of your bishops. That the duty and office of a bishop differs in nothing from that of other priests, except in the power of ordination and confirmation, (Pamphlet, p. 16,) is a position that carries Jerom's opinion to the highest pitch. Quid facit Episcopus quod presbyter non faciat, excepta ordinatione? But it does not appear that Jerom had the support of the Church in this opinion, but rather the contrary. Government as essentially pertains to bishops as ordination; nay, ordination is but the particular exercise of government. Whatever share of government presbyters have in the Church, they have from the bishop, and must exercise it in conjunction with or in subordination to him. And though a congregation may have a right, and I am willing to allow it, to choose their minister, as they are to support him and live under his ministry, yet the bishop's concurrence or license is necessary, because they are part of his charge; has the care of their souls; and therefore the minister's authority to take charge of that congregation must come through the bishop.

The choice of the bishop is in the presbyters; but the neighbouring bishops, who are to consecrate him, must have the right of judging whether he be a proper person or not. The presbyters are the bishop's council, with whom he ought to do nothing but matters of course. The presbyters have always a check upon their bishop; because they can, neither bishop nor presbyters, do any thing beyond the common course of duty, without each other. I mean with regard to a particular diocese; for it does not appear that presbyters had any seat in general councils, but by particular indulgence.

The people, being the patrons of the churches in this country, and having the means of the bishop's and minister's support in their hands, have a sufficient restraint upon them. In cases that require it, they can apply to their bishop, who, with the assistance of his presbyters, will proceed, as the case may require, to censure, suspension, or deposition of the offending clergyman. If a bishop behaves amiss, the neighbouring bishops are his judges. Men that are not to be trusted with these powers are not fit to be bishops or presbyters at all.

This, I take it, is the constitution of the Christian Church, in its pure and simple state. And it is a constitution which, if adhered to, will carry itself into good effect. This constitution we have adopted in Connecticut; and we do hope and trust that we shall, by God's grace, exhibit to the

world, in our government, discipline, and order, a pure and perfect model of primitive simplicity.

Presbyters cannot be too careful in choosing their bishop; nor the people in choosing their minister. Improper men may, however, sometimes succeed; and so they will, make exact rules as you can, and circumscribe their power as you can. And an improper man in the Church is an improper man, however he came there, and however his power be limited. The more you circumscribe him, the greater temptation he is under to form a party to support him; and when his party is formed, all the power of your convention will not be able to displace him. In short, if you get a bad man, your laws and regulations will not be effectual; if a good man, the general laws of the Church are sufficient.

Where civil states have made provision for ministers, it seems reasonable that they should define the qualifications, and regulate the conduct of those who are to enjoy the emoluments. But voluntary associations for the exercise of such powers as your convention is to have, are always apt, such is the infirmity of human nature, to fall into parties; and when party enters, animosity and discord soon follow. From what has been said, you will suppose I shall object,

3. To the admission of lay members into synods, &c. I have as great a regard for the laity as any man can have. It is for their sake that ministers are appointed in the Church. I have no idea of aggrandizing the clergy at the expense of the laity; nor indeed of aggrandizing them at all. Decent means of living is all they have a right to expect. But I cannot conceive that the laity can, with any propriety, be admitted to sit in judgment on bishops and presbyters; especially when deposition may be the event; because they cannot take away a character which they cannot confer. It is incongruous to every idea of Episcopal government. That authority which confers power, can, for proper reasons, take it away. But 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.

Should it be thought necessary that the laity should have a share in the choice of their bishop, if it can be put on a proper footing, so as to avoid party and confusion, I see not but that it might be admitted. But I do not apprehend that this was the practice of the primitive Church. In

short, the rights of the Christian Church arise not from nature or compact, but from the institution of Christ; and we ought not to alter them, but to receive and maintain them as the holy apostles left them. The government, sacraments, faith, and doctrine of the Church, are fixed and settled. We have a right to examine what they are, but we must take them as they are. If we new model the government, why not the sacraments, creeds, and doctrines of the Church? But then it would not be Christ's Church, but our Church, and would remain so, call it by what name we please.

I do therefore beseech the clergy and laity, who shall meet at Philadelphia, to reconsider the matter, before a final step be taken: and to endeavour to bring their Church government as near to the primitive pattern as may be. They will find it the simplest and most easy to carry into effect; and if it be adhered to, will be in no danger of sinking or failing.

I do not think it necessary that the Church, in every state, should be just as the Church in Connecticut is; though I think that the best model. Particular circumstances, I know, will call for particular considerations. But in so essential a matter as Church government is, no alteration should be made to affect its foundation. If a man be called a bishop who has not the Episcopal power of government, he is called by a wrong name, even though he should have the power of ordination and confirmation.

Let me therefore again entreat, that such material alterations, and forgive me if I say unjustifiable ones, may not be made in the government of the Church. I have written freely, as becomes an honest man; and in a case which I think calls for freedom of sentiment and expression. I wish not to give offence, and I hope none will be taken. Whatever I can do consistently to assist in procuring bishops in America, I shall do cheerfully, but beyond that I cannot go; and I am sure neither you, nor any of the friends of the Church, would wish I should.

If any expression in this letter should seem too warm, I will be ready to correct the mode, but the sentiments I must retain till I find them wrong, and then I will freely give them up. In this matter I am not interested; my ground is taken, and I wish not to extend my authority beyond its proper limits. But I do most earnestly wish to have our churches in all the states so settled, that it may be one Church united in government, doctrine, and discipline-that

there may be no division among us- -no opposition of interests no clashing of opinions. And permit me to hope that you will, at your approaching convention, so far recede in the points I have mentioned, as to make this practicable. Your convention will be large and very much to be respected. Its determinations will influence many of the American states, and posterity will be materially affected by them.

These considerations are so many arguments for calm and cool deliberation. Human passions and prejudices, and, if possible, infirmities, should be laid aside. A wrong step will be attended with dreadful consequences. Patience and prudence must be exercised. And should there be some circumstances that press hard for a remedy, hasty decisions will not mend them. In doubtful cases they will probably have a bad effect.

May the spirit of God be with you at Philadelphia, and as I persuade myself the sole good of his Church is the sole aim of you all, I hope for the best effects from your meeting.

I send you the alterations which it has been here thought proper to make in the liturgy, to accommodate it to the civil constitution of this state. You will observe, that there is no collect for the Congress. We have no backwardness in that respect, but thought it our duty to know whether the civil authority in this state has any directions to give in that matter; and that cannot be known till their next meeting in October.

Some other alterations were proposed, of which Mr. Ferguson took a copy; and I would send you a copy had I time to transcribe it.

The matter will be resumed at New-Haven the 11th of September. Should we come to any determination, the brethren to the southward shall be informed of it.

With my best regards to the convention and to you, I remain your affectionate humble servant,

(Signed,)

SAMUEL,

Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut.

I have taken the liberty to enclose a copy of my letters of consecration, which you will please to communicate to the convention; you will also perceive it to be my wish that this letter should be communicated to them; to which, I presume, there can be no objection.

No. 5. Page 102.

Address of the Convention of 1785, to the English Prelates.

To the Most Reverend and Right Reverend the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of the Church of England.

We, the clerical and lay deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in sundry of the United States of America, think it our duty to address your lordships on a subject deeply interesting, not only to ourselves and those whom we represent, but, as we conceive, to the common cause of Christianity.

Our forefathers, when they left the land of their nativity, did not leave the bosom of that Church, over which your lordships now preside; but, as well from a veneration for Episcopal government, as from an attachment to the admirable services of our liturgy, continued in willing connection with their ecclesiastical superiors in England, and were subjected to many local inconveniencies, rather than break the unity of the Church to which they belonged.

When it pleased the Supreme Ruler of the universe, that this part of the British empire should be free, sovereign, and independent, it became the most important concern of the members of our communion to provide for its continuance. And while, in accomplishing this, they kept in view that wise and liberal part of the system of the Church of England, which excludes as well the claiming as the acknowledging of such spiritual subjection as may be inconsistent with the civil duties of her children; it was nevertheless their earnest desire and resolution to retain the venerable form of Episcopal government, handed down to them, as they conceived, from the time of the apostles; and endeared to them, by the remembrance of the holy bishops of the primitive Church, of the blessed martyrs who reformed the doctrine and worship of the Church of England, and of the many great and pious prelates who have adorned that Church in every succeeding age. But however general the desire of completing the orders of our ministry, so diffused and unconnected were the members of our communion over this extensive country, that much time and negotiation were necessary for the forming of a representative body of the greater number of the Episcopalians in these states; and owing to the same causes, it was not