CHAPTER VI.

FROM 1829 TO 1841.

The expediency of having Assistant Bishops. Canonical restrictions as to their election, growing out of the case of Virginia. Bishop Moore's letter expressing his gratification at the election of Bishop Meade. A valuable relief to him. Performs Episcopal duties in Maryland. Conservative influences in the Church. Assisted at the consecration of Bishop Stone and preached on the occasion. His continued delight in Associations and Revivals. Recommendation of weekly ff erings. Inadequate support of the clergy. Missionary efforts recommended. His zeal for the Church, and readiness to defend it. Letters of condolence. Prayer for an inquirer after truth. His ardent love for his children. Specimens of his domestic correspondence. His opinion of the "Tracts for the Times." Was he a High or Low Churchman? He did all in a spirit of prayer. His love for the meetings of the Virginia Convention, and farewell addresses at their close. His frequent excursions. Visit to Baltimore in the fall of 1839, and again in 1840, to assist in the consecration of Bishop Whittingham. His visit to Westchester, Pa., in August, 1841. Attendance at the General Convention. Strong testimony in reference to Foreign Missionary Bishops. Visitation to Lynchburg-statement of his last illness and death. The monument erected over his remains. Sketch of his character. Conclusion.

THE question of the expediency of having such officers in the Church as Assistant, or Suffragan Bishops, is one attended with great difficulties. The General Convention was actuated by a wise and prudential regard for the quiet and prosperity of our dioceses, in prohibiting the appointment of Suffragan Bishops, and in restricting the privilege of electing an Assistant Bishop to those cases of great necessity, when the "old age, or other permanent cause of

infirmity," renders the Bishop of the diocese "unable to discharge his Episcopal duties;" in requiring the assistant to confine himself to the " performance of such Episcopal duties and to the exercise of such Episcopal authority as the Bishop shall assign him-except the inability of the Bishop to make such assignment shall be declared by the Convention;" and in declaring that there "shall never be more than one Assistant Bishop in a Diocese at the same time."

In the absence of such rigid legislation on the subject, we might conceive of a variety of evils and disorders that would arise from the allowance of this description of officers in the Church. To say nothing of those which might result from the vaulting ambition of assistants, (and we must remember that human nature, in its best estate, is exceedingly corrupt, and that no elevation, even in ecclesiastical office and dignity, affords exemption from its common infirmities and passions ;) we might naturally expect that the Senior Bishop would look with a feeling of jealousy and distrust upon the rising honours and influence of his junior associate, fearing that his own would decrease exactly in proportion as those of the other increased: that the more active "overseer" would receive all the credit of the prosperity and good that might be achieved by their joint superintendence and labours; that his lustre would be extinguished before the brightness of the culminating star which had more recently arisen; till at length, shorn of every thing which constitutes the true glory of his office, he would be pitied as an imbecile who had outlived his usefulness, rather than venerated and beloved, as one entitled to peculiar honours, because his energies had been worn out in a life of self-denial and toil for the Church of God.

We are happy to say, however, that there was no ground

afforded for the exercise of jealousy or unkind feeling between the two Bishops of Virginia. Bishop Moore was ever ready to acknowledge that his relations with his assistant were such as enabled him to say, as Paul did of Timothy, "like a son he hath served with me in the Gospel." Bishop Meade also declared, in his address to the Convention next succeeding the death of the Senior Bishop, that not the slightest difference had ever arisen between them; but their joint official duties had been prosecuted with the utmost harmony, confidence, and affection.

The feelings of Bishop Moore, in relation to his assistant, may be inferred from the following extract from one of his letters, in answer to a correspondent who had, probably, desired an expression of his opinion on the subject of the election which had then recently been made, and also suggested that he should publish a narrative of the success which had attended his labours in the Episcopate.

TO REV. DR.

9

ON THE ELECTION OF BISHOP MEADE.

July 6, 1829.

"Rev. and dear Sir,-Your favour of the 24th ult. was duly received, but, in consequence of my absence from home, I have not had it in my power to reply to its contents at an earlier period. The election of Dr. Meade to the Episcopate produced in my mind all that satisfaction connected with so favourite a measure; and I trust that his labours will be abundantly blessed to this diocese in particular, and to the Church in general. Providence has, I conceive, marked him out for the office; and the unanimous vote of the Convention must have been truly grate

ful to his mind. I have no fears either in relation to his cousecration, or his succession as diocesan Bishop. For me to publish at this moment a view of the state of the Church, such as the circumstances of her prosperity would justify, would, in my opinion, savour too much of egotism, and subject me to unkind remarks. Such a work, if ever executed, should be drawn up by some other person; it would obtain more credence, and save me from the charge of religious pride. I can truly say that it has been my wish to walk humbly with those connected with me, and, if in any instance I have departed from that principle, aberration has arisen from a defect in judgment, and from no wish to be assuming. I have arrived, my dear Sir, at such an advanced time of life, that I have few worldly wishes to gratify, and it is my desire to fall into the grave with the love and benediction. of the diocese I have served. The belief that one affectionate tear, from the eye of any of my clergy, would fall on my tomb, would be more grateful to my heart, than ten thousand constrained expressions of regard.

The consecration of Dr. Meade, which took place in August, 1829, was an event which relieved the Diocesan Bishop from the most painful and laborious part of his itinerating duties, and afforded him a degree of repose from the pressure of responsibility and toil, grateful and necessary to one of his advanced years, and one so often afflicted with severe bodily sufferings. There was, however, no desire on his part to relinquish the exercise of his Episcopal functions, or to shrink from the discharge of any duty which it was in his power to perform. From the period of his consecration, the chief burden of visitation fell upon the Assistant; but the Diocesan, with unabated

zeal and energy, continued to visit those parishes which were easy of access, and to perform many acts which contributed to the salvation of souls, and the welfare of the Church.

During the vacancy in the Episcopate of Maryland, from the year 1827 to 1830, he kindly consented, in compliance with the request of the Standing Committee, to perform such Episcopal acts in that sister diocese, as the the clergy and vestries of the respective parishes might desire of him. The greater part of those acts desired by the parishes on the Western Shore, were performed by his Assistant Bishop; as those desired in the parishes on the Eastern Shore of the Bishop of Pennsylvania, were by the Assistant Bishop of that diocese. The Diocesan of Virginia, however, officiated personally on one occasion-the consecration of Trinity Church, Washington; as did the Diocesan of Pennsylvania, in presiding at the trial of Dr. Clowes; and both those venerable men favoured us with their presence on the joyful occasion of the termination of the protracted strife in the Church of Maryland, at the consecration of Dr. Stone, in Baltimore, October 21, 1830. Bishop White acted as chief consecrator, and Bishop Moore preached an appropriate sermon. It was an occasion of warm congratulation to the diocese and to the Church at large; and never did the preacher appear more in his element, than in pouring forth the full feelings of his grateful heart for God's goodness, in inclining the two parties in the diocese, of nearly equal strength and numbers, to sacrifice their long cherished partialities on the altar of charity, and unite in selecting as their Bishop, one who, though unknown to fame, had, in his retired position, adorned the Gospel by a life of faith and holiness, and by the exemplary discharge of his duties as Rector of a country parish, proved himself