the General Convention had the unquestioned power to prescribe institution as a qualification of members of a Diocesan Convention, or to entitle them to vote for a bishop; and that the general canon of 1804 superseded the similar canon of the diocese, passed in 1802. Next, that the canon did not, and could not interfere with any state law, which regulated the right to the temporalities of a church or parish, and defined what should be a settlement for that purpose. Now, at that time, the Constitution of the diocese of New York directed, that the Convention should be composed of the officiating ministers, being regularly admitted and settled in some church within the state, which was in union with the convention. (Article 3, Cons. 1796.) By the act of the legislature, then and now in force, the wardens and vestrymen constituted under the act, were to call and induct a minister. And upon an application to the convention, the new church having been duly organized under the statutes, and nothing objectionable appearing, was admitted into the convention.* And this, as I understand the case, was precisely the position of Maryland, under the vestry act and the Constitution of that Church; and of South Carolina, under the statute and constitution in force in 1807, when the proceedings before stated took place. This, I believe, is their position now. It is this matter which the modification of the canon in 1808 meets. The institution shall not be necessary where it interferes with the laws or usages of a Church in a particular diocese. The Constitutions of Maryland, New York, and South Carolina, prescribe the qualifications of clerical members of a convention. They admit those legally settled in a parish, under a law of the legislature. They do not by law or usage require institution; and the General Convention dispenses in such case, with the requisition. But all this does not touch or impeach the power of the General Convention to have passed, or now to pass, the canon of 1804; or now to abrogate the qualification of 1808. I have added in the note some particulars which will tend to assist the judgment upon this point.† All that is now considered is the power of The first instance I find recorded, but it is clear there were others before, is in 1796.Journal of that year. Two instances of the rejection of such an application are to be found previously, one in 1793, another in 1794. In Connecticut, an office of induction was directed to be prepared by the Convention of 1799. In June, 1804, the office, as agreed upon by the bishop and clergy in convocation, was adopted. On the same day, it was resolved, that no clergyman who shall hereafter be settled in this diocese shall be entitled to a seat in the state convention, until he produce a certificate of the bishop, that he has been regularly inducted into some parish, agreeable to the office of induction adopted by this convention. This was before the session of the General Convention, when the canon of 1804 was passed. That session was in September of that year. I do not find any further action upon this subject until 1826, when a canon, (the 14th,) was reported, requiring all clergymen who had been settled within a certain period, and all who should be thereafter settled, to be instituted according to the form set forth by the General Convention. Another canon provided for the case of those clergymen who had been settled for more than a year; dispensing in their case with the institution. A substitute was offered for these proposed canons, declaring that the 29th the General Convention in the matter. Under the 30th canon, relating to the election and institution of ministers, I have entered into other bearings of the subject of much consequence, and which Dr. Hawks has made the subject of an able and elaborate comment. The principles which I have supposed to prevail respecting the power of the General Convention, and the clear reasoning and high authority of the Resolution of New York in 1806, lead to the conclusion that the General Convention possesses the power to prescribe institution as a qualification of the clerical members of a Diocesan Convention. I enter not into any question respecting the expediency of such a provision, as to which it may deserve remark, that as far as I can ascertain, New Jersey is the only diocese in the Union in which institution is made a necessary qualification of a delegate. And if the right to pass such a canon as that of 1804, is conceded or established, it will be difficult to find a subject of Church discipline not within the province of thè General Čonvention. I and 30th canons of the General Convention, relating to the institution office, shall be hereafter considered as obligatory in this diocese, any former usages or customs to the contrary notwithstanding. The whole subject was referred to a committee, and I do not find any further action upon it. In New Jersey, by the Constitution of 1811, the members of the Convention are to be, among others, "every priest or presbyter who has been duly instituted rector of any church in this diocese." It appears from the Journals of 1808 and 1810, that letters of institution were issued by the standing committee, there being no bishop. A striking confirmation of the distinction taken in the New York Resolution of 1806, is to be found in a proceeding in Maryland in 1844, although applied to the convention of the diocese. In the report of the minority in the case of Christ Church, Hagerstown, it is said "it was suggested before the committee that the various acts of Assembly merely prescribe rules by which civil rights are to be acquired and regulated, but have no operation or influence of themselves in the decision, whether parties who have complied with these legal requisitions shall or shall not be adopted into union with the convention. It is asserted, that whether or not a new congregation shall be received as a member of this convention, is wholly independent of any civil law, but depends exclusively upon the canons of the Church, or upon the discretion of the body. In the general and abstract, the undersigned are not disposed to dissent from these doctrines.' I will close this note with a quotation from the canon of the Scottish Church, which illustrates the principle of the Resolution of New York: "Whereas, It has never been the practive of this Church, nor the wish of her bishops, to interfere, directly or indirectly, with the funds or temporalities of her congregations; it is therefore fully acknowledged that the right of presentation to any chapel within her pale, is vested in those who are appointed to manage its concerns, whether known by the title of trustees, church-wardens, vestrymen, etc., and who by virtue of their office, procure the means of the minister's support; yet to preserve the ancient and regular discipline of an Episcopal community, it is hereby enacted that no presbyter shall take upon himself the pastoral charge of any congregation to which he may be presented, before the deed of presentation be duly accepted by the bishop." The form of the institution is annexed to the canons. It recites that a presentation has been made by the church-wardens, etc., in favor of -, to the church of —. That the bishop has sustained the same, and does therefore institute and appoint the said to be pastor or minister of the said congregation, to perform the duties, etc. (Canon 10, Church of Scotland, apud Burns, vol. 4, p. 694.) submit, (with much deference, upon a point almost untouched,) that upon every question of jurisdiction, the inquiry is not, whether the power has been conferred, but whether it has been denied or restricted. I have now presented some views respecting the powers of the General Convention, and some examples to explain and enforce them. Others will arise in the course of the discussion of the separate articles of the Constitution, to which I shall now proceed. UNI ER CAL APPENDIX G. OF THE CONSTITUTION. We are thus brought to the question:-In what attitude did the churches in the several States stand to each other, in entering on this work of once more uniting? The question is one of fact;. and the testimony would seem to leave no doubt that in each State, the Church considered itself an integral part of the Church of Christ, perfectly independent, in its government, of any and every branch of the Church in Christendom. Such an opinion would the more readily be adopted, from the fact, that the several states considered themselves in their civil relations, as independent sovereignties, and as such, sought to find a bond of union, first in the articles of confederation, and afterward in the Federal Constitution. Many of those who were employed in laying the foundations of our civil polity, were also aiding by their councils in the establishment of our ecclesiastical system; and hence it is not surprising that there should be found not a few resemblances between them. We present now the facts, that show the sense of independence, entertained by the Churches in the several states. The Constitution was not finally adopted until October, 1789. Let us examine the steps that preceded it: and first, as to the independent action of the States. As early as March, 1783, before any general meeting had been held, or any proposition made from any quarter for a union, the Church in Connecticut proceeded to organize itself; and to carry out its purposes, the clergy of that State elected Dr. Seabury their Bishop, and he proceeded to Europe for consecration. This he obtained in November, 1784, at the hands of the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, and returning to this country, he was recognized by the clergy of Connecticut as their Bishop, in August, 1785. In August, 1783, Maryland moved in the business of her organization. This also was before any general meeting, or any proposition for such a meeting. The principal work of this Con vention in August, was the setting forth "a declaration of certain fundamental rights and liberties of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Maryland." The first clause of this declaration places the opinion of the Church in Maryland, as to her independent character, beyond all doubt. It is as follows: "We consider it as the undoubted right of the said Protestant Episcopal Church, in common with other Christian churches under the American revolution, to complete and preserve herself as an entire Church, agreeably to her ancient usages and professions; and to have a full enjoyment and free exercise of those purely splritual powers, which are essential to the being of every Church or congregation 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." In June, 1784, Maryland repeated her declaration, and acted on her independent principles. In May, 1784, Pennsylvania acted, 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 ecclesiastical government." This was the first step taken toward an union of the churches in the States generally. At this meeting also Pennsylvania set forth her fundamental principles. In September, 1784, Massachusetts acted as an independent Church, in framing certain articles, in which the right of each State separately to apply abroad for the episcopate, is distinctly asserted. This also was before any general meeting of the churches from the States. The standing committee appointed by Pennsylvania, did correspond and confer with Churchmen in the other States; so that on the 6th of October, 1784, the first general meeting of Episcopalians, to adopt measures for an union, was held in New York. At this meeting, representatives were present from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. From Virginia, Dr. Griffith was present by permission. He could not sit as a delegate, because Virginia (a State which, through its whole ecclesiastical history since the revolution, has always asserted its independent diocesan rights,) had forbidden by 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. At this meeting for conference (it was nothing more,) but one · opinion prevailed, as to the light in which the Churches in the several states were to be viewed. It was recommendad to the states represented, and proposed to those not represented, to organize or associate "themselves in the states to which they respectively belong, agreeably to such rules as they shall think proper: and when this was done, not before, they further recommended |