THE FOURTH BISHOP OF NEW YORK.*

THE Rt. Rev. Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, D.D., fourth Bishop of New York, was born July 15, 1791, and baptized in Trinity Parish, New York, August 19, 1791. He was the son of Dr. John Onderdonk, a much-respected physician in the city of New York, and was brother to the Rt. Rev. Henry Ustick Onderdonk, D.D., sometime Bishop of Pennsylvania. His wife, who at the writing of this paper still survives him, was Elizabeth, daughter of the Rev. Henry Moscrop. The children of this marriage were William, Henry M., Benjamin T., Hobart and Elizabeth. He graduated in 1809 from Columbia College, from which, in 1816, he received the degree of M.A., and in 1826 that of S.T.D.; and he served

Buy = 7. Onderdent

as a trustee of that institution from 1824 to 1853. In his twenty-second year he was ordained deacon by Bishop Hobart, by whom, also, he was admitted to the priesthood on attaining the canonical age. While yet a deacon he was made an assistant minister of Trinity Church, retaining that position while in priest's orders, and also during the first part of his episcopate until the year 1836, an arrangement resulting from the liberality of Trinity Church, rendered needful by the insufficiency of the Episcopal Fund prior to that date. He was consecrated Bishop of New York on the death of Bishop Hobart in 1830, and until 1838 his jurisdiction extended throughout the State. The Diocese of Western New York being set off at that time, his jurisdiction for the remainder of his episcopate covered the rest of the State, including both that part now known as the Diocese of New York and also those parts now included within the Dioceses of Central New York, Albany, and Long Island. In 1821 and 1822 he was Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the General Theological Seminary, and from 1821 until his death he held, in

* Chiefly an abstract from the discourse delivered at the funeral of Bishop Onderdonk by the Rev. Samuel Seabury, D.D., rector of the Church of the Annunciation (New York, 1861).

the same institution, the Chair of the Nature, Ministry and Polity of the Church, now that of Ecclesiastical Polity and Law. Out of consideration, however, for the feelings of others, he refrained from exercising the duties of the professorship after the sentence imposed upon him in 1845, although his right to do so was not affected by that sentence, under the law either of the Church or of the Seminary.

Until his consecration opened for him a wider sphere Bishop Onderdonk was distinguished as an able and laborious parish priest. His powers for work, both bodily and mental, and his unremitting diligence in the use of those powers, were alike remarkable. His visitations among those committed to his charge, especially the poor, the sick, and the afflicted, were assiduous. His catechising and preaching were constant and effective. Not so eloquent in popular estimation as those of Bishop Hobart, his discourses were, nevertheless, always acknowledged to be sound, judicious, and instructive. His teaching then and throughout his ministry was based upon the doctrines of the fall of man; of his redemption, by the voluntary humiliation and sacrifice of the Son of God, to the capacity of pardon and eternal life; of the establishment of the Church on earth as the means of preserving the true religion, and of drawing from its Head in heaven, through the ministry and sacraments of His appointment, that spiritual influence which is necessary to open to man an access to the Father, through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, on the prescribed conditions of the Gospel covenant. His discourses in the pulpit, and the many papers, expository of the doctrines, usages, canons, and rubrics of the Church, which he constantly contributed to the press, were an expansion and application of these principles. Upon these principles he shaped his course, both as bishop of the diocese and as a member of the House of Bishops and of General Convention; and his patient submission to the discipline of the Church was the legitimate fruit of the same principles.

Unlike that of most others, the life of Bishop Onderdonk was divided into two distinct portions: the one distinguished chiefly by resolute action, the other distinguished exclusively by patient suffering. His active life extended from 1812 to

A

P

1845; and its influence was important, extended, and lasting. Hardly less so, in its own way, was that of the remaining sixteen years which were passed in seclusion.

In October, 1844, Bishop Onderdonk was at the zenith of his fame. At the expiration of three months from this time, accused of acts of immorality, not by his own diocese, but by the bishops of three remote dioceses, he was, by a court composed of bishops, suspended from the exercise of his ministry, and from the office of a bishop in the Church of God. This sentence was passed on the 3d of January, 1845, being Friday. On Sunday, the 5th of the same month, he attended the divine service at the Church of the Annunciation, and received at the hands of Bishop Gadsden of South Carolina, who officiated there on that day, the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. The sentence which on moral grounds had adjudged him unworthy of the sacred ministry, did not debar him from the Holy Communion, thus publicly and with express episcopal sanction administered to him; and in the communion of the Church, and, by consequence, in the communion of those bishops by whom he had been condemned, he continued unto his life's end.

All of the offences alleged against the bishop were alleged to have been committed between June, 1837, and July, 1842. The law under which he was tried was enacted more than two years after the last of these dates, in 1844.* It provided for sentence either of admonition, suspension, or deposition. Of the seventeen bishops who composed the Court six voted at first for admonition, three of the remaining eleven voting for suspension, and eight for deposition. The six, concurring afterwards with the three, appear to have consented to suspension to avoid deposition. The canon did not define suspension, or state whether it was to be from the ministry entirely, or from the episcopate. The sentence was that of suspension both from the office of a bishop and from all the functions of the sacred ministry. It was unlimited either by

* Canon III. of 1844. This was the first canon ever enacted by General Convention for the trial of bishops. It repealed one (Canon IV. of 1841) entitled "on the trial of bishops," but providing only for their presentment (see the canon), and was itself repealed in 1856.

term of time or condition; nor did the canon provide for any possible revocation. In the next General Convention (1847) it was enacted that the bishops entitled to seats in the House of Bishops may altogether remit and terminate any judicial sentence which may have been imposed by bishops acting collectively as a judicial tribunal, or modify the same so as to designate a precise period of time or other specific contingency, on the occurrence of which such sentence shall cease and be of no further force or effect; and that whenever the

penalty of suspension shall be inflicted on a bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church, the sentence shall specify on what terms or at what time the penalty shall cease.† The sentence of Bishop Onderdonk was neither remitted nor modified. He remained under its operation for more than sixteen years (1845-1861) after the Church had provided that no such sentence should be pronounced in future on any clergyman within her jurisdiction; and for nearly fourteen years (1847-1861) after the General Convention, by empowering the bishops to remit it, had done all that a legislative body could do for its removal.

Of the charges on which he was condemned the bishop constantly maintained his innocence. He regarded his sentence as both unjust and illegal, but he made no attempt to oppose or evade it. An appeal to the civil courts was often urged upon him, and advocated by most eminent counsel, but it was steadfastly declined as inconsistent with his sense of duty to the Church. With equal firmness he constantly refused to comply with the wish of those who (either from unwillingness that he should ever exercise the functions of his office, or as a means of securing the remission of his sentence) desired him to resign his jurisdiction. He scrupulously conformed both to the letter and the spirit of his sentence; and withdrawing himself as much as possible from the world, he waited in patient humility for the clemency which was never to be shown. Three ineffectual movements were made by memorial and formal address to induce the bishops to use the power vested in them for his relief. And when the last memorial, supported by a resolution of the convention of his diocese was rejected by the bishops at the General + Canon III. of 1847.

* Canon II. of 1847.