and proposed, that all "should unite in a general ecclesiastical constitution." As the basis of this Constitution, they proposed certain "fundamental principles," in which the independent character of the Church in each State, is fully recognized. They also invited the churches in the several states to send delegates to a future general meeting, for the purpose of accomplishing an union. Pursuant to this recommendation and proposal, some of the other States acted.

Early in 1785, the clergy of South Carolina met, and agreed to send delegates to the next general meeting, but in complying with the invitation to co-operate in the measures necessary to effect a general union, they accompanied their compliance with an quivocal proof of their sense of the independence of the South Carolina Church, for they annexed to it an understanding that no bishop was to be settled in that State.

une

In the summer of 1785, New York and New Jersey appointed

their respective delegates, and in September of that year the gen

eral meeting was held.

At this meeting, the proceedings were such as show that the churches in the several States were deemed independent. Thus the first vote of the assembled body was taken by States, and the principle was formally recognized of voting, not individually, but by States. A committee was appointed, consisting of one clergyman and one layman, from each State represented, to prepare and report an ecclesiastical constitution, "for the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America:" and this is the second instance, in which the whole of the Episcopal churches in this country, are spoken of collectively as one body, or religious community, the first being in the fundamental articles proposed in October, 1784.

The ins'rument then proposed and adopted, in conformity with the "fundamental principles," before propounded at the first meeting, is the basis of our present Constitution, and repeatedly speaks of the "church in each State," and in its final article, provides that "this general ecclesiastical constitution, when ratified by the Church, in the different States, shall be considered as fundamental, and shall be unalterable by the Convention of the Church in any State." This general constitution, however, as Bishop White informs us, did not form a bond of union among the churches throughout the land, for it stood upon recommendation only; and the real and only bond, by which all the Episcopal congregations in the country were held together, until 1789, was in the common recognition of the thirty-nine articles.

It would seem, then, that the churches of the several States came together as independent churches duly organized, and so considered each other, for the purpose of forming some bond whereby they might he held together as one religious community throughout the whole United States.

We have said the churches of the several States convened: from this remark, however, Connecticut must be excepted, for she

had pursued her own course as an independent part of the Christion Church; having sought, (as she had a right to do,) the episcopate for herself; and after obtaining it, she furnished one of the plainest proofs of the general sense of American Episcopalians to the independent character of the churches in the States: for it was after negotiation with the General Convention in 1789, that Connecticut came into union as a Church fully and duly organized with a bishop, priests, and deacons.

We next inquire what was the mode by which they proposed to accomplish this desirable end? Did they merely purpose to establish a concordat or mutual and fraternal acknowledgment of each other, among these independent churches? Did they mean to make nothing more than a league between them, thus forming them into a simple confederacy? They went far beyond this: they designed to do so, and most wisely. What was it that the revolution had destroyed? Not unity, but union. They had been but one church, their wish was to return to union, and to supply the bond for that purpose, of which the casualties of war had deprived them. They declared that they came together "in order to unite," and placed this declaration as a preamble to the very instrument, by which they sought to accomplish their end. To unite in what? They answer for themselves;-"in a constitution of ecclesiastical government:" that is, in a system of polity to be of general force and application. Indeed, there was nothing else in which they could unite, for in all other matters they were already one. It is an error of dangerous tendency, to the harmony and stability of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, to take any other view of the plans and purposes of those who met to form her Constitution.

But an union between parties perfectly independent may be formed upon various terms and conditions. Every independent right may be surrendered, or some only may be given up: so, too, a greater or less equivalent may be given for such surrender: we next ask, therefore, what were the terms of the union agreed on? In other words, what is the true meaning of the Constitution? The instrument itself can, of course, be expected to do no more than present certain great general principles. It cannot provide by express declaration for each case specifically, for this would make it rather a statute book than a Constitution; whereas, its true purpose is to furnish certain guides to action, in the future formation of a statute book. Its interpretation, therefore, should be liberal, and rather according to its general spirit, than to its strict letter, when the rigor of literal interpretation would tend to defeat the great end of union, contemplated by its framers. Let it never be lost sight of, that in all such matters, as fairly arise under this general constitution, the polar star in interpretation is, that it was made for the purpose of binding us all to "walk by the same rule." And yet it must also be remembered, that no liberality of interpretation should so stretch its powers, as virtually to destroy those diocesan rights, that are as essential to our well

being, as union itself. The experience of our civil history, shows that few points are more difficult of adjustment, than the respective rights and powers of the State and general governments. A similar difficulty, to some extent, exists in the polity adopted by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States: for the analogy between the two forms of government is, in some particulars, very close, and was made so intentionally. In the government of the United States an ultimate arbiter in intepretation is provided in the Supreme Court. In the Church, however, we possess no such advantage, for we have no tribunal that can authoritatively declare to the whole Church what the meaning of the Constitution is. The House of Bishops may indeed express an opinion if it pleases, and the churches generally respect it, as they should do; but such opinion is neither law, nor authorized judicial exposition of law. Hitherto there has been practically but little difficulty, but it is easy to foresee, as our numbers increase, the certainty of future conflict. It is difficult to lay down a general principle on this delicate subject, of the respective rights of the Church at large, and the churches in the several dioceses. What is desirable is, on the one hand, to promote such an union as is compatible with diocesan independency; and on the other, so to uphold the just rights of the latter, as to prevent their merger in the former.

What then did the several dioceses retain under the Constitution? They retained very clearly the following rights:

1. To organize as a distinct Church within the territorial limits of each State, district, or diocese.

2.

To elect their own ecclesiastical head.

3. To hold the sole and exclusive jurisdiction in the trial of offending clergymen within their respective limits; and to prescribe the mode of trial.

4. To hold their own ecclesiastical legislatures and make all such laws as they might deem necessary for their well-being, provided they did not defeat the purpose of union, by contravening the Constitution, and constitutional enactments of the Church general.

5. To have an equal voice in the general legislation of the Church at large.

6. To have their respective bishops subject to no other prelate, and to be interfered with in the discharge of their duty by no other bishop; but in all things belonging to their office, to be equal to every other bishop in the Church.

7. To have their several bishops of right entitled to a voice in the councils of the Church, not as representatives of dioceses, but individually as Christian bishops.

What did they surrender? As we apprehend, the following things:

1. Such an exercise of independency as would permit them to

withdraw from the union at their own pleasure, and without the assent of the other dioceses.

2. They surrendered the right of having the bishop whom they might elect, consecrated without the assent of the Church at large.

3, They surrendered the right of sole and unrestricted legislation for themselves, in the dioceses alone, but consented that part of their laws should be made in a general legislature of which they were members.

4. They surrendered the right of framing their own liturgy, and agreed through all the dioceses to use the same, when all should have ratified it.

5. They surrendered the right of making separately any alteration in the great compact or charter of union.

These things, as it seems to us, were done by the proposed Constitution of 1785. But this instrument was not binding on the Church as its Constitution, for it was yet to be ratified by the Conventions of the several States. It was accordingly sent to them for that purpose, and much diversity of opinion prevailed in the dioceses concerning its adoption. In June, 1786, a Convention was held of delegates from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, and the Constitution of the previous year underwent revision and alteration in that body. It still, however, remained to be ratified by the several State Conventions, and it was accordingly recommended to them, that they should authorize and empower their deputies to the first General Convention, meeting after a bishop or bishops had been consecrated, to confirm and ratify a General Constitution. They did so, and the first Convention after obtaining the episcopate was held in July, 1789. At this meeting the delegates declared themselves authorized by their respective Conventions, to ratify a Constitution; and it was referred to a committee of one from each State, to consider the Constitution proposed in 1786. It underwent much discussion, and finally, on the 8th of August, 1789, the Constitution was formally adopted, and became the fundamental law of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. The work commenced at the first general meeting of Episcopalians in October, 1784, was thus consummated in August, 1789, and during the intervening period there was no bond holding the churches on this continent together, but the bond of a common faith.

APPENDIX D.

ON THE

LIBRARY CALIFORN

UNIVERSITY

EPISCOPACY.

Is Episcopacy essential to the being of a Church?

Since we maintain that the institution of Episcopal govern ment is of divine authority, it might seem to follow that it is essential to the being of a Church-that there can be no Church without Episcopacy. But this does not appear to be a necessary consequence. A Church may be a true Church, and yet be imperfect or unsound, just as a man may be a real man, whose constitution is impaired, or whose body is mutilated. There have, indeed, been some strange applications of this analogy, which, considering the bishop as the head of the Church, likened the case of a Church without a bishop, to a man without a head. But this is truly a very wild comparison. A bishop may be called, in a certain sense, the head of a Church within a particular diocese; although even this phraseology is better avoided, because it is exceedingly liable to misrepresentation. But in no possible sense can a bishop be called the head of the Church at large, nor in the highest sense, the head of any part of it 'CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH' -THE BISHOP AND SHEPHERD OF OUR SOULS.' All other bishops are members of his body, governing and leading the rest indeed, but always in subordination and obedience to him, who is the 'ONE LAW-GIVER-able to save and to destroy.'

Hence, we deny, in opposition to our Roman Catholic brethren, that there should be any such thing as a universal bishop—a bishop of bishops-a vicar of Christ on earth. This is a distinguished and well known tenet of popery, which all Protestant Episcopalians reject. The great Redeemer has, indeed, re-ascended to the throne of his glory, his earthly ministry has ended; but he is still our High Priest,' 'who ever liveth to make intercession for us;' (Heb. 7: 35,) he has not left his Church, nor placed it under the rule of any vicar-general. When he appointed the apostles to be his representatives by saying, 'as my father hath sent me, even so I send you,' he spoke to them all, and not to any single individual. They had no Prince but Christ amongst them, neither had the Church of the apostles' planting. Consequently, the