It would help to extend those principles which are the life of the Church, and to promote the glory of God.

May He send the dew of His grace upon this vine of His own planting, and make it to grow as the corn, and flourish as the lily, and be a joy and a praise in the future, as it has been in the past. Amen and Amen.

SKETCH OF OUR FIRST FOUR BISHOPS.

BY REV. C. I. GIBSON, D.D.

Ir is God's own command, that His people should "remember those who once had the rule over them, who spake to them the Word of God, and that we should consider the end of their conversation;" i.e., note carefully the effect of their lives, and “imitate their faith." A most sacred duty is it, therefore, to our God, as well as to the departed rulers of the Church in Virginia, to "keep their memories green;" and a no less sacred duty to ourselves, by a careful study of their manner of life, their walk with God, and method of work for the prosperity of the Church in this Diocese, noting their failures as well as their successes, to strengthen our own faith, and increase our own usefulness. If it be interesting and profitable to study "God in history," it is surely no less so to mark the workings of his providence and grace in biography. It must be so if the finger of inspiration point us to the lives of our own spiritual rulers and teachers as the field of observation.

The consecration of the first Bishop of Virginia was an event in the history of the Church in this country of far greater importance than is generally supposed: it

was a step which became essential to the peace and prosperity of the whole Church.

а

The Seabury centennial of last November did not fail to remind us that ours was not the first Bishop that the Church in America received. We recognize the fact, and acknowledge cheerfully that to the Diocese of Connecticut belongs the honor of receiving the first Bishop. But is it not a most significant fact, that eight years was suffered to elapse before Bishop Seabury was called on by the Church to exercise his episcopal powers in aiding to perpetuate the apostolical succession, thing then much needed, much desired, by the Church? Is it not a significant fact, also, that—although Bishops White and Provoost had been consecrated in 1787, and thus three Bishops, the number required by ancient canon for a regular consecration, were now in the country; and although a Bishop-elect from Massachusetts, Dr. Edward Bass, had been recommended to them for consecration in 1789,-it was not until September, 1792, more than five years after the arrival of the two Bishops from England, and eight years after Bishop Seabury's arrival, that the former called upon the latter to unite with them in the consecration of Dr. Thomas John Claggett of Maryland, the first Bishop consecrated on American soil? Now, why this delay? The truth appears from the following facts, which show plainly the great importance to the welfare of the whole Church of that step which gave Virginia her first Bishop. "The time has long since gone by," says Bishop Seabury's excellent biographer, “ when there need be any timidity or hesitation in speaking freely of those upon whom obloquy

66

was once heaped for conscientiously espousing the cause of the Crown. . . . Dr. Seabury began life as an enthusiastic royalist, and asserted his political opinions with a sturdiness and ability which, in the heats of the Revolution, put him in great peril and distress." This fact of itself, that Dr. Seabury was a Tory, and one of a most aggressive stamp, is almost enough to explain the peculiar state of things which then existed, — the tardiness of the other Bishops and Clergy in receiving him into their ranks, and the difficulties which on every side, both within and without, beset our Church in the first years of its independent existence. But, besides being an outspoken opponent of the American Revolution, Bishop Seabury had been chaplain to Col. Fanning's regiment of Tories in the British army, and had served with them through the war. He had left New York for England, to seek consecration, before the city had been evacuated by the British troops; and it was said he continued after consecration to receive his half-pay as a retired officer, from the British Government. But this was not all.

The succession from the non-juring Bishops of Scotland was not at that time officially recognized by the English Church. The laws against them were repealed after Bishop Madison's consecration. It is well known that Bishop Provoost of New York would have nothing to do with the Scotch succession, and pronounced it "irregular."

The New-York Convention in 1788 had "resolved, That it is highly necessary that measures should be pursued to preserve the episcopal succession in the English

line;" and while they declared the proposed union with the Diocese and Bishop of Connecticut, then pending, much to be desired, they add the express condition that it must be with "the continuance of the episcopal succession in the English line." Another fact: In the application to the English Bishops for consecration, Bishop White, who wrote it, declares that he intended to ask for the number of Bishops competent, according to the English rule and practice, to perpetuate the succession; and he felt himself pledged to them on that point. Our own Diocese applied to Bishops White and Provoost to unite with Bishop Seabury in the consecration of Dr. Griffith, our first Bishop-elect; but they refused, because three Bishops of the English line had not then been obtained. Bishop Madison, after his consecration and return to Virginia, wrote to Bishop White, Dec. 19, 1790,

"A few days before I left London, the Archbishop requested a particular interview with me. He said he wished to express his hopes, and also to recommend it to our Church, that, in such consecrations as might take place in America, the persons who had received their powers from the Church of England should be alone concerned. He spoke with great delicacy of Dr. Seabury, but thought it most advisable that the line of Bishops should be handed down from those who had received their commission from the same source."

The question excited no little feeling in that day. For instance, in the General Convention of 1786 a motion was offered, "That this Convention will resolve to do no act that shall imply the validity of ordinations made by Dr. Seabury." Three Dioceses voted "aye" to