eral Courts, the whole science of jurisprudence is still interpreted according to the English rule, and their law books are read as authority. Marvelous it is, surely, that the laws of the States should keep their ancient connexion with so much constancy; while yet the principles of the Church must be cut loose from all their ties, and be sent adrift to discover new interpretations and definitions of old terms, as if the phrases bishop, presbyter, and ordination vows, had suddenly lost all meaning, and ceased to signify, at the revolution, what they had always signified before.

By the liberality of the British government, after peace was declared, an act of Parliament was passed, authorizing the consecration of three bishops for the Church in this country. This was done upon the express assurance given by our clergy in convention, that the principles of the Church of England should be faithfully retained. A few extracts from the address of the Convention of 1785 to the English prelates, (Bp. White's Memoirs, p. 318,) will prove this assertion clearly:

"When it pleased the Supreme Ruler of the universe, that this part of the British empire should be free, sovereign, and independent,' says this address, it became the most important concern of the members of our communion to provide for its continuance. And while, in accomplishing this, they kept in view that wise and liberal part of the system of the Church of England, which excludes as well the claiming as the acknowledging of such spiritual subjection as may be inconsistent with the civil duties of her children; it was nevertheless their earnest desire and resolution to retain the venerable form of episcopal government, handed down to them, as they conceived, from the time of the apostles; and endeared to them by the remembrance of the holy bishops of the primitive Church, of the blessed martyrs who reformed the doctrine and worship of the Church of England, and of the many pious prelates who have adorned that Church in every succeeding age.'

'The petition which we offer to your venerable body, is—(p. 350,) that from a tender regard to the religious interests of thousands in this rising empire, professing the same religious principles with the Church of England, you will be pleased to confer the episcopal character on such persons as shall be recommended by this Church in the several States here represented; full satisfaction being given of the sufficiency of the persons recommended, and of its being the intention of the general body of the Episcopalians in the said States respectively, to receive them in the quality of bishops.'

Observing upon (p. 321) the past relations of the American Church with the Church of England, the address uses this language, 'The archbishops of Canterbury were not prevented, even by the weighty concerns of their high station, from attending to the interests of this distant branch of the Church under their care. The bishops of London were our diocesans: and the uninterrupted,

although voluntary submission of our congregations, will remain a perpetual proof of their mild and paternal government.'

Among the resolutions passed at the Convention from which the above address emanated, the fourth (ib. p. 353,) is direct upon the point most important to a proper understanding of this subject. It is as follows:

'Ordered, Fourthly, That it be further recommended to the different conventions, that they pay especial attention to the making it appear to their lordships, (the prelates of the Church of England,) that the persons who shall be sent to them for consecration are desired in the character of bishops, as well by the laity as by the clergy of this Church, in the said States respectively; and that they will be received by them in that character on their return.'

And in the answer returned by the English prelates to the address, we find a farther evidence in the fear entertained that the principles of the Church might be changed from the primitive and acknowledged standards. For after stating their willingness to comply with the request, they say, 'We are disposed to make every allowance which candor can suggest,' (p. 355,) 'for the difficulties of your situation, but at the same time we cannot help being afraid that in the proceedings of your Convention some alterations may have been adopted or intended, which those difficulties do not seem to justify. These alterations are not mentioned in your address, and as our knowledge of them is no more than what has reached us through private and less certain channels, we hope you will think it just, both to you and to ourselves, if we wait for an explanation. For while we are anxious to give every possible proof not only of our brotherly affection, but of our facility in forwarding your wishes, we cannot but be extremely cautious, lest we should be the instruments of establishing an ecclesiastical system which will be called a branch of the Church of England, but afterwards may possibly appear to have departed from it essentially, either in doctrine or in discipline.

In the next conventional address of the American Church (ib. p. 125,) there was an assurance of there being no intention of departing from the constituent principles of the Church of England;' and in the preamble of the act of that Convention, (ib. p. 388,) there is a declaration of their steadfast resolution to maintain the same essential articles of faith and discipline with the Church of England.'

Now all this took place previous to the consecration of the first American bishops, and fixes the intention of all parties as to the proper character of the episcopal office, beyond the reach of cavil. Bishop Seabury was consecrated by the non-juring bishops of Scotland, A. D. 1784, and bishops White, Provoost, and Madison, under favor of an act of Parliament, were consecrated by the archbishops and bishops of England, A. D. 1787, the first nearly five years, and the other three, more than two years and a half before

the formation of our present Constitution and canons. What powers, then, I ask, did these bishops receive at the time of their consecration, but the spiritual powers understood to belong to the office of bishop, according to the sense of the primitive Church and the usage of the Church of England? In what quality were they received by their respective dioceses, but the quality of bishops, such as bishops had previously and always been defined? What attributes did their office possess by inherent right, but the very same which the congregations under their government had been accustomed to acknowledge in the bishop of London, who had been the diocesan of the colonies before the Revolution?

To demonstrate still farther, the doctrine of the Church on this point, let it be observed, that when the American Church did at last adopt the Constitution of 1789, there was not a sentence in it, and there is not now, defining in any way, the office or the powers of the episcopate, the presbyterate, or the diaconate. The three orders of the ministry are recognized in it as thins well known and understood; but in vain would any man search in that instrument for the slightest description of what was intended by the words bishop, priest, and deacon. So, too, the first canon provides, that in this Church there shall always be these three orders in the ministry; but not one sentence is there in all the canons, which looks like a design to define or describe the proper official characteristics of these orders. Instead of which, on the contrary, the canons require the students of theology to be examined previous to ordination on the doctrines of Church government, (amongst other things) and refer to the course of study recommended by the house of bishops, as to the choice of authors; in which course of study, every book involving the point under consideration, is a standard of the Church of England, and Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity is particularized for the Episcopacy.

I am really ashamed to be so precise on such an obvious matter, but the strange misconceptions existing in reference to it, seem to make some plain explanation necessary.

The result of the whole is simple. The bishop, presbyter, and deacon, in our Church, are just what they were intended to be by the apostles. The authority of the Church cannot change these offices from their first institution, without departing, pro tanto, from the authority of Scripture, and innovating upon the system of God. The channel through which these sacred offices descend to us, is that of the Church of England, and her sense upon the subject of their respective rights and duties, is the sense by which, next after Scripture, we are solemnly bound; saving and excepting those particulars only, in which our branch of the Church has thought fit to adopt a different rule.

APPENDIX E.

An Address to the President of the United States, published agreeably to the following order, viz.:

IN CONVENTION, August 7, 1789.

The Address to the President of the United States being read, and signed in Convention

'Resolved, That the said Address, with the answer that may be received thereto, be printed in the Journals of the adjourned meeting of this Convention.

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SIR:--We, the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, in General Convention assembled, beg leave, with the highest veneration, and the most animating national considerations, at the earliest moment in our power, to express our cordial joy on your election to the chief magistracy of the United States.

When we contemplate the short but eventful history of our nation; when we recollect the series of essential services performed by you in the course of the Revolution; the temperate yet efficient exertion of the mighty powers with which the nature of the contest made it necessary to invest you; and especially, when we remember the voluntary and magnanimous relinquishment of those high authorities at the moment of peace; we anticipate the happiness of our country under your future administration.

But it was not alone from a successful and virtuous use of those extraordinary powers, that you were called from your honorable retirement to the first dignities of our government. An affectionate admiration of your private character, the impartiality, the persevering fortitude, and the energy with which your public duties have been invariably performed, and the paternal solicitude for the happiness of the American people, together with the wis

dom and consummate knowledge of our affairs, manifested in your last military communication, have directed to your name the universal wish, and have produced, for the first time in the history of mankind, an example of unanimous consent in the appointment of the governor of a free and enlightened nation.

To these considerations, inspiring us with the most pleasing expectations as private citizens, permit us to add, that, as the representatives of a numerous and extended Church, we most thankfully rejoice in the election of a civil ruler, deservedly beloved, and eminently distinguished among the friends of genuine religion-who has happily united a tender regard for other churches with an inviolable attachment to his own.

With unfeigned satisfaction we congratulate you on the establishment of the new Constitution of government of the United States, the mild yet efficient operations of which, we confidently trust, will remove every remaining apprehension of those with whose opinions it may not entirely coincide, and will confirm the hopes of its numerous friends. Nor do these expectations appear too sanguine, when the moderation, patriotism, and wisdom of the honorable members of the Federal Legislature are duly considered. From a body thus eminently qualified, harmoniously co-operating with the Executive authority in constitutional concert, we confidently hope for the restoration of order and of our ancient virtues, -the extension of genuine religion,—and the consequent advancement of our respectability abroad, and of our substantial happiness at home.

We devoutly implore the Supreme Ruler of the Universe to preserve you long in health and prosperity, an animating example of all public and private virtues,-the friend and guardian of a free, enlightened, and grateful people, and that you may finally receive the reward which will be given to those whose lives have been spent in promoting the happiness of mankind.

WILLIAM WHITE, D.D., Bishop of the Protestant Epis-
copal Church in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and President of the Convention.

SAMUEL PROVOOST, D.D, Bishop of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the State of New York.

NEW YORK-BENJAMIN MOORE, D.D., Assistant Minister of
Trinity Church, in the City of New York.

ABRAHAM BEACH, D.D., Assistant Minister of Trinity
Church, in the City of New York.

NEW JERSEY-WILLIAM FRAZER, A.M., Rector of St. Michael's Church, Trenton, and St. Andrew's Church, Amwell.

UZAL OGDEN, Rector of Trinity Church, in Newark. HENRY WADDEL, Rector of the churches of Shrewsbury and Middletown, New Jersey.