THE

AMERICAN CHURCH MONTHLY.

VOL. III.]

JANUARY, 1858.

[NO. 1.

THE INHERENT RIGHTS OF BISHOPS.

THE SUBJECT indicated by the heading of this paper is an important one, and is just now under discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Of course, the discussion of the Inherent Rights of Bishops involves several questions. The first of these is, Are there any such rights? This seems now to be generally settled in the affirmative. Yet it is not many years ago, the precise year was 1850,-that a highly respectable clergyman delivered an elaborate and able speech in a diocesan convention, of which the leading idea was, that Bishops had no Inherent Rights; but that all the powers that they possessed, in America, must be derived from the legislation of the American Church. The speech was so well thought of, that it was published in the form of a pamphlet. In that form, the present writer thought that it required a reply, which he furnished. Both the speech and the reply are now forgotten; by all but those who were in some way connected with the affair. Circumstances have since occurred, which have shown that there are very few Churchmen, who do not recognize the idea of Rights Inherent in the Episcopal Office.

On one occasion the members of the House of Bishops, assembled for the purpose of trying a presentment against one of their number, found that the matter had become involved in difficulties. Some of those difficulties were merely technical,

The

while others touched the substantial justice of the case. Bishops came to the conclusion, that the cause ought not to be tried. So they fell back upon their Inherent Rights, and refused to try it. There was, undoubtedly, some dissatisfaction with this course. But it was not only adopted by a large majority of all the Bishops of the American Church, but it was sustained by an overwhelming majority of the Church diffused.

At a later period, during the General Convention of 1856, the House of Bishops took certain action with respect to the famous Memorial. It was avowedly grounded upon their Inherent Rights. The Memorial itself calls upon the Bishops to act "as a college of CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC BISHOPS as such." They did act in a manner, which was certainly not authorized by the written laws of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and which must therefore have rested upon the idea of certain Inherent Rights in the Episcopal Office. The action must have been grounded upon one of two ideas. One that of Inherent Rights, which could not be taken away by any human law. The other that of Inherent Rights, which were consistent with existing human laws, and were therefore not. affected by them. On this occasion the only questions which were raised by any one, were not whether Bishops had Inherent Rights, but, whether the exercise of those Rights could not be controlled by law, and whether the precise action adopted was not inconsistent with the existing law.

The defenders of the action have not generally attempted a formal refutation of either objection. No attempt has been made to reconcile the action of the Bishops with the written laws of the Church. The defence has been rested on the expediency of the action, thus implying that the right to act was undoubted. This notion can only be maintained on the principle that the Inherent Rights of Bishops cannot be controlled by law.

It may therefore be safely assumed, that American Churchmen, with perhaps a few exceptions, recognize the idea of the Inherent Rights of Bishops. In fact it seems impossible to deny that Bishops have Inherent Rights. All men are agreed, that a Bishop is an officer of the Church. Now an officer is such, because he fills some office, that is, is appointed to perform

some duty, officium. That duty is inherent in the office, because it constitutes the office, and it carries with it the right of performing the duty, which is also inherent in the office. The duties and rights which inhere in any office, when considered together, are called the functions of the office.

If all the functions of an office are taken away, the office ceases to exist. If only some of them are taken away, the office may remain in name, but its substance is different. Yet no function can be taken away from any office by any authority less than that by which it was given. But it is not the less absurd to suppose, that any office can be created, by any authority, without giving to it certain functions, which would therefore inhere in the office, until they were taken away by the authority which gave them. By that authority, they may be taken away and given to other offices, with different names; and new functions may be given to the old office, that is to the old name. All this is on the principle that the power that gives can take away. Until, however, the functions of any office, which always include rights, are so taken away, they inhere in the office. When they are given to another office, that is to an office with a new name, they inhere in like manner in that, until another change is made.

In applying these principles to the case of Bishops, we must bear in mind, that the Episcopal Office is of Divine appointment. It is not necessary to prove this, in this place. Perhaps no member of the Church could be found, who would broadly deny it; although some hold opinions which are, logically, inconsistent with the idea. But with them it is not necessary to meddle. It will, therefore, be assumed for the purposes of this paper, and of any sequel to it which may appear, that the Episcopate is of Divine appointment. It will, inevitably, follow, that it has Divinely-appointed functions, which involve Inherent Rights, and that those Rights can only be taken away by Divine authority. It will not be pretended that any Divine act has taken away from the Episcopate any function or Right. Bishops are then possessed of all the Rights, which ever were Inherent in their Office, as of all the functions, which in fact constitute that office. Whatever Church, then, recognizes the Office of Bishops, recognizes those Inherent Rights.

One is: What Can the exercise of

Still, there are two other questions behind. are those Inherent Rights? The other is: those Inherent Rights be limited by law? The exercise of the Rights, not the Rights themselves. The first question is: What are the Inherent Rights of Bishops? But it may, perhaps, be well before entering upon it to say a word upon the other. No human law can take away from a Bishop any right which is inherent in his Office; for instance the right of ordination. No human law can give such a right to any person not a Bishop. Nay, no human law can compel a Bishop to exercise his inherent functions in any way or upon any occasion, when he is not willing to exercise them. He must be always a free agent in the exercise of his Office. Thus much is involved in the idea of Inherent Right. The only question is: Whether he may be restrained from exercising his functions except under conditions, which the law indicates? This is a very important question; upon one side, we find Dr. Puscy and the admirers of the action of a majority of the Bishops at the General Convention of 1856; on the other the American, and, as it will be attempted to be shown, the English, Churches.

But passing this for the present in order to return to the first question, which is: What are the Inherent Rights of Bishops? There is a class of Divines, who hold that the only peculiarly Episcopal functions are those of Ordination and Confirmation. The practice of the Greek Church would seem to show, that the last is not an exclusive Episcopal function. There will then remain only ordination. In fact, St. Jerome is in one passage understood as taking that ground, and teaching that a presbyter may do anything which a Bishop can, except ordain. There may be a sense in which the proposition is true. The transmission of the Apostolical Succession may be the only act which none but a Bishop can perform. But the prac tice of all antiquity and the written law of our own Church, include another, which is a sort of complement to that. It is the degradation or suspension of an ordained clergyman. This can only be pronounced by a Bishop.

It is possible that there may be other functions which are Inhe rent in the Office of a Bishop, so that ordinarily none can perform them but he, but which in case of necessity may be perform