atttara. Nem fork 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 BENNO LOEWY LIBRARY 
 
 COLLECTED BY 
 
 BENNO LOEWY 
 
 1854-1919 
 BEQUEATHED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BX5955 .V79 
 
 Manual commentar/ 0'J|,||;!?,f|,|K?||ifA|™^ ' 
 
 3 1924 029 458 407 
 olln 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029458407 
 
MANUAL COMMENTARY 
 
 GENERAL CANON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 ^tote^stant (6$t|fco]^a{ €^utt^ 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 BY 
 
 FRANCIS VINTON, S. T. D., D. C. L. 
 
 "CHABLE3 AND ELIZABETH LUDLOW PROFESSOR OF ECOLESUSTIOAL POLITT AND LAW" 
 
 IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEUINART, AND ASSISTANT UINISTEB OF 
 
 TEINITI CHURCH, NEW TOEK. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 E, P. BUTTON AND COMPANY, 
 
 713 Bkoadway. 
 1870. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by 
 
 Frakcis Vinton, 
 
 {n the Clerk^s Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. 
 
 RITSRSISB, cambridgb: 
 
 STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY 
 
 fl. 0. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY. 
 
PAET I. 
 
 THE COMMON LAW OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED 
 STATES, WITH APPENDIX, EXPLAINING 
 
 1. The Spiritual Courts and Pkoceedings of the Chueoh or 
 England. 
 
 2. The Manner op Electing and Con8eceating Aechbishops 
 AND Bishops in the Chukch op England. 
 
 PART n. 
 
 1. Pkbliminart History op the Constitution op the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church in the United States. 
 
 2. The Legislative Powers and Authority op the General 
 Convention. 
 
 3. The Constitution op the Church. 
 
TO THE READER. 
 
 The Statutes of the General Theological Seminary assign 
 to the Chair of "Ecclesiastical Polity and Law" these 
 three topics: "The Principles of Ecclesiastical Polity, 
 with a particular Explanation of that of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church;" "General Canon Law;" "Consti- 
 tution and Canons of the Church in the United States." 
 
 The Professor has been constrained to compose a Text- 
 book from the ample materials scattered through our Li- 
 braries and fiirnished by the erudition of Canonists of our 
 own Church, and of England, and of the Continent. 
 
 This Manual Commentary on the General Canon Law 
 and the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church is 
 the first-fruits of my Professorship, which I now humbly 
 offer to Christ and the Church. 
 
 I have concentrated the subject into the form of Ques- 
 tions and Answers, rather through habit than by premedi- 
 tated design; following herein the familiar system of 
 Catechising, as the best of all methods of instruction. 
 And as a Catechism is the Ultimate Analysis of any sub- 
 ject, so Questions and Answers presuppose and demand 
 the utmost brevity, correctness, and utility, at the cost of 
 the profoundest meditation and the best knowledge of the 
 author. 
 
 This plan, though spontaneous and original, I find sanc- 
 tioned by such teachers as Grey, in his "Ecclesiastical 
 
vi TO THE READER. 
 
 Law," and Bates, in Ms " College Lectures on Ecclesias- 
 tical History." I have found this method very convenient 
 in lecturing ; for I could take the Question as a Text, 
 making my comments, while driving at the Answek, 
 wherem is contained the gist and end of my discourse. 
 The Students, meanwhile, jotted down the Lecture m 
 their note-books. 
 
 This Manual, together with the student's notes, makes 
 a tolerable mental fiirniture for his future ministry in this 
 department of Theological Learning. 
 
 I am hopeful that this publication may serve the same 
 purpose in aid of other teachers, and to the edification of 
 other pupils. And these are not merely the Professors 
 and Students of our Theological Schools, but likewise the 
 Deputies to the General Convention ; the Delegates to 
 Diocesan Conventions ; the Clergy and Wardens and 
 Vestrymen of our Parishes ; the members of Ecclesiastical 
 Courts ; the Judges, the Lawyers, and the Lay Assessors, 
 who are likely to be employed as Advocates and Counsel- 
 ors at ecclesiastical Tribunals. The intelligent laymen, 
 too, who desire to understand the Polity and Law of 
 their Church ; the gentlemen of the learned callings, 
 and professions of secular interest, and those who belong 
 to various religious bodies, may discover and reap some 
 advantage from this Manual Commentary. All these 
 " sorts and conditions of men " might find this Hand- 
 book a convenience, and these Commentaries a prompter 
 to thoughtfiil study. For the Index contains a cata- 
 logue of " Questions " which may arise, ranged under 
 their several proper Heads of Subjects ; while the co- 
 pious References to Authorities in the " Answers " will 
 repay a diligent research into the mine of wealth 
 which- they open and expose to view. The student wiH 
 discern therein some' of the ore that is embedded in 
 
TO THE READEK. vii 
 
 the Church of past ages, whence the Jurisprudence of the 
 modern world derives the grandest and loveliest gems of 
 Justice and of Equity. 
 
 In conclusion, I venture to sketch the Plan of Lectures 
 in my mind, suited, as it appears to me, to a liberal and 
 edifying Course of Study in Ecclesiastical Polity and Law. 
 
 1st. The History of Roman Law, from the Twelve Ta- 
 bles to the Institutes, the Pandects, the Code, and the 
 Novels of the Emperor Justinian (a. d. 528-534). This 
 Body of the Civil Law, which has so largely ruled the 
 Civilized Nations, was reverently published by the Em- 
 peror, " In Nomine Domini Nostbi Jesu Christi." 
 
 Hence, 2d. The influence of Christianity on the Roman 
 Law suggests the theme for a following Lecture. 
 
 Christianity, since the conversion of Constantine, had 
 had the providential opportunity of two Centuries to infuse 
 its blessed Charities into the Soul of the Law of the Roman 
 Empire, and to bring it to that perfection which won a 
 willing submission to its rule from the Nations and the 
 Church of Europe. 
 
 Hence, 3d. The agency of the Civil Law in shaping the 
 Canon Law, becomes the next theme in course. 
 
 4th. A collateral topic is the crystallizing of the new 
 Canon Laws and Constitution of the Church of Rome into the 
 mould of the old Roman Umpire, through the False Decre- 
 tals of Isidore, and their adoption by Popes, from Adrian 
 to Nicholas (a. b. 785 to 836) ; and thenceforward to the 
 present time. This side-issue forms a topic, for the eluci- 
 dation of which, the imminent threatening aspect of the 
 Roman Communion challenges the scholar, who is both 
 Catholic and Protestant, to burnish his weapons. 
 
 6th. The introduction and authority of the Catholic and 
 of the New Canon Law in the Church and Kingdom of 
 Great Britain, should be the next theme. 
 
Viii TO THE READEE. 
 
 Finally, 6th. The passage of the Hcelesiastical Law of the 
 Church of England into the Colonies and States of America. 
 
 This final theme is the foremost Head of this Manual 
 Commentary, which may be entitled " The Common Law 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church." All the themes that 
 precede it are links in the chain that leads to the Twelve 
 Tables; and beyond them, to the Court of the Gentile 
 Nations, to the Jews, to Moses, to Divine Revelation, to 
 the Bosom of God, — wherein is the Seat of Law, " whose 
 Voice is the Harmony of the World." 
 
 The writer may not live to compose a Series of Lec- 
 tures on all these themes appertaining to his Professorship. 
 Yet they are the measure of its importance, and of its 
 grandeur. 
 
 He has, therefore, not refrained from suggesting them to 
 the consideration of his successors, while he humbly con- 
 tributes what he could do, amidst the urgencies of paro- 
 chial duties, for the instruction and benefit of his pupils 
 in Ecclesiastical Polity and Law. 
 
 F. V. 
 
 New York, Eastertide, A. d. 1870. 
 
ABBREVIATIONS OF SOME OF THE AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Alumni Association Publications . Pub. Alum. Assoc. 
 
 Bingham's Ecclesiastical Antiquities Bingham, Ecc. Antiq. 
 
 Bishop Gibson's Codex Juris Ec- 
 
 clesiastici Anglicani Gibson's Codex. 
 
 Bishop White's Memoirs of the 
 
 Episcopal Church Mem. of Ch. 
 
 Bishop White's Article on Primitive 
 Facts Bp. White, Prim. Facts. 
 
 Bishop White's Comparative Views 
 on the Arminian and Calvinistic 
 Controversy Bp. White, Ar. & Calv. Cont 
 
 Bishop White on the Ordination 
 
 Office Bp. White, Ord. Off. 
 
 Dawson's Origo Legum .... Dawson's Or. Leg. 
 
 Digest of Canons Dig. 
 
 Hawks, F. L., D. D,, LL. D., Con- 
 tributions to Ecclesiastical History Hawks' Contrib. 
 
 Hawks' Commentary on- the Consti- 
 tution and Canons Hawks' Cons. & Can. 
 
 Hoffman, Murray, V. Chancellor, on 
 the Law of the Church .... Hoff. L. C. 
 
 Hoffman, Murray, Ecclesiastical 
 Law of New York Hoff. Ec. L. of N. Y. 
 
 Journal of the General Convention Jour. Gen. Conv. 
 
 Kenneth's Ecclesiastical Synods . Kenneth's Ec. Syn. 
 
 Lyndwood's Provincial Constitutions Lyndwood's Prov. Con. 
 
 Wilkins's Concilia Magnse Britanni- 
 cae et Hibernicae Wilkins's Concil. 
 
 Wilson's Memoir of the Life of 
 Bishop White Wilson's Mem. Bp. White. 
 
Manual Commentary 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY AND LAW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 Question. What are the Grand Divisions of the Law 
 of the Church in the United States ? 
 
 Answer. (1) The General Canon Law, and the Ec- 
 clesiastical Law of England, applica- 
 ble to the Church in the United 
 States, and not abrogated by Con- 
 stitution nor Canons, being The Com- 
 mon' Law of this Chuech. 
 
 (2) The Constitution and Canons of the 
 
 General Convention. 
 
 (3) The Constitution and Canons of the 
 
 several Dioceses. 
 
 (4) The Rubrics of the Church and (in some 
 
 particulars) the Articles. 
 
 (5) The Secular Laws of the State, affecting 
 
 Churches in regard to Corporate and 
 personal rights, and the acquisition 
 and preservation of property. 
 
MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 PAET I. 
 
 THE COMMON LAW OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCO- 
 PAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 EXTENT OF AUTHORITY OF ENGLISH CANON LAW. 
 Q. What is the relation of the Church of England and 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States ? 
 
 A. They are identical ; as sisters in the Family of the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 Q. What is the Extent of Authority of the Ecclesias- 
 tical Law of England in the United States ? ' 
 A. (1) Our ancestoi's from England brought " as much 
 of English Law and Liberty with them as 
 the nature of things will bear," both in 
 Church and State. Kent's Commentaries, 
 vol. i. p. 472. Chalmers' Opinion of Emi- 
 nent Lawyers, vol. i. p. 194. As to Ecclesi- 
 astical Law, Gaskins v. Gaskins, 3 Iredell's 
 Law Rep. 155, N. Car. 
 (2) The Canon Law is a part of the Common Law 
 of the State (e. g. as to Testaments), except 
 where our Statutes have altered it. Bogat- 
 dus V. Smith, 4 Paige Rep. 178. 
 Q. What are the Restraints on the Canon Law 
 
 Limitations. n -ry i • 
 
 of England in this country ? 
 A. In all things where the Church is considered as an 
 Establishment, as (1) The Royal Supremacy. 26 Henry 
 VIII. c. i. (2) Statutes of Uniformity. 13 Car. II. c. 
 4 ; 6 Anne, c. 5. 
 
 IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE COLONIES. 
 Q. What Acts of Legislation demonstrate the Identity 
 of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church ? 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 3 
 
 A. The Acts of the Colonial Governments. Hoff. L. C. 
 pp. 16 et seq. 
 
 (1) Colony of New Yokk. 
 
 Charter of the Duke of York (1664 to 1683) 
 excluded all but Protestant ministers. Acts of the 
 People were assessed for support of colonies, 
 the ministry in a. d. 1672, 1675, 1693, 1695, 
 1705, and until 1784. 
 
 (2) South Cakolina. 
 
 Charter to Earl of Clarendon and others gave 
 them right of Patronage and Advowson ac- 
 cording to Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of 
 England, with exemption from Conformity to 
 Liturgy and Articles. Act of Legislature 
 gave liberty of Conscience, a. d. 1696, 1697. 
 Act of Legislature established Church of Eng- 
 land in A. D. 1698 and in a. d. 1706. Con- 
 tinued to the Revolution, a. d. 1783. 
 
 (3) Virginia. 
 
 Colonial Legislature. Church of England estab- 
 lished in A. D. 1619, 1621, 1622. Clergy en- 
 dowed with Glebe of 100 acres and revenue 
 j6200. Canons of Church of England made 
 obligatory, a. d. 1624. Subscription to Con- 
 stitution and Laws of Church of England re- 
 quired, A. D. 1642, and Letters of Ordination 
 by a Bishop of Church of England, a. d. 1662. 
 Vestrymen must make Oath of Allegiance and 
 Supremacy, and subscribe Declaration of Con- 
 formity to Doctrine and Discipline, a. d. 1662. 
 The English Act of Toleration appHed -to Vir- 
 ginia, A. D. 1745, under which Presbyterian- 
 ism arose and flourished. All Qualifications 
 and Restrictions removed by repeal, a. d. 
 1776. 
 
4 MAOTTAIi COMMENTARY. 
 
 (4) Maryland. 
 
 Colonial Legislature. Church recognized as an 
 Establishment, a. d. 1692, and endowed. Tax 
 laid for support of Episcopal Clergy, a. t>. 
 1692. AU rights, privileges, etc., of Church 
 of England then or thereafter established by 
 Laws of England were established, A. D. 
 1696. This Act failed of Royal assent, but 
 was renewed and perfected, A. D. 1702. Eng- 
 lish Act of Toleration was extended to Quak- 
 ers and Protestant Dissenters, A. D. 1702. 
 A rigid intolerance, in this Law, towards Pa- 
 pists was passed unanimously, a. d. 1702. The 
 Legislature, in a violent reaction, persisted in 
 assaults upon the Church and the rights and 
 property of the Clergy, "even to outrage," till 
 A. D. 1776. The Church was disestablished 
 by law in November, A. D. 1776. Hencefor- 
 ward there were no taxes for support of 
 Clergy; yet the Legislature secured to the 
 Church, Glebes and other property. 
 
 Q. By whom was the Church of England established in 
 this country? 
 
 A. By the Colonial Assemblies. 
 
 Q. Did the Government of England prescribe the Es- 
 tabHshment? 
 ^ A. No. 
 
 Q. Did Parliament? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Did the King? 
 
 A. Yes. By Instructions and Proclamations. 
 
 Q. What authority had the King in the premises ? 
 
 A. None. 
 
 Q. What power in England could estabHsh the Church? 
 
 A. The King and Parliament and Convocation. 
 
 Q. What was the Supreme Authority in the Saxon 
 Church? 
 
COMMON LAW 01" THE CmiRCH. 5 
 
 A. The Monarch, Priests, and Nobles framed Laws for 
 both Church and State in the Witenagemote. See Daw- 
 son's Origo Legum, Book vi. chaps. 3, 4 ; Churton's 
 Early British Church ; Sharon Turner's Anglo Saxons ; 
 Palgrave's Anglo Saxons. 
 
 Q. How did the Royal Governors in the Colonies justify 
 their acts — for example, not to prefer any to Ecclesiastical 
 Benefices, except persons lawfiilly ordained? 
 
 A. By the Instructions and Proclamations of the King? 
 
 Q. What effect on Colonial Society did the Governors' 
 recognition of the King's sole prerogative produce ? 
 
 A. Agitation, dissatisfaction. 
 
 Q. What apology for the Royal Governors may be of- 
 fered? 
 
 A. Some beheved in the legality of the Royal Proclama- 
 tions and Instructions. Some believed that there was no 
 salvation out of the Church of England. Some acted in 
 the spirit of Intolerance. 
 
 Q. What was the spirit of the age ? 
 
 A. That of Intolerance. 
 
 Q. Mention an Act of Intolerance of the Virginia Legis- 
 lature in A. D. 1642? HofP. L. C. p. 24. 
 
 A. The Delegates from the Ministers of Boston were 
 silenced under pain of banishment. 
 
 Q. Mention contemporaneous Legislation in Massachu- 
 setts ? 
 
 A. The exiled Quaker was doomed to death if he re- 
 turned. 
 
 Q. Did the Church of England in the Colonies owe its 
 existence and support to the Government of England? 
 
 A. Not at all; it was neglected and unnoticed. 
 
 Q. What notable example of earnest and successful re- 
 buke of the indifference of Parliament occurred about this 
 time? 
 
 A. That of George Berkeley, Dean of Deny, after- 
 wards Bishop of Cloyne. The Parliament, during Wal- 
 
6 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 pole's administration, a. d. 1723 to 1742, appropriated 
 ^20,000 to foxmd a College in America (Bermuda), a. d. 
 1727. Hawkins' Historical Notices, pp. 168-174. 
 
 Q. Was tlie money paid? 
 
 A. No! Walpole sequestered the money, and plun- 
 dered the fund, to swell the nuptial pomp of the Royal 
 Princess. Ibid. 
 
 Q. What else characterized the age ? 
 
 A. Philosophic infidelity. 
 
 Q. To whom, under God, is the Church indebted, ia 
 this country, for existence, for support, and for the spread 
 of sound doctrines and the Catholic faith ? 
 
 A. To " the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
 in Foreign Parts," with the exception of Virginia and 
 Maryland, where the Church was endowed. Ibid. Pref- 
 ace, p. 6. 
 
 Q. What, briefly, will you say of this venerable Society? 
 
 A. It was incorporated by King William III. June 16, 
 A. D. 1701, specially by exertions of Dr. Bray, Commissary 
 for Maryland, with devout men of England. Its object 
 was "Receiving and managing contributions for religious 
 instruction of emigrants, maintenance of clergymen in the 
 plantations, colonies, etc., and for 'the general Propaga- 
 tion of the Gospel.' " Hoff. L. C. p. 25. The Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, President. Since the Foundation of the 
 Society, all the Bishops, Directors. Ibid. pp. 10-17. 
 
 Q. Who was the "Ordinary" or Bishop of the Church 
 in the Colonies? 
 
 A. Bishop of London. 
 
 Q. Whence did he derive his authority? 
 
 A. From the King's Commission, a. d. 1723. 
 
 Q. How did the Bishop of London exercise a personal 
 oversight ? 
 
 A. By Commissaries for various Colonies. 
 
 Q. Name the Commissaries of the Bishop of London in 
 the Colonies ? 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 7 
 
 A. Rev. Mr. Johnson for South Carohna, a. d. 1707 ; 
 Rev. Messrs. Henderson and Wilkinson, Maryland, Eastern 
 and Western Shores, a. d. 1716 ; Rev. Dr. Bray, North 
 Carolina, A. D. 1703 ; Rev. Dr. Blair, Virginia, a. d. 1689 ; 
 Rev. Mr. Vesey, New York, a. d. 1713. HofF. L. C. 
 p. 26, note. 
 
 Q. Did the Colonial Church apply for Commissaries ? 
 
 A. Yes ; Maryland in A. D. 1687. 
 
 Q. What attempt by a Colonial Legislature was made 
 against the rights of the Clergy and the prerogative of the 
 Bishop of London? 
 
 A. By the Assembly of South Carolina in a. d. 1704, 
 depriving a Clergyman, Rev. Edward Marston, of his Ec- 
 clesiastical Function and Office ; also, in a. d. 1704, by 
 establishing a Lay Tribunal for the trial of Clergymen. 
 
 Q. Was this Act of the Legislature resisted? 
 
 A. Yes; by Churchmen, by Dissenters, by the House 
 of Lords, and by the V. S. P. Gospel. 
 
 Q. How was the outrage remedied? 
 
 A. The Queen (Anne) declared the Laws null and 
 void, and the Colonial Assembly repealed them in a. d. 
 17.06. 
 
 Q. What other instances of attempts to bring Clergy- 
 men of the Church under Lay jurisdiction ? 
 
 A. In Maryland, by one of the Parishes, on appeal to 
 the Governor in a. d. 1704. Again: In Maryland, by 
 Beardsley introducing a BiU to establish a Court of Lay- 
 men for the trial of Clergymen. 
 
 Q. What course was pursued in conformity with Ec- 
 clesiastical Law? 
 
 A. The Governor sent three Clergymen into the Parish 
 as a Commission of Inquiry, to obtain facts' "to lay before 
 the Bishop" and thus conformed to the Law and usage of 
 the Church of England. 
 
 Q. What Ecclesiastical Law of England ruled the case? 
 
 A. By Canons 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, the Church- 
 warden, the Church-warden with the Minister, or the 
 
8 MANUAI, COMMENTARY. 
 
 minister alone, present to the Bishop charges against both 
 Ministers and Laymen. 
 
 Q. What Acts farther confirmed the exclusive jurisdic- 
 tion of the Bishop of London ? 
 
 A. The attempt to procure an Act from the Assembly 
 of Maryland, recognizing the authority of the Bishop of 
 London, sought for by the Governor : but opposed by the 
 Bishop and by the Commissary, the Rev. Mr. Henderson, 
 as unnecessary, because the Bishop possessed the authority 
 already, by Divine right, and by the Law of England. 
 Hoff. L. C. 28, 29 ; Hawks' Contributions, vol. ii. p. 139. 
 
 Q. What was the effect, finally, of these struggles ? 
 
 A. The general acquiescence in the Ecclesiastical Law 
 of England in the premises, and the facilitating of the 
 exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bishop of Lon- 
 don. 
 
 Q. What do these Acts of the Colonies demonstrate in 
 a general way? 
 
 A. The Identity of the Colonial Church and the Church 
 of JEngland. 
 
 Q. What custom of the Clergy, in Connecticut specially, 
 exhibits the Identity of the Church of England and the 
 Church in the Colonies? 
 
 A. (1) The Custom of the Clergy in Connecticut to 
 meet in Convention, and to transact such busi- 
 ness as lay in their power. 
 
 (2) The style of their address, "We, the Clergy of 
 
 the Church of England, in voluntary Conven- 
 tion, assembled. May 28, a. d. 1776, Walling- 
 ford." 
 
 (3) In the recognition of the Bishop of London as 
 
 their Diocesan, to ordain to Holy Orders 
 Abraham Beach, J. Nichols, and others ; and 
 in acquainting the Bishop of London with the 
 conduct and condition of the Churches : this 
 recognition running through several years, 
 A. D. 1774-1781. 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHUECH. 9 
 
 Q. In what particulars do these historical facts indicate 
 the Identity of the Church of England and the Episcopal 
 Church in the Colonies ? 
 
 A. Their essential Identity, in the pervading spirit of 
 the Ecclesiastical Law, and in the Faith, the Doctrine, and 
 the Discipline of the Church of England, avowed and 
 practiced in the Church of the Colonies. 
 
 Q. Was the Ecclesiastical Law of England in any way 
 modified? 
 
 A. Yes ; by the Colonial usages and jurisprudence, as 
 the offspring of their necessities and position among Dis- 
 senters. 
 
 Q. How did this Common Law of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church iu the United States develop itself ? 
 
 A. By pecidiar Usages and Statutes in the Colonies, 
 and by the Independence of the United States. 
 
 Q. Was there any violent disruption at the Revolution, 
 between the Church of England and the Episcopal Church 
 in the United States? 
 
 A. No ; " The daughter glided from the mother's side, 
 by the allotment of Divine Providence, but maintained her 
 spiritual union of Faith, of Worship, and of Discipline." 
 
 IDENTITY OF THE CHUECH OK ENGLAND IN THE UNITED 
 STATES. 
 
 Q. What were some of the Acts of the- Church j^^f^ „f ^^ 
 in the several States evincing its Identity with ^'***'' 
 the Church of England? 
 
 Virginia. 
 
 A. (1) The Convention of Virginia, on July 5, a. d. 
 1776, altered the Book of Common Prayer to accommo- 
 date it to the change of poHtical relations with England. 
 Hoff. L. C. pp. 31, 32. 
 
 (2) The Act of the Assembly of Virginia in a. d. 1784 
 required Vestrymen to subscribe a Declaration of Conform- 
 ity to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church. 
 
10 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 (3) The Assembly of a. d. 1785 ordered that the Lit- 
 urgy of the Church of England should be used with such 
 alterations ordy as the American Revolution had rendered 
 necessary. 
 
 (4)' The Convention of Virginia, A. d. 1790, Resolved, 
 that the Glebes and other property held by the Church 
 of England, in Virginia, at the commencement of the 
 Revolution, were exclusively owned by the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in Virginia. This heritage of succession 
 was confirmed to the Protestant Episcopal Church, in a. d. 
 1799, by the opinions of Bushrod Washington, Edmund 
 Randolph, and others. Hoff. L. C. pp. 31, 32. Hawks' 
 Contrib. vol. i. p. 209. 
 
 Maryland. 
 
 (1) The civil authority of Maryland, in a. d. 1775, pre- 
 scribed the form of pi"ayer for the new Government, and 
 required an oath of the clergy to support it. 
 
 (2) The Church of Maryland, in A. d. 1783, declared 
 her '•'■right to preserve and complete herself as an entire 
 Church, agreeably to her ancient usages and professions ;" 
 and that she "possessed the Spiritual powers essential to 
 the being of a Church, independent of foreign jurisdiction, 
 so far as consistent with the civil rights of society." 
 Hoff. L. C. p. 32. Hawks' Contrib. vol. ii. p. 830. 
 
 (3) That the Glebe and other property of the Church 
 of England had passed to the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in Maryland. 
 
 (4) That it would be the duty of the Church, when 
 duly organized in a Synod of the different orders of her 
 ministers and people, to revise , the Liturgy, etc., in order 
 to adapt it to the local circumstances of America, without 
 any other departure from the Church of England than may 
 be found expedient in the change of a daughter to a sister 
 Church. Hoff. L. C. p. 32. 
 
 (4) The Vestry Act of the State of Maryland was 
 adopted by the Church as part of its organization, and 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHTJECH. H 
 
 contains the clause expressly recognizing the Church of 
 England as having been the same as the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church of Maryland. See Compilation of Constitu- 
 tion, Bait. 1849, p. 275. Hawks' Contrib. vol. iv. p. 330. 
 
 South Carolina. 
 
 The Constitution of South Carolina, May 31, a. d. 1786, 
 declared that the Doctrines of the Gospel be maintained in 
 conformity, as near as may be, to the Liturgy of the 
 Church of England. Dalcho's History, p. 474. 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 In the fundamental Articles adopted by Pennsylvania, 
 May, A. D. 1784, one of them was that, " the Liturgy of 
 the Church of England should be the Liturgy of the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church as far as shall be consistent with 
 the American Revolution and the Constitution of the sev- 
 eral States.' Mem. of Ch. p. 73. 
 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 Massachusetts declared certain articles in language al- 
 most identical with that of Pennsylvania. Ibid. p. 69. 
 
 New Jeksey. 
 
 New Jersey set forth rules and regulations, May, a. d. 
 1786. The 9th Rule required from every clergyman that 
 he engage to conform to the discipline, doctrines, and 
 worship of the Church, as contained in the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer of the Church of England, " except the polit- 
 ical alterations in the mode of worship made therein by 
 the Convention held in Philadelphia, from the 27th Sep- 
 tember to the 7th October, a. d. 1785." Hoff. L. C. pp. 
 33, 34. 
 
 This Convention, after debate (a. d. 1786), memorialized 
 the General Convention to " remove every cause that may 
 have excited any jealousy or fear that the Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America has any inten- 
 tion or desire, essentially to depart, either in doctrine or 
 discipline, from the Church of England ; but, on the con- 
 trary, to convince the world that it is theil- wish and inten- 
 
12 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 tion to maintain the doctrines of the Gospel as now held 
 by the Church of England, and to adhere to the Liturgy 
 of the said Church, as far as shall be consistent with the 
 American Revolution and the Constitutions of the several 
 States." Proceedings of the Convention of N. J., Trenton, 
 A. D. 1787. 
 
 In the same memorial is this passage : " We are very 
 apprehensive, that, until alterations can be made consistent 
 with the customs of the Primitive Church, and with the 
 rules of the Church of Mngland, from which it is our boast 
 to have descended, a ratification of them would create 
 great uneasiness." Mem. of Ch. p 299. 
 
 New Yoek. 
 
 In New York the Convention, in a. d. 1790, " Re- 
 solved, . That the Articles of the Church of England, as 
 they now stand, except such part thereof as affect the 
 pohtical government of this country, be held in ftdl force 
 and virtue until a farther provision is made by the General 
 Convention." Journals, a. d. 1790, p. 39. In a. d. 1801 the 
 Church in New York instructed the Deputies to advocate 
 the Resolution of a. d. 1790, in the General Convention. 
 Journal N. Y. Convention, a. d. 1801. Hoff. L. C. p. 34. 
 
 Connecticut. 
 
 A letter of Doctor (afterwards Bishop) Jarvis, dated 
 May, a. d. 1786, expresses the views of the clergy of Con- 
 necticut, that, "In the planting and growth of the Church 
 in America, the Church of England was perpetuated and 
 enlarged. That our Church was, in her original, a part, 
 and is, in her formation, the image of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and that it was expedient to declare so authorita- 
 tively." Hoff. L. C. p. 35. 
 
 Acts of the ^" What were the Acts of the Protestant 
 E^s'^o^aS* Episcopal Church in General Convention? 
 GeneSicSn- ^- (1) The Bishops, the Clergy, and the 
 Tention. L^ity in General Convention, a. d. 1789 (16th 
 October), set forth "<Ae Booh of Common Prayer, Admirir 
 
COMMON LAW OP THE CHURCH. 13 
 
 istration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Cere- 
 monies" declaring it to be the Liturgy of this Church, to 
 be in use on and after the 1st day of October, a. d. 1790. 
 
 (2) In A. D. 1801 the General Convention established 
 the Articles of Religion, " agreeing, as far as possible, 
 with those of the Church of England." 
 
 (3) In A. D. 1814 the House of Bishops and the House 
 of Clerical and Lay Deputies united in this Declaration : 
 " It having been credibly stated to the House of Bishops 
 that on a question 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 apphed ; the 
 House thinks it expedient to make these declarations, and 
 to request the concurrence of the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies therein, namely: That the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the United States of America is the same 
 body heretofore hnown in these States ly the name of the 
 Church of England, — the change of name, although not of 
 religious principle in doctrine, or in worship, or in disci- 
 pline, being induced by a characteristic of the Church of 
 England, supposing the independence of the Christian 
 Churches under the different sovereignties, to which re- 
 spectively their allegiance, in civU concerns, belongs." 
 HofF. L. C. pp. 35, 36. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1814. 
 
 Q. What are the Acts of the Protestant Acquiescence 
 Episcopal Church in General Convention, with churoii. 
 the acquiescence of the whole Church ? 
 
 A. The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer ex- 
 presses the voice of the Supreme Legislature and of the 
 Church at large, from a. d. 1789 to this day, in this pas- 
 sage : " It seems unnecessary to enumerate aU the different 
 alterations and amendments. They will appear, and it is 
 to be hoped the reason of them also, upon a comparison of 
 this with the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of 
 
14 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 England. In it will also appear, that this Church is far 
 from intending to depart from the Church of England in 
 any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship, or 
 further than local circumstances require." 
 
 Q. What do these acts prove beyond contradiction? 
 
 A. The Identity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 the United States and the Church of England. 
 
 Q. What is the summary of the proofs that the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church in the United States is Identical 
 with the Church of England : and as such, is a living and 
 independent branch of the Church Catholic, and subject to 
 the CathoHc Law of the Church and to the Ecclesiastical 
 Law of England, so far as those laws are appHcable, and 
 not superseded by Special Canon Law of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States ? 
 
 A. (1) The decided voice of the Church, separately ex- 
 pressed by the Churches in the Colonies and in the States ; 
 and (2) uttered by the representative body of the whole 
 Union in General Convention ; and (3) by official action ; 
 and (4) especially, by the adoption of the " Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and 
 other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, declaring it to 
 he the lAturgy of the Church, and requiring that it he re- 
 ceived as such hy all the memhers of the same;" and (5) by 
 the establishment of the " Articles of Religion ; " depart- 
 ing from the Church of England in not any essential point 
 of doctrine, discipline, or worship, or further than local 
 circumstances require ; and (6) by the unbroken acquies- 
 cence and consent of the whole people ; and (7). by the 
 decisions of Secular Courts of Law, vesting the rights to 
 property held by the Church of England in the Colonies, 
 in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. 
 
 Q. In what does the Identity of the Church of Eng- 
 land with the Protestant Episcopal Church consist? 
 
 A. (1) In that the Liturgy of the Church of England 
 was substantially retained. 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHTIBCH. 15 
 
 (2) In that the Articles were established with some ap- 
 propriate variations. 
 
 (3) In that the Faith was adhered to, whole and un- 
 defiled. 
 
 (4) In that the Sacraments were duly preserved and 
 administered. 
 
 (5) In that the ApostoHc Episcopal regimen was trans- 
 mitted and received. 
 
 (6) In that the discipline of the Church of England — 
 including Laws and Canons for rule and government — 
 as far (and in every particular as far) as it was not neces- 
 sarily, or by express enactment, changed, was continued 
 and perpetuated. HofF. L. C. p. 38. 
 
 Q. What opposing view of the relation of the Church 
 of England with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States has been entertained and debated ? 
 
 A. " That the Protestant Episcopal Church possesses no 
 Institutions until made for her specially;" or in other 
 words, that "we are no further bound, by either the 
 Catholic or English Canons, when confessedly appHcable, 
 than as we distinctly and by legislation recognize them." 
 Hoff. L. C. p. 37, note. Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, Ap- 
 pendix, p. 348. Pub. Alum. Assoc, p. 69. 
 
 Q. What distinguished body set forth this opponent 
 view ? 
 
 A. The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in a. d. 1789. 
 
 Q. Where will you find a fuU account of those discus- 
 sions ? 
 
 A. In Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church, p. 175, 
 et geq. 
 
 Q. What does Bishop White say of these opponent 
 opinions expressed in the lower House in a. d. 1789 ? 
 
 A. He says, " If the matter had been so understood at 
 the close of the Revolutionary War, and there had been 
 among us such spirits as I can now designate, it would 
 have torn us to pieces." Appendix to Wilson's Mem. 
 Bp. White, p. 348. Hoff. L. C. p. 37. 
 
16 MANUAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 Q. Did the opinion of the House of Clerical and Lay- 
 Deputies of A. D. 1789 prevail ? 
 
 A. No. It was opposed to that of the House of Bishops 
 in that General Convention, and to that of both Houses in 
 the previous and subsequent Conventions : and being con- 
 fined to the one Ijouse, and not, at any time, pursued after- 
 wards, it may not be considered as having prevailed in the 
 Church. 
 
 Q. What would such opinions, if prevailing, reduce the 
 Church to? 
 
 A. They would have reduced the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States to the level of one of the 
 sects of Christianity. 
 
 Q. What just dignity do the prevailing sentiments of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, in regard to her continuous 
 relations with the Mother or Sister Church of England 
 exhibit? 
 
 A. They illustrate her dignity as a component part of the 
 One, Holy, Cathohc, and Apostolic Church, inheriting the 
 promises of her Lord to the organic Body and amenable to 
 the unrevoked and applicable Laws of the whole Church. 
 Q. State some of the Dicta of received and learned com- 
 mentators on the question. 
 
 A. (1) Bishop White. " In all other respects, except 
 in prayers for Civil Rulers (a duty bound on us by a 
 higher authority than that of the Church), I hold the 
 former ecclesiastical system (of the Church of England) 
 to be binding." Appendix to Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, 
 p. 347. "The Episcopal Church in the United States 
 of America is precisely in succession, the body formerly 
 known as the Church of England in "America." Bp. 
 White, Ar. & Calv. Cont. vol. ii. p. 191. 
 
 (2) Dr. Hawks. "The opinions which were enter- 
 tained in the mother country, and the decisions which had 
 been made on matters of Ecclesiastical Law, or usage, up 
 to the severance of these Colonies by the Revolution, were, 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 17 
 
 as far as applicatle, held to be the guide of the Church of 
 England here ; and although the independence of the 
 United States dissolved the connection, it evidently did 
 not destroy the prevailing opinions among Churchmen as 
 to matters and usages touching the Church. To the 
 Common and Canon Law of England we must therefore 
 look, if we would fully understand the origin of much of 
 the Law of our own Church." Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 
 265. 
 
 (3) Hoffman on the Law of the Churph. Introduction, 
 and throughout. 
 
 (4) Bishop Odenheimer. Quotes Bishop White from 
 the " Church Register," January, 1826, on " Primitive 
 Facts." " In the Church of England it is provided that 
 nothing shall be adjudged heresy, besides what has been 
 pronounced such by some one of the first four General 
 Councils ; and although this rests on the authority of an 
 Act of Parliament, which is of no force in the Church of 
 the United States, it is historic evidence of the sense of 
 the Church of England, and of course ours, which has 
 inherited from her all the principles of our ecclesiastical 
 system. In that point of view it remains in proof of the 
 respect for the sense of the early ages of the Church which 
 has descended to us." 
 
 Again, in his work on " the Ordination Office," Bishop 
 White says: "He considers all ecclesiastical institutions 
 which existed before the American Revolution as continu- 
 ing after it, until altered by competent authority." " From 
 a consideration, therefore, of the principle on which our 
 Church assumed her present independent position," Bishop 
 Odenheimer says, " it appears to me a true view to main- 
 tain otir right to the Ante-Revolution Canon Law of the 
 English Church, in all points applicable, and where it has 
 not been distinctly rejected or provided for by our own 
 Canonical Legislation." See Odenheimer's Essay, Pub. 
 Alum. Assoc. 1847, pp. 58, 59. 
 
18 MAJSrCAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Q. What is the relation of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Amenability Church to the General- Canon Law ? 
 estont Epis- A. Whatever Canon Law was received by the 
 
 copal Churcli i/i-r-»in i -ip 
 
 to the Gen- Church 01 England up to the period oi our sep- 
 
 eral Canon . i i . ^^ . 
 
 Law of the aratc organization belongs to us, m all points ap- 
 
 Catholic ° n • ^ 
 
 Code. plicable, as matter of right. 
 
 In the first place, as claiming to be a branch of the 
 Catholic Church, we possess as part of our Canon Law, 
 the Catholic Code. 
 
 In addition, I would say, that as originally a portion of 
 the English Church under the jurisdiction of the Bishop 
 of London, we possess as our birthright the Catholic Code, 
 as part of English Ecclesiastical Law. The Catholic 
 Canon Law, in all points applicable, belongs to us, until 
 we expressly disclaim its possession. This disclaimer has 
 not been made and can never be made with safety to our 
 claim to be a branch of the Church Universal. For, in the 
 language of Bishop Beveridge (Cone, ad Synod, a. d. 1689), 
 " Illud abrogare, aut rejicere, quod semper et ubique ob- 
 servatum fiiit, non est Ecclesiasticum tantum ritum, sed 
 ipsam ecclesiam mutare, et diversam efficere ab omnibus 
 aliis Dei ecclesiis." Odenheimer's Essay, Pub. Alum. 
 Assoc. 1847, p. 55. 
 
 Q. What do the Homilies teach on this question ? 
 
 A. Constant references are made in the HomiHes to 
 " the usages of the Primitive Church," and " the sentences 
 and judgments of the most ancient, learned, and godly 
 Doctors of the Church." See, also, " Judgment of Sir 
 R. Phillemore, D. C. L., in case ot Martin v. Mackonochie, 
 1868. 
 
 Q. Will you mention a recognition of the "Ancient 
 Canons " as being cognate with Holy Scripture and as au- 
 thority in this Church. 
 
 A. At the consecration of a Bishop, the Presiding 
 Bishop, sitting in his chair, shall say to him that is to be 
 consecrated, " Brother, forasmuch as the Holy Scripture 
 and the Ancient Canons command," etc. 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHXTRCH. 19 
 
 Q. Do these Ancient Canons form part of the Catholic 
 Code? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What practice of this Church in the consecration of 
 Bishops follows the injunctions of the Catholic Code ? 
 
 A. The practice of requiring three Bishops to consecrate 
 a Bishop according to Apostolic Canons. 
 
 Q. Recite the first of the Apostolic Canons. 
 
 A. Canon I. Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three 
 Bishops. 
 
 Q. What practice of this Church, in other ordinations, 
 is enjoined by Canon in conformity with the Catholic 
 Code? 
 
 A. Section VI. of Canon 4 of Title I. General Canons, 
 declares, That " agreeably to the practice of the Primitive 
 Church, the stated times of ordination shall be on the Sun- 
 days following the Ember weeks," etc. 
 
 Q. Where is this practice of Ember weeks enjoined in 
 the Primitive Church ? 
 
 A. Gelasius' Decrees (2), 5th century, a. d. 492. But 
 upon urgent occasions Bishops may be authorized to give 
 Holy Orders, extra tempora prescripta. Gibson's Codex, 
 p. 160. 
 
 Q. Does our Church, in recognizing Ancient Law and 
 the Ecclesiastical Law of England, follow the example of 
 the English Church in yielding obedience to the Catholic 
 Code or Body of the Canon Law, and also to the Foreign 
 Canon Law. 
 
 A. Yes. Bishop Gibson says, "As in all cases where 
 no rule was provided by our Domestic Laws, the Body of 
 the Canon Law was received by the Church for a rule ; so 
 there was no objection against receiving ' foreign or Ante- 
 Reformation Canon Law ' in any instance whatever, unless 
 it appeared, in that particular instance, to be foreign to 
 our Constitution or contrary to our Laws." Can. XXXI. 
 Church of England also refers to " Ancient Fathers." 
 
20 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Od. Essay, Pub. Alum. Assoc, p. 56. Gibson's Codex, 
 Introd. Dis. p. 28. Grey's Ec. Law, p. 10. 
 
 Q. What is the Analogy precisely ? 
 
 A. Both Churches are amenable to the Body of the 
 Canon Law when it is not superseded by Domestic Law. 
 As the Ante-Reformation (or Foreign) Law (imposed 
 by Rome) is to the English Church, so is the Enghsh 
 Canon Law to the Church in the United States. In other 
 words, the Catholic Code is absolutely obligatory when no 
 rule is provided : the Foreign Code of laws (e. g. the Eng- 
 lish Ecclesiastical Laws in the United States) is obhgatory 
 with two restraints : (1) that " they are adapted to the Con- 
 stitution of this Church, and so are proper; (2) and not 
 contradicted by the Laws of the land and of this Church, 
 and so are legal rules." 25 Hen. VII. c. 21, 1. Gibson's 
 Codex, Introd. Dis. pp. 27, 28. 
 
 Q. Is every member of the Church bound to obey the 
 Canons of the Catholic Code, and of the English Church, 
 with the restraints abovenamed ? 
 
 A. Yes ; on " the footing of consent, usage, and custom 
 in this Church," or Jus non Scriptum Ecchsiastiewm. Gib- 
 son's Codex, Introd. Dis. 28. Grey's Eccl. Law, pp. 9, 10. 
 
 Q. May any member of the Church, on his own mo- 
 tion, decide what is the Common Law or custom of the 
 Church ? 
 
 A. No. He must first have the express warrant of 
 ecclesiastical authority for the introduction of ceremonies 
 or novel practices in this Church. 
 
 Q. Quote authority for the restraint on private action. 
 
 A. Preface to Prayer Book of Church of England, on 
 " Rites and Ceremonies." " No man ought to take in hand, 
 nor presume to appoint or alter any publick or common 
 order in Christ's Church, except he be lawfully called and 
 authorized thereunto." 
 
 Q. Who or what are the authorities that may decide on 
 the Law of the Church in England, and of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States ? 
 
COMMON LAW OP THE CHURCH. 21 
 
 A. (1) The Law of the Church of England is deter- 
 mined by the Convocation, by Parliament, by accepted 
 commentators, as expounded in her Ecclesiastical Courts. 
 They are the witnesses to the members of that Church of 
 what is CathoUc and Canon Law. 
 
 (2) The law of the Protestant Episcopal Church is de- 
 termined by the Constitution and Canons of the General 
 Convention; and of the several Dioceses; and of the 
 Rubrics ; and by the Articles of Rehgion ; and by the 
 Civil Laws of the State in the premises, as expounded 
 by the Courts, ecclesiastical and secular, in their respective 
 spheres. 
 
 (3) There is likewise the Law of " consent, usage, and 
 custom" in this Church ; which, together with the decisions 
 of the English ecclesiastical tribunals, respecting the inter- 
 pretation of Rubrics and rules common to both Churches, 
 is the Jus non Scriptum Eeelesiasticum, or Common Law 
 of this Church. Hoff. L. C. p. 44. 
 
 (4) The Laws Catholic, to which all separate or national 
 Churches are bound to conform. 
 
 Q. What other restraint on individual and private judg- 
 ment, in respect of doctrine or practice in the Church, 
 may you name ? 
 
 A. (1) The restraint on Laymen to " do nothing with- 
 out the Bishop," according to St. Ignatius' maxim ; nor 
 without the advice and consent of the Priest and Pastor 
 under whose guidance the Layman has voluntarily sub- 
 mitted himself. 
 
 (2) The restraint on Deacons, as being specially under 
 the advice and control of the Bishop. 
 
 (3) The restraint on Priests as well as Deacons, in their 
 ordination vow, to " reverently obey their Bishop and 
 other chief ministers, who, according to the Canons of the 
 Church, may have charge and government over them ; 
 following with their glad mind and will their godly admo- 
 nitions, and submitting themselves to their godly judg- 
 
22 MANUAL COMMENTART. 
 
 ments." And furthermore, the vow of the Priest to 
 " maintain and set forward as much as heth in him, quiet- 
 ness, peace, and love, among all Chinstian people, and 
 especially among them that are committed to his charge." 
 
 (4) The restraint on the Bishop to set forward charity 
 and peace (the same as that of the Priest), together with 
 his vow to " diligently exercise such discipline as by the 
 authority of God's word and by the order of this Church is 
 committed to him." 
 
 Q. Will you illustrate by some examples of the just re- 
 straint on private judgment and action in respect of doc- 
 trine and practice ? 
 
 A. (1) Lay Baptism. No one should enforce and put 
 in practice his private views of the invalidity of Lay Bap- 
 tism ; 
 
 (2) Nor of the propriety or impropriety of the use of 
 the Surplice or Gown in preaching ; 
 
 (3) Nor of the Choral Service ; 
 
 (4) Nor of Processional and Recessional Hymns ; 
 
 (5) Nor of wearing the Alb and Chasuble in consecrat- 
 ing the Holy Communion ; 
 
 (6) And such like doctrines and practices. These 
 should not be enforced nor insisted on by private will and 
 judgment to the peril of peace and quietness ; nor against 
 the decision of the Ecclesiastical Authority ; 
 
 (7) Nor should they be objected to by private will and 
 judgment, if not forbidden by Ecclesiastical Authority. 
 
 Q. What further statement, in the Preface to the Book 
 of Common Prayer, confirms the declaration "that this 
 Church was far from, intending to depart from the Church 
 of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or 
 worship, or farther than local circumstances require ? " 
 
 A. The statement that "in every Church, whatever 
 cannot be clearly determined to belong to doctrine must 
 be referred to discipline." Preface to Book of Common 
 Prayer. Oct. 16, a. d. 1789. 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 23 
 
 Q, What is the sense of the terai " discipHne " in Eccle- 
 siastical writings ? 
 
 A. Twofold. (1) The administering of punishment 
 for offenses. (2) The regulation and government of the 
 Church. 
 
 Q. In which sense is the word " discipline " here used ? 
 
 A. In the sense of the order and law of the Church for 
 its proper government. 
 
 Q. "Will you give examples of this use of the word ? 
 
 A. In the Preface to the English Book of Common 
 Prayer (2d and 5th Edw. VI.) it is said, " of Ceremonies, 
 why some be abolished and some retained," "Although 
 the keeping or omitting of a ceremony, in. itself considered, 
 is but a small thing, yet the willful and contemptuous 
 transgression of a common order and discipline is no 
 small offense before God." Again, it speaks of "those 
 ceremonies which do serve to a decent and godly dis- 
 cipline." So likewise. Hooker says, "As we are to 
 believe forever the articles of evangelical doctrine, so the 
 precepts and discipline, we are in like sort bound forever 
 to observe." 
 
 Q. What is the argument, hence derived, that our 
 Church retained the same Ecclesiastical Laws after the 
 Revolution which it possessed before the Revolution, fur- 
 ther than local circumstances required ? 
 
 A. The body of English Ecclesiastical Law was an un- 
 doubted part of the '■^discipline" of the English Church; 
 this Church retains the "discipline" of the Church of 
 England ; and therefore the English Ecclesiastical Law is 
 affirmed to be the law of this Church, so long as it is 
 appHcable and unrevoked. Hoff. L. C. pp. 38-41. 
 
 PERIODS OF CANON LAW. 
 
 Q. How many periods are there of the Canon Law of 
 the Church of England ? 
 
 A. Four. The British, the Anglican, the Norman, and 
 the Reformation periods. 
 
24 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Q. What are their respective dates ? 
 
 A. (1) The British period, from the Apostles' time to 
 the arrival of the Monk Augustine, a. d'. 596. Wilkins' 
 Concilia Magnse Britani^ et Hibernise. Councils of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, by Haddan and Stubbs, Ox- 
 ford, 1869, contains Records from a. d. 200. 
 
 (2) The Anglican period, from A. D. 596 to a. d. 1066, 
 the coming of William the Conqueror. 
 
 (3) The Norman period, from A. D. 1066 to the Refor- 
 mation, A. D. 1534. 
 
 (4) From the Reformation to this time. 
 
 British Q- What was the origin of the Laws of the 
 
 Period. British Church ? 
 
 A. They are derived from primitive and Apostolic times 
 with the Episcopal regimen and authority. Augustine 
 found the British Church in the use of the Liturgy of 
 Gaul derived from the East. 
 
 Q. What are the earliest records of the Church in Great 
 Britain ? 
 
 A. The earliest record of Christians in Britain, A. D. 208, 
 Tertullian Adv. Jud. VII. Origen, A. D. 239, Homily IV. 
 and VI. Sozomen, A. D. 300, Hist. Ec. 1, 6. Eusebius 
 A. D. 337, 340, Vit. Constantine II. 28. Hilary, et. al. 
 St. Alban, Martyr, Diocletian Persecution, a. d. 304. 
 British Bishops at Council of Aries, a. d. 314. British 
 Bishops, A. D. 325, assent to Council of Nice respecting 
 Arianism and Easter. British Bishops at Council of Sar- 
 dica, A. D. 350, and at the Council of Ariminium, a. d. 
 359. See documents in Haddan and Stubbs, Ox. 1869. 
 
 Q. How were the Ancient Laws of the British Church 
 to be changed ? 
 
 A. Ecclesiastical Laws could not be changed except by 
 a National Synod, consisting of "Bishops and other learned 
 men of the clergy." Hoff. L. C. p. 48. Dawson's Or. 
 Leg. bk. vi. cap. 4. 
 
 Anglican Q- What werc the sources of Ecclesiastical 
 
 Period. IjBiw mt\ie Anglican Period f 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 26 
 
 A. (1) The Laws under the Saxon Kings ; those on 
 spu'itual subjects styled " Monumenta Ecdedastioa " touch- 
 ing the Chui'ch and Clergy, and known as " Institutions." 
 
 (2) Those styled " Laws," which touched the Laity in 
 both temporal and spiritual matters. 
 
 Q. How were tliese " Laws " which aflFected the Laity 
 and Clergy made ? 
 
 A. In the Great Saxon Council or Witenagemote of the 
 Realm, at which there was a representation of the Laity. 
 
 Q. How were tlie " Institutions " or Monumenta Eccle- 
 siastica enacted ? 
 
 A. The Clergy of tlae Witenagemote departed into a 
 separate Synod and made their Canons ; they brought their 
 Canons from the Synod to tlie Witenagemote, " to be rati- 
 fied by the King with the advice of his great men, and so 
 made the Constitutions of the Church to be laws of the 
 Realm." " The Norman revolution made no change in tliis 
 respect." Kenneth's Ec. Syn. p. 249. HofF. L. C. p. 52. 
 
 Q. What do you learn from these Laws and Institu- 
 tions respecting the British and Anglican Church ? 
 
 A. That the Councils of Clergy were sufficient for the 
 Government of the Clergy, and that where the Laity were 
 concerned in Spiritual matters, the laws of the Church 
 must have been passed or ratified by the Witan, in which 
 a representation of the Laity existed. Hoff. L. C. p. 52. 
 
 Q. Give me an example of the force of this Ancient 
 Law in modern times ? 
 
 A. In a question of marriage in the case of " Queen v. 
 Mills," in 1864, the decision was grounded on one of the 
 Laws of King Edmund (a. d. 950), that the presence of 
 the Pi-iest at the nuptials was necessary, who should, with 
 God's blessing, " bind the union to all prosperity." Hoff. 
 L. C. p. 50. 
 
 Q. Were these Synods or Gemotes (as they were called) 
 frequently held by the Bishops and Clergy ? 
 
 A. Yes. Records exist, in Bede and others, of five 
 Chm-ch Gemotes, a. d. 673 to 794. 
 
26 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Q. What are the sources of Common Law in England 
 Norman i" t^e third, or Norman Period, — middle of the 
 Period. Eleventh Gentury to Reformation ? 
 
 A. " The legislation of the Church, after the Conquest 
 to the Reformation (exclusive of the acts of Parliament) 
 is contained in the Legatine and Provincial Constitutions." 
 HofF. L. C. p. 53. 
 
 Q. What are the Legatine Constitutions ? 
 
 A. They are the Constitutions of Otho, the Special Le- 
 gate of Pope Gregory IX. A. D. 1236, and of Othobon, 
 Special Legate of Pope Clement a. d. 1268, in the reign 
 of Henry HI. They were made in Synods in London, 
 wherein sat the Archbishops of both Provinces, Canter- 
 bury and York, and other dignitaries, who duly represented 
 the whole realm, and therefore were express National Ec- 
 clesiastical Laws. Johnson's Eng. Can. vol. ii. pp. 150, 
 211. Grey's Ec. Law, Intro, p. 8. Gibson's Codex, 
 Pref. 12. 
 
 Q. What are the Provincial Constitutions ? 
 
 A. Such as were published from time to time by several 
 Archbishops of Canterbury from Stephen Langton, A. D. 
 1206, in the time of King John, to Henry Chicheley a. d. 
 1414, in the time of Henry V., being 225 Constitutions of 
 14 Archbishops. The Province of York received these 
 Constitutions by consent and use. Gibson's Codex, Pref. 
 p. 10. 
 
 Q. What are the Legatine and Provincial Constitutions 
 styled ? 
 
 A. The " Common Law of the Church of England" 
 Gibson's Codex, Introd. p. 27. Grey's Ec. Law, p. 8. 
 
 Q. Where may best be learned this Common Law ? 
 
 A. (1) In the Commentaries of John of Athon, on the 
 Legatine Constitutions ; and in the Commentaries of Lynd- 
 wood on the Provincial Constitutions, reigns of Henry V. 
 and Henry VI. a. d. 1380-1446. 
 
 (2) The Courts of Civil and Canon Law in England 
 
COMMON LAW OV THE CHURCH. 27 
 
 regard these Commentaries as "the witnesses of the practice 
 of the Church of England in their respective ages ; which 
 practice having continued, in very many cases, down to 
 the present age upon their evidencfe and authority, their 
 rules are become for the most part, and in effect, the 
 Common Law of the Church." Gibson's Codex, Pref. 12. 
 Grey's Ec. Law, Int. p. 8. 
 
 Q. What higher recognition of these laws and rules now 
 prevails ? 
 
 A. The Statute of Parliament, 21st chap, of Henry 
 VIII., declares that the people of the realm had bound 
 themselves to them by long use, not as the laws of any for- 
 eign prince or prelate, but as customs established as laws 
 of the realm bv said sufferance, consent, and custom. 
 Hoff. L. C. p. 60. 
 
 Q. How is the English Canon Law divided ? 
 
 A. Into Foreign and Domestic. Gibson's Codex, Pref. 8. 
 
 Q. What is the Foreign Canon Law ? 
 
 (1) The Apostolical Canons, or the Code of the Primi- 
 tive Church. It embraces the Canons of Bishops and 
 Synods of the 1st and 2d centuries, being 85 in number, 
 and collected into one body, a. d. 200. See Cotelerius 
 Pat. Apostol. C. 16, 17. Beveridge " Synodicon et 
 Cod. Canon Ec. Prim, vindicatus et illustratus." 
 
 (2) Canons of the Catholic Church; containing 207 
 Canons, Ariz : 20 Canons of Nice ; 25 of Ancyra ; 14 of 
 Neo-Csesarea ; 20 of Gangra ; 25 of Antioch ; 59 of 
 Laodicea ; 7 of Constantinople ; 8 of Ephesus ; 29 of Chal- 
 cedon. 
 
 (3) The Code of the African Church, 138 in number. 
 
 (4) The Collection of Johannes Scholasticus, Patriarch 
 of Constantinople, embracing all Canons then in force 
 (a. d. 560), and numbering 377. 
 
 (5) The Code of the Latin Church, collected by Dyoni- 
 sius Exiguus (a. d. 530), embracing 402 Canons; and 
 also decrees of eight Popes, from Pope Siricius to Anas- 
 
28 MAIJUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 tasius, under whom Exiguus flourished: to which other 
 hands have added the decrees of six Popes, from Hilary to 
 Gregory I. 
 
 (6) The Code of the Oriental Church, settled in the 
 Synod of Trullo, a. d. 683, and containing 724 Canons. 
 
 (7) The Code of Fhotius, Patriarch of Constantinople 
 (a. d. 880). This code contained all the Laws and 
 Canons of the Catholic Church for 800 years, which were 
 then ui use and authority, numbering 659 Canons.^ 
 
 (8) The Code of the new Canon Law of the Latin 
 Church, consisting of spurious decrees and Papal decisions 
 and orders, invented and published, A. D. 785, by Isidore 
 Mercator (or Peccator) under Pope Adrian, who was 
 "the true Creator of the Modem Papacy" (See "The 
 Papacy," by the Abbe Guettee, Paris; New York, 
 Carleton; London, S. Low, Son & Co., 1867, p. 261, 
 Am. Ed.). These '■^ False Decretals," with other Papal de- 
 cisions, were estabhshed in the Western Church, by Pope 
 Nicholas, a. d. 836. They concentrated all authority at 
 Rome, and are the foundation of the claims of the Papacy. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that these " Decretals " are false? 
 A. (1) Cardinal Bona frankly calls them a "pious 
 fraud." 
 
 (2) Baronius would not use them in his Ecclesiastical 
 Annals, " lest the Roman Church should seem to require 
 suspicious documents to establish her rights." Abbe 
 Guettee, p. 59, et seq. 
 
 (3) Fleuey (Eccles. Hist. xUv. liv;) says, " The sub- 
 ject matter reveals their spuriousness." " They speak 
 of Archbishops, Primates, Patriarchs, as if these titles had 
 existed from the birth of the Church. They forbid the 
 holding any Council, even a provincial one, without per- 
 mission of the Pope, etc. Finally, the principal subject of 
 these Decretals is that of complaints against Bishops," etc. 
 
 i See a Minute Summary of Ecclesiastical Laws in Essay, Pvb. Alum. Assoc. 
 1847, by Bishop Odenheimer. 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 29 
 
 (4) The Abbe Guettee on " The Papacy," has gathered 
 conclusive demonstrations of the Apocryphal character of 
 the "False Decretals." See also " Christendom's Divis- 
 ions," London, 1865, 1867. Ffoulke's " Church's Creed, 
 or the Crown's Creed," New York, Pott & Amery, 1869, 
 " Janus," Boston, Roberts Brothers, 1870. 
 
 Q. Were these False Decretals received in England ? 
 
 A. For a time, and unwillingly, but as " new Law," 
 which crowded out the Ancient Canon Law ; so that " an 
 ingenious author, about the year 1046, in a comparison 
 between the Churches of the East and West, says, ' In 
 the Greek Church are many Canonists, and in the Latin 
 Church are no Canonists, but many Decretalists.' " Daw- 
 son's Or. Leg. bk. i. ch. 15. Hoff. L. C. p. 42. 
 
 Q. How did the Reformers treat this new Law of 
 Rome ? 
 
 A. Cranmer, in the Preface to " Reformatio Legum" 
 denounces the whole of it. Hoff. L. C. p. 42. See Bur- 
 net's Hist. Refor. p. 257. 
 
 Q. What are Domestic Canons in the Church of Eng- 
 land? 
 
 A. Those which have been made from time to time by 
 ecclesiastical authority within the Realm, whether before 
 or since the Reformation. Gibson's Codex, Introd. Dis. p. 
 29. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by Ecclesiastical Authority ? 
 
 A. The Canons and Constitutions made in Provincial 
 Synods. They were confirmed and published, before the 
 Reformation, by the Metropolitan ; after the Reformation, 
 by Royal assent and license (ch. 25, Henry VIH.). The 
 authority of Canons affecting the Laity, after the Refor- 
 mation, are only those which were accepted as ancient 
 usage, or were confirmed by Parliament. Grey's Ec. 
 Law, Int. p. 11, note. I 
 
 Q. What are the sources of EngUsh Ecclesias- Reformation 
 tical Law in the fourth, or Reformation Period ? ^"'°*' 
 
30 MANUAI; COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. The Ecclesiastical " Common Law," the Canons of 
 Convocation confirmed by Royal authority, and the Statute 
 Law of Parliament. 
 
 Q. What Canons have been authorized by Convocation? 
 
 A. Those made in Convocation of the Province of Can- 
 terbury in the first year of James L, which are therefore 
 distinguished as the Canons of a. d. 1603, though they are 
 taken from Canons and Constitutions made in the reign of 
 Queen Elizabeth. They were chiefly reenacted, because 
 the act of Elizabeth establishing them did not contain the 
 clause continuing them after the Queen's death ; these 
 were also received and passed by the Province of York in 
 A. D. 1605. Gibson's Codex, Pref. p. 10. 
 
 Q. What Statute Law is considered as part of the Ec- 
 clesiastical Law of England ? 
 
 A. Statutes made firom time to time to enforce both 
 Common and Canon Law, for the suppression of vice and 
 immorality, and for the protection of the Church. Gib- 
 son's Codex, Int. p. 30. 
 
 Q. Are the Rubrics in the Liturgy a part of the Statute 
 Law? 
 
 A. Yes ; as having been confirmed in Parliament by 
 the Acts of Uniformity. 2d and 3d of Edw. VI. ch. 1. 
 1 Elizabeth, ch. 2. 13 and 14 Car. II. ch. 4. Gib- 
 son's Codex, Int. Dis. Pref. 10. See Judgment of Sir 
 Robert Phillemore, Official Principal of Court of Arches, 
 Martin v. MackonocMe, p. 8, 1868. 
 
 Q. Are the XXXIX. Articles of Religion a part of the 
 Statute Law? 
 
 A. Yes ; though originally made in Convocation, they 
 are required to be subscribed and assented to by an express 
 Act of ParHament, 13 Eliz. ch. 12. These were mostly 
 taken firom a like body of Articles compiled in the reign 
 of Edward VI. Grey's Ec. Law, Intro, p. 13. Gibson's 
 Codex, Intro. Dis. Pref. pp. 10, 11. 
 
 Q. What other sources of Ecclesiastical Law are to be 
 regarded ? 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 31 
 
 A. " The noble Statutes of Henry, Edward, and Eliza- 
 beth ; the injunctions of the two latter in a. d. 1547 and 
 A. D. 1559 ; the Synod of Archbishop Parker, a. d. 1571 ; 
 the Articuli pro Clero of a. d. 1584 ; the Capitula of Lon- 
 don, A. D. 1597, together with the Canons of a. d. 1603, 
 and all previous institutions not superseded." Hoff. L. C. 
 p. 61. Dawson's Or. Leg. bk. vi. eh. 8, p. 157. 
 
 Q. Was this body of English Canon Law the Ecclesias- 
 tical Law of the Church in the Colonies, at the date of the 
 Royal Charters ? 
 
 A. Yes ; if followed by settlement and the establish- 
 ment of a Church and public worship. Hoff. L. C. pp. 
 60, 61, note. 
 
 Q. What is tlie date of the first Church erected on this 
 Continent ? 
 
 A. On the 19th December, A. D. 1606, Rev. Robert Hunt, 
 the first ordained minister of the Church of England, em- 
 barked as a Missionary for the shores of America. In the 
 spring of a. d. 1607 the services of the Church of England 
 were first administered on this Continent at Jamestown, 
 Va. Hawkins' His. Notes, p. 3. Hofi". L. C. p. 61. 
 
 It is claimed that the first services of the Church of Eng- 
 land were in Maine. See His. Soc. Rec. of Maine. The 
 Popham Celebration in Maine annually commemorates the 
 tradition. ' 
 
 Q. Were all the Ecclesiastical Laws, which we have 
 enumerated, in full force in England at the time of the set- 
 tlement of the American Colonies _? 
 
 A. No. Some were modified by the Parliament, such, 
 for instance, as related to Dissenters. Some had grown 
 obsolete ; some incapable of being enforced ; others were 
 superseded by Statute Law. HofF. L. C. p. 61. Cardwell's 
 Synodalia, Pref. p. 24. 
 
 The force of custom and disuse has varied or extin- 
 guished the obligation of certain Canons. Stillingfleet on 
 Rights and Duties, pp. 261, 267. The Bishops and other 
 
32 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 high Spiritual persons, though not competent to annul a 
 Canon formally, instructed and directed the conscience as 
 to the observance of them. HofF. L. C. p. 62. Card. Syn. 
 Pref. p. 24. 
 Colonial Q, What exceptions and modifications in the 
 
 modification ^ r^ t ' i t * 
 
 of English English Canon Law did our Colonial condition 
 
 Common ^ ^ 
 
 i-iw. superinduce ? 
 
 A. The great bulk of the Canons of a. d. 1603 were not 
 binding on the Colonial Church for various reasons. 
 
 (1) The principles of the first twelve remained, but not 
 in the form therein declared. 
 
 (2) The 13th to the 76th inclusive, are either inappli- 
 cable (such as those relating to Colleges) or the subjects 
 of them are provided for and regulated by Canons of our 
 own, with a few exceptions. 
 
 (3) The Canons 77, 78, 79, are wholly inapplicable. 
 
 (4) The 127th to the 141st are local in their nature, 
 and have no bearing here. Hoff. L. C. p. 62. 
 
 Q. "Will you sum up the several ingredients of the Eng- 
 lish Ecclesiastical Law as it obtained when the Church was 
 planted in this country ? 
 
 A. First. The Body of the Foreign Canon Law, de- 
 rived from the Papal domination, was presumptively of no 
 force ; yet those regulations which had been adopted by 
 use, custom, and sufferance, as the " Common Law Eccle- 
 siastical," had force in consequence ; the burden of proof, 
 however, resting on the party affirming. 
 
 The Legatine Constitutions of Otho and Othobon stand 
 on this footing. 
 
 Second. The Provincial Constitutions have the presump- 
 tion of legality and obHgation : requiring the party denying, 
 to show why they should not prevail. 
 
 Third. The decisions of Civil and Ecclesiastical tribu- 
 nals ; the cases and precedents in the Spiritual Courts ; 
 together with the comments and writings of eminent men, 
 are to be named as testimonials and witnesses of the Com- 
 mon Law of the English Church, 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHTTRCH. 33 
 
 Fourth. The Statutes of tlie Realm and the Canons of 
 A.. D. 1603. The Canons of a. d. 1603 being agreed upon 
 ha Convocation, with the Royal License under the great 
 Seal, were binding on the Clergy ; they were binding on 
 the Laity only by long use and acquiescence, or by express 
 recognition of the Civil tribunals. Hoff. L. C. p. 63. 
 
 Q. Did this constitute the Body of the Law of the 
 Chui'ch in the Colonies ? 
 
 A. Yes. Many modifications, however, arose from spe- 
 cific provisions of charters, or particular laws of Colonial 
 assemblies, as weU as from those changes in the situation 
 and usages of the community which rendered some pro- 
 visions incompatible or inapphcable. Hoff". L. C. p. 64. 
 
 Q. What change did the American Revolution bring 
 with it ? 
 
 A. (1) Alterations in the Law and Disciphne MocUfloaaon 
 and Liturgy of the Church, all well defined in CimonLaw 
 
 "•' hj the In- 
 
 one system. dopendonce 
 
 •' of the U. 
 
 (2) The Constitution of the Church at large states. 
 and tlie organization of the several Dioceses, have estab- 
 lished a body of regulations, partly original, partly adapted 
 to our condition. 
 
 (3) These, together with statutes of the Civil authority, 
 cover a very extended field of Ecclesiastical Law in the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
 Q. What Law prevails in cases not provided The com- 
 
 for as above ? the Chmch. 
 
 A. The law of the English Church. By that law such 
 cases are presumptively to be decided ; leaving the party 
 contradicting to show that such law is repugnant to some 
 principle, settled custom, or institution of oui- ovm, secular 
 or ecclesiastical. Hofi". L. C. pp. 63, 64. 
 
 Such is the Common Law of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Chukch in the United States. 
 
34 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 APPENDIX I.— SPIKITUAL COUETS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 In the British and Anglo-Saxon periods, and until the 
 reign of William the Conqueror, the Court for Ecclesi- 
 astical and Temporal matters was the same ; namely, the 
 County Court, where the Bishop and Sheriff, or their rep- 
 resentatives, sat jointly for the administration of justice 5 
 the first, in matters Ecclesiastical, by the Laws of the 
 Church ; the second, in matters Temporal, by the Laws of 
 the State. 
 
 WUliam the Conqueror separated the Ecclesiastical 
 Court from the Temporal Court, by a charter to that 
 effect. 
 
 The Spiritual Courts are enumerated as foUows : — 
 
 1. The Akchdeacon's Court, with jurisdiction in his 
 Archdeaconry. The Judge of this Court is styled " The 
 Official of the Archdeaconry." Appeals lie to the Bishop 
 or Diocesan. 24 Henry VIII. c. 12. 
 
 2. The Consistory Court, which is the Court of the 
 Archbishop or the Bishop in every Diocese, held in their 
 respective Cathedral Churches, for the trial of all Ecclesi- 
 astical causes within the Diocese. The Judge is styled 
 " The Bishop's Chancellor." When appointed by special 
 Commission to hear Causes in remote parts of the Diocese, 
 the Judge is styled " OfficiaKs Foraneus," or " Commis- 
 sary." Appeals lie to " the Court of Arches " and to " the 
 King in Chancery." 
 
 3. The Court of Peculiars of the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury and of York, and of Bishops, Archdeacons, 
 Deans, Deans and Chapter, and Prebendaries, etc. 
 
 These are Courts to determine the privileges of these 
 dignitaries to enjoy a peculiar jurisdiction in certain places, 
 where their seats and possessions are, and whence their 
 endowments are derived. The jurisdiction in the Court 
 OF Peculiars is administered by Commissioners, the chief 
 
APPENDIX TO THE COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCa 35 
 
 of whom is the " Dean of the Arches." The Province 
 of Canterbury possesses more than a hundred " Peculiars " 
 in Seven Dioceses. 
 
 4. The Prerogative Courts of the Archbishops of 
 Canterbury and York. 
 
 In these Courts all Testaments and WiUs are proved, 
 and Administrations on the Estates of Intestates are 
 granted. That of Canterbury is called "Doctors' Com- 
 mons," in London. This Court has been modified by Act 
 of Parliament, a. d. 1858. 
 
 5. The Court or Arches, "Curia de Aroubus," so 
 called because it was anciently held in " Bow Church," or 
 the Arched Church of St. Mary, in Cheapside, London, 
 styled " Ueclesia St. Mdrice de Arcvhus." 
 
 The Court of Arches has jurisdiction upon appeal in all 
 Ecclesiastical Causes, except what belong to the Preroga- 
 tive Court. 
 
 All manner of appeals from any Bishops or their Chan- 
 cellors, Commissaries, etc., are directed here ; as well as 
 all appeals from the Commissaries of the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury. 
 
 The Judge of the Court of Arches is styled, " The 
 Principal Official of the Archiishop" — "Officialis de 
 Arcubas." This Court is held in "Bow Chui-eh," by 
 reason of the Archbishop's having ordinary jurisdiction in 
 that Church as the chief one of his " Thirteen Pecuhars," 
 in London, where the Dean of those Pecuhars, commonly 
 called " Dean of the Arches," held his Court. The office 
 of the Vicar -G-eneral of the Archbishop, the offices of the 
 Official Principal, and the office of the Dean of the Arches, 
 were formerly separate, but are now united in one and the 
 same person ; while his jurisdiction is distinct as of old. 
 As Vicar -General he represents the Archbishop in his 
 absence, exc^t in hearing causes. As Dean of the Arches, 
 his jurisdiction is hmited to the Archbishop's Peculiars in 
 London. He receives appeals throughout the Province, 
 
36 MANUAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 not as Deaw, but as the Official Principal and Judge 
 of the Arches in the place of the Archbishop. Appeals 
 lie from this Archbishop's Court to the King in Chan- 
 cery. 
 
 6. The King in Chanceet. 
 
 This Court was estabhshed by 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, 
 as a Court of final appeal from the Court of Arches or the 
 Court of the Archbishop. Upon every such appeal a 
 Commission is directed under the Great Seal to such 
 persons as the King shall nominate ; who, on account of 
 the Special Commission, or Delegation, are sometimes 
 styled "2%e King\ Delegates.'''' 
 
 The Statute which entitles the King to ultimate cogni- 
 zance by Commission, does not limit him, but leaves him 
 whoUy to his own choice, with power of appointing Com- 
 missioners out of the Temporality. None but spiritual 
 persons were Commissioned as the "King's Delegates," 
 until A. D. 1664, — seventy years after the erection of this 
 Court. Afterwards, but very seldomi, some of the Nobility 
 or Common Law Judges were joined in the Commission. 
 In A. D. 1639, in the time of the Martyr King, Charles I., 
 from whence we date the downfall of the Bishops and their 
 jurisdiction, which ensued, we may date the present Rule 
 of Mixture of Temporal and Spiritual Judges in that 
 Court. 
 
 The Court now consists of the Judicial Committee of 
 the Queen's Privy Council, of which there is no quorum 
 in criminal cases ^ unless the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 the Archbishop of York, or the Bishop of London, be 
 present and assisting. The Queen, after definitive sentence, 
 may grant a Commission of Review ; — for there are no 
 
 1 The Archbishops and the Bishops, who are Privy Counselors, are mem- 
 bers of the Judicial Commission only in cases of criminal proceedings against 
 Clerks in Holy Orders. The prelates who did sit on this last occasion (to wit, 
 lAddell V. Westerton, which was a case of dvil form and procedure) sat only as 
 Assetsors, and not aa meinbers, of the Court. See judgment of Sir B. Phillimore, 
 D. C. L., Court of Arches, in Case of Martin y. HadamocUe, A. D. 1868, p. 8. 
 
APPENDIX TO THE COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 87 
 
 words in the Statute to restrain her. The Pope, formerly, 
 as Supreme Head, could do the like. See Gibson's Codex, 
 pp. 1018, 1046-1083; Introductory Dis. p. 21; Wood's 
 Inst. p. 504, &c. ; Grey's Eccl. Law, pp. 362-392 ; 4 Ins. 
 p. 340; Littl. p. 232. 
 
 APPENDIX II. — THE MANNER OF ELECTING AND CONSECRA- 
 TING ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF 
 ENGLAND. 
 
 Bishoprics in England, under the Pope's usurpation, 
 were Donatives, and bestowed '■'■per Traditionem Annuli et 
 Baculi." About the eighth year of Senry I. a. d. 1108, 
 they begun to be elective. Being of " the King's Founda- 
 tion," he is, in right thereof, "Patron" of them all. 
 
 It may be remembered that Henry I., Beauclerc, 
 granted to the English a Charter, and married Maud, a 
 Saxon : thus uniting the Norman and Saxon interests, and 
 restoring some of the ancient privileges of the British 
 Church, among which may be 'reckoned that of Choosing 
 their Bishops. 
 
 The manner of Electing and Consecrating Bishops since 
 the Reformation is as follows : — 
 
 The Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral, signifying to 
 the King the death of the former Bishop, are to pray 
 leave to elect another Bishop. Upon this the King grants 
 his license to them, under the Great Seal, to proceed to 
 an election ; laying no other restraints or limitations, 
 but only this, entreating them that the Ecclesiastic whom 
 they would choose as their Bishop and Pastor should 
 be a man devoted to God, loyal to the King, and mani- 
 festly a fit and trusty person in the affairs of the Kingdom. 
 '■'■ Rogantes — qvad talem voUs Migatis in Hpiseopum et 
 Pastorem, qui Deo devotus, nohisque : et Regno nostra utilig 
 etfidelis existat." 
 
 This is all the restraint they are under from the King, 
 in his license, styled, "CoTige d'Mire." 
 
38 MAmiAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 But at the same time, there goes with the license a 
 '■'■Letter Missive" containing the name of the person whom 
 they shall elect ; by virtue of which they are to choose the 
 person so named, and no other, in due form, within twelve 
 days ; and in default of that, the King may nominate, and 
 present by his Letters-patent, to the MetropoKtan, if a 
 Bishop; or, if an Archbishop, to the Metropolitan and 
 two other Bishops ; or else to four other Bishops, who 
 shall consecrate him. 
 
 After the person is elected, the Proctor of the Dean and 
 Chapter exhibits to the Bishop elect the Instrument of 
 Election, to which he gives assent, in due form, before a 
 Notary public : thereupon the King is certified of the elec- 
 tion made under the seal of the Dean and Chapter. Upon 
 the certificate the person is styled, " Lord Elect of N. N.," 
 who thereupon does "homage " to the King; and the elec- 
 tion is certified to the Archbishop under the Great Seal. 
 The Archbishop is required to Confirm and Consecrate 
 him. 
 
 The method and order of Qonfirmation is a long and 
 formal process. The Archbishop gives a Commission to 
 his Vicar-General to " confirm the election ; " who then 
 cites all such as have any objections agamst the Bishop- 
 elect to appear before him ; the Proctor exhibits the Cer- 
 tificates of Election and of the Royal assent. After which 
 the Vicar-General administers to the Bishop-elect the 
 oaths of Supremacy, of Simony, and of Canonical Obedi- 
 ence. Whereupon the sentence is read and subscribed by 
 the Vicar-General, and the Election is decreed to be good 
 and confirmed^ 
 
 After Confirmation, the Archbishop and Bishops pro- 
 
 1 In the case of Archbishop Parker " the Confirmation " was made in " Bow 
 Church," December 9, 1559, and afterwards the Judges adjourned to " the Con- 
 firmation dinner " at the " Nag's Head Taveni," in Cheapside, close by. Hence, 
 after forty years, the Papists started the fable of the " Nag's Head Consecrab- 
 twn." See Bishop Bramhall's Tracts, London, 1726, p. 17, et sej., and Williams 
 Sharpe, Earbury, Tracts. 
 
APPENDIX TO THE COMMON LAW OE THE CHUECH. 39 
 
 ceed to Consecration, according to the form established, to 
 the number at least of three. Apost. Can. 1. 
 
 In the case of Translation of a Bishop, Confirmation, 
 and all that precedes it, is required. 
 
 After Election and Confirmation, the Bishop is invested 
 with a right to exercise spiritual jurisdiction. 
 
 So soon as he is Consecrated, the prior dignities and ben- 
 efices of every Bishop created become void ; or in case of 
 Translation, they become void after the Bishop's Confirma- 
 tion in his new See. Every Bishop, whether created or 
 translated, is bound, immediately after Confirmation, to 
 make a legal conveyance to the Archbishop of the next 
 avoidance of one such Dignity or Benefice belonging to 
 his See, as the Archbishop shall choose. This is called 
 "the Archbishop's Option." But a writ of " Gommendam" 
 may intervene, which retains the Benefice in the same 
 person wherein it was before. If the Incumbent of the 
 Promotion chosen by the Archbishop outlives the Bishop 
 who is to be consecrated or translated, the Option be- 
 comes void, inasmuch as the Grantor could not convey any 
 right or title beyond the term of his continuance in that 
 See. 
 
 After Consecration the Bishop sues for his Temporalities, 
 being all things appertaining to his See, which a Bishop 
 receives by "livery fi-om the King," — as manors, lands, 
 testaments, advowsons, titles, etc. 
 
 The Bishop is next Inthroned, either himself or by proxy, 
 on mandate from the Archbishop to his own Archdeacon, 
 at which time the King makes " Restitution of the Bishop's 
 Temporsdities," and he is then completely installed as one 
 of the " Peers of the Land," 25 Edw. III. Stat. 3, c. 6, and 
 is a metnber of the " First Estate of the Realm." Gib- 
 son's Code?:, pp. 12-137. Grey's Eccl. Law, p. 30, et seq. 
 
 Q. But what if the Dean and Chapter refuse to elect, 
 or the Archbishop to confirm and consecrate, the nomiiiee 
 of the Crown ? . . 
 
40 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. " They shall incur a Prcemunire." 
 
 This is a Statute made in 16 Richard II., a. d. 1393, 
 against purchasing buUs or other instruments from Rome 
 or elsewhere in derogation of the Crown. Other trans- 
 gressions were subsequently made to incur its penalty. It 
 is called ProBmunire from the words of the writ : . " Rex 
 vicecomite, etc., Prcemunire, or prcemonere facias prcefatum 
 A. B. quod sit coram nobis," — signifying the oflPense, and 
 appointing a certain day for the offender to appear and 
 answer. 
 
 If he appear and plead, and the issue be found against 
 him, he shall be " put out of the King's protection : " that 
 is, be disabled from having any action or remedy by the 
 King's laws and writs ; he shall forfeit all his goods, and 
 be ransomed only at the King's will. 
 
 If he do not appear or cannot be foimd, he is proclaimed 
 an outlaw, and all his goods and chattels are forfeited to 
 the King. Gibson's Godex, p. 80, et seq. 
 
 Such is the frightfiil penalty of Prcemunire, which the 
 Dean and Ghapter, if they fail to elect, and the Archbish- 
 ops and Bishops, if they decline to confirm and consecrate 
 the person nominated by the King as Bishop to a vacant 
 Diocese, incur. 
 
 In later times, even in these days, the first Lord of the 
 Treasury, or Prime Minister, exercises the Royal Prerog- 
 ative, and names the person to be elected, who is there- 
 upon duly chosen (or rather voted for), and consecrated 
 to the holy ofiice of an Apostle in the Ghurch of God. 
 
 The liberties of the Church are thus invaded, trampled 
 on, and set at nought by what is styled, as if in derision of 
 the Church, " The Union of Church and State." 
 
 Contrast the present subjection of the Church of Eng- 
 land with its condition during the Anglo-Saxon and early 
 Norman periods, as reported to us in History and by Ec- 
 clesiastical commentators ! 
 
 Divers of the Kings before the Conquest, particularly 
 
APPENDIX TO THE COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 41 
 
 Edward the Elder, Edgar, Canute, and Edward the Con- 
 fessor, begm their laws with special provisions for the Lib- 
 erties of Church and Clergy. 
 
 The first Article of Magna Charta, or the Confirma- 
 tion of Liberties, granted by Henry III., a. d. 1225, is in 
 these words : — 
 
 " First, we have granted to God, and by this our present 
 Charter, have confirmed for us and our heirs, forever, that 
 the Church of England shall be Free, and shall have 
 all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable." 
 
 And this Charter was confirmed, and attested, and re- 
 newed, most solemnly, by many Kings and Parliaments, 
 by Edward I., by Edward III., and by subsequent author- 
 ities. 
 
 The first recognition of " the King as Supreme Head of 
 the Church of England " was made by the Clergy them- 
 selves in Convocation, upon the occasion of a grant of 
 £100,000 by them made to King Henry VIII., to pur- 
 chase from him pardon for certain offenses (particularly for 
 having submitted to the Legatine authority of Cardinal 
 Wolsey), and to compound the forfeitures incurred by 
 them thereby, under the Statutes of Praemunire and Pro- 
 visors. 
 
 But the King refused to accept the subsidy, or grant the 
 pardon, unless the Clergy would accompany the gift of 
 money with the recognition of the Royal Supremacy in 
 things Ecclesiastical and Spiritual. This novel claim was 
 for some time under debate, and at length it was deliber- 
 ately agreed upon in these words : " Ecclesioe et cleri An- 
 glicani, oujus singularem Protectorem, unicum et Supremum 
 Dominum, et quantum per Christi legem licet, etiam Supre- 
 mum Caput, ipsius Majestatem recognoscimus." Gibson's 
 Codex, p. 28. 
 
 The Ancient Charter of Liberties was thus virtually 
 surrendered by the Clergy, and immediately afterwards 
 was revoked by ParHament (26 Henry VIII. c. 1.), 
 
42 MANtTAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 which established by law the Supremacy of the King and 
 his heirs. This Statute was repealed by Queen Mary, but 
 restored in the first year of Queen Elizabeth. The Canons 
 of the Church (Can. 36), and the Articles of Religion 
 (Art. 37), A. D. 1562, reaffirmed the King's Supremacy. 
 The Canons furthermore denounce the censure of " Ex- 
 communieation ipso facto " (Can. 2) on whomsoever im- 
 pugns the doctrine, and the Parliament has decreed the 
 penalty of " Prcemunire " upon the refusing to take " the 
 Oath of Supremacy." The odious " Prsemunire," and 
 the sentence of " Excommunication," appUed by the joint 
 hands of the civil and ecclesiastical authority in the six- 
 teenth century, have riveted, even unto this day, the 
 chains which the Church of England painfully and ignobly 
 forged for her own slavery. 
 
 Happy are we that our fathers, in winning the political 
 Independence of the British Colonies, have recovered, for 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, the 
 rights and independence of the Apostolic British Church, 
 and have restored to us that Catholic Liberty wherewith 
 Christ hath made us free, — and in such measure as not to 
 be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 
 
 The true and Scriptural relations of the Church and 
 State, by the Gospel, are set forth and published in our 
 37th Article of Religion, as follows : — 
 
 " The power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all 
 men, as well Clergy as Laity, but hath no authority in 
 things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of 
 all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful 
 
 OBEDIENCE TO THE CiVIL AUTHORITY, REGULARLY AND 
 LEGITIMATELY CONSTITUTED." 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OP THE PROTESTANT EPIS- 
 COPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 I. PRELIMINARY HISTORY. 
 
 Q. When did the Cliui'ch in tliis comitiy become Inde- 
 pendent of die Governiueiit of tlio Clnu'cli of England? 
 
 A. On the Fourtli of July, a. d. 1776. 
 
 Q. Who was tlie Bishop of tlie Chui'ch in the Colonies? 
 
 A. The Bisliop of London. 
 
 Q. What autliority deciai-es tliat tlie Jurisdiction of tlie 
 Bisliop of London ceased on tlic Fourth of July, a. d. 1776? 
 
 A. The Preface to om* Book of Common Prayer, in 
 tliese words: ''When in tlie course of Divine Providence 
 these American States became independent with respect 
 to Ci\il Government, tlieir Ecclesiastical Lidependence 
 was necessarily included." 
 
 Q, What alterations in tbe Litui'gy were made neces- 
 saiy by tlie Revolution? 
 
 A. " The attention of tliis Cluu-ch was, in thefa-st place, 
 drawn to tliose alterations in the Litm-gy which became 
 necessary in tJie Prayers for our Civil Rulers, in conse- 
 queaice of tlie Revolution." 
 
 Q. What politicjvl condition was assumed by tlie Colo- 
 nies after the Decliu-ation of Independence ? 
 
 A. That of Soveivign States, in tbe Union of Alliance, 
 ofiensive and defensive ; but independent of each other as 
 of England. Articles of Confederation, a. d. 1774. 
 
 Q. What was tlie Ecclesiastical condition of the Church 
 in the several States? 
 
44 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. It was that of Ecclesiastical Independence, but with- 
 out any Episcopal Head. See Argument in Hawks' Cons. 
 & Can. pp. 4-8. 
 
 Q. How did the Church " in the first place " proceed 
 to make the "necessary alterations" in the Liturgy? 
 
 A. The Church in each State assumed the authority, by 
 virtue of its independence, to make for itself the necessary 
 alterations. 
 
 Q. Give examples. 
 
 A. On the Sunday before the Fourth of July, A. D. 1776, 
 the Churches of Philadelphia ceased to pray for the King. 
 Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, p. 51. On the day after the 
 Declaration of Independence^ the Legislature of Virginia 
 altered the Book of Common Prayer to accommodate it to 
 the change of affairs. See Hawks' Contrib. vol. i. p. 228. 
 " This document is found in the State Library in Albany. 
 It contains various alterations of the Service, almost ex- 
 clusively relating to Prayers for Rulers." HoflP. L. C. p. 
 31. By the Act of the Assembly of Virginia, of a. d. 1784, 
 the Vestrymen were required to subscribe a Declaration 
 of Conformity to the Doctrine, DiscipHne, and Worship 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church. HofF. L. C. p. 31. 
 Hawks' Contrib. p. 163. 
 
 Q. Were these examples followed? 
 
 A. Yes. The old English Prayer Books are extant, 
 with alterations made by erasure and substitution, as used 
 during the War of the Revolution, in the several States. 
 
 Q. How was the Independence of the Church in each 
 State illustrated in Connecticut? 
 
 A. By the Convention of that State, so soon as peace 
 was declared, to wit, in March, A. D. 1783, nominating the 
 Rev. Samuel Seabury as Bishop, and sending him to Great 
 Britain for Episcopal Consecration, with a letter, addressed 
 to the Archbishop of York (See of Canterbury being va- 
 cant), dated April 21, a. d. 1783. Parliament declining to 
 enact enabling laws. Dr. Seabury applied with his creden- 
 
HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. 45 
 
 tials to the independent Bishops of Scotland. Bishop 
 Seabuiy was duly consecrated in Aberdeen, Scotland, 
 Sunday, November 14, a. d. 1784, by Robert Kilgour, 
 Bishop and Primus : Arthur Petrie and Jolm Skinner, 
 Bishops. He was welcomed and received as Bishop of 
 Connecticut by the Diocesan Convocation, August 3, a. d. 
 1785, and made his Primary Charge to the Clergy the next 
 day. His official signature was " Samuel, Bishop of the 
 Episcopal Church of Connecticut." See Hawks' and 
 Perry's Historical Notes and Documents, pubHshed by 
 Oi'der of Genei-al Convention, vol. i. pp. 604-624. 
 
 Q. In how many States did the Episcopal Church 
 exist, at the date of the Declaration of Independence? 
 
 A. In all the original Thirteen States, and in the Dis- 
 trict of Maine.^ 
 
 Q. What was tlie relation of the Congregations to each 
 other during the War? 
 
 A. They were in the way of Truth, and held the Faith 
 in unity of Spirit ; but were separate and distinct, with no 
 organization nor union, except in Connecticut. 
 
 Q. What was peculiar to Connecticut? 
 
 A. " During the Colonial period, it was the " Custom of 
 the Clergy in Connecticut to meet in Convention and 
 transact such business as lay in their power." They main- 
 tained their Organization during the war. " After the 
 Conseci-ation of Bishop Seabury, these assembHes were 
 termed Convocations." Hoff. L. C. Introd. p. 29. 
 
 Q. What was done, after the War, in other States, for 
 the organization of the Church? 
 
 A. (1) Maktland. 
 
 In August, A. D. 1783, the Clergy of Maryland organized 
 in Convention, and set forth the following Declaration: 
 "We consider it as the undoubted right of the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church in Maryland, to complete and 
 preserve herself, as an entire Church, agreeably to her 
 1 Maine was admitted as a State in a. t>. 1810. 
 
46 MAmJAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 ancient usages and professions ; and to have a full enjoy- 
 ment and free exercise of those purely Spiritual Powers 
 which are essential to the being of every Church or Con- 
 gregation of the Faithful, and which, being derived from 
 Christ and His Apostles, are to be maintained independent 
 of every foreign or other jurisdiction : so far as may be 
 consistent with the Civil rights of Society." Hawks' Cons. 
 & Can. p. 5. " In June, a. d. 1784, the Laity were intro- 
 duced into the Convention, and they ratified the previous 
 Acts." Conventions were held every year thereafter of 
 both Clergy and Laity. Hoff. L. C. p. 92. 
 
 (2) Pennsylvania. 
 
 In May, a. d. 1784, several members of the Churches 
 in the city of Philadelphia met together, and appointed " a 
 Standing Committee of the Episcopal Church in this 
 State," and authorized them "to correspond and confer 
 with representatives from the Episcopal Church in the 
 other States, or any of them, and assist in framing an Ec- 
 clesiastical Government." 
 
 This was the first step taken toward an Union of the 
 Churches in the States generally. Mem. of Ch. p. 72. 
 HoflF. L. C. p. 88. Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 5. 
 
 Q. State the /wwcZawiffliiaZ prmcjpZes which the meeting 
 in Philadelphia proposed as the basis of the Union of the 
 Churches ? 
 
 A. (1) The Episcopal Church in the United States 
 ought to be independent of all foreign authority. Ecclesi- 
 astical or Civil. 
 
 (2) It ought to have exclusive power to regulate its own 
 concerns. 
 
 (3) The Faith should be maintained in accordance with 
 that professed by the Church of England, and uniformity 
 of Worship continued, as near as may be, to the Liturgy 
 of the English Church. 
 
 (4) That the Succession of the Ministry be the Three 
 Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, whose rights and 
 
HISTOKY OF THE CONSTITUTION. 47 
 
 powers should be ascertained, and that they be exercised 
 according to Law. 
 
 (5) That the authority to make Canons or Laws should 
 be none other than a Representative Body of the Clergy 
 and Laity conjointly. 
 
 (6) That no powers be delegated to a general Eccle- 
 siastical Government, except such as cannot conveniently 
 be exercised by the Clergy and Laity in their respective 
 Congregations. Mem. of Ch. p. 72. Hoff. L. C. p. 89. 
 
 Q. What seems to characterize these "fimdamental 
 principles?" 
 
 A, A desire for Episcopal Union, yet with a jealousy 
 of Episcopal and Priestly authority, joined with the asser- 
 tion of Ecclesiastical Independence, and the right of Lay- 
 men to participate in legislating for the Church. 
 
 Q. Which Articles affirm the Independence of the 
 Church? 
 
 A. The first, and the second, and the fifth. 
 
 Q. Which express the desire and purpose of Union ? 
 
 A. The third and the fourth. 
 
 Q. Which evince jealousy of Episcopal and Priestly 
 authority ? 
 
 A. The fifth, a part of the fourth, and the sixth. 
 
 Q. What sentiment in the Church does the sixth fun- 
 damental Article farther evince? 
 
 A. The sentiment that the Clergy and Laity distributed 
 in the Congregations are the constituted Body of the 
 Church ; and the suspicion and dread of the concentration 
 of power in the proposed General Convention. 
 
 Q. Repeat the Sixth Article. 
 
 A. " That no powers be delegated to a general Ecclesi- 
 astical Government, except such as cannot conveniently be 
 exercised by the Clergy and Laity in tfieir respective Con- 
 gregations" 
 
 Q. Was there any apprehensiveness that Episcopahans 
 of that era were disaffected towards Episcopacy ? 
 
48 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. Bishop White remarks (Mem. of Ch. p. 65) " that 
 the more Northern Clergymen were under apprehensions 
 of there being a disposition on the part of the Southern 
 Members to make material deviations from the Ecclesias- 
 tical System of England, in the article of Church Govern- 
 ment. Hoff. L. C. p. 89. 
 
 Q. What confirmation of this suspicion is extant? 
 
 A. The Clergy of South Carolina received the invitation 
 to cooperate for a general Union. There was a Meeting 
 of Vestries 8th February, a. d. 1785. Deputies were ap- 
 pointed by this Convention in A. d. 1785. It was resolved 
 that the Deputies should act according to their Judgment, 
 but with the proviso '■Hhat no Bishop was to be settled 
 in that State." Mem. of Ch. p. 91. Hoff. L. C. p. 92. 
 Dalcho's Hist. p. 466. Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 7. 
 
 Q. What political circumstances at that time prompted, 
 or at least favored, the proposed introduction of this Sixth 
 " fundamental principle " in the Constitution of the 
 Church ? 
 
 A. The time was that transition era of the country, 
 when the Continental Congress was gathered under the 
 "Articles of Confederation." The first Article was this: 
 " Every power not expressly delegated to the United States 
 in Congress assembled, shall be retained by each State." 
 Art. I. Art. of Confed. Very many of the men, influen- 
 tial in the State, were traditionally or by profession. Epis- 
 copalians, who also were powerful in the organization of 
 the Union of the Churches. And hence, it is not strange 
 that their political predilections should be reflected On their 
 ecclesiastical functions, and that they should attempt to 
 organize the Church " in accommodation to the Civil Sys- 
 tem," after the model of the RepubHc. Mem. of Ch. p. 
 90. 
 
 Q. Did the Confederation of the States endure ? 
 A. No. It was found to be inadequate as a Govern- 
 ment for the want of implied powers," and in consequence, 
 
HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. 49 
 
 chiefly, of the " expressly " reserved authority of the 
 States, whereby Congress was shackled. 
 
 Q. What was the complexion of the hindrances to 
 Union, as revealed in the objections of the Northeastern 
 States ? 
 
 A. The reverse of CongregationaUsm and eminently 
 Churchly, though impeding organization. For example, on 
 the 8th September, A.: D. 1784, the Convention of the Clergy 
 of Massachusetts and Rhode Island was held at Boston, 
 and addressed a letter to the Clergy of Connecticut, in 
 which they said, " It is our unanimous opinion that it is 
 beginning at the wrong end, to attempt to organize our 
 Church before we have obtained a head. We cannot 
 conceive it probable, or even possible, to carry the (Phila- 
 delphia) plan out into execution, before an Episcopate is 
 obtained to direct our motions, and by a delegated author- 
 ity to claim our assent. We are extremely desirous for 
 the preservation of our communion and the continuance 
 of uniformity of doctrine and worship, but we see not how 
 this can be maintained without a Common Head, and are, 
 therefore, desirous of uniting with you in such measures 
 as shall be found expedient and proper for the common 
 good. [Signed,] S. Geaves, Sec'y." i 
 
 Consult Mem. of Ch. pp. 332-338. Letter of Rt. Rev. 
 Dr. Jarvis : Hoff. L. C. p. 91, note. Bishop White's De- 
 fense of the Lay Principle, Mem. of Ch. p. 74, et seq. 
 
 Q. What farther objections proceeded from Connecti- 
 cut? 
 
 A. The Convention of a. d. 1784 commissioned a dep- 
 uty, Mr. Marshall, to attend the proposed meeting in New 
 York, in October, to acquaint the Clergy with the reasons 
 why the Clergy of Connecticut cannot enter into any dis- 
 cussion of measures relative to the settlement of the Church 
 in the United States previous to the completion of the 
 Church in this State, by having a Bishop among us. Ibid. 
 
 1 Rector of St. John's Chnrch, Providence, Rhode Island. 
 
 4 
 
50 MAinJAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 Q. What other hindrances from New Jersey ? 
 
 A. In the month of May, A. D. 1784, at a meeting of the 
 Clergymen in New Brunswick, the subject of Ecclesiastical 
 Union was discussed. But fiii'ther proceedings were post- 
 poned " in consequence of the pending apphcation of Dr. 
 Seabury for Consecration in England." HoflF. L. C. p. 89. 
 
 Q. Was this sixth " ftmdamental principle," in regard to 
 the restricting of the powers of the General Convention to 
 those functions which cannot be exercised by the congre- 
 gations, favored by the Chui'ches, after a second thought ? 
 
 A. No It was eliminated altogether at a general meet- 
 ing of Clergymen who, in conformity with the call of the 
 Standing Committee of Pennsylvania, in May, were de- 
 puted by the Churches in the States, and who assembled 
 in New York, on the following 6th of October, a. d. 1784. 
 
 Q. State the character and annals of " this first general 
 meeting " of Churchmen. 
 
 A. (1) Dr. Hawks says, " It was a meeting for Confer- 
 ence ; it was nothing more." 
 
 The Deputies recommended to the States represented, 
 and proposed to those not represented, to organize and 
 associate " themselves in the States to which they respect- 
 ively belong, agreeably to such rules as they shall think 
 proper," and that, then, " all should unite in a General 
 Ecclesiastical Constitution." Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 6. 
 
 (2) Bishop White states that "as the greater part of 
 the Deputies were not invested with powers to bind their 
 constituents, aU that was done was to recommend a series 
 of resolutions to the Churches of the several States, which 
 should be considered as Fundamental Articles of Union." 
 Mem. of Ch. p. 11. Hoff. L. C. p. 91. 
 
 Q. What were these " Fundamental Articles " ? 
 
 A. First. That there shall be a General Convention of 
 the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 
 
 Second. That the Episcopal Church in each State send 
 Deputies to the Convention, consisting of Clergy and Laity. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. 51 
 
 Third. That associated Congregations in two or more 
 States send Deputies jointly. 
 
 Fourth. That the said Church shall maintain the doc- 
 trines of the Gospel as now held by the Church of Eng- 
 land, and shall adhere to the Liturgy of the said Church, 
 as far as shall be consistent with the American Revolution, 
 and the Constitutions of the several States. 
 
 Fifth. That, in every State, where there shall be a 
 Bishop duly Consecrated and settled, he shall be a Mem- 
 ber of the Convention, ex officio. 
 
 Sixth. That the Clergy and Laity, assembled in Con- 
 vention, shall deliberate in one body, but shall vote sepa- 
 rately ; and that the concurrence of both shall be necessary 
 to give validity to every measure. 
 
 The 7th Article recommended the time and place of 
 meetiag (Philadelphia, September, a. d. 1785), with a re- 
 quest that Clerical and Lay Deputies might be sent by the 
 Churches in the States. HoflF. L. C. p. 91. 
 
 Q. What States were represented by their Clerical Dep- 
 uties at this meeting in New York, October, a. d. 1784? 
 
 A. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecti- 
 cut (by the deputy, Mr. Marshall, commissioned to object 
 to premature union), Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
 New York, Virginia (by Dr. Griffith, present by permis- 
 sion). Hoif. L. C. p. 91. Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 6. 
 
 Q. Why was not Virginia duly represented ? 
 
 A. Because Virginia had forbidden, hy law, her Clergy 
 to interfere in making changes in the order, government, 
 worship, or doctrine of the Church. Virginia asserted the 
 entire independence of the Church within her limits of all 
 control but her own. Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 6. 
 . Q. What effect followed the publication of these Fun- 
 damental Articles, in respect to the organization of the 
 Church in the States ? 
 
 A. Maryland had held a Convention of Clergy and 
 Laity in June, a. d. 1783, after receiving the proceedings 
 
52 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 of the Clergy at the meeting of May in Philadelphia (as 
 before stated) ; and resolved that Conventions should be 
 held every year thereafter, consisting of Clergy and Laity. 
 This was the foremost instance in the whole Church Catho- 
 lic of the introduction of the Laity, as an Order, in Church 
 Legislation. South Carolina organized the Church in 
 Convention of Clergy and Laity in July, A. D. 1785. New 
 York held its first Convention of Clergy and Laity in June, 
 A. D. 1785 ; Virginia, in May, a. d. 1785 ; New Jersey, in 
 July, A. D. 1785. Hoff. L. C. pp. 92, 93. 
 
 Q. What principles seem to characterize these Funda- 
 mental Articles ? 
 
 A. (1) The 1st Article recognizes the Episcopal Church 
 in the United States, as a national Branch of the Church 
 Catholic. 
 
 (2) The 2d Article contemplates the Church in each 
 State as a Diocese, and entitled to representation in the 
 National Church by both Clergy and Laity. 
 
 (3) The 3d Article overleaps State fines as non-essential 
 to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and rights, recognizing the 
 Churches in their Spiritual alliance alone, with an eye to 
 convenience and ease of communication. 
 
 (4) The 4th Article piously adheres to the traditions 
 of the Faith, Worship, and Discipfine of the Primitive 
 Church, as transmitted through the Church of England to 
 the United States of America. 
 
 (5) The 5th Article acknowledges the Bishop as a Leg- 
 islator in the Church, ex officio ; but not having even con- 
 current authority in Legislation. 
 
 (6) The 6th Article regards the Laity as a distinct Order 
 in Church Councils, having concurrent authority with the 
 Clergy. 
 
 Q. Does not the analysis of these Fundamental Articles 
 of the assembled Clergy in October, a. d. 1784, seem to de- 
 press the Episcopacy overmuch, and exalt the power of 
 the Laity? 
 
HISTORT OF THE CONSTITUTION. 53 
 
 A. It certainly does. 
 
 Q. State the grounds of this opinion. 
 
 A. In all the early Councils of the Church, Bishops, or 
 their Representatives, presided. The Councils were com- 
 posed of Bishops and Clergy only. See Cave on the 
 Ancient Church, et. al. 
 
 (1) The first Council on Record is that of " the Apostles 
 and Elders " (in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles) ; presided over by St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem. 
 
 The Church in Antioch " sent Paul and Barnabas and 
 certain other of them to the Apostles and Elders about this 
 question, to wit, ' Except ye be circumcised, after the man- 
 ner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.' " 
 
 " The Apostles and Elders came together for to consider 
 of this matter." 
 
 St. James pronounced the verdict of the Council. 
 " Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole 
 Church, to send chosen men to Antioch, with Paul and 
 Barnabas, namely, Judas sumamed Barsabas, and Silas, 
 chief men among the brethren : and they wrote letters by 
 them after this manner. The Apostles, and Elders, and 
 Brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the 
 Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and CiHcia." Acts xv. 
 22, 23. 
 
 The " brethren " who joined, in this Encyclical letter, 
 with the " Apostles and Elders," are distinct from them. 
 If they were laymen, "brethren," members of the Church, 
 they were present, not having been summoned as Legisla- 
 tors, nor being come together as Legislators, but, at the 
 most, as assessors without a vote, or as loyal churchmen, 
 submissive to the authoritative voice of "the Holy Ghost," 
 and their spiritual fathers, "the Apostles and Elders." 
 Acts XV. 28. 
 
 These laymen possessed influence, and were entitled to 
 be present in the first Council of the Church ; but the 
 record suggests for them no power, nor any concurrent 
 
54 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 avthority. See Bp. White's argument per contra, Mem. 
 of Ch. p. 74, et ieq. 
 
 Every subsequent Council of the Primitive Church was 
 constituted after this Apostolic model. Bishop "White 
 avows that he was the first one in the United States to 
 suggest the introducing of the Laity into the Councils of 
 the Church. See his pamphlet, a. d. 1782. 
 
 Bishop White justifies his opinion, both as to the law- 
 fulness and expediency of the measure, and furthermore 
 avers that " experience has confirmed his judgment." Wil- 
 son's Mem. Bp. White, p. 123. Mem. of Ch. p. 81. 
 
 In no Branch of the Church Catholic up to that time, 
 had it ever been proposed that Laymen sit as an Order in 
 the Legislative Ecclesiastical Councils. 
 
 (2) Even Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, and 
 he who summoned the first (Ecumenical Council, at Nice, 
 in Bithynia, a. d. 325, presumed not to preside, nor to 
 debate, nor to decide, " nor to prescribe his own views on 
 points of religious faith, but to collect the suffrages of its 
 recognized expounders, the depositories of three centuries 
 of interpretation and tradition, the Chief Pastors of the 
 Christian Congregations scattered over the face of the Em- 
 pire and beyond it." Merivale. Boyle Lectures, a. d. 1864, 
 p. 29. 
 
 For " here were assembled the most eminent among 
 God's Ministers of all those Churches which filled all 
 Europe, Libya, and Asia. Eusebius Pamphilias, Life of 
 Cons. vol. iii. p. 7. 
 
 (3) The Laws of the Ancient British Church (a. d. 180- 
 596) could not be changed, except by a National Synod, 
 consisting of Bishops and other learned men of the Clergy. 
 Dawson's Or. Leg. bk. vi. c. 4. 
 
 The "Institutions" under the Saxon Kings, styled 
 " Monumenta Ecclesiastica," were laws affecting the 
 Clergy only. The Clergy of the Witenagemote departed 
 into a separate Synod and made their Canons ; they 
 
HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. 65 
 
 brought their Canons from the Synod to the Witenage- 
 mote to he ratified by the King, with the advice of his 
 great men, and so made the Constitutions of the Church 
 to be Laws of the realm. 
 
 Ecclesiastical " Laws" affecting the Laity were made in 
 the Great Saxon Council or Witenagemote, at which there 
 was a representation of the Laity. See ante, " Common 
 Law of the Church." , Kenneth's Ec. Syn. p. 249. 
 
 Hence we learn that the Councils of the Clergy were 
 sufficient for the government of the Clergy, and that 
 only where the Laity were concerned in Spiritual matters 
 the Laws of the Church must have been passed, or ratified 
 by the Witan, in which a representation of the Laity ex- 
 isted. Hoff. L. C. p. 52. 
 
 (4) The Norman Conquest made no change in this' 
 respect. Ibid. 
 
 (5) The Convocations of England are composed of 
 Bishops and Clergy, who sit in separate houses,-' and who 
 enact all the Spiritual laws of the Realm. But those 
 Canons affecting the Laity are not imperative unless rati- 
 fied by Parliament. 
 
 Hence, by the liberties of the Church of England, 
 whether in the periods, British (a. d. 180-596), Anglican 
 (a. d. 596-1066), Norman (a. d. 1066-1547), or Reforma- 
 tion (a. d. 1547-1870), the Clergy alone made laws for 
 the Clergy ; and the Laity had a voice in laws affecting 
 the Laity ; but no example exists in the History of Chris- 
 tianity where the. Laity made ecclesiastical laws for the 
 Clergy. 
 
 The conclusion, therefore, is that the " Fundamental 
 Articles " of the Clergy assembled in New York, October, 
 A. D. 1784, famish us with the first instance of an organic 
 arrangement for Laymen to sit as an Order in Ecclesiastical 
 
 1 In the Convocation of the Province of York, the Archbishop and Bishops 
 sit with the Clergy in one house usually, but vote separately. Yet the Consti- 
 tution of the Convocation of York admits of separate houses, when demanded 
 by the Bishops. 
 
56 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Councils, or of a deliberate proposal that Laymen should 
 be admitted as a coordinate authority in enacting Canons 
 affecting the Clergy. 
 
 Q. What justification may be alleged for this departure 
 from the pattern of Primitive and Ancient Ecclesiastical 
 Councils ? 
 
 A. Expediency. The Spirit of the age repudiated ec- 
 clesiasticism among Protestants, as favoring the abuses and 
 tyranny of the Church of Rome. The Episcopal Churches 
 were poor, lonely, and scattered. A Bishop had never 
 trodden the soil, nor exercised jurisdiction, except by the 
 poor substitute of a Commissary, and the very name of 
 Bishop was associated with Lords Spiritual. The political 
 and sectarian antipathies to England were rampant. The 
 Clergy felt their need of the cooperation of the episcopal 
 Laity. The traditions of the "liberties of the British 
 Church " made Laymen jealous of any danger of encroach- 
 ment on the freedom of American Churchmen ; and the 
 apparent assimilation of the government of the Church to 
 that of the Nation, gave a plausible argument to lessen the 
 opposition to the organization of the Church with Laymen 
 as a component element in its Legislature. It could not 
 be helped, and many loved to have it so. Bishop White, 
 in a pamphlet published in the summer of A. d. 1782, advo- 
 cated it, and justified it ever afterwards. Mem. of Ch. 
 pp. 74-92. 
 
 Q. What does Dr. Hawks say on the subject ? 
 
 A. He says, " The Church in this country could never 
 have been organized on the principle of excluding the 
 Laity from a voice in its legislation. Judging from past 
 experience, as a mere measure of policy, it would have 
 been most unwise to exclude them ; for they have been of 
 great service in the deliberations of the Church. No evil 
 worth mentioning has resulted from their admission." 
 Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 19. 
 
 Q. What evil vn principle was patent? 
 
 A. The evil of admitting Laymen, whether they were 
 
HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. 57 
 
 Members of the Church or not. Men, not taptized, might 
 be admitted to legislate for the Church of Christ. They 
 were so admitted; exhibiting the anomaly that persons 
 might legislate for a Society to which they did not belong ; 
 and, above all, to prescribe the Faith, Worship, and Disci- 
 pline of Christ, which they practically and theoretically 
 repudiated. This outrage on principle was mitigated by a 
 change of the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in a. d. 1856, requiring Lay Members of the Gen- 
 eral Convention to be Communicants in the Church. This 
 qualification ought, on principle, to be required of all Ves- 
 trymen in Parishes, and all Delegates to Diocesan Conven- 
 tions. The example of the General Convention, it is 
 hoped, will be potent to move the conscience of the 
 Churches to imitate it. 
 
 Q. State what followed the adoption of the Fundamental 
 Articles by the voluntary meeting in New York in A. d. 
 1784. 
 
 A. Delegates from seven States met in Philadelphia, 
 27th September, a. d. 1785. " On the 1st October, a. d 
 1785, the draft of an Ecclesiastical Constitution was sub- 
 mitted to the Convention, by the Rev. Dr. Smith of 
 Maryland, the Chairman of the Committee before ap- 
 pointed. It was read by paragraphs, and ordered to be 
 transcribed." Journal a. d. 1785, pp. 21, 22. Hoif. L. C. 
 p. 23. 
 
 Q. What Churches were represented ? 
 
 A. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 
 Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. All the North- 
 eastern Churches were absent, although represented at 
 the former Voluntary Meeting, October, a. d. 1784. 
 
 Q. What was the character and authority of this pro- 
 posed Constitution of the Church? 
 
 A. Bishop White informs us that it did not form a Bond 
 of Union among the Churches throughout the land, for it 
 stood on recommendation only ; and the real and only bond 
 by which all the Episcopal Congregations in the Country 
 
58 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 were held together, until a. d. 1789, was in the common 
 recognition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Mem. 
 of Ch. p. 93. Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 7. 
 
 Q. What followed next ? 
 
 A. The Second General Convention met on the 20th of 
 June, A. D. 1786. The Constitution was taken up and de- 
 bated. Several alterations were made, and on the 23d of 
 June it was unanimously adopted. The "Fundamental 
 Articles " were the basis of the Constitution. 
 
 Q. Did the Constitution of a. d. 1786 become the Fun- 
 damental Law of the whole Church ? 
 
 A. No. The Eleventh Article was as follows : " The 
 Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States of America, when ratified by the Church in a 
 majority of the States, assembled in General Convention, 
 with sufficient power for the purpose of such ratification, 
 shall be unalterable by the Convention of any particular 
 State which hath been represented at the time of such rat- 
 ification." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1786. 
 
 Q. How was the next General Convention summoned ? 
 
 A. By a' Resolution of June 24, a. d. 1786, recom- 
 mending " That the several State Conventions do authorize 
 and empower the Deputies to the next General Convention, 
 after we shall have obtained a Bishop or Bishops in our 
 Church, to confirm or ratify a General Constitution, respect- 
 ing both the doctrine and the discipline of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1786. 
 
 Q. When did the next General Convention convene ? 
 
 A. In July, A. D. 1789. Bishops Seabury, of Connecti- 
 cut (a. d. 1784), White, of Pennsylvania, and Provoost, 
 of New York (a. d. 1787), had then been consecrated. 
 Bishop White attended and presided. Massachusetts, Con- 
 necticut, Rhode Island,, and New Hampshire were not 
 present. 
 
 Q. What was done at this Convention of a. d. 1789 ? 
 
 A. The Constitution having been referred to a commit- 
 tee of one from each State and adopted, was engrossed for 
 
HISTORY OF THE CONSTITTJTIOIT. 59 
 
 signing ; and on the 8th of August, it was signed by the 
 members of the Convention. 
 
 Q. What was done to engage the Churches in the North- 
 eastern States ? 
 
 A. The Convention was adjourned from August to 29th 
 September, a. d. 1789. At that time the assent of the Dep- 
 uties of those Churches was given, provided, that the Third 
 Article should be so amended as to authorize the Bishops 
 when sitting in a separate House, to originate any meas- 
 ures, and to negative the acts of the other House. The 
 Convention agreed to them, modifying the Veto (from 
 three fifths) so that a law might be passed if adhered to by 
 four fifths of the House of Deputies ; and changing the 
 powers of the House of Bishops, from being a House of 
 Revision of the acts of the lower House into a coordinate 
 Branch of the Legislature, with the right to originate Can- 
 ons. This amendment of the Third Article of the Con- 
 stitution was made in the General Convention without 
 recourse to the Diocesan Conventions for ratification. On 
 the 2d of October, A. d. 1789, Bishop Seabury and the 
 Deputies from Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New 
 Hampshire, signed the Constitution, and the Union of the 
 Churches was consummated. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1789, 
 pp. 94-97. 
 
 Q. What were the several Dioceses allowed to retain 
 under the Constitution of a. d. 1786 ? 
 
 A. They were allowed very clearly the following rights 
 and privileges : — 
 
 " (1) To organize as a distinct Church within the terri- 
 torial 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 ofiending Clergymen, within their respective lim- 
 its ; 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 
 
60 MANTJAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 well-bemg, provided they did not defeat the purpose of 
 Union, by the contravening of the Constitution and con- 
 stitutional 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 belong- 
 ing 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 Represent- 
 atives of Dioceses, but individually, as Christian Bishops." 
 Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 11. 
 
 Q. In what were the several Dioceses prohibited; or, 
 as Dr. Hawks states the proposition, " What did they sur- 
 render ? " 
 
 A. " As we apprehend," he says, " they surrendered the 
 following things : — 
 
 " (1) Such an exercise of Independency as would per- 
 mit them to withdraw from the Union at their own pleas- 
 ure, and without the assent of the other Dioceses. 
 
 " (2) They surrendered the right of having the Bishop 
 whom they might elect, consecrated witliout the consent 
 of the Church at large. 
 
 " (3) They surrendered the right of sole and unrestricted 
 Legislation for themselves, in the Dioceses alone ; but con- 
 sented 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 makinfg, separately, 
 any Alteration in the great Compact or Charter of Union. 
 
 " These things, as it seems to us, were done by the pro- 
 posed Constitution of A. D. 1785. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. 61 
 
 " It underwent much discussion, and finally, on the 8th 
 of August, A. D. 1789, the Constitution was formally 
 adopted, and became the Fundamental Law of the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church in the United States." Hawks' 
 Cons. & Can. pp. 11, 12. 
 
 Q. What farther right of the State (or Diocesan) Con- 
 ventions does Bishop White affirm was " surrendered " and 
 abandoned in a. d. 1789 ? 
 
 A. The right of a voice in the Ratification of the Arti- 
 cles of the General Constitution. 
 
 Bishop White says, " The mode in which the proposed 
 Constitution of a. d. 1785 should be ratified was subse- 
 quently changed. For though this Constitution had been 
 declared to be fundamental " when ratified by the Church 
 in the different States," yet such a system appeared to the 
 General Convention of a. d. 1786, so evidently fruitful of 
 discord and disunion that it was abandoned from this time." 
 Mem. of Ch. pp. 123, 124. Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, 
 pp. 134, 135. 
 
 " On the review of the Constitution, the Eleventh Arti- 
 cle (on Ratification and Amendments) was altered so as to 
 require a ratification 'by the Church in a majority of the 
 States assembled in General Convention, with sufficient 
 power for the purpose of such ratification.' " Jour. Gen. 
 Conv. A. D. 1786, p. 42. 
 
 At the General Convention of a. d. 1789, the Deputies 
 from the several States appeared with sufficient powers for 
 that object, and a General Constitution was then adopted 
 and finally ratified, without being submitted to the State Con- 
 ventions:'' Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, pp. 185, 136. 
 
 The Constitution thus " formally adopted and become 
 the Fundamental Law in August 8th, a. d. 1789," was 
 amended in its 3d Article in General Convention, October, 
 2, A. D. 1789, by virtue of the " powers delegated to this 
 Convention," without reference to the State Conventions 
 for any ratification by them, and thus evinced itself to be 
 
62 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 the Supreme, as well as Fundamental Law of this 
 Church. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1789, p. 96. See post, 
 on the " Constitution." 
 
 II. THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL CONVEN- 
 TION. 
 
 Q. What is the relation of the General Convention 
 to the Diocesan Conventions ? 
 
 A. It is that of a Supreme Legislature, whose Constitu- 
 tion is the Fundamental Law of the Protestant Episcopal. 
 Church in the United States, and whose Canons either 
 overrule or sanction the Canons of the several Diocesan 
 Conventions. 
 
 HiBtoricaj Q- State the facts to prove the Supremacy of 
 
 paxjts. ^jjg General Convention of the Protestant Epis- 
 
 copal Church in the United States. 
 
 A. (1) The first General Convention came together 
 in A. D. 1785, and framed a Constitution which 
 
 1785. 
 
 was referred to the Conventions of the several 
 States for approval. 
 
 (2) The next fact is the Resolution of the General 
 
 Convention, June 24, a. d. 1786, which recom- 
 
 178fi 
 
 mended that the several State Conventions au- 
 thorize and empower their Deputies to the next General 
 Convention, after we shall have obtained a Bishop or Bish- 
 ops in our Church, to confirm and ratify a General Con- 
 stitution, respecting both the doctrine and discipline of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America. Hawks & Perry's ed. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 
 1786, p. 42. 
 
 (3) Bishop Seabury was Consecrated in a. d. 1784. 
 
 Bishops White and Provoost were Consecrated 
 
 1787 ' 
 
 in A. D. 1787. Thus the one condition was ftd- 
 filled. 
 
SUPREMACY OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION. 63 
 
 (4) At the General Convention in August, a. d. 1789, 
 — the first Convention after obtaining the Epis- 
 
 1789 
 
 copate, — "the Deputies declared themselves au- 
 thorized arid empowered by their respective Conventions 
 to ratify a Constitution ; and it was referred to a Commit- 
 tee of One from each State to consider the Constitution 
 proposed in a. d. 1786. It underwent much discussion, and 
 finally, on the 8th August, a. d. 1789, the Constitution 
 was formally signed and adopted." It was afterwards 
 amended, without recourse to the Dioceses, in an Adjourjied 
 Meeting of General Convention, October 2, 1789. Jour. 
 Gen. Conv. a. d. 1789, pp. 69, 83, 96. Wilson's Mem. 
 Bp. White, p. 135. Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 12. Hofi". 
 L. C. pp. 97-101. 
 
 The Constitution was thus established, ratified, adopted, 
 and amended by the whole Church assembled in Greneral 
 Convention. 
 
 Q. Was there required any subsequent ratification of the 
 General Constitution by the State Conventions before it 
 should become " the Fundamental Law of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States " ? 
 
 Jl. No. The Constitution was complete and Sovereign 
 on the 8th of August, a. d. 1789. It was amended in 
 General Convention, October 2, a. d. 1789, in order to ad- 
 mit Bishop Seabury and the Eastern Churches into Union, 
 by its own inherent authority, and without reference to the 
 State Conventions. See HofF. L. C. p. 101. Jour. Gen. 
 Con. A. D. 1789, p. 26. 
 
 Q. Did the State Conventions take action on the sub- 
 ject ? 
 
 A. In several of the original States a recognition or rat- 
 ification, pro forma, took place. South Carohna, October 19, 
 A. D. 1790 ; New York, November 4, a. d. 1789 ; Mary- 
 land, A. D. 1790; New Jersey, a. d. 1790; Virginia, the 
 Constitution was read and laid on the table May 1, a. d. 
 1790 ; Pennsylvania, the Constitution was read in Conven- 
 
64 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 tioD, June, a. d. 1790, and notice was given of a proposed 
 amendment. The Constitution was recognized as binding, 
 of its own authority. No formal ratification took place. 
 The proceeding of Pennsylvania is specially important, 
 because Bishop White, who assisted in framing the Con- 
 stitution, is a contemporaneous witness that the General 
 Constitution, being established by the Chui-ch in General 
 Convention, required no ratification by the Dioceses, and 
 " was not submitted to the State Conventions for ratifica- 
 tion." Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, pp. 134-136. Dela- 
 ware, no action is recorded. 
 
 Q. What are the just inferences from these various ac- 
 tions of the State Conventions ? 
 
 A. (1) " That the Deputies to the General Convention 
 of A. D. 1789 regarded themselves, and were treated by 
 their associates and constituents as vested with fall power 
 to form a Constitution for the Church." 
 
 (2) That this authority was generally recognized by the 
 State Conventions, and by the Clergy and Laity of the 
 Parishes in the several Churches in the original Dioceses, 
 the members of which were the Constituency represented 
 in General Convention. 
 
 (3) That the General Constitution derived its power 
 and authority as the controlling and Supreme Law of the 
 Church, simply and solely Jfrom the votes of the Deputies 
 in General Convention in A. D. 1789. 
 
 (4) Those Dioceses which approved, gave their positive 
 •recognition of the sufficient authority of their delegates ; 
 those which were sUent signified thereby their acquies- 
 cence. 
 
 , In either case, however, the opinion of the Dioceses was 
 not necessary to the validity of the General Constitution 
 of the Church. HofF. L. C. pp. 101-104. 
 
 Q. Was it within the powers of the origmal State Con- 
 ventions to claim authority to ratify the Constitution before 
 It should have force, or to refiise their consent to the action 
 of their Deputies in the premises ? 
 
Supremacy of the general convention. 65 
 
 A. No. The first Constitution was framed hj the first 
 General Convention in a. d. 1785, and was specially re- 
 ferred to the State Conventions for ratification. The Gen- 
 eral Convention of a. d. 1786 again referred the Constitu- 
 tion with the Resolution before recited, that the State 
 Conventions would " authorize and empower their Deputies 
 to the General Convention of 1789 to confirm and ratify a 
 General Constitution.^^ The Deputies to the Convention 
 of A. D. 1789 appeared accordingly with plenipotentiary 
 powers, " declaring themselves authorized by their respect- 
 ive Conventions to ratify a Constitution. Hawks' Cons. & 
 Can. p. 12. The Constituency bound themselves thereby 
 to accept, and to be governed by, the Constitution ratified 
 by the Deputies to the Convention of A. D. 1789. Besides, 
 there would have been endless conftision if the question 
 of the expediency, authority, and supremacy of the Con- 
 stitution of A. D. 1789 was permitted to oscillate between 
 the General Convention and the State Conventions. Wil- 
 son's Mem. Bp. White, pp. 134-136. The State Conven- 
 tions which were duly represented, were accordingly bound 
 by the acts of their Representatives, and it was not in their 
 power to refuse their assent. See HofF. L. C. p. 104. 
 
 Q. Is this question historically mooted ? 
 
 A. No. None of the State Conventions claimed any 
 authority to ratify the General Constitution, nor refused 
 assent and obedience ; all approved, or acquiesced, and 
 submitted. 
 
 Q. What was the authority of the Constitution (as 
 amended in General Convention, October, A. d. 1789) in 
 those States which had not sent Deputies, or which had 
 not "empowered" them to "confirm and ratify a General 
 Constitution " ? 
 
 A. As to Connecticut, the powers of the Deputies were 
 
 specially limited, in consequence of the objection made in 
 
 that Church to the Article of the Constitution (of August, 
 
 A. D. 1789) restricting the Bishops from originating any 
 
 4 
 
66 MAMJAL COMMENTART. 
 
 measure in their separate House, and from negativing the 
 Acts of the other House. These modifications were duly 
 made in General Convention, October 2, A. d. 1789. 
 Bishop Seabury and the Deputies from Connecticut, Mas- 
 sachusetts, and New Hampshire testified their assent as 
 follows : "We do hereby agree to the Constitution of the 
 Church, as modified this day in Convention," and signed 
 the Constitution. And because the Deputies had not, 
 like the other Deputies, been clothed with full powers, it 
 was deemed necessary and proper to refer the Constitution 
 of October A. D. 1789, thus amended, to the Church in 
 Connecticut for ratification : which was done in Convoca- 
 tion A. D. 1790, and by the Parishes a. d. 1790-92. With 
 regard to the other Northeastern States, Massachusetts, 
 Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, their representative 
 — the Rev. Dr. Parker (afterwards Bishop of Massachu- 
 setts) — having signed the Constitution, but with " no 
 competent power delegated," it was also necessary and 
 proper to refer the Constitution to those States for definite 
 ratification. In a. d. 1790-91 the Churches of Massachu- 
 setts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, being separately 
 organized, united themselves in a Diocese or Province, 
 with a distinct Convention. The Convention met in May, 
 A. D. 1791, when it " took into consideration the General 
 Constitution agreed on in Philadelphia in October, a. d. 
 1789, which was read and considered by paragraphs, and 
 after some debate the question was put, "Shall the said 
 Constitution be adopted ? " The vote was in the affirmative, 
 "three Churches to one." Accordingly the Churches of 
 Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, came 
 into the Union by virtue of the Act of their Convention 
 of A. D. 1791, "in like manner as any other Diocese has 
 subsequently come in, by acceding to the General Consti- 
 tution by a positive Act." HofF. L. C. p. 104. 
 
 Q. What ftirther argument may be adduced to prove 
 the Supremacy of the General Convention, in respect of 
 Amendments to the Constitution ? 
 
SUPEEMACY OF THE GENEBAI, CONVENTION. 67 
 
 A. The Ninth Article of the Constitution of October, 
 A. D. 1789, providing for its amendment, requires every al- 
 teration to be proposed in the General Convention, and the 
 proposed amendment " to he made known " to the several 
 Diocesan Conventions, but confers no power on a Diocesan 
 Convention to refuse its assent and obedience to the Con- 
 stitution, when amended in the ensuing General Conven- 
 tion. The great Council of the Church in General Con- 
 vention is, therefore, supreme in making amendments ; 
 admitting no coordinate authority, whether in one or in all 
 the Dioceses, separately acting, nor otherwise than by their 
 Deputies, being assembled in General Convention and rep- 
 resenting the whole Church. 
 
 Q. Let us examine this point more particularly. Recite 
 the words of the Eleventh Article of the Constitution as 
 proposed to the State Conventions in a. d. 1785. 
 
 A. Article XI. : " This General Ecclesiastical Constitu- 
 tion, when ratified by the Church in the different States, 
 shall be considered as fundamental, and shall be unalter- 
 able by the Convention of the Church in any State." 
 Hawks & Perry's Ed. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1785, p. 23. 
 
 Q. Recite the Eleventh Article of the Constitution, as 
 proposed to the State Conventions in a. d. 1786. 
 
 A. Article XI. : " The Constitution of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States of America, when 
 ratified by the Church in a majority of the States assembled 
 in General Convention, with sufficient power for the pur- 
 pose of such ratification, shall he unalterable by the Con- 
 vention of any particular State which hath been repre- 
 sented at the time of such ratification." Hawks & Perry's 
 Ed. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1786, p. 42. 
 
 Q. Where is " the Church " aflSrmed to be, for the pur- ' 
 pose of Ratification? 
 
 A. " Assembled in General Convention," " in a majority 
 of the States," by Deputies, " with sufficient power." 
 
 Q. Recite the Ninth Article of the Constitution, as passed 
 
68 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 in General Convention, October, a. d. 1789 ; being the 
 same as now existing (except the word " States," changed 
 into Dioceses in a. d. 1838). 
 
 A. Article IX. : " This Constitution shall be unalterable, 
 unless in General Convention, by the Church, in a majority 
 of the States which may have adopted the same ; and aU 
 alterations shall be first proposed in one General Conven- 
 tion, and made known to the several State Conventions, 
 before they shall be finally agreed to or ratified in the en- 
 suing General Convention." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1789. 
 Digest. 
 
 Q. By whom may the Constitution be altered? 
 
 A. " By the Church, in a majority of those Dioceses 
 which have adopted the same." 
 
 Q. Where must the action of the Church, by such 
 majority, be expressed? 
 
 A. " In General Convention." 
 
 Q. Where must alterations be proposed? 
 
 A. " In General Convention." 
 
 Q. Where must proposed alterations be finally agreed 
 to, or ratified? 
 
 A. " In the ensuing General Convention." 
 
 Q. What must be done with the proposed alterations in 
 the Interim? 
 
 A. They must be "made known" to the several Dio- 
 cesan Conventions. 
 
 Q. For what purpose ? 
 
 A. That the Church in the Dioceses may be duly in- 
 formed of the proposed amendment, and so to send such 
 Deputies to the next General Convention, as may duly 
 represent the Church in their Diocese, in the making of 
 the alterations in the Constitution of the whole Church. 
 
 Q. State the views and testimony of Bishop White on 
 this point? 
 
 A. " The interfering instructions " (from the Conven- 
 tions of the States in a. d. 1786, on agreeing to the " Pro- 
 
SUPEEMACY OP THE GEMSKAL CONVENTION. 69 
 
 posed Book" of Common Prayer) "proved ultimately- 
 beneficial, because they manifested the necessity of a 
 well-constituted Legislative Body for the whole Church, 
 and the futility of subjecting their measures to the review 
 and authoritative judgment of the State Conventions. 
 And such a system appeared so evidently fruitful of discord 
 and disunion, that it was abandoned from this time." Mem. 
 of Ch. pp. 123, 124. Accordingly " a General Constitu- 
 tion, in A. D. 1789, was adopted and finally ratified without 
 being Submitted to the State Conventions. In order to 
 give stability to it, by preventing hasty changes, it was 
 also provided that the Constitution should be unalterable, 
 unless in General Convention ; and that the alterations 
 should be first proposed in one General Convention, and 
 made known to the several State Conventions before they 
 should be finally adopted." Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, 
 pp. 135, 136. 
 
 Q. If a majority of the Dioceses, in their respective 
 Conventions, dissent from the proposed alterations, should 
 the General Convention alter the Constitution against such 
 expression of dissent. 
 
 A. The only Constitutional mode, whereby the General 
 Convention can take knowledge of the dissent of the 
 Church in the Dioceses to a proposed alteration of the 
 Constitution, is by the votes of their Deputies in Greneral 
 Convention on the question. 
 
 Q. How are the Votes of the States (Dioceses) on 
 Amendments to the Constitution expressed in General 
 Convention? 
 
 A. The Votes in General Convention on a change of 
 the Constitution, must be by " Dioceses and Orders ; " each 
 order of Clergy and Laity of a Diocese having one vote ; 
 and the concurrence of a majority of both orders being 
 necessary to constitute a Vote of the Convention. Hence 
 it follows that a Vote of the General Convention on the 
 question of altering the Constitution, is the voice of " the 
 
70 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Church in the majority of the Dioceses," in exact confor- 
 mity with the Constitutional requirement; or — as ex- 
 pressed in the Constitution of A. D. 1786 — it is the Vote of 
 " the Church in a majority of the States assembled in Gen- 
 eral Convention ; " or the equivalent article in the Consti- 
 tution of A. D. 1789: "In General Convention, by the 
 Church, in a majority of the States." The judgment of 
 the States (Dioceses) can be not otherwise constitutionally 
 uttered. 
 
 Q. "What adverse inference has been drawn by Dr. 
 Adverse At- Hawks from the language of Article IX. of the 
 guments. Constitution, as to the relation of the Conventions 
 of the Dioceses to the General Convention ? 
 
 A. An argument has been made by Dr. Hawks on the 
 hypothesis that " the Constitution was made by the State 
 Conventions," and therefore that all alterations of the 
 Constitution, according to the provisions of Article IX. 
 " are to be made by the State (Diocesan) Conventions " to 
 whom the proposed Amendment is directed to be " made 
 known." Hawks' Cons. & Can. pp. 49-58. 
 
 Q. What answer to the hypothesis on which this conclu- 
 sion is postulated, does the History of the Constitution of 
 A. D. 1789ftimish? 
 
 A. The facts of history contradict the postulate that 
 " the Constitution " of A. D. 1789 " was made by the State 
 Conventions." 
 
 (1) The Constitution was made by Representatives of 
 the whole Church, coming together with full powers to 
 frame and establish a General Constitution, which was 
 finally and completely d6ne in the General Convention, 
 without recourse to the State Conventions for their ratifi- 
 cation. See ante, and post. 
 
 (2) Another fact of history which contradicts the hy- 
 pothesis of Dr. Hawks is this ; namely, that the Third Ar- 
 ticle of the Constitution of August, a. d. 1789, upon the 
 Report of a Committee of General Convention on October 
 
SUPREMACY OF THE GENERAL CONTENTION. 71 
 
 2, A. D. 1789, was altered in that General Convention, and 
 " so modified as to declare explicitly the right of the Bish- 
 ops, when sitting in a separate House, to originate and pro- 
 pose acts for the other House of Convention, and to neg- 
 ative such acts proposed by the other House as they may 
 disapprove." "After some debate the Third Article was so 
 modified." Jour. Gen. Conv. October, a. d. 1789, p. 96. 
 The views of that General Convention respecting their 
 own Supreme powers to make alterations and amendments, 
 without recourse to the Church in the States for ratifica- 
 tion, is stated in the Resolution of the Committee of the 
 Whole, on October 1, a. d. 1789, as follows : " Resolved, 
 that for the better promotion of a Union of this Church 
 with the Eastern Churches, the General Constitution estab- 
 lished at the last session of this Convention is yet open to 
 amendment and alterations, by virtue of the powers dele- 
 gated to this Convention." Ibid. p. 95. 
 
 (3) A third fact is, that the Constitution was not "made 
 by the State Conventions duly assembled for that purpose," 
 as Dr. Hawks says (Cons. & Can. p. 41). 
 
 The General Convention is composed of the Represen- 
 tatives of the members of the " Church in each Diocese." 
 
 The State Conventions were themselves not an original 
 power, but only Representatives, and the medium whereby 
 the Members of the Church, in each State, delegated ftdl 
 powers to their Deputies in the General Convention. 
 Hofi". L. C. pp. 97, et seq. 
 
 Q. What further argument does Dr. Hawks urge against 
 the Supremacy of the General Convention ? 
 
 A. He asks, " Where is the change to be made ? The 
 Article says, at its close, it may finally be agreed to or rati- 
 fied in, not hy, the General Convention. But what is to be 
 agreed to, what to be ratified ? Men agree to something 
 that has been done by others ; they ratify commonly some 
 act which others, not themselves, have performed. Ex vi 
 termini, therefore, it would seem that action somewhere else 
 
T2 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 than in the General Convention is presupposed. Where is 
 this previous action ? The article directs that all altera- 
 tions shall be first proposed in one General Convention, 
 and made known to the several Diocesan Conventions before 
 they shall be finally agreed to ! The previous action, then, 
 if anywhere, must be in the several Diocesan Conventions. 
 They made the instrument originally, of which, by some 
 alteration, it is now proposed to make a new or additional 
 part." Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 42. 
 
 Q. What answer does Article VIII. of the Constitu- 
 tion, providing for the Amendment of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, furnish to this interpretation and argument of Dr. 
 Hawks ? 
 
 A. Article VIII. establishes the Book of Common 
 Prayer, and provides for its Amendment in these words: — 
 
 " No alteration or addition shall be made in the Book 
 of Common Prayer, or other oiRces of the Church, or the 
 Articles of Religion, unless the same shall be proposed in 
 one General Convention, and by a resolve thereof made 
 known to the Convention of every Diocese, and adopted 
 AT the subsequent General Convention." 
 
 The Book of Common Prayer is established by the Con- 
 stitution, and the provision for the Amendment of the 
 Prayer Book is by an amendment of the Constitution. 
 The authority to alter the Prayer Book is evidently re- 
 posed in the General Convention alone, and not in the 
 Dioceses, for two reasons : 
 
 (1) The language of Article VIII. does not use the 
 word ratified, but "adopted." And the word to adopt 
 signifies "to take as one's own" (Webster). In law, " to 
 pass upon finally." Moreover, the power to make, con- 
 fessedly implies the power to alter and amend, which is 
 " making a new or additional part." Hawks' Ibid. p. 42. 
 Hence the language of Article VIII. construes the phrase 
 " finally agreed to or ratified," as in Article IX. to be 
 equivalent to the word " adopted." Moreover Article IX. 
 itself uses the word " adopted." 
 
SUPREMACY OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION. 73 
 
 It says, " This Constitution shall be unalterable, unless 
 in General Convention, by the Church, in a majority of 
 the Dioceses which may have adopted the same." Art. 
 IX. Cons. Dig. 
 
 This is the same word as is used in Article VIII. ex- 
 pressly as to the Amendment of the Constitution, when it 
 says that the amendment shall be " adopted at the subse- 
 quent General Convention." And therefore, the power 
 that made is the power that " alters " the Constitution, 
 which power, in either case, is expressed by the word 
 '■'■adopt" Hence, the argument that the phrase "finally 
 agreed to or ratified " implies previous authoritative action 
 in the Dioceses, is upset, on the principle that "every 
 law should be so construed as to make it consistent with 
 itself;" and therefore the Constitution adopted by the 
 Convention is to be amended by the Convention alone. 
 
 (2) Article VIII. still further confiites the argument 
 respecting the place where amendments are to be made, 
 and answers Dr. Hawks' question, " Where is the change 
 to be made ? " The 'place where is stated in Article VIII. 
 to be " AT the subsequent General Convention ; " and, 
 therefore, is not at the Diocesan Convention. 
 
 Q. What further argument for "diocesan independ- 
 ence " does Dr. Hawks allege ? Ibid. pp. 42, 43. 
 
 A. He demands, " By whom, in the General Conven- 
 tion, is a change to be made ? The Article answers. By 
 the Church, in a majority of the Dioceses. What does it 
 mean by ' the Church ? ' Is it simply the members of the 
 General Convention ? Perhaps, it may be replied, a mere 
 numerical majority was not meant, but a majority of Dio- 
 ceses. Admit it ; it then proves that aU votes in General 
 Convention, on proposed changes in the Constitution, must 
 be by Dioceses ; and this we beheve ; but it also proves, 
 we think, that States, quasi States, or Dioceses, are alone 
 competent to alter the instrument at all. This helps us," 
 he goes on to say, " to interpret the words in the Article, 
 
74 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 ' by the Church in a majority of the Dioceses.' It means 
 a majority of the several Dioceses of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in these United States. And on any other 
 interpretation, the latter clause of the Article, whUe it 
 affects to respect, in truth mocks at diocesan independ- 
 ence." 
 
 Q. What answer is to be made to this argument ? 
 
 A. None at all. It concedes the whole question. The 
 Dioceses act " in the General Convention," by a vote of 
 " Dioceses and Orders " in amending the Constitution. 
 Dr. Hawks " admits it." And this conceded place and 
 method, whereby " the Church in a majority of the Dio- 
 ceses " may alter the Fundamental Law, being admitted 
 to be " in the General Convention," excludes all other 
 places and methods of diocesan action, and " mocks at 
 diocesan independence." 
 
 Q. What is the upshot and practical conclusion which 
 Dr. Hawks infers from his hypothesis of " diocesan inde- 
 pendency ? " 
 
 A. Twofold. He says (1), " As Dioceses, it is the right 
 of each, if it pleases, to make known in some mode by a 
 vote, or if they see fit, by instructing their Delegates to 
 the General Convention, what the Diocesan Convention 
 thinks of any proposed alteration of the Constitution or 
 Book of Common Prayer." 
 
 (2) " And if a majority of such Diocesan Conventions 
 should make known that they disapprove, we do not think 
 that it was designed under this Article to permit the Gen- 
 eral Convention to make the alteration. We say we do 
 not think it was designed. The reason is, it presents an 
 anomaly without precedent or parallel in this country of 
 constitutions." Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 45. 
 
 Q. What have you to say to this twofold conclusion of 
 the argument against the Supremacy of the General Con- 
 vention ? 
 
 A. The first branch of the conclusion is undoubtedly 
 
SUPREMACY OF THE GE^^:RAL COXVESTION. 75 
 
 true, and is not disputed. The Diocesan Conventions may 
 make known their thoughts on any proposed alteration of 
 the Constitution, " if they see fit." 
 
 The second branch of the conclusion is not true, neither 
 by the logic of the ai-gument, nor by the practical test of 
 interpretation under the historic action of the Dioceses 
 and the Greneral Convention. The vote by Dioceses and 
 Orders in the Greneral Convention is acknowledged to be 
 the accepted way to make known the voice of the Church 
 in altering the Constitution. 
 
 The aignment of Dr. Hawks finally betrays its political 
 origin, by its reference to "this country of constitutions," 
 and by an evident bias towards the political theoiy of State 
 Sovereignty, which Dr. Hawks goes on to maintain. Ibid, 
 pp. 46—55. 
 
 Any discoverable pohtical analogy is beside the question 
 of our Ecclesiastical Polity, and ought not to be admitted 
 to prejudice the judgment. 
 
 Q. State what has been the practice, or the precedent, 
 in the mode of altering the Constitution. 
 
 A. The first change in the Constitution, after it had 
 been pnbhshed to the Dioceses and was become the Fun- 
 damental Law under which the Greneral Convention met 
 from July 28 to August 8, a. d. 1789, and enacted Canons, 
 which are now extant and binding, was made at the ad- 
 journed session, September 29 to October 16. a. d. 1789. 
 The Convention was a single House until October 2. and 
 changed the Third Article of the Constitution by a vote of 
 the House upon '* special motion."' Whether the vote was 
 taken bv Dioceses and Orders the record does not infoim 
 US. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1789, p. 26. 
 
 Dr. Hawks has ennmerated the occasions of alterations 
 as fi)llows : — 
 
 " An alteration was made in a. d. 1804, by a vote taken 
 in the usual mode of legislation and not by Dioceses." 
 
 " In A. D. 1808 a change was made of importance, giving 
 
76 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 an absolute negative to the House of Bishops. A vote by 
 Dioceses does not appear to have been called for ; but the 
 vote was by Dioceses, as if it were a matter of course." 
 
 " In A. D. 1811 an addition of entirely new matter to the 
 Eighth Article was before the House, when it simply Re- 
 solved, that the addition be agreed to. The vote was taken 
 in the common mode." 
 
 " In A. D. 1823 a change was made in the first Article, 
 and the vote was taken by Dioceses." 
 
 " In A. D. 1829 the Eighth Article was altered, and it 
 seems to have been done by a simple Resolution." 
 
 "In A. D. 1826 Bishop Hobart proposed certain changes 
 in the Liturgy. These were made known to the several 
 Diocesan Conventions. A message from the Bishops, in 
 the Convention of A. D. 1829, that ' it was inexpedient to 
 make the change,' was concurred in by the House, so that 
 no other vote was taken." 
 
 Dr. Hawks calls special attention to the fact that " Bishop 
 White, in his Memoirs, commenting on this transaction, 
 uses this language, ' The alterations of this Book, proposed 
 by the last General Convention, were not acted on by the 
 present, having been found unacceptable to the major num- 
 ber of the Diocesan Conventions.' " Hawks' Cons. & Can. 
 pp. 47, 48. 
 
 The succeeding alterations were made in the General 
 Conventions of a. d. 1838, 1841, 1844, 1856, in which the 
 vote was taken by Dioceses and Orders. AU of them had 
 been "made known to the several Diocesan Conventions." 
 
 Q. What does this historical enumeration of the amend- 
 ments exhibit? 
 
 A. (1) It exhibits the acknowledged constitutional Su- 
 premacy of the General Convention. (2) It exhibits the 
 influence of the Diocesan Conventions on a question of the 
 expediency or inexpediency of any proposed action of the 
 General Convention, of which either House is the inde- 
 pendent judge. (3) It gives no color to the hypothesis 
 
STIPREMACY OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION. T7 
 
 of the " independency of Dioceses," while it evinces their 
 equality one with another, through votes by Dioceses and 
 Orders. 
 
 Q. Will you again quote Bishop White on the Conflrma- 
 question of the Supreme Authority of the Gen- ment. 
 eral Convention under the Constitution of the Church ? 
 
 A. Bishop White, speaking of the effects of the provis- 
 ion of the General Constitution of A. D. 1785, referring it to 
 the several State Conventions for ratification (see Art. XI. 
 Cons. A. D. 1785, and Journal, p. 23), says as follows : — 
 
 " The mode in which the proposed Constitution should 
 be ratified was subsequently changed in the General Con- 
 vention assembled in June, a. d. 1786. The interfering 
 instructions given by the State Conventions to their Dep- 
 uties in the General Convention, relative to some of the 
 proceedings of the last Convention, and the rejection of 
 the proposed Liturgy in some States, and the use of it ia 
 others, manifested the necessity of a well-constituted Leg- 
 islative Body for the whole Church, and the futility of sub- 
 jecting their measures to the review and authoritative 
 judgment of the State Conventions by whom the Deputies 
 to it were appointed. And such a system appeared so evi- 
 dently fruitful of discord and disunion, that it was abandoned 
 from this time." 
 
 "The Constitution thus framed in a. d. 1786, was acted 
 under, although not ratified until the Convention of a. d. 
 1789, at which the Deputies from the several States ap- 
 peared with sufficient powers for that object, as was recom- 
 mended by the preceding Convention. And a General 
 Constitution was then adopted, and finally ratified without 
 being submitted to the State Conventions." "In oi-der to 
 give stability to it, by preventing hasty changes, it was also 
 provided that the Constitution should be unalterable, unless 
 in General Convention ; and that the alterations should be 
 first proposed in one General Convention, and made known 
 to the several State Conventions, before they should be 
 
78 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 finally ratified." Mem. of Ch. pp. 128, 124. Wilson's 
 Mom. Bp. White, pp. 184-186. 
 
 This testimony of Bishop White admits of but one inter- 
 pretation, — proving the Supremacy of the Goni'ral Con- 
 vention over the Diocesan Conventions, and the reasons of 
 it, as derived from the experience of the evils of coordinate 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 It explains that " the presupposed previous action which 
 is 'ratified,' 'finally agreed to,' and 'adopted,' " is the ac- 
 tion, not of Diocesan Oonventions, but of the previous 0-en- 
 eral Convention, and that the place wlic're, and the body 
 by whom amendments are established, is at the next Gen- 
 eral Convention, by the Churcli, throuffli Deputies eoming 
 fresh from their constituents in the Dioceses, to whom the 
 proposed alterations have been " made known." 
 iteoapituiii- Q- Recapitulate the facts which demonstrate 
 """^ the paramount authority of the General Conven- 
 
 tion. 
 
 A. (1) The evils experienced under the Constitution 
 of A. D. 1785 in allowing the State Conventions coordinate 
 jurisdiction and legislative powers. 
 
 (2) The Resolution of the General Convention of a. d. 
 1786, recommended the several State Conventions to " au- 
 thorize and empower delegates," to " confirm and ratify a 
 General Constitution." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1786. 
 
 (3) Having obtained Bishops in our Church, tlie Depu- 
 ties from seven States appeared in General Convention, in 
 A. D. 1789, declaring themselves " authorized by their re- 
 spective Conventions to ratify a Constitution." Jour. Gen. 
 Conv. A. D. 1789. 
 
 (4) The Constitution was accordingly "adopted" with- 
 out recourse to the Dioceses, yet with the approval or ac- 
 quiescence of the whole Church practically evinced. 
 
 (5) Those States (Dioceses) which had not sent Depu- 
 ties " authorized and empowered " or none at all, came 
 into union by acceding to the General Constitution as 
 
SUPREMACY OF THE GENEBAIi CONVENTION. 79 
 
 already adopted and amended at the General Convention. 
 Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1789. 
 
 (6) The Constitutional provisions for Amendments lodge 
 the Supreme and Sole Authority in the General Conven- 
 tion. Articles VIII., IX. 
 
 (7) Adverse arguments in favor of " diocesan inde- 
 pendency " and of a coordinate authority in the Diocesan 
 Conventions in amending the Constitution, are either 
 groundless or illogical, being contradicted by historical 
 facts, or by sound reasoning. 
 
 (8) Contemporary testimony evinces that the Suprem- 
 acy of the General Convention, under the Constitution, 
 was deliberately established, after an experience of some 
 of the evils of the coordinate authority of the Conventions 
 of Dioceses ; and that the whole Church, at the time, and 
 ever since a. d. 1789, have acquiesced in the principle of 
 dutiful subjection to the Supreme Authority of the Consti- 
 tution and Canons of the General Convention.-"^ 
 
 Q. What further confirmation of the Supremacy of the 
 General Convention, may you derive from the Argument 
 enactment of Canons by the General Convention Oiinona 
 of A. D. 1789 ? Hoff. L. C. pp. 104-106. 
 
 A. The General Convention of a. d. 1789, on August 
 7, adopted and ordered to be signed by the President 
 and Secretary ten Canons, entitled, " Canons for the gov- 
 ernment of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States of America, agreed on and ratified in the General 
 Convention of said Church, held in the city of Philadel- 
 phia," etc. Hawks & Perry's Jour. Gen. Conv. p. 79. 
 
 These Canons were adopted and engrossed, and ordered 
 to be signed, before the adoption of the Constitution in a. d. 
 1789. Articles VIII., IX. of the Constitution were "con- 
 
 1 The elaborate argument of Judge Hoffman, sustaining the supremacy of 
 the General Convention, may be studied in BoffmmCs Law of the Church, pp. 
 172-178. Dr. Hawks, Contra, in Hawks' Cons. # Can. p. 39-58. 
 
80 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 sidered, and amended and agreed to " and ordered to be 
 engrossed subsequently, on the same day, and signed by 
 the Convention on the day following, August 8, A. d. 1789. 
 Ibid. p. 82. These Canons do not, therefore, derive their 
 authority from the Constitution, but from the whole Church 
 assembled in Convention ; nor from the Diocesan Conven- 
 tions, for they were not referred to the Dioceses ; nor was 
 any other body called on " to agree to and ratify " them ; 
 but they were (as stated in the preamble) "agreed On 
 and ratified in the General Convention of August, a. d. 
 1789. 
 
 Neither did they derive authority from the members of 
 the GeneraLConvention, otherwise than from their pleni- 
 potentiary and original powers of legislation with which 
 they were invested by the members of the Church. Hence 
 the Church in General Convention evinced its Plenary 
 Powers as acquiesced in ever since. 
 
 The conclusion, therefore, is that the General Conven- 
 tion had the Authority in the premises, as being the whole 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, in 
 Council assembled. 
 
 The first of these Canons is this, " In this Church there 
 shall always be three Orders in the Ministry, namely, Bish- 
 ops, Priests, and Deacons." The others are of cognate 
 importance to the being and well-being of the Church. 
 
 The acquiescence of the Church in these Canons dem- 
 onstrates, that The General Convention /jossesses the 
 aohnowledged power of Supreme Legislation, as a corollary 
 to the Supreme and Sole Authority to make, and to alter the 
 Constitution of the Protestant JEpisoopal Church in the 
 United States. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHXTRCH. 81 
 
 m. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Article 1. " There shall be a General Conven- 
 tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Qe„er«,eon- 
 the United States of America, on the first "■"""'• 
 Wednesday in October, in every third year, from 
 the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
 and forty-one ; and in such place as shall be deter- 
 mined by the Convention ; and in case there shall 
 be an epidemic disease, or any other good cause to 
 render it necessary to alter the place fixed ^^^^^^ ^^ 
 on for any such meeting of the Conven- '''"'* 
 tion, the Presiding Bishop shall have it in his pow- 
 er to appoint another convenient place (as near as 
 may be to the place so fixed on) for the holding 
 of such Convention ; and special meetings 5,p^^ 
 may be called at other times, in the man- *''*'™«'- 
 ner hereafter to be provided for ; and this Church, 
 in a majority of the Dioceses which shall have 
 adopted this Constitution, shall be represented, be- 
 fore they shall proceed to business; except that 
 the representation fix)m two Dioceses shall „ 
 be sufficient to adjourn ; and in all busi- 
 ness of the Convention freedom of debate Fi«domof 
 shall be allowed." 
 
 Q. State, in brief, the origin of this Article. 
 
 A. In the " Fundamental Artides "' proposed ^*^'^^ 
 as the basis of Union of the Church, by a volnntary Con- 
 vention in New York, October, a. d. 1784, the first was 
 this, namely : " Thex-e shall be a Greneral Convention of 
 the Episcopal Church in the United States of America." 
 In pursuance of this fundamental article, the Convention 
 
82 MANTJAIi COMMENTARY. 
 
 of A. D. 1785 proposed the First Article of the Constitution, 
 substantially, as it now stands. 
 
 Q. Who prescribes the place of meeting of the Triennial 
 Conventions ? 
 
 A. " The Convention," by the concurrent vote of the 
 House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Dep- 
 uties. 
 
 Change of Q- Name the amendments in reference to the 
 
 place™* t™6 ^ii<i place of meeting of the General Con- 
 
 meeting. ventioU. 
 
 A. Originally, the time of meeting was the " third 
 Tuesday in June." The Constitution was revised in 
 A. D. 1786, when the time of meeting of the Convention 
 was changed to " the fourth Tuesday in July." In Au- 
 gust, A. D. 1789, the Deputies, being come together "with 
 full powers to adopt a Constitution," substituted " the first 
 Tuesday in August." At an adjourned meeting of the 
 Convention in October, a. d. 1789, the time of meeting was 
 again changed to " the second Tuesday in September ; " 
 and again, in a. d. 1804, to the " third Tuesday in May." 
 In A. D. 1823, it was left to each Convention to determine 
 the time and place of the next triennial meeting. The 
 General Convention of a. d. 1841 fixed the time of meet- 
 ing on " the first Wednesday in October in every third 
 year " thereafter, and put the First Article of the Consti- 
 tution into its present form. 
 
 Practical experience has confirmed the expediency of the 
 present arrangement, as it respects both the convenience 
 and the health of the Deputies. In September, a. d. 1798, 
 the Convention could not meet in Philadelphia, owing to 
 the prevalence of yellow fever. At that period the Bishops 
 had authority, only when requested by " a Standing Comr 
 mittee of the General Convention," to summon the Con- 
 vention to meet at another time ; who, accordingly, called 
 it together in Jime, a. d. 1799. 
 
 Q. By whom may the place of meeting of the General 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHUKCH. 83 
 
 Convention be changed, when good cause renders it neces- 
 sary ? 
 
 A. The Presiding Bishop is empowered, by the First 
 Article of tlie Constitution, "to appomt anotlier conven- 
 ient place, as neai* as may be to tlie place fixed on by the 
 Convention." 
 
 Q. How are Special Meetings of tlie General ^^^^ con- 
 Convention regulated? '"^^'"^: 
 
 A. The First Article of the Constitution provides for 
 Special Meetings of the Convention, yet remits the manner 
 of calling them to a future provision. By a Resolution of 
 tlie General Convention, tlie power was confided to the 
 Presiding Bishop, and was once exercised by him. Hawks' 
 Cons. & Can. p. 391. It was ten years after the adoption of 
 the Constitution, before tlie power of calling Special Con- 
 ventions was regulated by Canon Law. Canon 1, a. d. 
 1799. 
 
 Q. Recite tlie terms of the Canon which regulates the 
 right of calling '■'^ Special General Conventions." 
 
 A. " The right of calling Special Meetings of the Gen- 
 eral Convention shall be in the Bishops. This right shall 
 be exercised by the Presiding Bishop, or, in case of his 
 deatli, by tlie Bishop who, according to tlie rules of the 
 House of Bishops, is to preside at the next General Con- 
 vention : Provided, that the summons shall be with the con- 
 sent, or, on the requisition, of a majority of tlie Bishops, ex- 
 pressed to him in writing." [1] § I. Canon 1, Title III. 
 Dig. 
 
 Q. Where shall Special Conventions be held ? 
 
 A. In the place fixed on by the preceding General Con- 
 vention for the meeting of the next General Convention, 
 unless changed, for good cause, by the Presiding Bishop. 
 [2] § I. Canon 1, Title III. Dig. 
 
 Q. What Deputies shall compose a Special General 
 Convention? 
 
 A. The Deputies elected to tlie preceding General Con- 
 
84 MA2jnjAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 vention, tmless other Deputies be chosen, in the mean time, 
 by any of the Diocesan Conventions ; in which cases such 
 other Deputies shall represent, in the Special Convention, 
 the Church of the Diocese in which they were chosen. 
 Hoff. L. C. p. 139. 
 
 Presiding Q- Who is " the Presiding Bishop " mentioned 
 
 Bishop. jjj ^jjjg Article I. of the Constitution ? 
 
 A. He who, according to the rules of the House of 
 Bishops, presided over the House of Bishops at the last 
 General Convention ; or, in case of his death, he who, by 
 the same rules, is to preside at the next General Conven- 
 tion. [1] § I. Canon 1, Title III. Dig. 
 
 Q. State what the Rules of the House of Bishops have 
 been, in reference to the Presiding Bishop. 
 
 A. At the first meeting of the Bishops in a separate 
 House, Monday, October 5, A. d. 1789, in Philadelphia; 
 present, the Rt. Rev. Samuel Seabury, D. D., and the Rt. 
 Rev. William White, D. D., among the rules " agreed on 
 and estabhshed for the government of this House " was 
 this, namely : (1st) " The Senior Bishop present shall be 
 the President ; seniority to be reckoned from the dates of 
 the Letters of Consecration." Bishop Seabury, conse- 
 quently, took the chair, and presided until the adjournment 
 on the 16th October. Both Bishops authenticated the acts 
 of the House : " Samuel Seabury, Bishop of Connecticut, 
 President;" "William White, D. D., Pennsylvania;" 
 agreeably to the 2d Rule adopted, namely : " This House 
 will authenticate its acts by the signing of, at least, the 
 majority of its members." Journal House of Bishops, a. d. 
 1789, p. 123. 
 
 The next General Convention met in Trinity Church, 
 New York, September 11, a. d. 1792, and after prayers. 
 Bishop Seabury, the only Bishop present, adjourned the 
 House " till 10 o'clock to-morrow morning." 
 
 On Wednesday, September 12th, the members met; 
 Bishop Seabury (presiding) ; Bishop Provoost, of New 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 85 
 
 York, Bishop "White, of Pennsylvania, Bishop Madison, of 
 Virginia, present. The House attended Divine Service, 
 and afterwards proceeded to business. On the next day, 
 Thursday, September 13th, " The Bishops naet, and at- 
 tended prayers in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 The first rule for the government of the House of Bishops, 
 as agreed on at the last Convention, was reconsidered, 
 and it was Resolved, " That the said Rule be rescinded, 
 — that the following be adopted instead thereof, namely : 
 The Office of President of this House shall be held in 
 rotation, beginning from the North ; reference being had 
 to the Presidency of this House in the last Convention. 
 In consequence of the above Rule, the Rt. Rev. Dr. 
 Provoost took the chair. Adjourned." Ibid. a. d. 1792. 
 
 On the last day of this Session, the House of Bishops 
 received a Message from the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies, " as to the mode of authenticating the Acts of 
 the Convention ; " whereupon, the Bishops proposed that 
 " the acts be authenticated by the signatures of the Presi- 
 dents of the respective houses." The acts of the House of 
 Bishops were accordingly signed, " Samuel Provoost, 
 President." Ibid. p. 168. 
 
 The first example of the Title of Presiding Bishop is 
 found in the Journal of the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies, in a. d. 1792, where it was " Ordered, that the 
 Presiding Bishop be requested to forward to his Grace the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, thirty copies of the Journal," 
 etc. Ibid. p. 158. 
 
 The General Convention of a. d. 1795 met in Phila- 
 delphia, September 8th, Bishop White alone present, of the 
 Bishops. On the day following, September 9th, the record 
 says, " The House met. Present : The Right Rev. Bishop 
 White, of the State of Pennsylvania, who, hy the rules of 
 the House, made at the last meeting, presided : the Right 
 Rev. Bishop Provoost, of the State of New York ; the Right 
 Rev. Bishop Madison, of the State of Virginia." Bishop 
 
86 MANUAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 White authenticated the Acts of the House, signing, " Wil- 
 liam White, Presiding Bishop." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 
 1795. 
 
 The next General Convention, June 11th, A. B. 1799, 
 was a Special Convention ; Present : Bishop White, Bishop 
 Provoost, and Bishop Bass, of Massachusetts, of the House 
 of Bishops. The Record of the Meeting of June 12th is 
 as follows : " This being a Special Meeting, and the Bishop 
 whose turn it would have been to preside, agreeably to the 
 rules of this House, not attending, Bishop White, the Pres- 
 ident of the last Convention, was requested to preside." 
 Jour. H. of Bishops, a. d. 1799. Canon 1 of A. d. 1799, 
 authenticated the Title of "■ Presiding Bishop." 
 
 The General Convention of A. D. 1801 met in Trenton, 
 New Jersey. The House of Bishops assembled on Sep- 
 tember 9th. Present : Bishop White, Bishop Claggett, of 
 Maryland, and Bishop Jax'vis, of Connecticut. The Jour- 
 nal recites that " Some doubt arising in regard to the mean- 
 ing of the Rule of this House, m the year a. d. 1792, — 
 substituted in the place of the 1st Rule of this House in 
 A. D. 1789, — Resolved, That until the same shall be con- 
 sidered and explained by this House, the Right Rev. Bishop 
 White be requested to preside at the present session." 
 Ibid. A. D. 1801. 
 
 The General Convention met in A. D. 1804 in New 
 York. The Journal of the House of Bishops, September 
 12th, records that " The House met. Present : The Right 
 Rev. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, the Right Rev. Bishop 
 Claggett, of Maryland, and the Right Rev. Bishop Moore, 
 of New York. Resolved, — That it be a standing Rule of 
 tjiis House, that the Senior Bishop present at the opening of 
 any Convention shall preside. The Right Rev. Bishop 
 White, in consequence, took his seat as Presiding Bishop" 
 Ibid. A. D. 1804. 
 
 The next General Convention, May 17th, a. d. 1808, 
 met in Baltimore. Present, in the House of Bishops, " the 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHUECH. 87 
 
 Right Rev. Bishop White, and the Right Rev. Bishop 
 Claggett, of Maryland." Bishop White took his seat as 
 " Presiding Bishop," hy virtue of the Resolution of a. d. 
 1804, as " Senior Bishop present at the opening of the Con- 
 vention." The Resolution of the House of Clei'Lcal and 
 Lay Deputies in a. d. 1792, and the Canon 1 of a. d. 
 1799, together with the Resolution of the House of Bish- 
 ops in A. D. 1804, recognizing the title of "Presiding 
 Bishop ; " and the invariable habit of Bishop White in 
 signing himself as " Presiding Bishop " (which office he 
 held continuoiusly until his death, July 17th, a. d. 1836), 
 has led to the adoption of this title in the Constitution since 
 A. D. 1841. 
 
 Q. Has the title of " Presiding Bishop " invested him 
 with superior rank or authority ? 
 
 A. No. It has not invested the Bishop presiding with 
 any superior Episcopal authority, nor any rank above that 
 of his colleagues. 
 
 Q. Is there any Rule of the House of Bishops fixing 
 and establishing the priority of right to preside ? 
 
 A. No. The House of Bishops may make any rule 
 which they deem expedient, and may alter it at pleasui'e, 
 in accordance with the examples adduced. 
 
 Q. What is the Law of the Church in England in re- 
 spect of dignity and rank ? 
 
 A. The Archbishop of Canterbury enjoys the first rank, 
 next to the throne, and has the Title of " Primate of all 
 England." The Archbishop of York is next in rank in 
 the Church, with the Title of " Primate of England." 
 They preside in their respective "Convocations" of the 
 Provinces of Canterbury and York, ex officio. 
 
 Q. What is the Law of the Church in Scotland ? 
 
 A. " Anciently no Bishop in Scotland had the style of 
 Archbishop, but one of them had a precedency, imder the 
 style of Primus Sootice Episcopus. And after the Revo- 
 lution of A. D. 1688 (during which many Bishops, both in 
 
88 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 England and Scotland, were deprived of their Sees by the 
 Civil power (because they refosed to swear allegiance to 
 William the Third), the Scots Bishops returned to their 
 old style wiiich they still retain ; one of them being entitled 
 Primus, to whom precedency is allowed and deference 
 paid in the Synod of Bishops." See List of Succession of 
 Scots Bishops, attested with the Deed of Consecration of 
 Bishop Seabury. Appendix to Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d, 
 1789, pp. 140, 141. 
 
 Q. What constitutes a Quorum ? 
 
 Quorum. , , 
 
 A. " A majority of each House shall constitute 
 a Quorum to do business ; but a smaller number may 
 adjourn from day to day." This is the universal Rule, 
 unless specially ordained otherwise. Constitution United 
 States, Art. I. sec. 5. Cushing's Rules, p. 18. Jefferson's 
 Manual, p. 26. The requisites of a quorum are made by 
 Canon to conform to this general rule of deliberate bodies. 
 In all cases, " A majority of the members, the whole hav- 
 ing been duly cited to meet, shall be a Quorum: and a 
 majority of the Quorum so convened, shall be competent to 
 act, unless the contrary is expressly required by the Can- 
 on." Canon 7, Title III. Dig. 
 
 ' Q. What is the language in this Article I. of the Con- 
 stitution ? 
 
 A. " This Church, in a majority of the Dioceses which 
 shall have adopted this Constitution, shall be represented, 
 before they shall proceed to business ; except that the rep- 
 resentation from two Dioceses shall be sufficient to ad- 
 journ." 
 
 Q. What constitutes a representation of a Diocese in 
 order to proceed to business ? 
 
 A. " A Diocese shall be considered as duly represented 
 by such Deputy or Deputies, as may attend, whether Lay 
 or Clerical." Art. II. Constitution. 
 
 Q. What constitutes a representation of a Majority of 
 the Dioceses, in order to proceed to business ? 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHtJECH. 89 
 
 A. A majority of the Dioceses must be represented in 
 order to constitute a quorum ; and each Diocese is suffi- 
 ciently represented /or this purpose, if one Clerical, or one 
 Lay Deputy be present in Convention.^ 
 
 Q. Is a Diocese duly represented for the purpose of a 
 Quorum, if only the Clerical Deputies are present ; or if 
 only the Lay Deputies are present ? 
 
 A. Yes. There must be either Clerical or Lay Depu- 
 ties (one or more), to represent the Church in each Dio- 
 cese for this purpose. 
 
 Q. What then is " a majority of the Dioceses " repre- 
 sented, in order to proceed to business ? 
 
 A. A majority of Clerical Deputies, or a majority of 
 Lay Deputies, representing a majority of the Dioceses, by 
 one or more of either order. These are a Constitutional 
 Quorum : " except that the representation from two Dio- 
 ceses are sufficient to adjourn." 
 
 Q. What is meant by Freedom of Debate ? 
 
 A. Freedom of Debate is the right of every member 
 of the Convention to utter his thoughts on any jregjom ^f 
 question before the House, " in accordance with i'^'""*- 
 that order, decency, and regularity, which must be pre- 
 served in a dignified public body." 2 Hatsel, Rules of 
 Parhament, p. 149. Jefferson's Manual, p. 14. 
 
 Q. Specify the authoritative restraints of Rules of Order 
 on the Freedom of Debate. 
 
 A. " Besides the Code of Rules, which may be specially 
 ordered, no person is to speak impertinently, or beside the 
 question ; nor superfluously, nor tediously." 
 
 1 This question was referred to the Committee on Canons in the General Con- 
 vention of A. D. 1844. Journal, p. 105. At the next General Convention the 
 Committee reported " that a majority of the Dioceses must be represented in 
 order to constitute a quorum, and that each Diocese should be sufficiently repre- 
 sented for that purpose, if One Clerical and One Lay Deputy be present in Con- 
 vention. Journal, a. d. 1847, p. 107. 
 
 In the MSS. Report of the Committee, the phrase is " or one Lay Deputy," 
 and, likewise, in the printed Report. The conjunctive form " and one Lay Dep- 
 uty " is no doubt a clerical error, and in a note of the Chairman of the Joint 
 Committee, Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont, he so treats it. See HofF. L. C. p. 140. 
 
90 MANtJAX COMMENTARY. 
 
 " No person is to use indecent language against the pro- 
 ceedings of the House, unless he means to conclude with 
 a motion to rescind a prior determination." 
 
 " No person, in speaking, is to mention a Member, then 
 present, by his name, but to describe him by his seat in the 
 House ; or as the member who spoke last on the other side 
 of the question, etc. ; nor to digress from the matter to fall 
 upon the person ; nor by uttering reviling or unmannerly 
 words against a particular member. The consequences of 
 a measui-e may be reprobated in strong terms ; but to ar- 
 raign the motives of those who propose or advocate it, is a 
 personality, and against order." 
 
 " It is a breach of order in debate, to notice what has 
 been said on the same subject in the other House, or the 
 particular votes or majorities on it there ; because the opin- 
 ion of each House should be left to its own independency, 
 not to be influenced by the proceedings of the other ; and 
 the quoting them might beget misunderstanding between 
 the two Houses." See Jefferson's Manual, pp. 38-43, 
 where authorities are cited. Cushing's Rules, c. xii. 
 
 Q. Does Freedom of Debate include a right to dis- 
 cuss a motion to enter a Protest in the Journal ? 
 
 A. No. Jt has been the imiform practice of the Houses 
 of General Convention to deny the right of Protest. 
 Hence, a motion, which it is out of order favorably to 
 entertain, it is out of order to debate. Policy restricts 
 freedom in this respect ; for if one person may enter a 
 Protest, or debate the motion, then the whole disaffected 
 minority might do the same ; and the debate would be 
 endless, or the Journal burdened with extraneous and in- 
 conclusive matter. 
 
 Q. How long since has it been a settled Rule to deny a 
 claini to enter a Protest in the Journal ? 
 
 A. Ever since the General Convention of a. d. 1795, 
 and confirmed in General Conventions of a. d. 1862 and 
 A. D. 1865. (See Appendix to Journal.) In a. d. 1865, 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHUECH. 91 
 
 a motion to enter a Protest by the present writer, was not 
 received nor entered on the Journal. Bishop White re- 
 ports that " three very respectable lay gentlemen, who 
 were of a remarkably concihatory character, pressed for 
 permission to enter their Protest in the Journal of a. d. 
 1795. It was not granted ; and as this has been the only 
 instance, in which the question of a right to protest has 
 undergone discussion, the recording of the denial of the 
 right," he says, " falls in with the design of the present 
 work." Mem. of Oh. p. 222. 
 
 Article 2. " The Church in each Dio- „ 
 
 House of 
 
 cese shall be entitled to a representation LifceU-^ 
 of both the Clergy and the Laity. Such 
 representation shall consist of not more than four 
 Clergymen, and four Laymen Communicants in 
 this Church, residents in the Diocese, and Q„^iifl„aHo„a 
 chosen in the manner prescribed by the ""^p"""'- 
 Convention thereof; and in all questions when re- 
 quired by the Clerical and^ Lay representation 
 from any Diocese, each Order shall have one Vote ; 
 and the majority of suffrages by Dioceses shall be 
 conclusive in each Order, provided such majority 
 comprehend a majority of the Dioceses votuby 
 
 ^ y^ T ml Dioceses and 
 
 represented in that Order. The concur- ordo™. 
 rence of both Orders shall be necessary to consti- 
 tute a Vote of the Convention. If the Conven- 
 tion of any Diocese should neglect or decline 
 to appoint Clerical Deputies, or if they should 
 neglect or decline to appoint Lay Deputies, or if 
 any of those of either Order appointed should 
 neglect to attend, or be prevented by sickness or 
 
 1 Probable typographical error for " or." See post. 
 
92 MANTJAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 any other accident, such Diocese shall neverthe- 
 whatcon- less be considered as duly represented by 
 R^pi^nta- such Deputy or Deputies as may attend, 
 DiMese. whether Lay or Clerical. And if, through 
 the neglect of the Convention of any of the 
 Churches which shall have adopted or may here- 
 Diocesps no6 aftcr adopt this Constitution, no Deputies, 
 STbomd. either Lay or Clerical, should attend at 
 any General Convention, the Church in such Dio- 
 cese shall nevertheless be bOund by the acts of 
 such Convention." 
 
 HOUSE OF CLERICAL AND LAY DEPUTIES. 
 
 Q. How ai'e the Deputies to the Genei-al Convention 
 chosen ? 
 
 A. They are " Chosen in the manner prescribed by the 
 Convention " of the Dioceses which they represent. Cons. 
 Art. II. 
 
 Q. May a Diocesan Convention, by Canon or otherwise, 
 delegate the right and power of choosing Deputies pro- 
 tectively/, either to the Bishop, or a Committee, or any 
 other person or persons ? , 
 
 A. Decidedly not. " A prospective general transfer of 
 the right to choose representatives is scarcely consistent 
 with the relation the Diocesan Convention is meant to bear 
 to the Genei-al Convention, nor with the just construction 
 of the Constitutional provision." HoflP. L. C. p. 144. 
 
 Q. What is the just construction of this provision of the 
 Constitution? 
 
 A. " The Constitution contemplates an action by the 
 Diocesan Convention, for each Genei-al Convention ; and 
 that the representation is to be of the direct appointment 
 of the Diocesan Convention." Ibid. p. 143. 
 
 Q. May a Diocesan Convention delegate to the Bishop, 
 or other person or persons, the power to fill a vacancy ? 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 93 
 
 A. Yes. The General Convention of a. d. 1847, on the 
 report of the Committee on Elections, " Mesolved, As the 
 sense of this House, that members appointed by authority 
 of the Diocesan Conventions are, according to the practice 
 of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, fiiUy entitled 
 to their seats." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1847, p. 29. 
 
 But the cases specified in the report of the Committee 
 were all cases of a vacancy, by death, or resignation, of 
 persons chosen by the Diocesan Convention for that Gen- 
 eral Convention, and whose places were supplied by the 
 Bishop or others, by a Canon of the Diocese, or by a spe- 
 cial resolution of the Diocesan Convention. Hoff. L. C. 
 p. 143. 
 
 Q. Would a Canon of a Diocese delegating the power 
 and duty of choice, entirely and prospectively, be valid ? 
 
 A. No. The delegated power can apply only to a 
 vacancy occurring in the existing deputation. HofF. L. C. 
 p. 143. 
 
 Q. What is a Vacancy ? 
 
 A. A vacancy implies a vacating ; and vacating requires 
 an agent who vacates. The office must, therefore, be first 
 occupied, or mtended to be occupied, before a vacancy can 
 occur. An original office, not yet filled, is simply empty. 
 " A thing is empty when there is nothing in it : as an 
 empty room, an empty noddle. Vacant adds the idea of a 
 thing's having been filled, or intended to be filled and occu- 
 pied : as a vacant seat at table, or a vacant succession in 
 Law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Webster's Dictionary, 
 " Vacant." 
 
 Q. Whom does the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
 represent ? 
 
 A. " The Church in each Diocese." Cons. Art. H. 
 
 Q. Does it represent the Diocesan Conventions ? 
 
 A. No. They are themselves only Representatives of 
 the Church in their respective Dioceses. 
 
 Q. Who are " the Church in each Diocese " ? 
 
94 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. The Clergy and people, or Congregations, who, by 
 the law, secular and ecclesiastical, are represented in the 
 Diocfesan Convention. 
 
 Q. What is the relation between the Diocesan Conven- 
 tions and the General Convention ? 
 
 A. The Diocesan Conventions are the medium of au- 
 thority' and communication, between the General Conven- 
 tion and " the Church in each Diocese." The Diocesan 
 Conventions simply choose tlie Deputies to the General 
 Convention ; they hkewise receive the communications of 
 the General Convention of proposed Alterations of the 
 Constitution, and of the Book of Common Prayer, for the 
 information of " the Church in each Diocese." Ai-ts. 
 VIII. and IX. Cons. 
 
 Q. Is the Constituency of the General Convention and 
 the Constituency of the Diocesan Conventions, one and the 
 same? 
 
 A. Yes. One and the same, being "the Church in 
 each Diocese." 
 
 Q. Who are " the Church in each Diocese," represented 
 in General Convention ? 
 
 A. The Clergy and Laity, distributed in the Pai-ishes or 
 Congregations of each Diocese ; for the whole system of 
 the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States is r^resentative ; except tlie Bishops, who, 
 by virtue of Consecration (see Office of Consecration of 
 Bishops), are " Bishops in the Church of God," and do not 
 "represent" the Church in their Dioceses, in General 
 Convention, but take their seats in the House of Bishops, 
 virtute officii. 
 
 The Parish or Congregation, consisting of Minister 
 and people, is the organic unit of representation of " the 
 Church in each Diocese." 
 
 The members of the Church in the Parish are the Con- 
 stituency according to Ecclesiastical Law ; while the sec- 
 ular statutes include, also, persons in a parish who may be 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHTTRCH. 95 
 
 connected with it by secular bonds alone. These persons 
 (as the rule of law may provide the qualifieations to vote) 
 elect the Vestries; the Vestries (commonly) elect the 
 Delegates to tlio Diocesan Conventions, agreeably to the 
 Constitution of the Dioceses respectively, and these Dele- 
 gates elect the Deputies to the General Convention. 
 
 The system, from first to last, is representative of the 
 original constituency, to wit: the Clergy and people of 
 "tlie Church in each Diocese." Mem. of Ch. p. 73. 
 HoflF. L. C. p. 88. Hawks' Cons. & Can. contra, p. 53. 
 
 Q. What are the Qualifications of the Depu- Qunmoa- 
 ties to General Convention ? Depnties, 
 
 A. (1) " Not more than four Clergymen and four Lay- 
 men. (^2) Communicants in this Church. (3) Resi- 
 dents in the Diocese. (4) Chosen in die manner pre- 
 scribed by the respective Diocesan Conventions." 
 
 Q. What is tlie origni of the admission of Lay- origin of 
 men into tlie Councils of this Chui-ch ? " if/irthT 
 
 A. The second ofthe" Fundamental Articles" '^'""^^■ 
 proposed in a. d. 178-1, was in these words, namely : " That 
 tlie Episcopal Chui-cli in each State send deputies to the 
 Convention, consisting of the Clergy and Laity." 
 
 Article VI. is in these words, namely : " That the 
 Clerg^T and Laity assembled in Convention shall deliberate 
 in one body, but shall vote sepai'ately ; and the conciu"- 
 rence of botli shall be necessary to give validity to every 
 measuro." These articles are the basis of the Lay repre- 
 sentation in die Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States. See ante, " Pi'eliminary History." 
 
 Q. Is there an earlier origin claimed in tliis countiy for 
 the plan of admitting tlie Laity into the Councils of the 
 Church ? 
 
 A. Bisliop White claims to be the author of the plan of 
 admitting tlie Laity as a coordinate power with the Clergy, 
 in a pamphlet issued by him in a. d. 1782. And he de- 
 fends tlie measure on principle, as agreeable to the pattern 
 
96 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 of the First Coiincil, recorded in the 15th chapter of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, and as conforming to the example 
 of the British Church. Mem. of Ch. pp. 73-81. "Wil- 
 son's Mem. Bp. White, p. 123. 
 
 Q. Does the Coordinate Authority of the Clergy and 
 of the Laity in General Convention confer on each Order 
 the right to join in making laws to regulate the other 
 Order ? 
 
 A. It does. 
 
 Q. Does this provision of Concurrent Majorities of the 
 two Orders confer unusual Ecclesiastical powers on the 
 Laity ? 
 
 A. It does. The Coimcils of the Clergy alone have 
 been accustomed to make all the Canons for the govern- 
 ment of the Clergy ; while, in Great Britain, the laws of 
 the Church that concerned the Laity in spiritual matters, 
 were passed or ratified in the Supreme Legislature — the 
 Witan and the ParKament, — in which a representation of 
 the Laity existed. See ante, on the " Common Law of the 
 Chui-ch." Hoff. L. C. p. 52. 
 
 Q. Is the voice of the Laity, in making Canons for the 
 government of the Clergy, a departure from the primitive 
 Law of the Church? 
 
 A. It is. 
 
 Q. What was the ancient and invariable rule of the 
 British and Anglican Church, as inherited by the Church 
 of England ? 
 
 A. Ecclesiastical Laws or Canons could not be estab- 
 lished nor changed, except by a National Synod consisting 
 of " Bishops and other learned men of the Clergy." Rec- 
 ords are now extant of the existence and organization of 
 the British Church, from the year of our Lord 200 ; and 
 the Canons imder the Saxon Kings, styled "Monumenta 
 Ecclesiastica," are accessible, showing that the same ftm- 
 damental rule prevailed in the Anglo-Saxon Church and 
 in the British Church. Ecclesiastical Canons affecting the 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 97 
 
 Laity, during the same periods, were ratified in the Witen- 
 agemote by the King, with the advice of his gi-eat men. 
 Those controUing the Clergy are called " Institutions ; " 
 those which touched the Laity ax'e styled " Laws." From 
 these Laws and Institutions respecting the British and 
 Anglican Church, we learn that "the Councils of the 
 Clergy were sufficient for the government of the Clergy ; 
 and that when tlie Laity were concerned, the Laws of the 
 Church must have been passed or ratified by the Witan, 
 in which a representation of the Laity existed." " The 
 Norman Revolution, a. d. 1066, made no change in this 
 respect." Hoff". L. C. p. 52. At the Reformation, a. d. 
 1534, the principle was not revoked, though it was impaired 
 in its operation under Henry VIII. by the submission of 
 the Church to the Crown. The Synod of the Bishops 
 and Clergy, in a. d. 1603, made the Canons of the Church 
 of England, which were afterwards confirmed by Royal 
 Authority, and by the Houses of Parliament, wherein the 
 Laity are represented. See ante on the " Common Law 
 of tlie Church." 
 
 Q. In this country, where there is no union of Church 
 and State, how are the respective rights of Clergy votoby 
 and Laity protected under the Constitution of the oi-dure. 
 Protestant Episcopal Church ? 
 
 A. (1) By tlie vote " by Dioceses and Orders in Gen- 
 eral Convention," when required by the Clerical (^and')^ 
 Lay representation from any Diocese, each Order having 
 one vote, and the concurrence of both Orders being con- 
 clusive ; so that the rights of the Clergy and Laity are, so 
 far forth, under their own protection respectively. 
 
 (2) By the qualification that Lay members shall be 
 " Commnnicants in this Church : " whereby, an added se- 
 curity obtains, that justice and spiritual intelligence will 
 predominate among the Laity in the debates and the Can- 
 ons of General Convention. But as the Constitution now 
 
 I Probably tvpograpliical error for '• or." See post. 
 7 
 
98 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 stands, if the Clerical or the Lay representation in every 
 Diocese, should decline to unite in the call for a vote by 
 Orders, their ability to protect their several rights is in 
 abeyance. 
 
 Q. What error, on this point of a call for a Vote by 
 Dioceses and Orders, has probably crept into the Constitu- 
 tion? 
 
 A. Vice-Chancellor Hoffman states that " In the Cour 
 stitution, as twice published by Bioren in the Journals (pp. 
 61, 75), the requisition for a Vote by Orders may be made 
 by either the Clerical ok Lay representation of any> Dio- 
 cese." Hoff. L. C. p. 149. Dr. Hawks testifies to the 
 same point in " Church Review," July, A. d. 1859, p. 328. 
 It is not certainly known how the conjunctive word " and" 
 is become substituted for the disjunctive word " or." 
 Judge Hoifinan says that in the other copies of the Con- 
 stitution which he has examined, the word is " and." Ad- 
 ditional researches indicate that the error first occurred in 
 the Journal, a. d. 1808. Accordingly, the, practice under 
 the Constitution, as it now reads, requires an united demand 
 " of the Clerical and Lay representation of a Diocese " to 
 a call for a vote by Orders. 
 
 A typographical error seems clearly to have crept into 
 this important Article of the Constitution in a. d. 1808. 
 The original power, therefore, ought to be restored, where- 
 by either Order, Lay ok Clerical, of a Diocese, may de- 
 mand a Vote by Orders ; then, and not till then, the rights 
 of each Order, being in its own keeping, might be perfectly 
 protected, as they were intended to be. 
 
 On this point of intention we have the positive testimony 
 of Bishop White. Bishop White states that " the Consti- 
 tution of A. D. 1789 gives the right to a call for a vote by 
 Dioceses and Orders to the Clergy or Laity representing 
 a State (Diocese) in General Convention." Mem. of Ch. 
 p. 23. He also transcribes the Constitution, in which the 
 clause reads thus : " In all questions, when required by the 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 99 
 
 Clerical or Lay representation from any State, each Order 
 shall have one vote." Ibid. p. 418. Dr. Hawks tran- 
 scribes the Constitution of a. d. 1789 the same as Bishop 
 White ; in " Church Review," July, a. d. 1859. 
 
 The Constitution prefixed to the Journal of the State 
 Convention of Massachusetts, in a. d. 1800, by the Commit- 
 tee, appointed in a. d. 1799, to obtain and publish a Standard 
 copy of the General Constitution, contains the word "or " 
 in the Second Article. The substitution of "and" for 
 "or " is discovered to have been introduced in the printed 
 Journal, and to be an error of the press, in a. d. 1808, as 
 will appear from the certificate of the examiner. Judge 
 W. H. Bell, of New York : ^— 
 
 52 John Street, N. T., Epiphany week, 1870. 
 My dear Professor: 
 
 I have carefully examined the Journals from A. d. 1789 to the Convention of 
 A. D. 1804, arid do not find any attempt to alter this word " or " in Article 2 of 
 the Constitution. But in passing through the Journal of A. d. 1801, pp. 265- 
 275, 1 find this pernicious and mischievous Resolution passed by the two Houses 
 as follows : 
 
 "Jiesdved, That it be recommended to t';i>' several State Conventions of this 
 Church to cause as great a number as possible of the Constitution and Canons 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and of the Constitu- 
 tions and Canons of their respective Churches, to be printed and distributed 
 among their respective congregations." 
 
 You perceive here was no responsibility for accuracy reserved, and a general 
 license for the possible propagation of errors. 
 
 I have not met with any published under this recommendation and license. 
 
 This same Convention, pp. 268-277, also passed a resolution appointing a Joint 
 Committee to revise and publish the Journal, etc., of this Convention. Bishop 
 Moore and Dr. Hobart were on this Committee. It is to be presumed that noth- 
 ing more was done than to publish the Journal of that year. 
 
 The Convention of A. D. 1804, pp. 302-312, passed the following: 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee appointed to publish the Journals be au- 
 thorized to publish the Constitution and all the Canons of the Church in the order 
 of their enaction, making a reference by asterisk at the end of every Canon to 
 a note, pointing out the various other Canons which refer to the subject of that 
 particular Canon." 
 
 The Constitution and Canons published by the above Committee, and the 
 office of Induction, are to be considered as authorized akd standard copies. 
 See Original publication of Journal under the supervision of Bp. Moore and Dr. 
 Hobart, by T. & J. Swords, New York, A. d. 1804, pp. 14-22. 
 
 I also have the original publication of the " Constitution, etc., of the Church 
 from A. D. 1789 to A. D. 1804 inclusive. New York : Printed by T. & J. Swords, 
 No. 160 Pearl Street, a. d. 1805,"— 
 
 * A concIusiTe certificate from Dr. Perry is given on p. 190. 
 
100 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 With the following certificate: 
 
 Whereas, the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States, held in the city of New York, in the month of September, A. D. 
 1804, passed the following resolution, namely: — 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee appointed to publish the Journals be author- 
 ized to publish the Constitution and Canons of the Church in the order of their 
 enaction, making a reference by asterisk at the end of every Canon to a note 
 pointing out the various other Canons which refer to the subject of that particular 
 Canon." 
 
 " We, the undersigned, being the Committee appointed for that purpose, do 
 hereby publish the Constitution and Canons of the Church agreeably to the fore- 
 going resolution, and do certify that this present edition of the said Constitution 
 and Canons is the Standard Copy. 
 
 " Benjamin Moore, D. D., 
 
 Bishop of the Prot. JSpis. Church in the State of New York. 
 " Abraham Beach, D. D., 
 
 An Assiatant Minister of Trinity Church, New Yorh. 
 " William Harris, 
 
 Rector of St. Mark's Church in (he Bowery, New York. 
 "John Henry Hobart, 
 
 An Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New, York.** 
 
 In this standard copy. Article 2, line 5, are to be found the words, " Clerical or 
 Lay representatives," same as in the original, 2d October, A. d. 1789, the same 
 " as copied in the Book of Records, that was read and compared and signed by 
 both Houses of the General Convention, on the 15th October, A. d. 1789," p. 109. 
 
 I have carefully looked through the proceedings, or rather Journal, of A. D. 
 1808, for an authority for changing this "or" into " and," as was done by 
 this same house of T. & J. Swords, in A. d. 1808. 
 
 Hawks and Perry include the Journals of A. D. 1804 and a.d. 1808 in their 1st 
 vol., but say nothing in their " historical notes and documents " of this publica- 
 tion in A. D. 1804 — no doubt, for want of space, as these documents go no further 
 down than A. D. 1786. 
 
 The next General Convention met in Baltimore, May 17, A. D. 1808. 
 
 On the last day of the Convention, May 26, the following Resolution was passed 
 by both Houses, pp. 349-359 : — 
 
 " Resolvetl, That the Secretary of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
 prepare the Journals and other Acts of this Convention for publication: and that 
 the said Secretary and the President of this House, and the Right Rev. Bishop 
 Moore, be a Committee to publish the same, together with the sermon preached 
 at the opening of this Convention, and the pastoral letter of the House of Bishops, 
 and that the Book of Canons, and the office of Institution, published by said 
 Committee, be authorized as Standard Copies." — pp. 17-26 of original print. 
 
 This Journal in my possession has the following imprint : " New York : Printed 
 by T. & J. Swords, No. 160 Pearl Street, A. d. 1808." 
 
 Note at the end of the Journal of House of Bishops: 
 
 " N. B. — The Canons passed at this Convention are published with the Con- 
 stitution of this Church in a distinct pamphlet." 
 
 The title-page to this " distinct pamphlet," mentioned in the above " N. B.," is 
 as follows : — 
 
 " Canons for the Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church, &c., being 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 101 
 
 the substance of various Canons adopted in General Conventions of said Churcli, 
 held in the Years of our Lord 1789, 1792, 1795, 1799, 1801, 1804, and now set forth 
 with alterations and additions in General Convention, a. d. 1808. To which is 
 annexed the Constitution of the Church, the Prayer to be used at the meetings 
 of Conventions, and the course of Ecclesiastical Studies. New York: Printed 
 by T. & J. Swords, No. 160 Pearl Street, A. d. 1808." 
 On the back of tliis title-page is the following : 
 
 "We, the undersigned, being a Committee appointed by the General Conven- 
 tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, held in Baltimore, 
 in the month of May, A. d. 1308, to publish the Canons of the Church as set forth 
 by said Convention, do hereby publish the same, and do certify that this present 
 edition of the Constitution, Canons, etc., is the Standard Copy. 
 " Benjamin Moore, D. D., 
 
 Bishop of the Prot. Epis. Church in the State of New York. 
 " Abraham Beach, D. D., 
 
 An Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New Torh. 
 " John Henry Hobart, D. D., 
 
 An Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New Foj-A:." 
 Yet, although published by the same persons who certified to the edition of a. d. 
 1804 being a " standard copy," with the word " or " in the 2d Article of the 
 Constitution, yet the same "or" in the present '* standard copy" is changed into 
 " and." As there is no authority for this change to be found in the proceedings 
 of the Convention of 1808, the change must be attributed to a typographical er- 
 ror, the same as " ye " — Act Apos. Ch. VI. v. 3 — was substituted lor " we," may, 
 etc. An error it must be admitted to be, — and the continuance of this error tor 
 years, and the Convention having acted under the change, cannot give it the 
 force of law. The utmost that can be claimed for it is, that all acts done in pur- 
 suance of the error, without any knowledge to the contrary, must be considered 
 as valid acts. But when the error has been pointed out and it is proved that there 
 is no existing authority for it, all subsequent acts must be considered invalid. 
 
 I have not yet examined the proceedings of 1856, when this Article 2 was 
 amended. 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 WILLIAM H. BELL. 
 To the Eev. Professor Francis Vinton, D. D., D. C. L., Trinity Church, N. 7. 
 
 January lith, 1870. 
 My dear Professor: — 
 
 I promised you to continue my investigations relative to the altering of " or " 
 into " and," between ' Clerical " and " Lay " on line 7, Article 2, of the Consti- 
 tution, as published in the Digest of 1869. 
 
 In my last I pointed out to you that the word " or" was in the Standard 
 Copy of the Constitution published in A. D. 1804, by order of the General Con- 
 vention, following the original document, adopted 2d October, a. d. 1789. But 
 that the copy published as a standard by the same authority in A. d. 1808, con- 
 tained this typographical error of " and " for " or," — I say typographical error, 
 because I can find no authority for the alteration, and I cannot bring my mind to 
 believe that Bishop Moore, Dr. Beach, and Bishop Hobart, would have counte- 
 nanced the alteration had they known it, as they were the Committee appointed 
 'o superintend its printing. 
 
102 MANUAL COMMENTARY 
 
 In the General Convention of a. d. 1850, p. 40, a Eesolution was passed, " That 
 the Committee on Canons be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so al- 
 tering the second article of the Constitution that none but communicants of this 
 Church be elected to serve as Deputies in the General Convention thereof." The 
 Committee on Canons were the Rev. Dr. Jarvis, W. C. Mead, A. H. Vinton, S. 
 Seabury, Ed. Y. Higbee, Messrs. H. D. Evans, E. A. Newton, Judges Chambers 
 and Jones (pp. 41, 66, 88), a. d. 1853, pp. 42, 51, 124, 230. This Committee re- 
 ported to the Convention the desired alteration, only arranging the verbal con- 
 struction of the sentence for the purpose of making it read correctly, and it was 
 printed on a fly-leaf before the title-page of the Journal of that year, showing ira 
 jtaZics the proposed changes, which do not include the word "and" in place of 
 " or " between " Clerical " and " Lay " representation. Ist May, A. D. 1856, Dr. 
 Howe, Secretary of the Convention, gave the Canonical notice to the Diocese of 
 New Yorls. See its Journal a. d. 1856, pp. 33, 34, 47, 48, Sept. 24. And the 
 amended article, with others, was given to a Committee consisting of Rev. Dr. 
 Hawks, Brown, and F. Vinton, Judge Oakley and F. J. Betts, who reported favor- 
 ably. It was adopted and sent to the General Convention of that same year. 
 
 On the 3d day of October, a. d. 1856, (p. 29,) Dr. F. Vinton, of N. Y., called 
 upon the Secretary of the General Convention to know if he had given the Ca- 
 nonical notice of the proposed alterations of the Constitution about to be presented 
 to the Convention for adoption, and he replied in the affirmative. Journal Gen- 
 eral Convention, A. D. 1856, p. 29 ; also see N. Y. Journal, A. D. 1857, p. 33. 
 
 The amendment to the 2d Article, or rather addition, respecting the qualifica- 
 tion of Lay Deputies, was adopted 14th October, A. d. 1856, p. 179. In this al- 
 teration or addition, no allusion was made to the clause in the 2d Article containing 
 the typographical error under consideration. It is remarkable that in A. d. 1859, 
 when the Digest was prepared, the compilers had not recourse to the Original 
 Standard written document of 2d October, A. D. 1789, where this error would 
 have been discovered. Very sincerely yours, etc., 
 
 WILLIAM H. BELL. 
 
 To the Eev. Francis Vinton, D. D., D. C. L., Professor of Charles and Eliza- 
 beth I/udlow Professorship of Eccledastical Polity amd Law, Gen. Theo. Sem. 
 
 QUALIFICATION OF LAY DEPUTIES. 
 Lay Com- Q. When was the quahficatioii of being a Lay 
 
 mUDicants in -^ . , ^ . r^i !))• ii» 
 
 this Church. " Commumcant in this Church introduced into 
 the Constitution of the General Convention ? 
 
 A, In the Convention of A. d. 1853, and ratified by the 
 Church in the Convention of a. d. 1856. When this qualifi- 
 cation became a Fundamental Law, certain Laymen, sit- 
 ting in General Convention, who were not Communicants 
 (and one who avowed himself to be unbaptized), resigned 
 their office, and retired from the Convention, as being 
 justly disquahfied. 
 
 Q. What is meant by " Communicants in this Church," 
 as a qualification of Lay Deputies ? 
 
CONSTITUTION OP THE CHURCH. 103 
 
 A. That he should be a Communicant, under the cure of 
 a Rector or a Minister in this Church, at the time of his 
 election, in good standing, and not under Ecclesiastical 
 censure. 
 
 Q. What Ecclesiastical censure would invalidate the 
 quaUfication of a Layman? 
 
 A. That which is sometimes styled the " lesser lExcom- 
 munieation," or Suspension from the Holy Communion, ac- 
 cording to the second Rubric before the Communion Ser- 
 vice, and Canon 12, Title II. of the Digest. 
 
 Q. If a Layman should incur Ecclesiastical censure 
 durmg his term of office, would he be quahfied to sit as 
 Lay Deputy ? 
 
 A. No. Suspension from Holy Communion carries with 
 it suspension from the functions and privileges of " a Com- 
 municant in this Church." 
 
 Q. What is meant by the clause " Residents in Kesidenta m 
 the Diocese," as a Quahfication of Clerical and »«™°«*- 
 Lay Members ? 
 
 A. It means " Canonical Residence,'' or Residence in the 
 Diocese, in the Ecclesiastical sense ; the Church speaks the 
 Church's language. 
 
 Q. What judgment must the Secular Courts give on the 
 question of Residence in a Diocese ? 
 
 A. The Civil Courts, if called on to decide on the bounds 
 of a Diocese and residence therein or removal therefrom, 
 must refer to Ecclesiastical Law for the definition of the 
 word " Diocese," and consequently for " Residence in the 
 Diocese." In this country, the Legislature does not define 
 Ecclesiastical boundaries, nor Ecclesiastical qualifications, 
 as in England, where Church and State are joined under 
 the Constitution. 
 
 Q. What is the Canonical Residence of a c^j^^, 
 Clergyman ? Kesidence. 
 
 A. The Residence contemplated by the Canons of Gen- 
 eral Convention. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 105 
 
 Dioceses, wheresoever their secular residence may be. 
 [4] § VII. Canon 12, Title I. Dig. 
 
 (4) " No clergyman having a Parish or Oure in more 
 than one Diocese, shall have a seat in the Convention of 
 any Diocese other than that in which he resides." 
 
 This Canon forbids a twofold Residence, Amenability, 
 and Privilege. It confines the Clergyman to one Episco- 
 pal Jurisdiction. 
 
 The Ecclesiastical and Canonical Residence of the 
 Clergyman is, by this Canon, furthermore declared to be 
 with that one of the Congregations, in that Diocese, within 
 the topographical "limits of which they dwell, and in which 
 there is seated a church to which they belong." 
 
 He is under the exclusive Jurisdiction of that Bishop, 
 and is entitled to sit only in that Convention, and has all 
 the responsibilities and privileges of that Diocese, and not 
 of the other Diocese. 
 
 His Canonical Residence, in this special case, iS defined 
 to be identical with his Secular domicile ; being that within 
 the limits of which he and his congregation " dwell," and 
 their Church is " seated." § I. Canon 5, Title III. Dig. 
 
 Q. What Canonical conditions prescribe the time when 
 the privilege of Clerical Residence and Removal takes 
 effect under Letters Dimissory ? 
 
 A. The privilege of Clerical Residence and Removal is 
 insured to a Clergyman other than a Bishop, by his de- 
 manding and receiving Letters Dimissory from the Bishop, 
 or other Ecclesiastical authority, within whose Jurisdiction 
 he canonically resides, to be presented to the Ecclesiastical 
 authority under whose Jurisdiction he removes. 
 
 But though a clergyman change his Domicile or Seculai 
 Residence, the Canons provide that : " No such Letter shall 
 affect a Minister's Canonical Residence, until after having 
 been presented according to its address, nor until it shall 
 have been accepted, and notification of such acceptance 
 given to the authority whence it proceeded. The residence 
 
106 MANTJAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 of the Minister, so transferred, shall date from the acceptance 
 of his letter of transfer. If Bot presented within three 
 months after its date, it may be considered as void by the 
 authority whence it proceeded : and shall be so considered, 
 unless it be presented within six months. [1] [2] § VII. 
 Canon 12, Title I. Dig. 
 
 Q. Is a Clergyman removing beyond the territor'ial lim- 
 its of a Diocese into parts where there is no Bishop, re- 
 quired to maintain his Diocesan Residence ? 
 
 A. Yes. The Canon, " Of a clergyman absenting him- 
 self from his Diocese, doubtless refers to a clergyman who 
 removes into foreign parts, where there is no Bishop of 
 this Church." It requires of him to give reasons for his 
 absence, satisfactory to his Bishop, in writing, within a 
 period oi five years after his departure, on penalty of " sus- 
 pension from the Ministry," unless he " renew his resi- 
 dence " afresh, after that interval of time. The time of 
 absence, without reasons given or demanded, was extended 
 fi-om two to five years in a. d. 1862. 
 
 During all this time, the Clergyman is considered as 
 "belonging to the Diocese," because in contemplation of 
 Canon Law, he is under the jurisdiction of the Bishop 
 thereof. Canon 7, Title II. Dig. 
 
 Q. To whom is a clergyman belonging to one Diocese, 
 and charged with an offense committed in another Dio- 
 cese, amenable ? 
 
 A. He is, in the first place, amenable to the Bishop and 
 Canons of that Diocese whence he came ; being, in the 
 language of the Canon, "Canonically resident" therein. 
 Due notice is required to be given to the Bishop who has 
 jui-isdiction, by the Ecclesiastical Authority of that Diocese 
 wherein the offense is alleged to have been committed. 
 Due notice being given, and not heeded for the space of 
 three months, the accused clergyman is then amenable to 
 the Bishop and Canons of the Diocese in which the alleged 
 offense was charged. § I. Canon 3, Title II. Dig. 
 
CONSTITUTION OP THE CHUKCH. 107 
 
 Q. May the Ecclesiastical Authority of a Diocese refuse 
 to accept Letters Dimissory presented by a Clergyman in 
 good standing, who is called into the Diocese to take charge 
 of a Parish ? 
 
 A. No. When a Minister is called by a Vestry, or by 
 other persons having the quasi right of Advowson, the 
 Canons provide that : " If a Minister, removing into another 
 Diocese, who has been called to take charge of a Parish or 
 Congregation, shall present a Letter Dimissory, it shall he 
 the duty of the Ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese to 
 which he has removed to accept it," unless credible rumors 
 prevail against the character of the Minister concerned, 
 and when the Minister shall be duly exculpated from the 
 said charges. [3] § VII. Canon 12, Title I. Dig. 
 
 This Canon defines a Clergyman's Residence to be, 
 where the Parish which he serves is situated. 
 
 Q. What further interpretation on Clerical Residence 
 do the Canons iurnish ? 
 
 A. A Clergyman ordained in a Foreign Country, by a 
 Bishop in communion with this Church, may be "received 
 into union with any Diocese," after certain prescribed 
 preliminaries evincing his canonical fitness, according to 
 the provisions of Canon 10. Title I. : but " before he 
 shall be permitted to settle in any Church or Parish, or be 
 received into union with any Diocese of this Church, as a 
 Minister thereof, he shall produce to the Bishop " (or Ec- 
 clesiastical authority thereof) a Letter of Dismission, as pro- 
 vided for in Sect. VII. of Canon 12, Title I., which Letter 
 of Dismission " shall be delivered within six months from 
 the date thereof ; and when such clergyman shall have -been 
 duly received, " he shall be considered as having passed 
 entirely from the jurisdiction of the Bishop from whom the 
 Letter of Dismission was brought to the full jurisdiction 
 of the Bishop or Ecclesiastical Authority by whom it shall 
 have been accepted, and become thereby subject to all the 
 Canonical provisions of this Church ; " Provided, that such 
 
108 MANUAL COMMENTAKY. 
 
 Minister shall not be entitled to settle in any Parish or 
 Church, as canonically in charge of the same, until he 
 shall have resided one year in the United States, subse- 
 quent to the acceptance of his Letter of Dismission. Can- 
 on 10, Title I. The Proviso of this Canon expressly dis- 
 tinguishes between Domicile or Secular Residence, and 
 Ecclesiastical or Canonical Residence. Canon 10, Title 
 I. Dig. 
 
 Q. What conclusion follows as to the meaning of the 
 clause in Art. II. respecting Clerical Deputies, " Residents 
 in the Diocese " which they represent ? 
 
 A. The Church's laws are presumed to speak the 
 Church's language, and when the Constitution and Can- 
 ons speak of " Residents in the Diocese," they mean Ec- 
 clesiastical residence : and when Civil or Secular residence 
 is meant, the context clearly defines it, or it is specially 
 stated as distinct and exceptional, as in Canon 10, Title I. 
 and Canon 5, Title III. Dig. 
 
 The Clergyman's residence in a Diocese, under the 
 Constitution, as interpreted by the Canons, admits of no 
 other interpretation than the being under the Episcopal 
 Jurisdiction somewhere, and " subject to all the canonical 
 provisions of this Church." He is amenable to the laws 
 of that Diocese, and entitled to all the immunities and 
 privileges appertaining to members of that Diocese of the 
 Bishop who has jurisdiction over him. In other words : 
 Sis Bishop's jurisdiction over him defines the Diocese in 
 which the Clerical Deputy canonically resides. 
 
 By the Canons recited, the Bishop's See or Seat is 
 within topographical limits : his Jurisdiction, however, over 
 the Clergy of his Diocese, extends beyond the topograph- 
 ical and secular boundary of his District : it is a Jurisdiction 
 over persons, — over Souls, — not merely a local Jurisdic- 
 tion. The Bishop's Diocese, ecclesiastically, is coexten- 
 sive with his Episcopal Jurisdiction, according to the Can- 
 ons. His See or Seat is local. Diocesan Residence of a 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 109 
 
 Clergyman, other than a Bishop, according to the Canons, 
 is dependent on Episcopal Jurisdiction. A Clergyman, 
 removing out of the topographical limits of the Diocese, 
 does not remove from his Bishop's Jurisdiction, and there- 
 fore not from the Diocese, until he shall have been re- 
 ceived by another Bishop within his Diocese and under his 
 Jurisdiction, by Letters Dimissory. '■'■And the residence 
 of the Minister, so transferred, shall date from the accept- 
 ance of his letter of transfer." 
 
 But if the Clergyman withholds his Letter Dimissory 
 three months, it is voidable by the authority whence it pro- 
 ceeded ; if not presented within six months, it is void by 
 the Canon law : in which cases the Minister is canonically 
 resident in the Diocese whence he came, though no longer 
 bodily there within its secular limits. The secular " dom- 
 icile," beyond the topographical boundary of the Diocese, 
 does not disturb his Diocesan residence under the Con- 
 stitution and Canons of the Church. 
 
 It is, moreover, made the duty of every Clergyman re- 
 moving to another Episcopal Jurisdiction " to obtain and 
 present a Letter Dimissory within six months.'''' If, after 
 six months, he resides within the local boundaries of an- 
 other Diocese, and neither obtains nor presents Letters 
 Dimi§sory, he lives in defiance of this Canon Law ; and, 
 therefore, he may not enjoy the privileges of Members of 
 the Diocese to which he has removed, nor of the Diocese 
 whence he came, on the legal axiom that " no man may 
 gain advantage from his own wrong." He is, accordingly, 
 disqualified and ineligible as a Clerical Deputy in either 
 Diocese after six months. 
 
 Q. What is the authority of the axiom that no man may 
 take advantage of his own wrong ? 
 
 A. " Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua pro- 
 pria." It is a Maxim in Law. This is a rule of such 
 binding force as to be held obligatory against the wrong- 
 doer even as between himself and one cognizant or even 
 participant of the wrong. 
 
110 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 The Court of Errors of New York (4 Hill Eep. p. 457, 
 A. D. 1842) says, " It is perhaps one of the most attractive 
 features of the Law, that there are certain general princi- 
 ples which form prominent land-marks, not only to guide 
 the jurist and lawyer, but which are of such obvious im- 
 port, and so consonant with correct views of right and 
 wrong, as to be recognized by the community generally as 
 their rules of right action. They even become Maxims in 
 Law ; and just so far as we depart from them, so far are 
 we pretty certain to depart from the safe paths of justice. 
 Among them is that which declares that "No one shall be 
 permitted to take advantage of his own wrong." 
 
 Q. What policy of the Church dictates the Constitu- 
 tional and Canonical Residence of a Clergyman, as inde- 
 pendent of Secular Residence or " Domicile " ? 
 
 A. The policy of the Church is, that no Clergyman 
 shall be vagrant ; but he must have an Ecclesiastical Dom- 
 icile, where he shall be amenable to the jurisdiction of some 
 Bishop, and to the Canons of some Diocese. Therefore, 
 his Canonical and Constitutional " Residence," or Ecclesi- 
 astical Domicile, is not affected by his personal removal into 
 any State, District, or Diocese, until he shall have been 
 duly received by the Bishop, or Ecclesiastical Authority, of 
 the Diocese into which he has removed. 
 
 Q. Does the removal of a Clergyman into another 
 State or District or Diocese, ijpso facto, vacate his Ecclesi- 
 astical Domicile ? 
 
 A. No. A personal removal into some other State, 
 District, or Diocese, so far from changing his Ecclesiastical 
 Domicile, ipso facto, his "Residence," under the Constitu- 
 tion and Canons of the Church, remains as it was ; unless 
 he present his Letters Dimissory within six months of 
 their issue, and he be received by the Ecclesiastical Au- 
 thority to whom his Letters are addressed, and the Eccle- 
 siastical Authority that issued them shall have been duly 
 notified of their acceptance. In failure of these conditions, 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. Ill 
 
 a Clergyman continues to be a member of the Diocese 
 whence he intended personally to depart. 
 
 Q. How is the principle that a Clergyman's Residence 
 in a Diocese is determined exclusively by the fact of Epis- 
 copal Jurisdiction over him, and not by the laws of secular 
 domicile, evinced by Article V. of the Constitution of the 
 Church?' 
 
 A. Article V. of the Constitution provides for the Divis- 
 ion of a Diocese in a State, into two (or more) Dioceses. 
 Also, the Union of two (or more) Dioceses in contiguous 
 States into one Diocese. 
 
 The Civil Courts, if called on to decide on the bounds 
 of a Diocese and residence therein or removal therefrom, 
 must refer to the Ecclesiastical law for the definition of the 
 word " Diocese," and for the defining of its boundaries in 
 any particular case. The Legislature in this country does 
 not take original knowledge of Ecclesiastical boundaries, 
 as in England, where the Church is established by law, and 
 Church and State are joined tmder one Constitution. Nor 
 does the Secular law recognize the Office of Bishop or 
 Rector, or the establishment of a Diocese or Parish as 
 original civil and secular Institutions. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Corporations are Civil Corporations estab- 
 lished by the State under general laws, or by special Char- 
 ter, as under the Common Law. But the Oorporators, or 
 persons who in the aggregate compose the Corporation, are 
 simply Ecclesiastical persons appointed by Ecclesiastical 
 rules, and holding office solely under Ecclesiastical tenure. 
 
 Suppose a State to be divided into five Dioceses (as in 
 New York) by the exclusive legislation of the Church. 
 The Judges of the Courts of the State must look to the 
 Ecclesiastical laws for the bounds and limits of those Dio- 
 ceses, and to find out what constitutes removal from one 
 such Diocese to another, in that State. It is the same with 
 regard to Parishes. The Secular Judges must resort to 
 the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal 
 
112 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Church, and not to secular Statutes, to discover what 
 bounds and hmits and definitions the Church has prescribed 
 for Diocesan or Parochial Districts, Jurisdiction, Residence, 
 or Removal. 
 
 Or again : A Diocese, by Article V. of the Constitu- 
 tion, may include two (or more) States, or parts of States. 
 The Courts of Law, in either State, must look into the 
 Ecclesiastical Constitution and Canons to judge of the 
 rights and duties, the privileges and the amenabiUty, of 
 persons in that Diocese. For example, if Pennsylvania 
 and Delaware were erected into one Diocese, the Courts 
 of Pennsylvania could not decide that a person, changing 
 his secular Domicile from Pennsylvania to Delaware, 
 thereby changes his Diocesan Residence, or " Residence in 
 his Diocese." The Constitution and Canons of the Church 
 must govern the case at the civil tribunal of the secular 
 Courts. See chapter xxiii. on "the Interposition of 
 Civil Tribunals." Hoff. Ec. L. of N. Y. pp. 275-293. 
 Hoff. L. C. pp. 467-479. Buck's Massachusetts Ec. L. 
 pp. 213, et seq. " Ministers, Elders, and Deacons of the 
 Ref. Prot. Dutch Ch. in the City of Albany v. Bradford, 
 8 Cowen, 457, a. d. 1826." Harmon v. Desher, Court of 
 Appeals S. Carolina, 1 Spear's Equity Rep. p. 90 (a. d. 
 1843). 
 
 Q. What is the doctrine of the Canon of "Episcopal 
 Residence ? " 
 
 A. The Canon on the Residence of a Bishop defines 
 Residence in analogy with secular definitions of " Domi- 
 cile." It means that he shall reside in his See or Seat, 
 which is a local habitation defined by topographical bounds. 
 Under the law of the State, a citizen's Domicile is where 
 he lives and sleeps in the State for a prescribed time. In 
 New York, for example, a citizen's civil residence may be 
 ami/where in the State of New York. But his Domicile or 
 poUtioal residence is confined to some County, or other 
 subdivision of the State, where he may vote. The State 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCa 113 
 
 of New York is divided into five Ecclesiastical Districts or 
 ^^ Dioceses." The Canon requires a Bishop to "reside 
 within his Diocese ; " that is, in that part of the State of 
 New York defined by the local district and territorial 
 boundaries of his Diocese, or where his See is. 
 
 I'his Cf^on evidently contemplates Episcopal Ecclesi- 
 astical Residence as not distinct from secular Residence, 
 nor independent of it ; but it is coincident with his political 
 Residence or Domicile. 
 
 A Bishop of any one of the Dioceses in the limits of the 
 State of New York must have his Ecclesiastical Residence 
 in that part of the State where his Diocese is topograph- 
 ically defined ; and he must, therefore, conform his Secular 
 Domicile to his Ecclesiastical. 
 
 Q. Repeat what special immunity is accorded by Canon 
 (in view of the rights of the Clergy and the Laity') to a 
 Clergyman called to take charge of a Parish or Congrega- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. It enjoins the Bishop to accept Letters Dimissory 
 of a Minister called to a Church or Congregation, and to 
 receive him into his Diocese, unless his character be cred- 
 ibly impugned, and on no other condition. In this case, 
 the Minister's Ecclesiastical and Diocesan Residence is in 
 the same Diocese as his Cure of Souls, and is determined 
 by the location of the Church in which he ministers. 
 
 K, for example, a Clergyman has his civil and political 
 Residence in Brooklyn, while his Cure is in the City of 
 New York, his Canonical and Ecclesiastical Residence is 
 not in the Diocese of Long Island, but in the Diocese of 
 New York, and he sits in that Diocesan Convention, and 
 he is eligible to represent the Diocese of New York (and 
 no other Diocese) in General Convention, or elsewhere : 
 while, if he had two Cures, one in New York and one in 
 Brooklyn, his Ecclesiastical Residence is by Canon specially 
 limited to that civil and political residence which coincides 
 with that of the Congregation with whom he "dwells," 
 
 8 
 
114 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 and where the Church to which they belong is " seated." 
 Canon 5, Title III. Dig. 
 
 Q. What is the conclusion of the question as to the mean- 
 ing of the phrase " Residents in the Diocese," in respect 
 of Clerical Deputies to the General Convention ? 
 
 A. The conclusion is that, 1st, A Clergyman is " Resi- 
 dent in the Diocese " of that Bishop or Ecclesiastical Au- 
 thority to whom he is amenable, independently of his civil 
 or his political residence ; and, on the principle that amen- 
 ability and privilege are correlative, he is entitled to all the 
 privileges to which any members of the Diocese, imder 
 the same Episcopal Jurisdiction, are qualified ; unless there 
 be special exceptions, applicable to particular cases, in the 
 Canons of the Diocese, or of the General Convention. 
 
 2d. That such an exception prevails over such Clergy- 
 men as do not falfiU " the duty of all Ministers to obtain 
 and present Letters Dimissory, whenever they remove 
 from one Diocese to another Diocese, and remain there 
 six months." They are ineligible, from their own fault, to 
 represent either Diocese, after the six months' grace shall 
 have expired. They may not represent the one Diocese, 
 because the Law requires them to take measures to remove 
 their residence from it ; they may not represent the other 
 Diocese, because they have not duly presented their Let- 
 ters, and been duly received as resident therein. Yet if 
 the one Bishop declines to give Letters Dimissory to a 
 Clergyman removed from the local limits of his Diocese, 
 or the other Bishop, within whose local Diocesan limits 
 the Clergyman is come, declines to receive them, the Cler- 
 gyman, from no fault of his, remains under the jurisdiction 
 of the former Bishop, and is eligible, by that Diocese, as a 
 Resident thereof, to its offices and its honors. 
 
 3d. That a Clergyman's secular or civil Residence is not, 
 in any wise, contemplated in the phrase of the Constitu- 
 tion, " Residents of the Diocese : " because, the Canons 
 specially distinguish civil Residence whenever it is meant. 
 
116 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 distinct from, civil Residence or secular " Domicile," a 
 Clergyman might have an Ecclesiastical Residence nowhere. 
 For the argument for civil Residence, as the proper inter- 
 pretation of this clause of the Constitution, presumes that 
 when he removes from the local limits of the Diocese, he 
 vacates his canonical Residence in that Diocese ipso facto ; 
 while his Domicile, beyond the local limits of the Diocese, 
 does not by his removal confer canonical Ecclesiastical 
 Residence. He is consequently deprived of Residence in 
 a Diocese altogether ; and being deprived of Diocesan 
 Residence, he becomes discharged from Episcopal Jurisdic- 
 tion, as well as from amenability and privilege ; which, as 
 before said, is contrary to the policy of the Church, and to 
 good order, and to Canon Law. 
 
 Therefore, Diocesan Residence is distinct from, and 
 independent of Secular Residence. 
 
 5th. That a Clergyman in good standing, having re- 
 ceived and accepted a call to a Parish or Congregation in 
 another Diocese, is entitled by the Canon to be received 
 therein by the Ecclesiastical Authority thereof; and, there- 
 fore, no failure of the Ecclesiastical Authority to receive 
 his Letters Dimissory shall deprive him of Residence in 
 that Diocese into which he is called to serve a Parish; 
 albeit his secular Domicile, in the neighborhood of his Par- 
 ish, shall be beyond the local boundaries of the Diocese in 
 which his Parish is situated. The fault and disobedience 
 of the Ecclesiastical Authority, in not receiving the Clergy- 
 man in good standing and called to a Parish, shall not inval- 
 idate the right of the Congregations to call, nor the right 
 of the Clergyman to accept the call, and to change his 
 ecclesiastical Residence from the one Diocese into the 
 other. In which case, his Residence, under the Canons, is 
 in his Cure or Parish ; and therefore, he is eligible to rep- 
 resent the Diocese in which his Cure or Parish is. The 
 Bishop, or Ecclesiastical Authority, must receive him, be- 
 cause the Church has ruled, and equity demands, that her 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 117 
 
 laws shall be obeyed. Neither tyranny, nor caprice, nor 
 negligence of the Ecclesiastical Authority, may impair the 
 canonical Rights either of the Laity or of the Clergy. The 
 Ecclesiastical Authority is established to enforce the Can- 
 ons, and not to break them. Hence, " Residents in the 
 Diocese," means Canonical Residence, or Residence in the 
 Ecclesiastical sense. 
 
 Q. When are Laymen " Resident in the Dio- Residence of 
 cese " and qualified to represent it in the General ^^■y™™- 
 Convention ? 
 
 A. Lay representatives, by the Constitution, must be 
 " Communicants in the Church." The Canon requires 
 that " a Communicant removing from one parish to another 
 shall procure from the Rector .... a certificate stating that 
 he is a Communicant in good standing ; and the Rector of 
 the Parish or Congregation to which he shall remove, shall 
 not be required to receive him as a Communicant, until 
 such letter shall be produced. § I. Canon 12, Title II. Dig. 
 
 A layman, therefore, ceases to be a Resident in the Dio- 
 cese, when he shall have removed into a Congregation 
 under the Episcopal Jurisdiction of another Bishop, and 
 shall have procured a certificate of good standing as a 
 Communicant in this Church, and shall have presented it 
 to the Rector of the parish into which he has removed. 
 
 Q. Suppose he fails to comply with the Canon ? 
 
 A. His failure to comply destroys his claim to eligibihty 
 to the General Convention from the Diocese into which he 
 has removed ; because he is not CanonicaUy transferred to 
 that Diocese, and, therefore, is not CanonicaUy Resident in 
 that Diocese. He is equally ineligible from the Diocese 
 whence he came ; because he has not complied with the 
 Canon in that case provided. He has disqualified himself 
 from election in either Diocese ; because " no man may 
 derive privilege or advantage from his own fault." 
 
 Q. Does the Canon contemplate a dispensation from the 
 consequences of the Lay Communicant's negligence and 
 fault in not procuring a Letter Dimissory ? 
 
118 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. It does. The Canon says, the Clergyman " shall 
 not be required to receive him as a Communicant, until 
 such letter shall be produced." 
 
 If' the Rector of the Parish, in the exercise of his Can- 
 onical discretion, receives the Lay Communicant from 
 another Parish without a Letter Dimissory, such action of 
 the Rector may be deemed a dispensation ; and his receiv- 
 ing of the layman as a Communicant establishes his status 
 as a Communicant in that Parish, in that Diocese. 
 Manner of Q. Repeat the provision in the Constitution for 
 
 choosing , . -p. . 
 
 Deputies. choosmg Deputics. 
 
 A. In "the manner prescribed by the Convention of 
 each Diocese." Art. II. Cons. 
 
 Q. Does this provision give color to the idea that the 
 Deputies chosen by the Convention, represent the Conven- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. No. It discountenances the idea, by specifying and 
 limiting the power of the Diocesan Conventions, simply to 
 the " manner " of election. The Deputies chosen " in 
 the manner prescribed by the Convention," are, in the 
 language of the Constitution, a "representation of the 
 Church in each Diocese," not of the Convention. The 
 Congregation is the corporate Unit of the Constituency, 
 , both of the Diocesan and of the General Convention. " The 
 Church " represented, is the aggregate of the Congrega- 
 tions, wherein the primary elections are held ; as for the 
 Vestry, so also for the Delegates to the Convention of the 
 Diocese. Ante, " Preliminary History." 
 Vote by Dio- Q- What is a Vote by Dioceses and Orders ? 
 ordlrs^fora -^^ Each Order in the Representation of a 
 majority. Diocese, has one vote, — that is, the Clerical 
 Deputies of a Diocese who are present in Convention coimt 
 one vote ; and the Lay Deputies of a Diocese, present in 
 Convention, count one vote, for that Diocese, in either 
 Order. " And the concurrence of both Orders shall be 
 necessary to constitute a vote of the Convention." Art. II. 
 Cons. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHUBCH. 119 
 
 Q. What number of votes in either order, is a Vote of 
 that order ? 
 
 A. " A majority of suffrages by Dioceses shall be con- 
 clusive in each Order, provided such majority comprehend 
 a majority of the Dioceses represented in that Order." 
 Art. II. 
 
 Q. Suppose the vote of either Order be divided, as two 
 against two ? 
 
 A. It is equivalent to a Blank Vote.. 
 
 Q. What is the specific usage of the General Conven- 
 tion in regard to divided Votes ? 
 
 A. The first record on the Journals of General Conven- 
 tion appears in the- Journal of a. d. 1786, when the Gen- 
 eral Convention consisted of only one House. The ques- 
 tion was, " Whether the words ' He descended into Hell,' 
 should be restored in the Apostles' Creed." The English 
 Bishops had demanded this restoration, as a condition pre- 
 cedent to the consecration of Bishops in this Church ; and 
 the Committee had reported that these words "shall be 
 and continue a part of that Creed commonly called the 
 Apostles' Creed." 
 
 The Ayes and Noes being called for, the votes were as 
 follows: "New York (^Clergy Aye, Laity iVb), divided; 
 New Jersey, Aye; Pennsylvania (Clergy -4.^e, Laity J^o^, 
 divided; Delaware (Clergy divided, Laity divided^, di- 
 vided; South Carolina, Aye. And so the words are to be 
 restored, there being two Ayes and no negative." Jour. 
 Gen. Conv. a. d. 1786, pp. 59, 60. , 
 
 Q. Were divided votes counted ? 
 
 A. No. In this first instance of a recorded vote by 
 Dioceses and Orders, on a question of paramount impor- 
 tance, the Divided Dioceses were not counted as Votes, 
 leaving the decision to an apparent minority of the Con- 
 vention ; and because there was " no negative," the affirm- 
 ative votes, though less than a majority of the Dioceses 
 present, determined the matter before the House in the 
 affirmative. 
 
120 MANUAI/ COMMENTARY. 
 
 Q. State what Bishop "White says on this Vote in A. d. 
 1786. 
 
 A. Bishop White says, " Whoever looks into the Journal 
 will see that the result was not owing to the having of a ma- 
 jority of the Votes, but to the nullity of the Votes of those 
 Churches in which the Clergy and Laity were divided." 
 Mem. of Ch. p. 133. Comments of English Bishops, pp. 
 147, 148.1 
 
 Q. What was the Article of the Constitution under 
 which the vote by Orders in a. d. 1786 was taken ? 
 
 A. " There shall be a representation of both Clergy and 
 Laity of the Church in each State, which shall consist of 
 one or more Deputies, not exceeding four of each Order; 
 and in all questions the said Church in each State shall 
 have one Vote : and the majority of Suffrages shall be con- 
 clusive." Art. II. Cons, of a. d. 1785. 
 
 Q. How is this seeming Plurality Vote to be construed 
 as that of the majority of Suffrages of the Church in each 
 State represented ? 
 
 A. On the rule that a " Divided Vote " is no " Suf- 
 frage," but is a blanJc vote, and does not count; and that 
 the majority of recognized vdtes were for the measure. 
 The Oall of the House showed that five Dioceses were 
 represented. Three were a Quorum ; the Two were a 
 majority of a Quorum. This Quorum, however, was not 
 manifest in the Vote. Yet Dioceses may be called and de- 
 cline to vote. On this principle the "Divided Votes," 
 
 1 Bishop White reports the remarks of the English Bishops, seemingly touched 
 with the spice of sarcasm, respecting the manner in which the Votes, touching 
 the Creeds, appear in the Minutes: " His Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 said he did not like the manner in which the Votes of the Convention of A. d. 
 1780, touching the question of the Creeds, appeared on the Minutes; preferring 
 the mode of business used in all the bodies with which he was acquainted, 
 among whom it was customary to mention the business brought before them and 
 the results of the debate, without specifying the votes of individual members." 
 See Bishop White's Letter to the Committee of the Prot. Epis. Ch. in Pennsyl- 
 vania. Mem. of Ch. pp. 147, 148. The English Bishops, however, acquiesced 
 in the result. They made no further question as to the " manner " in which the 
 result was attained. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHUECH. 121 
 
 on call of the House, simply indicated the presence of the 
 Dioceses not voting. The three " Divided " Votes having 
 been ignored, as the " Suffrages " of the Dioceses, only two 
 Dioceses were " present and voting." The Vote was ac- 
 cordingly regarded as unanimous, — "two Ayes and no 
 Negative." 
 
 Q. Is this example of the General Convention of a. d. 
 1786 followed by the Church in subsequent Conventions ? 
 
 A. No. The Constitution was amended, and now re- 
 quires that a Vote by Orders shall be conclusive not only 
 by a majority of Suffrages in each Order, but, farther- 
 more, that " such majority shall comprehend a majority of 
 the Dioceses represented in that Order." 
 
 Q. What is the Parliamentary Rule respecting Blank 
 Votes in a balloting ? 
 
 A. "In all ballotings Blanks shall be rejected, and not 
 taken into the count in the enumeration of votes, nor re- 
 ported by the tellers." Standing Rules of House of Rep. 
 U. S. Rule 8. Jefferson's Manual, p. 136. 
 
 Q. Is a Divided Vote equivalent to a Blank Vote ? 
 
 A. Yes ; because neither of them is a " Suffrage." 
 
 Q. Is this Parliamentary Rule applicable to Divided 
 votes under the Constitution of the General Convention ? 
 
 A. It is ; so long as no Canon exists which supersedes 
 the Common Law of DeHberate Bodies. 
 
 Q. What is the proper mode of Counting a vote by 
 Dioceses and Orders, under Article II. of the Constitution 
 of the General Convention ? 
 
 A. (1) " There must be a majority of Suffrages in each 
 Order." If the vote of the four Clerical, or of the four 
 Lay Deputies, be divided, — two Ayes and two Nays, — 
 there is no Suffrage of that Diocese in that Order. It is 
 equivalent to a Blank Vote, and is not to be counted nor 
 reported. 
 
 (2) " The majority of Suffirages in each Order " must 
 be " a majority of the Suffrages of all the Dioceses repre- 
 
122 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 sented in that Order; " their presence being proved by the 
 Call of the Dioceses and the answer of their Representa- 
 tives. Hoff. L. C. pp. 149, 150. 
 
 Q. What principle in respect to the rank of Dioceses, 
 and the Coordinate rights of Clergy and Laity, does the 
 Vote by Dioceses and Orders establish ? 
 
 A. It establishes Diocesan equality, and the right of the 
 Laity to be considered an " Order in legislation." Bishop 
 White has been heard by Dr. Hawks to say, that "on 
 no other ground would the Dioceses ever have come into 
 union." Notes to Historical Notes and Comments to Jour. 
 Gen. Conv. p. 430. Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 20. 
 
 Q. Is it true that " diocesan independency, in all matters 
 not surrendered for the great end of union, is asserted " by 
 the fact that " any Diocese may demand a vote by Dio- 
 ceses ? " Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 20. 
 
 A. The argument is not obvious. " Parity of rank in 
 our Dioceses," be they great or small, is quite distinct from 
 the " independency of Dioceses." The demand of " any 
 Diocese "for a vote by Dioceses proves equality among 
 themselves, as represented in General Convention ; but it 
 is no assertion of any independency of General Con- 
 vention, and has no apparent relation to this idea. The 
 hypothesis of diocesan " independence " is, moreover, con- 
 tradicted by the subsequent provision of Article II. of the 
 Constitution. See post. 
 
 Q. If the Convention of any DiQcese appoint Lay 
 Deputies, or Clerical Deputies, of whom some do not 
 attend, what constitutes a Representation of the Diocese in 
 General Convention, in a vote by Dioceses And Orders ? 
 
 A. A Diocese is " considered as duly represented by 
 such Deputy or Deputies as may attend, whether. Lay or 
 Clerical." Art. II. Cons. 
 
 Q. If only a Lay Deputy, or only a Clerical Deputy 
 attend, does he, in a vote by Dioceses and Orders, repre- 
 sent the whole Diocese ? 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 123 
 
 A. No. He represents his Order only of that Diocese. 
 HoiF. L. C. p. 150. Hawks, contra, Cons. & Can. p. 21. 
 
 Q. If a Diocese " has but a single Deputy of either order, 
 upon a call for a vote by Dioceses and Orders, has that 
 Diocese a voice in that order that may chance to be present, 
 equal to that of the largest Diocese with all its eight dele- 
 gates?" See Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 21. 
 
 A. No. If one Deputy only from a Diocese be present, 
 his vote counts for Ms order in that Diocese, not for the 
 other order ; therefore, his one vote equals four, not eight 
 votes, of any other Diocese fully represented. Hoff. L. C. 
 p. 150. 
 
 Q. What is a Quorum of the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies, for a vote by Dioceses and Orders? 
 
 A. A Quorum for a Vote by Dioceses and Orders is, 
 (1) A representation of each order. (2) Such a represen- 
 tation as admits of a majority. (3) A representation in 
 one of the orders of a majority of the Dioceses in Union. 
 Hoff. L. C. p. 151. Hence, a representation in one Order 
 of a majority of the Dioceses ; and a representation in the 
 other order of three or more Dioceses, is a Quorum for the 
 voting by Dioceses and Orders, in the House of Clerical 
 and Lay Deputies. 
 
 Q. If the Convention of any Diocese should Moceses 
 neglect or refuse to appoint Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies; or if Deputies, Clerical or Lay, should not 
 attend at any General Convention, would the Church in 
 that Diocese be discharged from amenability to the Canons 
 of that General Convention ? 
 
 A. No. On the contrary, " the Church in such Diocese 
 shall, nevertheless, be bound by the acts of such Conven- 
 tion." Art. II. Cons. 
 
 Q. Does this clause of Article II. contradict the hy- 
 pothesis of " diocesan independency ? " 
 
 A. Undoubtedly it does, in regard to " any of the 
 Churches which have adopted, or may hereafter adopt this 
 Constitution." Art. 11. See ante. 
 
 un- 
 
 represeDted. 
 
124 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Q. What relation does this clause of Article II. estab- 
 lish between the General Convention and the Church in 
 any Diocese ? 
 
 A. It establishes the Supremacy of the General Conven- 
 tion, and the voluntary and permanent subjection to it of 
 any Diocese which has adopted the Constitution. 
 
 Article 3. " The Bishops of this Church, when 
 Houso of there shall be three or more, shall, when- 
 T^^^ofs. ^^^^ General Conventions are held, form a 
 separate House, with a right to originate and 
 propose acts for the concurrence of the House 
 of Deputies composed of Clergy and Laity ; and 
 when any proposed act shall have passed the 
 House of Deputies, the same shall be transmitted 
 Negative upon to the Housc of Bishops, who shall have 
 
 the Lower , . 
 
 House. a negative thereupon ; and all Acts of the 
 Convention shall be authenticated by both Houses. 
 And in all cases, the House of Bishops shall signify 
 to the Convention their approbation or disappro- 
 bation (the latter with their reasons in writing) 
 within three days after the proposed act shall 
 have been reported to them for concurrence ; and 
 in failure thereof, it shall have the operation of 
 a law. But until there shall be three or more 
 Bishops, as aforesaid, any Bishop attending a 
 General Convention shall be a member ex officio, 
 and shall vote with the Clerical Deputies of the 
 Diocese to which he belongs ; and a Bishop shall 
 then preside." 
 
 HOUSE OF BISHOPS. 
 
 Q. How many Bishops of this Church form a House of 
 Bishops ? 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 125 
 
 A. Three or more. 
 
 Q. What are the powers of the House of Bishops ? 
 
 A. They have a right to originate and propose Acts for 
 the concurrence of the House of Deputies ; they have also 
 a negative on the Acts of the House of Deputies. 
 
 Q. Is this negative absolute and unconditional ? 
 
 A. No. It is conditional : — 
 
 (1) The disapprobation of the Bishops must be signified 
 within three days after the proposed Act shall have been 
 reported to them for concurrence. (2) They must signify 
 their reasons for their veto. (3) They must communi- 
 cate their reasons in writing. 
 
 Q. What result follows from the failure of the House of 
 Bishops in complyiag with these conditions, or either of 
 them? 
 
 A. The proposed Act of the House of Deputies " shall 
 have the operation of a law." 
 
 Q. Suppose the Act of the House of Deputies be re- 
 ported to the House of Bishops for their concurrence 
 within three days of the adjournment of the Convention ? 
 
 A. If the Convention should adjourn within the space 
 of three days, allowed to the Bishops for their considera- 
 tion, the Act of the House of Deputies would fail (if not 
 concurred in by the House of Bishops), and would not 
 " have the operation of a law." 
 
 Q. What constitutes a Quorum of the House Quorum' of 
 
 the House of 
 01 Bishops C i khops. 
 
 A. Two Bishops. Canon 7, Title III. Dig. 
 
 Q. How is this manifest? State the History of the 
 organization of the House of Bishops. 
 
 A. Originally, the General Convention consisted of only 
 one House, namely, of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 
 The Constitution of a. d. 1785 admitted a Bishop to be a 
 member ex officio, but made no special provision for his vote ; 
 that of A. D. 1786 allowed a Bishop to preside. 
 
 These Conventions, however, were held before the 
 
126 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Church had received Bishops, and their Presiding Officer 
 was elected by vote of the Deputies. The Convention of 
 July, A. D. 1789, met after the Consecration of William 
 White and Samuel Provoost as Bishops, when " The Right 
 Rev. Dr. White was President, ex officio" Jour. Gen. 
 Conv. A. D. 1789. 
 
 The acts of this Convention are authenticated under the 
 Episcopal title prescribed in a. d. 1785 (Journal, p. 25), by 
 " WiUiam White, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," and 
 " President of the Convention." This Convention ad- 
 journed to September 29, a. d. 1789, " in order to meet 
 the Bishop (Seabury) and Clergy of the Church in Con- 
 necticut, and the Clergy in the Churches of Massachusetts 
 and New Hampshire, for the purpose of settling Articles 
 of union, discipline, uniformity of worship, and general 
 government among all the Churches in the United 
 States." Preface to Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1789. 
 
 Article III. of the Constitution, adopted at the previous 
 session of the Convention (from July 29 to August 8th, 
 a. d. 1789), was as follows: — 
 
 Article 3. The Bishops of this Church, when there 
 shall be three or more, shall, whenever General Conven- 
 tions are held, form a House of Revision; and when any 
 proposed Act shall have passed in the General Convention, 
 the same shall be transmitted to the House of Revision for 
 their concurrence. And if the same shall be sent back to 
 the Convention, with the negative, or non-concurrence of 
 the House of Revision, it shall be again considered in the 
 General Convention ; and if the Convention shall adhere 
 to the said Act by a majority of three fifths of their body, 
 it shall become a law to all intents and purposes, notwith- 
 standing the non-concurrence of the House of Revision ; 
 and all acts of the Convention shall be authenticated by 
 both Houses. And in all cases, the House of Bishops shall 
 signify to the Convention their approbation or disapproba- 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 12T 
 
 tion, the latter with their reasons in writing, within two 
 days after the proposed Act shall have been reported to 
 them for concurrence, and in failure thereof, it shall have 
 the operation of law. But until there shall be three or 
 more Bishops as aforesaid, any Bishop attending a General 
 Convention shall be a member ez officio, and shall vote 
 with the Clerical Deputies of the State to which he be- 
 longs. And a Bishop shall preside." Jour. Gen. Conv. 
 A. D. 1789. 
 
 Bishop Seabury, and the Clergy from the New England 
 States, declined to unite in General Convention, unless 
 " the Third Article of the Constitution be so modified as to 
 declare explicitly the right of Bishops, when sitting in a 
 separate House, to originate and propose Acts for the con- 
 currence of the other House of Convention, and to nega- 
 tive such acts proposed by the other House, as they may 
 disapprove." 
 
 The Committee of Conference, on the part of the Con- 
 vention (Dr. William Smith, Chairman), recommended " a 
 compliance with the wishes of their brethren, and that the 
 Third Article of the Constitution may be altered accord- 
 ingly." Report of Com. of Conference. Jour. Gen. 
 Conv. A. D. 1789, October 2. 
 
 " Upon special motion the above Report was read a 
 second time ; whereupon the following resolution was pro- 
 posed : Resolved, That the Convention do adopt that part 
 of the Report of the Committee which proposes to modify 
 the Third Article of the Constitution, so as to declare 
 explicitly the right of the Bishops, when sitting in a sep- 
 arate House, to originate and propose acts for the other 
 House of Convention, and to negative such acts pro- 
 posed by the other House, as they may disapprove, pro- 
 vided they are not adhered to hy four fifths of the other 
 House." 
 
 " After some debate, the Resolution with the proviso an- 
 nexed was agreed upon, and the Third Article was accord- 
 ingly modified." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1789, October 2. 
 
128 MANUAL C0M3IENTAEY. 
 
 On the same day, Bishop Seabury, and the Deputies from 
 the Chiirches in the Eastern States, dehvered the following 
 testimony to their assent to the same, namely, " We do 
 hereby agree to the Constitution of the Church as modified 
 this day in Convention." 
 
 "After subscribing the above, the Right Rev. Bishop 
 Seabury and the Clerical Deputies aforesaid took their seats 
 as members of the Convention." Jour. Gen. Conv. Oc- 
 tober 2, A. D. 1789. 
 
 Bishop Provoost, of New York, was detained, and was 
 not present in this Convention. 
 
 On the following day, October 3, A. D. 1789, it was on 
 motion " Resolved, That agreeably to the Constitution of 
 the Church, as altered and confirmed, there is now in this 
 Convention a separate House of Bishops.''^ " The Bishops 
 now withdrawing, the President's chair was declared va- 
 cant; whereupon the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
 proceeded to the election of a President by ballot." Jour. 
 Gen. Conv. October 3, a. d. 1789, Saturday. 
 
 On Monday, the 5th day of October, at the State House, 
 in the City of Philadelphia, in the Committee Room of the 
 Honorable House of Assembly, the First House of Bishops 
 met. Present, the Right Rev. Samuel Seabury, D. D., 
 and the Right Rev. "William White, D. D. 
 
 These two Bishops constituted the House of Bishops, sit- 
 ting, not as Representatives of their respective Dioceses, 
 but virtute officii. Hoff. L. C. pp. 96, 97. Hawks' Cons. 
 & Can. p. 21. 
 
 Q. Mention the subjects which engaged this House of 
 Bishops. 
 
 A. The momentous subjects of the Faith, Worship, and 
 Discipline of the Church, engaged their deliberations, as 
 the House of Bishops. 
 
 October 8, a. d. 1789. " This House went into the 
 consideration of the Litany, and of the other parts of the 
 Service connected with Morning and Evening Prayer." 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 129 
 
 " The House then proceeded to the consideration of the 
 Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, and from them to the 
 Order for the Administration of the Holy Communion." 
 
 " October 9, a. d. 1789. The House went into a review 
 of tlie Service for the Public Baptism of Infants, and pre- 
 pared proposals on that subject." 
 
 " The House then went immediately into the considei'- 
 ation of the Tables of Lessons for Sundays and other 
 Holy-days," laid before them by message from the House 
 of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and " prepared some amend- 
 ments of the same." 
 
 " October 10, a. d. 1789. The House completed the in- 
 strument of amendments of the Tables of Lessons, and sent 
 the same by their Secretaiy to the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies. The House went into further cpnsidera,- 
 tion of the proposed form of Morning Prayer." 
 
 « October 12, a. d. 1789. Monday. The House pre- 
 pared alterations of the Form of Solemnization of Matri- 
 mony, and of tlie Order for the Visitation of the Sick." 
 
 " October 13, a. d. 1789. The House of Bishops pro- 
 ceeded to prepare the Order how the Psalter IS appointed 
 to be read : the Order how the rest of the Holy Scriptures 
 is appointed to be read ; and the Oi'der for the Burial of 
 the Dead ; and proceeded to prepare a Commination Ser- 
 vice, etc. ; the form and manner of setting forth the Psalms 
 in metre ; tables of Movable and Immovable Feasts ; with 
 tables for finding the Holy-days." 
 
 " October 14, a. d. 1789. The House originated Al- 
 terations in the Services for Private Baptism, and for the 
 Baptism of Adults ; Alterations of the Catechism, of the 
 Order of Confirmation, and a Fonn of Family Pi-ayer." 
 
 " October 15, a. d. 1789. The House of Bishops origi- 
 nated and proposed to the other House alterations of tlie 
 Title-page ; a form of Ratification of the Book of Common 
 Prayer ; a Table of Contents ; a form or manner of pxint- 
 ing the former Prefece of the Church of England, and 
 9 
 
130 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 those called ' Of the Service of the Church ; ' and ' Of 
 Ceremonies ; ' these, with the form of ' Thanksgiving of 
 Women after Childbirth,' before prepared, and the amend- 
 ments of the 'Occasional Prayers,' Were sent to the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies." 
 
 " October 16, a. d. 1789. The House of Bishops acceded 
 to Canons proposed by the other House, except the amend- 
 ment of one, which was accordingly withdrawn." 
 
 They were engaged also in considering various amend- 
 ments proposed by the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
 ties. The House originated and proposed to the other 
 House, " A Ratification of the Thirty-nine Articles, except 
 in regard to the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Arti- 
 cles ; " a " Form for the Communion of the Sick ; " a 
 " Form for the Visitation of Prisoners ; " a " Form of 
 Thanksgiving for the Fruits of the Earth ; " and prayers to 
 be inserted in the " Visitation of the Sick." 
 
 These proceedings, touching the Faith and Worship of 
 the Church in the United States, after various amend- 
 ments and conferences, occupied the General Convention 
 of A. D. 1789, and were ratified in Convention by the 
 Church there assembled ; the Quorum of the House of 
 Bishops being a majority of the House, — three Bishops 
 constituting the House, and two Bishops being the Quorum. 
 Extracts firom Journal of House of Bishops, a. d. 1789. 
 
 Q. On what principle did the House of Bishops proceed 
 in revising the Liturgy and Offices ? 
 
 A. The House of Bishops took the "English Book as 
 the ground of their proceedings," on the principle that the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church possessed that Liturgy as an 
 use and an inheritance. Their revision, therefore, con- 
 sisted of alterations and amendments of the English Book, 
 with additions such as conformed to the new state of things 
 in this country. Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, p. 140. Mem. 
 of Ch. pp. 175-179. 
 
 Q. Did the House of Deputies adopt the same principle 
 — the revision of the English Book ? 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 131 
 
 A. No. They " proceeded as if the Church was destitute 
 of any Institutions, until they were provided for by the 
 authority of the Convention, and they appointed Commit- 
 tees to prepare de novo the several offices." See post. 
 Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, p. 141. Jour. Gen. Conv. 
 A. D. 1789. Mem. of Ch. 175-1T8. 
 
 Q. How does Bishop White account for the celerity in 
 the dispatch of business in the House of Bishops ? 
 
 A, From the " smallness of the number of Bishops, and 
 a disposition in both of them to accommodate," as well as 
 from their familiarity with the subject. Mem. of Ch. p. 
 179. 
 
 Article 4. "The Bishop or Bishops in every 
 Diocese shall be chosen agreeably to such jmisaictioa 
 rules as shall be fixed by the Convention °^ """''"P"- 
 of that Diocese ; and every Bishop of this Church 
 shall confine the exercise of his Episcopal Ofl&ce 
 to his proper Diocese, unless requested to ordain 
 or confirm, or perform any other act of the Epis- 
 copal Office, by any Church destitute of a Bishop." 
 
 DIOCESES. 
 
 Q. What is a Diocese ? 
 
 A. " Diocese signifies the circuit of a Bishop's jurisdiction 
 Jurisdiction." Hoff. L. C. p. 158. Burns' '"B"'""'»- 
 Ec. Law, vol. ii. p. 157. 
 
 Q. What is the derivation of the word Diocese ? 
 
 A. It is derived from the Greek Siowe'cu, "to regulate 
 or administer household affairs." Ibid. 
 
 Q. Whjgt is the historical Origin of Dioceses ? 
 
 A. "In the first ages of the Chm-ch, the Bishops were 
 accustomed to convene their clergy whenever matters of 
 importance occurred for deliberation." Hoff. L. C. p. 130. 
 Chapter of Van Espen ^De Synodis Provincialibus) on 
 Diocesan and Episcopal Synods. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHUECH. 133 
 
 The Convention of a. d. 1789 changed the word "juris- 
 diction " to " diocese or district." Art. IV. Cons. a. d. 1789. 
 
 The Convention of a. d. 1838 (after the division of the 
 State of New York into two Dioceses) struck out the 
 words "or district;" and iov '■'■ State " substituted " Dio- 
 cese" wherever it occurred, leaving Ar^cle IV. of the 
 Constitution as it now stands. 
 
 Q. How are the bounds of Dioceses now fixed ? 
 
 A. The topographical boundaries are now fixed by the 
 existing facts of " witnesses and records ; " but further and 
 more particularly, by "the administration of Divine Ofii- 
 ces," according to the accustomed Jurisdiction of the 
 Bishop, agreeably to the Canon Law as before mentioned. 
 
 New Dioceses, carved out of existing ones, are made by 
 the concurrent act of the Bishop and Convention of the 
 Diocese to be divided, and of the General Convention, 
 unddr the provisions of Article V. of the Constitution, and 
 of Canon 6, Title III. of the Digest. 
 
 Q. How may new Dioceses be formed in outlying Mis- 
 sionary districts ? 
 
 A. By the appointment of Missionary Bishops to exer- 
 cise Episcopal functions in States or Territories not organ- 
 ized into Dioceses within the United States, and in Foreign 
 Countries where there is no Bishop. §§ VII., VIII., 
 Canon 13, Title I. Dig. 
 
 Q. By what claim and authority does the Church appoint 
 Domestic Missionary Bishops ? 
 
 A. Because " the Jurisdiction of this Church extends in 
 right, though not always in form, to all persons belonging 
 to it within the United States." [4] § VII. Canon 13, 
 Title I. Dig. 
 
 Q. By what authority does the Church appoint Foreign 
 Missionary Bishops ? 
 
 A. By the command of the Lokd to his Apostles : " Go 
 ye into all the world "...." Make disciples or Christians 
 of all nations " (marginal reading), " baptizing them in the 
 
134 MAJfUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Name of the Fathee, and of the Son, and of the Holt 
 Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
 have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even 
 unto the end of the world. Amen." St. Mark xvi. 15, 
 16. St. Matt, xxvii. 19, 20. 
 
 Q. What is Jhe relation of the Bishops of this Church 
 to the Apostles to whom the Lord gave mission ? 
 
 A. They are themselves Apostles in their day and gen- 
 eration, to whom the Lord gives the same command and 
 promise as at the first. 
 
 Q. What are the bounds and limits of the Jurisdiction 
 of Domestic and Foreign Missionary Bishops ? 
 
 A. The local boundaries of their Dioceses are prescribed 
 by the General Convention ; and their apostohc Jurisdiction 
 is limited to persons who are not within the Episcopal 
 Jurisdiction or Diocese of some other Bishop of the " One, 
 Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church." ' 
 
 Q. Is it possible that in the same place there can be sev- 
 eral difPerent Churches?- 
 
 A. " Unity of communion being the law of God, both in 
 the Universal Church and in all the particular Churches in 
 which it is arranged ; it is impossible that in the same place 
 there can he several different Churches, authorized by God 
 and united to Christ." See Palmer on the Church, Yjfl. 
 i. p. 81, et seq. 
 
 Q. Is it possible that, by the law of God, there may be 
 more than one Apostle or Bishop in the same place, without 
 disturbing the Unity of Communion in the Church ? 
 
 A. Yes. St. James, St. Peter, and St. John were 
 Apostles to the Circumcision, while St. Paul and St. Bar- 
 nabas were Apostles to the Uncircumcision. Gal. ii. 9. 
 Both Apostles, St. Paul and St. Peter, were Bishops in 
 Rome together, and " He that wrought effectually in Peter 
 to the Apostleship of the Jews, the same was mighty in 
 Paul toward the Gentiles." Gal. ii. 8. 
 
 " And it came to pass, also, that St. Barnabas and St. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 135 
 
 Paul for a whole year assembled themselves at Antioch 
 with the Church, and taught much people. And the dis- 
 ciples were called Christians first in Antioch." See Acts 
 xi. 22-26, 
 
 Afterwards, " The Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Bar- 
 nabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called 
 them." And they went, "being sent forth by the Holy 
 Ghost " with fasting and prayers and benediction of the 
 Church in Antioch, and departed into Seleucia, and thence 
 to Cyprus, ' preaching the Word of God in Salamis and 
 Paphos, in the synagogues of the Jews, and to Jewish 
 sorcerers, and to Roman Proconsuls and to other Gentiles. 
 They pursued their mission in Iconium also, and in Lystra, 
 and to Derbe, " ordaining Elders in every Church," and 
 " confirming the souls of the disciples on their return to 
 Antioch : " " where they abode long time with the disci- 
 ples." See Acts xi.-xv. 
 
 Q. What do you gather from these examples of Holy 
 Scripture respecting the original Norm or rule of Apostolic 
 or Episcopal jurisdiction ? 
 
 A. The original, normal jurisdiction of Bishops is over 
 certain persons and classes of people ; who, though being 
 distinctly separate, may yet be residing in the same place. 
 The Jurisdiction or Diocese of different Bishops in com- 
 munion with each other, and in communion with the One, 
 Catholic, and Apostolic Church, may extend over these 
 classes of people, in the same place, without conflict of ju- 
 risdiction. 
 
 The bounds of Episcopal Jurisdiction to a local or topo- 
 graphical limit is not normal ai^d primitive, but is the ca- 
 nonical arrangement in subsequent, though early, times, for 
 the sake of order and convenience. The true and original 
 idea of Episcopal Jurisdiction is over persons, as St. Cy- 
 prian testifies, for the practice of his own time, namely: 
 " All Bishops are so united in one body, that though they 
 were many pastors, yet they had but one flock to feed, and 
 
136 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 every one was obliged to take care of all the sheep of Christ, 
 which He has purchased with His own Blood and Pas- 
 sion." Gyp. Ep. 68, ad Steph. 
 
 Bingham also recites instances during the Arian con- 
 troversy, of Athanasius, of Eusebius of Samosata, of 
 Epiphanius, ordaining ' within the local limits of various 
 Dioceses of other Bishops ; and when sorne of their adver- 
 saries objected that it was done contrary to Canon, Epiph- 
 anius vindicated his practice upon the strength of the 
 principle which St. Cyprian maintained : " Upiscopatus 
 unus est, cv/jus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur," — The 
 Episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one 
 for the whole. Cyp. de Unit. Eccles. vol. i. p. 381 ; Ed- 
 inburgh ed. A. D. 1868. 
 
 St. Chrysostora says (Hom. 17) : " St. Paul had the 
 whole world committed to his care, and every city under 
 the sun ; " " he was teacher of the Universe " (Hom. 6), 
 and " presided over all Churches " (Hom. 17) ; which St. 
 Chrysostom repeats in his usual hyperbole, in many 
 places of his writings. And Bingham subjoins : " Nor was 
 this prerogative so peculiar to the Apostles, but that every 
 Bishop, in some measure, had a right and title to the same 
 character." Bing. Ecc. Antiq. bk. ii. ch. 5. 
 
 Q. Does this Church legislate on the principle, that a 
 Diocese is the Bishop's Jurisdiction, in its normal charac- 
 ter, and is over persons and not defined by places ? 
 
 A. Yes. By the Constitution, in Article V. as amended 
 in A. D. 1856, "making Presbyters and Parishes," and 
 not Territory, as formerly, the rule in the formation of 
 New Dioceses ; and also in the Canons on " Residence," 
 and on " Episcopal Missionary Jurisdiction," and on " Con- 
 gregations in Foreign Lands," and in other Canons. [4] 
 § Vn. Can. 13, Title I. Canons 10, 12, Title I. [1] 
 § III. Can. 5, Title III. Dig. 
 
 Q. What is the force of the Limitation on the Bishop's 
 Jurisdiction in this Article IV. ? 
 
CONSTITUTION" OF THE CHURCH. 137 
 
 A. The provision that " Every Bishop shall confine the 
 exercise of his Episcopal office to his proper Diocese," 
 enacts (1), That he shall not obtrude his jurisdiction over 
 persons belonging to the jurisdiction of another Bishop, 
 though they may chance to reside within the local limits 
 of his own Diocese. 
 
 (2) Neither shall he himself pass beyond the local 
 bounds of his Diocese into that of another Bishop to exercise 
 any Episcopal jurisdiction or perform any Episcopal act. 
 
 Q. What is the Canon Law on this point ? 
 
 A. " A Bishop may perform Divine offices, and use his 
 Episcopal habit, in the Diocese of another without leave, 
 but he may not perform therein any act of jurisdiction with- 
 out permission of the other Bishop." Burns' Ecc. Law, vol. 
 ii. p. 158. Gibson's Codex, pp. 133, 134. 
 
 Q. By what authority may a Bishop exercise his Epis- 
 copal office outside of the local limits of his own proper 
 Diocese, according to Article IV. of the Constitution of 
 this Church ? 
 
 A. By the request of " any Church destitute of a Bish- 
 op." Art. IV. Cons. 
 
 ^. Does this Article prohibit the Bishop of the Diocese 
 from inviting anoth»r Bishop to exercise his Episcopal 
 functions in his Diocese ? 
 
 A. It does: for it confines the authority of inviting 
 another Bishop into a Diocese "to the request of any 
 Church destitute of a Bishop." 
 
 Q. How can a Bishop of a Diocese justify his own in- 
 vitation to another Bishop to exercise the Episcopal office 
 in his Diocese ? 
 
 A. Only by falling back on English and Catholic Canon 
 Law. 
 
 Q. What farther does this Article contemplate ? 
 
 A. It contemplates the office of a Bishop as necessarily 
 connected with some field in which he is to exercise his 
 jurisdiction. 
 
138 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Hence, it was argued that a Bishop might not resign 
 his jurisdiction ; for the American Church does not tolerate 
 a vagrant Bishop, or Bishop at large. 
 
 A Canon accordingly has been passed enabling a Bishop 
 to resign his Episcopal jurisdiction, but not his Episcopal 
 office, which is indelible. § XVI. Canon 13, Title I. 
 Dig. 
 
 Assistant Q- ^^J an Assistaut Bishop be consecrated 
 
 Bishops. without assurance of his continuance in some 
 Episcopal Jurisdiction after the demise of his principal ? 
 
 A. No. The election of Bishop Meade by the Conven- 
 tion of the Diocese of Virginia, in A. D. 1829, as Assistant 
 to Bishop Moore, without the right of succession, led to a 
 protest of the House of Bishops (Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 
 1829) against its being made a precedent ; and the Gen- 
 eral Convention of that year enacted the Canon on " As- 
 sistant Bishops ; " requiring, among other conditions, that 
 "he shall in all cases succeed the Bishop in case of surviv- 
 ing him." § V. Canon 13, Title I. Dig. See Bingham, 
 Ecc. Antiq. bk. m ch. 13. Hawks' Cons. & Can. pp. Ill— 
 121. 
 
 The Canon, likewise, forbids the election and consecra- 
 tion of a Suffragan Bishop and more than one Assistant 
 Bishop in a Diocese at the same time. Ibid. Can. 13. 
 
 Q. What is a Suffeagan Bishop ? 
 snffragaa -^' Aucieutly, Sufitagan Bishops were all the 
 
 Bishops. Bishops of Cities of any Province under a Metro- 
 politan ; who were called his Suffragans, because they met 
 at his command to bestow their suffrages or votes in giv- 
 ing council, assistance, or advice in a Provincial Synod. 
 Bingham, Ecc. Antiq. bk. ii. § 14. 
 
 In England, as late as A. D. 1430 (according to Lynd- 
 wood), all the Bishops were Suffiragans under their Arch- 
 bishops or Metropolitans. Ibid. Lyndwood's Prov. Con. 
 After the Reformation, by a Statute of 26 Henry VIII. 
 ch. 14, every Archbishop and Bishop might have a Suf- 
 fragan. Grey's Ec. Law, p. 39. Gibson's Codex, p. 135. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 139 
 
 Q. What were the duties of Suifragan Bishops in Eng- 
 land? 
 
 A. They were empowered to discharge such Episcopal 
 offices as were pilrely Spiritual, — such as Ordinations, 
 Confirmations, Visitations, — " supposing the Bishop not 
 wholly disabled." They were confined to the exercise of 
 such Episcopal functions only as their Bishop committed to 
 them from time to time. But they could not exercise any 
 Jurisdiction, nor any Episcopal power, except such as the 
 Bishop should authorize, for a fixed time, under his seal. 
 26 Henry VIII. ch. 14. Gibson's Codex, p. 136. 
 
 Q. What were the privileges of Suffragan Bishops ? 
 
 A. They might enjoy two Benefices. They had a seat 
 in Convocation, in the Lower House, as " Dignitaries of 
 the Church." They were duly consecrated Bishops, but 
 took their " Title " from certain towns, either within or 
 beyond the Dioceses in which they officiated. Gibson's 
 Codex, p. 136. Greg's Ec. Law, p. 40. 
 
 Q. How long have Suffragans been disused in England ? 
 
 A. Since a. d. 1606, when Dr. Stern, Suffi-agan Bishop 
 of Colchester, was suspended for not appearing in Convo- 
 cation.^ Gibson's Codex, p. 136. Grey's Ec. Law, p. 41 . 
 
 Q. What was a Coadjutor Bishop? 
 
 A. Coadjutor Bishops were persons appointed (^o„ajm, 
 by the Archbishop, where the Bishop of the '*''■'""'"• 
 Diocese was wholly disabled, by reason of old age or bodily 
 infirmities, from discharging the Episcopal Office. Being 
 duly consecrated, the Episcopal Jurisdiction was vested in 
 the Coadjutor Bishop, such as to collate to Benefices, to 
 institute Clerks, to grant Commendams, etc. He suc- 
 ceeded the Bishop of the Diocese at his death. Gibson's 
 Codex, p. 137. Grey's Ec. Law, pp. 41, 42. 
 
 Q. What relation does an Assistant Bishop in this Church 
 bear to the Suffi:agan and Coadjutor Bishops of the Church 
 of England? 
 
 1 Suffragans are being revived in England, at this time, by virtue of the un- 
 repealed Law of 26 Henry VHI. 
 
 utor 
 
140 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. He combines the powers and faculties of both ; as 
 appears from the inspection of the Canon 13, Title I. of 
 the Digest. See Hawks' Cons. & Can. pp. 120, 121. 
 Organization Q. Give a succinct statement of the organiza- 
 under Oath- tion of the Church under the Catholic Canon 
 Law. Law, which has been established or ratified by 
 
 the (Ecumenical • Councils and received by the Church 
 Universal. 
 
 A. The Roman Empire was divided by Constantine into 
 four grand divisions, styled "Preton'aw Prefectures. Each 
 Prefecture was divided into many Dioceses : each Diocese 
 into many Provinces. 
 
 (1) The Prefecture of the East comprehended Asia, 
 Egypt, Libya, and Thrace : five Dioceses : forty-eight Prov- 
 inces. 
 
 (2) The Prefecture of Illykia comprehended Moesia, 
 Macedonia, Q-reece, and Crete : two Dioceses : eleven 
 Provinces. 
 
 (3) The Prefecture of Italy comprehended Italy, a 
 part of lllyria, and Africa : three Dioceses : twenty-iiine 
 Provinces. 
 
 (4) The Prefecture of Gaul comprehended Graul, 
 Spain, and Britain : three Dioceses : twenty-nine Prov- 
 inces. 
 
 At the head of each Prefecture was placed a Prefect of 
 the Pretorium, or Pretorian Prefect, being Commander-in- 
 Chief. In the Dioceses, the Emperor sent to represent the 
 Prefects, magistrates named Vicars (vicarii'). Each Prov- 
 ince was confided to a President, who bore the title of 
 Proconsul or Rector (^rector provincice'). Ortolan, Histoire 
 de la Legislation Romaine, p. 309. 
 
 The Church was organized under Constantine according 
 to this general outline, in the fourth Century. The Bish- 
 ops of the several Cities had there each one his See, styled 
 his " Parochia " or Parish. The Suburbs were served by 
 Chorepiscopi, similar to Suffragans. The Clergy were 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 141 
 
 usually itinerant, but generally dwelt with the Bishop. 
 Hoff. L. C. p. 130. 
 
 The Bishops of the Province were subordinate to the 
 Bishop of the Chief City in that Province, or the Metrop- 
 ohs, who was hence styled Metropolitan. The Metropoli- 
 tans of a Province were subordinated to the Chief Bishop 
 of the Diocese, styled Patriarch. 
 
 This arrangement of Ecclesiastical Government and 
 Order was continued until the Papal usurpation in the tenth 
 Century. The Emperor Justinian, a. d. 533, confirmed it, 
 as a political safeguard of the Empire. He commands (in 
 one of his Novels), " the Patriarch of each Diocese to pub- 
 lish the Code of Civil Laws in their respective Churches, 
 and to make them known to the Metropolitans under him, 
 — that so the Metropohtans might make the like publica- 
 tion, and make them known "to the Bishops' under them, — 
 that so those Bishops might publish them in their Churches : 
 and so none in the whole Empire be left ignorant of what 
 he had enacted for the honor of the Great God, and our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ." 
 
 This Ecclesiastical organization was modified in the early 
 British Church by the infusion of "the ancient British 
 Liberties," until it crystallized into the two Provinces of the 
 Archbishops, the Dioceses of the Bishops, and the Parishes 
 of the Rectors. See Hoff. L. C. on '■'■Dioceses" pp. 129- 
 133. Van Espen, Supplement, vol. ii. Tit. 8, ch. 1. Ken- 
 neth's Ec. Syn. p. 180, edition a. d. 1701. See " Com- 
 mon Law of the Church," ante. 
 
 Article 5. " A Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 any of the United States, or any Territory Admission 
 thereof, not now represented, may, at any ''^'■^■ 
 time hereafter, be admitted on acceding to this 
 Constitution : and a new Diocese, to be formed 
 from one or more existing Dioceses, may be ad- 
 mitted under the following restrictions. 
 
142 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 " No new Diocese shall be formed or erected 
 Consent within the limits of any other Diocese, 
 required. ^^^ shall auj Dlocese be formed by the 
 junction of two or more Dioceses, or parts of Dio- 
 ceses, unless with the consent of the Bishop and 
 Convention of each of the Dioceses concerned, as 
 well as of the General Convention. 
 
 "No such new Diocese shall be formed which 
 Limit of shall contain less than j&fteen self-support- 
 
 Presbyters .-rfc'l i i t* o t 
 
 and PMishea. mg Panshcs, or less than fifteen Presbyters 
 who have been for at least one year canonically 
 resident within the bounds of such new Diocese, 
 regularly settled in a Parish or Congregation, and 
 qualified to vote for a Bishop. Nor shall such 
 new Diocese be formed if thereby any existing 
 Diocese shall be so reduced as to contain less than 
 thirty self-supporting Parishes, or less than twenty 
 Presbyters who have been residing therein and 
 settled and qualified as above mentioned : Provid- 
 ed that no city shall form more than one Diocese. 
 
 " In case one Diocese shall be divided into two 
 Rigiitsofthe Dioceses, the Diocesan of the Diocese 
 toeArsZl divided may elect the one to which he 
 will be attached, and shall thereupon be- 
 come the Diocesan thereof And the Assistant 
 Bishop, if there be one, may elect the one to which 
 he will be attached ; and if it be not the one elect- 
 ed by the Bishop, he shall be the Diocesan thereof 
 
 Whenever the division of a Diocese into two Dio- 
 
 constitution ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ratified by the General Con- 
 
 Sf mwTo- vention, each of the two Dioceses shall be 
 
 subject to the Constitution and Canons 
 
Conpolidn- 
 tion of two 
 or more 
 Dioceeerf. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 143 
 
 of the Diocese so divided, except as local circum- 
 stances may prevent, until the same may be (sic.) 
 altered in either Diocese by the Convention there- 
 of. ' And whenever a Diocese shall be 
 formed out of two or more existing Dio- 
 ceses, the new Diocese shall be subject to 
 the Constitution and Canons of that one of the 
 said existing Dioceses to which the greater num- 
 ber of Clergymen shall have (sic.) belonged prior 
 to the erection of such new Diocese, until the 
 same may be (sic.) altfered by the Convention of 
 the new Diocese." , 
 
 ADMISSION OF NEW DIOCESES. 
 
 Q. How may a New Diocese be admitted into union 
 with the other Dioceses and with the General Convention ? 
 
 A. By " acceding " to the " Constitution of the Protest- 
 ant Episcopal Church in the United States." 
 
 Q. Does the act of "acceding" to the Constitution 
 imply the right of any Diocese to secede from the union 
 established by the Constitution ? 
 
 A. No. Dr. Hawks says, " The several Dioceses sur- 
 rendered " — (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 Dio- 
 ceses." Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 11. 
 
 Q. State the other powers of " independency ", which 
 Dr. Hawks says the Dioceses " surrendered?" 
 
 A. (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 unre- 
 stricted legislation for themselves, in the Dioceses alone ; 
 but consented that part of those laws should be made in a 
 General Legislature of which they were members." 
 
144 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 (4) " They surrendered the right of framing their own 
 Liturgy, and agreed through all the Dioceses to use the 
 same." 
 
 (5) " They surrendered the right of making separately 
 any alteration in the great compact or Charter of Union." 
 Hawks' Cons. & Can. pp. 11, 12. 
 
 Q. What supreme function of "diocesan independency," 
 does Bishop White say, was abandoned by the State Con- 
 ventions, under the Constitution of a. d. 1789 ? 
 
 A. The right of the different States to ratify the Articles 
 of the Constitution, (and by parity of reasoning to amend 
 them), being found " fruitful of discord and disunion, was 
 abandoned from this time," a. d. 1786 ; and " the Constitu- 
 tion was so altered as to require a ratification by the Church 
 in a majority of the States assembled in General Conven- 
 tion. The General Constitution of a. d. 1789 was adopted 
 and finally ratified without being submitted to the State 
 Conventions." Mem. of Ch. p. 123. Wilson's Mem. Bp. 
 White, pp. 135, 136. See ante, on the " History of the 
 Constitution." . 
 
 Q. What is the process by which a Church in any of the 
 United States is admitted into Union ? 
 
 A. The application for admission into union, together 
 with a copy of the Constitution of the Diocese, is presented 
 to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and referred 
 to a Committee. >• 
 
 The Committee examine the Constitution of the Dio- 
 cese, and finding that the Church in that Diocese declares 
 its accession to the General Constitution and Canons of 
 the Church, they recommend that the Church applying, 
 be admitted into union with the General Convention of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Chm'ch in the United States. 
 
 If the House adopt the recommendation by a Resolution, 
 it is sent to the House of Bishops. The House of Bishops 
 signifying their concurrence, the names of the Deputies of 
 the new Diocese are called, and they take their seats in the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 145 
 
 The Bishop of the new Diocese takes his seat in the 
 House of Bishops, not as representing his Diocese, hut ex 
 officio. Hoff. L. C. pp. 161, 162. 
 
 Q. What is the process by which a "New Diocese, 
 fornied. from one or more existing Dioceses," is admitted 
 into union ? 
 
 A. By the provisions of Canon 6, Title III. of the Di- 
 gest. 
 
 Q. What are the Constitutional Restrictions on the divid- 
 ing of an existing Diocese ? 
 
 A. (1) The consent of the Bishop and Convention of 
 the Diocese must first be given to the division of the 
 Diocese. 
 
 (2) The consent of the General Convention, in both 
 Houses, must concur with the prayer of the Diocese for 
 division. 
 
 Q. Into how many Dioceses does this Article of the 
 Constitution contemplate the Division of a Diocese ? 
 
 A. Into two Dioceses, and no more, at the same time. 
 
 Q. What was the interpretation of this Article whereby 
 the Diocese of New York, in a. d. 1868, was divided into 
 three Dioceses with the consent of the General Convention 
 of that year ? 
 
 A. The argument of the Diocese of New York was this : 
 " The use of the singular number does not exclude the 
 idea of plurality, but denotes a severalty, signifying that 
 what is required for one new Diocese shall be equally re- 
 quired for every other. But, even if the Constitution 
 were supposed to prohibit the formation of more than one 
 new Diocese at a time, the prohibition would easily be sat- 
 isfied by successive acts of legislation which should erect 
 the several new Dioceses one by one." 
 
 " Even, therefore, if the Constitution " (of the General 
 Church) " be understood as requiring a separation in time 
 between the erection of two new Dioceses, yet that separa- 
 tion need be only the time required for two separate acts 
 10 
 
146 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 of legislation " of the parent Diocese. Report of a Sub- 
 Committee, Journal N. Y. Conv. a. d. 1867, p. 82. 
 
 The Committee and the Convention adopted the princi- 
 ple " that there is nothing in the Constitution or Canons of 
 the Church forbidding the erection, at this time, of more 
 than one new Diocese within the Diocese of New York." 
 " When the Convention shall have erected one new Dio- 
 cese, its action, so far as the Diocese of New York is con- 
 cerned, is complete and final ; and it may then proceed to 
 legislate for the formation of a second." Journal N. Y. 
 Conv. A. D. 1867, p. 73. 
 
 The General Convention, on the Report of the Commit- 
 tee on New Dioceses, established this interpretation of 
 Article V. of the Constitution, and ratified the action of 
 the Diocese of New York in erecting two new Dioceses at 
 the same Convention. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1868, pp. 
 47, 54. H. of Bishops, p. 197. 
 
 Q. What is the further restriction on the erection of 
 New Dioceses ? 
 
 A. (1) Every new Diocese shall contain not less than 
 fifteen self-supporting Parishes, nor less than fifteen Pres- 
 byters who have been for at least one year canonicaUy resi- 
 dent within the bounds of such new Diocese, regularly 
 settled in a parish or congregation, and qualified to vote 
 for a Bishop. 
 
 (2) That the old Diocese shall not be reduced by divis- 
 ion, so as to contain less than thirty self-supporting Par- 
 ishes, nor less than twenty Presbyters, who have been 
 residing thei'ein, and settled and qualified as above men- 
 tioned. 
 
 (3) That no City shall form more than one Diocese. 
 
 Q. What is the principle adopted and published in theso 
 "restrictions," respecting the definition of a Diocese? 
 
 A. The principle, that, a Diocese is defined by the Pres- 
 byters and persons, in Parishes, contained therein (and not 
 by local bounds and limits), under the Bishop's Jurisdiction. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 147 
 
 Q. "When was Article V. put into its present form ? 
 
 A. In the General Convention of a. d. 1856. 
 
 Q. What was the principle of the old Fifth Article re- 
 specting the defining of Dioceses, which is now super- 
 seded ? 
 
 A. The former principle, now superseded by amend- 
 ment, was the defining of a Diocese by Topographical 
 boundaries, as " Eight thousand square miles in one body," 
 for the " bounds of a new Diocese ; " and not less than 
 " eight thousand square miles " for the existing Diocese. 
 
 The primitive and normal rule, that a Diocese is defined 
 by a Bishop's Jurisdiction over "the sheep of Christ," as 
 St. Cyprian witnesses, was restored in a. d. 1856, and is 
 made the Fundamental Law of this Church. 
 
 Q. What is the right of Jurisdiction of the Diocesan 
 Bishop when his Diocese is divided ? Bishops and 
 
 A TT 1 1 . 1 1 1 . T 1 theAsBiBtant 
 
 A. He has the right to elect which one he Bishops, 
 shall be the Diocesan of. 
 
 Q. What is the right of Jurisdiction of the Assistant 
 Bishop ? 
 
 A. He may elect to be the Diocesan of any one of the 
 New Dioceses to which the Bishop does not choose to be 
 attached. 
 
 Q. What is the Fundamental Law of New TheFunda- 
 
 ^ mental Law 
 
 Dioceses? of new 
 
 Dioceses. 
 
 A. The Constitution and Canons of the parent 
 Diocese, when applicable, and until altered by the respect-' 
 ive Conventions of the New Dioceses. 
 
 Q. May two or more Dioceses be united into one Dio- 
 cese? 
 
 A. Yes. This article of the Constitution provides for the 
 Consolidation of Dioceses. 
 
 Q. What is the fundamental Law of the Consolidated 
 Diocese ? 
 
 A. It is the Constitution and Canons of that one of the 
 Dioceses to which the greater number of Clergymen 
 
148 MANTJAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 have belonged prior to the erection of such new Diocese, 
 and until the same shall have been altered by the Conven- 
 tion of the Consolidated Diocese. 
 
 Article 6. " The mode of trying Bishops shall 
 Ecdenias- ^® provided by the General Convention. 
 S'lnT' The Court appointed for that purpose 
 of Bishops. ^^^^^ ^^ composed of Bishops only. In 
 every Diocese, the mode of trying Presbyters and 
 Deacons may be instituted by the Convention of 
 Diocesan ^^^ Dlocesc. Noue but a Bishop shall 
 Triais'and prououuce sentence of admonition, sus- 
 n enoes. pg^g^Qj^^ qj, degradation from the Ministry, 
 on any Clergyman, whether Bishop, Presbyter, or 
 Deacon." 
 
 COURT AND TRIAL OF BISHOPS. 
 
 Q. What is the mode of trying Bishops ? 
 Court and A. The mode is provided by the General Con- 
 
 trial of . . 
 
 Bishops. vention, in Canon 9, Title II. Dig. 
 
 Q. Who may constitute the Court for the trial of 
 Bishops ? 
 
 A. The Court shall be composed of Bishops only. 
 
 Q. What was the corresponding article of the Constitu- 
 tion of A, D. 1T85? 
 
 A. Article VIII. of the General Constitution of a. d. 
 1785 was as follows: " Every clergyman, whether Bishop, 
 or Presbyter, or Deacon, shall be amenable to the author- 
 ity of the Convention in the State to which he belongs, so 
 fe,r as relates to suspension or removal from office ; and 
 the Convention of each State shall institute rules for their 
 conduct, and an equitable mode of trial." Art. VIII. 
 Cons. A. D. 1785. 
 
 This Constitution of the Church was submitted to the 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 149 
 
 Bishops of the Church of England, together with the pro- 
 posed alterations of the Liturgy, when the Church ap- 
 plied for the Episcopal Succession. 
 
 Q. What comment on this Article was made by the 
 English Bishops ? 
 
 A. In reply to the letter of the Committee of General 
 Convention, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 
 after objecting to certain proposed alterations in the Creeds 
 and Liturgy, used this language : " "We should be inexcus^ 
 able, too, if, at the time when you are requesting the es- 
 tablishment of Bishops in your Church, we did not strongly 
 represent to you that the Eighth Article of your Ecclesias- 
 tical Constitution appears to us to be a degradation of the 
 Clerical, and still more of the Episcopal character. We 
 persuade ourselves, that, in your ensuing Convention, some 
 alteration will be thought necessary in this Article before 
 this reaches you, or, if not, that due attention will be given 
 to it, in consequence of our representation." Jour. Gen. 
 Conv. A. D. 1786, p. 53. 
 
 Q. What comment does Bishop White make on this 
 portion of the communication from the English Bishops ? 
 
 A. Bishop White says, " The Bishops further declare 
 their disapprobation of an Article in the proposed Consti- 
 tution, which seemed to them to subject future Bishops to 
 a trial by the Presbyters and Laymen, in the respective 
 States." 
 
 " This, however, does not seem to be the meaning of the 
 Article alluded to, which expresses no more than that 
 Laws for the trial of Bishops should be made, not by the 
 General, but by each State Ecclesiastical representative." 
 Mem. of Ch. p. 16. 
 
 Q. What is the further comment of Bishop White on 
 the remonstrance of the English Bishops ? 
 
 A. He says, " The Archbishops of Canterbury and York 
 complained that the Eighth Article was " a degradation 
 of the Clerical, and, much more, of the Episcopal charac- 
 
150 MAOTTAL COMMENTAKY. 
 
 ter." " The foundation of this complaint was rather in 
 omission, than in anything positively declared. For the 
 Bishop's being amenable to the Convention of the State to 
 which he belonged, does not necessarily involve anything 
 more than that he should be triable by laws of their enact- 
 ing, himself being a part of the body ; and it did not fol- 
 low that he might be deposed or censured, either by Lay- 
 men or Presbyters. This, however, ought to have been 
 guarded against ; but to have attempted it, while the Con- 
 vention were in their excited temper, would have been to 
 no purpose." Mem. of Ch. pp. 94, 95. 
 
 Q. On what legal and equitable principle did the English 
 Bishops object to the provision for the Trial of the Clergy ? 
 
 A. On the principle of personal security under every 
 just law, that "the accused shall be tried by his Peers," 
 and that " where there is no authority to confer power, 
 there can be none to disannul it. Wherever, therefore, 
 the power of ordination is lodged, the power of deprivation 
 is lodged also." Bishop Seabury's Letter to Dr. Smith, 
 August 15, A. D. 1785. Mem. of Ch. p. 345. 
 
 Q. What modification did the General Convention of 
 A. D. 1786 make in Article VIII. of the Constitution ? 
 
 A. The General Convention of a. d. 1786 added these 
 words, namely : "At every trial of a Bishop, there shall 
 be one or more of the Episcopal Order present, and none 
 but a Bishop shall pronounce sentence of deposition or 
 degradation from the ministry on any Clergyman, whether 
 Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon." Art. VIII. Cons. a. d. 
 1786. 
 
 Q. Does this amendment remove tlie objection of the 
 remonstrance of the English Bishops ? 
 
 A. Partially, but not on just ecclesiastical Principles. It 
 still allowed Presbyters and Laymen to compose, in part, a 
 Court for the trial of Bishops. 
 
 Q. How did the General Convention of a. d. 1786 treat 
 the remonstrance of the English Bishops ? 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHTJECH. 151 
 
 A. On the question, " Shall the Eighth Article of the 
 Ecclesiastical Constitiition remain as proposed and pubhshed 
 by the late Convention ? (of 21st June, a. d. 1786,) it was 
 unanimously determined in the affirmatire." Jour. Gen. 
 Conv. A. D. 1786, p. 60. 
 
 Q. How long did Article VIII. remain in the Constitu- 
 tion unchanged ? 
 
 A. It was modified in a. d. 1789, as follows : " In every 
 State, the mode of trying Clergymen shall be instituted by 
 the Convention of the Church therein." 
 
 " At every trial of a Bishop, there shall be one or more of 
 the Episcopal Order present ; and none but a Bishop shall 
 pronounce sentence of deposition or degradation from the 
 ministry on any Clergyman, whether Bishop, Priest, or 
 Deacon." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1789, p. 84. 
 
 This modification did not change the underlying false 
 principle. But, in A. D. 1841, the first two sentences were 
 added to it, namely, " The mode of trying Bishops shall be 
 provided by the General Convention. The Court appointed 
 for that purpose shall be composed of Bishops only." Jour. 
 Gen. Conv. a. d. 1841. Appendix to Constitution and 
 Digest. 
 
 Q. What notable advance towards Catholic Canon Law 
 was made by the Amendment of A. D. 1841 ? 
 
 A. (1) The law that Bishops are amenable to the whole 
 Church of God. (2) That they are entitled to trial by 
 their Peers in the Province or National Church with which 
 they are connected. Apos. Can. 74. 1 Council of Con- 
 stantinople, Can. 6. Council of Antioch, Can. 4, 12, 
 13,14. 
 
 Q. What fiirther change was made in this Article re- 
 specting the trial of Presbyters and Deacons ? 
 
 A. The Article, in a. d. 1841, confined the power to 
 the Dioceses, of enacting the mode of trying Diocesan 
 
 1/ o Courts and 
 
 Presbyters and Deacons, in these words: "In Mais, 
 every Diocese, the mode of trying Presbyters and Deacons 
 shall be instituted by the Convention of the Diocese." 
 
152 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 In 1848, the word " shall " was stricken out, and the 
 word " may " was substituted, as in Article VI. of the 
 Constitution, recited above, giving to the Dioceses a per- 
 missive power to make penal laws, only so long as the 
 General Convention shall abstain from enacting them. 
 HofF. L. C. pp. 164-166. 
 
 Q. -What advance towards Catholic Law was made by 
 this Amendment of a. d. 1848 ? 
 
 A. Such an advance as (1) That it made it possible to 
 enact uniform laws for the Clergy of the whole Province 
 or National Church, to which all the Clergy alike should 
 be amenable. (2) That the Representatives of the Clergy, 
 in General Convention, by the vote of Dioceses and 
 Orders, might have power to protect the rights of Clergy. 
 iinpeifi-ctioD Q. Is the BQual amenability of the Clerffv of 
 ciai-i. this Church established by the provision tor Dio- 
 
 cesan Courts and Canons ? 
 
 A. No. That which is made an offense by the Canons 
 in one Diocese may not be, and frequently is not, an 
 offense in another ; neither is there an uniform mode of 
 Trial for the same offense, whether against Diocesan Can- 
 ons, or against the Canons of the General Convention of 
 the whole Church. 
 
 Q. What remedy does this Article provide ? 
 
 A. It provides for an uniform Code of Jurisprudence, 
 and the organization of Courts for the whole Church, by 
 authority of the General Convention, so soon as the Gen- 
 eral Convention had adopted a Canon on the subject. 
 Hoff. L. C. pp. 164, 165. 
 
 Q. Would the Canon of the General Convention super- 
 sede an existing Diocesan Canon, on the trial of Presby- 
 ters and Deacons ? 
 
 A. The Article, as it now is to be interpreted, confers 
 permissory power on the Diocesan Conventions, whereby 
 " they could act until the General Convention acted." 
 But when the General Convention had adopted a Canon 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 153 
 
 on the subject, that Canon would be supreme and exclu- 
 sive in all points which it reached." Hoff. L. C. pp. 165, 
 166. 
 
 Q. Has the General Convention exercised its constitu- 
 tional and inherent prerogative in providing a Code of 
 Laws, and a system of Judicial Proceedings ? 
 
 A. No. The comprehensive and thoughtftd Canons 
 proposed by Judge Murray Hoffinan in the General Con- 
 vention of A. D. 1856 and A. d. 1859, failed. The history 
 of this Article of the Constitution demonstrates that, from 
 the beginning, the Legislation of the Church on this sub- 
 ject is fragmentary, slow, suspicious, and unjust. 
 
 Q. What crying enormity prevails, for lack of just and 
 wise General Canons for the trial of Presbyters and Dea- 
 cons ? 
 
 A. Besides the inequahty and uncertainty in regard to 
 offenses in different Dioceses and the modes of trial, there 
 is no Court of Appeal made possible to Clergy convicted by 
 Diocesan Courts. 
 
 Q. Why is the denial of the power of Appeal so enor- 
 mous a wrong ? 
 
 A. Because the Right of Appeal belongs to the meanest 
 of human beings. In every civilized country it is funda- 
 mental. It was guaranteed by the pagan Roman Law to 
 every citizen, and St. Paul availed himself of it. It is 
 sacred under the Civil Law of Justinian. It is a portion 
 of British Liberties which we have inherited from the 
 Church and the State. It is a right under the Constitution 
 of the United States, and is incorporated in the " Bill of 
 Rights " in every State. It is a right under the Law of 
 God to the Elder Church, and is confirmed to the Univer- 
 sal Church of Christ by the New Testament, by Catholic 
 Canons, and by the uninterrupted consent of Councils, 
 of Fathers, of Judges, and of Courts of Law. The Pres- 
 byters and the Deacons who suffer the misfortune of being 
 convicted, after trial by Ecclesiastical Courts in a Diocese 
 
154 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 in the Protestant Episcopal Church, are the only men on 
 the face of Christian Civilization who are deprived of the 
 human Right of Appeal. 
 
 Q. What Commentary does Dr. Hawks make on this 
 Article ? 
 
 A. He says : " This is the only clause in the Constitu- 
 tion relating to the important subject of the Judiciary. 
 At the time it was adopted, had the effort been made to 
 leave the subject in the hands of the General Convention, 
 it would have produced strong feelings of opposition to 
 union. Uniformity of judicial proceeding and judicial 
 decision is, of course, not to be expected under such an 
 arrangement as leaves them with the Dioceses ; and yet 
 both are of great importance to the Church. In fact, the 
 weakest and most defective part of our whole ecclesiastical 
 system is in the department of the Judiciary." Hawks' 
 Cons. & Can. p. 34. 
 
 " In vain wiU any one ask. What is the Law ? No man 
 can say. The convict of a Diocese, doubting, as well he 
 may, under such circumstances, the propriety of his in- 
 tended punishment, would fain Appeal to some tribunal 
 competent to adjust these conflicting interpretations. But 
 where is such a tribunal ? Nowhere in the Church." " We 
 need a Court of Appeals, with power authoritatively and 
 finally to settle the true interpretation of Constitution and 
 Canons, ut sit finis litium." Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 57. 
 
 Q. What is the view of Judge Hoffman ? 
 
 A. He argues and pleads the necessity of the establish- 
 ment of a Judicial System, and rests the power and the 
 responsibility on the " inherent power of the General Con- 
 vention prior to, and not derived from, a grant in the Con- 
 stitution." Hoff. L. C. p. 166. 
 
 Q. What Sentences may an Ecclesiastical 
 
 Sentences. ■' 
 
 Court pronounce c 
 A. " Admonition, Suspension, or Degradation from the 
 Ministry." Art. VI. Cons. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 155 
 
 Q. What is Admonition ? 
 
 A. Admonition is either private or pnbhc, at the discre- 
 tion of the Bishop. 
 
 Q. "What is Suspension ? 
 
 A. Suspension is a "penalty inflicted on a Bishop, 
 Priest, or Deacon in this Church to cease on terms, or at 
 a certain time, to be specified in the sentence." § I. Can. 
 10, Title II. Dig. 
 
 Q. Is there such a Sentence known to Canon Law as 
 " Indefinite Suspension ? " 
 
 A. No. It is contradictory in terms, and has never been 
 pronounced or inflicted in the Catholic Church in any age 
 or country, outside of the United States. See " The Law 
 of Suspension in the Primitive Church," in a Discourse of 
 Ignotus. Pamphlet : Phil. 1855 : Printed by C. Sher- 
 man & Son. 
 
 Q. What is Degradation ? 
 
 A. Degradation is the Sentence of Ecclesiastical Law, 
 whereby, in this Church, a Minister is deposed from the 
 Ministry entirely, and not from a higher to a lower Order 
 of the same. [1] § II. Can. 10, Title II. Dig. 
 
 Q. Does the Sentence of Degradation, Deposition, or 
 Displacement (equivalent terms in the Canons), take away 
 the office of a Minister in this Church ? 
 
 A. No. It deprives him of the exeroise of his Office in 
 this Church. 
 
 Q. May a deposed Minister be restored to the Exercise 
 of his Office ? 
 
 A, Yes, under conditions provided for in the Canons. 
 Proviso of § II. Can. 6, Title II. Dig. 
 
 Q. Must he be ordained again, if restored ? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. What notice shall be given to the Church when a 
 Clergyman is sentenced to "Degradation? " 
 
 A. " The Bishop who pronounces the Sentence shall 
 without delay give notice thereof to every Minister and 
 
156 MANUAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 Vestry in the Diocese, and also to all the Bishops of this 
 Church, and when there is no Bishop, to the Standing 
 Committee." [2] § II. Can. 10, Title II. Dig. 
 
 In the case of a Bishop deposed, the Sentence shall be 
 communicated by the Court to the Ecclesiastical Authority 
 of every Diocese in this Church ; and it shall be the duty 
 of such authority to cause such sentence to be made known 
 to every Clergyman under his jurisdiction." [10] § VI. 
 Can. 9, Title II. Dig. 
 
 Q. Wlio alone may pronounce a Sentence ? 
 
 A. None but a Bishop. Art. VI. Cons. Can. 122 of 
 A. D. 1603, Ch. of Eng. 
 
 Q. Under what Solemnities shall a Bishop pronounce a 
 Sentence ? 
 
 A. They are prescribed in [10] § VI. Can. 9, of Title 
 II. on "The Trial of Bishops." Can. 8, Title II. on a 
 " Bishop abandoning the Communion of the Church." §§ I. 
 and V. Can. 5, Title II. ; § II. Can. 6, Title II. ; Can. 
 7, Title II. on " Trial of Presbyters and Deacons." Dig. 
 
 Article 7. "No person shall be admitted to 
 Requisites Holj Ordcrs, until he shall have been ex- 
 tion. amined by the Bishop, and by two Pres- 
 
 byters, and shall have exhibited such testimonials 
 and other requisites as the Canons, in that case 
 provided, may direct. Nor shall any person be 
 ordained until he shall have subscribed the fol- 
 lowing Declaration : 
 
 " ' I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old 
 
 and New Testament to be the Word of God, 
 
 and to contain all things necessary to Salvation ; and I do 
 
 solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrines and Worship 
 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.' 
 
 " No person ordained by a foreign Bishop shall 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 157 
 
 be permitted to oificiate as a Minister of Admission or 
 
 Foreign 
 
 this Church, until he shall have complied ^''■'SJ'- 
 with the Canon or Canons in that case provided, 
 and have also subscribed the aforesaid Declarar 
 tion." 
 
 Q. What was the origin of this Article ? 
 
 A. In many places in this country, Divine Ser- 
 
 1 T • 1 1 1 Origin. 
 
 Vices were kept up during the war by zealous 
 Laymen. The caution of due examination and direction, 
 in respect to Lay Readers, was first proposed in a Resolu- 
 tion of a voluntary Convention of Clergy and Laity from 
 Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, in 
 the City of New York, 7th October, a. d. 1784 (Hawks 
 & Perry, Hist. Notes, etc. Gen. Conv. p. 375) ; and it was 
 incorporated into the first Constitution of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church by the General Convention of a. d. 
 1785, in regard to Candidates for Holy Orders. 
 
 The Article consisted only in the requirement of sub- 
 scription to the Declaration of belief in the Holy Scriptures 
 as the Word of God, containing all things necessary to . 
 Salvation ; and in the engagement to conform to the Doc- 
 trines and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 as settled and determined in the Book of Common Prayer. 
 Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1785, p. 23. 
 
 The General Convention of a. d. 1786 added the re- 
 quirement that the Candidate for Holy Orders should be 
 examined by the Bishop and two Presbyters, and should 
 exhibit testimonials of his moral conduct for three years 
 last past. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1786, p. 42. 
 
 The General Convention of a. d. 1789 put the Article 
 precisely into its present form. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 
 1789, p. 84. Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 36. HofF. L. C. p. 
 166. 
 
 Q. What are the foremost requisites for Ordi- Requisites 
 
 7 for Ordina- 
 
 nation ? t'on- 
 
158 JtOfUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. The requisites for Ordination first named in this 
 Article of the Constitution, are (1) that the Candidate 
 shall have been examined by the Bishop and two Presby- 
 ters. (2) That he shall have exhibited such testimonials 
 and other requisites as the Canons in that case provided 
 may direct. Art. VII. Cons. 
 
 Q. What Canons provide the regulations for Candidates 
 for the Holy Order of Deacons ? 
 
 A. Canon 2, " Of the Admission of Candidates for Holy 
 Orders." Canon 3, " Of Admitted Candidates." Canon 
 4, " General Provisions and Requisites for Ordination." 
 Canon 5, "Examination and Testimonials for Deacon's 
 Orders and Ordination." Title I. Dig. 
 
 Q. What Canons provide the regulations for Candidates 
 for the Holy Order of Priests ? 
 
 A. Canon 6, " Of Deacons." Canon 7, " Of Candidates 
 for Priest's Orders and their Ordination." Title I. Dig. 
 
 Q. What is the next condition precedent to 
 
 Declaration. ^-i... .. . 
 
 Ordination into the Ministry of this Church ? 
 
 A. The person to be ordained must first subscribe the 
 following Declaration : — '•'■ Ido believe the Holy Scriptures 
 of the Old and New Testaments to he the Word of God, and 
 to contain all things necessary to Salvation ; and I do sol- 
 emnly engage to conform to the Doctrine and Worship of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Ohurch in the United States." 
 
 Q. Why is not a subscription to the " Articles of Relig- 
 ion " required, as in the Church of England ? 
 
 A. Because the subscription to the Declaration was 
 deemed to be a sufficient subscription to the Articles of 
 Religion ; and hence the further subscription to the Articles 
 would be superfluous. 
 
 Q. State the authority for this answer, firom the records 
 of the General Convention in a. d. 1804? 
 
 A. " A proposed Canon concerning subscription to the 
 Articles of the Church was negatived, under the impres- 
 sion that a sufficient subscription of the Articles is already 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 169 
 
 required by Article VII. of the Constitution." Jour. 
 Gen. Conv. a. d. 1804, p. 301. 
 
 " The subscription to the Declaration, prescribed in the 
 Constitution of the American Church, had so far acquired 
 the approbation of the English Prelates, as to be thought 
 sufficient, without subscriptions to the Articles, on the part 
 of those who came to them for consecration from Amer- 
 ica." Mem. of Ch. p. 28. 
 
 Q. What is the force of the Declaration that container of 
 the Holy Scriptures " contain all things necessary *'^"' '''*'*''• 
 to Salvation " ? 
 
 A. The force and meaning of the Declaration are 
 explained and evinced by the Sixth Article of Religion. 
 " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salva- 
 tion ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be 
 proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it 
 should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought 
 requisite or necessary to Salvation." Article of Religion 
 VI. 
 
 Q. Do you distinguish between " The Faith " and the 
 Doctrines, contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testaments ? 
 
 A. The distinction is radical. The Faith is what is req- 
 uisite to be believed as necessary to Salvation. The Doc- 
 trines of Christianity, are beside the Faith, — such as Elec- 
 tion, Predestination, Free WUl, on which subjects good 
 men may differ without peril of damnation. 
 
 Q. Does this Declaration, as interpreted by this Article 
 of Religion, affirm that the Holy Scripture teaches what is 
 the Faith? 
 
 A. No. Both the Declaration and the Article are ex- 
 plicit in confining the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures of 
 the Old and New Testaments to the ^^ containing" of the 
 Faith ; and not as teaching what the Faith is. 
 
 Q. What would be the effect of the dogma that the 
 Holy Scripture is the only or the foremost Teacher of the 
 Faith? 
 
160 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. The effect would be to allow every man to select for 
 himself out of the Scriptures, what to believe, as of the Faith, 
 and what to reject, according to his private judgment ; and 
 so authorize and justify as many Sects of Christianity as 
 there are opinions. 
 
 Q. Whence do we derive the Holy Scriptures of the Old 
 and New Testaments ? 
 
 A. "We derive the Old Testament from the testimony 
 and tradition of the Elder Church of the Jews : We derive 
 the New Testament from the testimony and tradition of the 
 Catholic Church from the ApostoHc times. 
 
 Q. What are the tokens and demonstration of the Truth 
 of the testimony and tradition of the Church ? 
 
 A. That which has been witnessed to and handed down, 
 always, everywhere, and by all — " quod semper, vMque et 
 ab omnibus," — has the marks of authenticity and credibil- 
 ity, as Truth derived from one Original. The Bible pos- 
 sesses these Infallible Marks of its origin and authority, as 
 God's inspired Word written. 
 
 Teacher of Q- Where is the Teacher of the Faith to 
 thei'aith. be found? 
 
 A. " The Church hath authority in controversies of 
 Faith," and is the " Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ." 
 Articles of Religion XX. 
 
 Q. Where is the " Faith " taught ? 
 
 A. In the Creeds, — in the one commonly called the 
 "Apostles' Creed," — and in the other, styled the "Nicene 
 Creed," as published by the first Council of the Universal 
 Church at Nicse in Bithynia, A. D. 325, and by the second 
 Council of the Universal Church at Constantinople, a. d. 
 381. 
 
 Q. Is the particular Church, as of Jerusalem, of Alex- 
 andria, of Rome, of England, of the United States of 
 America, liable to err ? 
 
 A. Yes ; not only in their living, but also in matters of 
 Faith. Art. of Religion XIX. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 161 
 
 Q. What limitation is there on the Authority of a par- 
 ticulai" or national Chm-ch ? 
 
 A. " It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything 
 that is contrary to God's Word written." 
 
 "Neitlier may it so expound one place of Scripture 
 tliat it be repugnant to anodier : " "nor decree anything 
 against the same." " Nor beside the same, ought it to en- 
 force anything to be beheved for necessity of salvation." 
 Art. of Religion XX. 
 
 Q. Is this Limitation of Authority appUcable to the 
 Church Universal ? 
 
 A. In theoiy it is ; although the proposition implies an 
 impossibility in fe,ct. 
 
 Q. May not the Church Universal err ? 
 
 A. No; neither in the Faith, nor in expounding the 
 Striptui'es, nor in its teaching of Christian Morality. For, 
 otherwise, tlie proposition would be true, that " always, 
 everywhere, and by all," the teachings on the same subject 
 would be ''contrary" and "repugnant"' to each other; 
 which is absurd and impossible. 
 
 Q. What is the visible Church ? 
 
 A. " The visible Church of Clmst is a congregation of 
 fidthftd men, in which tlie pure Woi"d of God is preached, 
 and the Sacraments be duly administered in all those things 
 that of necessity are requisite to the same." Art. of Re- 
 ligion XIX. 
 
 Q. What is meant by " faithfol men " ? 
 
 A. That congregation who profess the CathoUc Faith as 
 taught in tlie Creeds. 
 
 Q. Are the Creeds to be received as Symbols of the 
 Faith, simply because they are put forth by the witness of 
 CEcumenical Councils of tlie Church ? 
 
 A. No. The Creeds possess the double witness of the 
 Church and tlie Bible. " They ought thoroughly to be 
 received and believed ; for they may be pix)ved by most 
 u 
 
162 MAIJUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 certain warrants of Holy Scripture." Art. of Religion 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Extent and ^" ^® there, then, both a Limitation and a Lati- 
 
 LtoiMonof ty^g of private judgment? 
 
 Judgment. ^ Yes. A pcrson is, first of all, to " hear 
 
 the Chnreh" propound the Faith, — this is the Limitation; 
 
 and afterwards he has Latitude of judgment, Hke the 
 
 Bereans, to " search and see whether these things be so." 
 
 St. Matt, xviii. 17 ; St. John vi. 39; Acts xvii. 11. 
 
 Q. What, then, is the final or ultimate Rule of Faith ? 
 
 A. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. 
 
 Q. What if a Searcher of the Scriptures disagree with 
 the testimony of the Church, as to the Faith ? 
 
 A. " To his own Master he standeth or falleth." Ro- 
 mans xiv. 4. 
 
 Q. May a Minister of this Church have any Latitude of 
 private judgment, in matters of the Faith, Doctrine, Sacra- 
 ments, or Discipline of Chkist ? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. What is the authority for this answer ? 
 
 A. (V) At the ordination of every Priest, the Bishop 
 demands " Will you give your faithful diligence always so 
 to minister the Doctrine, Discipline, and Sacraments of 
 Chkist, as the Lokd hath commanded, and as this Church 
 hath received the same, according to the commandments of 
 God, so that you may teach the people committed to your 
 cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the 
 same?" — to which he answers, "I will so do, by the help 
 of the Lord." 
 
 (2) He subscribes the Declaration in Article VII. of 
 the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 the United States : which includes the profession of his 
 feith in the Holy Scriptures, and his agreement with the 
 Articles of Religion, and his engagement to conform to the 
 Doctrine and Worship of this Church. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 163 
 
 ■ Q. What if the Priest teaches contrary to the Faith, 
 Doctrine, Sacraments, or Discipline of this Church? 
 
 A. He is to he presented, tried, and, hy just judgment, 
 admonished, suspended, or deposed. 
 
 Q. Repeat the words of the engagement of Conformity, 
 in the Declaration ? 
 
 A. " I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrines 
 and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States." Art. VII. Cons. 
 
 Q. Where are to be found the Doctrines and Worship of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church, to which the Clergymen 
 of this Church engage to conform ? 
 
 A. In the Book of Common Prayer ; which is required 
 to be used in those Dioceses which have adopted the Consti- 
 tution of the Protestant Episcopal Chm-ch in the United 
 States. Art. VIII. Cons. 
 
 Q. Where are the directions for Divine Worship in this 
 Church to be found? 
 
 A. In the Rubrics of the Prayer Book, and in the Canons 
 of General Convention. 
 
 Q. Does the Clergyman engage to conform to the Rubrics 
 and Canons ? 
 
 A. Yes. " The Prayer Book is the formula of worship ; 
 and the Rubrics, being a portion of it, are equally binding 
 as the rest." Hoif. L. C. p. 318. 
 
 Q. What is the Canon Law on conformity to the Wor- 
 ship of this Church ? 
 
 A. (1) " Every Minister shall, before all sermons and 
 lectures, and on all other occasions of public worship, use 
 the Book of Common Prayer, as the same is or may be 
 established by the authority of the General Convention of 
 this Church ; and in performing such Service, no other 
 prayers shall be used than those prescribed by the said 
 Book." Can. 20, Title I. Dig. 
 
 (2) The Bishop of each Diocese may compose " Forms 
 of Prayer or Thanksgiving for extraordinary occasions," 
 
164 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 which " the Clergy in those Dioceses may use ; " and also, 
 " Forms of Prayer to be used before Legislative and other 
 Public Bodies." § XIV. Canon 13, Title I. Dig. 
 
 Q. What duty do these Canons enjoin ? 
 
 A. The duty of using no prayers in the public worship 
 of this Church besides those which are prescribed by au- 
 thority of the Prayer Book, or by the Bishop, by way of 
 neither addition, nor omission, nor alteration. 
 
 Q. In the interpretation of these Canons, confining the 
 use of prescribed prayers in ^^ public worship " and " before 
 aU sermons," may a Clergyman aftsr the sermon use any 
 other prayers or services than those which are prescribed ? 
 
 A. " The letter of the Canon would seem to justify such 
 a proceeding." Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 377. 
 
 Q. May a Clergyman use other prayers or services be- 
 fore the Public Worship shall have commenced ? 
 
 A. " The letter of the Canon would seem to justify such 
 a proceeding," by parity of reasoning. 
 
 Q. Are Processional and Recessional Hymns allowable, 
 on the literal interpretation of these Canons ? 
 
 A. Undoubtedly, by the same reasoning. 
 
 Q. May Clergymen, during Public Worship, neglect or 
 omit to use, any part of the prescrihed Form of Prayer. 
 
 A. " It is a violation of the Constitution and Canons, 
 and presentable, of course." Hoff. L. C. p. 318. Hawks' 
 Cons. & Can. p. 377. 
 
 Q. What is the duty of a Clergyman in officiating in 
 Missionary work, or where the Prayer Book is unknown ? 
 
 A. If we " know and remember what this meaneth, I 
 will have mercy and not sacrifice, we would not condemn 
 the guiltless." (St. Matt. xii. 7.) The Clergyman 
 would have no canonical right to violate the rubrics, and 
 must seek for justification or pardon in the law of " mercy " 
 to the ignorant and the perishing. Yet, he must preserve, 
 as far as possible, the Liturgic order and spirit of the 
 Church's worship. 
 
CONSTITITTION OF THE CHDECH. 165 
 
 Dr. Hawks, in his Commentary, asks the question (im- 
 plying its own answer), "Might it not be well to provide a 
 proper service by authority, to be used where the Prayer 
 Book is not known." Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 378. 
 
 A printed Missionary Service is used by Bishops and 
 Clergymen to meet the emergency ; which, however, lacks 
 Canonical Authority, and will rest only on usage, or " the 
 Common Law of the Church," untU the General Conven- 
 tion shall give its sanction. 
 
 Section XIV. Canon 13, Title I. would, meanwhile, 
 authorize the Bishop of each Diocese to compose a Form 
 of Prayer for missionary purposes in his Diocese, as " for 
 extraordinary occasions." 
 
 Q. Would the Publication of opinions tending to the 
 derogation or depraving of the Prayer Book, be a violation 
 of the Clergyman's subscription and promise of Conformity 
 to the Doctrines and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church ? 
 
 A. " Whether such a publication would be presentable 
 has not been judicially settled in any case in our Church." 
 HofF. L. C. p. 318. 
 
 Judge Hoffman refers to the Law of the Church of 
 England in the case of Sanders v. Head, 3 Curteis' Rep. 
 565. The accused published in a newspaper a letter, etc., 
 " in which it was openly affirmed and maintained, that the 
 Catechism and the Order of Confirmation in the Book of 
 Common Prayer, contain erroneous and strange doctrines ; 
 and wherein were also openly affirmed and maintained 
 other positions, in derogation and depravation of the said 
 Book of Common Prayer." 
 
 The learned Judge decided, that, " By the general Law, 
 every Clergj'^man is bound to conform to the Book of 
 Common Prayer, under his subscription and the Canon 
 Law of the Church ; and that a Clergyman could, after 
 this, publish anything he saw fit against the Liturgy or 
 Prayer Book, would he a monstrous proposition." Hoff. 
 L. C. p. 319, note. 
 
166 MANUAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 Admission Q. Recite the clause in Article VII. touching 
 
 Clergy. the admission of Foreign Clergy into the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church in the United States. 
 
 A. " No person ordained by a Foreign Bishop shall be 
 permitted to officiate as a Minister of this Church, until he 
 shall have complied with the Canon or Canons in that case 
 provided, and have also subscribed the aforesaid Dec- 
 laration." 
 
 Q. What are the Canons in that case provided ? 
 
 A. Canon 9, Title I. entitled, " Of the admission of 
 Ministers ordained by Bishops not in communion with this 
 Church." 
 
 Canon 10, Title I. entitled " Of Ministers ordained in 
 Foreign Countries hy Bishops in Communion with this 
 Church." 
 
 Canon 11. Title I. entitled " Of Persons not Ministers 
 in this Church, officiating in any Congregation thereof" 
 Dig. 
 
 Akticle 8. "A Book of Common Prayer, Admin- 
 Thc Book of istration of the Sacraments, and other Rites 
 
 Common 
 
 Prayer. g^jj^ Ceremonics of the Church, Articles of 
 Eeligion, and a Form and Manner of making, 
 ordaining and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons, when established by this or a future Gen- 
 eral Convention, shall be used in the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in those Dioceses which shall 
 ,„ ,. have adopted this Constitution. No alter- 
 
 Alterations .*■ 
 
 how^to'bo"'' ation or addition shall be made in the 
 Book of Common Prayer, or other Offices 
 of the Church, or the Articles of Religion, unless 
 the same shall be proposed in one General Con- 
 vention, and by a resolve thereof made known to 
 the Convention of every Diocese, and adopted at 
 the subsequent General Convention." 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 167 
 
 HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 
 
 Q. What is the History of the Compilation of the Book 
 of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the United States ? 
 
 A. The important principle of the Identity of the Church 
 in this Country with that of England, asserted in every 
 Church in tKe Colonies, and by the Church in the States 
 after the Declaration of Independence, induced, at first, 
 changes in the English Prayer Book in accustomed use, 
 only so far as the new political allegiance demanded. 
 
 The prayers for the King and the Royal Family were 
 omitted; and that for Parliament was altered and ac- 
 commodated for the prayer for Congress, — and such like 
 appropriate emendations. These changes were made di- 
 rectly after the Declaration of Independence, and by each 
 separate Congregation whose minister remained with the 
 people. 
 
 Such was the condition of the Liturgy imtil the volun- 
 tary Convention of October 6th and 7th, a. d. 
 
 . , 1784. 
 
 1784, in New York ; as is witnessed by many of 
 
 the old, mutilated English Prayer Books, now extant as 
 curiosities in our libraries. 
 
 That Meeting proposed six Fundamental Articles of 
 union, to be laid before a General Convention of the 
 Church, summoned in a seventh Article or resolution of 
 that Meeting. 
 
 The fourth of the Fundamental Articles was as follows : 
 " That the said Church shall maintain the Doctrines of the 
 Gospel as now held by the Church of England ; and shall 
 adhere to the Liturgy of said Church, as far as shall be 
 consistent with the American Revolution and the Consti- 
 tutions of the several States." Preface to Jour. Gen. 
 Conv. Ed. of Hawks & Perry, p. 10. 
 
 Q. What was done by the next Convention of a. d. 
 
 1785, on this subject ? 
 
168 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. The next Convention assembled in September, A. D. 
 
 1785, in Christ Chnrch, Philadelphia, when the 
 
 following Resolutions were passed : " Ordered, 
 
 that the proceedings of a former Convention, at New York, 
 
 be again read; which being done, and the different Articles 
 
 considered, — 
 
 " Resolved, That the first, second, and third Articles 
 proposed as Fundamental, are approved of. The fourth 
 Article being read, it was, on motion. Resolved, That a 
 Committee be appointed, consisting of one Clerical and 
 one Lay Deputy from the Church in each State, to con- 
 sider of and report such alterations in the Liturgy as shall 
 render it consistent with the American Revolution, and the 
 Constitutions of the several States; and such further alter- 
 ations in the Liturgy as it may he advisable for this Con- 
 vention to recommend to the consideration of the Church 
 here represented." 
 
 The need of more latitude in the revision of the Prayer 
 Book was here first publicly intimated. 
 
 On Saturday, October 1, a. d. 1785, the Committee re- 
 ported, " that they had prepared a draft of the alterations 
 to be made in the Liturgy." From day to day, the Com- 
 mittee reported progress in making " the further altera- 
 tions." On the 5th October, a. d. 1785, the Convention 
 finished the work, and it was " Ordered, that the tran- 
 scribed copy of the ' Alterations in the Liturgy, to render 
 it consistent with the American Revolution and the Con- 
 stitution of the respective States,' be read and considered 
 by paragraphs ; which being done. Resolved, That the Lit- 
 urgy shall be used in this Church, as accommodated to the 
 Revolution, agreeably to the alterations now approved of, 
 and ratified by this Convention." 
 
 " On motion. Resolved, That the Fourth of July shall be 
 observed by this Church forever, as a day of Thanksgiving 
 to Almighty God for the inestimable blessings of religious 
 and civil Liberty, vouchsafed to the United States of 
 America." 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHtTRCH. 169 
 
 " On motion, Resolved, That the first Tuesday in Novem- 
 ber, in every year forever, shall be observed as a day of 
 general Thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the Fruits 
 of the Earth, and for all other blessings of His mercifiil 
 Providence." 
 
 It was tlien, in the evening session of the same day, 
 October 5, 1785, " Resolved, That the said alterations be 
 proposed and recommended to the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, in the States from which there are Deputies to 
 this Convention." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1785, pp. 
 18-24. 
 
 Q. What notable alterations in the Symbols of the 
 Faith were made in the "Proposed Book" of a. d. 1785? 
 
 A. The Article on the " Descent into Hell " was stricken 
 out of the " Apostles' Creed." 
 
 The " Nicene Creed," and tlie " Athanasian Creed " 
 were wholly omitted. 
 
 Q. "What notice of the alterations in the Faith did the 
 English Bishops take ? 
 
 A. They remonstrated, and demanded the restoration of 
 the Creeds, in a letter to the committee of General Con- 
 vention, in A. D. 1786 ; expressing their " grief that two of 
 the Confessions of o\u- Christian Faith have been entirely 
 laid aside ; and that even in that which is called the 
 Apostles' Creed, an Article is omitted which was thought 
 necessary to be inserted, in view to a particular heresy in 
 a very early age of the Church ; " and they earnestly ex- 
 horted the Convention to restore to its integrity the Apos- 
 tles' Creed, and to give the other two Creeds a place in 
 tlie Book of Common Prayer. See communications from 
 the Archbishops of Canterbury and York : Mem. of Ch. 
 pp. 363, et seq. Joui-. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1786, pp. 61-53. 
 
 Q. What heresy do the English Bishops refer to, as con- 
 tradicted by the Catholic ChuiTh, in the Article in the 
 Apostles' Creed, on the " Descent into Hell ? " 
 
 A. The Apollinai-ian heresy, in the fourth century, 
 
170 MANUAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 against the proper Humanity of Christ, and which denied 
 a human soul to the Saviour ; maintaining that His Divine 
 Nature supplied its place. Mem of Ch. p. 190. 
 
 Q. What else was done in the premises, by the Conven- 
 tion of A. D. 1785 ? 
 
 A. A Committee of Publication was appointed, on Oc- 
 tober 7, A. D. 1785, with power to "make verbal correc- 
 tions, and also a Calendar of Proper Lessons, and reading 
 and singing Psalms, while the Prayer Book was in passing 
 through the press ; and to sell the Copyright for the ben- 
 efit of the several Corporations for the relief of the widows 
 and children of deceased Clergymen." 
 
 The final action of this General Convention in the prem- 
 ises, was a vote of thanks to the Rev. Dr. William Smith, 
 of Maryland, Chairman of the Committee, " for his exem- 
 plary diligence and the great assistance he rendered this 
 Convention in perfecting the important business in which 
 they have been engaged." Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1785, , 
 pp. 28, 29. Read the letters between the Committee — 
 Revs. Dr. White, and Dr. Wharton, and Dr. Smith — in 
 Hist. Notes to Jour, of Gen. Conv. Hawks & Perry. 
 
 Q. What was done in General Convention, in a. d. 1786, 
 in respect to the restoring of the Creeds in their Integrity ? 
 
 A. The letter of the Archbishops of England was re- 
 ferred to a Committe of a Clerical and a Lay 
 Deputy from each State, in the Convention of 
 A. D. 1786, who reported, .First, That in the Creed com- 
 monly called the Apostles' Creed, these words, " He de- 
 scended into Hell," shall be and continue a part of that 
 Creed. Second, That the Nicene Creed shall also be in- 
 serted in the said Book of Common Prayer, immediately 
 after the Apostles' Creed, prefaced with the Rubric (" or 
 this"). Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1786, pp. 58, 59. 
 
 The second Resolution, restoring the' Nicene Creed, was 
 passed unanimously. The first Resolution, on the Article 
 in the Apostles' Creed, was passed " after a warm debate," 
 
CONSTITUTION OP THE CHUECH. 171 
 
 by a vote of two Dioceses in the affirmative, three divided, 
 — " two Ayes and no Negative." Ibid. p. 60. Bishop 
 White says, " Had the issue been different, there could 
 have been no proceeding to England for consecration at 
 this time." Mem. of Ch. p. 133. 
 
 Q. What was done with the Athanasian Creed ? 
 
 A. On motion " that the Athanasian Creed be admitted 
 in the Liturgy," it was decided in the negative, — three 
 Dioceses Nay, two Dioceses Divided. In the General 
 Convention, a. d. 1789, the House of Bishops (Seabury 
 and White) proposed to insert the Athanasian Creed, with 
 a rubric permitting the use of it ; but the Amendment was 
 negatived in the lower House. Mem. of Ch. pp. 179, 
 180. 
 
 Q. What do you observe in this sketch of the History 
 of the Compilation of the " Proposed Book " of Common 
 Prayer ? 
 
 A. (1) We observe the introduction of the Laity into 
 the Committee of Revision, as the first instance in Eccle- 
 siastical History in which Laymen were empowered with 
 authority to assist the Clergy in determining the Faith, 
 and in regulating the Divine Worship of the Church. 
 
 (2) We notice the gradual weaning of the Church 
 from the idea of adhering closely to the Liturgy of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 (3) We are impressed with the exhibition of gratitude 
 for the Independence of the Country ; and of loyalty to the 
 Constitutions of the States ; and with the recognition of the 
 Hand of God in political affairs. 
 
 Yet Bishop White expresses the opinion, that, the obhga- 
 tion of the Service for the Fourth of July was " the most 
 injudicious step taken by the Convention," and was repre- 
 hensible, for the reason that it endangered a cordial union, 
 " because of the lingering opinions of many of the Clergy 
 who still regarded the American Revolution as unjustifia- 
 ble." Mem. of Ch. p. 105. 
 
172 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 (4) The Convention was evidently satisfied with their 
 work, deeming it worthy of universal acceptance and of 
 use " forever." 
 
 (5) They anticipated the profitable sale of " the Pro- 
 posed Book;" appropriating, beforehand, the profits to a 
 charitable purpose. 
 
 Q. Were these expectations realized ? 
 
 A. No. The Churches differed as to the merits of the 
 "Proposed Book," some ratifying, and some rejecting it; 
 and no bookseller would undertake its publication at his 
 own risk. Mem. of Ch. pp. 114, 118. 
 
 Bishop White further states that " in this whole business 
 there was encountered a prejudice entertained by many of 
 the Clergy in other States, who thought that nothing should 
 be done towards the organizing of the Church until the 
 obtaining of the Episcopacy." Mem. of Ch. pp. 95, 102, 
 et seq. 
 
 " It is strange to tell that the Rubric, held to be intoler- 
 able in Virginia, was that of allowing the Minister to repel 
 an evil liver from the Communion." . ..." It was ob- 
 jected that there should be any provision of the kind, or 
 power exercised to the end contemplated." Mem. of Ch, 
 p. 118. 
 
 Q. What was done in the next General Convention in 
 A. D. 1786. 
 
 A. The next Greneral Convention assembled June 20, 
 A. D. 1786, in Christ Church, Philadelphia ; and another 
 " adjourned " meeting in Wilmington, Delaware, October 
 10, A. D. 1786. 
 
 " The Convention, assembled in a. d. 1786 in Philadel- 
 phia, bore strong appearances of a dissolution of the Union 
 in this early stage of it. The interfering instructions from 
 the Churches in the different States, the embarrassment that 
 had arisen from the rejection of the " Proposed Book " in 
 some States, and the use of it in others, were prognostics 
 of falling to pieces, in the opinions of some." Mem. of 
 Ch. p. 123. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 173 
 
 But these "interfering instructions," Bishop White says, 
 " were silenced by the motion — recorded as his own on 
 the Journal — for referring them to the first Convention 
 which should meet fully authorized to determine on a Book 
 of Common Prayer. The instructions, far from proving 
 injurious, had the contrary effect ; hy showing as well the 
 necessity of a duly constituted Ecclesiastical Body, as the 
 futility of taking measures to he reviewed, and authoritatively 
 judged of, in the bodies of which we were Deputies, i^ueh 
 a system appeared so evidently fruitful of discord and dis- 
 union that it was abandoned from this time." Mem. of 
 Ch. pp. 123, 124. 
 
 Q. How did this motion of Bishop White settle the 
 question of the Supreme Authority of the General Conven- 
 tion, and prevent all future interfering instructions from 
 the Dioceses ? 
 
 A. The motion of Bishop White, creating the obliga- 
 tion to the use of the Book of Common Prayer, as set 
 forth by the sole authority of the General Convention, was 
 incorporated into the Constitution of a. d. 1786, and was 
 made the Fundamental Law of the Church. In taking 
 away from the Conventions of the Church in each State 
 (Diocese) the right of "reviewing and authoritatively 
 judging " of the Acts of the General Convention, it con- 
 fined their relations to the Supreme Council of the Church 
 to the sending of Deputies thereto, clothed with full pow- 
 ers to make and to alter the Constitution and to enact 
 Laws for the whole Church. The Coordinate Authority 
 of the Church in the States, or in Diocesan Conventions, 
 Bishop White says, " was abandoned from that time." See 
 " Supremacy of General Convention," ante. 
 
 Q. Repeat the Article of the Constitution, introduced by 
 Bishop White, and the Article for Amendments, adopted 
 by that General Convention at its first Session in June, 
 A. D. 1786. 
 
 A. Art. IX. " Whereas, it is represented to this Con- 
 
1T4 MANUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 vention to be the general desire of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in these States, that there may be further 
 alterations of the Liturgy than such as are made necessary 
 by the American Revolution, — therefore, ' The Book of 
 Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, 
 and other Rites and Ceremonies, as revised and proposed 
 to the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church, at a Con- 
 vention of the said Church in the States of New York, New- 
 Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and 
 South Carolina,' may be used by the Church in such of the 
 States as have adopted, or may adopt, the same in their 
 particular Conventions, till further provision is made, in 
 this case, by the first General Convention which shall as- 
 semble with sufficient power to ratify a Book of Common 
 Prayer for the Church in these States." 
 
 Art. XI. " The Constitution of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the United States of America, when rati- 
 fied by the Church in a majority of the States assembled 
 in General Convention, with sufficient power for the pur- 
 pose of such ratification, shall be unalterable by the Conven- 
 tion of any particular State, which hath been represented 
 at the time of such ratification." Cons. Gen. Conv. a. d. 
 1786. 
 
 Q. What became of " the Proposed Book " ? 
 
 A. It was in voluntary use until superseded by the 
 Book of Common Prayer, established by the General Con- 
 vention of A. D. 1789. Wilson's Mem, Bp. White, p. 139. 
 
 Q. State the proceedings of the General Convention of 
 A. D. 1789, in regard to the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 A. This General Convention opened with one House 
 only. The Deputies were duly vested with full 
 powers to make and ratify the Constitution, 
 which they proceeded at once to do. On the acceding to 
 the Constitution by Bishop Seabury and the New England 
 Deputies, the House of Bishops became a separate House 
 under the Constitution ; whereupon the Convention pro- 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 175 
 
 ceeded to make provision for, and to ratify a Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer. 
 
 Q. On what principle did the Convention proceed ? 
 
 A. No sooner had the Convention divided into two 
 Houses, " when Dr. Parker, of Boston, proposed prfneipie „f 
 that the Enghsh Book should be the ground of i^J^Sfof 
 proceedings to be held, without any reference to i*'!""''^- 
 that Book set out and proposed in A. D. 1785. This was 
 objected to by some, who contended that a Liturgy ought 
 to be formed without reference to any existing Book, al- 
 though with liberty to take from any whatever the Con- 
 vention should think fit. The issue of the debate was the 
 wording of the Resolves as they stand on the Journal, in 
 which the different Committees (composed of Clergy and 
 Laity) are appointed, ' to prepare a Morning and Even- 
 ing Prayer ; ' ' to prepare a Litany ; ' ' to prepare a Com- 
 munion Service ; ' and the same in regard to other depart- 
 ments ; instead of its being said, to alter the Services, which 
 had been the language in a. d. 1785." Mem. of Ch. p. 
 176. 
 
 Q. What was the opinion of the Bishops ? 
 
 A. The Bishops thought this principle " very unreason- 
 able, because the different Congregations of the principle of 
 Church were always understood to be possessed ^/House^of 
 of a Liturgy before the consecration of her Bish- ■^"'"''''• 
 ops, or the existence of her Conventions." The principle 
 affirmed in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies im- 
 plied " that there were no Forms of Prayer, no Offices, 
 and no Rubrics, until they should be formed by the Con- 
 vention now assembled." That House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies (of a. d. 1789) " would not allow that there 
 was any Book of Authority in existence; — a mode of pro- 
 ceeding in which they have acted differently from the 
 Conventions before and after them, who have recognized 
 the contrary principle." 
 
 " If that adopted by the majority of the House of Clerical 
 
176 MANUAL COMMENTAKY. 
 
 and Lay Deputies had been acted on by the Clergy, and 
 by the individual Congregations, on the taking place of the 
 civil Revolution, it would have torn the Church to pieces." 
 Mem. of Ch. pp. 175-178. 
 
 Q. Whose words are you reciting ? 
 
 A. The words of Bishop White in his " Memoirs of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church." 
 
 Q. What does Bishop White say of the Rubric allowing 
 Rubric on the omission of the Article in the Apostles' Creed 
 
 allowing ^ 
 
 Churches to on the "Descent into Hell," as printed in the 
 
 omit the Ar- ' ^ 
 
 CcSitto Prayer Book of A. D. 1789 ? 
 ^'''- A. He protests against that Rubric as "not 
 
 being authorized by the House of Bishops," but " printed 
 by the Committee on Printing of the lower House, without 
 leave of either House" and unjustifiably. He gives seven 
 statements, showing the bad consequences of the action of 
 that Committee in " altering the body of the Creed ; " and 
 allowing " Churches " to omit this Article. And, more- 
 over, he contends, justly, that the license to omit this Ar- 
 ticle " does not square with (his) ideas of good faith," by 
 reversing the action of the Convention of a. d. 1786, and 
 by being " contrary to the pledge given to the English 
 Bishops by the Convention of October, A. D. 1786," to re- 
 store and use it, as the condition of their consecration of 
 our Bishops. Letter to Bishop Seabury, Philadelphia, 
 December, a. d. 1789. Mem. of Ch. pp. 194-198. 
 
 Q. Recite the Resolution of the House of Deputies of 
 A. D. 1789, appointing the Committee on printing the 
 Prayer Book. 
 
 A. " Friday, October 16, a. d. 1789. Resolved, That 
 Dr. WiUiam Smith, Rev. Dr. Magaw, Rev. Dr. Blackwell, 
 Mr. Hopkinson, and Mr. Coxe, be a Committee to super- 
 intend the printing of the Book of Common Prayer, as set 
 forth by this Convention, and that they advise with any 
 person or persons who shall be appointed by the House of 
 Bishops for the same purpose." 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHUECH. 177 
 
 " A message was received from the House of Bishops " 
 (on the same day") " with the information that the Right 
 Rev. Bishop White consents to advise with the "Committee 
 appointed by this House to superintend the printing of the 
 Book of Common Prayer." Jour. Gen. Conv. p. 112. 
 
 Q. What was done by Bishop White when he discovered 
 the unauthorized interpolation of that part of the Rubric al- 
 lowing the Omission of the Article in the Apostles' Creed 
 on « the Descent into Hell " ? 
 
 A. He annexed to the Record " a declaration that his 
 signing of the Morning Prayer is not to be con- Protest of 
 
 1 • 1 • 111 o 1 Bishop 
 
 strued as mvoJ^mg an acknowledgment of the white, 
 consent of the House of Bishops to that matter." Mem. 
 of Ch. p. 197. 
 
 He further avers that " a copy for the printer from the 
 papers prepared hy the Convention would not contain the 
 license to omit the Article, but only the amendment, of the 
 House of Bishops, explaining the meaning of the Article : 
 and the Members might truly declare they never meant to 
 give a Hcense to omit it. And, moreover, it would appear 
 in fiill proof that the (Committee's) amendment was never 
 read to the House." Ibid. p. 193. 
 
 Q. How was the Prayer Book compiled ? 
 
 A. The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies acted on 
 the principle of "preparing" a New Book of Method of 
 Common Prayer, through its Committees of P'""^*-?- 
 Clergy and Laity as a matter originating with them, refer- 
 ring their Acts to the House of Bishops for their concur- 
 rence. The House of Bishops (consisting of Bishops 
 Seabury and White) adapted the English Service, as their 
 principle of action, acknowledging the old Forms (except 
 the political parts) as of existing obligation, until altered ; 
 yet introducing original matter on various heads, or deriv- 
 ing it from extant and ancient Liturgies. Mem. of Ch. 
 pp. 182, 183, 194, 230. Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, pp. 
 140, 141. 
 
 12 
 
178 MAIJUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Each House sent its productions to the other for concur- 
 rence or amendment, and finally authorized the Book of 
 Common Prayer as it is now used by the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the United States ; without any recourse 
 to. the Churches in the several States for Ratification. 
 
 Q. "What is the characteristic of the change, or growth 
 of sentiment, as evinced in this History of the Compilation 
 of the Prayer Book ? 
 
 A. A growing sense of Ecclesiastical Independence of 
 Analogy of the ChuTch of England, corresponding with that 
 
 theReforma- . ,.",..' , f , , . , 
 
 tion. which obtamed m political relationships, yet with- 
 
 out trenching on the historic facts of the Continuity of the 
 Church, through the fresh Branch which God had estab- 
 Hshed in the Vine. The same which the Church of Eng- 
 land did at the Reformation, the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States did in the Convention of A. D. 
 1789, in the " preparing " of a Book of Common Prayer, 
 for public worship, suited to the times and institutions of 
 the land, while adhering to, a"nd maintaining, the purity 
 and integrity of the Catholic Discipline and Doctrine. 
 
 Q. What intimation have we that the Church regarded 
 her Polity as completed and fixed in a. d. 1789 ? 
 
 A. " Some Canons had been passed in the preceding 
 Session; but they were reconsidered and passed with 
 sundry others, which continue to this day substantially the 
 same." Mem. of Ch. p. 24. 
 
 Articles of Q- Were the Articles of Religion adopted at 
 
 Religion. ^jjg Convention of A. D. 1789 ? 
 
 A. No : they were proposed, but postponed. Neither 
 the Articles, nor Offices (as of Ordinations, and Adminis- 
 tration of the Sacraments), nor Hymns, are strictly parts 
 of the Book of Common Prayer. They may be set forth, 
 and printed separately. Cons. Article VIH. Jour. Gen. 
 Conv. A. D. 1792. 
 
 Q. When were the Articles of Religion established by 
 the General Convention ? 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 179 
 
 A. They were " Established by the Bishops, the Clergy, 
 and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States of America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of 
 September, in the year of our Lord 1801 ; " as appears in 
 the caption in the Prayer Book*" Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 
 1801. 
 
 Q. Is there any force in the assertion of some persons, 
 that the Articles of Religion were not " adopted " by the 
 General .Convention of a. d. 1801, but only " set forth " ? 
 
 A. The assertion is contrary to the record. The Articles 
 of Religion were " set forth " and " established," etc., and 
 the certificate of their being " adopted " is as follows : — 
 
 " Adopted by the House of Bishops. 
 
 William White, D. D., Presiding Bishop. 
 Adopted by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 Abraham Beach, D. D., President." 
 Appendix to Jour. Gen. Conv. of a. d. 1801, p. 279 ; 
 also, Jour. Gen. Conv. pp. 264, 266, 273, 276. 
 
 Q. Are the Articles of the same authority as the Book 
 of Common Prayer ? 
 
 A. The same (as above indicated), and also are pro- 
 tected against change, by the same Article of the Constitu- 
 tion of the Church. Art. VIII. Cons. 
 
 Q. Why was the establishment of the Articles post- 
 poned ? 
 
 A. Because they were previously existing as a " Bond 
 of Union." Moreover, when it was proposed in succeeding 
 sessions to " establish them " by General Convention, there 
 appeared an evident reluctance to commit the Church to 
 the Articles of the Church of England. At last, a Com- 
 mittee of the Convention of a. d. 1799, in the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies, prepared and reported a series 
 of heterodox opinions, in the shape of seventeen New 
 Articles. See House Clerical and Lay Dep, Jour. Gen. 
 Conv. A. D. 1799. 
 
 The Convention postponed the further consideration of 
 
180 MAJSrUAIi COMMENTAET. 
 
 them, until the next General Convention. The Churches 
 in the Dioceses, meanwhUe, elected, for the most part, 
 diflFerent Deputies to the next General Convention. On 
 Wednesday, September 9, a. d. 1801, the House of 
 Bishops took the initiative, and adopted and set forth the 
 Articles of Religion as they now stand, after the model of 
 those of the Church of England. The House, unanimously, 
 concurred in adopting them, on Friday, September 11, 
 A. D. 1801. 
 
 Q. What account does Bishop White give of the 
 Articles ? 
 
 A. Bishop White says, that " after repeated discussions 
 and propositions, it had been found that the Doctrines of 
 the Gospel, as they stand in the XXXIX. Articles of the 
 Church of England, with the exception of such matters as 
 are local (and of the Athanasian Creed), were more likely 
 to give general satisfaction, than the same Doctrines in 
 any new shape that might be devised. The former were, 
 therefore, adopted by the two Houses of Convention in 
 A. D. 1801, without their altering of even the obsolete dic- 
 tion in them." Mem. of Ch. p. 28. 
 
 Q. When were the other Offices of the Church com- 
 piled? 
 
 A. The Bishops reviewed the " Ordinal " and proposed 
 a few alterations, which were adopted in the Convention of 
 A. D. 1792. The Convention of a. d. 1795 adopted the 
 "Office for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel," 
 substantially the same with a Service composed by Bishop 
 Andrews in the Reign of James I. The Convention of 
 A. D. 1798 was prevented by the prevalence of yellow fever 
 in Philadelphia, but was summoned in a. d. 1799, when the 
 review of the Articles of Religion was moved. The Con- 
 vention of A. D. 1801 adopted the Articles, and thus " per- 
 petuated the principles of the Church of England." The 
 Convention of a. d. 1804 framed and ordered to be used 
 the " Office of Induction." The Convention of a. d. 1808 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 181 
 
 changed " the Office of Induction " to " the Office of Insti- 
 tution," and rested it on recommendation, not on requisi- 
 tion, as before. Thirty Hymns were added. The first pas- 
 toral Letter was dehvered and pubhshed. The Convention 
 of A. D. 1817 appointed a Committee to effect the establish- 
 ment of the General Theological Seminary. Mem. of Ch. 
 pp. 24-42. 
 
 Q. What is the difference between " Induction " and 
 " Institution " ? 
 
 A. Induction is an Act which instates the Incumbent 
 in full possession of the Temporalities of his Cure. It is 
 purely of a temporal nature, and is cognizable only in the 
 temporal Courts. In the Canon Law, Induction is styled 
 " Corporal possession." 
 
 Institution is the Act of the Bishop or Ordinary, or 
 some one deputed by him, admitting the Clerk, as Rector 
 of the Parish, to have there the Cure of souls. Institution 
 is, therefore, purely an Ecclesiastical and Spiritual investi- 
 ture, and is exclusive against all persons, save the King. 
 Title Benefice: Gibson's Codex, pp. 804-815. Bums' 
 Ecc. Law, vol. i. pp. 167-176. Degge's Parson's Coun- 
 sellor, part i. ch. 2. 
 
 After Institution, the incumbent is formally Inducted to 
 the Benefice by the Archdeacon, or such other person as 
 the Bishop may appoint : or by the Dean and Chapter, but 
 not by the Patron. The ceremony of Induction is per- 
 formed by the dehvery of the ring of the Church door, or 
 the latch of the Church gate : or by the delivery of the 
 bell-rope to the new-instituted Clergyman, who tolls the 
 bell as notice to the parishioners and others. 
 
 Q. Why was the title " Induction " changed by General 
 Convention in a. d. 1808 to " Institution"? 
 
 A. Because the Clergy usually receive no Benefice, 
 but chiefly spiritual Cure and Jurisdiction. While Insti- 
 tution is evidently the more appropriate title, yet our Office 
 combines both ideas. 
 
182 MANUAL COMMENTAEY, 
 
 Q. What ought our emotions to be in view of this His- 
 tory ? 
 
 A. Devout thanksgiving to the Holy Ghost, the Lord 
 and GivEK of Life, the Inspirer of all Tnith, from whom 
 all holy desires and all good works do proceed, that our 
 Fathers were enabled to establish a Book of Common 
 Prayer, and Offices, and Articles of Religion, in which the 
 Faith and Worship and Discipline of God is set forth and 
 fixed, as it was first delivered to the Saints, whole and un- 
 defiled. 
 
 Use of the Q- How does this Article VIII. distinguish 
 
 cZmon the Book of Common Prayer ? 
 Prayer. ^ j^ distinguishes the Book of Common 
 
 Peatee from the Ofiices of " Administration of Sacra- 
 ments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, 
 Articles of Religion, and the Form and Manner of mak- 
 ing. Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons." 
 
 Q. May the Offices be printed in a separate Book ? 
 
 A. Yes. The Ordinal was ordered to be printed in a 
 separate book by the General Convention of a. d. 1792, as 
 appears from the Journal, pp. 157, 165. The other Offices, 
 and the Articles of Religion, may be included, being dis- 
 tinct from the Prayer Book. 
 
 Q. What is the authority for the use of the Book of 
 Common Prayer, the Offices, and the Articles of Religion ? 
 
 A. The Supreme authority of the General Convention. 
 
 Q. To what extent is the use of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, and the Offices enjoined ? 
 
 A. In " the Protestant Episcopal Church in those Dio- 
 ceses which shall have adopted this Constitution" (Art. 
 VIII.), and in all other Dioceses which shall have acceded 
 to it. 
 
 Q. What is the obligation due from Clergy and Laity to 
 the Articles of Religion ? 
 
 A. The obligation of the Clergy to accept, ex animo, the 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHUECH. 183 
 
 Doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church, as set forth 
 in the Articles of Religion, is subscribed by them, virtually, 
 in the " Declaration " required of every person prior to his 
 Ordination. Jour. Gen. Conv. a. d. 1804, p. 301. And, 
 over and above this "Declaration," the Articles of Religion 
 are a part of the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, which every Layman, as well as every Clergyman, 
 is bound to obey, in foro conscientice. 
 
 Q. What is the advantage of the Common Prayer Book, 
 Offices, and Articles of Religion ? 
 
 A. One uniform Worship, Faith, and Discipline, where- 
 by " the unity of the Spirit " in the bond of peace, is wit- 
 nessed and maintained, in fellowship with the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 Q. How are Alterations and Amendments j^it^^jjuon, 
 made ? <"«* A""?"*?," 
 
 ments of the 
 
 A. Alterations and amendments "must be c™''j„on 
 proposed in one General Convention, and by a ^'^y- 
 resolve thereof made known to the Convention of every 
 Diocese, and adopted at the subsequent General Conven- 
 tion." Art. VIII. Cons. 
 
 Q. Why are proposed alterations "made known " to the 
 Conventions of every Diocese? 
 
 A. In order that no hasty change may be made without 
 the knowledge of the Church in every Diocese ; and that 
 the Church in every Diocese may send Deputies to express 
 their views of a proposed alteration in the subsequent Gen- 
 eral Convention where the alteration is to be " adopted." 
 Wilson's Mem. Bp. White, pp. 134, 136. 
 
 Q. Are the Deputies bound by their Instructions? 
 
 A. The better opinion is that they are not bound, and 
 that it would be unwise to trammel their free and inde- 
 pendent judgment, whereby they may " profit by the light 
 of other minds." HofF. L. C. p. 178. Hawks' Cons. & 
 Can. p. 45. 
 
 Q, How is the Alteration to be made in the Book of 
 Common Prayer, and the Offices, and the Articles? 
 
184 MANUAL COMMENTAET. 
 
 A. By Vote in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
 with the concurrence of the House of Bishops. The Vote 
 in the House of Deputies must be taken by Dioceses and 
 Orders. 
 
 Q. Does this Article of the Constitution specify the 
 necessity of voting by Dioceses and Orders ? 
 
 A. No. But the alteration of the Prayer Book, etc., 
 being an alteration of the Constitution, the rule obtains of 
 a Vote by Dioceses and Orders, according to Article IX., 
 which requires a Vote of the "majority of the Dioceses." 
 Art. IX. Cons. 
 
 Q. What do approved Commentators say on this point? 
 
 A. (1) Dr. Hawks says, " That in aU questions of Con- 
 stitutional or Liturgic changes, the Vote in the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies must be taken by Dioceses." 
 Hawks' Cons. & Can. p. 51. 
 
 (2) Judge Hofiinan says, " The Dioceses act in General 
 Convention through their delegates : " " there must be a 
 majority of the Dioceses in union to effect a change in the 
 Constitution." Hoff. L. C. p. 175. 
 
 Article 9. "This Constitution shall be unal- 
 terable, unless in General Convention, by the 
 Aiterasons Church, vo. a majority of the Dioceses 
 Btitution. which may have adopted the same ; and 
 all alterations shall be first proposed in one General 
 Convention, and made known to the several Dio- 
 cesan Conventions, before they shall be finally 
 agreed to, or ratified, in the ensiling General 
 Convention." 
 
 ALTERATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Q. Where shall the Constitution be altered ? 
 
 A. " In General Convention ; " or, as Article VIII. 
 expresses it, " at the General Convention." Hoff. L. C. 
 pp. 172, et eeq. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 185 
 
 Q. By whom may the Constitution be altered ? 
 
 A. " By the Church, in a majority of the Dioceses which 
 may have adopted the same." 
 
 Q. How must the Voice of the Church in the Dioceses 
 be expressed ? 
 
 A. By a Vote in General Convention, by " Dioceses and 
 Orders." HoiF. L. C. p. 175. Hawks' Cons. & Can. 
 p. 51. 
 
 Q. What constitutes a majority of the Dioceses in Gen- 
 eral Convention ? 
 
 A. A majority of the Clerical or a majority of the Lay 
 Deputies, in their respective Orders, representing the Dio- 
 ceses, — being, at least, one Clerical and one Lay Deputy 
 from a Diocese (Art. H.), — and a number of the other 
 Order (at least three) sufficient to make a majority on a 
 division. Judge Hoffinan states the Rule for a majority 
 of Dioceses and Orders, as "a Representation in one 
 Order of a majority of the Dioceses in union ; and a Rep- 
 resentation in the other Order of three or more Dioceses," 
 Hoff. L. C. p. 151. 
 
 Q. .Where must the Alteration be proposed ? 
 
 A. " In the General Convention." 
 
 Q. Where, and by whom, must the Alteration be 
 " finally agreed to or ratified ? " 
 
 A. " In the ensuing General Convention, and by a ma- 
 jority of the Dioceses, voting by Dioceses and Orders. 
 
 Q. What is directed to be done with the proposed Alter- 
 ation, in the interim between the two Conventions ? 
 
 A. The proposed Alteration is to be " made known to 
 the several Diocesan Conventions." 
 
 Q. For what purpose is the proposed Amendment 
 "made known?" 
 
 A. The purpose is to acquaint the " Church in each 
 Diocese " with the proposed Alteration, that they may not 
 be taken by surprise, and may take action on the subject, 
 if they see fit. 
 
186 MANUAL COMMENTAEY. 
 
 Q. What action in the premises may the Church in a 
 Diocese take ? 
 
 A. They may elect Deputies, with instructions or not, 
 as they see fit ; or they may acquiesce in silence. 
 
 Q. If a majority of Diocesan Conventions should oppose 
 a proposed amendment, what then ? 
 
 A. The General Convention ought to give due weight 
 to their objections, but be not otherwise influenced by them. 
 The Diocesan Conventions had no voice in the Making of 
 the Constitution, and can have no voice in tlie Altering of 
 it, — which is tantamount to making a new Article. 
 
 Q. What is the testimony of Bishop White ? 
 
 A. Bishop White says that the Constitution was not 
 submitted to the States for Ratification. Wilson's Mem. 
 Bp. White, p. 136. 
 
 And, furthermore, that " the system of taking measures 
 in General Convention to be reviewed and authoritatively 
 judged of in the bodies of which they were Deputies, 
 proved to be futile, and was so fruitful of discord and dis- 
 union that it was abandoned fi-om that time " of the Gen- 
 eral Convention of a. d. 1786. Mem. of Ch. p. 123, 
 
 Q. What does Dr. Wilson, in his "Memoirs of Bishop 
 White," say of the purpose of the clause of this Article, 
 requiring the proposed alteration to be " made known " 
 to the Diocesan Conventions ? 
 
 A. He says the purpose was " to give stability to the 
 Constitution by preventing hasty changes." Wilson's Mem. 
 Bp. White, p. 136. 
 
 Article 10. " Bishops for Foreign Countries, on 
 Consecration ^^^ appHcation therefrom, may be con- 
 Sre^n secrated, with the approbation of the 
 Bishops of this Church, or a majority of 
 them, signified to the Presiding Bishop; he 
 thereupon taking order for the same, and they 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 187 
 
 being satisfied that the person designated for 
 the Office has been duly chosen, and properly 
 qualified: the Order of Consecration to be con- 
 formed, as nearly as may be, in the judgment of 
 the Bishops, to the one used in this Restrictions 
 Church. Such Bishops, so consecrated, Hon.Author- 
 
 '^ ' ' ity,andPny- 
 
 shall not be eligible to the office of "^s"- 
 Diocesan, or Assistant Bishop, in any Diocese in 
 the United States, nor be entitled to a seat in the 
 House of Bishops, nor exercise any Episcopal 
 authority in said States." 
 
 BISHOPS FOE FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 
 
 Q. "What was the occasion and necessity of c„„sg„„tion 
 the consecration of Foreign Missionary Bishops? ?or|o^£n 
 
 A. The General Convention of 1835, an- <^™°'™'- 
 nounced the truth that " every member of the Church, by 
 virtue of his Baptism, was pledged to be a Missionary of 
 the Gospel in the Church." Missions in China and in 
 Africa were established, soon after, by Presbyters and 
 Deacons, and Lay Assistants of both sexes. A Bishop 
 was applied for from those countries ; who, however, could 
 not be Consecrated under the extant Forms. Hence the 
 occasion and necessity of the Constitutional provision in 
 this Article X. which was finally agreed to and ratified in 
 the General Convention of A. d. 1844. 
 
 Q. What are the Constitutional restrictions ^'^s'opai 
 on the Jurisdiction of a Foreign Missionary Authority™' 
 
 XI • 1 o and Privi- 
 
 iJlshop I lege. 
 
 A. He " shall not be eligible to the office of Diocesan, 
 or Assistant Bishop, in any Diocese in the United States." 
 
 Q. What are the Constitutional restrictions on the Epis- 
 copaf Privilege and Authority of a Foreign Missionary 
 Bishop ? ' 
 
188 MAUUAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 A. He shall " not be entitled to a seat in the House 
 of Bishops, nor exercise any Episcopal authority in the 
 United States." 
 
 Q. What reasons may be assigned for these restrictions 
 on the Foreign Missionary Bishop ? 
 
 A. No good reasons are obvious. (1) If the Foreign 
 Missionary Bishop be regarded as amenable to the Consti- 
 tution and Canons of this Church, like any other Bishop, 
 he ought to be on the same footing as the other Bishops of 
 this Church in matters of Episcopal Privilege. Equity 
 and the principle of the Equality of Bishops, demand this 
 identity of responsibility and identity of correlative privi- 
 lege. 
 
 (2) The Clergy and Laity of a Diocese " destitute of a 
 Bishop," are debarred from the right to choose for their 
 Diocesan a Foreign Missionary Bishop, because he is pro- 
 hibited from the exercise of any Episcopal Authority in the 
 United States, while no such restraint exists on their elec- 
 tion of any Domestic Missionary Bishop. But since the 
 Church is One Church, whether she extend her offices 
 and ministries to Territories and people, living either within 
 or beyond the boundaries of the United States, her Do- 
 mestic and Foreign Missionary Bishops ought to be con- 
 sidered as on the same footing, and entitled to equal eligir 
 bihty to Authority ; otherwise the principle of the Unity 
 of the Episcopate is violated in unjust discrimination be- 
 tween her Missionary Bishops ; besides a violation of the 
 liberties of her Clergy and People. 
 
 (3) The privileges of all the Bishops are, likewise, un- 
 reasonably restricted by the provision, that the Foreign 
 Missionary Bishop shall "not exercise any Episcopal 
 Authority in the United States ; " because the Bishops of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States may 
 not invite a Foreign Missionary Bishop, as they do other 
 Bishops, to supply their lack of service in an emergency. 
 
 (4) The Foreign Missionary Bishop, during his vaca-* 
 tion in this country, and during the Session of the Gen- 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 189 
 
 eral Convention of the Churcli, being forbidden " a Seat 
 in the House of Bishops," is a spectacle mortifying to the 
 Bishop, and painful to the Members of the Church : — the 
 spectacle of a vagrant Bishop, in his own country and in 
 his own Church, without official recognition, and, seem- 
 ingly, without a home or friends, while his Peers are in 
 Council with closed doors. There is, perhaps, reason in 
 denying a vote on Domestic matters to the Foreign Mis- 
 sionary Bishop ; but none in shutting the doors against 
 him, by denying him " a Seat in the House of Bishops." 
 
 Q. Have these Considerations prevailed in the General 
 Convention, in favor of the Equal Episcopal rights of For- 
 eign Missionary Bishops ? 
 
 A. Imperfectly. The General Convention of a. d. 
 1865 enacted by Canon, that the Foreign Missionary 
 Bishop " shall be entitled to a seat in the House of Bish- 
 ops, but shall not become a Diocesan Bishop in any organ- 
 ized Diocese within the United States, unless with the 
 consent of three fourths of all the Bishops entitled to seats 
 in the House of Bishops, and also of three fourths of the 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies present at the Session of the 
 General Convention, or, in the recess of the General Con- 
 vention, with the consent of the Standing Committees of 
 three fourths of the Dioceses." [2.] § VIH. Canon 13, 
 Title I. Dig. 
 
 Q. Is this Canon Constitutional in this respect ? 
 
 A. No. It is contrary to the positive restrictions of 
 Article X. of the Constitution. 
 
 Q. Does this Article X. need amendment? 
 
 A. It does need amendment, to restore the Episcopal 
 College to its primitive and continuous Equality of Office. 
 As St. Cyprian testifies, on the Unity of the Church 
 (vol. i. p. 380, Edin. ed.), "Assuredly the rest of the 
 Apostles were also the same as Peter, endowed with a 
 like partnership, both of Honor and Power." 
 
 " Episcopatus unus est : cujus a singulis m sou- 
 bum PAES TENETUK." 
 
ADDENDUM 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 The following Official Certificate of the Kev. Dr. Perry, Histo- 
 riographer of the Church, and Secretary of the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies, concludes the question of the Original text of Article 
 n. of the Constitution. 
 
 This certificate should have appeared in connection with that of 
 Judge Bell (p. 99), hut was not received until the plates of that por- 
 tion of the Commentary were ready for the press. It is therefore 
 given in this place : — 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OF THE PROTEST- 
 ANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 ADOPTED THE 2D DAY OF OCTOBER, A. D. 1789: 
 
 " Article 2. The Church in each State shall he entitled to a 
 representation of hoth the Clergy and the Laity, which representa- 
 tion shall consist of one or more Deputies, n6t exceeding four of each 
 Order, chosen by the Convention of the State ; and in all questions, 
 when required by the Clerical or Lay representation from any State, 
 each Order shall have one vote." 
 
 Geneva, N. Y., March 29, 1870. 
 
 I hereby certify that the above paragraph copied from Hawks & 
 Perry's reprint of the Journals of the Greneral Convention, vol. i. page 
 99, and in particular the words " Clerical or Lay " in line 5th of Art. 
 2 of The Constitution, are correctly printed from the reprint of the 
 Journals of the General Convention issued in 1817 by John Bioren of 
 Philadelphia, and edited by Bishop White under the authority of the 
 said General Convention, as appears from a comparison with a copy 
 of the said Edition of 1817 deposited among the files of the General 
 Convention by the said Bishop White, and bearing his name : and 
 that both Reprints, as far as the aforesaid paragraph and words are 
 concerned, are a correct and exact copy of the Original Journal of 
 the said Convention as published in Philadelphia in 1790 (vide page 
 
ADDENDUM. 191 
 
 9, line 5th, of 2d paragraph), both having been by me this day com- 
 pared with a copy of said Original Journal as contained in a volume 
 belonging to the General Convention, and bearing the following au- 
 tograph certification, namely : — 
 
 " This volume is y" only entire collection within my knowledge of 
 " y« original Journals of the General Convention from the Beginning, 
 " for the space of thirty years. It may be of use in determining on 
 " any questions which may arise concerning any particular of the 
 " Republication of the Journals by John Bioren. Accordingly I de- 
 " posit it with y" committee appointed by y' last Gteneral Convention, 
 " for y' collection of Journals." 
 
 (Signed) "W". White." 
 
 And I further certiiy that the original of the above certification is in 
 the handwriting of Bishop William White. 
 
 Witness my hand this Twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of 
 Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy. 
 
 William Stevens Perky, 
 Secretary H. C. If L. Deputies General Convention- 
 
IIsTDEX OF QUESTIONS 
 
 IN THE MANUAL COMMENTAKY. 
 
 Question. What are the Grand Divisions of the Law of the 
 Church in the United States 1 
 
 PART I. — THE COMMON LAW OF THE PROTESTANT 
 EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Extent of Authority of English Canon Law, — Limitations. 
 
 What is the relation of the Church of England and the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church in the United States .... 2 
 
 What is the Extent of Authority of the Ecclesiastical Law of 
 England in the United States 2 
 
 What are the Restraints on the Canon Law of England in this 
 country 2 
 
 IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE COLONIES. 
 Acts of Colonial Governments. 
 
 What Acts of Legislation demonstrate the Identity of the 
 
 Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church . 2 
 
 By whom was the Church of England established in this country 4 
 
 Did the Government of England prescribe the Establishment . 4 
 
 Did Parliament 4 
 
 Did the King 4 
 
 What authority had the King in the premises .... 4 
 
 What power in England could establish the Church ... 4 
 
 What was the Supreme Authority in the Saxon Church . . 4 
 How did the Royal Governors in the Colonies justify their acts 
 — for example, not to prefer any to Ecclesiastical Benefices, 
 
 except persons lawfully ordained 5 
 
 What effect on Colonial Society did the Governors' recognition 
 
 of the King's sole prerogative produce 5 
 
 13 
 
194 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 What apology for the Royal Governors may be offered . . 5 
 
 Wliat was the spirit of the age 5 
 
 Mention an Act of Intolerance of the Virginia Legislature in 
 
 A. D. 1642 5 
 
 Mention Contemporaneous Legislation in Massachusetts . . 5 
 Did the Church of England in the Colonies owe its existence and 
 
 support to the Government of England ..... 5 
 What notable example of earnest and successful rebuke of the 
 indifference of Parliament occurred about this time . . 5 
 
 Was the money paid 6 
 
 What else characterized the age 6 
 
 To whom, under God, is the Church indebted, in this country, 
 for existence, for support, and for the spread of sound doc- 
 trines and the Catholic faith 6 
 
 What, briefly, will you say of this venerable Society ... 6 
 Who was the " Ordinary " or Bishop of the Church in the Colo- 
 nies 6 
 
 Whence did he derive his authority 6 
 
 How did the Bishop of London exercise a personal oversight . 6 
 Name the Commissaries of the Bishop of London in the Colo- 
 
 ,nies 6 
 
 Did the Colonial Church apply for Commissaries ... 7 
 What attempt by a Colonial Legislature was made against the 
 rights of the Clergy and the prerogative of the Bishop of Lon- 
 don 7 
 
 Was this Act of the Legislature resisted 7 
 
 How was the outrage remedied 7 
 
 What other instances of attempts to bring Clergymen of the 
 
 Church under Lay jurisdiction 7 
 
 What course was pursued in conformity with Ecclesiastical Law 7 
 What Ecclesiastical Law of England ruled the case ... 7 
 What Acts ftirther confirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
 
 Bishop of London 8 
 
 What was the effect, finally, of these struggles .... 8 
 What do these acts of the Colonies demonstrate in a general 
 
 way 8 
 
 What custom of the Clergy, in Connecticut specially, exhibits 
 the Identity of the Church of England and the Church in the 
 
 Colonies 8 
 
 In what particulars do these historical facts indicate the Identity 
 of the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the 
 
 Colonies 9 
 
 Was the Ecclesiastical Law of England in any way modified . 9 
 
INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 195 
 
 How did this Common Law of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the United States develop itself 9 
 
 Was there any violent disruption at the Revolution, between the 
 Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the United 
 States 9 
 
 IDENTITY OF THE CHDECH OF ENGLAND IN THE UNITED 
 
 STATES. 
 
 Summary of Proofs of Identity of Protestant Episcopal Church and the Church of Eng- 
 land. — Particulars of Identity of the Church of England with the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church. — Opposing Views. — Refutation of Opposing Views. 
 
 What were some of the Acts of the Church in the United States 
 evincing its Identity with the Church of England . . . 9 
 
 1. Acts of the States. 
 
 2. Acts of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General 
 
 Convention. 
 
 3. Acts of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General 
 
 Convention, with the acquiescence of the whole 
 Church. 
 
 What were the Acts of the States 9 
 
 What were the Acts of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Gen- 
 eral Convention . . . . . . . . .12 
 
 What are the Acts of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Gen- 
 eral Convention, with the acquiescence of the whole Church . 13 
 What do these acts prove beyond contradiction . . . .14 
 
 What is the summary of the proofs that the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the United States is Identical with the Church 
 of England : and as such, is a living and independent branch 
 of the Church CathoUc, and subject to the Catholic Law of 
 the Church and to the Ecclesiastical Law of England, so far 
 as those laws are applicable, and not superseded by Special 
 Canon Law of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 
 States 14 
 
 In what does the Identity of the Church of England with the 
 
 Protestant Episcopal Church consist 14 
 
 What opposing view of the relation of the Church of England 
 with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
 
 has been entertained and debated 15 
 
 What distinguished body set forth this opponent view . .15 
 Where will you find a full account of those discussions . .15 
 What does Bishop White say of these opponent opinions ex- 
 pressed in the lower House in a. d. 1789 . . . .15 
 Did the opinion of the House of. Clerical and Lay Deputies of 
 A. D. 1 789 prevail 16 
 
196 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 What would such opinions, if prevailing, reduce the Church to . 16 
 What just dignity do the prevailing sentiments of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, in regard to her continuous relations with 
 the Mother or Sister Church of England, exhibit . . .16 
 State some of the Dicta of received and learned commentators 
 on the question ......... 16 
 
 IDENTITY OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH WITH 
 
 THE PRIMITIVE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 Amenability, of the Protestant Episcopal Church to the General Canon Law of the Cath- 
 olic Code. — Authorities who decide Mooted Questions, — Further Restraints on Private 
 Judgment. — Definition of Discipline. 
 
 What is the relation of the Protestant Episcopal Church to the 
 General Canon Law 18 
 
 What do the Homilies teach on this question . . . .18 
 
 WiU you mention a recognition of the " Ancient Canons " as 
 being cognate with Holy Scripture and as authority in this 
 Church 18 
 
 Do these Ancient Canons form part of the Catholic Code . . 19 
 
 What practice of this Church in the Consecration of Bishops 
 follows the injunctions of the Catholic Code . . . .19 
 
 Recite the first of the Apostolic Canons . . . . .19 
 
 What practice of this Church, in other ordinations, is enjoined 
 by Canon in conformity with the Catholic Code . . .19 
 
 Where is this practice of Ember Weeks enjoined in the Primitive 
 Church 19 
 
 Does our Church, in recognizing Ancient Law and the Ecclesi- 
 astical Law of England, follow the example of the EngUsh 
 Church in yielding obedience to the Catholic Code or Body of 
 the Canon Law, and also to the Foreign Canon Law . .19 
 
 What is the Analogy precisely 20 
 
 Is every member of the Church bound to obey the Canons of the 
 Catholic Code, and of the English Church, with the restraints 
 abovenamed 20 
 
 May any member of the Church, on his own motion, decide what 
 is the Common Law or custom of the Church . . . ,20 
 
 Quote authority for the restraint on private action . . .20 
 
 Who or what are the authorities that may decide on the Law 
 of the Church in England, and of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States 20 
 
 What other restraint on individual and private judgment, in 
 respect of doctrine or practice in the Church, may you name . 21 
 
 Will you illustrate by some examples of the just restraint on 
 
INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 197 
 
 private judgment and, action in respect of doctrine and prac- 
 tice 22 
 
 What fnrther statement, in the Preface to the Book of Common 
 Prayer, confirms the declaration " that this Church was far 
 from intending to depart from the Church of England in any- 
 essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship, or further 
 
 than local circumstances require " 22 
 
 What is the sense of the term "discipline" in Ecclesiastical 
 
 writings 23 
 
 In which sense is the word " discipline " here used . . .23 
 Will you give examples of this use of the word . . .23 
 What is the argument, hence derived, that our Church retained 
 the same Ecclesiastical Laws after the Revolution which it 
 possessed before the Revolution, except when local circum- 
 stances required a change 23 
 
 CANON LAW OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 Periods of the Canon Law of the Church in England. — British Church Period. — An^ 
 glican Church Period, — Norman Period. — Legatine Constitutions. — Provincial 
 Constitutions. — Common Law of the Churchy artd where it may be best learned. — 
 Foreign and Domestic Laws of the Church of England. — The False Decretals. — Ref- 
 ormation Period of the Church of England. 
 
 How many periods are there of the Canon Law of the Church 
 
 of England 23 
 
 What are their respective dates 24 
 
 What was the origin of the Laws of the British Church . . 24 
 What are the earliest records of the Church in Great Britain . 24 
 How were the Ancient Laws of the British Church to be 
 
 changed 24 
 
 What were the sources of Ecclesiastical Law in the Anglican 
 
 Period ........... 24 
 
 How were these " Laws " which affected the Laity and Clergy 
 
 made 25 
 
 How were the "Institutions," or Monumenta Ecclesiastica, 
 
 enacted 25 
 
 What do you learn from these Laws and Institutions respecting 
 
 the British and Anglican Church ...... 25 
 
 Give me an example of the force of this Ancient Law in modern 
 
 times ■ . . . . . .25 
 
 Were these Synods or Gemotes (as they were called) frequently 
 
 held by the Bishops and Clergy 25 
 
 What are the sources of Common Law in England in the third, 
 
 or Norman Period, — middle of the Eleventh Century to Ref- 
 
 (wmation 26 
 
198 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 What are the Legatine Constitutions 26 
 
 What are the Provincial Constitutions . . . . .26 
 What are the Legatine and Provincial Constitutions styled . 26 
 Where may best be learned this Common Law . . . .26 
 What higher recognition of these laws and rules now prevails . 27 
 
 How is the English Canon Law divided 27 
 
 What is the Foreign Canon Law 27 
 
 How do you prove that these " Decretals " are false . . .28 
 Were these False Decretals received in England . . .29 
 How did the Reformers treat this new Law of Rome . . .29 
 What are Domestic Canons in the Church of England . . 29 
 What do you mean by Ecclesiastical Authority . . . .29 
 What are the sources of English Ecclesiastical Law in the fourth, 
 
 or Reformation Period ... .... 29 
 
 What Canons have been authorized by Convocation . . .30 
 What Statute Law is considered as part of the Ecclesiastical 
 
 Law of England 30 
 
 Are the Rubrics in the Liturgy a part of the Statute Law . . 30 
 Are the XXXIX. Articles of Religion a part of the Statute Law 30 
 What other sources of Ecclesiastical Law are to be regarded . 30 
 Was this body of English Canon Law the Ecclesiastical Law of 
 
 the Church in the Colpnies, at the date of the Royal Charters 31 
 
 ERA OF THE FOUNDING OF THE CHUKCH OF ENGLAND IN 
 
 AMERICA. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Law of England in the Colonies. — Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of 
 England hi the States. — Sumfnary of Extant Ecclesiastical Laws. — Effect of the 
 American Revolution onthe Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
 What is the date of the first Church erected on this Continent . 31 
 
 Were all the Ecclesiastical Laws, which we have enumerated, in 
 ftill force in England at the time of the settlement of the 
 American Colonies 31 
 
 What exceptions and modifications in the English Canon Law 
 did our Colonial condition superinduce 32 
 
 Will you sum up the several ingredients of the English Ecclesi- 
 astical Law as it obtained when the Church was planted in this 
 country 32 
 
 Did this constitute the Body of the Law of the Church in the 
 Colonies 33 
 
 What change did the American Revolution bring with it , 33 
 
 What Law prevails in cases not provided for as above . . 33 
 
INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 199 
 
 APPENDIX I. — SPIRITUAL COURTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 What are the Spiritual Courts in the Church of England 
 
 (1) What is the Archdeacon's Court . 
 
 (2) WTiat is the Consistory Court 
 
 (3) What is the Court of Peculiars . 
 
 (4) What are the Prerogative Courts 
 
 (5) What is the Court of Arches, Curia de Arcubus 
 
 (6) What is the Court of the King in Chancery 
 
 (7) What is the Court of the Judicial Committee of 
 
 Council 
 
 34 
 34 
 34 
 34 
 35 
 35 
 36 
 
 Privy 
 
 36 
 
 APPENDIX II. -THE MANNER OF ELECTING AND CONSECRAT- 
 ING ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENG- 
 LAND. 
 
 What is the manner of Electing and Consecrating Archbishops 
 and Bishops in the Church of England 37 
 
 1. Notice of Demise of Bishop. 
 
 2. Writ of Conge d'Elire, or Letter Missive from the 
 
 Crown. 
 
 3. Election by Chapter. 
 
 4. Confirmation of Election by the Judges. 
 
 5. Translation. 
 
 6. Consecration of the Bishop. 
 
 7. Writ of Commendam. 
 
 8. Bishop's Suit for Temporalities. 
 
 9. Inthronement of Bishop. 
 
 What is the origin of the fable of the Nag's Head Consecration 38 
 What if the Dean and Chapter refuse to elect, or the Arch- 
 bishop to confirm and consecrate, the nominee of the Crown . 39 
 
 1. Penalty of Praemunire. 
 
 2. Praemunire. 
 
 How does the practice of the American Church compare with 
 that of the Church of England 40 
 
 1. Contrast of British Church Liberties. 
 
 2. Eoyal Supremacy. 
 
 3. Surrender of Liberties of the Church by the Clergy. 
 
 4. Relation of the Church in the United States to Civil 
 
 Authority. 
 
200 INDEX or QUESTIONS. 
 
 PAKT II. — THE CONSTITUTION OE THE PROTESTANT 
 EPISCOPAL CHUECH IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 I. PEELIMINABT HISTORY. 
 
 When did the Church in this country become Independent of 
 
 the Government of the Church of England . . . .43 
 Who was the Bishop of the Church in the Colonies . . .43 
 What authority declares that the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
 
 London ceased on the Fourth of July, A. D. 1776 . . .43 
 What alterations in the Liturgy were made necessary by the 
 
 Revolution 43 
 
 What political condition was assumed by the Colonies aiter the 
 
 Declaration of Independence 43 
 
 What was the Ecclesiastical condition of the Church in the sev- 
 eral States 43 
 
 How did the Church " in the first place " proceed to make the 
 " necessary alterations " in the Liturgy . . . . .44 
 
 Give examples . . . . . . . . . .44 
 
 Were these examples followed ....... 44 
 
 How was the Independence of the Church in each State illus- 
 trated in Connecticut 44 
 
 In how many States did the Episcopal Church exist, at the date 
 
 of the Declaration of Independence 45 
 
 WTiat was the relation of the Congregations to each other during 
 
 the War 45 
 
 What was peculiar to Connecticut 45 
 
 What was done, after the War, in other States, for the organiza- 
 tion of the Church ......... 45 
 
 State the fundamental principles which the meeting in Phila- 
 delphia proposed as the basis of the Union of the Churches . 46 
 What seems to characterize these " fundamental principles " . 47 
 Which Articles afiirm the Independence of the Church . .47 
 WTiich express the desire and purpose of Union . . .47 
 Which evince jealousy of Episcopal and Priestly authority . 47 
 What sentiment in the Church does the Sixth fundamental Arti- 
 cle ftirther evince 47 
 
 Repeat the Sixth Article 47 
 
 Was there any apprehensiveness that Episcopalians of that era 
 
 were disaffected towards Episcopacy 47 
 
 What confirmation of this suspicion is extant . . . .48 
 What political circumstances at that time prompted, or at least 
 favored, the proposed introduction of this Sixth " fundamental 
 principle " in the Constitution of the Church . . . .48 
 
INDEX or QUESTIONS. 201 
 
 Did tihe Confederation of the States endure . . . .48 
 What was the complexion of the hindrances to Union, as re- 
 vealed in the objections of the Northeastern States . . 49 
 What further objections proceeded from Connecticut . . .49 
 What other hindrances from New Jersey ..... 50 
 Was this Sixth " fiindamental principle," in regard to the re- 
 stricting of the powers of the General Convention to those 
 functions which cannot be exercised by the congregations, 
 favored by the Churches, after a second thought . . .50 
 State the character and annals of " this first general meeting " of 
 
 Churchmen 50 
 
 What were these " Fundamental Articles " 50 
 
 What States were represented by their Clerical Deputies at this 
 
 meeting in New York, October, A. D. 1 784 . . . .51 
 Wliy was not Virginia duly represented . . . . .51 
 What effect followed the publication of these Fundamental Ar- 
 ticles, in respect to the organization of the Church in the 
 
 States 51 
 
 What principles seem to characterize these Fundamental Articles 52 
 Does not the analysis of these Fundamental Articles of the as- 
 sembled Clergy in October, a. d. 1784, seem to depress the 
 Episcopacy overmuch, and exalt the power of the Laity . 52 
 
 State the grounds of this opinion 53 
 
 What justification may be alleged for this departure from the 
 
 pattern of Primitive and Ancient Ecclesiastical Councils . 56 
 What does Dr. Hawks say on the subject . . . . . 56 
 
 What evil in principle was patent ...... 56 
 
 State what followed the adoption of the Fundamental Articles 
 by the Voluntary Meeting in New York in A. d. 1784 . .57 
 
 What Churches were represented 57 
 
 What was the character and authority of this proposed Consti- 
 tution of the Church 57 
 
 What followed next 58 
 
 Did the Constitution of A. D. 1786 become the fundamental law 
 
 of the whole Church 58 
 
 How was the next General Convention summoned . . .58 
 When did the next General Convention convene . . .58 
 What was done at this Convention of A. d. 1789 . . .58 
 What was done to engage the Churches in the Northeastern 
 
 States 59 
 
 What were the several Dioceses allowed to retain under the 
 
 Constitution of A. d. 1786 ' 59 
 
 In what were the several Dioceses prohibited ; or, as Dr. Hawks 
 states the proposition, " What did they surrender ? " . .60 
 
202 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 What further right of the State (or Diocesan) Conventions does 
 Bishop White affirm was " surrendered " and abandoned in 
 A. D. 1789 61 
 
 II. THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL CONVEN- 
 TION. 
 
 Ar^ment from Historical Facts. — Adverse Argvments. — Confirmatory Argumertt. — 
 Recapitulation. — Argttment from the Canons. 
 
 State the facts to prove the Supremacy of the Convention of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States . . .62 
 
 Was there required any subsequent ratification of the General 
 Constitution by the State Conventions before it should become 
 " the Fundamental Law of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the United States " 63 
 
 Did the State Conventions take action on the subject . . 63 
 
 What are the just inferences from these various actions of the 
 State Conventions ......... 64 
 
 Was it within the powers of the original State Conventions to 
 claim authority to ratify the Constitution before it should have 
 force, or to refuse their consent to the action of their Deputies 
 in the premises 64 
 
 Is this question historically mooted 65 
 
 What was the authority of the Constitution (as amended in Grcn- 
 eral Convention, October, a. d. 1789) in those States which 
 had not sent Deputies, or which had not " empowered " them 
 to " confirm and ratify a General Constitution " . . .65 
 
 What further argument may be adduced to prove the Supremacy 
 of the General Convention in respect of Amendments to the 
 Constitution 66 
 
 Let us examine this point more particularly. Recite the words 
 of the Eleventh Article of the Constitution as proposed to the 
 State Conventions in A. D. 1785 67 
 
 Recite the Eleventh Article of the Constitution, as proposed to 
 the State Conventions in A. D. 1 786 67 
 
 Where is "the Church " affirmed to be, for the purpose of Rati- 
 fication 67 
 
 Recite the Ninth Article of the Constitution, as passed in Gen- 
 eral Convention, October, a. d. 1789 ; being the same as now 
 existing (except the word " States," changed into Dioceses in 
 A. D. 1838) 67 
 
 By whom may the Constitution be altered 68 
 
 Where must the action of the Church, by such majority, be ex- 
 pressed 68 
 
INDEX OP QUESTIONS. 203 
 
 Where must alterations be proposed 68 
 
 Where must proposed alterations be finally agreed to, or ratified 68 
 
 What must be done with the proposed alterations in the Interim 68 
 
 For what purpose 68 
 
 State the views and testimony of Bishop White on this point . 68 
 
 If a majority of the Dioceses, in their respective Conventions, 
 dissent from the proposed alterations, should the General 
 Convention alter the Constitution against such expression of 
 dissent 69 
 
 How are the votes of the States (Dioceses) on Amendments to 
 the Constitution, expressed in General Convention . .69 
 
 What adverse inference has been drawn by Dr. Hawks from the 
 language of Article IX. of the Constitution, as to the relation 
 of the Conventions of the Dioceses to the General Convention 70 
 
 What answer to the hypothesis on which this conclusion is pos- 
 tulated, does the History of the Constitution of a. d. 1789 
 furnish 70 
 
 What further argument does Dr. Hawks urge against the Su- 
 premacy of the General Convention 71 
 
 What answer does Article VHI. of the Constitution, providing 
 for the Amendment of the Book of Common Prayer, furnish 
 to this interpretation and argument of Dr. Hawks . . .72 
 
 What further argument for " diocesan independence " does Dr. 
 Hawks allege 73 
 
 What answer is made to this argument 74 
 
 What is the upshot and practical conclusion which Dr. Hawks 
 infers from his hypothesis of " diocesan independency " . .74 
 
 What have you to say to this twofold conclusion of the argument 
 against the Supremacy of the General Convention . . .74 
 
 State what has been the practice, or the precedent, in the mode 
 of altering the Constitution . 75 
 
 What does this historical enumeration of the amendments ex- 
 hibit 76 
 
 Will you again quote Bishop White on the question of the Su- 
 preme Authority of the General Convention under the Consti- 
 tution of the Church 77 
 
 Recapitulate the facts which demonstrate the paramount author- 
 ity of the General Convention 78 
 
 What further confirmation of the Supremacy of the General 
 Convention, may you derive fi'om the enactment of Canons by 
 the General Convention of A. D. 1789 79 
 
204 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 III. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 Origin. —Change of Time and Place of Meeting. — fecial Conventions, — Presiding 
 Bishop. — Quorum. — Freedom of Debate. 
 
 State, in brief, the origin of this Article 81 
 
 Who preseribes the place of meeting of the Triennial Conven- 
 tions 82 
 
 Name the amendments in reference to the time and place of 
 
 meeting of the General Convention 82 
 
 By whom may the place of meeting of the General Convention 
 
 be changed, when good cause renders it necessary . . .82 
 How are Special Meetings of the General Convention regulated 83 
 Kecite the terms of the Canon which regulates the right of call- 
 ing " Special Greneral Conventions " 83 
 
 Where shall Special Conventions be held 83 
 
 What Deputies shall compose a Special General Convention . 83 
 Who is " the Presiding Bishop " mentioned in this Article I. of 
 
 the Constitution , 84 
 
 State what the Rules of the House of Bishops have been, in ref- 
 erence to the Presiding Bishop . . . ' . . .84 
 Has the title of " Presiding Bishop " invested him with superior 
 rank or authority . . . . . . . . .87 
 
 Is there any Rule of the House of Bishops fixing and establish- 
 ing the priority of right to preside . . . . . .87 
 
 What is the Law of the Church in England in respect of dignity 
 
 and rank 87 
 
 What is the Law of the Church in Scotland . . . .87 
 
 What constitutes a Quorum 88 
 
 What is the language in this Article I. of the Constitution . 88 
 What constitutes a representation of a Diocese in order to pro- 
 ceed to business ......... 88 
 
 What constitutes a representation of a Majority of the Dioceses, 
 
 in order to proceed to business 88 
 
 Is a Diocese duly represented for the purpose of a Quorum, if 
 only the Clerical Deputies are present ; or if only the Lay 
 
 Deputies are present 89 
 
 What then is " a majority of the Dioceses " represented, in order 
 
 to proceed to business 89 
 
 What is meant by Freedom of Debate 89 
 
 Specify the authoritative restraints of Rules of Order on the 
 Freedom of Debate 89 
 
INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 205 
 
 Does " Freedom of Debate " include a right to discuss a motion 
 to enter a Protest in the Journal 90 
 
 How long since has it been a settled Rule to deny a claim to 
 enter a Protest in the Journal 90 
 
 ARTICLE II. — HOUSE OF CLERICAL AND LAY DEPUTIES. 
 Qualifications of Deputies. — Vote by Dioceses and Orders. — Lay Communicants. — Ec- 
 clesiastical Residence. — Clerical Residence. — Residence of iMymen. — Manner of 
 choosing Deputies. — Tote by Dioceses and Orders for a Majority. — Dioceses Unrepre- 
 sented. 
 
 How are the Deputies to the General Convention chosen . . 92 
 
 May a Diocesan Convention, by Canon or otherwise, delegate the 
 right and power of choosing Deputies prospectively, either to 
 the Bishop, or a Committee, or any other person or persons . 92 
 
 What is the just construction of this provision of the Constitu- 
 tion 92 
 
 May a Diocesan Convention delegate to the Bishop, or other 
 person or persons, the power to fill a vacancy . . . .92 
 
 Would a Canon of a Diocese delegating the power and duty of 
 choice, entirely and prospectively, be valid . . . .93 
 
 What is a Vacancy 93 
 
 Whom does the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies represent . 93 
 
 Does it represent the Diocesan Conventions . . . .93 
 
 Who are " the Church in each Diocese " 93 
 
 What is the relation between the Diocesan Conventions and the 
 General Convention 94 
 
 Is the Constituency of the General Convention and the Consti- 
 tuency of the Diocesan Conventions, one and the same . . 94 
 
 Who are " the Church in each Diocese," represented in General 
 Convention 94 
 
 What are the Qualifications of the Deputies to General Conven- 
 tion ............ 95 
 
 What is the origin of the admission of Laymen into the Coun- 
 cils of this Church 95 
 
 Is there an earlier origin claimed in this country for the plan of 
 admitting the Laity into the Councils of the Church . . 95 
 
 Does the Coordinate Authority of the Clergy and of the Laity 
 in General Convention confer on each Order the right to join 
 in making laws to regulate the other Order . . . .96 
 
 Does this provision of Concurrent Majorities of the two Orders 
 confer unusual Ecclesiastical powers on the Laity . . .96 
 
 Is the voice of the Laity, in making Canons for the Government 
 of the Clergy, a departure from the primitive Law of the 
 Church 96 
 
206 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 What was the ancient and invariable rule of the British and An- 
 glican Church, as inherited by the Church of England . . 96 
 
 In this country, where there is no union of Church and State, 
 how are the respective rights of Clergy and Laity protected 
 under the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church . 97 
 
 What error on this point of a call for a Vote by Dioceses and 
 Orders has probably crept into the Constitution . . .98 
 
 When was the qualification of being a Lay " Communicant in 
 this Church " introduced into the Constitution of the General 
 Convention .......... 102 
 
 What is meant by " Communicants in this Church," as a quali- 
 fication of Lay Deputies 102 
 
 What Ecclesiastical censure would invalidate the qualification of 
 a Layman .......... 103 
 
 If a Layman should incur Ecclesiastical censure during his term 
 of office, would he be qualified to sit as Lay Deputy . . 103 
 
 What is meant by the clause " Residents in the Diocese," as a 
 qualification of Clerical and Lay Members . . . .103 
 
 What judgment must the Secular Courts give on the question of 
 Residence in a Diocese 103 
 
 What is the Canonical Residence of a Clergyman . . . 103 
 
 State what the Canons on Residence of Clergymen require and 
 enjoin ...'... . .... 104 
 
 What Canonical Conditions prescribe the time when the privi- 
 lege of Clerical Residence and Removal takes effect under 
 Letters Dimissory 105 
 
 Is a Clergyman removing beyond the territorial limits of a Dio- 
 cese into parts where there is no Bishop, required to maintain 
 his Diocesan Residence . . . . . . . .106 
 
 To whom is a Clergyman belonging to one Diocese, and charged 
 with an offense committed in another Diocese, amenable . 106 
 
 May the Ecclesiastical Authority of a Diocese refuse to accept 
 Letters Dimissory presented by a Clergyman in good standing, 
 who is called into the Diocese to take charge of a Parish . 107 
 
 What further interpretation on Clerical Residence do the Can- 
 ons furnish .......... 107 
 
 What conclusion follows a^ to the meaning of the clause in Art. 
 II. respecting Clerical Deputies, "Residents in the Diocese" 
 which they represent . • 108 
 
 What is the authority of the axiom that " No man may take 
 advantage of his own wrong " ...... 109 
 
 What policy of the Church dictates the Constitutional and Can- 
 onical Residence of a Clergyman, as independent of Secular 
 Residence or " Domicile " 110 
 
INDEX OB QUESTIONS. 207 
 
 Does the removal of a Clergyman into another State or District 
 
 or Diocese, ipso facto, vacate his Ecclesiastical Domicile . HO 
 Ho-w is the principle that a Clergyman's Residence in a Diocese 
 is determined exclusively by the fact of Episcopal Jurisdiction 
 over him, and not by the laws of secular domicile, evinced by 
 Article V. of the Constitution of the Church . . . .111 
 What is the doctrine of the Canon of " Episcopal Residence " . 112 
 Repeat what special immunity is accorded by Canon (in view of 
 the rights of the Clergy and the Laity) to a Clergyman called 
 to take charge of a Parish or Congregation . . . .113 
 What is the conclusion of the question as to the meaning of the 
 phrase "Residents in the 'Diocese," in respect t)f Clerical 
 
 Deputies to the General Convention 114 
 
 When are Laymen " Resident in the Diocese " and qualified to 
 
 represent it in the General Convention 117 
 
 Suppose he fails to comply with the Canon . . . .117 
 
 Does the Canon contemplate a diipensaiion from the conse- 
 quences of the Lay Communicant's negligence and fault in not 
 
 procuring a Letter Dimissory 117 
 
 Repeat the provision in the Constitution for choosing Deputies . 118 
 Does this provision give color to the idea that the Deputies chosen 
 by the Convention, represent the Convention . . . .118 
 
 What is a Vote by Dioceses and Orders 118 
 
 What number of votes in either order, is a Vote of that order . 119 
 Suppose the vote of either order be divided, as two against two. 119 
 What is the specific usage of the General Convention in regard 
 
 to divided votes 119 
 
 Were divided votes counted 119 
 
 State what Bishop White says on this Vote in a. d. 1786 . .120 
 What was the Article of the Constitution under which the Vote 
 
 by Orders in A. D. 1786 was taken 120 
 
 How is this seeming Plurality Vote to be construed as that of 
 the majority of Suffrages of the Church in each State repre- 
 sented . 120 
 
 Is this example of the General Convention of a.d. 1786 followed 
 
 by the Church in subsequent Conventions . . . .121 
 What is the Parliamentary Rule respecting Blank Votes in a 
 
 Balloting 121 
 
 Is a Divided Vote equivalent to a Blank Vote . . . .121 
 Is this Parliamentary Rule applicable to Divided votes under the 
 
 Constitution of the General Convention 121 
 
 What is the proper mode of counting a Vote by Dioceses and 
 Orders, under Article II. of the Constitution of the General 
 Convention 121 
 
208 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 What principle in respect to the rank of Dioceses, and the Coor- 
 dinate rights of Clergy and Laity, does the Vote hy Dioceses 
 and Orders establish 122 
 
 Is it true that " diocesan independency, in aU matters not sur- 
 rendered for the great end of union, is asserted " by the fact 
 that " any Diocese may demand a vote by Dioceses " . .122 
 
 If the Convention of any Diocese appoint Lay Deputies, or Clei> 
 ical Deputies, of whom some do not attend, what constitutes a 
 Representation of the Diocese in General Convention, in a vote 
 by Dioceses and Orders 122 
 
 If only a. Lay Deputy, or only a Clerical Deputy attend, does 
 he, in a vote by Dioceses and Orders, represent the whole 
 Diocese 122 
 
 If a Diocese " has but a single Deputy of either order, upon a 
 call for a vote by Dioceses and Orders, has that Diocese a 
 voice, in that order that may chance to be present, equal to 
 that of the largest Diocese with all its eight delegates . .123 
 
 What is a Quorum of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
 for a vote by Dioceses and Orders 123 
 
 If the Convention of any Diocese should neglect or refuse to ap- 
 point Clerical and Lay Deputies ; or if Deputies, Clerical or 
 Lay, should not attend at any General Convention, would the 
 Church in that Diocese be discharged from amenability to the 
 Canons of that General Convention . . , . .123 
 
 Does this clause of Article n. contradict the hypothesis of " dio- 
 cesan independency " 123 
 
 What relation does this clause of Article n. establish between 
 the General Convention and the Church in any Diocese . .124 
 
 ARTICLE III.— HOUSE OF BISHOPS. 
 
 Quorum of the House of Bishops, 
 
 How many Bishops of this Church form a House of Bishops . 124 
 What are the powers of the House of Bishops . . . .125 
 Is this negative absolute and unconditional . . . . 1 25 
 What result follows from the failure of the House of Bishops in 
 
 complying with these conditions, or either of them . . .125 
 Suppose the Act of the House of Deputies be reported to the 
 
 House of Bishops for their concurrence, within three days of the 
 
 adjournment of the Convention 125 
 
 What constitutes a Quorum of the House of Bishops . . .125 
 How is this manifest ? State the History of the organization of 
 
 the House of Bishops 125 
 
INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 209 
 
 Mention the subjects which engaged this House of Bishops . 128 
 
 On what principle did the House of Bishops proceed in revising 
 the Liturgy and Offices 130 
 
 Did the House of Deputies adopt the same principle — the re- 
 vision of the English Book 130 
 
 How does Bishop White account for the celerity in the dispatch 
 of business in the House of Bishops 131 
 
 ARTICLE IV.— DIOCESES. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Bishops. — Assistant Bishops. — Suffragan Bishops. — Coadjutor Bishops. 
 — Organization of Dioceses under Catholic Canon Law. 
 
 What is a Diocese 131 
 
 What is the derivation of the word Diocese . . . .131 
 
 What is the historical Origin of Dioceses 131 
 
 What are the bounds of a Diocese by Canon Law . . . 132 
 How were the bounds of Dioceses determined in this Church . 132 
 How are the bounds of Dioceses now fixed . . . .133 
 How may new Dioceses be formed in outlying Missionary dis- 
 tricts 133 
 
 By what claim and authority does the Church appoint Domestic 
 
 Missionary Bishops 133 
 
 By what authority does the Church appoint Foreign Missionary 
 
 Bishops 133 
 
 What is the relation of the Bishops of this Church to the Apos- 
 tles, to whom the Lord gave mission 134 
 
 What are the bounds and limits of the Jurisdiction of Domestic 
 
 and Foreign Missionary Bishops 134 
 
 Is it possible that, in the same place, there can be several differ- 
 ent Churches 134 
 
 Is it possible that, by the law of God, there may be more than 
 one Apostle or Bishop in the same place, without disturbing the 
 
 Unity of Communion in the Church 134 
 
 What do you gather from these examples of Holy Scripture re- 
 specting the original Norm or rule of Apostolic or Episcopal 
 
 jurisdiction 135 
 
 Does this Church legislate on the principle, that a Diocese is the 
 Bishop's Jurisdiction, in its normal character, and is over per- 
 sons and not defined by places 136 
 
 What is the force of the Limitation on the Bishop's Jurisdiction 
 
 in this Article IV 136 
 
 What is the Canon Law on this point 137 
 
 By what authority may a Bishop exercise his Episcopal office 
 14 
 
210 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 outside of the local limits of his own proper Diocese, accord- 
 ing to Article IV. of the Constitution of this Church . .137 
 Does this Article prohibit the Bishop of the Diocese from invit- 
 ing another Bishop to exercise his Episcopal functions in his 
 
 Diocese 137 
 
 How can a Bishop of a Diocese justify his own invitation to an- 
 other Bishop to exercise the Episcopal office in his Diocese . 137 
 What further does this Article contemplate . . . .137 
 May an Assistant Bishop be consecrated without assurance of his 
 continuance in some Episcopal Jurisdiction after the demise of 
 
 his principal 138 
 
 What is a Suffragan Bishop 138 
 
 What were the duties of SuiFragan Bishops in England . .139 
 What were the privileges of Suffragan Bishops .... 139 
 How long have Suifragans been disused in England . . .139 
 
 What was a Coadjutor Bishop 139 
 
 What relation does an Assistant Bishop in this Church bear to 
 the Suffragan and Coadjutor Bishops of the Church of Eng- 
 land 139 
 
 Give a succinct statement of the organization of the Church 
 under the Catholic Canon Law, which has been established or 
 atified by the (Ecumenical Councils and received by the 
 Church Universal ......... 140 
 
 ARTIOLE v. — admission OP NEW DIOCESES. 
 
 Diocesan Rights of the Bishop and Assistant Bishops. — Constitution and Canons of New 
 
 Dioceses. 
 
 How may a new Diocese be admitted into union with.the other 
 Dioceses and with the General Convention .... 143 
 
 Does the act of " acceding " to the Constitution imply the rio^ht 
 of any Diocese to secede from the union established by the 
 Constitution .......... 143 
 
 State the other powers of " independency " which Dr. Hawks 
 says the Dioceses " surrendered " 143 
 
 What supreme function of " diocesan independency " does Bishop 
 White say was abandoned by the State Conventions, under the 
 Constitution of A. D. 1789 144 
 
 What is the process by which a Church in any of the United 
 States is admitted into Union 144 
 
 What is the process by which a " New Diocese, formed from one 
 or more existing Dioceses," is admitted into union . . . 145 
 
 What are the Constitutional Restrictions on the dividing of an 
 existing Diocese 145 
 
INDEX OP QUESTIONS. 211 
 
 Into how many Dioceses does this Article of the Constitution 
 
 contemplate the Division of a Diocese 145 
 
 What was the interpretation of this Article whereby the Diocese 
 of New York, in a. d. 1868, was divided into three Dioceses 
 with the consent of the General Convention of that year . 145 
 What is the further restriction on the erection of New Dioceses 146 
 What is the principle adopted and published in these " restric- 
 tions," respecting the definition of a Diocese .... 146 
 When was Article V. put into its present form . . . .147 
 What was the principle of the old Fifth Article respecting the 
 
 defining of Dioceses, which is now superseded . . . 147 
 What is the right of Jurisdiction of the Bishop when his Dio- 
 cese is divided 147 
 
 What is the right of Jurisdiction of the Assistant Bishop . .147 
 What is the Fundamental Law of New Dioceses . . .147 
 May two or more Dioceses be united into one Diocese . . 147 
 What is the Fundamental Law of the Consolidated Diocese . 147 
 
 ARTICLE TI.— COURT AND TRIAL OS BISHOPS. 
 Diocesan Courts and Trials, — Imperfection of the Judiciary. — Sentences. 
 
 What is the mode of trying Bishops 148 
 
 Who may constitute the Court for the trial of Bishops . . 148 
 
 What was the corresponding article of the Constitution of a. d. 
 1785 148 
 
 What comment on this Article was made by the English Bish- 
 ops 149 
 
 What comment does Bishop White make on this portion of the 
 communication firom the English Bishops .... 149 
 
 What is the further comment of Bishop White on the remon- 
 strance of the English Bishops 149 
 
 On what legal and equitable principle did the English Bishops 
 object to the provision for the Trial of the Clergy . . .150 
 
 What modification did the General Convention of A. D. 1786 
 make in Article VIIL of the Constitution . . . .150 
 
 Does this amendment remove the objection of the remonstrance 
 of the English Bishops 150 
 
 How did the General Convention of A. d. 1786 treat the remon- 
 strance of the English Bishops 150 
 
 How long did Article VIH. remain in the Constitution un- 
 changed 151 
 
 What notable advance toward Catholic Canon Law was made 
 by the Amendment of a. d. 1841 151 
 
212 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 What further change was made in this Article respecting the 
 
 trial of Presbyters and Deacons 151 
 
 What advance towards Catholic Law was made by this Amend- 
 ment of A. D. 1848 152 
 
 Is the equal amenability of the Clergy of this Church established 
 by the provision for Diocesan Courts and Canons . . . 152 
 
 What remedy does this Article provide 152 
 
 Would the Canon of the General Convention supersede an exist- 
 ing Diocesan Canon, on the trial of Presbyters and Deacons . 152 
 Has the General Convention exercised its Constitutional and in- 
 herent Prerogative, in providing a Code of Laws and a system 
 
 of Judicial Proceedings 153 
 
 What crying enormity prevails, for lack of just and wise General 
 
 Canons for the trial of Presbyters and Deacons . . .153 
 Why is the denial of the power of Appeal so enormous a wrong 153 
 What Commentary does Dr. Hawks make on this Article . .154 
 
 What is the view of Judge Hoffman 154 
 
 What sentences may an Ecclesiastical Court pronounce . .154 
 What is Admonition ......... 155 
 
 What is Suspension 155 
 
 Is there such a Sentence known to Canon Law as " Indefinite 
 
 Suspension " 155 
 
 What is Degradation 155 
 
 Does the Sentence of Degradation, Deposition, or Displacement 
 (equivalent terms in the. Canons), take away the office of a 
 
 Minister in this Church 155 
 
 May a deposed Minister be restored to the Exercise of his Office 155 
 
 Must he be ordained again, if restored 155 
 
 What notice shall be given to the Church when a Clergyman is 
 
 sentenced to " Degradation " 155 
 
 Who alone may pronounce a Sentence 156 
 
 Under what Solemnities shall a Bishop pronounce a Sentence . 156 
 
 ARTICLE vn. 
 
 Origin. — Requisites for Ordination. — Declaration, :— Container of the Faith. — Teacher 
 of the Faith.— Extent and Limitation of Private Judgment. — Admission of Foreign 
 Clergy. 
 
 What was the origin of this Article 157 
 
 What are the foremost requisites for Ordination . . . 157 
 
 What Canons provide the regulations for Candidates for the Holy 
 
 Order of Deacons 158 
 
 What Canons provide the regulations for Candidates for the Holy 
 
 Order of Priests .158 
 
INDEX or QUESTIONS. 213 
 
 What is the next condition precedent to Ordination into the Min- 
 istry of this Church 158 
 
 Why is not a subscription to the " Articles of Religion " required, 
 
 as in the Church of England 158 
 
 State the authority for this answer, from the records of the Gen- 
 eral Convention in a. d. 1804 158 
 
 What is the force of the Declaration that the Holy Scriptures 
 " contain all things necessary to Salvation " . . . . 159 
 
 Do you distinguish between "The Faith" and the Doctrines 
 contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments 159 
 
 Does this Declaration, as interpreted by this Article of Religion, 
 affirm that the Holy Scripture teaches what is the Faith . .159 
 
 What would be the effect, of the dogma that the Holy Scripture 
 is the only or the foremost Teacher of the Faith . . . 159 
 
 Whence do we derive the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testaments . . . 160 
 
 What are the tokens and demonstration of the truth of the tes- 
 timony and tradition of the Church 160 
 
 Where is the Teacher of the Faith to be found . . .160 
 
 Where is the " Faith " taught 160 
 
 Is the particular Church, as of Jerusalem, of Alexandria, of 
 Rome, of England, of the United States of America, liable to 
 err 160 
 
 What limitation is there on the authority of a particular or na- 
 tional Church 161 
 
 Is this limitation of authority applicable to the Church Uni- 
 versal 161 
 
 May not the Church Universal err 161 
 
 What is the visible Church 161 
 
 What is meant by " faithful men " 161 
 
 Are the Creeds to be received as Symbols of the Faith, simply 
 because they are put forth by the witness of CEcumenical 
 Councils of the Church 161 
 
 Is there, then, both a Limitation and a Latitude of private judg- 
 ment 162 
 
 What then is the final or ultimate Rule of Faith . . .162 
 
 What if a Searcher of the Scriptures disagree with the testimony 
 of the Church, as to the Faith 162 
 
 May a Minister of this Church have any Latitude of private 
 judgment, in matters of the Faith, Doctrine, Sacraments, or 
 Discipline of Christ 162 
 
 What is the authority for this answer 162 
 
214 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 What if the Priest teaches contrary to the Faith, Doctrine, Sac- 
 raments, or Discipline of this Church 163 
 
 Repeat the words of the engagement of Conformity, in the Dec- 
 laration ...... .... 163 
 
 Where are to be found the Doctrines and Worship of the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church, to which the Clergymen of this 
 Church engage to conform . . . . . . .163 
 
 Where are the directions for Diyine Worship in this Church to 
 be found 163 
 
 Does the Clergyman engage to conform to the Rubrics and Can- 
 ons 163 
 
 What is the Canon Law on Conformity to the worship of this 
 Church 163 
 
 What duty do these Canons enjoin ...... 164 
 
 In the interpretation of these Canons, confining the use of pre- 
 scribed prayers in "public worship " and " before all sermons," 
 may a Clergyman after the sermon use any other prayers or 
 services than those which are prescribed . . . .164 
 
 May a Clergyman use other prayers or services before the public 
 worship shall have commenced ...... 164 
 
 Are processional and recessional Hymns allowable, on the literal 
 interpretation of these Canons ...... 164 
 
 May Clergymen, during public worship, neglect or omit to use, 
 any part of the prescribed Form of Prayer . . . .164 
 
 What is the duty of a Clergyman in officiating in Missionary 
 work, or where the Prayer Book is unknown . . . .164 
 
 Would the publication of opinions tending to the derogation or 
 depraving of the Prayer Book, be a violation of the Clergy- 
 man's subscription and promise of conformity to the Doctrines 
 and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church . . . 165 
 
 Recite the clause in Article VII. touching the admission of For- 
 eign Clergy into the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States 166 
 
 What are the Canons in that case provided .... 166 
 
 ARTICLE Till.— HISTORY OE THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 
 
 The Book of Common Prayer. — Articles of Religion. — Use of the Book of Common 
 
 Prayer. — Alterations and Amendments of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 What is the History of the Compilation of the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States 167 
 
 What was done by the next Convention of a. d. 1 785, on this 
 subject 167 
 
INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 215 
 
 What notable alterations in the Symbols of the Faith were made 
 
 in the " Proposed Book" of a. b. 1785 169 
 
 What notice of the alterations in the Faith did the English 
 
 Bishops take 169 
 
 What heresy do the English Bishops refer to, as contradicted by 
 the Catholic Church, in the Article in the Apostles' Creed, on 
 
 the " Descent into Hell " 169 
 
 What else was done in the premises, by the Convention of A. d. 
 
 1785 170 
 
 What was done in General Convention, in A. d. 1786, in respect 
 
 to the restoring of the Creeds in their integrity . . -170 
 What was done with the Athanasian Creed . . . .171 
 What do you observe in this sketch of the History of the Com- 
 pilation of the " Proposed Book " of Common Prayer . .171 
 
 Were these expectations realized 172 
 
 What was done in the next General Convention in A. D. 1786 . 172 
 How did this motion of Bishop White settle the question of the 
 Supreme Authority of the General Convention, and prevent 
 all future interfering instructions from the Dioceses . .173 
 
 Repeat the Article of the Constitution introduced by Bishop 
 White, and the Article for Amendments, adopted by that Gen- 
 eral Convention at its first Session in June, A. D. 1786 . .173 
 
 What became of " the Proposed Book " 1 74 
 
 State the proceedings of the General Convention of A. d. 1 789, 
 
 in regard to the Book of Common Prayer . . . . 1 74 
 On what principle did the Convention proceed . . . . 1 75 
 
 What was the opinion of the Bishops 175 
 
 Whose words are you reciting 1 76 
 
 What does Bishop White say of the Rubric allowing the omission 
 of the Article in the Apostles' Creed on the " Descent into 
 Hell," as printed in the Prayer Book of A. D. 1789 . .176 
 
 Kecite the Resolution of the House of Deputies of a. d. 1789, 
 
 appointing "the Committee on printing the Prayer Book" . 176 
 What was done by Bishop White when he discovered the unau- 
 thorized interpolation of that part of the Rubric allowing the 
 Omission of the Article in the Apostles' Creed on " the De- 
 scent into Hell" 177 
 
 How was the Prayer Book compiled 177 
 
 What is the characteristic of the change, or growth of sentiment, 
 as evinced in this History of the Compilation of the Prayer 
 
 Book 178 
 
 What intimation have we that the Church regarded her Polity 
 as completed and fixed in a. D. 1789 178 
 
216 INDEX OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 Were the Articles of Religion adopted at tJxe Convention of a. d. 
 
 1789 178 
 
 When were the Articles of Religion established by the General 
 
 Convention 178 
 
 Is there any force in the assertion of some persons, that the Arti- 
 cles of Religion were not " adopted " by the General Conven- 
 tion of a. d. 1801, but only "set forth" 179 
 
 Are the Articles of the same authority as the Book of Common 
 
 Prayer 179 
 
 Why was the establishment of the Articles postponed . .179 
 What account does Bishop White give of the Articles . .180 
 When were the other Offices of the Church compiled . , 180 
 What is the difference between " Induction " and " Institution " 181 
 Why was the title " Induction " changed by General Convention 
 
 in A. D. 1808 to "Institution" 181 
 
 What ought our emotions to be in view of this History . . 182 
 How does this Article VHI. distinguish the Book of Common 
 
 Prayer 182 
 
 May the Offices be printed in a separate Book .... 182 
 What is the authority for the use of the Book of Common Prayer, 
 
 the Offices, and the Articles of Religion ..... 182 
 To what extent is the use of the Book of Common Prayer, and 
 
 the Offices enjoined 182 
 
 What is the obligation due from Clergy and Laity to the Ar- 
 ticles of Religion ......... 182 
 
 What is the advantage of the Common Prayer Book, Offices, and 
 
 Articles of Religion .183 
 
 How are Alterations and Amendments made .... 183 
 Why are proposed alterations " made known " to the Conven- 
 tions of every Diocese 183 
 
 Are the Deputies bound by their Instructions . . . .183 
 How is the Alteration to be made in the Book of Common Prayer, 
 
 and the Offices, and the Articles 183 
 
 Does this Article of the Constitution specify the necessity of vot- 
 ing by Dioceses and Orders 184 
 
 What do approved Commentators say on this point . . .184 
 
 ARTICLE IX.— ALTERATIONS OJ THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Where shall the Constitution be altered 184 
 
 By whom may the Constitution be altered 185 
 
 How must the voice of the Church in the Dioceses be expressed 185 
 What constitutes a majority of the Dioceses in General Conven- 
 tion 185 
 
INDEX OP QUESTIONS. 217 
 
 Where must the Alteration be proposed 185 
 
 Where and by whom must the Alteration be " finally agreed to 
 
 or ratified" 185 
 
 What is directed to be done with the proposed Alteration, in the 
 
 interim, between the two Conventions 185 
 
 For what purpose is the proposed Amendment " made known '' . 185 
 What action in the premises may the Church in a Diocese take . 186 
 If a majority of Diocesan Conventions should oppose a proposed 
 
 amendment, what then 186 
 
 What is the testimony of Bishop White 186 
 
 What does Dr. Wilson, in his " Memoirs of Bishop White," say 
 of the purpose of the clause of this Article, requiring the pro- 
 posed alteration to be " made known " to the Diocesan Con- 
 ventions 186 
 
 ARTICLE X.— BISHOPS FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 
 
 Consecration of Bishops for Foreign Countries. — Restrictions of Episcopal Jurisdiction, 
 Authority^ and Privilege. 
 
 What was the occasion and necessity of the consecration of For- 
 eign Missionary Bishops . 187 
 
 What are the Constitutional restrictions on the Jurisdiction of a 
 Foreign Missionary Bishop ....... 187 
 
 What are the Constitutional restrictions on the Episcopal Privi- 
 lege and Authority of a Foreign Missionary Bishop . .187 
 
 What reasons may be assigned for these restrictions on the For- 
 eign Missionary Bishop 188 
 
 Have these Considerations prevailed in the General Convention, 
 in favor of the equal Episcopal rights of Foreign Missionary 
 Bishops 189 
 
 Is this Canon constitutional in this respect 189 
 
 Does this Article X. need amendment 189 
 
Il^DEX OF AUTHOEITIES 
 
 1. THE COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 2. THE SPIRITUAL COURTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHURCH 
 
 OF ENGLAND. 
 
 3. ON THE MANNER OF ELECTING AND CONSECRATING ARCH- 
 
 BISHOPS AND BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCfl. 
 
 Acts of Colonial Government. 
 
 Acts of States. 
 
 Alumni Association, General Theological Seminary. 
 
 Apostolical Canons. 
 
 Appendix to Dr. Wilson's Memoir of the Life of Bishop White. 
 
 Ariminium, Council of, 
 
 Aries, Council of. 
 
 Articles XXXIX., The. 
 
 Augustine, St. 
 
 Baronius, Bishop. 
 
 Beardsley, his Bill. 
 
 Bede, Venerable. 
 
 Berkeley, George, then Dean of Derry, Ireland. 
 
 Beveridge, his Synodioon, et Cod. Can. Ecc. 
 
 Bogardus v. Smith, case of, 4 Paige Rep. 178. 
 
 Bramhall, Bishop, Tracts of. 
 
 British Bishops, a. d. 314 ; A. D. 325 ; a. d. 350 ; and a, d. 359. 
 
 Burnet, History of the Reformation. 
 
 Bushrod, Washington, Opinion of. 
 
 Canon Law of the Latin Church. 
 Canon Law, Special. 
 Canons, (passim). 
 Canons, Ancient. 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 219 
 
 Canons of Catholic Church. 
 
 Card well, his Synodalia — Preface to. 
 
 Chalmers, Dr. 
 
 Charter of Duke of York, 1664 to 1683. 
 
 Church-Eegister, Bishop White on " Primitive Facts." 
 
 Churton's Early British Church. 
 
 Code of African Church. 
 
 Latin Church. 
 
 Oriental Church. 
 
 Photius. 
 
 the New Canon Law of the Latin Church. 
 Colonial Assembly of 1 706. 
 Colonies. See several States. 
 Commendam, Writ of. 
 
 Common Law. See case of Bogardus v. Smith. 
 Compilation of Constitution, Baltimore, 1849. 
 
 Congfe d'Elire, Writ of. ' 
 
 Convention, General. 
 Cotelerius, his Pat. Apostol. 
 Courts, Ecclesiastical and Temporal. 
 Spiritual. 
 
 1. Archdeacons. 
 
 2. Consistory. 
 
 3. Peculiars. 
 
 4. Prerogative. 
 
 5. Arches. 
 
 6. The King in Chancery. 
 Cranmer, his Kefbrmatio Legum. 
 
 Dalcho's History of the Church in South Carolina. 
 
 Dawson, his Origo Legum. 
 
 Decretals. False Decretals. 
 
 Dicta of Received and Learned Commentators. 
 
 Diocletian, persecution during reign of. 
 
 Dionysius, Exiguus. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Law of England. 
 
 Case of Gaskins v. Gaskins. 
 
 Ex. of the Authority of. 
 Edmund, King of England (a. d. 950), one of his laws referred to. 
 Eusebius, A. d. 337, 340 : Vit. Constant. IL 28. 
 
 Fletiry, Cardinal, Hist. Ecc. xliv. hv. 
 Foreign Canon Law (Body of). 
 
220 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Gaskins v. Gaskins (case of), 3 Iredell's Law Rep. 155. 
 
 Gelasius' Decrees. 
 
 Gibson's (Bishop) Codex. Introductory Discourse. 
 
 Gibson's Codex. 
 
 Grey's Ecc. Law. 
 
 Guett^e (Abb6), On the Papacy. 
 
 Haddan & Stubbs, Records by, from a. d. 200. Ox. 1869. 
 Hawkins' Annals of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
 
 in Foreign Parts. 
 Hawks, Dr., on Constitution and Canons. 
 
 Contributions to Ecclesiastical History. 
 Hilary, and others. History of Martyrdom of St. Alban. 
 Historical Record of Maine. 
 Hoffman, Murray, Judge, his Introduction to the Law of the Church. 
 
 Law of the Church. 
 Hooker, his Ecc. Pol. 
 
 Ignatius, St. (his Maxim). 
 
 Iredell, Law Rep. 
 
 Isidore (Mercator or Peccator). 
 
 Johannes Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople. 
 Johnson's English Canons. 
 Journal, General Convention. 
 N. Y. Convention. 
 
 Kenneth's Ecclesiastical Synods. 
 Kent's Commentaries. 
 
 Legatine Constitutions. 
 
 Constitution of Otho. 
 
 of Othobon. 
 Legislatures (see Hoffman, L. C). 
 Letters, Missive. 
 
 Liberties of the Church of England. 
 Lords (House of). 
 Lyttleton. 
 
 Minute Summary of Ecc. Law, in Odenheimer's Essay, Assoc. Alum., 
 
 1847. 
 " Monumenta Ecclesiastica.'.' 
 
COMMON LAW OF THE CHURCH. 221 
 
 Nice, Council of. 
 
 Nicholas (Pope), a. d. 836. 
 
 Oath of Supremacy. 
 Odenheimer (Bishop). 
 
 (Essay), Aium. Assoc, 1847. 
 " Option," Archbishop's. 
 " Ordination Office." See Bishop White. 
 Origen (Homilies), a. d. 239. 
 
 Paige. 4 Paige Rep. 178. 
 
 Palgrave. History of the Anglo Saxons. 
 
 Parker (Archbishop). 
 
 Parliamentary (Acts and Rules). 
 
 Parliaments, Acts of. (See Statutes.) 
 
 Photius (Code of). 
 
 Praemunire (Writ of). 
 
 Preface to Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Queen v. Mills, Decision in the case of. 
 
 Randolph, Edmund, his Opinion. 
 Rubrics of the Church. 
 
 Sozomen (a. d. 300), Hist. Ecc. 
 
 Statutes, Ann c. 5 ; 13 Car. H. c. 4; Edw. I. ; Edw. III. ; 5 Edw. 
 
 VI.; 13 Eliz. c. 12; Hen. I. a. d. 1108; Hen. IH; a. d. 1225; 
 
 Hen. Vn. c. 21 ; 24 Hen. VIH. c. 12 ; 25 Hen. Vm. c. 19 ; 26 
 
 Hen. VIII. c. 1. 
 
 Tertullian, his Apology against the Jews. 
 Toleration, English Act of. 
 Turner's (Sharon) Anglo Saxons. 
 
 Usages and Statutes in the Colonies. 
 
 Walpole, his Administration from 1723 to 1742. 
 White, Bishop, on the Ordination Offices. 
 
 his Comparative View of the Calvinistic and Arminian 
 Controversy. 
 Wilkins' Concilia Magnse Britanniae et Hibernise. 
 Wilson's Memoir of the Life of Bishop White. 
 Witenagemote, Council of the. 
 Wood's Institutes. 
 
222 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 
 
 PARTS I. AND II. — PEELIMINART HISTORY, POWERS, AND AU- 
 THORITY OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Acts, Apostles, of the. 
 Articles, Confederation of, 1774. 
 Boyle, his Lectures. 
 Constitution, Articles of. 
 Dawson, Origo Legum. 
 Digest of Canons. 
 Eusehius Pamphylias. 
 
 his " Life of Constantine." 
 Hoffman (Murray, Judge). 
 
 his " Introduction." 
 
 his Law of the Church, passim. 
 Kenneth, Ecclesiastical Synods. 
 
 Memoirs, Protestant Episcopal Church of the, by Bishop White. 
 Merivale, History of the Romans. 
 Parker, Right Rev. Bishop, of Massachusetts. 
 Seabury, Right Rev. Bishop, passim. 
 Webster, Noah. 
 
 White, Right Rev. Bishop, passim. 
 Wilson, Dr., Memoir of the Life of Bishop White. 
 
 PART III. — "CONSTITUTION OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL 
 CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES." 
 
 Acts of the Apostles, quoted. 
 
 Apostolical Canons. 
 
 Appendix to the Journal of General Conventions. 
 
 Articles of the Constitution. 
 
 Bingham, Ecclesiastical Antiquities. 
 
 Bouvier, quoted. 
 
 Buck's Massachusetts Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 Burns' Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 Canon Law, passim. 
 
 Canons and Institutions under the Saxon Kings, styled " Monuments 
 
 Ecclesiastica.'' 
 Canons, Church of England, a. d. 1603. 
 Comments of English Bishops, referred to. 
 Common Law of the Church. 
 Convention, General, Proceedings of. 
 Council of Antioch. 
 Council of Constantinople. 
 8 Cowen's Reports, 1826, Dutch Church v. Bradford. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 223 
 
 8 Curties' Reports, 565, Sanders v. Head. 
 
 Cushing's Rules of Proceedings and Debate in Deliberative Assem- 
 blies. 
 Cyprian, St., on the Unity of the Church. 
 
 Epistles. 
 Degge's Parson's Counsellor. 
 Digest of Canons, passim. 
 Discourse of Ignotus, Philadelphia, 1855. 
 Galatians, quoted. 
 Gibson's Codex. 
 Grey's Ecclesiastical Law. 
 Hatsel, Rules of Parliamentary Debate. 
 Hawks, Dr., Constitutions and Canons, passim. 
 Henry VIII. ch. xxv. xxvi. etc. 
 
 Historical Notes and Commens to Journal of (general Convention. 
 Hoffman, Judge, Law of the Church. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Law of New York. 
 Jeffei'son's Manual. 
 Journal, General Convention, Hawks & Perry's Edit, and Notes. 
 
 House of Bishops. 
 
 New York Convention. 
 
 Preface to. 
 Kenneth, Ecclesiastical Synods. 
 Law of Suspension in the Primitive Church. 
 Letter to Bishop Seabury by Bishop White. 
 Lyndwood's Provincial Constitutions. 
 Mark, St., quoted. 
 Matthew, St., quoted. 
 
 Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church, by Bishop White. 
 Ortolan, Histoire de la Legislation Romaine. 
 Palmer on the Church. 
 
 Preliminary History of this work referred to. 
 Report of a Sub-Committee, Journal New York Convention, 1867. 
 Seabury, Bishop, Letter to Dr. Smith. 
 1 Spear's Equity Reports, Court of Appeals of South Carolina (1843), 
 
 Harmon v. Desher. 
 St. Cyprian, Epistle to Pope Stephen. 
 
 de Unitate Ecclesi*. 
 Suspension. See Law of. 
 Van Espen, his Supplement. 
 Webster, Noah. 
 Wilson, Dr., Memoirs of the Life of Bishop "White.