The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in their letter to the Committee of the General Convention at Philadelphia, allude, among other things, to "communications with regard to your liturgy, articles "and ecclesiastical constitution, without the knowledge of which we could not presume to apply to the "legislature for such powers as were necessary to "the completion of your wishes.”* In the first Article of the Constitution of the Church in South Africa, in different language, but to the same effect, as in the Preface to our Book of Common Prayer, the determination not to depart from the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church of England is expressed as follows (see case of Merriman vs. Williams, before cited): "The Church of the Province of South Africa "receives the doctrines, sacraments, and discipline of 'the Church of Christ, as the same are contained and "commanded in Holy Scripture, according as the "Church of England has received and set forth the "same in its standards of faith and doctrine; and it "receives the Book of Common Prayer, and of order"ing of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to be used "according to the form therein prescribed in public "prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, and 'other holy offices; and it accepts the English ver"sion of the Holy Scriptures, as appointed to be read "in the Churches; and further, it disclaims for itself "the right of altering any of the aforesaid standards "of faith and doctrine." 66 *See Half Century of Legislation, page 51. CHAP. I. CHAP. I. A careful examination of this phraseology and of the documents referred to, and others which will be found at length, in the Appendix, will show conclusively that the word "discipline," as used in the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, was not understood to have any reference to ordinary ecclesiastical legislation or canons in force in the Church of England, but simply to those "forms and usages" in public worship, that, being distinct from doctrine were therefore subject to change, from time to time, as may seem most convenient for the edification of the people." A book of discipline is not a book of canons; and it is difficult to see upon what authority Judge Hoffman's definition of the term "discipline," making it comprise "the whole body of ecclesiastical law" of the Church of England, could have been supposed to rest. It was the honestly expressed opinion of an eminent man and lawyer, but it is believed to be unsustained by authority, either historical or legal. But even if, in this specific sense, a wider sense were implied, including whatever in the Church is established by mere human authority, and is therefore susceptible of diversity, and liable to change; still, it would not follow from the language of the Preface, when interpreted in the light of the 8th Article of the Constitution, that the whole discipline, as thus understood, including all the laws and canons of the Church of England, was binding on the Church in this country, unless intrinsically inapplicable, or positively repealed. If this were so, and disuse is not to be regarded as proof that a law was inap plicable to the condition of a colony, then it follows that for more than one hundred years prior to the Revolution, the colonial churches were necessarily subjected to foreign law without reference to their consent or wishes. Surely this was never the condition, either in Church or State, of any English colony. Our Church has never repealed the Prayer Book of the Church of England, nor did she set forth that Prayer Book with amendments, but she set forth independently a Prayer Book of her own, as expressly stated in the Ratification, and as appears from the action of the General Convention of 1789 in detail; and what is thus true of the Prayer Book, is also plainly and emphatically true of the Constitution and canons of the Church. To the article No. 35, of our Articles of Religion established by the Convention in 1801, we find appended in brackets, among other things, the following explicit declaration: "This article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Bocks of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. But all references to the constitution and laws of England are considered inapplicable to the circumstances of this Church." The General Convention gave unequivocal assurances that it had no intention or desire to depart, in any essential point, from the doctrine, or the forms. and usages of the Church of England in public worship; but, to this end, it considered it necessary, by affirmative legislation, to recognize and adopt this "doctrine, discipline, and worship," as its own; and it did so by Article 8th of the Constitution of the CHAP. I. CHAP. I. Express assent of the Church to a law essential. Church and the ratification of the Book of Common Prayer. as to enact the following canon: "CANON I." "Of the orders of the Ministry in this Church." "In this Church there shall always be three orders "in the Ministry, namely: Bishops, Priests, and "Deacons." The Convention of 1789 thus established by law, its Book of Common Prayer, with the rites, ceremonies, and usages of public worship; and deemed it expedient, also, to provide by canon for the permanent continuance of the three orders of the ministry; and with these facts before us, we cannot suppose that this same Convention intended, in the Preface to its Book of Common Prayer, to promise not to depart from the ecclesiastical law of England, which was nonessential, and which, according to the English authorities, they did not possess, or to recognize as binding upon the Church in the United States any canon law whatever, whether enacted by Councils, Emperors, Popes, or Parliaments, until the same should, in like manner, have been first affirmatively adopted by the General Convention. At the date of the Revolution, therefore, and at the meeting of the General Convention of 1789, there. was, as has been said, a Protestent Episcopal Church in each of the original thirteen states or dioceses, and the Prayer Book of the Church of England, with its offices, rites, and ceremonies, had been adopted by, and was, therefore, the law of all these churches. At the first general meeting to adopt measures for union, which was held in New York, on October 6th, 1784, it was recommended to the states represented, and proposed to those not represented, to organize and associate " themselves in the states "to which they respectively belong, agreeably to "such rules as they shall think proper; and when "this was done, it was further recommended and proposed, that all should unite in a general ecclesiastical "Constitution." Hawkes Ecclesiastical Contributions, p. 6. The object of thus uniting in a Constitution of ecclesiastical government was, as stated in the preamble, the maintaining of uniformity in doctrine, discipline, and worship, and to that end, it was agreed by the convention held in Philadelphia, in 1784, before referred to, that the Episcopal Church "hath, and ought to have, in common with all other religious societies, full and exclusive power to regulate the concerns of its own communion.' "That to make canons or laws, there be no other authority than that of a representative body of the clergy and laity conjointly;" and "that no powers be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government, except such as can not conveniently be exercised by the clergy and laity, in their respective congregations." The colonial churches then had adopted to a certain extent, either expressly or tacitly, the "forms and usages" of the Church of England. In public worship, they had expressly adopted the Prayer Book, and had tacitly therefore adopted whatever, by fair legal presumption, is implied in what was thus CHAP. I. |
