The daily national Whig. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1847-1849, 1847-09-10
.o '' From the Neip York True Sun.
THE BISHOP ONDERDONK TRIAL
u OVER AGAIN. ~.

J,.. OVER AGAIN. ~. . - f.
At the next general convention which
meets in this month, the matter oil Bishop
Onderkonk's trial will be brought up for
revision, and then must ensue scene
whose effect will be to bring the church in
10 disgrace, and her ministers into disrepute,
with the world Ids aH--
Tie frivolous pretext on which this
scandalous affair is to be re-agtatad, is un-
worthy of professed christians. The church
is now astonished al this late hour by the
discovery that the bench Of Bishops had no
authority to try their Episcopal peer on the
charge of iptenperance Wonderful eccles-
iastical law The justice and common
sense Of the church must be as unlike to
the Justice and common sense of the world
as black to white There is no denial of
the right of the Bishops TO entertain the
charge of RIGHTEOUSNESS but that Of intem-
perance is beyond the pale Of their Jurisdic-
ton fla Bishop can get drunk with i'm
purity, then of course he cannot be called
10 an account for any acts resulting from
his drunkenness. A drunken Bishop may
swear, steal, and debauch, in strict conform
ity with ecclesiastical law, if his. profanity,
theft, and debauchery be the effect of The
economically allowed rotations. IL the friends
of the Bishop succeed in making cut his
jollifca,ions 10 have been strictly canonical,
then will they be able to set aside entirely
the sentence and restore him 10 the full ex
erclse OF the Episcopal functions; for in this
event they will have only to swear that his
licentious frolics were but the necessary and
canonicalfulflment of the drunkenness guar
antied to him as one Of his perogatives by
ecclesiastical law If the church secure TO
the Bishop perogative-even though that
peroga,ive be dran-drinkipg-it must Of
course secure to him also the necessary
consequences Of that prerogatve.
But should the Bishops defenders fail on
the general charge of 'emperance, they
may prove that his specific case was hey nd
the jurisdiction of the house of Bishops.
Following the analogy OF those principles
of ecclesiastical law which they now main
tain, they mustargue that, though the Bench
Of Bishops can entertain The charge of in
temperance, they can do so only when the
charge is specifically based on burnt brandy
therefore the intoxcation Of Bishop Onder-
do k resulting from the use of nnburnt
brandy was beyond The jurisdiction Of the
Episcopal court, and he was therefore I'M
economically condemned-and hence must
be restored to the full exercise Of the func-
tons Of a Bishop
II will not, it cannot, be believed by any
man Of sense, that the Bishops party is
sincere in urging that The Court Of Bishops
had no power 10 try their accused peer on
the charge Of intemperance, while its auth
ority to try him on the charge of liceniious-
ness is not called into question. Such a
futile, silly discrimination could not be earn
estly made by men possessed of reason. We
must therefore, in justice to those who urge
such pietextfor trying the Bishop over
again, give to them the credit Of hypocrisy,
They would have right to be offended
ting their sincerity.
On this contemplate pretext is the Bishop
TO be tried over again, with the view to lay
before the public new and extraordinary
defence. The appeal is not in reality to the
convention but to that world which churches
and Bishops and priests affect so much to
despise. The appeal is not for the purpose
OF correcting errors in the former trial, but
10 introduce adefence hich would not avail
IN any court "a defence whose aim is to
restore the lost Repatriation of the Bishop,
by DESTROYING the unimpeached integrity OF
the witnesses. The Churchman-which
has held IN the d.sgraceiul sins of Bishop
Onderdonk as more worthy Of, respect and
practice than 'he pIecepts of Christ--has
gwen foreiaste o. what the Bishops de-
fence is to De. II has begun by discrediting
the testimony Of the female witnesses, sole
ly on the ground hat the evidence they give
is given against Bishop. II is incredible,
says the Chtirchmal, that Bishop could
do such thing; therefore the female witness
ses are gully OF perjury and the. Bishop is
innocent! Ii is not denied that man oil
the world may be.guilty Of the improperly
of insulting a respectable woman, but for q
Bishop to commit such sin, which, by
mere, exposure, would inevitably doom him
to degradation and MANY, is Incredible
The testimony is therefore false and thi.
is accounted for by The Churchman as fol
ows:
1.-The true history ofthe matter is doubt
less this-Mr. Richmond took offence be
cause Bishop Onderdonk would not iavo
his scheme of becoming Bishop of Cons,an
tinople; and his friend Miss Helen r tool
up1n herself to insinuate that the Bishop o.
New York ives no better than he shouls
be-"
The ChOrchmar, with diabolical stupi.
a,y, Then goes On 10 argue the Rev. James
Y. Klef"pond, out of revenge, was guilty Of
suporha'ioo Of pe1ury, by procuring several
female w''nesser, Of the highes standing in
society," enc Of them the wife of clergy
man, falsely 10 swear that tbey had beey
insul,ed by Bishop Onderdonk, It's ea.n
to believe that clergyman could prevail on
any number of respectable females to per-
jnre themselves infurtherance OF his revenge
but that a drunken bishop should law rude
hands % a confding girl, is absolutely in
IS credible a..e
To what does this mode Of defence tend;