250 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 150. 



making this Rafe Lord of Cumberland, and giving 

 to him the town and honour of Carlisle ; and to 

 William de Meschines the seigniory of Gillesland. 



Margaret, daughter of Richard, Viscount of 

 Auranges in Normandy (sister, and at length heir, 

 of Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester), was wife of Rafe 

 Meschines, Earl of Carlisle. (Miller's Catalogue 

 of Honour, p. 989.) 



Randolph Meschines, son of Randolph Viscount 

 of Baieulx and Alice his wife, base-daughter of 

 Richard III., Duke of Normandy, came into 

 England with William the Conqueror, who gave 

 him the earldom of Carlisle. He married Mar- 

 garet, sister of Hugh Lupus, the first Earl of 

 Chester after the Conquest, by whom he had 

 issue. (Vincent's ^Errors of Brooke, p. 96. ; 

 Yorke's Union of Honour, p. 102.) 



Hugh (surnamed Lupus, a Norman), Viscount 

 of Auranges (a town in Normandy), son of Richard, 

 Viscount of Auranges, by his wife Margaret, half- 

 sister to the Conqueror by the mother's side. 

 (Miller's Catalogue of Honour, p. 560. ; Vincent's 

 Errors of Brooke, p. 101. ; Yorke's Union of 

 Honour, p. 104.) 



King ^Villiam gave this earldom of Chester to 

 Hugh de Abrincis, his sister's son, wife of Richard, 

 surnamed Goz. (Dugdale's Baronage, vol. i. p. 32.) 



Sir William Dugdale makes no mention of Ra- 

 nulph de Meschines, "Earl of Carlisle"; and he 

 omits altogether from his list the " earldom of 

 Carlisle." Fahnham. 



CAN BISHOPS VACATB THEIR SEES ? 



(Vol. v., p. 548. ; Vol. vi., p. 88.) 



If this Query has not already elicited replies 

 usque ad nauseam, you may afford room for the 

 following extract from a writer of unquestionable 

 authority on such a point. Among the posthu- 

 mous Miscellaneous Discourses on several Occasions, 

 hy the Right Rev. Ed. StilUngfleet, D.D., late Lord 

 Bishop of Worcester, now first published by his Son, 

 the Rev. James StilUngfleet, D.D., Dean of Wor- 

 cester, 8vo. London, 1735, there occurs a letter of 



Dr. , Bishop of , concerning a vow of 



resignation of his bishopric in 1676. Without 

 referring to the letter of consultation itself, I will 

 give the case (a sufficiently curious one) as stated 

 by Bp. StilUngfleet at the outset of his reply : 



" The case your Lordship propounds, m short, is 

 this : A. B. seeing little probability of doing any great 

 good in his Bishopric, and being weary of worldly 

 Employments, is inclined to give over his Episcopal 

 Functions ; but not being fully satisfied about it, he 

 betakes himself to Fasting and Prayer, &c., and at last 

 resolves with a solemn Vow to be determined by Lots ; 

 which, being repeated, fall to be for Resignation : The 

 Question now is, Whether the Obligation of this Vow, 

 so circumstantiated, be not indispensable?" &c. — 

 Pp. II. &c. 



Passing over the argument on the conflicting 

 obligations of the vow at consecration, and the 

 vow to abide by the issue of the lots, I extract 

 Bp. Stillingfleet's sentiments on Episcopal Re- 

 signations in general : 



" But is the 0))ligatIon of a Bishop so Indispensable, 

 that in no case he can lay down his Bishopric? I 

 do not say so, for St. Austin hath told us the Difference 

 between the Obligation of a Bishop and a Christian, 

 We may, saith he, be saved without being one, but not 

 without being the other * ; a man may with just reason 

 be excused from being one, but not from being the 

 other. Nay, he adds, some have laid down the Epi- 

 scopal Office not only without reproach, but to their 

 honour. But we are to consider on what occasion he 

 speaks this ; it was about the Donatist Bishops that 

 were received into the Church, or not received, as was 

 thought most convenient for the peace and benefit of 

 the Church. And in this case he yields that some 

 Bishops have laid down their function propter quadani 

 in se offendicula, for some great offence the Church 

 hath taken at them ; or when such laying down did 

 contribute much to the removing the Disorders of the 

 Church.. And it is not improbable that St. Austin hath 

 respect to Greff. Nazianzen, who resigned the Bi- 

 shopric of Constantinople to quiet thereby the Dis- 

 sensions of the Oriental and Egyptian Bishops; and 

 therefore he called himself the Jonas that must be 

 thrown out to still the storm. 'Tis true, that after this 

 he wholly retired, and would not meddle in the Church 

 of Nazianzun, but procured one Eulalius to be conse- 

 crated Bishop there in his life-time. But his best 

 Friends blamed him for it, as seeming to proceed from 

 Stomach and Discontent. And he writes an Apology 

 for it to Gregory Ni/ssen, pleading his great Infirmi- 

 ties f, and that he was never consecrated Bishop of that 

 Cliurch, but of Sasima. Which latter was no satis- 

 factory plea for his total retirement ; and it may be al- 

 lowed to pass among the resentments or infirmities of 

 great minds, that after his Dismission from Constanti- 

 nople, he would not take any Episcopal Charge upon 

 him, but retired to his paternal estate at Arianzum, 

 where he died. Yet there he complains that. he wanted 

 that peace and quietness which he promised himself iti 

 that state. Eusehius mentions the retirement of Nar- 

 cissus, Bishop of Jerusalem ; but it was because he 

 could not bear the Reproach which was cast upon him. 

 And after he had well digested it, and grew weary of 

 his solitude, he returned to his Charge again. J After- 

 wards he had a coadjutor allowed him, but not till ex- 

 treme old age had unfitted him for his duty. In the 

 Council of EphesHs the case of Eustathius, Bishop of 

 Beroa in Pamphylia, was debated, who was brought by 

 the troubles he met with to resign his Bishopric ; for 

 which he is severely rebuked by the Council, as doing 

 a thing unbecoming that magnanimity and courage 

 which ought to be in a Christian Bishop. ' For,' say 

 they, ' it behoves him that hath once taken that Spi- 

 ritual Charge upon him, to hold it with Spiritual 



* Aug. cont. Crescon., 1. ii. c. 11. 



f Greg. Naz , ep. 42. 



j Euseb., 1. vi. c. ix. x. xi. 



