Mcllvaiue. and Hopkins c merited upon it in public,
and with much severity of language, [n January, 1844, bishop Onderdonk addressed a pastoral letter to his diocese, in which he protested against the course adopt- ed by the above bishops, and called for a trial, if they saw lit to initiate it. A trial, accordingly, was begun at the (dose oi the year; but it was based, as we shall see. on charges entirely diverse from theological un- soundness. .Meanwhile, the General Convention of 1844 met in Philadelphia in October. Twenty-four bishops were present, and ninety-three clerical and
eighty-four lay deputies. In addition to its other la- bors, the whole matter of the ( txford Tract limv . ment, and its effects upon the American Church, came up for consideration. Several days were Bpenl in tin discus- sion of the general subject of err.. is iii doctrine and practice in the Church, and an earnest ellorl was made t.. obtain from the convention a distinct and positive
condemnation of the error and false teaching which, it
was charged, were rife in the Church. We in id in.!
go into details, in the lower house resolutions were
offered asking the bishops to "promulgate a (dear and
distinct expression of the opinions entertained by this convention respecting the rule of faith, the justifica- tion of man. tin' nature, design, ami efficacy ot the sac- raments," etc. li was ais,, slated, in an amendment, that "the minds of many of the members of this! htirch
ihroiigl I its union are sorely grieved and perplexed
by the alleged introduction among them of serious er- rors in doctrine and practice, having their origin in cer- tain writings emanating chiefly from memLc rs of the University of Oxford in England;" and. further, that
PROTESTANT EPISC. CHURCH 631 PROTESTANT EPISC. CHURCH
"it is exceedingly desirable that the minds of such per- sons should be calmed, their anxieties allayed, and the Church disabused of the charge of holding, in her Arti- cles and Offices, doctrines and practices consistent with all the views and opinions expressed in said Oxford writings, and should thus be freed from a responsibility which does not properly belong to her." But the house did not agree to any of the resolutions offered in this shape. It was, however, finally "Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies consider the Lit- urgy, Offices, and Articles of the Church sufficient ex- ponents of her sense of the essential doctrines of Holy Scripture; and that the canons of the Church afford ample means of discipline and correction for all who depart from her standards; and, further, that the Gen- eral Convention is not a suitable tribunal for the trial and censure of, and that the Church is not responsible for, the errors of individuals, whether they are members of this Church or otherwise." Thus the house disposed of the question ; and the bishops, on their part, in com- pliance with certain memorials sent to them, gave ex- pression to their godly counsel and warning in the pas- toral letter which was soon after issued. In Decem- ber, 1844, bishops Meade, Otey, and Eiliott made a for- mal presentment against bishop Onderdonk, of New York, "as being guilty of immorality and impurity." The trial was held in the city of New York. There were seventeen bishops present, constituting the court, viz. P. Chase, Brownell, Ives, Hopkins, Smith, Mcll- vaine, Doane, Kemper, Polk, Delancey, Gadsden, Whit- tingham, Lee, Johns, Eastburn, Henshaw, Freeman; also the three presenters, and bishop Onderdonk as respon- dent. The trial began December 10, and was contin- ued from day to day till January 3, 1845, when bishop Onderdonk was pronounced guilty by eleven votes, and sentenced to suspension from the office of a bishop and from all the functions of the sacred ministry. Bishop Onderdonk protested in the strongest terms his inno- cence, and published a Statement of Facts and Cir- cumstances in regard to his trial. It may be men- tioned that the condemned bishop never acknowledged himself to be in any wise guilty (died 1861). The "Prayer of the Diocese of New York to the House of Bishops for relief from sufferings consequent upon the sentence of the Episcopal Court, January, 1845," was made September 25, 1850; but this and all other efforts put forth to have him restored failed; and a new canon having been adopted applicable to the case of a diocese with a suspended bishop, Dr. J. M. Wainwright was con- secrated provisional bishop of New York, in November, 1852. During these years, since the General Conven- tion of 1844, the tractarian controversy gradually sub- sided. Both sides became weary of the struggle. Nearly everything had been said which could be said. A number of eminent men in the Church had put their views into written shape (as Jarvis, Seabury, Hawks, Mcllvaine, Hopkins, Stone, and others); and after a while, the storm was lulled, the. atmosphere became purified, and the Church was gladdened with a return of sunshine and comparative peace and quiet.
The disturbed condition of the country, in conse- quence of the secession from the Union of several of the Southern States, caused no little anxiety to the hearts of many of the Church's members, lest the Prot- estant Episcopal Church too should suffer harm in the great and terrible struggle which had been begun in 1860-61, and was to be fought out to the bitter end. It was but natural that the bishops in the southern dio- ceses should begin to meet and act separately, as if the dismemberment of the United States were a completed fact. They did so by organizing a council, framing a constitution and canons, etc.; and for a time there was grave apprehension lest the Church should be deprived of its union and communion as heretofore. The Gen- eral Convention of 1862 met in New York, with much reduced numbers, of course ; and this subject came be- fore the convention, and was fully debated. Resolu-