Hampshire. We therefore judge it necessary to accompany this address with the papers which have come before us on that very interesting subject, and of the proceedings we have had thereupon, by which you will be enabled to judge concerning the particular delicacy of our situation, and, probably, to relieve us from any difficulties which may be found therein." The language of Bishop Seabury, as quoted in said communication to the Archbishops, is as follows: "The wish of my heart, and the wish of the clergy and of the church people of this state, would certainly have carried me and some of the clergy to your General Convention, had we conceived we could have attended with propriety. The necessity of an union of all the churches, and the disadvantages of our present disunion, we feel and lament equally with you; and I agree with you, that there may be a strong and efficacious union between churches, where the usages are different. I see not why it may not be so in the present case, as soon as you have removed those obstructions which, while they remain, must prevent all possibility of uniting. The Church of Connecticut consists, at present, of nineteen clergymen in full orders, and more than twenty thousand people they suppose, as respectable as the church in any state in the union." The members of the convention in their letter further say, that they have unanimously resolved "that the Right Rev. Dr. White and the Right Rev. Dr. Provoost be, and they hereby are, requested to join with the Right Rev. Dr. Seabury, in complying with CHAP. 2. CHAP. 2. the prayer of the clergy of the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, for the consecration of the Rev. Edward Bass, Bishop-elect of the churches in the said states; but that, before the said bishops comply with the request aforesaid, it be proposed to the churches in the New England states to meet the churches of these states, with the said three bishops, in an adjourned convention, to settle certain articles. of union and discipline among all the churches, previous to such consecration." The Constitution is thus referred to by the men who framed it, and while its provisions were under discussion as "a general constitution respecting both the doctrine and discipline of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America," as "articles of union, discipline, uniformity of worship, and general government among all the churches in the United States," as "a general union of the whole Episcopal Church in the United States both in doctrine and discipline," and as "articles of union and discipline among all the churches.” The powers of the General Convention are not defined in the Constitution, and the extent of these powers must therefore be determined by the terms of the instrument, construed in such way as to be consistent with the declared objects of its framers, the circumstances under which it was framed, and above Powers of all, the powers conferred by the dioceses upon those who framed it, by which powers it is necessarily contion under trolled and limited; upon the principle that a special power of attorney always controls and limits the acts of the agent under it, and all assumption of power the General Conven it. to act beyond its fair meaning and scope is absolutely void and of no effect. The authority under which the deputies who framed the Constitution acted, was undoubtedly limited, and, if so, they could not, by any action of theirs, exceed such authority. The presumption is, that they had no intention of so doing, and the legislation of the Church, during all its history, in both the General and diocesan Conventions, confirms this presumption. It is true that in case the Convention of 1789 had exceeded its powers, and the dioceses, when aware of the fact, had all ratified its action, the defects would have been cured by such ratification; but there was no express ratification by all the dioceses, and a ratification, with such knowledge, by acquiescence of the dioceses, can hardly be presumed, when it is evident from the documents referred to, that the General Convention of 1789 intended to act strictly within the limits of its authority, and the dioceses had no reason to suppose that it had exceeded them. Bishop White, who drafted the Constitution, and may therefore be supposed to have known its purpose and meaning, says: "It has been all along his (Bishop White's) "opinion, and there will be more and more ground "for it, in proportion as our ecclesiastical organiza"tion shall be operative over the American territory, "that the authority and the deliberations of the Gen'eral Convention should be limited to matters essen"tial to the keeping of us together as one body, and "requiring agreement with a view to that end. All CHAP. 2. CHAP. 2. Relations to the Dioceses. See Appendix C. "enlargement of the jurisdiction endangers contro"versy, and, of course, division." Memoirs, p. 283. The Constitution recognizes a general ecclesiastical government, and local diocesan governments, a National Church and diocesan churches, and a union of diocesan churches; and although the analogy is not perfect between this and our federal system of civil government, yet we find in each a federal union for the purposes of government, and it is difficult to see how the Constitution can ever be so amended or construed by the General Convention, as to break up or seriously impair this union, which was the very object for which the Constitution was framed. We have then a general government as a National Church, and local governments as diocesan churches, and there is no clashing of interests or powers between them. Each church has or may have its charitable and other organizations for such Christian work as is incident to the being and life of a Church, and each has its separate field of labor. If the principles thus set forth are to be relied on, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is an ecclesiastical body, independent as such in its government and administration, and organized for the purpose of maintaining as a church, uniformity in its doctrine, discipline, and worship, or, as expressed in the resolution of June 24, 1786, of the General Convention, uniformity in doctrine and discipline, which is precisely to the same effect. It is evident, therefore, that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution to provide in that instrument for the exercise of all powers, legislative or otherwise, that they regarded as necessary and proper, in order to enable the National Church to maintain this uniformity in doctrine, discipline, and worship. For this purpose the Constitution provided for a General Convention, to be composed of clergy and laity in equal numbers, as a legislative body, competent to enact canons under certain limitations expressed therein. It is evident from the action of the preliminary meetings which led to the organization of a National Church, that the power to enact canons in a General Convention of clergy and laity from all the dioceses, for the purpose of maintaining uniformity in doctrine and discipline, was especially contemplated by the churches in the different states or dioceses. It is thus expressed in the fundamental principles adopted at the meeting held in Philadel phia, in May, 1784: "That to make canons or laws, there be no other 'authority than that of a representative body of the clergy and laity conjointly." The action of the General Convention of 1789, as well as of all subsequent conventions, is in keeping with this view. CHAP. 2. Their jur For purposes, therefore, which are distinctly indicated in the resolution of June 24, 1786, and in the isdiction. preamble to the Constitution, and which are evident upon the face of the instrument itself, the National Church is sovereign within the limitations referred to, but it cannot trench upon the rights of the dioceses to manage exclusively their separate and distinct |