СНАР. 1. Effect of tion. Election of The Revolution came, and with it national independence, and this change in political relations involved the necessity of changes in the Prayer Book, while the supervision and services of the bishops of London were no longer admissible: but in all other respects the colonial churches maintained their identity, having the same congregations and ministers, the same church edifices and property,* the same doctrine, discipline and worship, rites and ceremonies, after the Revolution, as before. The need of bishops was, of course, at once felt, as all Episcopal supervision of the colonial churches was at an end, and such supervision was then, as it is now, deemed essential to the well-being of a church. Thereupon, the diocese of Connecticut elected the Rev. Samuel Seabury as their bishop, who was consecrated as such in Scotland, in 1784, and in like manner the Rev. William White, and Rev. Samuel Provoost, were elected bishops of the dioceses of Pennsylvania and New York, respectively, and consecrated as such, in England, in 1787. It will be observed that these bishops were elected and consecrated before the adoption of the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, but each colonial church being independent of all foreign control, political or otherwise, and having made its own by adoption, the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the mother church, had ample powers for completing and perfecting its organization, and these bishops, when so elected and consecrated, were *See Terrett vs. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. clothed with those powers and prerogatives that pertain to and are inherent in the high office of Bishop in the Church of God. The discipline of the Church of England, adopted by the colonial churches, amply justified these proceedings, and indicated with sufficient distinctness, the powers and duties of the new bishops, until they should be prescribed and regulated by such appropriate legislation as the colonial churches respectively, or united as a national Church, should adopt. CHAP. I. Church The unity of these churches with the Church of Unity with England, and the Primitive Church, thus survived Primitive the Revolution intact, and those spiritual elements not affect of its constitution and government which have their ed sources in no human legislation, and with which such legislation has no right to intermeddle any further than to regulate their exercise, were found, as they must always be found, adequate to all emergencies. Constitutions and canons that are framed for the purpose of maintaining this unity, whether by means of a national union of dioceses, or in such dioceses separately, rest upon a wholly different basis, and may and do differ radically from each other, and undergo material changes from age to age, without impairing this unity with the Universal Church. In reference to this point, Dr. Hawkes, in his Ecclesiastical Contributions, page 3, says: "The union of the churches, in any country, must be the act of man, for man must make the "regulations by which different Christian churches consent to adopt one system of government or polity. "The other, unity, depends on an adherence to what 66 CHAP. I. How far law in force. Common Ιατύ. "God has declared to be his truth, and no political "convulsions can alter that truth, or release man from "his obligations to obey it; and thus the Revolution not "only could not, by any necessary consequence, de"stroy the unity existing among the churches, in the "several colonies on this continent; but it did not dis"turb it as between them and the church of the mother "country, from which, politically, they were just sev"ered. The Church of England and the Protestant "Episcopal Church in the United States, are now "both in the unity of the Catholic Church, "though under different systems of polity." The rule of law referred to as recognized by the civil authorities and courts of the colonies from their earliest settlement, as well as by those of most of the states of the Union, in reference to English law and its precise relations to these colonies and states, is thus stated by Justice Story, in 1 Story on the Constitution, 4th Ed. Sec. 157: "Ever since the settlement of the colonies, the "universal principle has been, that the Common Law "is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ances"tors brought hither with them, upon their emigra❝tion, all of it which was applicable to their situation. "The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundation of the Common "Law." In the case of Van Ness vs. Packard, 2 Peters, 137-144, the same Justice, in giving the opinion of the Supreme Court, says: "The Common Law of England is not to be taken, in all respects, to be that of America. Our " ancestors brought with them its general principles, "and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought "with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their situation." Chancellor Kent says: 1 Kent's Commentaries 473, note b. : "The Congress of 1774 claimed to be entitled to "the benefit not only of the Common Law of England "but of such of the English statutes as existed at the "time of their colonization, and which they had, by "experience, respectively found to be applicable "to their several local and other circumstances(Journals of Congress, October 14, 1774). This was 'only declaratory of the principle in the English Law, that English subjects going to a new and uninhabited "country, carry with them, as their birthright, the laws of England existing when the colonization "takes place. 66 66 In Wheaton vs. Peters, 8 Peters 591, Justice McLean says: "It is insisted that our ancestors, when they migrated to this country, brought with them the "English Common Law, as a part of their heritage. "That this was the case, to a limited extent, is admit❝ted. No one will contend, that the Common Law, "as it existed in England, has ever been in force in "all its provisions, in any state in this Union. It "was adopted so far only as its principles were suited "to the condition of the colonies," In the case of the United States vs. Worrall, 2 Dallas 384, Chase, J., after deciding that, in his opinion, the United States has no Common Law, says: CHAP. I. CHAP. I. 66 "If indeed the United States can be supposed, Not in "for a moment, to have a Common Law, it must, I force until adopted. presume, be that of England, and yet it is impos"sible to trace when and how the system was "adopted or introduced. With respect to the indi"vidual states, the difficulty does not occur. When "the American colonies were first settled by our ancestors, it was held, as well by the settlers as the "judges and lawyers of England, that they brought "hither, as a birthright and inheritance so much of "the Common Law, as was applicable to their situ"ation and circumstances. But each colony judged "for itself what parts of the Common Law were appli"cable to its new condition, and in various modes, by "legislative acts, by judicial decisions, or by con"stant usage, adopted some parts and rejected others. Hence, he who shall travel through the different states will soon discover that the whole of the "Common Law of England has been nowhere intro 'duced; that some states have rejected what others "have adopted, and that there is, in short, a great "and essential diversity in the subjects to which the "Common Law is applied, as well as in the extent "of its application. The Common Law, therefore, of one state, is not the Common Law of another; but "the Common Law of England is the law of each "state, so far as each state has adopted it." If this rule of courts of justice and civil administration is, by analogy, applicable to ecclesiastical law, the colonial churches, had, undoubtedly, the right to appropriate to their own uses the laws. of the English Church, so far as they should, |