case, that the General Convention, when legis- 
 lating upon this very subject, have omitted to require any act by the 
 three Bishops previous to making a presentment. Whether those who 
 find so much music in "the voice of primitive antiquity," shall be 
 able to find any canon of ancient councils, eastern or western, of Nice, 
 Ephesus, or Constantinople, of Lateran, Lyons, or Trent, which is 
 of authority to make that act official, which, by our own constitution 
 and canons is unofficial, Ave shall leave them to show. We suppose 
 none such can be found, for Bishop Doane refers to several ancient 
 councils, but gives no intimation of such a canon. Indeed, the Bishop's 
 argument upon the first point of his protest is based upon the assump- 
 tion, that writing the letter was an attempt to exercise jurisdiction 
 beyond their own dioceses, and an intrusion upon his, interdicted by 
 ancient canons ; and by the constitution and canons of our own Church, 
 absolutely prohibited. Can an act pertain to an office, which act the 
 
BISHOP DOANe's protest AND APPEAL. 17 
 
 officer is forbidden to do ? Is not such an act plainly extra-official, 
 "not within the limits of officijl duty?" The Bishop says, that it is 
 official, "is manifest in all the paper which they send, as well as in 
 the style with which they sign it," We think just the reverse is 
 manifest from the paper. It is manifestly and avowedly an effort to 
 relieve themselves from the necessity of doing "a most distressino- 
 duty," the official act of making the presentment, and to throw that 
 duty upon the diocesan convention, for they appeal to Bishop Doane 
 in the hope that he will take prompt and effectual measures for callino- 
 such a convention. And this Bishop Doane charges upon them in the 
 following sentence: — "And all the while, might not the real secret 
 of their earnestness to have the presentment made by the convention, 
 be their anxiety to save their own votes for use upon the trial ?" The 
 letter sets up no pretension, advances no claim to be official. "We 
 have determined to appeal to you," language which they certainly 
 would not have used, if the canon had left them no discretion, nothino- 
 about which they were at liberty to determine, but had made the 
 appeal a matter of official obligation. Then, as to the style of the 
 signatures — it may be enough to say that if the act performed be not 
 Avithin the limits of official duty, the official signatures can not brino- it 
 within those limits. It is proper that an official act be attested by an 
 official signature ; but it is not the signature, but the character of the 
 act, which makes it official. 
 
 Bishop Doane, however, yields the whole controversy in the follow- 
 ing sentence, which follows immediately that in which he insists upon 
 the signatures. "That their sole office, as Bishops, in any case where 
 discipline is called for against a Bishop, is to make a presentment, the 
 canon 'of the trial of a Bishop' clearly shows." Now, if, as he asserts, 
 and asserts truly, their sole office as Bishoj)s in this case was to make a 
 presentment, then the writing the letter was not their office as Bishops 
 and there is an end of the controversy. 
 
 Let us. for a single moment look into the fourth article of the consti- 
 tution of the American Church, which declares, that " every Bishop 
 of this church shall confine the exercise of his episcopal office to his 
 proper diocese, unless requested to ordain or confirm, or perform any 
 other act of the episcopal office, by any church destitute of a Bishop.'' 
 The instances of "ordaining or confirming," even unaided by the 
 words following in the article, clearly indicate the kind or class of acts 
 which come within its prohibition. They are clearly such acts as a 
 2 
 
18 REVIEW OF 
 
 Bishop only can perform ; such acts as legitimately flow from no other 
 source than " the exercise of the episcopal office." It is the duty of a 
 Bishop to preach, but it is in no sense the exercise of the episcopal 
 office ; for his authority to preach was antecedent to, and independent 
 of, his consecration as Bishop. Nay, if either of "the three" were 
 in New Jersey, and invited by the rector of any one of its parishes, he 
 might lawfully preach in such parish, not only without the consent, 
 but in the face of the positive prohibition of Bishop Doane. In the 
 diocese of New Jersey, and in some others, the Bishop is also rector 
 of a parish, thus uniting in one person the functions of distinct offices. 
 As Bishop, he ordains and confirms : as Priest, he conducts the public 
 services of the Church, preaches, and administers the sacraments. 
 Thus we see that the man who holds the office of a Bishop, may be 
 required to do many acts which are not episcopal. Every act then, 
 done by one Bishop within the diocese of another, is not necessarily 
 an episcopal act, and if not episcopal, it is no intrusion into the diocese 
 of such other. If the letter of "the three," signed by them as Bishops, 
 be within the prohibition of the constitution, what shall we say of the 
 protest, appeal, and reply, each signed, " G. W. Doane, Bishop of 
 New Jersey," and doubtless sent into every diocese of the Church. 
 
 " The three," and the Bishop agree in their construction of the 
 canon for "the trial of a Bishop." "It appears to us," says the 
 letter, "that it is only when a diocesan convention refuses to institute 
 inquiry, or neglects to do it for too long a period, or performs the duty 
 unfaithfully, that the Bishops can be reasonably expected to interfere." 
 And the protest chimes in thus : " That the right of any three Bishops 
 to present the Bishop of a diocese, is limited to cases Avhere a diocesan 
 convention for some cause disregarded its duty in the premises, is 
 manifest from the whole construction of the canon." 
 
 Though like Yorick, " a vile canonist," we can not agree in this con- 
 struction. The object is to provide two independent sources from 
 which a presentment may come ; we mean each independent of the 
 other, as to time, as well as power — any other construction will produce 
 endless difficulties. Who is to judge whether the diocesan convention 
 " has disregarded its duty" in the one case, or neglected it too long, 
 or performed it unfaithfully in the other. But if we are wrong and the 
 Bishops right in their construction of the canon, then the letter of "the 
 three" Avas perfectly proper; that they might know that the necessary 
 jpreliminary investigation had been made or refused by the diocesan 
 
BISHOP DOANE S TKOTEST AND APPEAL, 19 
 
 convention. If the authority of "the three" to make the presentment 
 demanded by the four complainants from New Jersey, depended upon 
 some previous proceedings by the convention of New Jersey ; then it 
 was eminently proper that they should inquire of official persons, that 
 they might have official information, that those proceedings upon which 
 their authority to present depended, had been had. We say official 
 information, for it would have been uncanonical (under their construc- 
 tion) to have based the presentment upon any other than official 
 action. 
 
 In either construction of the canon we think the letter a proper one, 
 proper in itself and proper in the relations existing between the parties. 
 If the Bishops could only act in the alternative suggested, then it was 
 necessary that they should know the alternative which gave them juris- 
 diction, had happened. If it were in their discretion to act in the first 
 place, or to wait the action of the convention of New Jersey, then it 
 was an act of kindness and if you please official courtesy to Bishop 
 Doane, to refer to his own decision whether he would have the inquiry 
 by his own convention, or a public trial on a presentment by them. If 
 the relations between " the three" and Bishop Doane had been other 
 than friendly, as we should infer they had been, from the tone and 
 spirit pervading this pamphlet, the letter denounced was more strongly 
 demanded. 
 
 Bishop Doane complains of dictation, etc. Upon this point every 
 man must read and understand the letter for himself. We do not so 
 read or understand it. They tell him, as frankness required they 
 should tell him, what alone would relieve them from the " distressing 
 duty of making a presentment," viz : either a presentment by the con- 
 vention of New Jersey, " or sufficient reasons assigned Avhy it is not 
 merited." Could they have required less? All dictation imphes a 
 claim of superiority, and is, therefore, offensive to the pride of poor 
 human nature ; but we apprehend there is no code of morals which 
 will justify an omission to do an act right and proper in itself, upon 
 the ground that such act had been officiously dictated by another. 
 
 He protests against their action as " unchristian." " The blessed 
 Paul addressing the Galatians writes, ' Brethren, if any man is 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.' 
 He had learned this lesson of the dear and gracious Lord, who died for 
 us, whose rule in all such cases is, ' If thy brother shall trespass 
 
20 REVIEW OF 
 
 against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone ; 
 if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will 
 not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of 
 two or three witnesses every word may be established ; and if he shall 
 neglect to hear, then tell it unto the church," Such upon this subject 
 is the law of Christ ; binding on all Christians, and surely not the least 
 so on all Christian Bishops." 
 
 We reverently bow to the authority of the Apostle and our gracious 
 Lord, and are willing that the issues between us shall be tried by the 
 law of love thus established. 
 
 We affirm that "the three," in their letter, have substantially com- 
 plied with this law of love, and that Bishop Doane has in his pamphlet, 
 in almost every page, departed from it. The letter informs Bishop 
 Doane that the writers had been told that he had trespassed against 
 his brethren, and that he had been told his fault. This was a private 
 letter, and would have remained so, but for its publication by Bishop 
 Doane ; it was therefore telling him his fault alone. If he had heard 
 them, they might have gained their brother. They add in the very 
 spirit of the injunction, if he. Bishop Doane, "shall neglect to hear 
 them," they must "tell it unto the church." " And this is the head 
 and front of their ofFendins:." 
 
 But in the protest " the three" are charged as the trespassing 
 brethren. Has Bishop Doane followed the rule of love by which he 
 would judge the others ? Has he told them their fault between him 
 and them alone'! Let the appeal to the Bishops of our own church 
 by name, "and all and singular the Bishops of the reformed Catholic 
 Church in all the world," answer. Let the unauthorized publication of 
 their private letter answer, — let the indecent publication of this whole 
 pamphlet, in anticipation of his trial, answer. And the restoring his 
 brethren "in the spirit of meekness" — will any friend of Bishop 
 Doane point out to us in this pamphlet the evidence of this spirit of 
 meekness? "Unchristian, inhuman, transcending all their rights, — 
 invading another diocese, — dictating to another Bishop, — triumviral 
 papacy of Virginia, Maine, and Ohio, — our popery is here, — papacy 
 of prejudice, — triumvirate of tj'rants : " — these are the terms which 
 chaiacterize the "spirit of meekness" as understood and exhibited 
 by the Bishop of New Jersey. 
 
 He protests against it as inhuman. Because "they have chosen for 
 it such a time as this, when they might have known, had they in- 
 
BISHOP DOANe's protest AND APPEAL. 21 
 
 quired, that the undersigned, by the assignment of all his property 
 for the benefit of his creditors, — having previously anticipated all his 
 income, except his salary as rector of St. Mary's church, of seven 
 hundred dollars, which is chargeable with the maintenance of an aged 
 mother and two sisters, — had made himself dependent altogether for 
 his living and his family's, upon money loaned him in advance of in- 
 come which expires with life." We really can not see that any of 
 these particulars make the letter inhuman. The sufferings from pov- 
 erty of the proprietor of Riverside, is rather insinuated than affirmed. 
 The sufferings from this source will not create much sympathy with 
 those who from railroad or river have seen that princely residence, or 
 have read the description of it in Downing. The Bishop's hospitality 
 is greatly overrated, if the cellars of Riverside do not still furnish 
 their quota to the good cheer of the table. 
 
 With Bishop Doane's domestic affliction we shall not intermeddle, 
 further than to say, that it is gratuitously paraded in the pamphlet by 
 himself, and could not and ought not to have had any influence upon 
 the conduct of "the three," in writing the letter. 
 
 We conclude our review of Bishop Doane's protest, with the asser- 
 tion counter to his, that the letter is neither uncanonical in the sense 
 asserted by him, nor is it unchristian or inhuman ; and we refer it to 
 those who are disposed to look into the matter, to decide between us. 
 
 We will now proceed to the examination of the Appeal. This 
 Appeal is addressed " To the Right Reverend Philander Chase, Bishop 
 of the diocese of IlHnois," and to the other Bishops of the American 
 Church, with the exception of "the three," "and all and singular the 
 Bishops of the Reformed Catholic Church in all the world." The 
 undersigned, the Right Reverend George Washington Doane, D. D. 
 and LL. D., Bishop of New Jersey, 
 
 As aggrieved by the uncanonical, unchristian, and inhuman action of the Right Rev- 
 erend William Meade, D. D , Bishop of the diocese of Virginia ; The Right Reverend 
 George Burgess, D. D., Bishop of the diocese of Maine, and the Right Reverend Charles 
 Petit M'llvaine, D. D., Bishop of the diocese of Ohio, having made, as before recorded, 
 and to be proclaimed, his solemn Protest, now makes, in the presence of Almighty 
 God, and in the name of the holy undivided Trinity to his brethren in the Episcopate, 
 beloved in the Lord, his solemn Appeal ; as one in whom the sacred order of Bishops 
 has been insulted, the first principles of our diocesan Episcopacy, as handed Aoyin to us 
 from Jesus Christ, have been disregarded; the sovereignty of dioceses invaded; and 
 the independence of diocesan Conventions laid under dictation. 
 
 For himself, the undersigned asks nothing of his brethren, in the Episcopate above 
 
22 EEYIEW OF 
 
 appealed to, but that which their instincts as men, their obligations as Christians, and 
 their responsibilities as Bishops, will freely accord to him, upon the simple showing ol 
 his case. 
 
 The Appeal, which he now makes, is for " the house of God, and the offices thereof." 
 One member can not suffer and all the members not suffer with it. That which is now 
 attempted in New Jersey, may be pursued, elsewhere. If the mere representation of 
 four laymen, without confirmation from his diocese, and even without examination as 
 to its value, can be regarded, as the sufficient warrant, for three Bishops, to present a 
 Bishop, to be tried; or, what is infinitely worse, demand his obedience and submission 
 to their will, under the penalty of a presentment, what Bishop can be safe, what diocese 
 secure ? "Proximus Ucalegon ardet." The undersigned would rouse his brethren, all 
 t the alarming inroad, which is now attempted on the peace, the freedom and the order 
 of the Church. The first stride of the three Bishops, not addressed in this Appeal, is 
 longer than the Papacy achieved, in centuries. The spirit of Popery is not confined 
 within the Vatican. There are potential Popes, upon whom no shadow fi-om the seven 
 hills has ever fallen. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States has noth- 
 ing to fear from the thin shade of Leo or of Hildebrand, that lingers, yet, and trembles, 
 along the Tiber. Our Popery is here. The Papacy of Prejudice is that, from which we 
 have to lear. The fi-eedom, peace and order of the Church are threatened now, through 
 a triumvirate of tyrants. And the undersigned could never rest upon his pillow, nor go 
 in hope into his grave, nor look for mercy at that day, did ho not call upon his brethren 
 in the Episcopate, as they shall stand with him before the Judge, to give an account of 
 the holy and beautiful flocks, which they received from Him, as purchased with His 
 blood, to see to it, upon the peril of their consecration vows, that this high handed un- 
 dertaking be indignantly frowned down; that, so, in the warning words of the third 
 General Council, (held at Ephesus, A. D., 431) " the canons of the Fathers be not trans- 
 gressed, nor the pride of worldly power be introduced under the appearance of a sacred 
 office, nor we, by little, lose that liberty, wherewith our Lord Jesus Christ, the de- 
 liverer of all men, has endowed us, by His own blood." 
 
 The undersigned, simply declaring, as under the immediate eye of God, to his Right 
 Reverened brethren, addressed as above, his entire and perfect integrity and innocence, 
 as to all and singular, the charges made against him ; assuring them of the sincerity of 
 his fraternal love and service ; and humbly and affectionately soliciting from them the 
 continual charity of their prayers, subscribes himself, in all fidelity, their brother and 
 servant, in the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
 G. W D0.\NE, 
 
 Bishop of New Jersey. 
 
 We think we laave already shown, (at all events we are not disposed 
 to make any further efforts to show,) "that the sacred order of 
 Bishops" has not been insulted in Bishop Doane — that the first princi- 
 ples of our diocesan episcopacy, as handed down to us from Jesus 
 Christ, have not been disregarded — the sovereignty of dioceses has 
 not been invaded — and the independence of diocesan conventions has 
 not been laid under dictation. 
 
 The Bishop is exceedingly moderate iu his demands — he asks no- 
 
BISHOP DOANe's protest AND APPEAL. 23 
 
 thing of his brother Bishops, "but that which their instincts as men, 
 their obhgations as Christians, and their responsibilities as Bishops will 
 freely accord to him, upon the simple showing of his case." 
 
 Upon first reading this paragraph, we were entirely at a loss to con- 
 jecture even, what the "instincts" of the Bishops appealed to had to do 
 with the charges against Bishop Doane. We looked into Johnson and 
 Webster ; but their definitions of " instinct," refused to throw any light 
 upon the subject. Then, its collocation with the "obligations of Chris- 
 tians," rather increased our difficulties, for knowing that instinct is the 
 exercise of certain natural powers, we thought they would be found in 
 opposition to, rather than in co-operation with, "the obligations of Chris- 
 tians." "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God" — the obli- 
 gations of Christians are generally in conflict with the instincts of men. 
 We say generally, because there are some instincts which do not neces- 
 sarily lead to sin, as the instinct of self preservation, for instance — 
 self preservation, that must be it. It must be the instinct of self pre- 
 servation in his brother Bishops, that Bishop Doane appeals to. The 
 next paragraph dissipated all doubt. 
 
 " One member can not sufl'er, and all the members not suffer with 
 it." "That which is now attempted in Xew Jersey n\dij he, pursued 
 elsewhere." The italics are ours. Here is the instinct appealed to — 
 I, one of the members, can not suffer, AAdthout subjecting you, the other 
 members, to similar sufferings for the same cause ; therefore, I appeal 
 to you to save me from this prosecution. The attempt now made in 
 New Jersey to investigate charges of fraud preferred against me, the 
 Bishop, in a like event, may be made against each of you, and I appeal 
 to your instincts as men, by the pressure of a common danger, to 
 arrest this attempt. A more degrading appeal never was addressed 
 to a baser feeling. We mistake greatly the character of the Bishops 
 of the American Church ; and, 0, how should we mourn over the 
 humiliation of that Church, if it be otherwise. We say we mistake 
 greatly the character of these gentlemen, if they can be induced, by 
 such appeals, to believe that their obligations as Christians or responsi- 
 bilities as Bishops, do not require them to "interpose the unsullied 
 purity of their lawn to save the Church from this pollution." The 
 same contemptible effort to seduce the Bishops from the discharge 
 of their duty in this matter, is continued in the next paragraph. We 
 do not enlarge upon it, however, as the paragraph advances a pre- 
 tension, which, if sustained, will be utterly subversive of the discipline 
 
24 EEYIEW OF 
 
 of the church. That pretension is, ''that there is no sufficient warrant 
 for the three Bishops to present Bishop Doane to be tried upon the 
 charges presented by the four churchmen from New Jersey, because 
 their presentation "is without confirmation from his diocese, and even 
 without examination of its value." In other words, if a Bishop can 
 only manage to keep his own convention quiet, he is safe from the 
 discipline of the Church. 
 
 The 6th Article of the constitution of the Church, declares "the 
 mode of trying Bishops, shall be provided by the general convention. 
 The Court appointed for that purpose shall be composed of Bishops 
 only." In every other particular, the presentment, trial, judgment, 
 and execution are referred to the discretion of the General Conven- 
 tion, We have given, on page 8, the first section of the canon "of the 
 trial of a Bishop," which authorizes the presentment. The meaning 
 of this section is so cleai*, that argument may obscure but can not elu- 
 cidate it. There are two modes of making a presentment, and these 
 two modes are recognized in the concluding words of the second 
 section, viz : " wjjon a presentment made in either of the modes pointed 
 out in section 1, of this canon, the course of proceeding shall be as 
 follows." 
 
 A presentment by a diocesan convention, to be valid, must have all 
 the formalities required by the canon, and if any of these formalities 
 have been disregarded in making the presentment, it would be the duty 
 of the court, the fact being shown, to quash the presentment. It may 
 possibly be necessary that the journal of the convention accompany the 
 presentment, to show, affirmatively, that the requirements of the canon 
 have been substantially complied Avith. But where the presentment 
 is made by three Bishops, the canon does not require any of these 
 formalities, nor does it require any previous steps or examination on 
 itheir part to give validity to the presentment. If they present their 
 .brother through hatred or malice, or without sufficient ^jrima/acie evi- 
 dence that the charges are true, they would commit a great sin ; but Ave 
 apprehend it would not invalidate the presentment. The truth of such 
 presentment must be tried by the court ; if it be for any of the causes 
 specified in the canon ; if it be "in writing, specifying the offense with 
 reasonable certainty, as to time, place and circumstances," and if it 
 "be signed by them respectively in their official characters." 
 
 " If the mere representation of four laymen, etc." We are not sure 
 that we understand the precise point of the objection contained in these 
 
BISHOP DOANe's PKOTEST AND APPEAL, 25 
 
 words : whether it be to their number or character — whether because 
 they are laymen, or because there are only four. In either case, the 
 objection is equally futile. If to the number, we reply in the words of 
 our blessed Lord, "It is also written in your law, that the testimony 
 of two men is true." If to their character, we reply in the words of 
 our 26th article, "It appertaineth to the discipline of the church, that 
 inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused ly those 
 that have knowledge of their offenses.'"*' 
 
 If then, such presentment shall hereafter be made by "the three," 
 Bishop Doane will find that he will be put to his plea, notwithstanding 
 all his protestations of innocence ; notwithstanding his protest, appeal, 
 
 AND REPLY. 
 
 Bishop Doane, too, has the temerity, while seeking to avoid by all 
 sorts of chicanery and subterfuge an impartial trial, to remind the 
 Bishops of "their consecration vows." We give the "consecration 
 vow" made by Bishop Doane at the time of his consecration. " In 
 the name of God, Amen. I George Washington Doane, chosen Bishop 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in New Jersey, do promise con- 
 formity and obedience to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the 
 
 *The following extract from canon 6, of the Council of Constantinople in 381, seems 
 to have escaped the researches of Bishop Doane into the archives of primitive anti- 
 quity: — "Since some persons, from a w'ish to confound and overthrow the good order of 
 the Church, do contentiously and falsely frame charges against orthodox Bishops, who 
 have the administration of the churches, attempting nothing else, but to stain the repu- 
 tation of the Priests and excite tumults amongst a peaceable people ; on this account the 
 Holy Synod of Bishops assembled at Constantinople, has determined not to admit accu- 
 sers without inquiry ; and neither to allow all persons to make accusation against the rulers 
 of the Church, nor to exclude all from doing so. If then any person brings against a Bishop 
 a private charge, that is, relating to his own affairs, as that he has been defrauded or 
 suffered any other thing contrary to justice from him, in such accusations neither the person 
 of the accuser, nor his religion is to be inquired into ; for it is by all means necessary that 
 the conscience of the Bishop should he clear, and that he who complains of being injured 
 should obtain his rights, of whatsoever religion he may be. But if the accusation brought 
 against the Bishop, be ecclesiastical, then it is necessary that the persons of the accusers 
 should be examined, that in the first place heretics may not be allowed to make charges 
 concerning ecclesiastical affairs against orthodox Bishops.'''' 
 
 Of THE APOSTOLHAL CANOxs the T-lth declares, "If a?i!/ Bishop has been accused of 
 any thing, by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the Bishops; and if he 
 appears and confesses, or is convicted, a suitable punishment must be inflicted upon 
 him." 
 
 The 75th apostolical canon declares, " An heretic is not to be received as witness 
 against a Bishop, neither only o;ie believer, for 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses 
 every word shall be established.' " 
 
2G KEVIEW OF 
 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America ; so help 
 me God, through Jesus Christ." 
 
 He promises obedience to the Discipline of the Church. The sixth 
 Article of the Constitution, and the third Canon of 1844, provide for 
 that Discipline ; and yet he impiously appeals to the Bishops to coun- 
 tenance him in the violation of this most solemn promise. He would 
 avoid the Discipline to which he has sworn to submit ; and calls upon 
 those who, with equal solemnity, have sworn to enforce that Disci- 
 phne, to connive at his escape. We also appeal to our Right Reverend 
 Fathers in God, that they "see to it, upon the peril of their consecration 
 vows," as they regard the glory of their God, the good of his Church, 
 the safety, honor, and welfare of his people, that "this high handed 
 undertaking," to set at nought the Discipline of the Church, "be 
 indignantly frowned down" — that the canons of our American Church 
 be not transgressed, "nor the j^m^e of worldly power be introduced 
 under the appearance of a sacred office, nor we, by little, lose that 
 liberty wherewith our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, has 
 endowed us by his blood." 
 
 We do sincerely hope, that this Appeal, although addressed to "the 
 Bishops of the Reformed Catholic Church, in all the world," has not 
 been sent to them. We can imagine nothing more calculated to bring 
 our American Church into disrepute with all intelligent and pious men. 
 Its style is as bad as style can be ; its temper, if possible, worse than 
 its style ; and its reasoning utterly peurile and inconclusive. If Bishop 
 Doane's defense before the court shall not leave upon the minds of his 
 judges a stronger impression of his innocence, than his pamphlet has 
 left upon the mind of the public, let him tremble for the result. 
 
 We have intimated our intention to examine the claim of exemption 
 from further prosecution of these charges, because of what passed 
 in the convention of New Jersey in 1849. We quote from the ap- 
 pendix : — 
 
 It was now half past six o'clock, P. M., when the following resolution was offered by 
 William Halsted, Esq., of Trenton : 
 
 Whereas, a Bishop should be blameless, and should have a good report of those that 
 are without, lest he fall into reproach ; and, whereas, public rumor, as well as newspa- 
 per publications, have made serious charges against our Bishop, impeaching his moral 
 character, tending to impair his usefulness, and to bring the Church of which he is 
 Bishop into disrepute — therefore, 
 
 Sesolved, That a committee be appointed, consisting of three clergymen and three 
 laymen, who, or a majority of them, shall make such inquiries as shall satisfy them ol 
 
BISHOP DOANe's protest AND APPEAL. 27 
 
 the innocency of the accused, or of the sufficiency of ground for presentment and trial ; 
 and that they do make report to this Convention at its present session, or at such other 
 time as this Convention shall designate. 
 
 An earnest debate ensued upon tliis resolution. It was opposed by Mr. A. GifTord, 
 Judge Dayton Ogden, Charles King, the Rev. Mr. Phillips, and the Rev. J. D. Ogilby, 
 and supported by the mover, Mr. Halsted. 
 
 By the two first named gentlemen, it was shown, that the Convention could not 
 lawfully pass the resolution presented to them — that it was wholly uncanonical and 
 unconstitutional ; but those gentlemen, and all the others who spoke in opposition to the 
 resolution, unreservedly declared, that if charges specifying with reasonable precision, the 
 offenses imputed by rumor, or any offeiise cognizable by the Convention, should be presented, 
 they would oppose no obstacle' to the receiving, the referring and investigation of such 
 charges; but that in no other way could the Convention lawfully reach or touch the subject. 
 
 Mr. King spoke with great earnestness against the injustice and enormity of putting 
 any man on his defense — and, least of all, a man such as Bishop Doane — upon vague 
 rumor, and what was called "newspaper publications." Though freely admitting that 
 if these or any charges should be made under a responsible name, and not by anonymous 
 slanderers — the basest at once and most cowardly of mankind — there should, and would 
 be no hesitation in raising a committee of investigation. The gentleman, who presented 
 the resolutions, did not profess to know any thing of the truth of these rumors, or news- 
 paper publications, and in no manner makes himself responsible ; and this should, of 
 itself, determine the Convention to reject the resolution. 
 
 In no part of his pamphlet does Bishop Doane appear to so much 
 adA'antage in our eyes, as in the commendation of such a man as 
 Charles King. In screening the Bishop from the investigation de- 
 manded, he has done for his friend Avhat he never "would have done 
 for himself. He has thus shown himself to be, what Junius says can 
 not be stated without some confusion of ideas, "the worst enemy of 
 his friend." 
 
 "About nine o'clock the Bishop rose to put the question on the 
 passage of the resolution." "All who are in favor of this resolution 
 will say Aye — a silence, deep as death, fell upon the assembly." 
 "All opposed to this resolution Avill say No — then went up, as if with 
 one breath and one heart, such a negative, as no one could mistake 
 the import of." Certainly there can be no mistaking the import of the 
 vote — it was nothing more nor less than a refusal to inquire into the 
 truth of the charges. There has been no investigation. The Con- 
 vention of New Jersey has never passed upon the charges. The 
 resolution was resisted by Mr. A. Gifford and Judge Dayton Ogden, 
 because it did not specify, with reasonable precision, any offense 
 cognizable by the convention, by Mr. King, because it was founded on 
 vague rumor, and what was called "newspaper publications." 
 • But all the speakers pledged themselves, (Bishop Doane being 
 
28 REVIEW. 
 
 present, and not dissenting, Avhicli makes the pledge binding upon 
 him,) that if charges, specifying with reasonable precision any offense 
 cognizable by the convention, and under a responsible name, should 
 be presented, there should and would be no hesitation in raising a 
 committee of investigation." The only action of the convention of 
 New Jersey being a refusal to act, what is the value of the estoppel, 
 interposed by Bishop Doane, on the 24th page of his pamphlet. 
 
 " The undersigned peremptorily demands, as his clear right, that in his case the con- 
 vention of his diocese has set forth, in the most emphatic way, its mind and will, as to 
 his presentment, not only for any of the offenses contemplated by Wdliam Halsted, in 
 the resolution cited above, but as to its further entertainment of them ; and that thus 
 the canonical right of any three Bishops, to make presentment on such charges, is per- 
 fectly estopped." 
 
 The objections of the convention of 1849 to pass the resolution have 
 been removed. The charges have assumed a responsible shape : they 
 are attested by responsible names ; the only conditions upon which the 
 speakers declared they not only would, but should, be investigated. 
 
 The pledge of his friends, and virtually his own, Bishop Doane 
 utterly disregards, — "No such convention will be called by him." 
 
 This determination leaves the three no alternative. They mus* 
 make a presentment. The court must assemble. The trial must 
 be had. 
 
 It is no part of our purpose to maintain the guilt of Bishop Doane. 
 Our only object has been to vindicate the conduct of "the three" in 
 their bearing towards Bishop Doane. Whether Ave have succeeded in 
 doing this, is referred to the Church, by 
 
 AN OHIO LAYMAN. 
 
^ — «a^ 
 
#» 
 
 i^i 
 
PHOTOMOUNT ] 
 PAMPHLET BINDER | 
 
 Manu/aclured by ' 
 ©AYLORD BROS. Inc. i 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. ' 
 
 Slocltton, Calif. , 
 
BX5960 .D63R46 
 
 Review of The protest and appeal of 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library