III. PART nent, continuous Church. Moreover, it is not a Church, in the sense in which we are using that word; because it does not contain within itself the power of preaching or of administering the Sacraments according to Christ's ordinance. 1 HOOKER. Ecc. Pol. III. i. 14. For preservation of Christianity there is not any thing more needful, than that such as are of the visible Church, have mutual fellowship, and society, one with another. In which consideration, as the main body of the sea being one, yet within divers precincts hath names; so the Catholic Church is in like sort divided into a number of distinct societies, every of which is termed a Church within itself. In this sense the Church is always a visible society of men; not an assembly, but a society. For although the name of the Church be given unto Christian assemblies, although any multitude of Christian men congregated, may be termed by the name of a Church, yet assemblies properly, are rather things that belong to a Church. Men are assembled for performance of public actions; which actions being ended, the assembly dissolveth itself and is no longer in being; whereas, the Church which was assembled doth no less continue afterwards than before. "Where but three are, and they of the laity also, (saith Tertullian,) yet there is a Church;" that is to say, a Christian assembly. But a Church, as now we are to understand it, is a Society; that is, a number of men belonging unto some Christian fellowship, the place and limits whereof are certain. Q. xxvii. What do you mean by saying that these national Churches were without any organization? A. They had no public officers whose authority extended beyond a single congregation, and no external bond of union extending throughout all the congregations within the bounds of each Church. Q. xxviii. Were they also without Ecclesiastical law? A. No. It is not easy to understand that a merely political revolution could have changed the I. Ecclesiastical law. So far as the supposed Ecclesi- CHAP. astical law was connected with the relations of the Church to the British Crown, or State, it was of course abrogated by the American Revolution. But there is no reason why the ordinary ecclesiastical laws should have been changed by a political revolution, more than the laws which regulate civil rights or civil contracts. A Revolution which puts an end to one government, and substitutes another, dissolves all political laws, and may dissolve all politico-ecclesiastical laws; but it leaves untouched the ordinary laws of civil society. This is more especially clear, when, as in the case before us, the new civil government refuses all connexion with ecclesiastical affairs. Neither could the mere dissolution, by mutual consent, of the relations between the Bishop of London and the American Churchmen, change the law under which the latter lived. They must then have remained under the authority of the purely ecclesiastical laws of the Church of England, of which they had been part, until they were changed by competent authority. But although they had laws, they were without any efficient means of enforcing them. 2 1 HOUSE OF BISHOPS. Journal 1808, May 21. The House of Bishops having taken into consideration_the_Message sent to them by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, relative to the subject of marriage, as connected with the table of degrees, within which, according to the Canons of the Church of England, marriage cannot be celebrated, observe as follows: Agreeably to the sentiment entertained by them, in relation to the whole ecclesiastical system, they consider that table as now obligatory on this Church, and as what will remain so, unless there should hereafter appear cause to alter it, without departing from the Word of God, or endangering the peace and good order of this Church. 2 GENERAL CONVENTION, MDCCCXIV. Journal House of Bishops, May 20. The following declaration was proposed and agreed to: PART III. It having been credibly stated to the House of Bishops, that on questions in reference to property devised before the Revolution, to congregations belonging to the Church of England, and to uses connected with that name, some doubts have been entertained in regard to the identity of the body to which the two names have been applied, the House think it expedient to make the declaration, and to request the concurrence of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies therein-that the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the same body heretofore known in these States by the name of the "Church of England;" the change of name, although not of religious principle, in doctrine, or in worship, or in discipline, being induced by a characteristic of the Church of England, supposing the independence of Christian Churches, under the different sovereignties to which, respectively, their allegiance in civil concerns belongs. But that when the severance alluded to took place, and ever since, this Church conceives of herself as professing and acting on the principles of the Church of England, is evident from the organization of our Convention, and from their subsequent proceedings, as recorded on the Journals: to which, accordingly, this Convention refer for satisfaction in the premises. But it would be contrary to fact, were any one to infer that the discipline exercised in this Church, or that any proceedings there, are at all dependent on the will of the civil or of the ecclesiastical authority of any foreign country. The above declaration having been communicated to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, they returned for answer, that they concurred therein. CHAPTER II. ON THE HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE Q. i. WHAT was requisite to give to these little national Churches, the benefit of organized government? A. It was requisite that there should be made, an organic law distributing the powers of govern ment. This presented a great difficulty; for there CHAP. was no recognised law-making power. The same II. difficulty occurs, whenever the idea of originating a government presents itself. Q. ii. How are governments originated? A. There are two theories of the origin of government. According to the fashionable theory, all government proceeds from the people, and originates in what is called the social compact. This supposes, that men live naturally in a state of anarchy and without government, and that, becoming weary of this state of things, they at length meet, and agree upon a form of government. But this is well known to be a mere theory, or more accurately speaking, a mere fiction. No such anarchy ever existed, no such meeting, or compact, ever took place. The true theory of government is, that it is a Divine institution, that it has always existed, and that GOD, by His Divine Providence, directs how its powers shall be distributed and by whom, and under what restrictions, they shall be possessed. This is exactly according to the words of St. Paul, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, Rom. xiii. 1. for there is no power but of God." Q. iii. According to this theory, upon a dissolution, or change of government, how is the new government to originate? A. All history shows that men are never reduced to a literal state of anarchy. There always remains, somewhere, some fragment of the old authority, at least until some new authority is developed. The preservation of the old, and the development of the new, are both under the direction of Divine Providence, which thus provides, what may be called a starting point for the new government. Those, who thus, in the course of Divine Providence, possess power, proceed to enact such organic laws as are necessary. Sometimes III. PART they declare them to be laws by virtue of the power, which they themselves possess; at other times they consult the community, or some considerable portion of it; but they never regard the community as resolved into its elements. On the contrary, they always regard it as a formed body, which is bound by the acts of those, who assume the power of acting for it, be they many or few. It thus sometimes happens, that the organic law is the avowed work of some few powerful men; it is then considered as having been granted from above. It sometimes happens that it has received the assent of a large number of persons, who, perhaps, may have been previously called, by those on whom the course of Providence had conferred power, to choose persons, who might consult on the framing of the organic law. When this course is pursued, the government is spoken of as developed from below, or from the people. This was the course adopted in organizing the political governments in this country; but neither here, nor any where else, has it ever happened, that the whole people have been actually consulted, or that they have all actually approved the proposed organization, except as they preferred it to none. Q. iv. Are there not two elements in every government? A. Yes; there are two elements in every government, a Divine and a human. In civil governments the Divine element is nothing more than the Divine will that a government should exist, which must be under some form, and be administered by some persons. That form and those persons having been designated, in the course of Providence, the Divine Will requires submission to them, as is revealed in several texts of Holy Scripture. The Rom. xii. 1. rest belongs to the human element, but derives stability from the Christian doctrine of submission 1 Pet. ii. 13 16. |