PART Q. xxxii. Did the Bishop of Connecticut reply to this request? A. He came to the Convention at the appointed time, accompanied by clerical deputies from Connecticut and Massachusetts, the last named of which also represented New Hampshire. A negotiation was commenced between these gentlemen, and a Committee of the Convention, in consequence of which the newly adopted Constitution was declared to be still open to amendment. The Eastern Churches objected, that, by its provisions, the House of Bishops was not authorized to origi nate business, and had only a qualified negative, on the action of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. A compromise was, however, agreed upon; by this the House of Bishops was allowed the right of originating business, and a practical, if not theoretical, veto; since they could negative any measure, unless it was repassed by the House of Deputies, by the votes of four-fifths of the members, after having heard the reasons of the Bishops. This having been done, the Bishop of Connecticut and the deputies of the Eastern Churches, subscribed the Constitution; and the Convention resolved, that "there is now in this Convention a separate House of Bishops." The Bishops present then formed a separate house. Thus, the several little national Churches, of which I have spoken, were at last organized into one National American Church. This took place in the same year in which the Constitution of the United States, by which the States were formed into a real nation, went into operation. But, although the American Church was thus organized, it can scarcely be said to have been organized upon proper principles until 1808, when a full negative was given to the House of Bishops. Q. xxxiii. Did this organized Church extend to every part of the United States? A. No, the Church in Rhode Island did not become a party to the Constitution until 1792. That in North Carolina and Georgia, not for many years afterwards. Indeed, it may be doubted whether the Church existed in Georgia; neither there, nor in North Carolina, was there any diocesan organization. Q. xxxiv. What was done after the organization? A. The two houses laying aside the character of a constituent assembly, proceeded to revise and adopt the Prayer Book under the tenth article of the newly adopted Constitution. They settled the Book very nearly as it now is; only the Thirtynine Articles, the Offices for the Consecrating and Ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and those for the Consecration of churches and Institution of ministers, have been since added.1 1 The facts in this chapter have been compiled from the Journals of the Conventions, and from Bishop White's "Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church." III. CHAPTER III. OF THE ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION OF Q. i. You said that Mr. Bass was not consecrated, because the Bishops who had been consecrated in England, held themselves bound by promise to the English Bishops, not to perform any consecration until there were three Bishops of Eng PART lish consecration in the United States. How was III. that difficulty got over? A. Dr. James Madison was consecrated Bishop of Virginia, at Lambeth, on the 19th day of September, 1790, by Archbishop Moore of Canterbury; Bishop Porteus of London, and Bishop Thomas of Rochester, being present and assisting. Q. ii. What steps were afterwards taken to preserve the succession of Bishops? A. On the 17th day of September, 1792, Dr. Thomas John Claggett was consecrated Bishop of Maryland, by Bishops Provoost, Seabury, White, and Madison. Bishop Claggett afterwards joined in several consecrations; so that every Bishop, now in the American Church, can trace his Ecclesiastical descent, through him, from both the English and Scotch lines. Q. iii. Are Orders derived from those lines indisputable? A. Yes and their validity may be thus proved. The orders of the English Bishops in the reign of Henry VIII., including Archbishop Cranmer, have never been denied. In the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Archbishop Parker of Canterbury, was consecrated for that see, by four Bishops, three of whom had been consecrated by Archbishop Cranmer, and the fourth by Bishop Stokesly, of London, who was a Bishop before Archbishop Cranmer. After his consecration, Archbishop Parker, assisted by the same Bishops, consecrated many other Bishops, from whom all the Bishops in England, Scotland, the United States, and the British colonies, trace their Ecclesiastical descent. Q. iv. Has not the fact of Archbishop Parker's consecration been denied? A. It has; but the official record of it now remains in the Registry of the diocese of Canter III. bury. It has been recently examined, and found CHAP. free from all marks of suspicion. The Romanists alleged that it was forged: this has led to such a thorough examination of the whole subject, that it may now be said, that there is probably no document, in the whole world, whose authenticity has been so clearly proved, nor any fact in history better established than Archbishop Parker's consecration. Q. v. What were the names of Parker's consecrators? A. William Barlow, who had been Bishop of St. David's and of Bath and Wells, and was then Bishop elect of Chichester; John Scory, who had been Bishop of Chichester, and was then Bishop elect of Hereford; Miles Coverdale, who had been Bishop of Exeter; and John Hodgeskin, who then was, and had long been, Suffragan Bishop of Bedford. Q. vi. Is there any doubt of the consecration of any of those Bishops? A. The records of the consecrations of three of them remain. Bishop Hodgeskin was consecrated on the 9th of December, 1537, by Bishops Stokesly of London, Wharton of St. Asaph, and Hilsey of Rochester. Bishops Scory and Coverdale were consecrated together on the 30th of August, 1551, by Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley of London, and Bishop Hodgeskin. The record of Bishop Barlow's consecration is lost; but he was always regarded as a Bishop in his life time, and his consecration was never denied, until many years after his death when the Romanists found it convenient to use the want of the record as a weapon with which to assail the validity of Parker's consecration. Q. vii. Would the fact, that Barlow had not been consecrated, have affected the validity of III. PART Parker's consecration, seeing that there were three other Bishops? A. It would not; but the Romanists set up a pretence, that, inasmuch as Barlow was, what they call, the consecrator, it was through him only that Parker could derive orders. Q. viii. Is that so? A. No: the ancient canons, which require three Bishops to participate in a consecration, are intended to secure the transmission of orders, in case of any accidental deficiency in one of the number; otherwise one Bishop might transmit the succession. The Romanists virtually allow this; for consecrations by one Bishop are common among them, both in England and Ireland. Moreover, it is said in the Corpus Juris Canonici, a work of the very highest authority among them, that all the Bishops who lay hands on an elect, consecrate him jointly, as several persons carry a beam jointly, and no one more than another." 1 PALMER. On the Church, Part VI. ch. xi. vol. ii. page 444, et seq. Am. Ed. Now, it is a fact which has hitherto escaped our observation, that during the greatest part, if not the whole of the last century, Popish Bishops were consecrated in England and Ireland by one Bishop, assisted by two priests, instead of Bishops, as required by the canons. This fact did not attract attention, in consequence of the little publicity given to their ecclesiastical acts, and the non existence of any detailed history of their proceedings. 66 In a book written by Mr. Plowden, an English_Papist, we find a translation of a bull of Pope Clement XIV. in 1771, nominating William Egan Bishop of Sura, “in partibus," and coadjutor of Peter Crew, titular of Waterford, with right of succession. This bull was in Mr. Plowden's possession. The following passage occurs in it: We, kindly wishing to favour you in every thing that can increase your conveniency, by the tenour of these presents, have granted you full and free license that you may receive the gift of consecration from whatever Catholic Prelate, being in grace and communion of the aforesaid Apostolical see, you choose; and he may call in, as his assistants in this, a |