صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

ground that the line from the Bishop of New-York, was not official. I then went again to New-York, and obtained the following official line from the Bishop of NewYork.

"To the Right Rev. Abraham Jarvis, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the state of Connecti

cut.

"I do hereby certify, that the Rev. Ammi Rogers left the state of New-York before my consecration to the office of a bishop, and consequently was never placed under my jurisdiction; that during the time of his residence in this diocess, he constantly attended the conventions of the church, and that in those conventions no complaint was ever preferred against him, nor did he at any time or on any occasion fall under the censure of the ecclesiastical authority.

BENJAMIN MOORE, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the state of New-York.

January 17th, 1804.

The foregoing_official line was presented to Bishop Jarvis by Capt. Nathaniel Webb of Stamford; and what could he require more? his word and honor as bishop, and as president of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut were pledged: the honor of the whole church in the state was pledged, but, alas! he now throws off the mask-he breaks through all former engagements, and declares, "that a man who will make religion not only the servant, but the very scullion of a political faction, (meaning the republicans), who are endeavoring to root all religion and authority out of the state, I am determined to have nothing to do with."

On the very next week after Bishop Jarvis receivod the foregoing line from the Bishop of New-York, he got some of the clergy, who were of his party, together in Litchfield, and in the dead of the night, without granting a hearing or trial, and actually without my knowledge, issued and published a paper, forbidding me to preach in Connecticut. Against this paper I issued and published a solemn PROTEST, and declared it to be without authority and of no force; because it was issued with

out the previous steps required by the authority of God's word, and the constitution and canons of the Episcopal church to which I belonged; because it was a violation of his most solemn vows of office, upon the condition of which he was ordained and made a bishop; because to issue a paper against any man without hearing or trial, and actually without his knowledge, was a violation of all civil and religious compact, was disgraceful to his office, was cruel, tyrannical, and oppressive in the highest degree-and because the paper issued by bishop Jarvis against me, was a manifest and shameful violation of his word, & solemn assurance given to me, and to my people, and to the world, as bishop of the state, and as president of the convention of the church, in Danbury, in 1803. On the same grounds, the wardens and vestry, and ninety-one of the most respectable members of the church in Stamford, issued and published their solemn protest against the paper of Bishop Jarvis issued against me, and declared it without authority and void. On the same grounds, the church in Branford, in East-Haven, in Northford, and in many other places issued and published their solemn protest against the said paper issued against me, and declared it wholly without authority and void, and could the Dey of Algiers, or the king of Persia, or the inquisition of Spain do more or worse than to destroy a clergyman without hearing or trial, and in violation of the most public and solemn assurances.

At this time, I had removed from Branford to Stamford, and had by the unanimous vote of that parish, become their minister. And here I make a solemn appeal to the conscience of every person who had lived under my ministry in the state of Connecticut, or of New-York: have I not diligently read and expounded the holy scriptures of the old and new testament, as opportunity of fered? have I not endeavored to fashion my own life and others, according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make myself a wholesome example to his flock? have 1 not always reverently obeyed my bishop in all things which were according to the authority of God's word, and the canons of the church, and submitted myself to his godly judgment, founded on the same? have I not faith

fully endeavored to banish and drive away from the church all erroneous and strange doctrines which were contrary to God's word? have I not been diligent in prayers, in reading the holy scriptures, and studying the same, and in administering the sacraments, laying aside "the study of the world and of the flesh? have I not endeavored to set forward quietness, peace, and love among all christian people, and especially among those who were committed to my charge? and were your congregations ever larger, were the people ever more edified, were your parishes ever more prosperous, than while in my care? and where is the person, man or woman, who will say that to them, and in their presence, I have not conducted like a gentleman and a christian? even the false witnesses themselves, on whose account I have suffered imprisonment, and the loss of all things, have constantly declared my innocence, except while under the influence of my personal, political, and religious enemies.

"O, Lord Jesus Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to prepare thy way before thee, grant that the ministers and stewards of thy holy mysteries, may likewise so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient unto the wisdom of the just, that at thy second coming to judge the world, we may be found acceptable in thy sight; and grant O merciful father, that thy people may both perceive and know what things they ought to do, and also that they may have grace and power faithfully to fulfil the same, through Jesus Christ our Lord.-Amen

CHAPTER V.

HOUSE OF BISHOPS.

From the aforesaid paper, issued and published against me by bishop Jarvis, I appealed to the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, assembled in the city of New-York, 1804, by way of petition, and after stating my case, prayed them

to decide, 1st, to which state I did canonically belong, 2d, that a paper issued and published by Bishop Jarvis, against me, without hearing or trial, and wholly without my knowledge; contrary to the authority of God's word and the established order of the Episcopal church; inconsistent with his most solemn vows of office, and in violation of his word and honor, publicly pledged as bishop, and as president of the convention of the church in Connecticut; might be recalled; and 3d, that if any one had whereof to accuse me, I might be served with a copy of all and every charge, together with the proof, and that I might have a reasonable time to prepare and defend myself-meaning according to the canons of the church in that state to which they should decide I belonged.

Bishop Jarvis was a member of this House of Bishops, and a judge in his own case; common delicacy would have induced him to withdraw, but he did not. The clerical delegates from Connecticut were admitted to a hearing, and I was called in. They stated that I had called two conventions in Connecticut; one in Wallingford, and one in Branford, and that I had invited some of the leading democrats in Connecticut to attend, and was endeavoring to encourage democracy and to oppose the Bishop. I denied that I had ever called any convention in Connecticut, other than a meeting of the people in my own particular care; or that I ever had used any undue influence in politics, and that I was so far from opposing the Bishop, that I had for the peace of the church, obtained documents from New-York, such as had never been required from any other clergyman, such as he was not anthorized by any canon of the church to require, and such as the Bishop and committee of New-York were not authorized to give.

They then brought on the matter respecting Mr. Perry's certificate, see page 29. This certificate was taken from among my papers in Derby, the year before, without my knowledge or consent, and now they denied that there ever was such a paper. I remonstrated against any trial, except in the state to which I did belong, and according to the canons. I remonstrated

against calling that up against me as a PRIEST which took place before I was a Deacon; against permitting a matter to remain 12 or 14 years which was censurable, and then after my witnesses were dead, and when it was impossible to bring forward any living testimony to bring it up against me; that it was hard, it was unjust; besides the matter had been fully inquired into in the time of it, by Bishop Provoost, who was the proper authority, and was dismissed by him as unworthy of notice. Bishop Jarvis handed to the delegates who were present from Connecticut, a number of papers. I requested counsel and was refused-the house adjourned. At evening I called and requested to see some of the papers which were handed in against me! whereupon they "resolved that nothing shall be done in the business except in the presence of both parties.” I then addressed a letter to the Right Rev. Bishop White, President of the House of Bishops in New-York, in Sept. 1804, and objected to any decision or determination of the said House of Bishops relative to me, any farther forth than as it respected the diocess to which I did canonically belong, that I might meet the charges, if any there were, according to the constitution and canons of the church; and then immediately left the city and state of New-York. After I was gone, and when both parties were not present, they formed and published an opinion founded on falsehood and misrepresentation, relative to that certificate and my conduct in Connecticut, which was represented as highly dishonorable; but at the same time decided on the first point, that I was a clergyman not of New-York but of Connecticut, and that it was to them that I was exclusively amenable. On the 2d point, as astonishing as it may seem, they approved of the conduct of Bishop Jarvis in Connecticut, i. e. I suppose he approved of his own doings. On the 3d point, they directed documents to be furnished to both parties, as a ground of trial in Connecticut.

The very next month I sent in my petition to the bishop and clergy of Connecticut, praying for a trial according to the canons of the church, on what they had aledged against me in New-York: and at the same time I

« السابقةمتابعة »