Bishop. The Right Rev. Bishop Claggett, of Maryland, the Right Rev. Bishop Jarvis, of Connecticut, and the Right Rev. Bishop Moore, of New York, being present and assisting.-Died December 6, 1804.

11. The Right Rev. John Henry Hobart, D. D. of New York, was consecrated in Trinity Church, in the city of New York, on Wednesday, May 29, 1811, by the Right Rev. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania. The Right Rev. Bishop Provost, of New York, and the Right Rev. Bishop Jarvis, of Connecticut, being present and assisting.

12. The Right Rev. Alexander Viets Griswold, D. D. of the Eastern Diocese, composed of the States of Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont, was consecrated at the same time and place.

13. The Right Rev. Theodore Dehon, D. D. of South Carolina, was consecrated in Christ Church, in the city of Philadelphia, on Thursday, October 15, 1812, by the Right Rev. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania. The Right Rev. Bishop Jarvis, of Connecticut, and the Right Rev. Bishop Hobart, of New York, being present and assisting. Died August 6, 1817.

14. The Right Rev. Richard Channing Moore, D. D. of Virginia, was consecrated in St. James' Church, in the city of Philadelphia, on Wednesday, May 18, 1814, by the Right Rev. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, presiding Bishop. The Right Rev. Bishop Hobart, of New York, the Right Rev. Bishop Griswold, of the Eastern Diocese, and the Right Rev. Bishop Dehon, of South Carolina, being present and assisting.

15. The Right Rev. James Kemp, D. D. of Maryland, was consecrated in Christ Church, in the city of New Brunswick, New Jersey, on Thursday, September 1, 1814, by the Right Rev. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania. The Right Rev. Bishop Hobart, of New York, and the Right Rev. Bishop Moore, of Virginia, being present and assisting. Died October 26, 1827.

16. The Right Rev. John Croes, D. D. of New Jersey, was consecrated in St. Peter's Church, in the city of Philadelphia, on Sunday, November 19, 1815, by the

Right Rev. Bishop Croes, of New Jersey, and the Right Rev. Bishop Bowen, of South Carolina, being present and assisting.

*

This mark designates the present members of the House of Bishops.

APPENDIX.

NO. III.

Those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, profess to do it upon an alledged zeal for the unity of God; and by the name which they assume, desire evidently to be considered as the only persons who maintain this great truth. But those who hold the doctrine of the Trinity do, in the strongest sense, concur in the doctrine of the unity of God. They maintain, as a fundamental truth which is to regulate and modify their belief in a trinity of persons, that there is one only eternal and infinite God. And, though they pretend not to explain or comprehend the consistency of this plurality of persons with this unity of nature, they nevertheless, in the most unequivocal manner, admit and affirm it.

man.

But though GOD is one, yet he has revealed himself under three different characters and titles. The precise nature of the distinction here implied is not described in scripture; nor, perhaps, is it conceivable by fallen The word "person" has been agreed upon as serving to express this distinction. And this term is perhaps, as eligible as any other, whilst it is understood not to convey any real idea of the nature of this distinction, but merely to affirm that it exists, and is not confined to a distinction of mere titles or attributes.

de

As to the argument drawn against the doctrine of the Trinity from its mysteriousness, it may be replied, that any revelation respecting the divine nature, if in any gree minute, might have been anticipated to involve some points far beyond our comprehension. For with what are we familiar, which is beyond the range of our senses? When we attempt to speak even of the operations of our own mind, we are involved in inexplicable difficul

ties. We cannot form the slightest conception of the manner in which spiritual beings exist at all, much less the manner in which they can communicate their ideas and feelings without material organs. As it regards the Divine nature, it is no more probable that we should comprehend it, than that an animal of the very lowest order should comprehend and delineate the faculties of man. Such indeed is the obscurity in which the Divine nature is necessarily involved, that it matters little what terms are employed by us to describe it. Change the terms, yet the obscurity remains. Human language is too indigent to convey, human conceptions, too weak to receive, adequate impressions on such a subject. But it still remains true, that though the doctrine of the Trinity is mysterious and above our reasons, it is not contrary to our reason. And this is a most important

distinction. We do not affirm that there are more GoDS than one, or that GOD is one and three in the same sense. We do not say that any principle or nature is one, and at the same time three natures or principles. This would be contrary to reason. But this we say, and we say it on the ground of reason, and without fear of contradicting any known principles of reasoning that there is one Eternal and incomprehensible Being; that he has represented Himself to us in the scriptures under three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that each three distinct persons exercise and claim severally all the prerogatives, attributes, and honours of Divinity; and that these, nevertheless, constitute but one Divine Being, concentering in Himself all this fulness of the Godhead bodily. We confess with the Apostle, that great is this mystery of Godliness. Who by searching can find out God? Such knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot attain unto it. If this be an objection, it is one which applies to the simplest ideas we can form of GOD. Can we explain how it is that he subsists from everlasting to everlasting, without beginning or end? Can we comprehend the infinitude of space? Can we explain