Oct. is. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



293 



CAN BISHOPS VACATE THEIR SEES ? 



In Lord Dover's note on one of Walpole's Letters 

 to Sir H. Mann (1st series, vol. iii. p. 424.), I find 

 it stated that Dr. Pearce, the well-known Bishop 

 of Rochester, was not allowed to vacate his see, 

 when in consequence of age and infirmity he 

 wished to do so, on the plea that a bishopric as 

 being a peerage is inalienable. The Deanery of 

 Westminster, which he also held, he was allowed 

 to resign, and did so. 



Now my impression has always been, that a 

 bishop, as far as his peerage is concerned, is much 

 on the same footing as a representative peer of 

 Scotland or Ireland ; I mean that his peerage is 

 resignable at will. Of course the representative 

 peers are peers of Scotland or Ireland respectively; 

 but by being elected representative peers they 

 acquire a pro-tempore peerage of the realm co- 

 incident with the duration of the parliament, and 

 at a dissolution require re-election, when of course 

 any such peer need not be reappointed. 



Now the clergy, says your correspondent Ca- 

 Nosicus Eboeacensis (V^ol. iv., p. 197.), axQrepre- 

 sented by the bishops. Although, therefore, whilst 

 they are so representative, they are peers of the 

 realm just as much as the lay members of the 

 U|)per House, I can see no reason why any bishop, 

 who, like Dr. Pearce, feels old age and infirmity 

 coming on, should not resign this representation, 

 i.e. his peerage, or the temporal station which in 

 England, owing to the existing connexion between 

 church and state, attaclies to the spiritual office of 

 a bishop. 



Of course, ecclesiastically speaking, there is no 

 doubt at all that a bishop may resign his spiritual 

 functions, i. e. the overlooking of his diocese, for 

 any meet cause. Our colonial bishops, for in- 

 stance, do so. The late waiden of St. Augus- 

 tine's, Canterbury, Bishop Coleridge, had been 

 Bishop of Burbadoes. So that if Lord Dover's 

 theory be correct, a [)urely secular reason, arising 

 from tlie peculiar position of the English church, 

 wouhl j)revent any conscientious bishop from re- 

 signing duties, to the discharge of whicli, from old 

 age, bodily infirmity, or impaired mental organs, 

 be felt himself unfit. 



Perhaps some of your correspondents will give 

 me some information on tliis matter. K. S. 



SANDERSON' AND TAYLOR. 



I shall be much obliged if any of your readers 

 can explain the following coincidence between 

 San<lersoii ami Jeremy Taylor. Taylor, in the 

 beginning of tiie Diictor Duhiluntium, says : 



" It was well saitl of St. IkTiiard, ' Coiiscieiitia candor 

 est lucis a'tL'rnx, ct speculum siiiu macula Dei niajcstatis, 



et imago bonitatis illius ; ' ' Conscience is the brightness 

 and splendour of the eternal light, a spotless mirror of 

 the Divine Majesty, and the image of the goodness of 

 God.' It is higlifr which Tatianus said of conscience, 

 Movov (li/ai avveiSrirtv &€hv, ' Conscience is God unto 

 us,' which saying he had from Menander, 



BpOTO?9 arraffiv r] (TuveiSr](ns Oebs. 



God is in our hearts by his laws ; he rules in us by 

 his substitute, our conscience ; God sits there and gives 

 us laws ; and as God said unto Closes, 'I have made 

 thee a God to Phai-aoh,' that is, to give him laws, 

 and to minister in the execution of those laws, and to 

 inflict angry sentences upon him, so hath God done to 

 us." 



In the beginning of Sanderson's second lecture, 

 De Ohligatione Conscientice, he says : 



" nine illud ejusdem Jlenandri, Bporois airairtv ij 

 (TuviiSrjais 0sbs ; Mortalibu't sua ctiiqiie Conscientia Deus 

 est, Quo nimlrum sensu dixit Domlnus se constiliiisse 

 Miisen Deuin PharaDiii ; quod scis PharaonL voluntatem 

 Dei suhinde inculcaret, ad earn faciendam Pharaonem 

 instiyaret, non obsequentem contentibus plagls insecta- 

 retur: eodem fere sensu did potest, eundem quoque 

 constituisse in Deum unicuique homiiium singularium 

 propriam Conscieidiam." 



Sanderson's Lecture.i were delivered at Oxford 

 in 1647, but not piil^lished till 1660. The Dedi- 

 cation to Robert Boyle is dated November, 1659. 

 The Daclor Diibitantium is dedicated to Charles II. 

 after the Restoration, but has a preface dated 

 October, 1659. It is not likely, therefore, that 

 Taylor borrowed from the printeil work of San- 

 derson. Perliaps the quotations and illustrations 

 which they have in common were borrowed from 

 some older common source, where they occur a.i- 

 sociated as they do in these two writers. I should 

 be "bd to have any such source pointed out. 



^ WAV. 



Cambridge. 



iHinar ©itcrt'cS. 



220. " Vox vere Anglorum" — " Sacrn-Snncta 

 liegiim Majestas." — Translator of Horrehow's 

 '■'■Iceland." — Perhaps some of your readers may 

 be able to tell me the names of the writers of 

 the two following works, which were published 

 anonymously. 



1. Vox vere Angloiiim : or England'. s loud Cry 

 for their King. 4to. 1659. Pp. 15. In this the 

 place where it was published or printed is not 

 given. 



2. Sacro-Snncta Itegum 3Ia}e.stus : or, the Sacred 

 and Rni/all Preragutioe of Christian Kings. 4to. 

 Printe(i at O.xford, 1644. The Dedication is 

 signed " J. A." 



I should also wisli to find out, if possible, tlie 

 name of the translator of Ilorrebow's Natural 

 Ilistorr/ of Iceland, published in folio, in London, 

 in 175«. Bopc'as. 



