LIBR A.R^5r Theological Seminary PRINCETON, N. J. Shelf ((Cf^^^cx. No, ilfctibeb iZ^'Z^ >Tt7/^^^, \\ /^ \K k.\ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/memoirsofprotest01whit MEMOIRS OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. MEMOIRS PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. CONTAINING, I. A NARRATIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND OF THE EARLT MEASURES OF THE CHURCH. II. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND REMARKS. • III. AN APPENDIX OF ORIGINAL PAPERS. BY WM. WHITE, I).D. BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY S. POTTER & CO. NO. bb, CHESNUT ST. J. MAXWELL, PRINTER. 18^0. EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, to wit: BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the 28th day of April, in the forty- fourth year of the Independence of the United States of America, A. D. 1820, S. Potter, & Co., of the said district, have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof they claim as proprietors, iu the words foUowing, to wit: " Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States of Ame- rica. Containing', 1st. A Narrative of the Org-anization and of the ear- ly measures of the Church. 2dly. Additional statements and remarks. 3dly. An Appendix of Original Papers By Wm. White, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant church in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." In conformity to the Act of Cong'ress of the United States, entitled, " An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned," and also to the act entitled " An act sup- plementary to an act entitled, an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and pro- prietors of such copies, duringthetimes therein mentioned," and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching histo- rical and other prints. DAVID CALDWELL, Clerk of the Eastern District (^Pennsylvania. J DEDICATION. TO THE BISHOPS PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. My much esteemed brethren, The motive to the prefixing of a dedication to these memoirs, is the opportunity thus afforded of testifying to the church at large, the harmony which has subsisted among us in our joint counsels for the conducting of our ecclesiastical concerns. Ifj at any time there has been a shade of difference of opinion, it has been overbalanced by the pleasure of mutual concession, and by the profit of amicable discussion. All of you have been ordained to the Episcopacy by my hands. Submission of opinion on this account, is what I have never had the arrogancy to claim: but if any degree of personal respect should be sup- posed a natural consequence, I can thankfully ac- knowledge, that it has been bestowed. Having lived in days in which there existed pre- judices in our land against the name, and much VI more against the office of a bishop; and when it was doubtful, whether any person in that character would be tolerated in the community; I now con- template nine of our number, conducting the duties of their office without interruption; and in regard not to them only, but to ten of us who have gone to their rest, I trust the appeal may be made to the world, for their not being chargeable with causes of offence to our fellow Christians and our fellow citi- zens generally, or with the assuming of any powers within our communion, not confessedly recognised by our Ecclesiastical institutions. Being your senior by many years, I enjoy satis- faction in the expectation of the good which you may be expected to be achieving, in what is now our common sphere of action, when I shall be removed from it: and, with my prayers for the success of your endeavours to this effect, I subscribe myself your af- fectionate brother, THE AUTHOR. PREFACE. Many years 3*50, the author of the following work began to commit to writing the most material facts which had occurred, relative to the church of which he is a minister: intending, in the event of the con- tinuance of life and health, to carry on the recital. This was not with a view to early publication, be- cause of the small extent of the sphere, in which the detail of very recent events was likely to interest curi- osity. Accordingly, what was thus prepared laid unnoticed, until an application was made about twelve years ago, by the editor of the American edition of Dr. Rees^s Cyclopedia, requesting attention to cer- tain parts of that work, with a view to other objects. On this occasion it occurred, that there might be pro- priety and use in inserting, in a work of that kind, a brief account of what had been transacted during some years preceding, within the Episcopal church. For this reason, there was made a draft from the notes before taken, for the purpose stated. As what remained comprehended sundry matters, not of suf- VIU ficiently general concern for insertion in the Cyclo- pedia; it was afterwards reviewed under the impres- sion that the time might come, when the former la- bour would not be unacceptable, within the com- munion for which it had been designed. In the pre- sent publication, the narrative has been continued to the present time. With it, there are given the matters kept back from the publication in the Cy- clopedia; and a continuation of similar statements and remarks. It has been occasionally suggested, from a knowledge of the materials in the hands of the au- thor, and in consideration of the opportunities which he has possessed of personal observation of charac- ters and of facts, that it would be better to embody the narrative with the remarks, and to make a his- tory of the whole. The mere melting of them into one mass, after the separation of them as related above, did not seem likely to be fruitful of any con- ♦siderable advantage: and as to the name of "a histo- ry," it would not only be disproportioned to the work, but perhaps pledge to an attempt, beyond what there are materials to accomplish. Of mate- rials concerning the aggregate church, the author possesses all that are necessary, and more than will be here given; the view being confined to the more important: but his collections in regard to the church in the different dioceses, are perhaps incomplete, al- though he is furnished with almost all their journals, and thinks himself well informed as to all the mate- rial events which have occurred, for half a century backward. Besides, there are a few points on which he wished to retain a liberty, that would be incon- sistent with the fulness, and, considering what is to be expected in such a w^ork, the fidehty of a history. One of these points is, that he chooses to be silent in regard to a few transactions, which, although suf- ficiently known and discoursed of when they hap- pened, are not of so much importance to the future concerns of the church, as to induce a wish to per- petuate the remembrance of them; and thereby the personal irritation by which they were accompanied. Besides these reasons, there is one arising from the desire of avoiding such a development of the cha- racters of agents, as might induce the relating and the unintentional misstating of what may have pas- sed in unguarded conversation. It is an unfair ad- vantage taken of a deceased character, for an author to represent him as his own prejudices or his pas- sions dictate; when, perhaps, the other party would have had the precaution to make his own story B known, had he foreseen such a result of the freedom of social intercourse. Another license which has grown out of the adopted plan, is the anticipating of some circumstan- ces which took place in England, during the inter- course with his grace the archbishop of Canterbury; when such anticipation might illustrate any matter previously under review. The motive, was the de- sire to record the said intercourse in the form in which it now appears, that is, in letters to the com- mittee of the church in Pennsylvania: which, having been written when the matters related were fresh on the mind of the narrator, is the more likely to be a faithful exhibition of them. To have enlarged the letters, would have been incorrect; and yet, in what passed in the intercourse, there was such con* nexion with some points in an earlier part of the work, as was too material to be disregarded. Al- though there has not been an enlargement of the letters, nor an alteration of them in any instance, there have been attached to them a few notes, con- taining matters of less moment. The motive of the author in the statements, is principally to record facts, which may otherwise be swept into oblivion by the lapse of time. For the mixing of his opinions with the facts, a reason may XI be thought due. It is, that the habits of his hfe hav- ing exercised him much, on subjects which have bearings on the concerns of the church in doctrine, in discipHne, and in worship; and his principles hav- ing been formed with dehberation and acted on with perseverance, not without prayer to the Father of lights for his holy guidance; there seems to him nothing unreasonable in the wish, to give the weight of long observation, to what are truth and order in his esteem. He has not the presumption to aspire to, nor the vanity to expect to share in the direction of the concerns of the church, after the very few years, in which there will be a possibility of his be- ing present in her councils: but he commits his opi- nions, to the issue of what may be thought in reason due to them. On the author's review of his statements and re- marks, he had often a painful sensation at the fre- quent prominence in them of himself In the way of apology, let it be remarked, 1st, that the apparent fault is in a great degree inseparable from the deli- very of the results of personal observation; and 2dly, that he has had more agency than any other person, in the transactions recorded: owing to the circum- stances in which he was placed; to a cause for which he cannot be sufficiently thankful, the con- Xll tinuance of his health and strength; and to his hav- ing attended every general convention, from the be- ginning to the present time. Under the weight of these considerations, he commits himself to the can- dour of the reader. Of the papers in the Appendix, a great propor- tion are what may be read in the printed journals: but they were thought necessary to the series of the events presented. Those papers which were in the private possession of the author, and were designed to have an influence on the concerns of the church, he has thought it due to the object of this work, to pei^etuate. The printing of any document which took the shape of a canon, has been judged unne- cessary. In regard to letters, let it be noticed, that there are none besides those, which like the papers above referred to, were designed to have pubhc influence. In private letters, there is much to confirm the state- ments made, and to enlarge them, if that were the design. CONTENTS. The capital letters A, B, C, ^'c, at the ends of certain para- graphs in the narrative, refer to corresponding places in the additional statements and remarks. 1. NARRATIVE, &c. State of the church before the revolutionary war, and at the conclusion of it, p. 3 — Intercourse with Denmark, p. 9— A meetine, in New Brunswick, N. J. p. 10 — A meeting in New York, p. 11— Convention of 1785, p. 12— of 1786, p. 18 — Consecration of bisl.ops White and Provoost, p. 20 — Convention of 1789, p. 21— of 1792, p. 24— of 1795, p. 25-— of 1799, p. 26— of 1801, p. 27— of 1804, p. 29— of 1808, p. SO— of 1811, p. 31— of 1814, p. 34— of 1817, p. 39. 2. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND REMARKS. A. Question of Episcopacy in the Colonies, p. 47 — B. Question of the use of the Liturgy, p. 59 — C. Of the meeting in New Brun9wick,inMay 1784,p. 62 — D.Of the meeting in N.York, in October 1784, p. 64 — E. Of preparatory proceedings in sundry states, p. 68 — F. Of the General Convention in Phi- ladelphia, in September and October 1785, p. 92 — Section 1. Of the general ecclesiastical Constitution, p. 92 — Section 2. Of the measures taken to obtain the Episcopacy, p. 97 — Section 3. Of the alteration of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 102 — Section 4. Of relative measures and events, p. Ill — Section 5. Of subsequent proceedings of local conven- tions, p. 117— G. Of the convention in Philadelphia and "Wilmington in 1786, p. 122 — H. Of personal intercourse with the archbishop of Canterbury, p. 138 — I. Of the gene- ral convention in 1789, p. 164— K, iu 1792, p. 198— L. in XIV 1795, p. 215— M. in 1799, p. 223— N. in 1801, p. 228—0. in 1804, p. 242— P. in 1808, p. 249— Q. in 1811, p. 277— R. in 1814, p. 289— S. in 1817, p. 302. 3. APPENDIX. No. 1. Communication with Denmark — No. 2. Application t© the archbishop of York — No. 3. Communication from Con- necticut— No. 4. Letter of bishop Seabury — No. 5. First ad- dress to the English prelates — No^ 6. Letter of the English prelates — No. 7. Memorial from the convention of New Jersey — No. 8. Second address to the English Prelates — No. 9. Letter of the archbishops of Canterbury and York — No. 10. Letter of the archbishop of Canterbury, with Act of Parliament, &c. — ^No. 11. Address to the archbishops of Can- terbury and York — No. 12. Letter and extracts of Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. — No. 13. Act of General Conven- tion of October 1786 — No. 14. Instrument of Consecration — No. 15. Note of the archbishop of Canterbury — No. 16. Letters from the president of Congress, (Richard H. Lee, Esq.) and the minister at the court of the United States, (John Adams, Esq.) and from the archbishop of Canterbury to Mr. Adams: also certificates from the executive of Penn- sylvania and Virginia — No. 17. Letter of Richard Peters, Esq. — No. 18. Application from Massachusetts — No. 19. Resolves and address to the archbishop — No. 20. Constitu- tion as acceeded to, with instrument of the consecration of bishop Seabury — ^No. 21. Letter of Dr. Coke — No. 22. Tes- timonial of the Rev. Charles Pettigrew — No. 23. Circular of a committee in South Carolina — No. 24. Letter of bishop Provoost, and the determination of the bishops — No. 25. Forms of subscription — No. 26. Decision of the bishops, on the case of Ammi Rogers — No. 27. Concerning the Homi- lies— No. 28. Concerning posture in psalmody — No. 29. Concerning proposed anthems — No. 30. Concerning the identity of this church — ^No. 31. Concerning certain amuse- ments— No. 32. Acts of the Convention of 1785. ERRATA. Page 12. 1. 13. for Long lead Stateu. 23,1. 7. Maddison, Madison. 52, 1. 21. Protestors, Protesters. 121, 1. from b. 6. free. few. 171, Note, cession, session. 184, 1. from b. 5. prevented, prevent. 187, 1. 12. no. not. 229, 1. from b. 2. worst. worse. 290, 1. from b. 6. may life, life may. 298, 1. 12. dele what. 299, 1. from b. 2. their. there. 307, 1. 18. those. these. The reference to the document respecting the court of Den- mark, at the bottom of p. 61, should have been on p. 64, after Kne 14. 1. A NARRATIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND OF THE EARLY MEASURES OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. A NARRATIVE, &c. Although it happened, as might be expected, that a proportion of the settlers of EngHsh America were of the profession estabhshed in England; yet the number was not so considerable, as might be sup- posed from the existing relation; owing probably to the circumstance, that several of the colonies arose in a great measure from dissatisfaction with the establishment at home, and partly to an influx of subsequent settlers; not only from other countries, subject to the same crown, but also from countries on the continent of Europe; principally some of the states of Germany. In the northern and eastern states, the comparatively small number of the church of England may be seen in the fact, that when the revolutionary war began , there were not more than about eighty parochial clergymen of that church, to the northward and to the eastward of Maryland; and that those clergymen derived the greater part of their subsistence from the society instituted in Eng- land, for the propagation of the gospel in foreign 4 parts; with the exception of those resident in the towns of Boston and Newport, and the cities of New York and Philadelphia: there being no episcopal congregations out of those towns and cities, held to be of ability to support clergymen of themselves* In Maryland and in Virginia, the episcopal church was much more numerous, and had legal establish- ments for its support. It was especially numerous in those parts of the said provinces, which were set- tled when the establishments took place; for in the more recently settled counties, the mass of the peo- ple were of other communions, scarcely known among them in the early period of their histories. In the more southern colonies, the episcopalians were fewer in proportion than in the two last mentioned; but more than in the northern. It may be supposed, that, however comparatively few the original emigrants of the church of England in the northern and the middle colonies; yet they must have derived aid from the executive of the pa- rent state, through the medium of its representa- tives, the governors. This was, indeed, the case in a degree; but the aid was inconsiderable and, con- fined to two or three of the earliest seats of popula- tion. Besides, it may well be doubted, whether, un- der the continually existing jealousy in the colonies of the parent power, there did not result some dis- * The clergy in the province of Pennsylvania, exclusive of those in the citj of Philadelphia, were never more than six in nunibci'; all of whom were missionaries, receiving salaries from England. The parochial clergy of the city were four. advantage to a denomination comparatively small, from a commnnity of profession: for this circum- stance may have had a tendency to render the de- nomination unpopular among a great proportion of their fellow-citizens; especially under the apprehen- sion that it might;, at some future day, be an engine aiding in the intj'oduction of a new system of colo- nial government.*' But even if the episcopal church found any source of increase in the connexion, this was more than counterbalanced by the peculiar circumstances under which it existed; which prevented and proba- bly, under the old regime, would have continued to prevent its organization. Separated by the Atlantic ocean from the episcopacy under which it had been planted, it had no resource for a ministry, but in emigration from the mother country and by sending its candidates for the ministry, to that country for orders. The first, could not be the channel of a re- spectable permanent supply. And tlie second, which was the most depended on in the latter years of the colonies, was very troublesome and expensive. The evil of the want of an internal episcopacy, did not end here. For altiiough the bisliop of London was considered as the diocesan of the episcopal churches in America, it is evident, that his authority could not be effectually exerted, at such a distance for the * Perhaps the only considerable endowment by the English government was of lands to Trinity church, New York. Its being considerable, is owing to its liaving become of great value by tlie increase of that city. 6 removing of unworthy clergymen: besides which, there were civil institutions supposed to be in oppo- sition to it, in the provinces where establishments had been provided. In Maryland, in particular, all interference of the bishop of London, except in the single matter of ordination, was held by the proprie- tary government to be an encroachment on its au- thorities.* For these reasons, and on the ground of the evi- dent propriety of being supplied with all the orders of the ministry, recognized by their ecclesiastical system, application had been made to England at different times by the clergy, especially those in the northern colonies, for the obtaining of an episcopate. These applications had produced much contention in pamphlets and in newspapers; the writers on the episcopal side pleading the reasonableness of being * The author, before his being in the ministry, knew a gen- tleman (the reverend Mr. Edminston) who, being in London for orders, had brought with him such recommendations to lord Baltimore, proprietary of Maryland, as induced the promise of an order to his governor, for any future parish that might be vacant. It was necessary after ordination, to show the testimo- nial of the transaction to the proprietary: who, perceiving with the instrument a license to preach in the province of Maryland, was much dissatisfied with the bishop of London on that ac- count. The bishop usually gave such a license, according to the province for which the party was ordained: a practice, similai- to what obtains in England. From this and from other circumstan- ces, the conviction is felt, that his lordship would not have en- dured in his province any episcopal authority, distinct from his designation of the person. It is mentioned, as one of the diffi- culties attendant on the subject of an American episcopacy. indulged in the full enjoyment of their religion; and their opponents objecting, that bishops, sent from England to America, would of course bring with them, or, if not, might be clothed by the paramount authority of Britain, with the powers of English bishops, to the great prejudice of people of other communions; and in contrariety to the principles on which the settlement of the colonies had taken place. What would have been the event, in this respect, had the episcopal clergy succeeded in their desires, is a problem, which it will be forever impossible to solve. In regard to the motives of the parties in the dispute, there are circumstances, which charity may apply to the most favourable interpretation. As the epis- copal clergy disclaimed the designs and the expec- tations of which they were accused; and as the same was done by their advocates on the other side of the water, particularly by the principal of them, the great and good archbishop Seeker; they ought to be supposed to have had in view an episcopacy purely religious. On the other hand, as their opponents laid aside their resistance of the religious part of it, as soon as American independence had done away all pohtical danger, if it before existed; it ought to be believed, that in their former professed apprehen- sions, they were sincere. A. If such was the difficulty of being supplied with a ministry, during the acknowledged supremacy of the British crown; much greater, as may be suppo- sed, was the same difficulty, during the struggle which ended in the elevating of the colonies to the 8 rank of independent states. During that term, there was no resource for the supply of vacancies; which were continually multiplying, not only from death, but by the retreat of very many of the episcopal clergy to the mother country, and to the colonies still dependent on her. To add to the evil, many able and worthy ministers, cherishing their allegiance to the king of Great Britain, and entertaining conscientious scruples against the use of the liturgy, under the re- striction of omitting the appointed prayers for him, ceased to officiate. Owing to these circumstances, the doors of the far greater number of the episcopal churches were closed for several years. In the state in which this work is edited, there was a part of that time, in which there was, through its whole extent, but one resident minister of the church in question, he who records the fact. B. No sooner was it known in America, that Great Britain had acknowledged her independence, than a few young gentlemen to the southward, who had been educated for the ministry, but kept back from it by the times, embarked for England; and applied to the then bishop of London, Dr. Lovvth, for orders. As the bishop could not ordain them, without re- quiring of them engagements inconsistent with their allegiance to the American sovereignty, he applied for and obtained an act of parliament, allowing him to dispense with requisitions of that sort. While this matter was depending, and the success of the candidates was doubtful, there was an incident, which it may be proper to record, in justice to the intended good ollices of a foreign sister church. Mr. Adams, then the minister of the United States at tlie court of St. James, being in company with M. de St. Saphorin the minister of the crown of Denmark, mentioned to him the case here stated, of the candidates for orders; with a view to his opin- ion, whether they could be gratified in the kingdom which he represented, Souietime alter, the Danish minister made a communication to the American; from which it appeared, that the inquiry of the latter had been notified to the Danish court; that the con- sequence had been a reference to the theological faculty of the kingdom; and that they had declared their readiness to ordain candidates from America, on the condition of their signing of the 39 Articles of the church of England, with the exception of the political parts of them; the service to be performed in Latin, in accommodation to the candidates, who might be supposed unacquainted with the language of the country. This conduct, is here the more cheer- fully mentioned to the honour of the Danish church; as it is reasonable to presume, that there would have been an equal readiness to the conseciating of bishops, bad necessity required a recourse for it to any other source than the English Episcopacy, under which the American churches had been planted. The proceeding in Denmark, was made known to the x\merican government by Mr. Adams; a copy of whose letter to the president of congress, was sent to the author by the then supreme executive B 10 council of Pennsylvania. Mr. Adams stated, that the transaction arose from his having been applied to by an American gentleman, in behalf of the candidates for ordination referred to. Mr. Adams mentioned the matter to M. de St, Saphorin, the Danish minister; who accordingly wrote to the count de Rosencrone, privy counsellor and secretary of state to the king of Denmark. The result was as above given. In truth, there was no idea of having recourse, in the first instance, to any other quarter than that of the Enghsh Episcopacy, in the minds of those who had begun to direct their attention to the supply of the present and the future exigencies of the church- es. But it seemed to those at least who took up the subject in the middle states, that nothing could be done to effect, without some association, under which the churches might act as a body: they having been heretofore detached from and independent on one another; excepting the bond of union which had sub- sisted through the medium of the bishop of London. That medium of connexion, had been confessedly destroyed by the revolution: and therefore it was evident, that without the creating of some new tie, the churches in the different states, and even those in the same state might adopt such var>ing me sures, as would for ever prevent their being combi- ned in one communion. The first step towards the forming of a collec- tive body of the episcopal church in the United States, was taken, at a meeting for another purpose, of a few clergymen of New York, New Jersey and 11 Pennsylvania, at Brunswick in New Jersey, on the ISlli and 14.tii ot" May, 17rt4. Tiiese clergymen, iu consequence of prior correspondence, had met lor the purpose of consulting, in what way to renew a society that had existed under charters of incorpo- ration from the governors of the said three states, for the support of widows and children of deceased clergymen. Here it was determined, to procure a larger meeting on the tilth of the ensuing October, in New York; not only lor the purpose of reviving the said charitable institution, but to confer and agree on some general principles of an union of the Episcopal church throughout the states. C. Such a meeting was held, at the time and place agreed on: and although the members composing it were not vested with powers, adequate to the pre- sent exigencies of the church; they happily and with great unanimity laid down a few general principles, to be recommended in the respect. ve states, as the ground on which a future ecclesiastical government should be established. These principles were appro- batory of Episcopacy and of the Book of Common Prayer; and provided for a representative body of the church, consisting of clergy and laity; who were to vote as distinct orders. There was also a recom- mendation to the church in the several states, to send clerical and lay deputies to a meeting to be held in Philadelphia, on the 27th of September in the fol- lowing year. D. Although at the meeting last held, there were present two clergymen from the eastern states; yet it 12 now appeared, that there was no probability, for the present, of the aid of the churches in those states, in the measures begun for the obtaining of a represen- tative body of the church at large. From this they thought themselves restrained in Connecticut, in particular, by a step they had antecedently taken, for the obtaining of an Episcopate from England. For until the event of their application could be known, it naturally seemed to them inconsistent, to do any thing which might change the ground on which the gentleman of their choice was then stand- ing. This gentleman was the Rev. Samuel Sea- bury, D. D. formerly missionary on Lonj; Island; who had been recommended to England for conse- cration, before the evacuation of New York by the British army. On the 27th of September, 1785, there assembled, agreeably to appointment, in Philadelphia, a conven- tion of clerical and lay deputies, from seven of the thirteen United States, viz. from New York to Vir- ginia, inclusive, with the addition of South Carolina. They applied themselves to the making of such alte- rations in tlie Book of Common Prayer, as were necessary for the accommodating of it to the late changes in the state; and the proposing, but not establishing, of such other alterations in that book and in the articles, as they thought an improvement of the service and of the manner of stating the prin- cipal articles of faith; these were published in a book, ever since known by the name of the propo- sed book. E. 13 The convention entered on the business of the Episcopacy, with the knowledge that there was now a biyjiop in Connecticut; consecrated, not in Eng- land, but by the non-juring bishops of Scotland. For Dr. Seabury, not meeting assurance of success with the bishops of the former country, had applied to the latter quarter for the succession, which had been there carelully maintained; notwithstanding their severance from the state, in the revolution of 1688. Bishop Seabury had returned to America; and had entered on the exercise of his new function, in the beginning of the preceding summer: and two or three gentlemen of the southern states had received ordination from his hands. Nevertheless, the mem- bers of this convention, although generally impressed with sentiments of respect towards the new bishop: and although, with the exception of a few, alleging nothing against the validity of his Episcopacy, thought it the most proper to direct their views in the first instance towards England. Jn this they were encou- raged by information which they thought authentic, assigning for Dr. Seabury's failure these two rea- sons; that the administration had some apprehension of embroiling themselves with the American govern- ment, the sovereignty of which they had so recentl) acknowledged; and that the bishops were doubtful, liow far the act of some clergymen, in their indivi- dual capacities, would be acquiesced in by their re- spective flocks. For the meeting of the former difli- culty, it was thought easy to obtain, and there were afterwards obtained, from the executive authorities 14 of the states in which the new bishops were to re- side, certificates, that what was sought did not inter- fere with any civil laws or constitutions. The latter difficulty was thought sufficiently obviated, by the powers under which the present convention was as- sembled. Accordingly, they addressed the archbishops and^ bishops of England; stating, that the Episcopal church in the United States had been severed by a civil revolution, from the jurisdiction of the parent church in England; acknowledging the favours for- merly received from the bishops of London in par- ticular; and from the archbishops and bishops in general, through the medium of the society for pro- pagating the gospel; declaring their desire to perpe- tuate among them the principles of the Church of England, in doctrine, discipline, and worship; and praying, that their lordships would consecrate to the Episcopacy, those persons who should be sent with that view, from the churches in any of the states respectively. In order that the present convention might be suc- ceeded by bodies of the like description, they framed an ecclesiastical constitution; the outlines of which were, that there should be a triennial convention, con- sisting of a deputation from the church in each state, of not more than four clergymen, and as many laymen; that they should vote statevvise, each order to have a negative on the other; that when there should be a bishop in any state, he should be officially a member of the convention; that the ditferent orders of clergy 15 should be accountable to the ecclesiastical authority, in the state only to which they should respectively be- long; and that the engagement previous to ordination should be a declaration of belief in the holy Scrip- tures, and a promise of contbrmity to the doctrines and the worship of the church. Further, the convention appointed a committee, with vaiious powers; among which, was that of cor- responding, during the recess, with the archbishops and bishops of England: and they adjourned, to meet again in Philadelphia, on tlie 20th olJune, in the fol- lowing year. After the rising of the convention, their address to the English prelates was forwarded by the committee to his excellency John Adams, Esq., the American minister; with the request, that it might be delivered by him to his grace the archbishop of Canterbury. There were also forwarded certificates, from the ex- ecutives of the states in which there was a probability of there being bishops chosen. The executives who gave these certificates were those of New York, Penn- sylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. These evidences, agreeably to instructions of the convention, were ap- plied for by the members of that body, from the said states respectively. Mr. Adams willingly performed the service solicited of him; and in a conversation which he held with the archbishop of Canterbury, on the subject of the address, gave such information, and expressed such sentiments, as were calculated to pro-^ mote the object of it. F. 16 In the spring of the year 1 786, the committee re- ceived an answer, signed by the two archbishops and eighteen of the twenty-four bishops of England; ac- knowledging the receipt of what they were pleased to call the christian and brotherly address of the con- vention; and declaring their wish to comply with the desiie of it; but delaying measures to the effect, until there should be laid before them the alterations which had been made by the convention: it having been re- presented to the bishops, through private channels, that the alterations were essential deviations from the Church of England, either in doctrine or in disciphne. Not long after the receipt of this letter, the com- mittee received another from the archbishops of Can- terbury and York, to whom the management of the business had been left by their brethren, after a second meeting of the body; informing, that they had receiv- ed the edited book of common prayer, in regard to which they declared, that besides their seeing of no occasion for some smaller alterations, which they do not specify; they are dissatisfied with the omission of the Nicene and the Athanasian creeds; and of the descent into hell in the Apostle?' creed. And they further declare their disapprobation of an article in the proposed constitution, which seemed to them to subject the future bishops to a trial by the presby- ters and the laymen, in the respective states. This, however, does not seem to have been the meaning of the article alluded to; which expresses no more, than that laws for the trial of bishops should be made, not by the general, but by each state ecclesiastical repre- 17 sentative. The prelates went on to inform the com- mittee, that they were hkely to obtain an act of par- liament, enabling them to consecrate for America. They, however, expected, that before they should proceed under the act, satisfaction should be given in regard lo the matters stated. The same communi- cation laid down what would be required, in regard to the cliaracters individually, who should be sent for consecration. As to faith, they were to make the subscription, which the American church had pre- scribed, to future candidates for orders. On the sub- ject of learning, it was thought disrespectful to the persons to be sent, to subject them to an examina- tion; it being at the same time trusted, that the Ame- rican church would be aware of the disparagement of the episcopacy, which would be the result of its being conferred on persons not sufficiently respect- ble, in point of literary qualification. In order to give satisfaction in regard to the religious and moral cha- racter of each person to be sent, the archbishops re- quired, that it should be testified by the convention chusing him; and in addition, that there should be a certificate from the general convention, to the effect that they knew no reason, why the person should not be consecrated to the episcopal office. These deter- minations are given as the result of a consultation of the two archbishops and fifteen of the bishops; being all who were at the time in town. Soon after the letter from the two archbishops, there came one from the archbishop of Canterbury alone, inclosing the act of parliament. c 18 After the receipt of the first of the letters of the Enghsh prelates, and before the receipt of the second, the general convention assembled, agreeably to ap- pointment, in Philadelphia, on the 20th of June, 1786. The principal business transacted by them, was another address to the English prelates; containing an acknowledgment of their friendly and affectionate letter; a declaration of not intending to depart from the doctrines of the English church; and a determina- tion of making no further alterations, than such as either arose from a change of circumstances, or ap- peared conducive to union; and a repetition of the prayer for the succession. Before their adjournment, they appointed a committee, with power to reassem- ble them, if thought expedient, at Wilmington in the state of Delaware. On the committee's receipt of the second letter, they summoned the convention to meet, at the place appointed, on the 1 0th of October following. The principal matter which occupied the body when as- sembled, was the question, how far they should ac- commodate to the requisitions of the English pre- lates. The difficulty concerning the offensive article of the constitution had been done away, before the ar- rival of the objection of the archbishops. This ob- jection, as already observed, was grounded on a misapprehension of the design of the article. But another objection had been made within the Ameri- can church, on the score of there being no express provision for the presidency of a bishop in conven- 19 tions and in ecclesiastical trials. This objection had gained so much ground, that, in the session of June, it had been fully satisfied: which had more than done away the ground of the censure of the prelates. The omission of the Nicene creed had been generally regretted; and, accordingly, it was now, without de- bate or difficulty, restored to the book of Common Prayer; to stand after the Apostles' Creed, with per- mission of the use of either. The clause in the latter creed, of the descent into hell, occasioned consider- able debate; but it was finally restored. The restora- tion of the Athanasian creed was negatived. The result of the deliberations of the convention, was addressed to the two archbishops, with thanks for their fatherly attention to the church; especially in procuring legal permission for the conveying of the succession. The deputies from the several states were called on, beginning from the northward, foi* information, whether any persons had been chosen in thenj res- pectively, to proceed to England for consecration: when it appeared, that the Rev. Samuel Provoost, D. D. rector of Trinity church in the city of New York, had been chosen for that purpose by the con- vention in that state; that the Rev. William White, D. D. rector of Christ church and St. Peter's in the city of Philadelphia, had been chosen by the conven- tion in Pennsylvania; and that the Rev. David Grif- fith, D. D, rector of Fairfax parish, Virginia, had been chosen by the convention there. Testimonials in their favour from the conventions in the respect^- 20 ive states, agreeable to the form prescribed by the archbishopSj were laid before the general convention; who immediately signed, in favour of each of the bishops elect, a testimonial according to the form prescribed to them by the same authority. G. The two former of the above named clergymen, having embarked together early in the next month, arrived at Falmouth, after a passage of eighteen days. On their reaching of London, they were introduced to his grace the archbishop of Canterbury, by his excellency Mr. Adams, who, in this particular, and in every instance in which his personal attentions could be either of use or an evidence of his respect and kindness, continued to manifest his concern for the interests of a church, of which he was not a member. Before the accomplishing of the object of the voyage, there occurred the delay of a few weeks; owing to the archbishop's desire of previously laying before the bishops the grounds of his proceeding to the accomplishment of the business, in the early stages of which they had been consulted. The greater number of them were at their dioceses, but were expected to be in town at the ensuing opening of parliament; appointed for about the middle of January. Veiy soon afterwards, the fourth of Febru- ary was appointed for the consecration. On that day, and in the chapel of the archiepisco- pal palace of Lambeth, Dr. White and Dr. Provoost were ordained and consecrated bishops, by the most reverend John Moore, archbishop of Canterbury. The 21 most reverend William Markham, archbishop oi' York, presented. And the bishops who joined with the two archbishops in the imposition of hands, were the right reverend Charles Moss, bishop of Bath and Wells; and the right reverend John IlinchHff, bishop of Peterborough. Before the end of the same month, the newly consecrated bishops sailed i'rom Falmouth for New York; where they arrived on Easter Sun- day, April the 7th, and soon afterwards began the exercise of the episcopacy in their respective dio- ceses. H. On the 28th of July, 1 789, there assembled the triennial convention; by whom the Episcopacy of bishops White and Provoost, of whom the former only was present, the latter being detained by sick- ness, was duly recognized. At this convention, there naturally occurred the importance of taking measures for the perpetuating of the succession: a matter, which some circumstances had subjected to considerable difficulty. The Rev. Dr. Griffith had been prevented by occurrences in his domestic situation, from prose- cuting his intended voyage to England; and had given in his resignation to the convention in Virginia. In consequence of their direction, the resignation was notified to the general convention, on the first day of their entering on business. The doctor himself had come to attend it, as one of the deputies from Virginia; but his attendance was prevented by sickness, which ended in his dissolution, during the session. The subject of perpetuating the succession from England, with the relation which it bore to the question of 22 embracing that from the Scotch Episcopacy, was brought into view by a measure of the clergy in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. This body had elected the Rev. Edward Bass, rector of St. Paul's church in Newburyport, their bishop; and had ad- dressed a letter to the bishops in Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania, praying them to unite in consecrating him. The last of these bishops, being the only one of them now present in convention, laid the letter addressed to him before the body, intimat- ing his sincere wish, to join in such measures as they might adopt, for the forming of a permanent union with the churches in the eastern states; but at the same time expressing his doubt of its being consistent with the faith impliedly pledged to the English prelates, to proceed to any consecration, without first obtaining from them the number held in their church to be canonically necessary to such an act. This sentiment, which he also supposed to be entertained by the gentleman who had been conse- crated with him, was duly respected by the body, while they manifested an earnest desire of the union alluded to; and, with a view to it, voted their opinion in favour of the validity of bishop Seabury's conse- cration; in which their president concurred. In order to carry the sentiments of the conven- tion into effect, they signified their request to the two bishops consecrated in England, that they would unite witli bishop Seabury in the consecration of Mr. Bass: and they framed an address to the archbishops and bishops of England; requesting their approbation 23 of the measure, for the removing of any difficulty or delicacy, which might remain on the minds of the bishops whom they had already consecrated. And here it may be proper to record, that the difficulty was not long after removed in another way by the convention of Virginia in their electing of tlie Rev. James Maddison, D. D. president of William and Mary's college, Williamsburg, their bishop; and by his being consecrated in England. At the present session of the general convention, the constitution formed in 1786 was reviewed and new modelled. The principal feature now given to it, was a distribution into two houses; one consisting of the bishops, and the other of the clerical and lay deputies, who must vote, when required by the cle- rical or by the lay representation from any state, as under the former constitution, by orders. The stated meetings, were to be on the second Tuesday in Sep- tember in every third year; but intermediate meet- ings might be called by the bishops. When the convention adjourned, it was to the 29th of September following: and before the adjournment, an invitation was given by them to bishop Seabury, and to their brethren generally in the eastern states, to be present at the proposed session; with a view to a permanent union. On that day, the convention reassembled, when it appeared that bishop Seabury, with sundry of the clergy from Massachusetts and Connecticut, had accepted the invitation given them. There was laid before the convention, and by them ordered to be re- 24 corded, evidence of that bishop's consecration : which had been performed by bishops Kilgour, Petrie, and Skinner, of the non-juring church in Scotland. There then ensued a conference between a com- mittee of the convention and the clergy from the eastern states; the result of which was, that, after one alteration of the constitution at their desire, they declared their acquiescence in it, and gave it their signatures accordingly. It had been provided in the constitution, that the arrangement of two houses should take place, as soon as three bishops should belong to the body. This circumstance now occurred; although there were present only two of them, who accordingly formed the house of bishops. The two houses entered on a review of the litur- gy; the bishops originating alterations in some ser- vices, and the house of clerical and lay deputies pro- posing others. The result was the Book of Common Prayer, as it was then established and has been ever since used. Some canons had been passed in the preceding session; but they were reconsidered and passed with sundry others, which continue to this day substan- tially the same; but with some alterations and addi- tions by succeeding conventions. I. The next triennial convention was held in the city of New York, in the autumn of 1792: at which were present the four bishops already mentioned to have been consecrated abroad. Hitherto, there had been no consecration in America: but at this con 25 vention, although notliing further was brought be- fore them from Massachusetts, relative to Dr. Bass; the deputies from Maryland applied to the assembled bishops for the consecration of the Rev, Thomas John Claggett, D. D. who had been elected bishop by the convention of that state. Dr. Claggett was ac- cordingly consecrated, during the session of the con- vention, in Trinity church, of the city in which they were assembled.* The bishops, having reviewed the ordinal of the church of England, proposed a few alterations in it to the house of clerical and lay deputies; principally such as were necessary for the accommodating of it to local circumstances. The ordinal, thus reviewed, is now the established form for the consecrating of bishops and the ordaining of priests and deacons. K. In September 1795, there was held another trien- nial convention, in the city of Philadelphia; at which were present all the bishops, except bishop Seabury. Besides other matters acted on, some canons were made; and a service was ordered for the consecra- ting of a church or chapel. It is substantially the same with a service composed by bishop Andrews, in the reign of James the First; and since common- ly used by the English bishops in such consecra- tions; but without the authority of convocation or of parhament. During the session, there took place the consecration of the Rev. Robert Smith, D. D. rector * Dr. Claggett was consecrated by bishop Provoost, who pre- sided at this convention, assisted by bishops Seabury, White and Madison - D 26 of St. Philip's, in Charleston, South Carolina; who had been elected by the convention in that state, their bishop * L. Between this and the next convention, there was consecrated the Rev. Edward Bass; again recom- mended from Massachusetts and New Hampshire: the certificate usually given on such occasions by the general convention, being in this instance given by a standing committee of that body; agreeably to a provision which had been made to that effectf And on the 18th of October of the same year, there was consecrated, in Trinity church in the city of Newhaven, the Rev. Abraham Jarvis, D. D., for the state of Connecticut.f There would have been a convention in Phila- delpliia, in September 1798: but the prevalence of epidemical disease preventing their assembling, the bishops, agreeably to a power vested in them when desired by a standing committee of the convention, summoned that body to meet, in the same city, on the 11th of June, 1799. On this occasion, the review of the articles was moved in the house of clerical and lay deputies. And a committee was appointed, who drew up a body of articles; which were not acted on, but ordered to be printed on the Journal, * The consecration of Dr. Smith was by the presiding bisliop, assisted by bishops Provoost, Madison and Claggett. t The consecration of Dr. Bass was in Christ-church in the city of Philadephia, May 7th, 1797, by the presiding bishop, as- sisted by bishops Provoost and Claggett. X The consecration of Dr. Jarvis, was by bishop White, as- sisted by bishops Provoost and Bass. 27 as a report of a committee of one of the houses, to lie over for the consideration of the next convention ^ which was appointed to he in the city of Trenton, Nevr Jersey. M. It assembled there, in September 1801: when there was broui^ht before the bishops present at it, three in number, the question of tlie admissibihty of a resignation of the episcopal charge. A letter from bishop Provoost had been addressed to one of the bishops present, and by him laid before the house; stating, that induced by ill health and some circum- stances of a domestic nature, he wished to retire from all public employment; and had therefore re- signed, at a late meeting of the convention in New York, his jurisdiction of bishop in that state. In con- sequence of this resignation, the Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. who, on account of bishop Provoost's resignation of the rectory of Trinity church, in the city of New^ York, had been chosen to that place, was also elected to succeed to the episcopacy. The house of bishops, having taken this subject ''under their serious consideration, and doubting of the pro- priety of sanctioning episcopal resignation, declined any act to that effect. But being sensible of the exigency existing in the state of New York, they consented to the consecration of an assistant bishop: it being understood, that he should be competent in point of character to all the episcopal duties; and, that the extent in which the same were to be dis- charged by him, should be dependent on such regu- lations as expediency might dictate to the church in New York; grounded on the indisposition of bishop 28 Provoost, and with his concurrence. Conformably with the hne of conduct thus laid down, Dr. Benja- min Moore, being duly recommended, was conse- crated during the session, in St. Michael's church Trenton; and took his seat in the house of bishops. In this convention, the important business of the articles was again taken up; and now, for the first time, authoritatively acted on. After repeated discus- sions and propositions, it had been found, that the doc- trines of the Gospel, as they stand in the 39 articles of the church of England, with the exception of such matters as are local, were more likely to give gene- ral satisfaction, than the same doctrines in any new form that might be devised. The former were there- fore adopted by the two houses of convention, with- out their altering of even the obsolete diction in them; but with notices of such changes as change of situa- tion had rendered necessary. Exclusively of such, there 4s one exception; that of adapting the article concerning the creeds, to the former exclusion of the Athanasian. It is further to be remembered, that, in regard to subscription to the articles, there is a consi- derable difference between the form required in the church of England, as laid down in her 36th canon; and that prescribed in the constitution of the Ame- rican church. The latter form had so far acquired the approbation of the English prelates, as to be thought sufficient on the part of those who came to them for consecration, from America. N. Throughout this narrative, it must have appeared, that the object kept in view, in all the consultations 29 held, and the determinations formed, was the per- petuating of the episcopal church, on the ground of the general principles which she had inherited from the church of England; and of not departing from them, except so far as either local circumstances required, or some very important cause rendered proper. To those acquainted with the system of the church of England, it must be evident, that the ob- ject here stated was accomplished on the ratification of the articles. The next triennial convention was in the city of New York, September 11th, 1804. Canons were passed, extending to a greater variety- of objects, than had been provided for before. An office was framed and ordered to be used, at the induction of ministers to the rectorship of churches. A course of ecclesiastical studies of candidates for orders, was prescribed by the bishops. And the constitution was altered, agreeably to a proposition made in the preceding convention and notified to the conventions in the states, so as that the future triennial con- ventions shall be in the month of May, instead of September. During the session, the Kev. Samuel Parker, D. D. rector of Trinity church, in Bos- ton, was consecrated bishop in Trinity church, New York, in the room of bishop Bass, who had departed this life. There had also died, since the last con- vention, bishop Smith of South Carolina. And it was understood, that the Rev. Edward Jenkins, D. D. who had been elected to supply his place, had de- fiined the station. Since the events here recorded. 30 bishop Parker departed this Hfe, a few months after his consecration. 0. The next meeting of the general convention was in the city of Baltimore, from May 17th, 1808, to the 26th of the same month. Two bishops only (bishops White and Claggett) were present at this convention; and the church in seven states only was represented. There was now ratified the long proposed amend- ment of the constitution; annulling the provision, by which four fifths of the house of clerical and lay deputies could accomplish a measure, without the concurrence of the house of bishops. There was also proposed another amendment of the constitution, for the preventing of alterations in the liturgy, unless the same should have been propos- ed at a previous convention. The whole body of the canons was reviewed, and underwent considerable alterations. A committee was appointed, to address the church in the different states. The objects in view, were to procure a more full attendance on future conventions, and to extend the episcopacy to the western states. " The office of Induction," established by the last convention, was changed in name to " The of- fice of Institution," and rested on recommendation, not on requisition, as before. The sense of the two houses was given on two points, which had created diversity of opinion and of practice — Whether a minister ought to officiate at the funeral of any person killed in a duel; and — Whether a minister should unite in marriage any 31 person who has been divorced; unless it be on account of the other party^s having been guilty of adultery. Both these questions were decided in the negative. There was also introduced into the house of cle- rical and lay deputies, on recommendation of the church in Maryland, the subject of marriage, as con- nected with the degrees of consanguinity and affinity. But on communication of the matter to the house of bishops, it was, on their recommendation, referred to a future convention. Thirty hymns, were added to the Book of Psalms and Hymns. As ordained by a canon of the last convention, a pastoral letter from the house of bishops to the members of this church was drawn up by them, communicated to the house of clerical and lay depu- ties, and there read. On the rising of the convention, Newhaven, in the state of Connecticut, was appointed as the next place of meeting. The session was ended, by an at- tendance on the morning service of the day, which was the festival of the Ascension. P. Agreeably to the aforesaid appointment; the next general convention was held in the city of Newhaven, on Tuesday the 21st of May, 1811. It continued in session, until Friday the 24th. Only bishops White and Jarvis, of the house of bishops, were present. The church in nine states was represented. They ratified the amendment to the constitution proposed at the last convention, restraining from alter- ations of the Liturgy, except such as may be proposed at one convention and determined on at another. 32 On the subject of the canons, nothing was done, except the repeahng of the last or 46th of the canons, as passed at the last convention, entitled, " Providing for making known the Constitution and Canons of the Church/' The rule prohibiting the officiating at the funerals of persons killed in duels, was so far moderated, as to allow of the same, if, on any occasion, the party in question had manifested repentance. There were some communications made in re- gard to the western churches, and the extending of the episcopacy to them ; but a plan to that effect was not yet matured. Further attention to the subject was committed to the bishops of this church, in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The attendance of so few of the bishops; three of the four absent bishops being prevented by bodily indisposition, and the remaining bishop being absent by indispensable engagements; it was agreed not to take up, at present, the important subject of marri- ages, within certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity. A pastoral address was sent by the bishops to the other house, to be printed with the journal agree- ably to a requisition of the 45th canon. It had been expected, that on the occasion of this convention, there would have been a consecration of two bishops: of the Rev. Dr. John Henry Hobart, chosen assistant bishop for the state of New York; and of the Rev. Alexander Viets Griswold, chosen bishop for the four states of Massachusetts, New 33 Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island. The ex- pectation was disappointed, by the want of the cano- nical number on the spot. But the testimonials of the bishops elect were signed; and the two bishops present repaired with them to the city of New York: where with the assistance of the ri2;ht Rev. bishop Provoost, whose indisposition, although, with difficulty, permitted his attendance in the place of his residence, and witii the assistance of bishop Jarvis, the conse- cration was performed by the presiding bishop on the 29th of May, in Trinity church, in the said city. It was referred to the presiding bishop, " to ad- dress a letter, in behalf of this convention, to the venerable society in England for propagating the Gospel in foreign parts, informing them that the church in the state of Vermont is duly organized, and in union with the protestant episcopal churches in the United States, being placed under the jurisdiction of the bishop of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; that a board of trus- tees of donations to the church has been incorporated in the state of Massachusetts; and that in the opinion of this convention, the society may safely confide the care of their lands in Vermont to such attorney or attornies, as may be recommended by the said board of trustees, and approved of by the ecclesiastical convention of Vermont.^' When the convention rose, it was agreed to hold the next triennial convention in the city of Philadel- phia. Q, 34 The next triennial convention was held, agree- ably to appointment of that of 1811, in the city of Philadelphia, from Tuesday the 17th of May, to Tuesday the 24th of the same month, in the year 1814. The bishops present at it were, bishop White, of the church in Pennsylvania, bishop Hobart, the assistant bishop of the church in New York, bishop Griswold, of the Eastern Diocess, bishop Dehon, of South Carolina,* and, the second day of the session, bishop Richard C. Moore, of Virginia. In the last mentioned state, the church had been, for many years, more and more under a decline. On the decease of bishop Madison, there had en- sued a difficulty in the choice of a successor, until a few gentlemen, some of the clerical and some of the lay order, suggested the choice of the gentleman mentioned above, who had acquired considerable popularity in the city of New York; wherein there was a large congregation under his ministry. The defect of episcopal maintenance was expected to be surmounted, by connecting the office of bishop with that of the rectory of a church recently erected in the city of Richmond, on the site of a theatre, des- troyed a few years before by a fire, wherein a con- siderable proportion of the inhabitants had been consumed. The requisite testimonials having been furnished, Dr. Moore was consecrated in St. James's * Bishop Dehon had been consecrated, October 15th, 1812, in Christ church, in the city of Philadelphia, by tlie presiding bishop, assisted by bishops Jarvis and Hobart 35 church, Philadelphia, by the presidins; bishop, assisted by bishops Hobart, Griswold, and Dehon. The ser- mon preached at the opening of the convention, serv- ing for the consecration also, was by bishop Hobart of New York. He supplied the place of bishop Claggett of Maryland, who was kept away by indis- position. There were three canons passed at this conven- tion. One of them was concerning the alms and contributions at the holy communion. They are subjected to the distribution of the minister, or such person as they may be committed to by him. The provision was designed to limit munificence of this description to poor communicants, and to sustain a pastoral intercourse with them. The cause of inter- position in this matter, was some proposals of ap- propriation said to have been made, for church purposes indeed, but wide of the original design of the oblations at the Lord's table. The next canon was explanatory of the 29th, guarding against the effect of its excluding from diocesan conventions and votes in the choice of bishops, of uninstituted ministers and deacons, where these are not excluded by the respective diocesan constitutions; and further, against the extending of the office of Institution to gatherings of persons not bound together by a common interest in a place of worship. The remaining canon was a repeal of so much of the 4ath, as requires the reading in the general conveutiou, of the parochial reports entered on 36 the journals of the different state conventions. The design of this, was to devolve on the church in each state, the preparing of a report of its concerns. Accordingly, this was provided for by a separate re- solve. There was also entered on the journal an ex- planation of the 19th canon; which regulates the dress of candidates for orders, and other particulars relative to them. The explanation goes to the point, that such provisions are merely a guard against po- pular mistakes. At the instance of the clerical menibers from the diocess of Connecticut, who acted under instructions from the convention of that state, the bishops gave their sense of some matters in the 9th canon, and in the 40th. Their sense, which was sanctioned by the house of clerical and lay deputies, is as follows: The 9th canon having provided, that some lite- rary qualifications, therein specified, may be dispens- ed with, in consideration of certain other qualifica- tions of the candidate for the ministry, the bishops define the latter to be, a considerable extent of theo- logical learning, a peculiar aptitude to teach, and a large share of prudence. The 40th canon having referred to persons, who join a congregation of this church from some other religious society, the bishops rested the evidence of the membership of such a congregation on the two circumstances, of their being baptized persons, and of their possessing an interest in its concerns, by express or implied permission. But lliere is a caution against its being supposed, that a 37 more definite mode for the same object may not hereafter be profitably adopted. It was thougiit proper in this convention, to issue a declaration, that the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, is the church formerly known among us, under the name of " the Church of Eng- land in America." Accordingly, an instrument to this effect was drawn up by the bishops, and receiv- ed the approbation of the house of clerical and lay deputies. At the suggestion of the bishops, the house of clerical and lay deputies joined them in an instru- ment, designed for the introduction of the posture of standing, during the singing of any portion of the psalms or hymns in metre. This comely practice had recently been introduced, in some of the congrega- tions of this church: in all of which, it was heretofore the custom to sit, during that act of devotion. In consideration of the scarcity of the homilies of the church of Englf^nd, and of their being recog- nized by the articles of this church, although with due regard to the diversity of local circumstances, the two houses made a provision, which has occa- sioned an edition of them in this country. In the event of a failure of this, they were to be provided for the use of candidates for the ministry, by the bishops, or other ecclesiastical authorities in the re- spective states. On the journal of the last triennial convention, the providing for an episcopacy in the western states 38 was held out as a desirable object. Intermediate cir- cumstances having prevented the acting on this bu- siness, it was again held out as a matter to be kept in view. On the same journal there was recorded a mea- sure, designed to obtain from the society (in Eng- land) for Propagating the Gospel, a legal title to lands in Vermont; originally appropriated for the episcopal church in those states, but vested in that society in trust. All proceedings in this business was suspended, at first by the circumstance that the necessary documents were not in preparation; and since, by the occurrence of the war. In consequence of a communication to the bishops proposing to them, what was considered as a profit- able improvement in the Book of Common Prayer; they proposed to the house of clerical and lay depu- ties a declaration, that it was not intended to bring the Book under review during this convention. And in consequence of a communication proposing to the bishops, to give their sanction to a work on a sub- ject of great importance in religion, they made it a rule of their house, that in future, no application of this sort shall be considered as regularly before them: and they proposed to the house of clerical and lay deputies, a declaration to the same effect. The house of clerical and lay deputies signified their concurrence in the proposals, with tlieir thanks, for what they called " the judicious course adopted in reference to these subjects.^^^ 39 A question was moved in each of the houses, as to the propriety of estabhshing a theological school, to be exclusively under the patronage of the general convention. The subject was referred to a future meeting of the body; and in the mean time, measures were to be taken to ascertain the general wish on the subject, in each of the states. A proposal was also made, to grant an exclusive copy-right of the Book of Common Prayer, for a valuable consideration. This also was delayed, under the same provision for the ascertaining of the gene- ral sense of the church; and with it, advice in law. As at each of the last two conventions, a pastoral letter was drawn up by the house of bishops, and read in the house of clerical and lay deputies. The convention appointed their next triennial meeting to be in the city of New York. R. Agreeably to appointment at the last general convention, there assembled another in the city of New York, on the 20th of May 1817. There were present all the bishops: the house then consisting of bishops White, Hobart, Griswold, Dehon, Moore, Kemp, and Croes. The occasion was opened by a discourse from bishop Griswold.* * During the recess of the convention, Dr. Kemp had been consecrated on the 1st day of September, 1814, in Christ church, in the city of Brunswick, New Jersey by the presiding bishop, assisted by bishops Hobart and Moore. And Dr. Croes had been consecrated on the 19th day of November, 1815, in St. Peter's church in the city of Philadelphia, by the presiding bishop, assisted by bishops Hobart and Kemp. 40 In consequence of an application from the church in North Carolina, in which a convention had been held, the said church was considered as having ac- ceeded to the ecclesiastical constitution. From the time of the revolutionary war, there had been but temporary supplies of the ministry, in a few places; but some clergymen, recently settled in the state, in connexion with some influential lay gentlemen, had taken active measures for the revival of our communion. The presiding bishop, made report of sundry matters committed to him, by the last convention. They were the certifying to the venerable society (in England) for the Propagation of the Gospel, of cer- tain facts in favour of the church in Vermont, rela- tively to lands of which the titles were vested in the society — the taking of measures, relatively to the or- ganizing of the church beyond the Alleghany moun- tains, and the republishing of the journals of this church from the beginning. The first and the last had been carried into effect, and the other had been attended to, as far as circumstances would permit. The thanks of the house were voted to the presiding bishop. Relatively to the last mentioned subject, the house of bishops saw cause, to record their opinion as fol- lows: Resolved, that it be recommended to the Episco- pal congregations in the states referred to in the above communications, where conventions are not already organized, to organize conventions, which 41 may be received into union with this convention, and, vvlien expedient, may unite, according to the canons, in the choice of a bishop, having jurisdiction over those states; and that this convention have received with much satisfaction information of the measures which have been already adopted in the state of Ohio, for the organization of the Church in that state. Resolved, that though the measure of a conven- tion comprising sundry states in the western country, may be a measure of temporary expediency, it can- not be authorised by this convention consistently with the general constitution of the church, which recognizes only a convention of the church in each state. Resolved, that it be earnestly recommended to the authorities of this church, in each state respect- ively, to adopt measures for sending missionaries to our destitute brethren in the w^estern states: such missionaries to be subject to the direction of the ec- clesiastical authority of the state or states in which they may officiate. Resolved, that the presiding bishop be requested to transmit the foregoing resolutions to such person or persons as he may judge proper." This resolve was carried into effect, partly by a canon made during the session, and partly by a for- warding of the contemplated communications. The several bishops made reports on the sense of the church in their respective dioceses, on the subject of a theological school. There was diversity of opinion . but the general sense, in both houses, was F 42 in favour of a general school; which on the proposal of the house of bishops, and with the consent of the house of clerical and lay deputies, was determined to be instituted in New York. For the carrying of the design into effect there was chosen a committee, con- sisting of members of both houses. On the part of the house of bishops, there were chosen bishops White, Hobart, and Croes; and on the part of the house of clerical and lay deputies, Drs. Wharton, Harris, and How, honourable Rufus King, Charles Fenton Mercer, Esq., and WiUiam Meredith, Esq. The house of bishops thought it expedient, to make a solemn call on the attention of the clergy in relation to the 22d canon, which enjoins on them diligence in catechetical instruction and lectures. The bishops consider these as among the most important duties of clergymen, and among the most effectual means of promoting religious knowledge and prac- tical piety. It being represented to the house of bishops by bishop Hobart, that the congregation of du St. Esprit in the city of New York, having joined the commu- nion of the episcopal church, with their minister, who had lately received episcopal ordination, which congregation consisted originally of protestant emi- grants from France; and there being many to whom the French language is still more familiar than the English, it is expedient that they be furnished with the Liturgy in the former language; and that there is such a Liturgy, not sanctioned by this con- vention; it was recommended to the said bishop to 43 cause the said French Liturgy to be examined, in order to ascertain how far the translation is correct; and to confirm the use thereof, with such amend- ments and improvements as the case may call for; and to declare it to be the Liturgy which may be used by any minister of this church who may offici- ate in a congregation to whom the French language is famihar. The bishops issued the following call on the members of this church; and sent it to the house of clerical and lay deputies, to be there read: which was accordingly done: " The house of bishops, solicitous for the preser- vation of the purity of the church, and the piety of its members, are induced to impress upon the clergy the important duty, with a discreet but earnest zeal, of warning the people of their respective cures, of the danger of an indulgence in those worldly plea- sures which may tend to withdraw the affections from spiritual things. And especially on the subject of gaming, of amusements involving cruelty to the brute creation, and of theatrical representations, to which some peculiar circumstances have called their atten- tion,— they do not hesitate to express their unani- mous opinion, that these amusements, as well from their hcentious tendency, as from the strong temp- tations to vice which they aflford, ought not to be frequented. And the bishops cannot refrain from ex- pressing their deep regret at the information that in some of our large cities, so little respect is paid to the feelings of the members of the church, that the- 44 atrical representations are fixed for the evenings of her most solemn festivals." On the question referred by the last convention, to be reported on in this, relatively to the copy-right of the Book of Common Prayer; the measure was considered as disapproved of, so far as opinion could be ascertained. A proposed change in the ecclesiastical constitu- tion, was referred to the several state conventions. It was to change the time of the triennial meeting to the 1st Tuesday in October. The house of clerical and lay deputies proposed to the house of bishops, the designating of a standard copy of the Old and New Testaments. It was too late to enter on the business, and " the house of bishops deeming the fulfilment of the request of the house of clerical and lay deputies, on the subject of an authentic edition of the Holy Bible, a matter requir- ing very serious attention and deliberation, resolve, that its members will give such attention and delibe- ration to the subject, previously to the next meeting of the general convention, and report at the said meeting. The table of degrees of consanguinity and affinity, prohibitory of marriage was again referred; and a committee was appointed on the subject, bishops White, Kemp, and Croes. There passed three canons. The first was the limiting of the operation of the 2d and 37th canons, so lar as regarded the states westward of the moun- tains. The professed reason, was, the providing of 45 that country with a bishop, if a suitable person should be presented, whatever might be the number of resi- dent presbyters, and even if there be none. There was tlie further reason, that if it should be thought convenient to unite with a western diocess the west- ern counties of Pennsylvania and Virginia; and if there should be the consent of the church in each of the said states, there might be a temporary provi- sion for the purpose, consistent with the integrity of the church in each state. The second canon makes a clergyman^s renun- ciation of the ministry a cause of admonition, or of suspension or of degradation. The third canon provided, that in the case of expulsion from the communion, and information given to the bishop as required by the second rubric before the communion service; if the expelled party make no complaint, there shall be no inquiry insti- tuted. The bishop on receiving complaint, is to in- stitute an inquiry, and the notice given by the minis- ter is a sufficient presentation. A pastoral letter was again drawn up by the house of bishops, and read in the house of clerical and lay deputies. When the convention adjourned, Philadelphia was appointed to be the place of the next meeting. S. 3. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND REMARKS. A. Page 7. Of the Question of American Episcopacy, as agitated in the Colonies. There were two periods, which were especiallj^ productive of pamphlets and newspaper essays on this subject. The first of these periods, was about the time of the civil controversy, which arose on the occasion of the stamp act. The question of Ame- rican Episcopacy was brought forward in a pam- phlet by the Rev. East Apthorp, missionary at Cam- bridge, Massachusetts; a native of that province, but afterwards possessed of several considerable prefer- ments in England. His production was answered by Dr. Mayhew, a congregational minister of Bos- ton. Several others engaged in the dispute; among whom was Abp. Seeker; although his name was not prefixed to his pamphlet, which has been since printed in his works. The other period was a few years before the revolutionary war; when the Rev. Dr. Chandler of 48 Elizabeth-Town, New-Jersey, made an appeal to the public, in favour of the object of obtaining an American Episcopate. There were various answers to the pamphlet and defences of it, in other pam- phlets published by the Doctor and others. In addi- tion to these, the newspapers abounded with peri- odical and other productions. The author of the present performance was at that time a youth: but from what he then heard and observed, he beheves it was impossible to have obtained the concurrence of a respectable number of laymen, in any measure for the obtaining of an American Bishop. What could have been the reason of this, when there was scarcely a member of the Episcopal Church, who would not have been ready to avow his preference of episcopacy to presbytery; and of a form of prayer, to that which is extemporary? It is believed to have been owing to an existing jealousy, that American Episcopacy would have been made an instrument of enforcing the new plan of civil government, which had been adopted in Great Britain ; in contrariety to original compact and future security for freedom: a regard to which was as prevalent among episcopa- lians, as among any description of their fellow-citi- zens. Perhaps these sentiments may be supposed to be contradicted by the circumstance, that during the revolutionary war, a considerable number of the American people became inclined to the British cause; and, tliat of them, a great proportion were episcopalians. But this is not inconsistent witli the 49 sentiments exprei=ised. On the subject of parliamen- tary taxation, it would probably have been impossi- ble to have found in any city, town, or vicinity of the colonies, such a number of persons not vehemently opposed to it, as would have been sufficient to form a congregation. Out of the sphere oi' governmental influence, there was scarcely a man of that descrip- tion. When tlie controveisy became ripened into war, some fell off frojn the cause, from danger to their persons and their properties; others, Irom the sentiment that the public evil hazarded, might prove w^orse than that intended to be avoided; and others perhaps, although very few, from scruples of con- science. They who were influenced by these, had stopt short at the taking of arms; for which, the pas- sion was general. To tind freedom in this step, and yet to withdraw while the cause of so important a measure existed, may have been the dictate of pru- dence, but could not have been that of conscience. All the aforesaid circumstances operated with in- creased vigour, when the question of independence was forced on the reluctant public. Had the British arms succeeded, and thus the right of parliamentary taxation been established — for there w as no offer of relinquishment of it, until after the alliance with France — a membership of the Episcopal Church would have been little more than a political mark, to distinguish those who should advocate claims hostile to American interests. To persons who may give their attention to the colonial history, the question may occur — Why did G 50 not the British government so far consult its own interests, as to authorise the consecrating of bishops for America? This question shall be considered, on the ground of views taken of past incidents. Any ministry, who should have ventured on the measure, w^ould have raised up against themselves the whole of the dissenting interest in England; and the weight of that interest was more important to them in their estimation, than the making of a party for the mother country in the colonies. The matter is re- solveable into the ignorance of government of the real state of the people, whom they expected to go- vern so easily, at so great a distance. Again, this ignorance is resolveable into their depending on in- formation received from persons, whose judgments or whose honesty they ought, the most of all, to have distrusted: an error, which hung heavily on all their proceedings, until the period when it ceased to be of consequence. Lest it should be thought, that the dissenting in- terest in England has been magnified; it ought to be known, that the forces of the different denomina- tions of dissenters — with the exception of the people called quakers — was concentrated in a committee in London. The author was acquainted with a member of that committee in England, in 1771 and 1772; and knew that he had free access to the ministry. The impression then received, was its being an object of government to avoid any thing of a religious nature, which might set the dissenters in a political opposi- 51 tion. They had great influence in elections to par- Hament. As to the laity^s uniting in an application for the episcopacy; it is natural to suppose, that this, if to be found any where, would have been found in Vir- ginia; a province settled by members of the Church of England, who were still the great mass of its in- habitants. How far they were from favouring the endeavour, may be learned from the following state- ment. In the year 1771, a convention of twelve clergy- men, there being about a hundred in the province, and, after a larger convention had rejected the mea- sure now adopted, drew up a petition to the crown for the appointment of an American bishop. Four of the clergy protested; and, because of their protest, received the thanks of the house of Burgesses. When it is considered, that a great majority of that house must have been of the establishment; that there never had been any attempt among them to throw off any property of its distinctive character; tliat they must have felt the want of ecclesiastical discipline over immoral clergymen, and the burthen of sending to England for ordination; there seems no way of accounting for their conduct, but the dan- ger resulting from the newly introduced system of colonial government. This is warranted by the ab- surdity of the reasons on which the protest of the four clergymen was bottomed; among which, per- haps the most absurd, was professed respect for the diocesan authority of the bishops of London: it be- 52 ing notorious, that the then bishop and his immedi- ate predecessors had manifested zeal for the appoint- ment now opposed. In consequence of the proceed- ing of the house of Burgesses, a convention of the clergy of New York and New Jersey published an address to the episcopalians in Virginia, drawn up by Dr. Chandler. It must be evident on reading the address, that the reasoning of it was unanswerable; and that, as the address expresses, there were on the other side " only unreasonable jealousies and ground- less suspicions:" unreasonable and groundless, so far as they were declared, and referring to titles to civil offices, and the like; while there was a senti- ment silently operating, to the effect above stated. Whether the address of the twelve clergy crossed the Atlantic, is not here known. This was to de- pend on its being signed by a majority of the clergy of the province; which was probably prevented by the public sentiment. It is remarkable, that of the two gentlemen appointed by the house of Burgesses to deliver their thanks to the four protestors, the first named of them — Richard Henry Lee, fifteen years after, and then president of congress, did not hesi- tate to furnish to the two bishops who went for con- secration, a certificate that the business on which they went was consistent with the civil institutions of the American republic* * For the correctness of the opinion expressed of the utter inability of the British administrations for the government of the colonies, there may be here a reference to Bisset's History of the Reign of George III. This author wrote in opposition 53 Certain it is, that no endeavours for a lay peti- tion for episcopacy were made. Some accounted for this, on tiie principle, that as the wished for bishop would have a relation to the clergy only, the matter concerned them and none others. But what sort of a bishop would he have been; who should have had no relation to the laity, except through the medium of the clergy? The well-informed advocates for episcopacy, must doubtless have known the im- perfection of such a scheme: but they who suggested the proviso, must have considered it as a prudential expedient. Had bishops been consecrated for America, on the plan proposed by Archbishop Seeker; the civil government no further interfering than in the grant of the royal permission; it is difficult to perceive, how hindrance could have been attempted by any description of persons, without an avowal of intoler- ance; and without a disposition to unprovoked insur- rection, beyond what can be supposed from any thing that passed of a political description. That good prelate^s scheme is unfolded in his letter to Mr. Wal- pole, printed among the prelate's works. From the circumstance, that, since the revolution, an act of parliament was held necessary to permit the giving to Belsham, and may therefore be supposed on the whole fa- vourable to government. But he points out with candour the contrariety between the views of ministers, and the conse- quences of their acts — evidently bottomed on false information, and their relying on the persons whom they ought the most to have disti'usted. 54 of a beginning to the American succession, it may be thought, that the archbishop was mistaken, in his opinion of the sufficiency of the hcence of the king. But this would not be a correct inference. The case became altered by the event of American indepen- dence: and although there was legislative interfer- ence in regard to the church in the United States; there have been bishops consecrated for Nova Scotia and Canada, on royal authority only; agreeably to the opinion which had been expressed by Archbishop Seeker. On the ground of the practicability of giving bishops to America, without invoking the aid of par- liament; it was the opinion of the author, at the time of the controversy here noticed, that no disturbance would have happened, however threatened by some who were indeed very violent on the subject. But he is not backward to acknowledge, that he thought he foresaw difficulties to the episcopal church, from the other source here hinted. It was not unlikely, that the British government, had they sanctioned an episcopacy in the colonies, would have endeavoured to render it subservient to the sup- port of a party, on the plan of the newly projected domination. In this case, the effects would have been hostile to the estimation of episcopacy in the minds of the people; the great mass of whom, in- cluding the best informed, and those who had the property of the country in their hands, had set them- selves in a determined, and, as the author thinks, a justifiable opposition to the new system. 55 It is well known, that religious opinion has been often made, by circumstances, the test and the in- strument of a political party; when the views of the party had not any more natural connexion with the opinion, than witli its opposite. Thus, in England, Arniinianism was conceived of as allied to absolute monarchy, and Calvinism to popular privilege; at the same time that, in the United Netherlands, the latter supported the monarchical, and the former the republican branch of the constitution. The griev- ances which produced the American war, were the result of claims of one people over another; and not of the question, as to what would be the wisest dis- tribution of the internal powers of either. Besides, it may be remarked, that episcopacy, as now settled in America, must be confessed at least as analogous as presbytery — the author thinks much more so — to the plan of civil government, which mature deh- beration has established over the union ; and to those plans which, even during the heats of popular com- motion, were adopted for the individual states. The sentiment wished to be here impressed, is, that epis- copacy, under the old regimen, would have probably been considered as subservient to an authority, of the decline and final abrogation of which there were causes, which must have produced their effect at last; if the effect had not been hastened much faster than could have been expected, by intemperate coun- sels and by injudicious measures. It would be a misinterpretation of what the au- thor has here written; were it applied as a censure 56 on what some of his brethren, who were before him, have advanced in favour of their rigiit to an episco- pate. Far from this, he honours their memories; and considers the arguments on which they rested their claim, as unanswerable. What has been said, is merely an argument from certain causes existing in the character and the circumstances of the Ameri- can people, to what would have been the effects in a supposed case, which did not occur. It may be thought, that there should be allowed a large deduction from the weight of the observations made, on account of the proportion of the American people, whose conduct or whose wishes were in con- trariety to the general sentiment of their country- men. But this is apparent only. There were no persons more hostile to the British claims, than they who withdrew Irom the resistance of them : this with very few exceptions. When the controversy issued in war, and afterwards in independence; at each of the periods there was a large defection from the American cause, produced by the motives which have been detailed. No doubt, the number of dissentients was in- creased by unjustifiable measures of the newly erect- ed governments in some of the states. Still, the sen- timent was universal, of the sacred nature of the rights invaded; and would again have had its effect on the minds of the temporary advocates of Great Britain, had the war terminated in her favour. Further; the opinions here expressed may seem indicative of aversion to the British character, in the 57 author's mind. Far from entertaining any such aver- sion, he prefers the laws and the manners of the Britisli nation, to those of any other; either from par- tiality to the country of his ancestors; or, as he be- lieves, in consequence of an impartial coujparison. But he reasons on the princi})le, which he thinks warranted by the experience of all ages, that national domination, under whatever circumstances, will be tyranny. An individual may be a tyrant, or other- wise, according to his personal character: but no people ever stuck at any crimes, which advanced tlieir wealth at the expense of those governed by them ; especially, if it were at a distance. In short, however great the inconveniences brought on the episcopal cliurch in America by the revolu- tion; the author has all along cherished the hope, that they will not be permanently so injurious to her, as would have been her alliance with a distant power, in hostility to the common interests of the country; accompanied by the jealousies and the odium, which would have been attached to that circumstance. Perhaps, it may be thought, that a deduction should be made from any apparent weight in the theory here delivered, on account of the establish- ments existing in Maryland and Virginia: which would not have been overset by the British govern- ment. The subsequently prostrate condition of the church in these states, may be urged as a proof of the advantages which would have attended a con- tinuance of the establishment. But this reasoning is inadmissible; if, as before supposed, the prostration H 58 was owing to the preceding system; of an amend- ment of which there was no prospect. Besides, it should be remembered, that before the revolution, the parts of those states, now the most populous, were fast settling by persons differing from the es- tablishment. Even in the old parts, numbers were leaving the church, to attend the ministrations of preachers, who had recently availed themselves of the very little regard entertained for their clergy, to produce a popular desertion of the church itself Under such circumstances, it was hardly to be ex- pected, that the establishment would have redounded to the reputation and the increase of the church ge- nerally. It was becoming more and more unpopu- lar; with some, because it was not considered as pro- moting piety; and with these and others, because they thought the provision for it a useless burthen on the community.* * On the question of burthen, as detached from all other considerations, there is a fallacy not generally perceived. Un- der the present system, if the Gospel should be supported in the states concerned, as may now be confidently expected, the weight of the expense will fall disproportionably on people of moderate means. During the establishment, it fell on the rich, in tolerable proportion to their wealth. There is another fallacy in this business, in the reproach brought on the church; when it ought to have fallen on the want of wisdom in the making of ministerial endowments, without some provision for ministerial fidelity. Hence, however, a great proportion of the unpopularity, which led to the seizure and the sale of churches and glebes by the legislature of Virginia. It ought to be remembered, to the ho- nour of Patrick Henry, that he resisted the said act, and that it 59 There is a remarkable fact in Virginia, counte- nancing the sentiments dehvered. After the fall of the establishment, a considerable proportion of the clergy continued to enjoy the glebes — the law con- sidering them as freeholds during life — without performing a single act of sacred duty: except, per- haps, that of marriage. They knew, that their pub- lic ministrations would not have been attended. B. Page 8. Of tJw Qiiestion of using the Liturgy, exclusively of the Prayers for the King and the Royal Family. As the cessation of the public worship of the episcopal church was very much ow ing to scruples on this point; it may be thought important, in refer- ence to such future political changes, as are rendered possible by the uncertainty of human affairs. could never be obtained until after his decease. This eminent man has been accused, of having always set his sail to the popu- lar gale. There are several facts against the charge, and this is one of them: for he had to resist, through many years, the united efforts of men hostile to revealed religion in every form, and of other men who were professors of religion, but cherished rancorous hatred against the church of England in particular. The author is the more free in speaking of the act of the legislature of Virginia, as it will go do^\^l to posterity, loaded with the reproach of unconstitutionality, by the supreme court of the United States: although their judgment Avill have no effect beyond the district of Columbia. See Cranch's Reports. Vol. 9. 60 So far as the author knows or beheves, the diffi- culties which arose on this account were not of great extent in the southern states. In Maryland and in Virginia, there were many of the clergy whose con- nexions with their flocks were rendered, by their personal characters, dependent wholly on the con- tinuance of the establishment; and, of course fell with it. Again, many worthy ministers entertained scru- ples, in regard to the oath of allegiance to the States, without the taking of which, they were prohibited from officiating, by laws alike impolitic and severe. But it must be seen, that scruples of this sort were of another nature than the question here stated for consideration. In the northern states, there were no such laws; but the clergy generally declined offici- ating, on the ground of their ecclesiastical tie to the liturgy of the church of England. As they were ge- nerally men of respectable characters, the discontin- uance of their administrations had an unhappy effect on the church; and is here mentioned, as one cause contributing to the low state in which we were left by the revolutionary war. With all possible tenderness to the plea of con- scientious scruples, it will not be rash to affirm, that there was no ground for them in the promise — not an oath, as some suppose, although of equal solem- nity— made previously to ordination in the church of England. It is as Ibllovvs: The candidate declares — " That the Book of Common Prayer and of order- ing of bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God; and that it may 61 lawfully so be used; and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed, in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, and no other." This promise ought to be taken in connexion with the pastoral duty generally; and with the dis- charaje of it as stipulated for in the promises made at ordination; which require of the minister the reading of the prayers, and the administration of the sacra- ments. But there occurs a case, in which there is an ex- ternal necessity of omitting a few petitions, not in- volved in any Christian duty; so far as civil rulers are identified by name, or other personal description. In such a case, it seems evident, that the promise is the most nearly compUed with, by the use of the liturgy to the extent which the external necessity permits. When the Church of England was oppressed un- der the usurpations of parhament and of Cromwell; the clergy were molested in the use of the liturgy, because it was made illegal by act of parliament. But wherever the use of it was winked at, of which there are instances on record, they did not hesitate to avail themselves of the indulgence, with the exception of the political prayers; the use of which would have been highly penal. For the communication with the court of Den- mark, as contained in the Narrative, see Appendix. No. 1. 62 C. Page 11. Of the Meeting in JVew- Brunswick, m May, 1784. The first communications, between the clergy of different stales, were at this meeting. It took its rise, from a previous agreement between those of the city of New York and those of Philadelphia, carried on through the medium of the Rev. Abraham Beach, then resident in or near Brunswick. The substance of what passed is as follows: There met, from the state of New York, the Rev. Messrs, Bloomer, Benjamin Moore, and Thomas Moore; from New Jersey, the Rev. Messrs. Beach, Fraser, and Ogden; and from Pennsylvania, the Rev. Dr. White, Dr. Magaw, and Mr. Blackwell. There happened to be in the town, on civil business, some lay-gentlemen, who, being represented by the clergy from New York and New Jersey as taking an in- terest in the welfare of the church, were requested to attend. They were Mr. John Stephens, Mr. Richard Stephens, Mr. Richard Dennis, and Mr. Hiet. The author presided at the meeting, and open- ed it with a sermon. Mr. B. Moore was secretary. The first day was chiefly taken up, with discuss- ing principles of ecclesiastical union. The clergy from Philadelphia read to the assembly the principles just before adopted, under appointments of their ves- tries, as will be related hereafter; and strongly recom- mended their taking of similar measures. The next 63 morning, the author was taken aside, bclbre the meet- ing, by Mr. Benjamin Moore; who expressed the wish of himself and others, that nothing should be urged further on the subject; as they found them- selves peculiarly circumstanced, in consequence of their having joined the clergy of Connecticut in their application tor the consecration of a bishop. This brought to the knowledge of the clergy from Phila- delphia, what they had not known, that Dr. Samuel Seabury of the state of New York, who had sailed for England just before the evacuation of New York by the British troops, carried with him a petition to the English bishops for his consecration. In consequence of the measure taken as above stated, the gentlemen concerned in it thought, that during the pending of their application, they could not consistently join in any proceedings, which might be construed to interfere with it. Accordingly, the conversation of that day — on which the meeting ended — was principally confined to the business of the revival of the corporation for the relief of the widows and the children of the clergy; which had been held out, as an additional object of the interview.* But before the clergy parted, it was agi'eed to pro- cure as general a meeting as might be, of represen- tatives of the clergy and of the laity of the different states, in the city of New York, on the 6th of Octo- ber following. The gentlemen of New York were * This corporation, by mutual consent, and with a fair par- tition of the funds, has since resolved itself into three corpora- tions, under charters from the three states. 64 to notify the brethren eastward; and those of Phila- delphia were to do the same southward. The author remarked at this meeting, that, not- withstanding the good humour which prevailed at it, the more northern clergymen were under apprehen- sions of there being a disposition on the part of the more southern, to make material deviation from the ecclesiastical system of England, in the article of church government. At the same time he wondered, that any sensible and well informed persons should overlook the propriety of accommodating that sys- tem, in some respects, to the prevailing sentiments and habits of the people of this country; now become an independent and combined commonwealth. For the application of the clergy of Connecticut to the archbishop of York, the English primacy hav- ing become vacant, and the successor to it being not yet known in America; see Appendix No. 2. D. Page 11. Of the Meeting in JVew York, in Oc- tober 1784. There were present from Massachusetts, the Rev. Mr. Parker; from Connecticut, the Rev. Mr. Mar- shall; from New York, the Rev. Messrs. Provoost, Reach, R. Moore, Rloomer, Cutting, T. Moore, and the Hon. James Duane, Marinus Willet, and J. Alsop, Esquires; from New Jersey, the Rev. Mr. Ogden, and John De Hart, John Chetvvood, Esquires, and Mr. Samuel Spragg; from Pennsylvania, the Rev. 65 Drs. White and Magaw, the Rev. Mr. Hutch ins, and Matthew Clarkson, Richard Wilhng, Samuel Powell, and Richard Peters, Esquires; from Delaware, the Rev. Messrs. Thorne and Wharton, and IMr. Robert Clay; from Maryland, the Rev. Dr. Smith; and from Virginia, the Rev. Mr. Griffith. The Rev. Dr. Smith presided, and the Rev. B. Moore was secretaiy. The names of the members are set down, because they do not appear on the subsequent journals; and be- cause the short printed account of the proceedings of this meeting was in very few hands at the time, and is probably at this time generally destroyed or lost. The present meeting, like that in May, is here spoken of as a voluntary one, and not an authorized convention: because there were no authorities Irom the churches in the several states, even in the ap- pointments of the members; which were made from the congregations, to which they respectively be- longed; except of Mr. Parker, froni Massachusetts, of Mr. Marshall, from Connecticut, and of those who attended from Pennsylvania: even from these states, there was no further authority, than to deliberate and propose. Accordingly, the acts of the body were in the form of recommendation and proposal. The principles of ecclesiastical union, recom- mended at the meeting, September 1784, are as fol- lows: 1st. That there shall be a general convention of the episcopal church, in the United States of America. 66 2d. That the episcopal church, in each state, send deputies to the convention, consisting of clergy a«d laity. 3d. That associated congregations, in two or more states, may send deputies jointly. 4th. That the said church shall maintain the doc- trines of the Gospel, as now held by the church of Ensfland; and shall adhere to the liturgy of the said church, as far as shall be consistent with the Ame- rican revolution, and the constitutions of the respec- tive states. .5th. That in every state, where there shall be a bishop duly consecrated and settled, he shall be con- sidered as a member of the convention ex officio. 6th. That the clergy and laity, assembled in con- vention, shall deliberate in one body; but shall vote separately: and the concurrence of both shall be necessary, to give validity to every measure. 7th. That the first meeting of the convention shall be at Piiiladelphia, the Tuesday before the feast of St. Michael next; to which it is hoped, and earnestly desired, that the episcopal churches in the several states will send their clerical and lay deputies, duly instructed and authorised to proceed on the necessary business herein proposed for their deli- beration. The above resolves were, in substance, what had been determined on in Pennsylvania, in May; and after having been discussed and accommodated in a committee, were adopted by the assembly. 67 It is proper to remark, that although a clergy- man appeared at this meeting, on the part of the church in Connecticut, it is not to be thought, that there was an obligation on any in that state, to sup- port the above principles; because Mr. Marshall read to the assembly a pai)er, which expressed his being only empowered to announce, that the clergy of Con- necticut had taken measures lor the obtaining of an episcopate; that until their design, in that particular, should be accomplished, they could do nothing; but that as soon as they should have succeeded, they would come forward, with their bishop, for the do- ing of what the general interests of the church might require. With this exception, the principles laid down ap- peared to be the sense of the meeting: and it seemed a great matter gained, to lay what promised to be a foundation for the continuing of the episcopal church, in the leading points of her doctrine, discipline, and worship; yet with such an accommodation to local circumstances, as might be expected to secure the concurrence of the great body of her members; and without any exterior opposition, to threaten the over- setting of the scheme. At the present day, it may seem to have been of little consequence, to gain so considerable an assent, to what was determined at this meeting. But at the time in question, when the crisis presented a subject of deliberation entirely new, it was difficult to detach it in the minds of many, from a past habitual train of thinking. Some were startled at the very cir- 68 cumstance, of taking the stand of an independent church. There was a much more common preju- dice, against the embracing of the laity in a scheme of ecclesiastical legislation. Besides these things, the confessed necessity of accommodating the ser- vice to the newly established civil constitution of the country, naturally awakened apprehensions of un- limited licence. Hence the restriction to the English liturgy, except in accommodation to the revolution: which restriction was not acquiesced in, as will be seen. E . Page 1 2 . Of Proceedings in sundry states, previous to the Meetings in 1 784, at JSew Brunswick, and at JVeiv York. As this convention acted by delegation, an ac- count of the said proceedings seems to form a part of the present work. The principles agreed on, at the said meetings, were analogous to those in the several states; with the exception of what was done by the clergy indi- vidually, in Connecticut. In iViassachusetts there was held a meeting of the clergy at Boston, September 8, 1784. In a letter received by the author from the Rev. Mr. Parker at the time, it appears, that the principal business of this meeting was the passing of the following re- solves; which have evidently an allusion to what had been done in Philadelphia iu the preceding May; and 69 eominiinicated to Mr. Parker. The articles agreed on in Pliiladelphia, will appear lower down. Those of Boston are, 1st, That the episcopal church in the United States of America is, and ought to be independent of all foreign authority, ecclesiastical and civil. But it is the opinion of this convention, that this independence be not construed or taken in so rigorous a sense, as to exclude the churches in America, separately or collectively, from applying for and obtaining from some regular episcopal foreign power, an American episcopate. 2dly, That the episcopal church in these states hath and ought to have, in common with all other religious societies, full and exclusive powers to regu- late the concerns of its own communion. 3dly, That the doctrines of the Gospel be main- tained, as now professed by the church of England; and uniformity of worship be continued, as near as may be to the Liturgy of the said church. 4thly, That the succession of the ministry be agreeable to the usage, which requireth the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons; that the rights and powers of the same be respectively ascertained; and that they be exercised according to reasonable laws, to be duly made. 5thly, That the power of* making canons and laws be vested solely in a representative body of the cleigy and the laity conjointly; in which body, the laity ought not to exceed, or their votes be more in number, than those of the clergy. 70 6thly, That no power be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government; except such as cannot conveniently be exercised by the clergy and vestries, in their respective congregations. The only points in which the above differ from those v^'hich will be recorded, as laid down in Phila- delphia, are, that in the former, they provide for an application to a foreign quarter; which was agreeable to intentions entertained in framing the latter, al- though not expressed; and that in the fifth article of the former it is specified, that the clergy and the laity ought to have an equal vote. This matter was after- wards settled to mutual satisfaction, in the meeting at New York. It is here taken notice of, because there was afterwards manifested a disposition in Massachusetts, to depart from the principles agreed on ; that the clergy of that state, instead of sending a deputation to Fhiladephia in September, 1785, held a meeting of their own about the same time in Boston, in which they made considerable alterations in the Liturgy. Although they doubtless acted agreeably to what seemed best to them at the different times; yet this fluctuation of counsels is recorded, lest the latter measure, contemplated singly, should seem to do away the weight of the principles antecedently es- tabhshed. In Connecticut, there was a meeting of the cler- gy, in March 1783; the principal measure of which, was the recommending of Dr. Samuel Seabury to the English bishops, for consecration. This was an act of the clergy generally in that state, and of a few 71 in New York; and is rat'ifr to be considered as done by them in their individii;^! capacities, than as a re- gular ecclesiastical proceeding; because, as yet, there had not been any organized assembly, who could claim the power of acting for the church in conse- quence of either the express or the implied consent of the body of episcopalians. They who consider the bisiiop of a diocess, as related to its clergy alone, may diflfer from the author in this remark. But al- though he has heard such an opinion advanced in con- versation, and even remembers it to have been some- times published in the former controversies concern- ing American episcopacy; yet, it is so evidently con- trary to the system as gathered from Scripture, and primitive antiquity, that he does not suppose it will be maintained in deliberate argument. His recording of this circumstance is not designed, either in dispa- ragement ot the personal character of bishop Sea- bury, or as doubting of the approbation of the mea- sure by the whole church, in which he has since presided. In regard to the former, the author enter- tained for that bishop much affection and respect; the result of what was afterwards perceived in per- son, of his good sense and christian disposition. As to the latter, it is behoved from what has been since learned, that no man could have been more accept- able; independently on the inclination said to have been afterwards manifested, of leaving all ecclesias- tical matters to the clergy: which was done for a wliile; although the laity have been since introduced into the convention, as in the other states. But the 72 subject is here noticed, as one cause accounting for the failure of the application in England: a sentiment confirmed by subsequent information, as will appear in its proper place. From letters in possession «f the author, he finds, that in Connecticut, the idea of lay representation in ecclesiastical legislation, became associated with that of the trial and the degradation of clergymen by the same authority. That there is no such necessary association, is evident in the English system. In Pennsylvania, there was a convention of the church, which began on the 24th of May, 1784. The steps leading to this convention were originated by the author, in the vestry of the churches under his parochial care, in consequence of a previous agree- ment with the Rev. Dr. Magaw, the rector of St. Paul's church, and the Rev. Mr. Rlackwell, assistant minister to the author. The said vestry opened a communication on the subject, with the vestry of St. Paul's church: and by agreement of these two bodies, in conjunction with their clergy, notices were given, and suitable measures were taken, for the obtaining of the meeting of the convention. The result of their deliberations, was the estab- lishing of the following principles, as a foundation for the future forming of an ecclesiastical body, for the church at large. 1st, That the episcopal church in these states is, and ought to be, independent of all Ibreign authority, ecclesiastical or civil. 73 2dly, That it hath, and ought to have, in common with all other rehgious societies, full and exchisive powers, to regulate tlie concerns of its own commu- nion. 3dly, That the doctrines of the Gospel be main- tained, as now professed by the church of England; and uniformity of worship continued, as near as may be, to the Liturgy of the said church. 4thly, That the succession of the ministry be agreeable to the usage, which requireth the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons; that the rights and powers of the same, respectively, be ascertained; and that they be exercised according to reasonable laws, to be duly made. 5thly, That to make canons or laws, there be no other authority, than that of a representative body of the clergy and laity conjointly. 6thly, That no powers be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government, except such as cannot conveniently be exercised by the clergy and laity, in their respective congregations.* * The steps preparatory to the resolves were as follow: they were the first advances towards a general organization, and are fopied from the original journal, in possession. Philadelphia, March Q9th, 1784. At the house of the Rev. Dr. White, rector of Christ-church and St. Peter's. In consequence of appointments made by the vesti'y of Christ church and St. Peter's, as followeth: " The rector mentioned to the vestry, that he lately had a conversation with the Rev. Dr. Magaw, on the subject of appointing committees from the vestries of their respective K 74 As this was the first ecclesiastical assembly, in any of the states, consisting partly of lay memberSj churches, to confer with the clergy of the said churches, on the subject of forming a representative body of the episcopal church in this state, and wished to have the sense of vestry thereon. After some consideration, the vestry agreed to appoint Matthew Clarkson and Wm. Pollard for Christ church, and Dr. Clarkson and John Chaloner for St. Peter's;" and by the vestry of St. Vaul's church, as foUoweth: " A copy of the minute of the vestry of Christ church and St. Pet i 's, of the 13th of November last, was, by the Rev. Dr* Magaw, laid before this vestry, and is as follows, (here follows the above minute.) The above minute being taken into consideration, and this vestry concur- ring in opinion thereon, unanimously appointed Lambert Wil*- mer and Plunket Fleeson, Esqrs. on the part of this church, to carry into execution the good int -ntions of the said minute." The clergy, together with the gentlemen named in the said appointments, (except Matthew Clarkson, Esq. and Dr. Clark- son, who were detained by sickness,) assembled at the time and place above mentioned. The body thus assembled, having taken into consideration the necessity of speedily adopting measures for the forming of a plan of ecclesiastical government for the episcopal church, were of opinion, that a subject of such importance ought to be taken up, if possible, with the concurrence of the episcopalians of the United States in general. They, therefore, resolved to ask a conference with such members of the episcopal congre- gations of the counties in this state, as were then in town; and the clergy present undertook to converse with such persons as they could find of the above description, and to request their meet- ing tlie body at Cluist church, on Wednesday evening at seven o'clock. Christ church, March Slst. The clergy and the two committees assembled, and elected Dr. ^^ hit • their chairman. Th« clergy reported, that agieeably to theii* promise, they 75 and as the author was considered at the time to be the proposer of the measure; the principle of it having been advocated, about a year before, in a pamphlet had spoken to scvlmoI gentlemen, who readily consented to the conference proposed. The meeting continued for some time; when it was signified to them, that several gentlemen who liad designed to attend, were detained by the unexpected sitting of the lionourable house of assembly, they being members of that house. The Hon. Jamos Read, Esq. attended, according to desire. After some conversa- tion on the business of this meeting, it was resolved, that a cir- cular letter be addressed to the wardens and vestrymen of the respective episcopal congregations in tlie state, and that the same be as follows, viz. Gentlemen, The episcopal clergy in this city, together with committees appointed by the vestry of Christ church and St. Peter's, and another committee appointed by the vestry of St. Paul's church in the same city, for the purpose of proposing a plan of ecclesiastical government, being now assembled, are of opinion, that a subject of such importance ougiit to be taken up, if possible, with the concurrence of the episcopalians of the United States in general. They have therefore resolved, as preparatory to a general con- sultation, to request the church-wardens and vestrymen of each episcopal congregation in the state, to delegate one oi' more of their body to assist at a meeting to be held in this city on Mon- day the 24th day of May next; and such clergjTnen as have pa- rochial cure in the said congregations to attend the mectino-, which they hope will contain a full representation of the episco- pal church in this state. The above resolve, gentlemen, the first step in their proceedings, tiiey now respectfully and affection- ately communicate to you. Signed, in behalf of the body now assembled, WM. WHITE, Chaii-man, In consequence of tlv? above circular, the contemplated meet- ing was held in Christ church on the 24th of May, 1784. 1 he 76 known to be his; he thinks it proper, to give in this place, a short statement of his reasons, in its favour. From what he has read of primitive usage, he thinks it evident, that in very early times, when every church, that is, the christian people in every city and convenient district round it, was an ecclesiastical commonwealth, with all the necessary powxTs of self- government; the body of the people had a considera- ble share in its determinations. He is not setting up lord King's plea, of the people's having been a constituent part of the ancient ecclesiastical synods; for which there does not seem to be any ground; the passages quoted to the effect by his lordship prov- ing no more, than that some of the laity were occa- sionally present at the deliberations. But there is here spoken of the practice which was prevalent, before the introduction of ecclesiastical synods; of the holding of which there is little or no evidence, until the middle of the second century. The same sanction which the people gave originally in a body, they might lawfully give by representation. In re- ference to very ancient pr^actice, it would be an omission not to take notice of the council of Jerusa- lem, mentioned in the 15th chapter of the Acts. That the people were concerned in the transactions of that body, is granted generally by episcopalian divines. Something has been said, indeed, to distinguish be- tween the authoritative act of the Apostles, and the minutos of the nieofiiig arc in tlie print imI journals of the church in PtMiiisylvania. Tlic pi incipal result, was communicated a few da}'S after, to tiie meeting in New Brunswick* 77 concurring act of the lay brethren: and Abp. Potter, in suj»p(>rt of this distinction, corrects the common translation, on the authority of some ancient manu- scripts, reading (Acts xv. 23.) " elders brethren:" a similar expression, bethinks, to "men brethren," in chapter ii. 29; where the and is evidently an inter- polation, to suit the idiom of the English language. It does not appear, that our best commentators, either belbre or since the time of Abp. Potter, have followed his reading. Mills prefers, and Griesbach rejects it. The passage, even with the corrections, amounts to what is pleaded for — theobtainingof the consent of the laity; which must have accompanied the decree of Jerusalem: nothing less being included in the term "multitude," who are said to have "kept silence;" and in that of " the whole church," of whom, as well as of the apostles and elders, it is said, that "it pleased" them to institute the recorded mission. On no other principle than that here affirmed, can there be ac- counted for many particulars introduced in the apos- tolic epistles- The matters referred to are subjects, which, on the contrary supposition, were exclusively within the province of the clergy; and not to be acted on by the churches, to whom the epistles are rss- pectively addressed. If then the matter pleaded for be lawful; the question of the propriety of adopting it ought to be determined by expediency. That it was expedient, is judged, 1st. from its being a natural consequence of the principle of following the church of England, in all the leading points of her doctrine, disciphne and 78 worship. We could not, in any other way, have had a substitute for the parhanientary sanction to legisla- tive acts of power. Such a sanction is pleaded for by Mr. Hooker and others; as rendered proper by the reason of the thing, and the principles of the British constitution. On this very ground, the courts of law of that country have always refused to recog- nize the canons of 1603, as binding over the laity. So far as they are a declaration of the ancient canon law of the realm, they are held to be binding, like the common law, on the ground of immemorial custom: but such matters as rest only on the determinations of the convocation, have been continually declared, by solemn judgments of the courts, to be not binding on the laity; for the express reason, that they were not represented in the convocation. — 2d\y. From a doubt of our being able to carry episcopacy in any other way. The prejudices of even some of the mem- bers of our own church against the name, and much more against the office of bishop; and, added to this, the outcry which had been made on former occa- sions, by persons of other denominations, that not spiritual powers only, but civil also were intended; rendered it very uncertain, whether we could accom- phsh the design, without engaging in the measure such a description of gentlemen, as might give it weight; and show to the world, that nothing inimical either to civil or to religious rights was in contem- plation.— Sdly. Without the order of laity, peima- nently making a part of our assemblies, it were much to be apprehended, that the laymen would never be 79 brought to submit to any of our ecclesiastical laws, ill such points as might affect the interests or the convenience of any of them; which, it is evident, might happen in very many cases: for instance, to mention two of the most important — admission to the communion and exclusion from it. And they would have the principles and the practice of England to plead in their favour, as already stated. In order to show, that the preceding sentiments are not uncommon in the church of England, it will be to the purpose to give the following extract from bishop Warburton's " Alliance of Church and State,^' p. 197 — "There was no absurdity in that custom, which continued during the Saxon government and some time after, which admitted the laity into eccle- siastical synods: there appearing to be much the same reasons for laymen^s sitting in convocation, as for churchmen sitting in parliament." On the €(uestion to which this relates, it will be pertinent to remark, that since, according to what is held by all protestants, neither clergy nor laity can add to the truths of Scripture, whatever either or both of them may ordain, must fall under the head of discip- line. To what extent lay-interference was carried in the Enghsh reformation, may be learned from the following accounts of the historian Fuller. Speaking of the convocation of 1552, under Edward VI. he says — " The true reason, why the king would not intrust the diffusive body of the convocation, with a power to meddle with Haatters of rehgion, was a just 80 jealousie which he had of the ill affection of the major part thereof: who, under the fair rinde of protestant profession, had the rotten core of Komish superstition. It was therefore conceived safer for the king, to relie on the ability and fidelity of some select confidents, cordiall to the cause of religion; than to adventure the same to be discussed and decided by a suspitious con- vocation. However, this convocation is entitled the parent of those articles of religion (42 in number) which are printed with this preface ' Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi Anno Domini 1552, inter Episcopos et alios eruditos viros convene rat.^ ^' Afterwards speaking of Poinet's Catechism, Fuller says — " Very few in the convocation ever saw it. But these had formerly (it seems) passed over their power (I should be thankfull to him who would produce the originall instrument thereof) to the select divines ap- pointed by the king, in which sense, they may be said to have done it themselves by their delegates, to whom they had deputed their authority. A case not so clear, but that it occasioned a cavill at the next convocation, in the first of Ctueen Mary, when the papists, therein assembled, renounced the legality of any such former transactions.^^ However cautiously Fuller speaks, it is evident, he had no faith in the transmission of the power of the convocation, to the delegates appointed by the king. If the fact could be established, there would remain the question of the right to communicate, without a check, a power exclusively vested in the whole clerical order, as this is said to be. In the con- 81 troversy between the Romanists and the Protestants, concerning the sanction to the principle of persecu- tion by the 4.ih Lateran Council in \225, the defence made, is, that the Pope read the decrees as prepared by himseltj and that they were adopted by the coun- cil without discussion. It is an insuilicicnt plea; but more specious, than that of an authority claimed for points not only not discussed, but not heard; and resting on a retrospect to the alleged delegation of power, if there should exist the proof of it unknown to Fuller. It is right to contend for the due weight of the clei-gy, in ecclesiastical proceedings; but when the matter is carried so far, as that Avithout their per- mission, there shall not be the rejection of corrup- tions in contrariety to the records on which their commission rests, the claim is extravagant; and tends to the counteracting evil^ of a denial of the real rights of their order. The connexion of this with a pamphlet published in the summer of 1783, by the author, although with- out his name; in which pamphlet was the first pubhc suggestion, tending to the introduction of the laity into our ecclesiastical councils; induces the taking of this opportunity of declaring, that, after the years which have passed, there does not appear to his mind any cause to retract the leading sentiments of that performance. The necessity urged in it ceased to exist, within a short time after the publication; and therefore, all thoughts of the measure intended to have been founded on it, w^ere laid aside. But had Great Britain dropt the war, yet continued her claims; L 82 T as many judicious persons expected would be the case; and as had happened formerly, between Spain and the United iNetherlands; it is difficult to perceive, how any thing materially different from what is re- commended in that pamphlet, could have continued us as a religious society, in existence * Soon after the publication of the pamphlet, the author found himself in danger of being involved in a dispute with the clergy of Connecticut; in the name of whom, as- sembled in convention, their secretary, the Rev. Abra- ham Jarvis, addressed a letter; complaining of the performance^, although doubtless mistaking the ob- ject of it. The letter was answered — it is hoped in a friendly manner — and there the matter ended. The same convention, in the address sent by them to the archbishop of York, alluded to the pamphlet, as evi- dence of a design entertained to set up an episco- pacy, on the gromid of presbyterial and lay autho- rity. No personal animosity became the result of this misapprehension; and other events have manifested consent in all matters essential to ecclesiastical dis- ciphne. Before the author's subsequent visit to En- gland, he knew that his pamphlet had been in the *' It is not to be supposed, that under sucli circumstances, the non-juring bishops of Scotland, labouring undei- penal laws, not executed indeed, but to wliich tliey were obnoxious, and studying to live in quiet submission to an autliority which they did not acknowledge, ^v•ould have provoked it by the measure in question. It is equally improbable, that any kingdom, the es- tablishment of wliich was protestant and episcopalian, would have provoked Great Britain by an intercourse with those whom ijh.e would have considered as her subjects in rebc'llion. 83 hands of the archbishop — not the prelate to whom the convention liad addressed their letter — of York, the cliair of Canterbury being recently vacated by the decease of Or. Cornwallis, and tlie appointment of his successor being not yet knoun in America. The latter, Abp. Moore, did not express any dis- satisfaction with the pamphlet, or with the author on its account; nor has any other English prelate, so far as is known to him. It had been enclosed to Mr. Adams, the American minister, when there was offi- cially sent to him the address of the convention of 1 785 to the archbishops and bishops of England, and was by him delivered to the archbishop of Canter- bury.* * The pamphlet, written at a time, when there were few epis- copalian pulpits in the United States from which the sound of the Gospel was heard, was to the following effect: It proposed the combining of the clergy and of representa- tives of the congregations, in convenient districts, witli a re- presentative body of the whole, nearly on the plan subsequently adopted. This ecclesiastical representative was to make a de- claration approving of episcopacy, and professing a determina- tion to possess the succession when it could be obtained; but they were to cany the plan into immediate act. The expedient was sustained by the plea of necessity, and by opinions of various autliors of the church of England, acknow- ledging a valid ministry under circumstances similar to tliosc of the existing case, although less imperious. It was also alleged, that as much as what v/as now proposed might be seen to be im- plied, in the ground on which episcopacy rests in the institutions of the church of England, and in the defences of it by her most celebrated divines. Although reference was had to the position of 84 On the communication from Connecticut, it will not be offensive at the present day, to make the fol- lowing remarks. There pervades it the defect, of not distinguish- ing between the then state of public concerns, and as they stood when the pamphlet was published. Nearly a year, and the acknowledgment of indepen- dence had intervened. The intimation in the letter, that the author of the pamphlet regarded episcopacy no further than that for the satisfying of the people, the prospect was to be held out of obtaining it at a future time, would have been wounding to his feel- ings, had his brethren of Connecticut possessed a knowledge of him. They were, at that time, strangers to one another. The intimated suspicion was then resolved, and is now resolved by him on whom it fell, into a difference of apprehension as to the means of accomplishing the same end. The writer of the pamphlet, although aware that there are occasions of defending episcopacy against opposite pretensions, entertained the opinion, that the most improper, is when the subject under discus- sion concerned the episcopal church alone. The members of this church were supposed to have been satisfied w ith the principles on which they had acted, the church, that " from the apostles' time, tliere have been in the church of Christ, the three orders of bishops, priests, and dea- cons;" notliing was said in proof of the fact; because it was not qutstioiied in this church; and because argument to the ettect >yould have been indiscreet, as to be stated above. 85 and which they still professed. To have involved the n.erits of those principles with the object in view, would have given a plausible pretence for the inter- ference of those who might be disposed to defeat the measure in contemplation. It is difficult, in avoiding one extreme, not to fall under the appearance of its opposite. Many years after the publication of the pamphlet, a clergyman of standing in an anti-episcopalian society, alleged some passages of the performance as sustaining ordination not episcopal. But he had the candour pubHcly to acknowledge his mistake, when it was pointed out to him. For the communication from the clergy of Con- necticut, see Appendix No. 3. It is no slight instance of tlie proneness to govern too much, and of the peculiar liability to the error in a collective body, that during the war of the revolution, the legislature of Maryland, although consisting of men of various denominations, took up the subject of organizing the church, and particularly of appointing ordainers to the ministry. A clergyman of weight of character — the Rev. Samuel Keene — actuated by laudable ardour, repaired to Annapolis, was heard belore the house, and was considered as principally influential in producing an abandonment of the de- sign. Perhaps the hasty entei-prize was over-ruled to good: for almost as soon as there became known the happy event of peace, there were held two conven- tions in Maryland; the first, on the 13th of August, 1783; and tlie other, on the '^2d of June, 1784. The 86 proceedings of these conventions, with measures taken at other times and in other matters by the clergy of that state, were chiefly originated and con- ducted by the Rev. Dr. Smith; who, in his residence there, during the seizure of the charter rights of the college of Philadelphia, exerted his excellent talents in these and in other public works. The principal business of the convention in Au- gust 1 783, was the making of " A declaration of certain fundamental rights and liberties of the Pro- testant Episcopal Church of Maryland," consisting of the following articles. 1 St. We consider it as the undoubted right of the said Protestant Episcopal Church, in common with other Christian churches under the American revo- lution, to complete and preserve herself as an entire church, agreeably to her ancient usages and profes- sions; and to have a full enjoyment and free exercise of those purely spiritual powers, which are essential to the being of every church or congregation of the faithful; and which, being derived from Christ and his apostles, are to be maintained independent of every foreign or other jurisdiction; so far as may be consistent with the civil rights of society. 2d. That ever since the reformation, it hath been the received doctrine of the church of which we are members, (and which, by the constitution of this state, is entitled to a perpetual enjoyment of certain pro- perty and rights, under the denomination of the Church of England.) " That there be three orders of ministers in Christ's church, bishops, priests, and 87 ileacons;" and, that an episcopal ordination and com- niission are necessary to the vaUd administration of the sacraments, and the due exercise ot" the ministe- rial function, in the said church. Sd. That without calling in question the rights, modes and forms of any other Christian churches or societies, or wishing the least contest with them on that subject, we consider and declare it to be an essential right of the said Protestant Episcopal Church, to have and enjoy the continuance of the said three orders of ministers for ever, so far as con- cerns matters purely spiritual; and that no persons, in the character of ministers, except such as are in the communion of the said church, and duly called to the ministry by regular episcopal ordination, can or ought to be admitted into or enjoy any of the churches, chapels, glebes, or other property, for- merly belonging to the church of England in this state; and which, by the constitution and form of government, is secured to the said church for ever; by whatsoever name she, the said church, or her superior order of ministers, may in future be de- nominated. 4th. That as it is the right, so it will be the duty of the said church, when duly organized, constituted, and represented in a synod or convention of the dif- ferent orders of her ministers and people, to revise her liturgy, forms of prayer, and public worship; in order to adapt the same to the late revolution, and other local circumstances of America; which, it is humbly conceived, will and may be done, without 88 any other or farther departure from the venerahle order and beautiful forms of worship of the church from which we sprung, than may be found expedient in the change of our situation, from a daughter to a sister church. In the convention of June 1784, which inchided lay-deputies from the different parishes, the afore- said declaration was again approved; and certain fundamental principles of ecclesiastical government were established; of which the following is recorded on the printed journal as the substance. 1. That none of the orders of the clergy, whether bishops, priests, or deacons, who may be under the necessity of obtaining ordination in any foreign state, with a view to officiate or settle in this state, shall, at the time of their ordination, or at any time after- wards, take or subscribe any obhgation of obedience, civil or canonical, to any foreign power or authority whatsoever, nor be admissible into the ministry of this church, if such obligations have been taken for a settlement in any foreign country, without renounc- ing the same; by taking the oaths required by law, as a test of allegiance to this state. 2. According to what we conceive to be of true apostolic institution, the duty and office of a bishop differs in nothing from that of other priests, except in the power of ordination and confirmation; and in the right of precedency in ecclesiastical meetings or synods; and shall accordingly be so exercised in this church; the duty and office of priests and deacons remaining as heretofore. And if any further dis^ 89 liuctions and regulations, in the different orders o{' tlie ministry, should be found necessary for the good government of the church; the same shall be made and established by the joint voice and authority of a representative body of the clergy and laity, at iuture ecclesiastical synods or conventions. 3. The third section, is intended to define or dis- criminate some of the separate rights and powers of the clerg}', and was proposed and agreed to as fol- lows; viz. that the clergy shall be deemed adequate judges of the ministerial commission and authorit)^, which is necessary to the due administi'ation of the ordinances of religion in their own church; and of the literary, moral, and religious qualifications and abilities of persons to be nominated and appointed to the different orders of the ministry; but the approv- ing and receiving such persons to any particular cure, duty, or parish, when so nominated, appointed, set apart, consecrated and ordained, is in the people, who are to support them, and to receive the benefit of their ministry. 4. The fourth section provides, that ecclesiastical conventions or synods of this church shall consist of the clergy, and one lay-delegate or representative from each vestry or parish, or a majority of the same; and shall be held annually on the Iburth Tuesday of October, unless some canon or rule should be made at some future convention for altering the time of meeting, or for meeting oftener than once a year, or not so often, or with a larger or smaller representa- tion of the church, as may be judged necessary. But M 90 fundamental rules, once duly made, shall not be al- tered; unless two thirds of such majoiity, as afore- said, duly assembled, shall agree therein. The following heads of additional articles, were set down for the consideration of the next con- vention. 1. That the power and authority necessary for reclaiming or excluding scandalous members, whe- ther lay or clerical, and all jurisdiction with regard to offenders, be exercised only by a representative body of clergy and laity jointly. 2. That the power of suspending or dismissing clergymen from the exercise of their ministry, in any particular church, parish, or district, be by the like authority. 3. That all canons or laws for church-govern- ment, and all alterations, changes, and reforms, in the church service and liturgy, or in points of doc- trine to be professed and taught in the church, shall also be by the like authority. The proceedings of these conventions, besides the circumstance of their showing an accommoda- tion to the civil system, by the introduction of the laity, gave great offence to some of the clergy, by the definition of the authority of a bishop, in the se- cond of the articles established. It is, evidently, the much controverted position of St. Jerome. The au- thor does not think it accurate: and although his principles on the subjeat of episcopacy allow of an accommodation of its powers to the circumstances of the church, at different times; he was afraid of 91 there arising some inconvenience from the asserting, as a fundamental pnnci[)le, of what was in the oppo- site extreme to that of the overstrained authorities of the office, maintained by others. In consequence of the recommendation and pro- posal of the meeting of 1 784 in New York, there was a convention of the clergy of South Carolina, at Charleston, in the spring of 1785. This was the state, in which there was the most to be appre- hended an opposition to the very principle of episco- pacy; from its being connected, in the minds of some people, with the idea of an attachment to the British government. The citizens of South Carolina were the last visited by the British armies; and had suf- fered more than any others, by their ravages. The truth is. there was real danger of an opposition in the convention, to a compliance with the invitation given. But the danger was warded off, by a proposal made by the Rev. Robert Smith, to accompany their compliance w^ith the measure, by its being under- stood, that there was to be no bishop settled in that state. Such a proposal, from the gentleman who, it was presumed, would be the bishop, were there to be any chosen, had the effect intended. Some gen- tlemen, it is said, declared in conversation, that they had contemplated an opposition; but were prevented by this caution. Besides the conventions which have been men- tioned, there were one in New York, and another in New Jersey, in the summer of 1785. But as their proceedings extended no further, than to the appoint- 92 ing of deputies to the general convention; it is not necessary to notice them any further, than is dictated by this circumstance. F. Page 1 5. Of the General Convention, in Phila- delphia, in September and October, 1785. The president of this convention was Dr. White, and the secretary was the Rev. Dr. Griffith. There being journals of this convention, and of the conventions following, the matter of those jour- nals will not be repeated in this work; except so far as may be thought necessary to the sense of it: the design being principally the communicating of facts within the knowledge and the recollection of the narrator, tending to throw light on what has been recorded. The statements and the remarks to be now offered, will be arranged under the heads of sundry sections. Section I. Cf the general Ecclesiastical Constitution. It has been seen, that in the preceding year, at New York, a few general principles, tending to the organizing of the church, had been recommended to the churches represented, and proposed to those not represented. As all the articles, except the fourth, which recognized the English liturgy, with the ex- ception of the political parts of it, were adopted by the present convention, they became abend of union; and indeed, the only one acted under until the year 93 1 789. For as to the general constitution, framed at the period now before us, it stood on recommenda- tion only; and was of no use, except in helping to convince those who were attached to that mode of transacting business, that it was very idle to bring gentlemen together from different states, for the pur- pose of such inconclusive proceedings. The fifth and the eighth articles of this proposed constitution, deserve particular notice; because they have been subjects of considerable conversation and censure. The former of these articles provided, that every bishop should be a member of the convention "ex officio.'' Accordingly, the article was loudly objected to by the clergy to the eastward; because of its not providing lor episcopal presidency. The constitution was drafted by the author, in a sub-committee; a part of a general committee, con- sisting of a clergyman and a layman from each state; and originally provided, that a bishop, if any were present, should preside. In the sub-committee, a gentleman, without much consideration of the sub- ject, and contrary to what his good sense, w ith such an advantage, would have dictated, objected to the clause; and insisted, that he had read, although he could not recollect in what book, that this had not been a prerogative of bishops in ancient ecclesiasti- cal assemblies. The objection was over-ruled, by all the other members of the sub-committee. But when the instrument, after passing in the general committee, was brought into the convention; the 94 same gentleman, not expecting to succeed, and merely, as he afterwards said, to be consistent, made a motion to strike out the clause. Contrary to ex- pectation, he was supported by another lay-gentle- man, who took an active part in all the measures; and who, in the sub-committee, had been of another mind. Thus a debate was brought on, which pro- duced more heat than any thing else, that happened during the session. As the voting was by orders, the clergy, who, with the exception of one gentle- man, were for the clause, might have quashed the whole article. But this appeared to them to be wrong; because it contained nothing contrary to the principle of episcopal presidency; and the general object was such, as ought to have been provided for. Accord- ingly, the article passed, as it stands on the journal: that is, with silence as to the point in question. It was considered, that practice might settle what had better be provided for by law; and that even such provision might be the result of a more mature con- sideration of the subject. The latter expectation was justified by the event. The other article provided, that every clergyman should be amenable to the convention of the state to which he should belong. This was objected to by the English bishops, as appears in the letter of the archbishops of Canterbury and York; who there complain, that it is " a degradation of the clerical, and much more of the episcopal character." The foundation of this complaint, like that of the other, w^as rather in omission, than in any thing positively 95 declared. For the bisliop's being amenable to the convention in tlie state to whicli lie belonged, does not necessarily involve any thing more, than tiiat he should be triable by laws of their enacting, himself being a part of the body: and it did not follow, that he might be deposed or censured, either by laymen or by presbyters. This, however, ought to have been guarded against: but to have attempted it, while the convention were in the temper excited by the alterca- tions concerning the fifth article, would have been to no purpose. In this whole business, there was encountered a prejudice entertained by many of the clergy in other states; who thought, that nothing should have been done towards the organizing of the church, until the obtaining of the episcopacy. This had been much insisted on, in the preceding year, in New York. Let us — it was said — first have an head; and then let us proceed to regulate the body. It was answered, on that occasion — let us gather the scattered limbs; and then, let the head be superadded. Certainly, the different episcopalian congregations knew of no union before the revolution; except what was the result of the connexion which they in conmion had with the bishop of London. The authority of that bishop b^ ing withdrawn, what right had the episcopalians in any state, or in any one part of it, to choose a bishop for those in any other.'* And until an union were ef- fected, what is there in Christianity generally, or in the principles of this church in particular, to hinder them from taking difierent courses in different places, 96 as to all things not necessary to salvation? Which might have produced different Hturgies, different ar- ticles, episcopacy from different sources, and in short, very many churches, instead of one extending over the United States; and that, without any ground for the charge of schism, or of the invasion of one ano- thers^ rights. The course taken, has embraced all the different congregations. It is far from being certain, that the same event would have been produced, by any other plan that might have been devised. For instance, let it be supposed, that in any district of Connecticut, the clergy and the people, not satisfied with the choice made of Bishop Seabury, or with the contemplated plan of settlement, had acted for them- selves, instead of joining with their brethren. It would be impossible to prove the unlawfulness of such a scheme; or, until an organization were made, that the minor part were bound to submit to the will of the majority. There was no likelihood of such an indiscreet proceeding, in Connecticut. But in some other departments which might be named, it would not have been surprizing. Let it be remarked, that in the preceding hypothesis, there is supposed to have been, in the different neighbourhoods, a bond of union not dissolved by the revolution. This sen- timent is congenial with Christianity itself, and w ith Christian discipline in the beginning: the connexion not existing congregation ally; but, in eveiy instance, without dependence on the houses, in which the worship of the different portions of the aggregate body may be carried on. 97 Section II. Of the Measures taken to Obtain the Episcopacy. The expression should be noticed, on account of the pretence made by some, that tlie episcopal church in the United States begun with its obtaining of the episcopacy. According to this notion, where dio- ceses exist independently on one another, as was the condition of all Christendom for a long time after the preaching of the apostles, on the decease of every bishop, his church became extinct. A new name, does not characterize the church as new, but may arise from civil changes in various ways to be con- ceived of. What was called formerly " the Church of England in America/' did not cease to exist on the removal of the episcopacy of the bishop of Lon- don, by the providence of God; but assumed a new name, as the dictate of propriety. It may be matter of suiprise, that, after the cla- mor made but a few years before this period, on the proposal of an American episcopacy; and consider- ing the fashion of objecting to it prevailing even among a considerable proportion of our own com- munion; there should now be a unanimous applica- tion tor it, from a fair representative of the church in seven states of the union; the lay part consisting principally of gentlemen, wiio had been active in the late revolution ; and made under circumsiances, which required the consent of the veiy power we had been N 98 at war with.* The truth is, that if there existed any inchnation to object — and there is no certainty of the contrary — it was prevented by what is to be related. A few months before the present period, bishop Seabury had arrived in Connecticut, with consecra- tion from the non-juring bishops of Scotland. The clergy in that state, not liking the complexion of the measures taken for the calhng of a general conven- tion, wrote to several of the southern clergy, inviting them to a convention, to be held in the summer at New Haven. What answer they received from others, is not here known: but that of Philadelphia thanked them for their invitation; congratulated bishop Sea- bury on his arrival; apologized for the not coming, by the expectation of the convention in September; and invited the clergy of Connecticut to attend the latter When the time of the convention in Philadelphia drew near, Bishop Seabury wrote to Dr. Smith, then living in Maryland, a letter which he enclosed under cover to Dr. Chandler of Elizabeth-Town; who sent it, in like manner, to the author; desiring him to read, and then forward it to Dr. Smith. In this letter, a copy of which the author has now before him, Bp. Seabury, besides objecting to sundry of the measures * In evidence of the unanimity, there is in possession of the author, the original instrument, signed by all the clerical and all the lay members who gave attendance on the business of the convention. 99 faken in the southern states, declared himself in very strong terms, against the admission of the laity into ecclesiastical councils; and indeed against that of presbyters also, except into the diocesan. For al- though his expressions are, that they were not ad- mitted into general councils, and this is very in- delinite; yet it would seem from the connexion, that he disapproved of submitting the general con- cerns o(" the American church to any other than bishops. It is the arrangement of the church, in which Bishop Seabury received his episcopacy. This letter, which, agreeably to a desire ex- pressed in it, was laid before the convention, pro- duced some animadversions. A few of the lay- gentlemen, spoke more warmly than the occasion seemed to justify; considering, that the letter ap- peared to contain the honest sentiments of the writer, delivered in inoffensive terms. It was addressed to a gentleman, who had long lived in habits of ac- quaintance with the writer. And as for its being de- signed for the hearing of the body then assembled; it should have been remembered, that the clergy of Connecticut had been invited to the meeting, by those at whose desire they had appeared themselves. On this ground, they were answered by some of the clergy — particularly by Dr. Andrews. For the letter, see Appendix No. 4. It naturally happened in regard to any apprehen- sions entertained of an excessive hierarchy, that they influenced to the very application to England, which had formerly, from the very same cause, been con- 100 templated with jealousy. It was generally under- stood, that the door was open to consecration in Scotland; or at least, that if there should be any im- pediment, it must arise from some particulars, which had been thought too republican by many. That the clergy unanimously, and that a very great body of the laity would adhere to episcopacy, was well known: and therefore, how natural the recourse to a quarter, in which it was thought there would be less stifness, on the points objected to by Bishop Seabury! it may be added — in which the political principles ob- taining, although monarchical, were not such as fa- voured arbitrary power. It ought to be understood, that this is the supposed strain of reasoning of a few only. The majority of the convention certainly thought it a matter of choice, and even required by decency, to apply in the first instance, to the church of which the American had been till now a part. No doubt, the sentiment was strengthened by the gene- ral disapprobation entertained in America, of the prejudices which, in the year 1688, in Scotland, had deprived the episcopal church of her establishment; and had kept her, ever since, in hostility to the fa- mily on the throne. As to Bishop Seabury's failure in England, the causes of it, as stated in his letter, seemed to point out a way of obviating the difficulty in the present case. The same causes had been, with no considerable variety, stated to the author in a letter from the Rev. Dr. Murray, formerly of Reading in this state; who declared his full convic- tion, that a proper application, from such a body as 101 was m contemplation, that is the present convention, of whose intendt'd meeting he had been informed, would be follovved by success. As the Doctor was supposed to have conversed with leading characters on the subject, which was found afterwards to have been the case, his letter had great weight in encour- aging the measure. So it was, then, that the projected application found no opposition. The duty of proposing a mode of application was added to the other duties, of the general committee which had been appointed. As one of a sub-committee, the author drafted the re- solves and the address, as they stand on the journals, with the exception of a few verbal alterations. Thus, a foundation was laid, for the procuring of the pre- sent episcopacy. It was a prudent provision of the convention, to instruct the deputies from the respec- tive states, to apply to the civil authorities existing in them respectively, for their sanction of the measure; in order to avoid one of the impediments, whioh had stood in the way of Bishop Seabury. The address above alluded to, which was the first step in the cor- respondence with the English prelates, is in the Ap- pendix No. 5. The episcopalian public may be supposed to be satisfied, that the course taken was the best, in every point of view, and that it can never suffer by a com- parison with any other mode, which might have been pursued. To have abandoned the episcopal succes- sion, would have been in opposition to primitive or- der and ancient habits; and besides, would at least 102 have divided the church. To have had recourse to Scotland, independently on the objections entertained against the political principles of the non-jurors of that country, would not have been proper, without previous disappointment on a request made to the mother church. Another resource remained, in fo- reign ordination; which had been made the easier by the act of the British parliament, passed in the preceding year, to enable the bishop of London to ordain citizens or subjects of foreign countries, with- out exacting the usual oaths. But, besides that this would have kept the church under the same hard- ships which had heretofore existed, and had been so long complained of; dependence on a foreign country in spirituals, when there had taken place indepen- dence in temporals, is what no prudent person would have pleaded for. Section III. Oftlie Alterations in tJie Book of Corw- mon Prayer. When the mexnbers of the convention first came together; very few, or rather, it is believed, none of them entertained thoughts of altering the liturgy, any further than to accommodate it to the revolution. There being no express authority to the purpose, the contrary was implied in the sending of deputies, on the ground of the recommendation and proposal from New York, which presumed that the book, with the above exception, should remain entire. The only church to which this remark does not ap- ply, is that of Virginia; which authorized its deputies 103 to join in a review, liable however to a rejection Ijy their own convention. Every one, so far as is here known, wished for alterations in the different offices. But it was thought, at New York in the preceding year, that such an enterprize could not be under- taken, until the church should be consolidated and organized. Perhaps it would have been better, if the same opinion had been continued and acted on. But it happened otherwise. Some of the mem- bers hesitated at making the book so permanent, as it would have been by the fourth article of the re- commendatory instrument Arguments were held in favour of a review, from change of language, and from the notorious fact, that there were some matters universally held exceptionable, independently on doc- ti'ine. A moderate review, fell in with the sentiments and the wishes of every member. Added to all this, there gained ground a confident persuasion, that the general mind of the communion would be so gratified by it, as that acquiescence niight be confidently ex- pected. On these considerations, the matter was undertaken. The alterations were prepared by another sub- division of the general committee, than that to which the author belonged. When brought into the com- mittee, they were not reconsidered; because the ground would have been to go over again in the con- vention. Accordingly, he cannot give an account of any arguments, arising in the preparatory stage of the business. Even in the convention, there were 104 but few paints canvassed, with any material differ- ence of principle; and those only shall be noticed. The first controversy of this description was in- troduced, on a motion made by the Hon. Mr. Page of Virginia, since governor of that state, to leave out the first four petitions of the litany, and, instead of them, to introduce a short petition which he had drawn up, more agreeable to his ideas of the divine Persons, recognized in those petitions. The mover declared, that he had no objection to the invoking of our blessed Saviour, whose divinity the prayer acknowledged; and whom he considered as invoked through the whole of the liturgy; which, he thought, might be de- fended by scripture. The objection lay to the word " Trinity,'' which he remarked to be unauthorised by scripture, and a foundation of much unnecessary disputation. But he said, that the leaving out of the fourth petition only, in which only the word occur- red, would leave the other petitions liable to the charge of acknowledging three Gods; and therefore, he moved to strike out the whole. The Rev. Dr. West of Baltimore answered Mr. Page, in a speech in which the Doctor appeared to be in great agita- tion; partly becaiise, as he said, he was unused to unprepared speaking; but evidently the more so, from his apprehensions arising from what he supposed to be the signal for aiming at very hazardous and es- sential alterations. Perhaps much more would have been said: but during Dr. West's speech, it was whis- pered about, that there was really no use in going into such a controversy; that Mr. Page had made the 105 motion, merely to preserve consistency of conduct, that he had attempted the same thing in the sub- committee, and well knew from what had passed, that there was no prospect of success; but that he could not dispense with the bringing of the question before the body. Accordingly, as soon as Dr. West had finished, it was put and lost without a division * The next material question, to the best of the recollection retained, was on a motion for framing a service for the 4th of July. This was the most injudicious step taken by the convention. Might they not have foreseen, that every clergyman, whose political principles interfered with the appointment, would be under a strong temptation to cry down the intended book, if it were only to get rid of the offen- sive holiday.'^ Besides this point of prudence, was it not the dictate of moderation, to avoid the intro- ducing of extraneous matter of difference of opinion, in a church that was to be built up.'* Especially, when there was in contemplation the moderating of reli- gious tests, was it consistent to introduce a political one ? It was said, that the revolution being now ac- complished, all the clergy ought, as good citizens, to conform to it; and to uphold, as far as their influence * In a controversy since moved in Boston, Bishop Provoost has been named, as having endeavoured to accomplish the omis- sion of the acknowledgment of the Trinity. It is not true: and the error may be supposed to have arisen from what has been related of the effort of Mr. Page. There have been various mis- representations of the matter; which have made it the more ne- cessary to state the fact. o 106 extended, the civil system which had been establish- ed. Had the question been concerning the praying for the prosperity of the commonwealths, and for the persons of those who rule in them, the argument would have been conclusive: and indeed, this had been done by all the remaining clergy; however dis- affected they might have been, throughout the war. But, the argument did not apply to a retrospective approbation of the origin of the civil constitutions; or rather, to a profession of such approbation, conlraiy to known fact. This was one of the few occasions, on which the author used the privilege reserved by him on his ac- ceptance of the presidency, to deliver his opinion. To his great surprize, there was but one gentleman — and he a professed friend to American indepen- dence— who spoke on the same side of the question; and there were very few, if any, who voted with the two speakers against the measure. Bodies of men are more apt than individuals, to calculate on an im- pHcit submission to their determinations. The pre- sent was a striking instance of the remark. The members of the convention, seem to have thought themselves so established in their station of ecclesi- astical legislators, that they might expect of the many clergy who had been averse to the American revolu- tion, the adoption of this service: although, by the use oi it, they must make an implied acknowledg- ment of their error, in an address to Ahnighty God. What must further seem not a little extraordinary, the service was principally arranged and the prayer 107 alluded to was composed, by a reverent! gentleman, (Dr. Smith) who had written and acted against the declaration of independence; and was unfavomably looked on by the supporters of it, during the whole revolutionary war. His conduct, in the present par- ticular, was different from what might have been ex- pected from his usual discernment: but he doubtless calrulated on what the good of the church seemed to him to require, in consequence of a change of cir- cumstances; and he was not aware of the effect which would be produced by the retrospective property of the appointment. The greater stress is laid on this matter, because of the notorious fact, that the ma- jority of the clergy could not have used the service, without subjecting themselves to ridicule and cen- sure. For the author's part, having no hindrance of this sort, he contented himself with having opposed the measure; and kept the day, from respect to the requisition of the convention; but could never hear of its being kept, in above two or three places be- sides Philadelphia. He is thus particular, in record- ing the incidents attached to the matter slated, with the hope of rendering it a caution to ecclesiastical bodies, to avoid that danger into which human na- ture is so apt to fall, of governing too much. On the subject of the articles, a dispute arose in regard to the article on justification: not as it was at last agreed on, but as it was proposed by the sub- committee. The objection was urged principally by the secretary of the convention — the Kev. Dr. Grif- fith— and by the author. The proposed article wa^ 108 at last withdrawn; and the words of the thirty-nine articles, on that subject, were restored. In this, there is certainly no superaddition to what is held generally by divines of the church of England. As to the sub- stitute proposed, the objection made to it, was its be- ing liable to a construction contrary to the great evan- gelical truth, that salvation is of grace. It would have been a forced construction, but not to be dis- regarded. Some wished to get rid of the new article introduced concerning predestination, without stating any thing in its place. This, it is probable, would have been better than the proposed article; which professes to say something on the subject, yet in re- ality says nothing. But many gentlemen were of opinion, that the subject was not to be passed over in silence altogether; and therefore consented to the article on predestination, as it stands on the pro- posed book. The opinion of the author was, that the article should be accommodated, not to individual condition, and to everlasting reward and punish- ment; but to national designation, and to a state of covenant with God in the present life. Although this is a view of the subject still entertained by him; yet he has been since convinced, that the introducing of it as an article would have endangered needless con- troversy, on the meanings of the terms predestination and election, as used in the New Testament. If we cannot do away the ground of controversy heretofore laid; it at least becomes us, to avoid the furnishing of new matter for the excitement of it. As to the article in the proposed book; although no one pro- 109 tessed scruples against what is there affirmed, yet there seemed a difficulty in discovering for what pur- pose it was introduced. The author never met with any who were satisfied with it. On the subject of original sin, an incident occur- red, strongly marking the propensity already noticed, unwarily to make private opinion the standard of public faith. The sub-committee had introduced into tliis article the much controverted passage, in the 7th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, beginning at the 9th verse; and they had applied it as descriptive of the Christian state. The construction is exacted by a theory, than which nothing was further from that of the gentleman (Dr. Smith) who would have bound this sense of the passage on the church. The inter- pretation generally given by divines of the church of England, makes the words descriptive of man's un- regenerate state; in which there is a struggle between nature and grace, to the extent of the terms made use of in Scripture. This seems necessary to a con- formity with the Christian character, as drawn in innumerable places. It was on a proposal of the author, that the article was altered in this particular; although the gentleman who had di^afted it not only earnestly contended for his construction of the text, but could not be made sensible of the danger which would have resulted from the establishing of that construction, as a test to every candidate for orders. Less prominent debates on the subject of the ar- ticles, are not here noticed. Whatever is novel in them, was taken from a book in the possession of 110 the Rev. Dr. Smith. The book was anonymous: and was one of the publications which have abound- ed n England^ projecting changes in the estabhshed articles. On this business of the review of the Book of Common Prayer and of the Articles, the contention seem to have fallen into two capital errors, indepen- dently on the merits of the alterations themselves. The first error, was the ordering of the printing of a large edition of the book; which did not well con- sist with the principle of mere proposal. Perhaps much of the opposition to it arose from this very thing; which seemed a stretch of power, designed to effect the introduction of the book to actual use, in order to prevent a discussion of its merits. The other error, was the ordering of the use of it in Christ church, Philadelphia; on the occasion of Dr. Smith's sermon, at the conclusion of the session of the convention. This helped to confirm the opinion^ of its being to be introduced with an high hand, and subjected the clergy of Philadelphia to extraordinary difficulty: for they continued the use of the liturgy, agreeably to the alterations, on assurances given by many gentlemen, that they would begin it in their respective churches, immediately on their return. This the greater number of them never did: and there are known instances, in each of which the stipulation was shrunk back from, because some influential member of a congregation was dissatisfied with some one of the alterations. This is a fact Ill ^ which shows veiy stroiio^ly, how much weight of cliaiacter is necessary to such changes as may be tliought questionable. Section IV. Of sundnj Measures and Events, con- nected icith the Acts of the Conventicni of [IS 5. The first particular claiming attention under this head, is the publication of the Book of Connnon Prayer; that is, of the edition which has received the name of the proposed book. Dr. Smitli, Dr. Wharton, and the author, who were appointed to this service, gave their application to it without delay. But here, unexpected difficulties occurred; which are taken notice of, principally with the view of guarding against the like, in future eccle- siastical proceedings. The committee had been authorized to make verbal alterations; but were restrained from depart- ing, either in form or in substance, fiom what had been agreed on. Setting aside the questions arising on this distinction; the imperfections evidently re- maining on some points by reason of haste, and which would have been remedied had they been at- tended to, and added to this, the importunities of some of the clergy, who pressed the committee to extend their powers pretty far, in full confidence that the liberty would bo acceptable to all, were such, that in the end, they were drawn on to take a greater latitude, than ought to be allowed in such a work. 112 Besides discretion as to verbal alterations, the committee were fully empowered on the subject of the tables, and on that of the selection of reading psalms. The author's proposal, was to take whole psalms; selecting such as fall in with the general subjects of divine worship; and leaving the officiating minister to his choice, among those which should be selected. But the other members of the committee were of opinion, that as much should be retained as eould not well be objected to, on the score of being unsuitable parts of Christian prayer and praise. The consequence of this, was a charge of having treated Scripture irreverently, by the leaving out of particu- lar passages, on the principle of their being offen- sive. Although the omissions were not made on that ground; because it is not every part of Scripture, that can be introduced into the exercise of devotion; yet there would apparently have been less colour for the censure, on the other plan of the selection of entire psalms. The author has been since convinced, that instead of a selection of psalms in any shape, a bet- ter way would have been to print the psalter entire; and to leave every officiating minister to his choice, from time to time. This would have less interfered with the ideas of those, who, on account of the su- blime spirit of devotion running through the whole body of the psalms, were averse to the parting with any proportion of them from the service of the church. For although, according to the idea here suggested, it would have been impossible to have gratified every individual under the proposed alter- 11 o native; yet, there jiiiglit have been taken which ever side of it was tlie most likely to be satisfactory. It has been painful to the author, that he has found himself opposed in opinion to that of some of his brethren, whose views of the subject have the appeaiance of being opened to them by the senti- ment of devotion. Yet, he cannot perceive the pro- priety of putting into tlie mouths of a whole congrC' gation de^otions expressive of peculiar states of mind; and such as are not likely to be applicable to many persons in an ordinary assembly: for instance, strains expressive of the highest exultation; and other strains, expressive of tlie lowest depths of sorrow. He is aware of what is argued in favour of this, from the sentiment of Christian sympathy; by which every member of a church may enter into feelings, which are otlierwise not his own: but which he may reason- ably suppose to belong to some, who are fellow-mem- bers of the body. The author respects the plea; but cannot bring it within the sphere of his own ideas of the precept, to " pray with the understanding." He has heard of another argument for the practice. It is the use of impressing the whole of those excellent compositions, on the memories of all the members of the church. But on this plan it would seem, that Scripture would be honoured still more, if, from Gene- sis to Revelation, it were embodied with the service. This, however, could not have been the object of the introduction of the psalms. There have been urged testimonies from the fathers, demonstrative of the great use of these compositions in the early ages of the 114 church; and its not being recorded of any particular psalms, to the exclusion of the rest. No: the whole body of them may have been a iund of devotion; con- sistently with choice made, as subject and as circum- stances might dictate. He has not yet found evidence, that in the primitive church, as in the church of En- gland, the book was gone through in a routine of suc- cessive portions. Although these are his opinions, yet he laments the extent of the innovation, made at the period referred to; because he believes, that the aiming at so much prevented what might have been done more effectually; and brought into universal use, by allowance of the discretion which has been pleaded for. Under the foregoing head, there has been noticed what is here thought a great error in the convention — the printing of the book, without waiting for the reception of the alterations, and their being in use. A subordinate error, accompanying the other, was the endeavouring to raise a profit from the book, al- though for a charitable purpose. It had two bad consequences; that of exciting the supposition, that the books were made the dearer — although, in reality, this was not the fact; and that of inducing the com- mittee to send them to the clergy, in the different parts of the continent; confiding in their exertions, for the benevolent purpose declared. Several of the clergy again entrusted them to persons, from whom they got no returns. Hence it happened, that when the expenses of the edition were paid, there was not so much left for the charity, as to be an adequate 115 consideration for such an undertaking. The com- mittee were ai last obliged to relinquish the design, ol" saving lor the charity the usual profit of the book- sellers; who, on that change of plan, made rapid sales of them. Another bad effect of the publication was, that the English prelates were not furnished with an ac- count of the alterations, so soon as they should have been, considering the application that had come be- fore them. For the committee, having had good rea- son to believe that the impression w^ould go on ra- pidly, had not furnished a copy of the instrument containing the alterations. Their w^aiting first for paper from the mills, and then, for one interfering object and another occurring to the printer, brought to spring before the edition was out. It is true, that the sheets were sent by parcels during the progress. None how^ever arrived, before the answer to the ad- dress was sent: and this inattention — or what seemed such — the bishops could not account for; as the arch- bishop afterw^ards distantly intimated to those who received consecration in England. Hence arose the caution, with which the convention were answered by the right reverend bench; a caution evidently to be discerned, in their letter of the 24th of February 1786. For some of the clergy in the eastern states, liom what is here supposed to have been mistaken zeal, liad been very early in conveying to their clerical acquaintance in England, an unfavourable represen- tation of the spirit of the proceedings: a fact, which is glanced at in the same letter. Although the im- 116 pression, thus produced, was so far done away on the arrival of the book, as that there remained no raciical impediment to the gratification of the church, in granting her request made; which must be evident to every one who reads their subsequent letter; yet it follows from this narrative, that their misappre- hension would have been obviated, if the printing had been confined to the list of the proposed alterations. For the letter of the English prelates, see Appen- dix No. 6. From the letter of their lordships it appears, that the omission of the Article of Christ's descent into Hell, in the Apostles' Creed, was the thing prin- cipally faulted. It was the objection made by Dr. Moss, bishop of Bath and Wells, that swayed in this matter. A gentleman who had been a member of tlie convention — Richard Peters, Esq. — happening to visit England a few months after, and having waited on the archbishop at the request ol' the committee, the said bishop expressed a wish to see him; and, in the consequent interview, declared very strongly his disapprobation of that alteration. It was learned afterwards in England, from Dr. Watson, bishop of Landaff, that the objection came principally from the quarter here noticed. Indeed he expressed himself in such a manner, as led to the conclusion, that the bishop of Bath and Wells only was the objector. No doubt, the bishops, generally, must have approved of the objection; considering their concurring in the strong protest that came from them, on the sub- ject of the omitted article. However, from the dif- 117 ferent particulars attending; the transaction, the au- thor is disposed to believe, that, had it not been for the above-mentioned circumstance, they would hardly h9L\e started their objection to the omission in such a manner, as carries the appearance of their making of a i^storation of the clause, a condition of their coinpiiance witii the request. As to the bishop of Landaff^ he plainly said, speaking on the merits of the subject^ that he knew not of any scriptural au- thority for the article, unless it were the passage m St. Peter (meaning 1. iii. 19, 20.) And this he said must be acknowledged a passage considerably involved in obscurity. To the two bishops who went for consecration it was very evident, that the bishop of Landaff was far from being attached to the objec- tion, in ^vhich he had concurred. It is probable, that the same may have been true of many others of the bench. But when the matter was pressed by a very venerable bishop, eminent as well for his theological leaniing as for an exemplary life and conversation, and rested by him on the ground of the contradiction of an ancient heresy, it must have been difficult in the body to wave the objection, considering the novel line in which they were acting; and their inability, in a corporate capacity, to act at all. Section V. Of Proceedings of Conventimis in the States, subsequent to those of tJie General Convention. For a while, there was felt the evil of the mistake made in the beginning, of not forwarding copies of 118 the alterations; a mistake, less to be imputed to the committee, than to the convention, who had given no order on the subject; but who, perhaps, presumed on the editing of the book, before the other conventions could be held. They were held in the months of May and June 1786; very sooli after the arrival of the letter of the bishops. In New York, the question of ratifying the Book of Common Prayer was kept Under consideration. In New Jersey they rejected it, expressing at the same time their approbation of the other proceedings of the convention, except of the constitution. In Pennsylvania, some amendments were proposed. The same was done in Maryland. No convention met in Delaware. In Virginia, it was adopted, with the exception of one of the rubrics, and with some proposed amendments of the articles; many dissenting from such adoption; not, as the au- thor was well informed, because of the alterations made, but because they were so few. It is strange to tell, that the rubric, held to be intolerable in Virgi- nia, was that allowing the minister to repel an evil liver from the communion. The author, some time after, held serious argument on the point, with a gen- tleman who had been influential in the state conven- tion. The offensive matter was not the precise pro- visions of the rubric, but that there should be any provision of the kind, or power exercised to the end contemplated. In South Carolina, the Book was re- ceived without limitation. On the whole it was evi- dent, that, in regard to the Liturgy, the labours of the convention had not readied their object. It did 119 not appear, that the constitution was objected to in any state, except in that ol' New Jersey. The pro- priety of the apphcation to the EngHsli bishops, was not contradicted any where, except in South Caro- lina: and even in this state, there was carried an acquiescence in it. Under tlie circumstances stated, the convention to be lield in June 1786 was looked forward to, as what would either remedy the diffi- culty, or increase it. There has been given an account of the pro- ceedings of sundry conventions in the different states, prior to the meeting in New Brunswick in May 1 784. At that period, no convention had assembled in Vir- ginia. But in May 1785, there was one in the city of Richmond; of the proceedings of which there shall be here given a general account; for the same reason as in reference to the proceedings for the organiza- tion of the other churches, comprehended within the union. There had been previously passed, in the year 1784, an act of the legislature^ incorporating the episcopal church in the respective parishes individu- ally, and as existing throughout the state: that is, not only in each paiish, the minister and vestrymen chosen by the members of the church were a body corporate for their own appropriate church and glebe; but the act recognized a convention consisting of the settled ministers and deputies from the different ves- tries, competent to self-government. In this act, there was no vestige of the former establishment: on the eontrary, it contained provisos, guarding against all 120 claims tending to that point. Nevertheless, the cur- rent set so strong against the episcopal churcli, from the enmity of numerous professors of religion, not a little aided by opinions inimical equally to the church and to the societies dissenting from her, that in the year 1786 the law was repealed, with a proviso saving to all religious societies the estates belonging to them respectively. In the ear 1798, this statute also was repealed, as inconsistent with religious freedom.* In this convention, the recommendations passed in New York, in October of the preceding year, were adopted with two exceptions. They refused the ac- ceptance of the fourth, concerning the liturgy, until it should be revised at the expected meeting in Phi- ladelphia; and in respect to the sixth article deter- mining the manner of voting, they objected to it as a fundamental article of the constitution; but acqui- esced in it as regarded the ensuing convention, re- serving a right to approve or disapprove of its pro- ceedings. Their opinions as to the principles which should^ govern in the proceedings were detailed in instruc- * A law, substantially the same as that of 1784, sofar as it incorporated the church througliout the state, was passed by the legislature of Maryland in the year 1802, in favour of the Ro- man Catholics: which does not appear to have given offence, or to have been productive of bad effects; although the like favor has been refused to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the same state. I 121 tion to deputies appointed by them to the general convention, and are as follows: " Gentlemen, during your representation of the Protestant Episcopal Church, we commend to your observance the following sentiments concerning doc- trine and worship. We refer you at the same time, for these and other objects of your mission, to our resolutions on the proceedings of the late convention in New York. " Uniformity in doctrine and worship will un- questionably contribute to the prosperity of the Pro- testant Episcopal Church. But we earnestly wish that this may be pursued with liberality and mode- ration. The obstacles which stand in the way of union among Christian societies, are too often found- ed on matters of mere form. They are surmount- able therefore by those, who breathing the spirit of Christianity, earnestly labour in this pious work. " From the Holy Scriptures themselves, rather than the comments of men, must we learn the terms of salvation. Creeds therefore ought to be simple: and we are not anxious to retain any other, than that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed. " Should a change in the liturgy be proposed, let it be made with caution: and in that case, let the al- terations be free, and the style of prayer continue as agreeable as may be to the essential characteristics of our persuasion. We will not now decide, what ceremonies ought to be retained. We wish, how- ever, that those which exist may be estimated ac- cording to their utility, and that such as may appear 122 fit to be laid aside, may no longer be appendages of our ciiurch. " We need only add, that we shall expect a report of your proceedings, to be made to those whom we shall vest with authority to call a convention." The intercourse with the court of Denmark, no- ticed in the proceedings of Pennsylvania, having been communicated by the governor of Virginia to the body now assembled; their deputies were instructed to lay the same before the general convention. This convention of Virginia, issued an address to the members of the episcopal church throughout the state; in order to excite a zeal for the reviving of the communion. They passed rules, forty-three in number, for the government of the church in Virginia, extending to a great variety of particulars. In these rules, they made direct provision for the trial of bishops and other clergymen by the convention: the matter, con- cerning which there has been so much dissatisfac- tion, because of its not being directly provided against by the general convention held within a few months after this convention held in Richmond. G, Page 20. Of the Conventimi in Philadelphia and. Wilmington, in 1786. The Rev. David Griffith, D. D. rector of Fairfax parish, Alexandria, Virginia, who had been elected to the episcopacy in that state, presided in this con- 123 vention. Francis Hopkinson, Esq. was the secre- tary. The convention was opened with a sermon by the president of the preceding convention. The convention assembled under circumstances, which bore strong appearances of a dissolution of the union, in this early stage of it. The interfering in- structions from the churches in the different states — The embarrassment that had arisen from the rejec- tion of the proposed Book in some of the states and the use of it in others — Some dissatisfaction on ac- count of the Scotish episcopacy — and, added to these, the demur expressed in the letter from the English bishops, were what the most sanguine contemplated with apprehension, and were sure prognostics of our falling to pieces, in the opinion of some, who were dissatisfied with the course that had been taken for the organizing of the church. How those difficulties were surmounted, will be seen. In regard to the interfering instructions, they were all silenced by the motion that stands on the journal, for refering them to the first convention, which should meet fully authorised to determine on a Book of Common Prayer. The instructions, far from proving injurious, had the contrary effect; by showing, as well the necessity of a duly constituted ecclesiastical body, as the futility of taking measures, to be re- viewed and authoritatively judged of, in the bodies of which we were the deputies. Such a system ap- peared so evidently fruitful of discord and disunion, that it was abandoned from this time. The author^ who haQ saw, that the several eminent persons who entered, came uninvited as to tliat particular time. Before dinner the archbishop rose, bowed to the 'company, and left the room. They followed; all of them, no doubt, besides ourselves, understanding the transaction. After passing- through a suite of rooms, we found ourselves in the cliapel; in which were the two chaplains in their surplices. One of them read the litany; after which, we re- turned to the room wherein we had been received. Soon after- wards, we were called to dinner. It is probable, that such a visit on some Wednesday — it was the weekly day — during the session of parliament, is expected of every member of either house, who lives in habits of acquaintance with tlie primate. The reading of the litany, including the prayers attached to it in the English book of Common Prayer, and none other, seems a remnant of former practice; it having been originally a di- tinct service. It is on this account, that the incident has been related. * The prelates whom we found, were the archbishop of York, the bishop of Rochester, the very aged bishop of Carlisle, in whom w^ saw the wreck of one of the first scholars of the age, and the bishops of Salisbury, Bristol, and Ely. The first mentioned of these three, since bishop of Durham, commended the moderation manifested in our service for the fourth of Jul}'. This was gra- tifying; as it had been pronounced by some on our side of the Atlantic, that the said service would of itself be sufficient, to induce a rejection of the application of the American church. 157 Thither we went together, in his coach. On being intro'liiced to the king;, I made this preconceived address — That " we were happy in the opportunity- of thanking his majesty, for his hcense granted to his grace the archbishop, to convey the episcopal succes- sion to the church in America.' The king made this answer; which I set down, to show the kindness of the archbishop* — "His grace has given me such an account of the gentlemen who have come over, that I am glad of the present opportunity of serving the interests of religion." His majesty then asked Br. iVovoost, whether the episcopal communion were not numerous in New York: and was answered by the Doctor in the affirmative, with further thanks for the license granted. The king then passed to the next in the circle, and after a little while we with- drew, with the archbisliop^f We had contemplated this measure of waiting on the king, as of peculiar delicacy. In the character of citizens of the United States of America, we * It may be presumed, however, that such civility is the usual courtesy of the place. t Wiiile we were waiting in our places, until the king slioulil come to us in ins passing from one attendant to another, there occurred an additional instance of the attention of the arch- bishop to the delicacy of our situation. When the king speaks to you, said he, you will only bow: adding, with a smile — when an English bishop is presented, he does something more. This alluded to the ancient fonn of doing homage for his barony on his knees. We were aware of the different circumstances in which we stood: but it was considerate, to guard against the dan- ger of mistake. 158 should have thought it inconsistent in us, to have made any application to the civil authority of Great Britain. The act of parliament, had laid on the ^archbishop the obtaining of the consent of the king, under his sign manual. This consent had been ob- tained, before our going to court; and therefore, we saw no impropriety in the visit. Sunday, February Uh. We attended at the pa- lace of Lambeth, for consecration. The assistants of the archbishop, on the occasion, were the arch- bishop of York, who presented; and the bishop of Bath and Wells and the bishop of Peterborough who joined with the two archbishops, in the imposition of hands. It was particularly agreeable to us, to see among them the bishop of Bath and Wells; because we had all along understood, that in the beginning, this aged and venerable prelate had entertained scru- ples, on the subject of the application of our church: and it was principally owing to his lordship, that such a point was made of the descent into hell, in the apostles' creed. We presumed, that his difficulties were now removed. Dr. Drake, one of the arch- bishop's chaplains, preached; and Dr. Randolph, the other chaplain, read the prayers. The sermon, was a sensible discussion of the long litigated subject of the authority of the church, to ordain rites and cere- monies. The text was — " Let all things be done de- cently and in order." 1 Cor. xiv. 40. The discourse, had very little reference to the peculiarity of the oc- casion. The truth was, as the archbi'^.hop had told us on Friday, on our way to court, that he had 159 spoken to a particular friend to compose a sermon for the occasion; and had given him a sketch of what he wished to be the scope of it. This friend had just sent him information of a domestic calamity, which would excuse him from attendance; and the arch- bishop was then under the necessity, of giving a short notice to one of his chaplains. The consecration was performed in the chapel of the palace of the archbishop; in the presence of his family and his household, and very few others; among whom was my old friend, the Rev. Mr. Duche. I had asked the archbishop's leave to introduce him: and it was a great satisfaction to me, that he was there; the recollection of the benefit which I had re- ceived from his instructions in early life, and a ten- der sense of the attentions which he had shown me almost from my infancy, together with the impres- sions left by the harmony which had subsisted be- tween us in the discharge of our joint pastoral duty in Philadelphia, being no improper accompanyments to the feelings suited to the present very interesting transaction of my life. I hope, that I felt the weight of the occasion. May God bless the meditations and the recollections by which I had endeavoured to pre- pare myself for it; and give them their due effect on my temper and conduct, in the new character in which I am to appear! The solemnity being over, we dined with the archbishop and the bishops; and spent with them the remainder of the day. I took occasion to men- tion to his grace my conviction, that the American 160 church would be sensible of the kindness now shown; and my trust, that the American bishops, besides the usual incentives to duty, would have this in addition; lest the church of England should have cause to re- gret her act, performed on this day. He answered, that he fully beheved there would be no such cause: that the prospect was very agreeable to him ; that he bore a great affection for our church; and that he should be always glad to hear of her prosperity ; and also of the safe arrival and the welfare of us indi- vidually. After spending the remainder of the evening very agreeably, we took our leave, which was affectionate on both sides; and on our part, with hearts deeply sensible of the regard which had been shown to our church, and of the personal civilities which we had received.* Monday, February 5th. As an evidence of his grace's dehcacy, 1 deposit the account of fees, * During dinner this day at Lambeth, we were surprized at a conversation introduced by the bishop of Peterborough. We had been accustomed to think it a sort of adjunct to the claim of church manship to consider the " Eikuv B«o-a<>t«" or " Royal Por- traiture" as a true expression of the feelings of king Charles 1. in some of the most trying circumstances of his life. The bishop remarked, and his brethren assented to the position, tliat the con- trary was now clearly proved, by a late publication of some papers of lord Clarendon. These papers, it was said, show the work to have been written by bishop Gauden. The simplicity of the style of the work, and the contrary property said to be discernable in the writings of that bishop, are the circumstances which inclined Mr. Hume to give the credit of the composition to the king. IGI broiijrlit to us this morning by his secretary; and g;ive the following narrative of the manner in which that business was conducted. On the morning of our visit to court, I mentioned to the archbishop, agreeably to preconcert with Dr. Provoost, that there must necessarily have been some charges for the expenses of otiice, in carrying the business of our church through the civil department; and requested to know the amount, that we might discharge it. The archbishop answered, that if he should inform us on that point, it must be on the principle, that in an affair of no great magnitude, it might seem disrespectful to us, to withhold the satis- faction demanded. He added, that on the occasion of the consecration of an Enghsh bishop, there were very considerable expenses to different persons of the archbishop's court and of his household; which expenses he thought improper on the present occa- sion, and should therefore prohibit them. After the consecration, he, within our hearing, informed a gen- tleman from Doctors' Commons, Robert Jenner, Esq. who had attended officially in his civil law robe, with a view to the local registry, that as we intended to leave London the next day, our papers must be ready in the morning. On the gentleman's answering, that he would wait on us with them, the archbishop re- plied— No; you are to bring them to my secretary, who will wait on them: evidently with the design, that the pecuniary part of the transaction should pass under his own control. The fees paid by us jointly amounted to L.14 3 1, being altogether in X 162 the line of public offices, and which the archbishop must have paid but for the request made on our part. For the instrument of consecration, recorded in the archiepiscopal registry, see Appendix, No. 14. On the morning of the day of our leaving of the city, I received a note from the archbishop. Although it begins with a message of civility to a respectable divine in New Jersey, not long before in England, I take the prominent object to have been the convey- ing of information, guarding against an impression which might have been made by what had passed concerning consecration in the province of York. The note shall be given, because of its bearing on the question concerning the number required for conse- cration in the English church. See the Appendix, No. 15. There being in possession some documents in the civil line, sustaining facts mentioned in the statements, the present opportunity is improved to the perpetu- ating of them. They are, (1) A letter from his excellency Richard Henry Lee, esquire, president of congress, to his excel- lency John Adams, esquire, minister plenipotentiary to the court of Great Britain. (2) A letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Lee, in an- swer. (S) A letter from the archbishop of Canterbuiy to Mr. Adams, after an interview between them. (4) A certificate of the supreme executive coun- cil of Pennsylvania. 163 (5) A certificate of his excellency governor Pa- trick Henry of Virginia. In reference to the last two documents, and to a similar one in the case of Dr. Provoost, given by his excellency governor Clinton of New York, but not in possession, it is to be recollected, that they were to be applied for in consequence of an instruction of the general convention. They may reasonably be supposed to have had an effect, in accomplishing the views of the episcopal church. See the Appen- dix, No. 16. It was in the statements, that Richard Peters, esquire, having visited England on private business, was requested by the committee of the convention to wait on the archbishop of Canterbury on the business concerning which the English prelates had been ad- dressed. The consequent letter of Mr. Peters to the committee has a tendency to throw light on the sub- ject, and is therefore given in the Appendix, No. 1 7.* * There being nothing more in the letters to the committee concerning the claim of the corporation of the Widows' Fund, the silence seems to require a reason. The abstract was sent to the arclibishop, agreeably to his desire. In the next inter- view he remarked, that he perceived the evidence of the promise of the society in England; but wished to know to what period the society in America considered it as extending. The author had not been informed on that point by the committee, and made answer accordingly. The undertaking of the settling of this would have involved him in no less a difficulty, than that of determining at what period, American allegiance ceased. If it were on the 4th of July 1776, there could be no claim beyond that day, on a fund appropriated by charter to the dominions of 164 We left London on the evening of the .5th of February; rrached Falmouth on the 10th; were de- tained there by contrary winds, until Sunday the 17th, when we embarked; and after a voyage of pre- cisely seven weeks, landed at New York on the after- noon of Easter Sunday, April the 7th: sensible, I trust, of the goodness of God in our personal protec- tion and safety; and in his having thus brought to a prosperous issue the measures adopted for the ob- taining of that episcopacy, the want of which had been the subject of the complaint of our church from the earliest settlement of the colonies; and which, we hope, will be now improved to her increase, and to the glory of her divine Head. L Page 24 Of the Convention in 1789. The business, was to have been preceded by a sermon from bishop Provoost: but the bishop being detained by indisposition. Dr. Smith preached. The only bishop present presided, and the secretary was Francis Hopkinson, esquire. Previously to the meeting of the convention it was foreseen, that the unfinished business of the episcopacy, and the relative situation of the church in Connecticut, would be the principal objects of at- the British crown. On the other hand, to have dated indepen- dence from the acknowledgment of it by Great Britain, would have been inconsistent with American citizenship. Accordingly, nothing more passed on the subject. It should be noticed, that to the former period, there was very little due. 165 tention; and must be thought important, not only hi themselves, but because of the influence which each of them had on the other. It may be proper to say something of these, before an entry on the narrative of what passed concerning them, in the convention. There is an implication — at least the author had always so understood it — in the address to the En- glish prelates, tliat the American episcopal church was to obtain from them the beginning of the suc- cession in the number of bishops competent, accord- ing to the English rule and practice, to perpetuate it. Doubtless, this sentiment was much strengthened, by the consideration of the antiquity and the expedi- ency of the rule, which required the presence and the consent of three bishops in every consecration. Although it had been the clear sense on both sides, that the American church was entirely independent on the church of England; yet, on this point of procuring from England the canonical number of bishops the promise seemed to have been voluntarily pledged; so that the English prelates might, in the event of non-compliance, have laid the charge of" im- position. It is true, the archbishop of Canterbury seems not to have been tenacious of the canonical number; as appears from what he said of a conse- cration for the Isle of Man, related in the author's letter from Englaud. Yet Viis grace was careful to correct his mistake, in regard to that measure; as is evident from the note written by him to the author, on the day on which he left London. If some of the archbishop's brothrau, of the right reverend bench, should have been louud stricter than himself on 166 points of this nature, there was no responsibility on him; and the blame would have lain on those, who had dispensed with the ancient number in America. There may be acknowledged another reason, for be- ing particular on this point: it is the guarding against the mischievous consequences of a disposition to irre- gularity in any future American bishop, who might have less concern for the peace and the order of the church, than for the sustaining of his consequence with a party. In regard to the church in Connecticut; it had been all along an object with the author, which he never endeavoured to conceal, to bring its episcopacy within the union. But as the Scotch succession could not be officially recognized by the English bishops; he wished to complete the succession from England, before such a comprehension should take place. He knew, indeed, that bishop Provoost, al- though he did not appear to be possessed of personal ill will to bishop Seabury, was opposed to having any thing to do with the Scotch succession ; which he did not hesitate to pronounce irregular. Yet he was very little supported in this sentiment; and least of all, by the clergy of his own diocess. It was therefore na- tural to infer, that he would see the expediency of what was the general wish; or, at least wave his ob- jection for the sake of peace: as indeed happened.* * In the last preceding convention of the church in New York, they had declared their desire, as well in favour of the succession in the English line, as for a union of the church throughout the United States, with an evident allusion to the 167 Although these subjects would of course have engaged the attention of the convention; yet an ap- plication which came from the church in Massachu- setts, addiessed to each of the three bishops, and received by the author a few days before the assem- bling of the convention, brought the matter forwards in a very strong point of view. The object of the address, was the procuring of the consecration of the Rev. Edward Bass of the said state, as the con- current act of the three bishops. For the application from Massachusetts, and for the testimonial of the consecration of bishop Seabury; see the Appendix, No. 18. The author, had some time before written to Dr. Parker of Boston, that he considered the clergy of Massachusetts as peculiarly situated; in consequence of their never having been concerned, either in the application to England, or in that to Scotland: so that they had it in their power to act the part of mediators, in bringing the clergy of Connecticut and those of the other states together. Dr. Parker has since repeat- edly declared, and it is in a letter under his hand, Scotch episcopacy. What is now referred to, are the two follow- ing resolves, passed unanimously on the 5th of November, 1788. " Resolved, that it is higlily necessary in the opinion of this convention, that measures should be pursued to preserve the episcopal succession in the English line — and " Resolved also, that the union of the protestant episcopal church in the United States of America is of gi-eat importance and much to be desired; and that the delegates of this state, in the next general convention, be instructed to promote that union by every prudent measure, consistent with the constitution of the church, and the continuance of the episcopal succession in the English line." 168 that this hint was the origin, and that the promoting of the measure mentioned was the motive, of the ap- phcation for the consecration of Mr. Bass. Dr. Par- ker, even after the favourable close of the subse- quent session, which he had attended, intimated, that the object of the application having been accom- plished, he and his brethren would be indifferent as to any thing further. A confirmation of this appear- ed soon afterwards, in the resignation of Mr. Bass. The application was received but a few days be- fore the meeting of the convention, and very soon engaged the notice of that body; who, from the be- ginning, manifested a strong desire of complying with it. This put their president in a very delicate situ- ation; standing alone as he did in the business, and as president of the assembled body. Many speeches were made, which implied, that the result of the de- liberation must involve the acquiescence of the two bishops of the Enghsh line; w^hile it was thought by the only one of them present, that no determination of theirs would warrant the breach of his faith im- pliedly pledged, as he apprehended, in consequence of measures taken by a preceding convention. Ac- cordingly, he took occasion to state to several of the members, in the intervals of the meetings, the diffi- culty under which he lay. They urged the neces- sity, which they thought the church was under; and as to the implication involved in the first address to the English bishops; they said it was intended at the time, but prevented by unexpected occurrences in the case of Dr. Griffith. On the opposite side, no such necessity was perceived; and as to the resigna- 169 tion ofPr. Giilfitli, another might be chosen. He hat! been himself cliosen, after the date of the letter to the English bishops. The issue of these confer- ences, were the resolves on the journal of this ses- sion, with a reference to the difficulty stated; and the directing of an address to the English prelates: which was accordingly drawn up, as it stands on the jour- nal of the next session. For the resolves and the address to the arch- bishops, see the Appendix, No. 19. The author, on being consulted in regard to this expedient, saw an objection to it in the call which it made on the said prelates, to declare an opinion on the subject of the Scotch episcopacy. Perhaps they might not agree. Even if their opinion should be fa- vourable; it must be in opposition to the positive pro- visions of acts of parliament, and therefore would not be officially given. For his part; the only way in which he was to be affected by the measure in contempla- tion, was the being relieved, at the present time, from the pain of standing opposed to the wishes of the convention. The measure was adopted; and this seems the proper place of mentioning the result of it When bishop Madison went to England, in the following summer, for consecration; the archbishop of Can- terbury informed him, and desired him to inform the author as president of the convention, that he (the archbishop) had drawn up an answer; the sending of which would be rendered unnecessary by his (bishop Madison^s) coming. The archbishop read Y 170 the answer to him; remarking, that it was painful to him to be in such circumstances, as required him to speak or write in terms, which were not an exphcit declaration on the subject. In short, bishop Madi- son said, that the archbishop, in the answer, left the matter as he found it: which was what might have been expected, from the caution of his character; and from the circumstances of peculiar delicacy, at- tending this subject* That so httle business was transacted in this ses- sion of the convention, may be seen from the journal to have been owing to the adjournment; made for the express purpose of inviting the clergy of Con- necticut to meet the convention in September: an * In an interview with the archbishop, he expressed himself to bishop Madison to the following effect, as appears from a com- munication of the latter to the author, dated December 19, 1790: from which tlie other particulars are also taken — " A few days before I left London, the archbishop requested a particular in- terview 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 con- cerned. He spoke with great delicacy of Dr. Seabury; bui thought it most advisable, that the line of bishops should be handed down, from those who had received their commission from tlie same source." It was afterwards supposed, that the sense of the archbishop was fully accomplished by the presence and the assistance of the canonical number of the Baiglish line: and the matter was so understood by bishop Madison. Besides, the question had changed its ground, by the repeal of the laws against the Scotish bishops; and by their rece])tion in their jjroper character, in England. This happened, after bishop Madison's visit to that country. 171 object, which it was expected would be promoted by the conviction generally prevailing in the convention, that the formerly proposed constitution was inadequate to the situation of this church; and by the new consti- tution entered on the journal of this session. On this business, the president of the convention met the committee but once, and interested himself very little; being desirous, that whatever additional powers it might be thought necessary to assign to the bishops, such powers should not lie under the reproach of having been pressed for by one of the number; but be the result of due dehberation, and the free choice of all orders of persons within the church, and given with a view to her good government.* * During the cession, there took place in the house of the author, the decease of the Rev. Dr. Griffith of Virginia. The respect entertained for him by the convention, appears in the arrangements made for attendance on his funeral as recorded on the journal. He had been much indisposed from the day of his arrival. His death, however, was in one sense sudden, and certainly unexpected to the very able physician who attended liini, and with whom he had been in long habits of acquaintance. His disorder was the inflammatory rheumatism, which passe(^ to his head during sleep. The following statement is thought due to the memory of a respectable divine, who had manifested great zeal for the organizing of the church. It has been reported, and had weight on some minds in a more recent election to the episcopacy, that he had been under the necessity of resigning, on account of his ha ng been elected in haste, and without due notice. The contrary is here known, and can be proved by documents in possession. His election, was in May 1786. Some private concerns, and the not being supplied with money, prevented l\is crossing of the Atlantic, with the two who crossed it in November of tjiat year. In May 172 In the second session, the clergy who came from the eastward, besides bishop Seabury, were two of his presbyters, Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Jarvis, from Connecticut; and Dr. Parker, from Massachusetts. All things now appeared to tend to an happy union. But a danger arose from an unexpected question, on the very day of the arrival of these gentlemen. The danger was on the score of politics. Some lay members of the convention — two of them were known, and perhaps tliere were more — having ob- tained information, that bishop Seabury, who had been chaplain to a British regiment during the war, was now in the receipt of half-pay, entertained scru- ples in regard to the propriety of admitting him as a 17S7, about a year after his election, and about a month after the return of the bishops consecrated in England, there was held a convention in Virginia, from the printed journal of which the following is an extract: " Resolved, that the standing committee, without delay, re- quest of the right reverend Dr. White, bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the right reverend Dr. Provoost, bishop of the said church in the state of New York, that they, or either of them, admit to con- secration the Rev. Dr. Griffitli, nominated by the last convention bishop of the church in this state." The standing committee were the Rev. Dr. Madison, the Rev. Mr. Bracken, the Rev. Mr. Shield, the Hon. John Blair, Mr. Page of Rosewell, and Mr. Andrews. The prominent appli- cant to the American bishops was Dr. Madison, who was after- wards bishop. The principle on which the bishops declined compliance, has been set forth in its proper place; being their opinion, that they were pledged to their first obtaining of three bishops from England. .^-' 173 member of the convention. One of the gentlemen took the author aside, at a gentleman^s house where several of the convention were dining, and stated to him this difficulty. His opinion — it is hoped the right one — was, That an ecclesiastical body needed not to be over-righteous, or more so than civil bodies, on such a point — That he knew of no law of the land, which the circumstance relative to a former chaplaincy contradicted — That indeed there was an article in the confederation, then the bond of union of the states, providing that no citizen of theirs should receive any title of nobility from a foreign power: a provision not extending to the receipt of money; which seemed imphedly allowed, indeed, in the guard provided against the other — That bishop Seabury's half-pay was a compensation for former services, and not for any now expected of him — That it did not prevent his being a citizen, with all the rights attached to the character, in Connecticut — And that should he or any person in the like circum- stances be returned a njember of congress from that state, he must necessarily be admitted of their body. The gentleman to whom the reasoning was ad- dressed, seemed satisfied; and either from this or from some other cause, the objection was not brought forward. The author very much apprehended, that the contrary would happen; not because of the pre- judices of the gentleman who addressed him on the subject; but because of those of another, who had started the dithculty. 174 On the day succeeding that of the above conver- sation, the committee was appointed, as stated on the minutes, to confer with the eastern gentlemen, on a plan of union. They met in the evening; and found no difficulty in joining in the report, as made the next day in the convention. The subsequent adoption of the report, with the reservation as to the negative of the bishops, leads to the remark, that from the sen- timents expressed in the debate, there is reason to believe that the full negative would have been al- lowed; had not Mr. Andrews, from Virginia, very seriously, and doubtless very sincerely, expressed his apprehension, that it was so far beyond what was expected by the church in his state, as would cause the measure to be there disowned. The de- sire that Mr. Andrews had all along shown to effect the union, and the good temper with which he had treated every subject of discussion, gave the greater force to his apprehensions: the consequence of which was, the referring of the subject of the full negative to some subsequent general convention ; to be deter- mined according to instructions from the conventions in the several states. The eastern gentlemen ac- quiesced, but reluctantly, in this compromise. Had there been no more than their apprehension of laws passing by a majority of four fifths, after a non-con- currence of the bishops; the extreme improbability of this would — it is thought — have been confessed by them. But the truth is — They thought that the frame of ecclesiastical government could hardly be 175 called episcopal, while such a matter was held out as speculatively possible.* For the constitution as proposed by the session of July and August, and as acceeded to in this session by bishop Seabury and the presbyters from Connec- ticut and Boston, see the Appendix, No. 20. No sooner had the convention divided into two houses; than an incident happened in the house of clerical and lay deputies, which had an unpropitious influence on all that followed: and as the result of the deliberations of both houses was, in many points, owing to this incident, occasion is taken to relate it, on recollection; after having been an hearer in the house of clerical and lay deputies at the time. In the appointment of committees, on the dif- ferent departments of the book of Common Prayer; * The case of Mr. Andrews of Virginia, is a strong proof of the laxity in regard to due order and discipline, under which it was necessary to begin tlie organization of the church. He was a first cousin of the Rev. Dr. Andrews, with whom and with the author he had been a student in the college of Philadelphia. At the time in question, he was a professor in the college of Wil- liamsburg in Virginia. Although in priests' orders, he had dis- continued his ministry, and acted in some civil employments of responsibility, with reputation. He was a very sensible and a very amiable man, in his temper and deportment. He had, doubtless, in sOme way reconciled his departure from the cleri- cal character, with a sincere desire of settling the concerns of the church, and of contributing his best endeavours to that ef- fect. Certain it is that they were directed, not to the pulling down, but to the building up of the church, the ministry of which he had forsaken. Probably, he was the easier reconciled to this measure, by the almost total prostration of the church in Virginia, during the war of the revolution. 176 Dr. Parker proposed, that the English book should be the ground of the proceedings to be hekl; without any reference to thai set out and proposed in 1 785. This was objected to by some; who contended, that a hturgy ought to be formed, without reference to any existing book; although with liberty to take from any, whatever the convention should think fit. The issue of the debate, was the wording of the re- solves, as they stand on the journal; in which the diiferent committees are appointed, to prepare a morning and evening prayer — to prepare a litany — to prepare a comn) union service — and the same, in regard to the other departments; instead of its being said — to alter the said services: which had been the language in 1785. This was very unreasonable; because the different congregations of the church were always understood to be possessed of a hturgy; before the consecration of her bishops, or the existence of her conventions. It would have been thought a strange doctrine in any of the clergy, had they pretended, that they were re- leased from all obligation to the use of the book of Common Prayer, by the revolution. It is true, that Dr. Parker had carried the matter too far, in speak- ing of the proposed book, as a form of which they could know nothing, considering that it had been proposed by a preceding convention from a majority of the states. It was particularly wondered at in Dr. Parker; by those who knew, that he had used the book in his own church at Boston. But as the doctor, during the preceding part of the session, had been looked to for the opening of the sentiments of 177 the clerg:y present from Connecticut, who had said but httle all along, and evidently depended on him, to prrss the points which they had most at heart; it is probable, that in this instance, he accommodated more than was either necessary or well considered, to make matters agreeable to their minds. The di- rect course would have been, to have taken the En- glish liturgy, as that in which some alterations were contemplated; and with it, the other as a proposal, agreeably to what was expressed in the title page. Certain it is, that the extreme proposed tended very much to the opposite extreme, which took effect — an evident implication in all the proceedings of the house, that there were no forms of prayer, no of- fices, and no rubrics, until they should be formed by the convention now assembled. Every one must per- ceive, that this abridged the species of negative, lodged with the house of bishops. For if, in any branch of the liturgy, they should be disposed to be tenacious in any point, which should be a deviation from the English book; the consequence must be, not that the prayer, or whatever else it were, remained as before, but that no such matter were to be inserted. This, in some instances, would have operated to the extent of excluding a whole office of the church, if the negative of the bishops had been insisted on. They did not carry their right so far; but they rea- soned and expostulated on the point, with several of the gentlemen, to no purpose. They would not allow, that there was any book of" authority, in existence: a mode of proceeding, in which they have acted diflfer- 178 ently from the conventions before and after them; who have recog;nized the contrary principle when any matter occurred to which it was apphcable. If that adopted by the majority of the house of clerical and lay deputies had been acted on by the clergy and by the individual congregations, on the taking place of the civil revolution, it would have torn the church to pieces. On the contrary, the idea had prevailed, that although the civil part of the institution was de- stroyed, and each christian minister lay under the ne- cessity to discharge the scriptural duty of praying for his civil rulers, according to his individual discretion; the rest of the service remained entire, on the ground of antecedent obligation. The forms of proceeding in the house of bishops, consisting of two only — Bishop Provoost, although absent, being considered as making up the constitu- tional number — were soon settled. They were draft- ed by the author, and he seized the opportunity of preventing all discussions at any time — for this he hoped for as the effect — on the point of precedency; by resting the matter on the seniority of episcopal consecration: which, of course, made Bishop Seabury the president of the house. This regulation, was agreeable to the judgment of the author; which is not altered, although a different principle was adopted at the next convention, and acted on for a time. The only plausible objection heard to the other — which, however, lies equally against that afterwards adopted — is the possible case of the presidency's devolving on a bishop, who may be disqualified for the duties of it. by mental or by bodily infirmities. But in this 179 case, a vice president, or a president pro tempore might be appointed. The principal act of this session was the prepar- ing of the Book of Common Prayer, as now the es- tabhshed liturgy of the church. It will not be no- ticed any further, than, on the ground of information possessed, to account for the doing or for the omit- ting of any important matter. The journal shows, that some parts of it were drawn up by the house of clerical and lay deputies, and other parts of it, by the house of bishops. In the latter, owing to the small- ness of the number and a disposition in both of them to accommodate, business was despatched with great celerity; as must be seen by any one, who attends to the progress of the subjects recorded on the Journal. To this day, there are recollected with satisfaction, the hours which were spent with Bishop Seabury on the important subjects which came before them ; and especially the christian temper which he manifested all along. In the daily prayer for morning and evening ser- vice; the principal subjects of difference arising be- tween the two houses, were the Athanasian creed, and the descent into hell in the apostles' creed. On the former subject, the author consented to the proposal of Bishop Seabury, of making it an amendment to the draft sent by the other house; to be inserted with a rubric, permitting the use of it. This however was declared to be on the principle of accommodation, to the many who were reported to desire it, especially in Connecticut; where, it was said. 180 the omitting of it would hazard the reception of the book. It was the author's intention, never to read the creed himself; and he declared his mind to that ef- fect. Bishop Seabury, on the contrary, thought that without it, there would be a difficulty in keeping out of the church the errors to which it stands opposed. In answer to this, there were urged the instances of several churches, as the Lutheran and others in this country and in Europe; and above all, the instance of the widely extended Greek church, confessedly tena- cious of the doctrine of the Nicene creed; and yet not possessed of the Athanasian in any liturgy, or even of an acknowledgment of it in any confession of faith. Of the last mentioned instance. Bishop Sea- bury entertained a doubt: but the fact is certainly so; as is attested by the Rev. John Smith, an English divine held in estimation; who wrote " an account of the Greek church," with the advantage of having re- sided in Constantinople. He says (p. 196) after men- tion of the apostles' creed and the Nicene — " as to that of St. Athanasius, they are wholly strangers to it.'' However, the creed was inserted by way of amend- ment; to be used or omitted at discretion. But the amendment was negatived, by the other house: and when the subject afterwards came up in conference, they would not allow of the creed in any shape; which was thought intolerant by the gentlemen from New England; who, with Bishop Seabury, gave it up with great reluctance. The other subject — the descent of Christ into hell — was left in a situation, which afterwards not a little 181 embarasscd the committee, who had the charge of" printing the book. The amendments of the bishops, wliether verbal or other, to the services sent to the other house, had all been numbered. The president of that house, as afterwards appeared on unquestion- able verbal testimony, accidentally omitted the read- ing of the article in its full force, with the explana- tory rubric. The meaning of the article in that place, was declared to be the state of the dead, generally: and this was proposed, instead of the form in which the other house had presented it, in italics and be- tween hooks, with a rubric permitting the use of the words — " He went into the place of departed spi- rits." The paper of the house, in return to that of the bishops, said nothing on this head; and therefore their acquiescence was presumed. This might have been the easier supposed; as there were some, who, while they thought but little of the importance of in- serting such an article, were yet of opinion, that the convention stood pledged, on the present subject, to the English Bishops: it being the only one on which they had laid much stress, in stating the terms on which they were willing to consecrate for our church; and we having complied with their wishes, in that re- spect. This would seem very unsuitably followed by a repetition of the offensive measure, or something very like it, in the first convention held after the con- secration had been obtained. Thus, the matter passed without further notice. But Bishop Seabury, before he left the city, conceived a suspicion, that there had been a misunderstanding. For on the evening before 182 his departure, he took the author aside from com- pany, and mentioned his apprehension; which was treated as groundless, on the full belief that it was so. It was a point, which Bishop Seabury had much at heart; from an opinion, that the article was put into the creed, in opposition to the Apollinarian here- sy; and that therefore, the withdrawing of it was an indirect encouragement of the same. The author saw no such inference; but wished to retain the arti- cle, on the ground, that the doing so would tend to peace; that it would be acting consistently towards the English church; and that a latitude would be left by the proposed rubric, for the understanding of the article as refering to the state of departed spirits, ge- nerally. It is curious to remark by the way, that when the book came out. Bishop Provoost disHked the form in which this part of it appeared, more than either the article as it stood originally, or the omitting of it altogether: on the principle, that it exacted a be- lief of the existence of departed spirits, between death and the resurrection. So easy is it, in extending lati- tude of sentiment on one side, to hmit it on another. However, when the committee assembled to pre- pare the book for the press, great was their surprise and that of the author, to find that the two houses had misunderstood one another altogether. The ques- tion was — what is to be done.^ And here, the differ- ent principles on which the business had been con- ducted, had their respective operation. The com- mittee contended, that the amendment made by the bishops to the service as proposed by their house, \ 18 C2 not appearing to have been presented; the service must stand as proposed by them, with the words " he descended into hell" printed in italics and between hooks; and with the rubric permissory of the use of the words — "he went into the place of departed spirits." On the contrary it w'as thought a duty to maintain the principle, that the creed, as in the En- glish book, must be considered as the creed of the church, until altered by the consent of both houses; which was not yet done. Accordingly, remonstrance was made against the printing of the article of the descent into hell, in the manner in which it appears in the book published at that time. When the convention afterwards met in New^ York, in the year 1792, this matter came in review before them: and the result, was the ordering of the creed to be printed in all future editions, with the ar- ticle not in italics and between hooks as before; but with the rubric leaving it to discretion to use or to omit it; or to use, instead of it, the words considered by the rubric as synonymous. Some such composi- tion, seemed to be rendered absolutely necessary by existing circumstances. The importance given to this article by the requi- sition of the English prelates, and the litigation which it has consequently undergone in our conventions, induce the being particular in regard to it. There- fore, as the delivery of opinion on the subject will fall within the design of these sheets; it is proposed to recur to it again, before the finishing of remarks on the transactions of this convention. 184 As connected with the morning and evening prayers, the reading psalms come under notice in this place; and the following information is to be given concerning them. ' The house of bishops did not approve of the ex- pedient of the other house, in relation to the selec- tions as they now stand; to be used at the discretion of the minister, instead of the psalms for the day. But Bishop Seabury interested himself in the subject the less; as knowing, that neither himself nor any of his clergy would make use of the alternative, but that they would adhere to the old practice. For the au- thor's part, he disliked the course taken ; from the opinion, that it was less likely to be satisfactory than another expedient suggested by him, for the improv- ing of this part of the service; which, in his opinion, called for it more than any other. The expedient, was to give to the officiating minister the liberty to select psalms at his discretion. This would be at- tended— ^he thought — with the advantage of breaking the practice of reading the psalms, without any re- gard to their suitableness to the general circum- stances and state of mind of a mixed congregation; and yet, not hazard such capricious omissions of par- ticular passages, as might be construed by some into XI disrespectful treatment of holy writ; and thus pre- vented all improvement in this branch of the service. Another consequence would be, that, the number and the length of the psalms depending on the choice of the minister, there would be great encouragement to the introduction of the practice of singing this part 185 «f' the service,, instead of repeating the verses by the minister and the clerk alternately. As to the selec- tions made, he considers some of" the omissions of particular verses as very capricious; and the selec- tions in general as having added to the length of the morning and evening prayer, instead of shortening them; an object confessedly proper to be kept in view. They were indeed made with too little deli- beration; of which there needs not to be given any stronger proof^ than that the selections which stand as the 7th and the 8th were proposed by the house of bishops, at his desire, as an amendment. The ex- cellency of the psalms overlooked by gentlemen of judgment and taste, is a proof, that the time and the care bestowed on the work were not proportioned to its importance. The proposal for the inserting of them, was owing to the desire of having the printed selections, since there were to be such, to contain as many of the psalms as were suited to the ordinary devotions of a congregation. The selections which the bishops made contained whole psalms, on the princi- ple already stated. The other house accepted them as sent; only that they excluded one verse, from the 84th psalm. But this subject has been spoken to more particularly, in a former department of the pre- sent work. There has been already expressed the opinion, that this part of the service requires improvement, as much as any. The author earnestly wishes to see the time, when it may be established on the princi- ples of rational piety and good taste. But there are A a 186 great difficulties in the way. On the one hand there are very many, who remain attached to the old prac- tice of reading all the psalms, according to the daily arrangement. Against this, besides the objection so often made, that some of them have more of the se- verity of the legal, than of the mercy of the evange- lical dispensation; there is the circumstance, that a very great proportion of these compositions are ex- pressive of peculiar states of mind; no one of which can be supposed descriptive of any body of people, convened on a common occasion of devotion. Accord- ingly, the parts referred to seem to be not suited to such an occasion; however admirably they may be so for the private prayer and thanksgiving of particular persons. As to the plea of antiquity; little stress is to be laid on it, unless it could be proved, that the psalms were so used in the earliest ages of the church; the contrary to which is here taken to be the fact. But although these objections lie, as is con- ceived, against the past practice; there is such a pro- pensity manifested to the extreme of hypercriticism, as is calculated to bring reproach on every temperate reform of this part of the service. The selections in the present Prayer Book, had they consisted of en- tire Psalms, would have been much more generally used than they are at present. In saying this, it is not intended to object to collections of verses, made with a professed reference to particular subjects; a beautiful instance of which — it is spoken of as a mere matter of taste — is in the English Prayer Bool^ in the hymn in the 30th of January service, to be 187 used instead of the " Venite." But it is wished to dis- tinguisli between a selection, made with a reference to a particular subject; and rejection, on a supposed unfitness for any act of Christian devotion. In the service for the administration of the com- munion; it may perhaps be expected, that the great change made, in restoring to the consecration prayer the oblatory words and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, left out in king Edward's reign, must at least have produced an opposition. But no such tiling happened to any considerable extent; or at least, the author did no hear of any in the other house, further than a disposition to the effect in a few gentlemen, which was counteracted by some pertinent remarks of the president. In that of the bishops, it lay very near to the heart of bishop Seabury. As for the other bishop, without conceiving with some, that the ser- vice as it stood was essentially defective, he always thought there was a beauty in those ancient forms, and can discover no superstition in them. If indeed they could have been reasonably thought to imply, that a Christian minister is a priest, in the sense of an offerer of sacrifice, and that the table is an al- tar and the elements a sacrifice, in any other than figurative senses, he would have zealously opposed the admission of such unevangelical sentiments — as he conceives them to be. The English reformers carefully exploded every thing of this sort, at the time of their issuing of the first book of Common Prayer, which contained the oblation and the invocation. Although they were left out on a subsequent review: 188 yet it is known to have been done at the instance of two learned foreigners; and in order to avoid what was thought the appearance of encouragement of the superstition, which had been done away. The re- storing of those parts of the service by the American church, has been since objected to by some few among us. To shew that a superstitious sense must have been intended, they have laid great stress on the printing of the words " which we now offer unto thee," in a different character from the resit of the prayers. But this was mere accident. The bishops, being possessed of the form used in the Scotch epis- copal church, which they had altered in some re- spects: refered to it, to save the trouble of copying. But the reference was not intended to estabhsh any particular manner of printing; and accordingly, in all the editions of the Prayer Book since the first, the aforesaid words have been printed in the same character with the rest of the prayer, without any deviation from the original appointment. Bishop Seabury's attachment to these changes, may be learn- ed from the following incident. On the morning of the Sunday which occurred during the session of the convention, the author wished him to consecrate the elements. This he declined. On the offer being again made at the time when the service was to begin, he still declined; and, smihng, added — To confess the truth, I hardly consider the form to be used, as strictly amounting to a consecration. The form was of course that used heretofore; the changes not having taken effect. These sentiments he had adopted, in his 189 visit to the bishops from whom he received his epis- copacy. In the occasional services, there was so little difference of opinion, that nothing interesting is re- collected. Although the canons, published at the last con- vention, came under review in this, and received alterations and additions; yet, there was no me- morable incident connected with them. They passed in the other house, almost the same as they were drawn up and sent to them by the bishops. When it was intimated, that there should again be a recurrence to the article in the apostles' creed; this was with the view of delivering sentiments enter- tained on the subject, as expressed in the following letter to bishop Seabury; written at the crisis of the difficulty, which arose on the appearance of the mis- understanding. Philadelphia^ December 1789. Right Reverend and Dear Sir, I received your friendly letter of October 11th, and laid it before the committee; who have expressed no formal determination on the subject; although it appears to me to be the sense of the members, that they cannot recede from the proposal of the house of clerical and lay deputies. Having revolved the matter most seriously in my mind, I have thought that it might serve the two pur- poses of a friendly communication with you, and of leaving a record of the principles on which I act; if 190 I exhibit, as briefly as possible, and without citing authorities, a general view of my sentiments on the point: I shall arrange them under these heads — the history of the article — its merits as a Scripture ques- tion— and the present state of it in this church. As to its history; I take its first appearance in a particular creed, to have been as stated in the preface to the proposed book; and to have meant no more than burial. The archbishops tell us, that it was inserted in opposition to an ancient heresy — meaning the Apollinarian. I cannot find, although I formerly took some pains for the purpose, any avowed refer- ence of this sort. Nevertheless, as Christ^s descent into hell, before the insertion of the article, was un- questionably appealed to by the Catholics, as a con- futation of the heresy; I should not be surprised to find evidence of its being inserted with a view to that. Further, the universal and uncontradicted prevalence of the belief of the descent in the begin- ning of the fifth century, notwithstanding the whims with which it became connected, is of no small sup- port to the opinion, in the strictest and to some the most offensive sense of the words. Here, as it is con- nected with the subject, let me mention what I take to be the meaning of the Hebrew word ^iNiy and the Greek word aS'tj?. The former signifies, sometimes, merely the grave; and sometimes, most evidently to my mind, a place of unhappiness. At^tj? generally conveys the last mentioned idea. Although some passages may be found, in which it is applied to a future state indeterminately; yet I take it to be the 191 opinion of our best judges, that its general and pro- per meaning is the dominion of Satan or a place of torment. But not to digress too far; I hold it to be an unquestionable fact, that from the time of the general prevalence of the article in question, as su- peradded to the burial, it was universally understood in the strict sense; and so continued to the time of the reformation; was then adopted by our church in the same sense; although afterwards, by dropping the reference to the place in St. Peter, she left more latitude as to the precise manner of explaining the article. This brings me to my second particular — the merits of the article, as a Scripture question. Here, truth and candour require me to acknowledge, that they who hold the docti'ine in the strict sense of the words, have much to say. It takes off most of the obscurity of the place in St. Peter, above alluded to; which, otherwise, seems incoherent and unintelli- gible. There is another passage in the next chapter (iv. 6.) which, on this construction, is natural and of obvious meaning; but of which I never met with any other tolerable interpretation. The passage from the Epistle to the Ephesians, which we read in the ordination service, has been otherwise ingeniously interpreted; but with a very forced and unnatural interpretation of the words — " the low^er parts of the earth;" and with the entire loss of connexion with the quotation from the Old Testament. The pas- sage Col. ii. 15. has also a leaning this way. That in the sixteenth Psalm, if we consider it a mere pro- 192 phecy concerning our Saviour, may mean his resur- rection only: for the word "soul" is often put for person, and sometimes for the mere body in the Old Testament. As to the repetition, it is agreeable to a well known characteristic of eastern poetry. But if — which seems the most reasonable — we take the prophecy to relate immediately to David, although remotely and completely to the Messiah; the beauti- ful verses which follow, show the psalmist's expecta- tion of spiritual happiness, antecedently to and inde- pendently on resurrection. Accordingly, they give an aspect to the verse in question, of pertaining — in its remote sense — as well to the soul as to the body of the Redeemer. But although, for the above reasons, the doctrine seems probable in its strict sense; yet, considering that the passages are few, that they are obscure, and that they are introduced incidentally — except the last, which admits of another interpretation; and that the sense does not appear, like the divinity, the incarna- tion, the humanity, and the atonement of Christ, as a leading truth of holy Writ, I do not wish to have it required, as an essential of Christian faith: and I think, that the article may very well be so softened and explained, as that the use may be understood, whatever be the form, to express no more than the passing into a place of departed spirits. There would seem to be no objection to this; since A^»jf sometimes means the invisible state, without any appropriation to happiness or misery; agreeably to the use of it among the Greeks, from whom the 193 word was taken. The truth of the doctrine, with this hititude, rests on passages more expHcit than those quoted; and indeed, on the whole analogy of our faith. Into the proof of this, 1 do not go; not understanding it to be in dispute among us. How- ever, I will not atlirm the necessity of making it, al- though true, an article in so short a composition as the apostles' creed. As to the absurd tenet of the Apollinarians, it might be guarded against in ano- ther way, more conveniently and more explicitly. Therefore the matter of retaining or omitting rests, in my mind, chiefly on the footing of usefulness and expediency. If retained, as explained in our amend- ment, it will not contradict any principle, to which regard should be had among us. If omitted, it will be liable to many inconveniences, to be pointed out under the third branch of the subject, to which I now pass — the present state of the article in our church. It appears most unquestionable to my under- standing, that if a person of good sense, but a stranger to what has passed on the subject, and entirely indif- ferent to the question, were to make out a copy for the printer from the papers prepared by the conven- tion, the copy would be agreeable to our amendment. Yet this would be a very ineligible footing, on which to rest the matter; because the members of the house of clerical and lay deputies might truly declare, that they never meant it. And it would appear in full proof, that the amendment was never read to them. Bb 194 If the above should make the whole transaction null; the obvious inference is, that we revert to the English book, in this point: for as to the position, that we have no creed, nor any other service, until framed by a convention; it appears to me of such dangerous tendency, and is so inconsistent with the proceedings of former general conventions, and those of all the state conventions in my possession ; that its being the opinion of a majority of the members of the late general convention, will never justify me to my own conscience, in making it a ground of conduct. On the contrary, I hold it to be my duty to God and the church, to presume the opposite; as the present known profession of our communion. What then is the sense of the church of England in this matter.'' The archbishops, in their communi- cation, allude to such a declared sense. But with the utmost deference to so high an authority, I never could find it in any institutions of that church. As to her writers, they differ widely from one another. Dr. Fiddes is a strong advocate for the strict sense of the words. Dr. Barrow prefers the making of them synonymous with burial. Bishops Pearson and Burnet, are for the sense comprehended by the pro- posed marginal note and rubric. Yet we may gather from them all, that the strict sense was the original meaning. And my only objection to leaving the mat- ter as we found it, is the rigor of requiring the be- lief of it in that high sense. For although I should fear to insert any thing in opposition to it — " lest haply we be found to fight against God^' — yet on the 195 otlier hand, it is involved in so much difficulty as to make me equally tear the being, by the requisition of it, " wise above what is written." The latter may perhaps be objected to the English creed, with- out some explanatory extension: for notwithstanding all that was said concerning " hell" being syno- nymous with " a place of departed spirits," without especial application to a state of unhappiness, I take the fact to be generally otherwise. But now, if this reasoning should be wrong, and the matter should be supposed to rest, agreeably to the sense of the committee, who contend, that by re- jecting our rubric they retain their own, and that the body of the creed should be altered accordingly; I proceed to state the bad consequences of their plan. 1st. As the article is acceptable to many, on the principle of its combating of a glaring error, I would not even seem to countenance that error; when the difficulty complained of might have been removed without any absurdity, or the contradicting of the principles of any members of our church. 2dly. The referring of the alternative to the choice of the respective churches, whether it be meant to those in the different states collectively, or to the congregations separately, threaten/s in either case much dangerous litigation. 3dly. Without entering into the question, how far a convention are bound by the proceedings of their predecessors, so far as the same persons are concerned at this time, in reversing what they did in October 1786, and considering the circumstances of 196 the case; it does not square with my ideas of good faith: although in saying this, I only look at the effect of it on my own situation. 4thly. At a time when our church is not in se- cure possession of the episcopacy, it is highly impru- dent to take any measures, which may impede us in that business. 5thly. On the plan proposed, it will require a stronger exertion of ecclesiastical authority than hitherto, to prevent different ways in the same church, in the case of a stranger's officiating: whose departure from the usage of that particular church, would tend to distract the minds of the people. 6thly. There are proofs on this very point, that gentlemen may resolve on such matters in conven- tion; and yet, in their respective cures, may not have constancy to carry them into effect: which tends to throw on others the odious appearance, of being sin- gularly forward in innovation. 7thly. We shall have the less to justify ourselves in the event of the inconveniences apprehended, be- cause of the general acceptation of this article of the creed: it being retained by the Roman Catholics, by the Lutheran churches, and by the Presbyterians of all descriptions, besides others. And now, after all these difficulties, the question is — What is to be done.'^ I know not. But if the committee are so confident of the goodness of their construction, as to make it the foundation of their printing of the book; at the same time admitting — as they have done — a declaration from me annexed 197 to the record, that my signing of the morning prayer is not to be construed as involving an acknowledg- ment of the consent of the house of bishops to that matter; 1 am very wilhng to promise, on the condi- tion of being thus not answerable for the conse- quences, to throw no impediment in the way of the book on tliat account; but on the contrary, to give it all the support in my power; making use, however, in common with others, of the latitude allowed in this instance by the book itself I must however, my dear sir, with the freedom which I hope will subsist between us, confess to you, that I feel most sensibly a difficulty to which in this and in a very few other particulars, I am subjected by the late fixture of the constitution. So far as the making of the bishops a separate house tended to conciliate our eastern brethren, 1 rejoice in it, as lor the good of the church. And so far as it lately gave me much of your company and conversation, I re- member it with peculiar personal satisfaction. I think further, that on this plan, matters are more hkely to be matured, than on that of a single house. But it is a dictate of natural justice, that there should be no appaient, where there is no real responsibility'. If any one should compare the constitution, with the known fact and general persuasion of our having before a liturgy; he will presume of a majority of the house of bishops, that is, in the present case, of all of the order present, that they were in their judg- ments favouiable to all the alterations made. This, you know, was not the fact. And altliough, in regard 198 to the points given up, I shall think nothing of them; ifj in the event, tlie great good should be accom- plished, of having one service for the church in these states; yet I vi^ish, that the thing had been otherwise contrived, as to that same responsibility. And if the operation be an hard one, in relation to matters to which we gave our sanction, although we wish- ed them otherwise; it will be more so, on a point to which we have given no sanction. Still, I know of no expedient besides that suggested. You will rejoice to find, that I have nothing to add on a subject, on which I must have been at this time very tedious to you: and therefore, I conclude myself, your affectionate brother, WM. WHITE. Right Rev. Bishop Seabury. K. Page 25. Of the Convention in 1792. The bishops present at this convention, were bishops Seabury, White, Provoost, Madison, and, after consecration, Claggett. Bishop Provoost presided in the house of bishops, and Dr. William Smith of Pennsylvania in the house of clerical and lay deputies. The secretaries of the two houses were, of the former first the Rev. Samuel Keene, and afterwards the Rev. Leonard Cutting; and of the latter, the Rev. John Bisset. The occasion was opened, by a sermon from bishop Seabury; agreeably to the desire of the last convention. 199 An unpropitious circumstance attended the open- ing of this convention; but was happily removed, be- fore proceeding to business. Bishop Seabury and bishop Provoost had never, when the former liad been in New York at different times since his con- secration, exchanged visits. Although the author knows of no personal offence, that had ever passed from either of tliem to the other, and indeed was as- sured of the contrary by them both; yet the notoriety, that bishop Provoost had denied the validity of bishop Seabury's consecration, accounted at least for the omission of the attentions of a visit, on either side. This very thing had not been without its conse- quences, on the proceeding of the conventions: which is here stated, as a caution against such par- tial considerations, acted on without due delibera- tion, and producing inconsistencies of conduct. For in the convention of June 1786, on the question of denying the validity of bishop Seabury's ordinations, the vote of New Y'ork is "Aye," although it was well known, that two of the three clergymen fi'om that state had paid attentions to Dr. Seabury, as a bishop; and that he stood high in their iSsteem. But they acted under instructions from the church in their state; when the convention of it was of a complexion, corresponding with that vote. Afterwards, in the general convention of 1 789, the convention of New York having been, at its preceding meeting, com- posed principally of gentlemen of an opposite senti- ment on this subject, the deputies from that state were among the foremost in producing the resolu- 200 tion then come into, of recognizing bishop Seabury's episcopal character. But to return to the narrative. The prejudices in the minds of the two bishops were such, as threatened a distance between them: which would give an unfavourable appearance to themselves, and to the whole body; and might perhaps have an evil influence on their deliberations. But it happened otherwise. On a proposal being made to them by common friends, and through the medium of the present author, on the suggestion of Dr. Smith, they consented without the least hesitation, bishop Sea- bury to pay, and bishop Provoost to receive the visit, which etiquette enjoined on the former to the latter; and was as readily accepted by the one, as it had been proffered by the other. The author was pre- sent, when it took place. Bishop Provoost asked his visitant to dine with him on the same day, in com- pany of the author and others. The invitation was accepted; and from that time, nothing was perceived in either of them, which seemed to show, that the for- mer distance was the result of any thing else, than difference in opinion. There was another matter, which threatened the excitement of personal resentments; but it was got over, as happily as the preceding. When the bishops met in the vestry room of Trinity church, on Wednesday the 12th of Septem- ber; it appeared, that bishops Provoost and Madison were dissatisfied with the rule in regard to the presi- dency, as established in 1789. As the house were 201 divided on the question of repealing the rule, it would have stood. But this might have been con- strued into an ungenerous advantage of the prior meeting; in which, those now in the negative had voices, and the others had none. The day passed over witliout any determination; which was not produc- tive of inconvenience; the morning being principally occupied by the religious service, and the convention not meeting in the afternoon. The next morning, the author received a message from bishop Seabury; requesting a meeting in private, before the hour of the convention. It took place at Dr. Moore's, where he lodged. He opened his mind to this effect — That from the course taken by the two other bishops on the preceding day, he was afraid they had in con- templation the debarring of him from any hand in the consecration, expected to take place during this convention — That he could not submit to this, with- out an implied renunciation of his consecration, and contempt cast on the source from which he had re- ceived it — And that the apprehended measure, if proposed and persevered in, must be followed by an entire breach with him, and, as he supposed, with the church under his superintendance. The author expressed his persuasion, that no such design was entertained, either by bishop Pro- voost or by bishop Madison; and his determination, that if it were, it should not have his concurrence. He believed they wished, as he also did, to have three bishops present under the English consecra- tion, whenever such an occasion, as that now ex- c c 202 pected, should occur. The being united in the act with a bishop who should consecrate through ano- ther line, would not weaken the English chain. In regard to the question of presidency, on which bishop Seabury had intimated that he should not be tena- cious; the author told him, that his opinion being the same as in 1789, he could not consistently vote for the reversing of the rule; which, if it were done, he thought had best be by the absence that morning of one of the two now conversing; and that should bishop Seabury think it proper in this way to wave his right under the rule, the author pledged himself, that in no event would he have an hand in the ensu- ing consecration, if it were to be accompanied by the rejection of bishop Seabury 's assistance in it; al- though there was still entertained the persuasion, that no such measure would be thought of, as indeed proved to be the fact. Hands were given, in testi- mony of mutual consent in this design. He absent- ed himself tliat morning, and the rule was altered, in the manner related on the journal: that is, for the presidency to go in rotation, beginning from the north; \\hich made bishop Provoost the president on the present occasion. At the opening of this convention, it was no small satisfaction to many, to find lay-deputies from Connecticut. The aversion entertained by the clergy in that state, to this part of the institution in the more southern, had been one of the principal impediments to an union: and when it was at last effected, it was with a latitude to them in this article. Some of the 7» 203 laity, at the time, were afraid that this would be the beginning of rejecting them entirely. But the event ought to be noticed; as a proof, that forbearance and mutual toleration are at least sometimes a shorter way to unity, than severity and stiffness. On the subject of the Prayer Book, there was nothing which could properly come before the con- vention without another review; and this was not in- tended, except the seeing that the book had been properly executed. In the correcting of any thing amiss touching this matter, there could be no ground of difference, except in the article of the descent into hell, which had been settled as already related; and the subject of the exclusive copy-right of the book; which had been granted by the committee, in order to render the book the cheaper, and to raise a small sum for a charitable use; which two objects they thought consistent with one another; and further, to secure the faithful printing of the book. The mea- sure, however, was generally censured and was reversed. The alterations of the ordinal, were prepared by the bishops. There was no material difference of opinion; except in regard to the words used by the bishop at the ordination of priests — " Receive ye the Holy Ghost" — and '• Whose sins thou dost for- give they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost re- tain, they are retained." Bishop Seabury, who alone was tenacious of this form, consented at last, with great reluctance, to allow the alternative of another as it now stands. The objections to the use made of 204 the aforesaid expressions — the author here speaks his own sense only, not answering for that of any other bishop — were as follow: As to the first — " Receive ye the Holy Ghost/^it is supposed to express the conveyance of the minis- terial character; which St. Paul recognizes as the gift of the spirit. 1 Tim. iv. 14, and 2 Tim. i. 6. and Eph. iv. 8. 11 . And as to the expressions — " whose sins &c,'' he supposes it to relate, according to the intention of the service, principally, under due regu- lation, to the power of passing ecclesiastical censures and of releasing from them; and partly, to the declar- ing of the forgiveness of sins, repented of and for- saken: such forgiveness not to apply, independently on the sincerity of the receiver. But although each of the expressions will thus admit of a good interpre- tation , which should be given by the clergy as occa- sion may call for it; yet the words are not necessarily to be used in preference to every other form, in the very act of conveying the ministerial commission. If they are not necessary, they cannot be so proper in the place in which they stand, as some other words of more obvious signification. There seems tlie less reason to stickle tor the last of the two clauses, as it was not of very early use in the church. It may be proper to record — what would not otherwise appear from the journal — that the greater part of the time of the house of clerical and lay de- puties was taken up with debates on the proposed absolute negative of the bishops; but without any in- terference on their part. The debates ended in what 205 appears on the journal of the house of clerical and lay deputies, Saturday September 15 — its being no- tified to tlie churches, that it was proposed to deter- mine on tiie subject at the next convention. On the subject of the articles, the author will be- gin with the opinions of the bishops in regard to the general question, so far as they are within his know- ledge: and his beginning with his own opinion, is merely because of the complexion which it may per- haps be supposed to give to the facts to be narrated. He professed himself an advocate for articles; the abolishing of which would, he thought, only leave with every pastor of a congregation the right of judg- ing of orthodox)^, according to his discretion or his prejudices; while the articles determine that matter by a rule, issuing from the pubhc authority of the church. When the question has been put — whether the 39 articles are the best rule that can be devised; he has answered, that he thought them better than any other, likely to be obtained under present circum- stances. Conventional business is too much hurried, and the members of the conventions are not suffi- ciently retired from other avocations, for the enter- ing on determinations of this magnitude. Even if the greater number of the body should be conceded to be sufficiently learned for the work; ecclesiastical legislation has not been of sufficiently long standing in this church, to have established the characters of those who exercise it, as to this point, in the estima- tion of the world. Until such a character shall be 206 established; a few obstinate or factious men will overset, in their respective congregations, what shall have been enacted in convention. Besides, many- persons among the laity, and some even among the clergy, had declared their determination to abide by the articles at all events: which made it much to be feared that a schism would take place, whenever any material change should be determined on. In this case, they who should adhere to the articles, would claim their relation to the church of England; while it would be questionable, whether the others would have any permanent tie among themselves. Therefore, the author wished for an adherence to the 39 articles; not excepting the general principles maintained in the political parts of them; but with an exception, in the ratification, of the local application of the said parts, according to the letter of them. But he did not wish to have the articles signed, as in England, according to the tenor of the 36th canon of that church. He preferred the resting of the obliga- tion of them on the promise made at ordination, as required by the 7th article of the constitution, con- sidered as sufficient by the English bishops: which would render them articles of peace, as they are sometimes said to be in the church of England; but not with such evident propriety, as they would then be in the American church. As the author approves of the geneial tenor of the 39 articles; he trusted, that however he might have supposed, in his private judgment, the possibility of omitting some of them and of altering others to advantage; yet not perceiv- 207 ing a probability, either that such a change, if'made, would have been for the better; or, that if so, it \vould have found such general acceptance as to prove a sufficient bond of union; he thought he acted consis- tently, in endeavouring to obtain them on the terms stated. Bisliop Seabury, was free to declare his dissatis- faction with some of the articles; and during the former convention in Philadelphia, had expressed a doubt in conversation with the author and several others, whether it were expedient to have any: it be- ing presumed by him, that all necessary doctrine should be comprehended in the liturgy. But on this occasion, he saw so clearly the inconveniences likely to result from there being no authoritative rule in the form of public confession, that he wished to adopt one; and as the author understood him, the code of the 39 articles. Bishop Provoost did not deliver his sentiments on the subject; which was the less exacted of him, be- cause of the circumstance of his being in the presi- dential chair. But the author has always supposed, that they do not materially differ from those of Bishop Madison, who gave his opinion against articles alto- gether. He had long before declared himself on this point, in a sermon preached before the convention of Virginia, some years previously to his election to the episcopacy. This sermon was printed; and opposes articles, on the principles of the confessional and the nke books. 208 Bishop Claggett no further gave his opinion, than as it was imphed in his vote on the question, in the conference between the two houses. What Httle had passed among the bishops, was before the consecra- tion; the recency of which was probably the cause of his giving of his mere vote in the conference of the houses. His sense was decidedly in favour of arti- cles; as appeared also in his usual conversation on the subject. There was no formal discussion of the subject, in the house of bishops: but they negatived the ques- tion of reference to a future convention, when it be- came the subject of conference between the two houses. The negative happened by Bishop Seabury's, Bishop Claggett's and the author's votes, against Bishop Madison's in the affirmative: so that the pre- sident was not called on to vote. The author takes notice, that this transaction is not recorded on the journal of the house of clerical and lay deputies. But it happened as recorded on that of the bishops; who, by their negative vote, only showed their willingness to undertake the subject: for the postponement took place of course; as the other house, immediately af- ter the conference, determined to dismiss it for the present. It may be proper to mention a proposition made by the bishops, but not entered on the journals. Bishop Madison had communicated to the au- thor, on their journey from Philadelphia to New York, a design which he had much at heart — that of effecting a re-union with the methodists: and he was 209 bo sanguine as to believe, that bv an accominodat"ion to them in a few instances, they would be induced to give up their peculiar discipline, and conform to the leading parts of the doctrine, the worship and the discipline of the episcopal church. It is to be noted, that he had no idea of comprehending them, on the condition of their continuing embodied, as at present. On this there was communicated to him an inter- course held with Dr. Coke, one of the superintend- ants* of that society; which might have showed to Bishop Madison, how hopeless all endeavours for such a junction must prove. Nevertheless, he per- sisted in his well meant design. The result of this, was his introducing into the house of bishops of a proposition; which his brethren after some modifica- tions, approving of the motive, but expecting Uttle as the result of it, consented to send to the other house. The proposition is as follows. " The protestant episcopal church in the United States of America, ever bearing in mind the sacred obligation which attends all the followers of Christ, to avoid divisions among themselves; and anxious to promote that union for which our Lord and Saviour so earnestly prayed; do hereby declare to the chris- tian world, that, uninfluenced by any other considera- tions than those of duty as christians, and an earnest desire for the prosperity of pure Christianity, and the furtherance of our holy religion; they are ready and * This was the name that was then borne by those who pre* !*ided in the methodist communion. Dd 210 willing to unite and form one body with any reli- gious society, which shall be influenced by the same catholic spirit. And in order that this christian end may be the more easily effected, they further declare, that all things in which the great essentials of Chris- tianity or the characteristic principles of their church are not concerned, they are willing to leave to fu- ture discussion; being ready to alter or modify those points, which, in the opinion of the protestant episco- pal church, are subject to human alteration. And it is hereby recommended to the state conventions, to adopt such measures or propose such conferences with Christians of other denominations, as to them- selves may be thought most prudent; and report ac- cordingly to the ensuing general convention." On the reading of this in the house of clerical and lay deputies, they were astonished, and consi- dered it as altogether preposterous; tending to pro- duce distrust of the stability of the system of the episcopal church, without the least prospect of em- bracing any other religious body. The members generally mentioned, as a matter of indulgence, that they would permit the withdrawing of the paper; no notice to be taken of it. A few gentlemen, however, who had got some slight intimations of the corres- pondence between Dr. Coke and the author, who would have been gratified by an accommodation with the methodists, and who thought that the paper sent was a step in measures to be taken to that ef- fect, spoke in favour of the proposition. But it was 211 not to be endured; and the bishops silently withdrew it, agreeably to leave given. To guard against misconstruction, at some future time, ol' tlie correspondence between Dr. Coke and the author, he records it here. In the spring of the year 1791, the author re- ceived from that gentleman a letter, containing a plan of what he considered as an union of the me- thodistical society with the episcopal church. The plan was, in substance, that all the methodist minis- ters, at the time in connexion, were to receive epis- copal ordination, as also those who should come for- wards in future within the connexion; such ministers to remain under the government of the then super- intendants and their successors. Dr. Coke's motive to the proposed union, as stated in his letter, was an apprehension entertained by him, that he had gone further in the separation than had been designed by Mr. Wesley, from whom he had received his com- mission. Mr. Wesley himself, he was sure, had gone further than he would have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. The doctor was cer- tain, that the same gentleman was sorry for the sepa- ration, and would use his influence to the utmost, for the accomplishment of a re- union. Dr. Coke's letter was answered by the author, vvitli the reserve which seemed incumbent on one, who was incompetent to decide with effect on the proposal made. It happened that Dr. Coke, before he received the answer to his letter, hearing of the decease of Mr. Wesley, the news of which reached America 212 during the short interval between the dates of the two letters, set off immediately from Baltimore for Philadelphia, to take his passage for England. On reaching this city and calling on Dr. Magaw, he was much disappointed on hearing of the early answer, lest it should fall into the hands of his colleague — Mr. Asbury. He visited the author, in company of Dr Magaw; and in speaking of the above inci- dent, said, that although he hoped Mr. Asbury would not open the letter; yet he might do so, on the supposition that it related to their joint con- cern. The conversation was general; and nothing passed, that gave any ground of expectation of a re-union, on the principle of consolidation; or any other principle, than that of the continuing of the methodists a distinct body and self-governed. In short there were held out only the terms of the letter; in which there does not seem to be contemplated any change in the relation of the episcopal church to that society, except the giving of them access to the epis- copal congregations, while there was sufficient secu- rity provided, to prevent the clergy of the latter from having access to congregations ot" the methodists. At least it is here supposed, that these things would have been unavoidably the result. The author saw Dr. Coke twice after this; once, by appointment at Dr. Magaw's, where nothing ma- terial passed; and again, alone at the author's house, where Dr. Coke read a letter which he had written to bishop Seabury, similar to that which he had written to the author; but with the difference of his 213 suggesting to bishop Seabury as follows — Tliat al- thoii2;h the methodists would have confidence in any engagements which should be made by the present bishops; yet there might in future be some, who, on the arrival of their inferior grades of preachers to a competency to the ministry, would not admit them as proposed in the letter — That to guard against the danger of this, there w^ould be use in conse- crating Mr. Asbury to the episcopacy — And that al- though there would not be the same reasons in his (Dr. Coke's) case, because he was a resident of En- gland; yet, as he should probably, while he lived, occasionally visit America; it would not be fit, con- sidering he was Mr. Asbury's senior, that he should appear in a lower character than this gentleman. These were, in substance, the sentiments expressed; and on reading this part of the letter, he desired the author to take notice, that he did not make a condi- tion of what he had there written. There was no comment, and he proceeded. In this conversation he said, that Mr. Asbury had , opened his letter, but he had heard nothing from him on the subject. With this interview, all intercourse ended. Dr. Coke soon afterwards embarked for En- gland; and was reported to have had an interview with Mr. Asbury somewhere down the river, on his journey to the ship. The author avoided speaking on the subject, until the convention in 1792; and then mentioned it only to the bishops; towards whom there was understood to be a latitude. It was evident from some circumstances which passed ia r^ 214 conversation with Dr. Coke, that there was a degree of jealousy, if not of misunderstanding, between him and Mr Asbury. Whether this had any influence in the enterprise of the former; or he perceived advan- tage Hkely to arise to him, under the state of things which would take place in England on the decease of Mr. Wesley; are questions, on which there is no judgment here formed. The determination was adopted, not to hinder any good which might possi- bly accrue hereafter; although it was perceived, that this could not be on the terms proposed. For a copy of the letter of Dr. Coke, and the answer to it, see the Appendix, No. 21. Perhaps it may not be foreign to the present sub- ject to take notice, that the author, when in England, entertained a desire of seeing the late Mr. John Wes- ley; with the view of stating to him some circum- stances, of which he might be uninformed, in refer- ence to the design then lately adopted, of withdraw- ing the methodist societies in America from the communion of the episcopal church. Under this idea, there was obtained a letter to him from the Rev. Mr. Pilmore, which the author left at the house of Mr. Wesley, when he was from home; but no notice was taken of it. Before the author's depar- ture, intending to go on a certain day into the city, he sent to that gentleman a letter by the penny-post, expressing, that he would on the same day stop at his house, if convenient to him. An answer was received, and is still in possession, the purport of which is, that Mr. W^esley was then engaged in a 215 periodical duty of an examination of his society; but that in the case of a stay of a week or two, he would derive pleasure from the interview proposed. As the stay was only ten days after, and the latter part of the time was taken up by the business of the conse- cration and in returning visits, there was no renewal of the proposal of an interview, especially as doubts were entertained of the delicacy of doing so: the rest- ing of an hour's conversation on the event of a stay of a fortnight longer, having very much the appear- ance of a declining of the visit. This may have arisen from the supposition, that the object was to impugn a measure hastily adopted by Mr. Wesley, and not intended to be rehnquished. The author had also carried a letter from the Rev. Mr. Pilmore to the Rev. Charles Wesley, and had a conversation with him on the same subject. He expressed himself decidedly against the new course adopted; and gave the author a pamphlet published by his brother and himself, in the earlier part of their lives, against a secession from the church of England: which, he said, was at that time proposed by some. And he remarked, that the whole of the pamphlet might be considered as a censure on wliat had been done recently in America. L. Page 26. Of the Convention in 1795. Bishop White presided in the house of bishops; and the Rev. Dr. Smith of Pennsylvania in the house 216 of clerical and lay deputies. The secretaries, were the Rev. Joseph Turner of the former house, and the Rev. James Abercrombie of the latter. The preacher on this occasion was bishop Pro- voost. Before the assembling of this convention, there took place an incident, threatning to produce perma- nent dissatisfaction between bishops Seabury and Pro- voost; which, however, was happily prevented. Al- though bishop Seabury had been chosen bishop of the church in Rhode Island; the congregation of Narra- ganset in that state, had associated with the church in Massachusetts; which had unwarily admitted the junction. In consequence, a clergyman had been ordained for the congregation by bishop Provoost. The author, during the sitting of the convention, re- ceived a letter from bishop Seabury, respectfully and affectionately complaining of the matter. Bishop Provoost, on the letter's being read to him, said, that on receiving the letter from the clergy of Massachu- setts, he had doubted of the propriety of the proposal in it; but that on consulting the clergy of New York, and especially those in the most intimacy with bishop Seabury, he was advised by them to compliance; but that he perceived objections to such conduct in indi- vidual congregations, and would much approve of a canon to prevent it. Such a canon, was accordingly prepared and passed. It is beheved, that no dissatis- faction remained. The author was enabled to lay before this con- yention an application from a convention in North 217 Carolina, for the consecration of* the Rev. Charles Peltiij;rew their bishop. This gentleman, as appears b} a subsequent letter from him, set oft' to attend the convention, with a view to consecration; but was pre- vented by an interruption of his journey in conse- qtience of an epidemic fever in Norlblk, which made him despair of arriving in time: there being some interruptions in the usual accommodations for tra- velling. Why nothing was done afterwards, for the carrying of the design into effect, is not known, un- less it be the decease of the reverend person in ques- tion, which must have happened not long after. The church in North Carolina having organized itself and sent deputies to the general convention about three years ago, it may be an act of justice to perpetuate their former effort; rendering it probable, that the ensuing inactivity is resolveable into the want of some clergymen of sufficient zeal and influence, to take the lead in such business. There had been, previously, an exertion to the same good effect. The Rev. James L. Wilson, or- dained by the author in 1789, embarked as a deputy to the general convention of 1792; but after an un- usually long passage, amved too late. At his special request, his arrival after the adjournment was noticed by the secretary, as it now stands, below the journal. Mr. W^ilson returned to North Carolina, and soon after died. With the recommendation of Mr. Pettigrew, there came a letter to the author, expressive of solicitude because of what he considered, and his electors ap- E e 218 pear in the instrument to have considered a departure in his certificate from the appointed form. The let- ter was answered ; and the answer communicated the information, that the supposition of defect was owing to their not having been made acquainted with a canon passed at the immediately preceding conven- tion, providing for such a case as that now existing, in which some of the electors, because of the want of personal acquaintance, had rested their recom- mendation on the testimony of their brethren in the act. For the instrument referred to, see the Appendix, No. 22. Some time before the convention, there was sent to the author, by a clergyman from South Carolina, a copy of a printed circular letter, signed by two clergymen and a layman, and addressed to the dif- ferent vestries. The signers called themselves a select committee, from a representation of seven churches; and proposed the choosing of a bishop: but gave such reasons for the measure, as indicated a design of separating from the union. The author conceived it to be his duty, to lay this paper before the bishops: who, in consequence, after the testimo- nials of Dr. Robert Smith had been presented to them with a view to his consecration, desired an in- terview with him. In that interview, the author, as president, being so instructed by the bishops, asked him, whether the convention, which had been held in consequence of the said printed paper, had adopted the sentiments of it. Dr. Smith then asked — 219 Whether his consecration was to depend on his an- swer to that question. The president repHed, tliat he was not instructed on the point. The doctor then immediately said, that the convention liad not adopt- ed the principles of tlie paper. So, all difficulty on that score was done away. There existed no evi- dence to the contrary, nor have there been any sub- sequently received to that effect. It has never been learned, w ho was the penman of that wretched pro- duction. Probably, the oifensive sentiments con- tained in it were a temporizing expedient; designed to obviate prejudices which were known to exist in South Carolina, against the having of a bishop for that state. The tendency of the paper to a severance of the church in South Carohna from the union, was unequivocal. Although the principles of the paper were not adopted by the convention of South Carohna, as ap- pears from the testimony of bishop Smith; yet, as it was issued with a view to important consequences; and as the propriety of the conduct of the house of bishops is implicated in its contents; it is given with- out the signatures, in the Appendix, No. 2S. There appear on the journals some entries re- quiring explanation, concerning the Rev. Dr. Samuel Peters. This gentleman, had been a clergyman of Connecticut before the revolution. He had gone to England, during the war; and sometime before the period now referred to, had endeavoured to procure consecration in England, with the view of being bishop in Vermont: having obtained a request to that 220 effect, from a convention held in the said state. The archbishop of Canterbury, had decHned to consecrate any further for the United States; the church here being already supplied with the succession. It is stated in the documents, that his reason was his not being authorized by the act of parliament, to conse- crate any further: but this must have been a mistake of the framers of the documents. The convention of Vermont being thus disappointed, applied to the American bishops. There was but one clergyman in that state — The Kev. John Cosins Ogden — who had not been and who did not stay there long. Pro- bably, his going there for a time, was with the view of effecting the object now treated of The conduct of the bishops, in declining any agency in the busi- ness, is rested on the circumstance that the church in Vermont had not acceded to the constitution. There were besides some personal circumstances, which prevented the paying of much respect to the solicitation. It was this transaction, which produced an addition to one of the canons; requiring, that to entitle the church in any state to a resident bishop, there shall be at least six presbyters residing and officiating therein. There are on the journals of this convention some entries, in which it was thought expedient to leave a transaction unexplained; and so it might have continued, had not the very exceptionable conduct of an individual member, after the recess, rendered it questionable, whether they had not erred in not having expelled him from tlie body: the only punish- 221 inent in their power, since there could have been no ecclesiastical trial, except before the authority of his proper diocess, where he would have been still liable to it. There also arose the question, whether the bishops had acted correctly, in rescuing him from expulsion. It appears on the journal of the house of clerical and lay deputies, that on Friday the 11 th of Septem- ber, " the attention of the house was called by the Rev. Dr. Andrews to the consideration of a pamphlet lately published, entitled — Strictures on the love of Power in the Prelacy — by a Member of the Pro- testant Episcopal Association in South Carolina — which he declared to be a virulent attack upon the doctrines and discipline of our church, and a libel against the house of bishops; and which was al- ledgcd to be written by a member of this house." On Thursday the 1 7th, it is recorded on the journal of the house of bishops — " This house requested the house of clerical and lay deputies, to appoint a com- mittee of their house, to meet a committee of the house of bishops. The committee of this house is bishop White and bishop Provoost. The house of clerical and lay deputies agreed to the request of this house, and the joint committee met in the bishops^ chamber.'' Further, the journal of the house of clerical and lay deputies for the same day states as follows — " The committee" (meaning that of the whole house) "rose, and their chairman reported, that they had considered the paper referred to them yesterday, which was from the author of the pam- 222 phlet entitled — Strictures on the Love of Power in the Prelacy, in which he professes sorrow for the publication, and that they were of opinion that the house should accept it as a satisfactory concession. Resolved, that the house adopt the above report." This termination of the business, although pressed by the bishops, was not acquiesced in without consi- derable opposition; and to the last, three very respect- able lay gentlemen, who were of a remarkably con- ciliatory character, pressed for permission to enter their protest. It was not granted: and as this has been the only instance, in which the question of a right to protest has undergone discussion, the re- cording of a denial of the right, falls in with the de- sign of the present work. Whether the course of conduct adopted were right or otherwise, it happened as is here related. The author of the pamphlet, seeing expulsion full before him, thought fit to look to the house of bishops for a shelter. After considerable negociation, in which the author was the medium of communication between the house and him, he sent to the house an ample apology for his misconduct; which induced them to interfere, in order to put a stop to the pro- ceedings: and hence their proposal of a joint com- mittee. The offender gave subsequent evidence, that his professed penitence was insincere, although it had been accompanied by a profusion of tears, when he discussed the subject with the author, in the pre- sence of the Rev. Dr. Smith of Pennsylvania. This was an issue which could not have been foreseen, 223 and which it would have been uncharitable to have thought probable. The house of bishops committed the apology to the keeping of the author, (where it now remains,) not to be made use of, unless in the case of future misconduct. When this happened, bishops Provoost and Madison, who alone were pre- sent when the deposit w^as made, were written to for their permission to send a copy of the apology, to the ecclesiastical autliority of the diocess to which the offender belonged. Leave was given, and the document was sent* M. Page 21. Of the Convention in 1799. Bishop White presided in the house of bishops, and Dr. William Smith of Pennsylvania in the house of clerical and lay deputies. The secretaries were the Rev. John Henry Hobart of the former, and the Rev. James Abercrombie of the latter. The consecration of Dr. Bass during the recess of the convention, and his appearing on this occasion * The personal abuse in the licentious pamphlet, was princi- pally levelled at bishop Seabury; and the ground of it, was his supposed authorship of a printed defence of the episcopal nega- tive, written and acknowledged by another respectable divine of this church. On the author of the present work the pamphleteer bestowed a commendation, which impliedly exempted him from the general charge of " Love of Power in the Prelacy." Coming from such a pen, it could be no cause of self-gratulation: but it was encouragement to assist in the exposure which took place, and which is to be attributed principally to Dr. Andrews. 224 induces the record, that on the 7th of May, 1797, he was consecrated in Christ church in the city of Phi- ladelphia, by the presiding bishop, assisted by bishops Provoost and Claggett. It is evident on an inspection of the journal, that the bishops had no opportunity of expressing their sense on the question of publishing the draft of ar- ticles which it contains. Such a publication was certainly very injudicious; if for no other reason, because it might have been expected to be easily mistaken for the sense of at least one of the houses of the convention. Indeed it was so misunderstood: whereas it was the sense of a committee only; not an individual besides having delivered in his place any opinion on any article. But this was not the worst. It tended to excite religious acrimony, with- out any possible good effect at the present; and with the probable bad effect of the greater acrimony, on an opportunity of settlement in future. In order to show the importance of the exercise of great care and much deliberation, in any measure which may effect Christian verity; the author will here notice, that an important doctrine of the church of England was unwarily affected in the body of the articles, by the introduction of a single word. It was " priesthood," as applied in the 9th article, to denote all the orders of the Christian ministry; and not con- fined to the order of presbyters, as in the established ordinal, of the former of which there is no example in the institutions of the church of England. 225 It is well known, tliat the English reformers took care to sho^v, that tliey did not mean to identify the names of the Christian ministry with those of the Jewish priesthood. Altliough they retained the name of " priest," which is npgc-gvTepof (or " presbyter") with an English termination, and in the Roman ca- tholic church had stood alike for that Greek word and for lepev?; yet this church having in Latin adopt- ed the word " sacerdos," the last was carefully avoided by the reformers, and " presbyter" was put in its place. It would have been in harmony with this, if the article in question had applied " priest- hood" to the single order of presbyters. But it is applied to the three orders collectively; which is another matter. To perceive the effect, it is only necessary to suppose the said 9th article translated into Latin: in which case, if the word "presbyteri- atus" should be used, it would be wide of the in- tended sense. On the other hand, if" sacerdotium" should be taken, the innovation would stand con- fessed. This would have been agreeable to the theory of the individual clergyman who drafted the articles; but the rest of the committee are here be- lieved to have been unaware of it. The above fact is recorded in order to show, that if ever the doc- trinal system should be reviewed, it should be done under some other circumstances, than during the huny of conventional business. In short, the review should be made by select persons, taking due time for so important a measure. After this, the only thing left for the convention, should be the adoption Ff 226 or the rejection of what had been ^ prepared. This would be as near as circumstances permit, to what was done in England at the reformation. It is not here designed to charge any other fault on the articles proposed. They are, in substance, what is contained in the thirty-nine Articles, without any superaddition, except in the particular stated. But the remarks may serve to show, that in the work of clearing that code of what may be thought unnecessary positions, there is the danger of admit- ting some novelty, more fruitful of controversy than what may be done away. In the present instance, the novelty introduced is susceplible of the con- struction, of obtruding on the church the notions of " sacrifice,^^ in the strict and proper sense; of "altar," as the place of it; and of " priest," as the sacrificer. In this convention, considerable animosity was excited in the house of clerical and lay deputies, on the subject of the election of a reverend gentleman to the episcopacy in New Jersey. Agreeably to the distinction taken by the author, of recording per- sonal matters then only when necessary to illustrate ecclesiastical effects, and when something appears on the journal which may be thus elucidated; it may be proper to note in this place, that whatever ground was taken by the said house in the strict construction of the canon, fixing the number of clerical incumbents in a state in which a bishop might be chosen; there was a more important reason at the bottom of the objection made. The truth is, that the gentleman elected was considered by his brethren generally, as 227 being more attached to the doctrines and the prac- tices obtaining in some other churches, than to those of his own. Wiiat rendered the management of the case the more dillicuU, was his being brought for- wards by some gentlemen, who had always professed the strongest disapprobation of the least deviation iVoni the institutions of the church. No doubt, they thought they perceived some advantages, counter- balancing the unquestionable fact, that the bishop elect had been not a little reprehensible in that line. The bishops kept themselves from taking any in- terest in the subject; no one of them expressing his opinion, so far as is here known. It is to be hoped, that their conduct will be the same on any similar occasions which may occur. Delicacy requires this; as, in the case of the requisite testimonials, the ap- probation of the consecrating bishops will still be necessary. Bishop Bass having been consecrated between the dates of the last convention and the present; it may be proper in this place to guard against any false impressions w^hich might be made, at the time of the former application; and a paper pui'porting to be the dissent of two clergymen. This may otherwise be thought to have influenced the deter- mination in the first instance, and to have pre- vented the consecration of Dr. Bass. But it would be a mistake. The objections referred to, were ge- nerally supposed to receive no weight from the cha- racters of the two objecting clergymen. They were represented as being not at all attached to the eccle- siastical system of the episcopal church. Of this, or 228 of the contrary, the bishops possessed no such evi- dence, as was sufficient to be a ground of their con- duct at the time. There was no use in looking out for evidence, as there was other ground on which the consecration was dechned — the want of the requisite number of bishops to be consecrated in England. When bishop Bass was subsequently ad- mitted to the episcopacy, the bishops who consecra- ted him had made up their minds on the merits of the preceding objection to him. There was also a paper, purporting to be the dis- sent of his own vestry; which was denied and found to be not true. N. Page S8. Of tlie Convention in 1801. Bishop White presided in the house of bishops, and the Rev. Dr. Abraham Beach in the house of clerical and lay deputies. The secretaries, were the Rev. Henry Waddell of the former house, and the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin of the latter. The occasion was opened with a sermon by the presiding bishop. No sooner were the convention organized, than there came from the house of clerical and lay depu- ties a call for a letter which they understood to have been sent to the author by bishop Provoost, on the subject of his resigning of the episcopal jurisdiction. This measure raised a very serious question, made the more important by its being unexpected. The whole of the merits of it, so far as it was discussed at the time, is in the entry of the house of bishops on 229 Iheir journal: which is therefore given in the Appen- dix, No. 24. As the articles were at last established by this convention, the author thinks it may be of use, to give a narrative of some particulars in the manage- ment of that matter; in addition to what has been stated relative to the proceeding in 1792. When the book was edited with the proposed al- terations of 1 785; no sooner were they known in the different states, than the sentiment became general, that they were not to be received without alterations; while yet there was nothing like unanimity, in regard to what the alterations should be. The same may be said in regard to the thirty-nine Articles. Some changes, independently on what was of a local and political nature, seemed desired by all: but of any considerable agreement in particulars, there was lit- tle prospect. Accordingly,' the church was left in a situation very embarrassing, in regard to the standard of her doctrinal profession. On the one hand, the articles, with the exception of the political parts, the obliga- tion of which had been abrogated by divine provi- dence through the instrumentality of the revolution, were still the acknowledged faith of the church: while, on the other hand, they could not be edited as such, without changes at least in the manner of ex- hibiting them; which no individual had a right to re- gulate. What rendered the situation of the church the worst in this respect, was, that it suited the opinions of some, to declare in consequence of it. 230 that she had no articles; and could have none, until they should be framed by a convention, and esta- blished by its authority. In support of this sentiment, they pleaded what has been stated as the very ex- ceptionable manner of doing business, adopted by the house of clerical and lay deputies in the year 1789. That house, in regard to every part of the prayer book on vs^hich they acted, brought the office forward as a matter originating with them; and not their alterations, as affecting an office already known and of obligation. It was answered, that this was an assumption of but one of the houses of a single convention; that the other house had even then adopted a contrary course; that the same had been done in all the preceding conventions, and that in the only subsequent convention in which there had been any alteration of a former standard — meaning of the ordinal, altered in 1792 — it had been so acted on, as to acknowledge the obligation of the old forms, with the exception of the political parts, until altered. This seems conclusive reasoning: and yet the opposite doctrine was held by many; which threatened un- happy consequences. During the convention of 1 789, although nothing was done relatively to the articles, there was much serious conversation on the subject: when the author was surprized to find, that bishop Seabury, the only bishop at the convention besides himself, doubted of the need of articles; and was rather inclined to be- lieve, that the object of them might be accomplished, through the medium of the liturgy. This was so wide 231 of what might have been expected from his usual turn of scntinienl, that to the author, there seemed at the time no way of accounting for it, otherwise than by the supposition, tiiat the bishop conceived tlie articles to be nearer to the height of Calvinism, than they are found to be on due consideration of their history, and of cotemporary controversies. But it has since appeared, that there had never been the thirty-nine Articles or any such standard in the non- juring church of Scotland, in which bishop Seabury was consecrated, and to the ways of which he was very much attached. But the said church, very soon after the time here referred to, and when her clergy took the oaths to the government, manifested their consent with the church of England, by adopting her thirty-nine Articles. Indeed, there was never sup- posed to have existed a disagreement in regard to doctrine: but it was the result of the. independency of each church on the other.* * In Mr. Belsham's Life of Mr. Theophilus Lindsey, bisliop Seabury is represented as a Calviiiist. Nothing can be further from the truth. In the same work, there is an anecdote tend- ing to lower Ins cliaracter, on account of an incident which took place at a commencement in New Haven, in which the bishop had no more to say, than Mr. Belsham himself: as the author has been informed on the best authority. It was equally unworthy of the biographer to speak with contempt of the Scotish conse- crators of the bishop, not only, because their characters repel the charge of ignorance thrown on them; but, because their hav- ing been so long under the lash of the law, for adherence to the dictates of their consciences, ought to have produced a fellow feeling in a man similarlv situated. 232 In the convention of 1792, the subject had been discussed among the bishops in friendly conversauon; when the opinions of bishops Provoost and Madison were directlj against the having of articles; while bishop Claggett and the author were in favour of them. The remarks of bishop Seabury were gene- ral; rather in the way of doubt as to the necessity of articles; although, on the other side, he acknow- ledged his inability to answer an argument pressed on him — that without them, individual ministers would have to do by their respective will and autho- rity, what had better be done by known law, for the preventing of the delivery of opposite doctrines to their flocks, by different preachers. However moderate or uncertain bishop Seabury was on the subject, the clergy and the laity of his diocess thought differently; as appeared in the con- vention of 1799, held not long after his decease. At the pressing instance of the deputies from that state, and in consequence of instructions to them, the busi- ness was then entered on; although probably with the presumption on the minds of the proposers, that it would be finished during the session. It however happened otherwise; the matter then ending with a proposed body of articles wholly new in form, edited with the journal. The opinion has been already inti- mated that this was a very injudicious measure: but there may now be added, that it proved beneficial in its unexpected consequences. It appeared an in- judicious measure, on the same ground on which the proposal of 1785 was found to be siich: that is, 233 as unsettling a present fixture, without any reason- able prospect of establishing a substitute. If it were beneficial in its consequences; this lia))pcned by its showing of the improbability of agreement in a new form, and its thus contributing to the recognizing of the old articles. Even the mistakes of readers con- tributed to this etfect. For it is astonishing how many, even of the clergy, considered what was edited as proposed for the acceptance of a future convention: whereas it was only recorded by one of the houses to be matter of future discussion. As for the bishops, they never saw the contemplated arti- cles, before they were printed with the journal: and they who read attentively must perceive, that it was merely a report of a committee of the other house, without any evidence of their approving of a single sentence of it. These remarks, should be considered as having no reference to any question concerning the correctness of the report. Let it have been cor- rect or not; and although the author thinks it substantially correct, yet he is confident, that the issue must have been the same. That issue is the adoption of the articles, as edited by the convention of the present year. Even during the session of the body, and when the senti- ment had obtained generally, that no new set of ar- ticles should be attempted; the author was often as- sailed by members who had adopted the principle; urging, each of them, that there might be an ex- emption in regard to some one point, the most de- sired by him to be corrected. To all applications <5g 234 of this sort his answer was, that he was content to accept the articles as they were (the political parts being understood to be already altered, with- out any conventional act) as the ground of union; that if they should be thrown open to discussion, there were various particulars, in which he thought they might be improved; that all those particulars he should think himself bound in conscience to bring forwards; that no doubt many other members would do the like; and that then — What probability was there, of there being edited any articles? The author having had so much occasion, in the relation of the proceedings of this business, to refer to his own conduct; he thinks that there will be pro- priety in his presenting of the grounds of it. On the general question — Whether it be expe- dient to have a body of articles, it has always ap- peared, as already hinted, that to establish them, is merely to accomplish by a general regulation, what will otherwise be done by individual ministers at will; and this, sometimes, in intemperate and scandalous opposition to one another. For instance, in relation to the divinity of our blessed Saviour, and the atone- ment made by him for sin; it cannot be conceived, that an advocate for these doctrines will knowingly permit them to be contradicted in his pulpit; or, that a denier of them will permit them to be advocated or acted on in his. Accordingly, there will be arti- cles, written or unwritten; and the inquiry should be contined to the point of tlie most judicious depositary of the power. 235 When the author was in England; being one day in company with a unitarian minister — a gentleman of consideiable note in the literary world — liberty was taken to inquire, in what way the societies of Iiis faitli held their places of worship; and whether, as in America, the property were vested in persons chosen by the congregations. He answered w ith a smile — Oh no; for then, in consequence of the ease Avith which respectable applicants are permitted to take pews among us, it might happen, that in the choice of a minister, an interest would be created in favour of a pastor, not entertaining the belief, for the maintainance of which a house had been erected. He said, that to guard against this, the meeting houses were vested in persons who may be depend- ed on; and who perpetuate the trust to others, of the same faith. What is this, but an indirect way of accomplishing the object, for which articles are de- signed.'^ There was not omitted a remark to the effect in the conversation alluded to: a freedom, which grew out of a previous conversation on the subject. The house of worship especially referred to, was that known by the name of " Essex-street Chapel." Within these i^ew years there has been published the life of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, its first minister, by the Rev. Thomas Belsham, who is now its pastor. From the work it appears, that the trustees of the building have ordered the Book of Common Prayer, as corrected by Mr. Lindsey, to be deposited in the chest with the title deeds; to be the rule of worship 236 in future, and no alterations to be permitted, without the consent of the major number of the trustees. It ought not to be thought an indecorum, towards a mode of profession with which the author has no concern, to notice the above particular as an historic fact; and to apply it to the illustration of the im- practicability of the principle, on which the theory in question is grounded. In the book referred to, there is an office for infant baptism: why should this be required by a permanent regulation, when some professing Chris- tians confine the institution to adults, and others al- low of no baptism, but that of the Spirit? The remark applies to the celebiating of the eucharist under the elements of bread and wine, in opposition to those who contend for spiritual feeding only. In relation to both the sacraments, some, who acknowledge the external celebration of them by the apostles, affirm, that the ordinances were limited to the apostolic age. The observance of the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, is exacted throughout the book: but why, when there are persons who conscientiously stickle for the seventh day of the week? Other questions might be proposed: and who knows what new opinions may arise, which may be thought worthy of sufferance, and accordingly draw the book out of the chest? The compiler of it was so sensible of this, that in his last review, he omitted the apostles' creed: and one of liis reasons was — " no man or number of men to- gether, have any authority to make a creed for others." This brings the matter to a question of 237 words; since, in the above, it is impossible to act without a declaration of belief, although not under the name of a creed. In a note, the reasonableness of the proceeding is defended on the principle, that the trustees, who have the custody of the book and thereby jurisdiction over the worship of the chapel, are the proprietors of it. Let but the plea be extended to any church or cha- pel in any part of England or of America; with the proviso that none are compelled to join in the wor- ship performed in it; and there ceases all ground of coujplaint on the subject of confessions and creeds. These things are not said without the conviction, that, in the premises, ecclesiastical authority is liable to be extended much too far. All contended for is, that this species of discipline, must be exercised in one shape or in another. It is called discipline: for as to the truth of synodical determinations, further than as they agree with Scripture, no sound pro- testant will affirm it. Accordingly, we are necessarily led to the ques- tion, whether the proper mean be the formula of the thirty-nine articles. God forbid that they should be admitted, otherwise than on the ground of their be- ing in substance a body of divine truth: which they may be, consistently with incorrect statements in some points, not necessarily involved in that object. For the illustrating of this distinction, there shall be here cited an instance, which, it is supposed, will admit of no dispute. In the sixth article, the books of holy Scripture are affirmed to be the rule of faith: 238 and the required subscription is evidently inconsist- ent with the rejection of any of the books specified. But when there are introduced the incidental ex- pressions— " of which there never was any doubt in the church;" it is apparently contradictory to what ecclesiastical history infornris us, in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. James, the second and third Epistles of St. John, and the Apocalypse: concerning all of which there were doubts, although cleared up on full inquiry. It is within the meaning of the form of subscription in this church, that the prominent fact of the authenticity of those books may be ac- knowledged, while the subordinate fact, couched un- der the recited expressions, is rejected. It is not equally manifest that the same latitude of interpre- tation is allowable on the ground of the form of sub- scription in the church of England. But it will be said, that supposing the articles to contain the whole substance of revealed truth, it is the fault of them, that they contain much more; em- bracing the tenets of the Calvinistic system. In con- trariety to this assertion, the persuasion is enter- tained, that they will be found, on a diligent attention to the subject, to have been framed with a studied latitude on the questions, which were afterwards denominated the five points, in the controversy be- tween the Calvinists and the Arminians: this, with the exception of the doctrine of final perseverance, to which the whole system of the church of England stands opposed; the doctrine not being held at that 239 time by the description of people afterwards called Calvinists; who as yet continued in the opinion of St. Austin, in that particular. It may be proved, that in the reign of Edward VI. when the articles were framed, there was a diversity of sentiments on those points; and yet, that neither side complained of their being excluded. Far from it, when, in the reign of Eliza- beth, Calvinism canie in with greater authority from Geneva, the constant complaint of the puritans was, that the articles were not sufficiently evangelical, in that matter. Hence, the framing of what were called the Lambeth articles; and the pressing of them at that time, and afterwards in the reign of king James; al- though without effect. It is but to compare the thirty-nine Articles with the Westminster confession, or with the decrees of the synod of Dort, to perceive how general and guarded the first were, on the topics on which the others are very particular and express. Let these remarks suffice on a subject, on which it ought not to be expected to be in this place more minute. For the form of subscription in this church, and for that required in the church of England, see the Appendix, No. 25. But supposing all said above to be correct; it will still be asked — Are these articles so perfect, that there can be no possible improvement on them.-^ If tliis be not so, are they to remain for ever, with known and acknowledged imperfection.^ And if this be not contended for, what are the circumstances which will render the altering of them an expedient 240 measure? To these questions it is answered, not without the answerer's distrust of his own judgment; first, that in a few instances, the doctrines of the Gospel may be expressed more satisfactorily to his mind; that therefore, in the next place, he does not arrogate to them perpetuity; but that further, before any altering of them be attempted, these two circum- stances should concur — first, a better establishment in the estimation of the church generally, of the ec- clesiastical authority in her, as yet a modern institu- tion : and how much this must depend on the general opinion entertained of the piety, the learning, and the Hves of those who take an active part in her concerns, it would be difficult to calculate; as also what prospect there may be of the increase of the measure of the good which we may have among us, in these re- spects. The other circumstance, as declared under a former head, is a general conviction of the necessity of committing a matter of this sort to be prepared by a few, with the advantages of due time and delibera- tion; what is so prepared to be laid before the body; to be by them adopted or rejected, without discus- sion. These sentiments are given, under a sense of responsibility to the great Head of the church; and under the conviction, that until the two stated cir- cumstances shall combine, a new code of articles will have the effect of splitting the church into no one knows how many different communions; very much to the hindrance of true piety; and of those characteristics of our communion, in which we sup- 241 pose it to ajiproach nearer than others, to the stan- dard ol'tlic best ages. In this convention, tlie question of recommending to the episcopacy the clergyman elected to it, as re- lated under the head of the last preceding convention, came to a crisis. The church in New Jersey perse- vered in the election of him; and there was now no longer reason to hesitate, for want of a sufficient number of incumbents: because the question of fact had been referred by the last general convention, to the convention of the partic(dar state which had de- cided in the affirmative. These things were reported to the house of clerical and lay deputies; and the re- sult, was a direct refusal to recommend. The inci- dent, although given in the journal, should not be noticed in these remarks; were it not to record, that tlie extreme dissatisfaction conceived by a few gen- tlemen, was prevented from ending in the inconve niences of which there was entertained an apprehen- sion, by some controversies of a parochial description. Until these took place, the few gentlemen referred to had adopted so zealously the cause of the rejected clergyman, that they contemplated an application to the episcopal church in Scotland. This would cer- tainly have failed: but the project was communicated by one of the gentlemen to the author. The bishop elect a few years afterwards joined the presbyterian church, probably in consequence of the parochial controversies referred to; which had also arrested the proceedings in his favour in regard to the epis- copacy. Hh 242 0. Page 30. Of the Cmvention in IS04!. Bishop White presided in the house of bishops, and Dr. Beach in the house of clerical and lay depu- ties. The secretaries of the two houses, were the Rev. Cave Jones of the former house, and the Rev. John H. Hobart of the latter. The opening sermon was by bishop Moore. There needs some explanation of what appears on the journal, concerning the Rev. Ammi Rogers. He was a native of Connecticut, and educated at Yale college. During the episcopacy of bishop Sea- bury, interest was making among the clergy, to pro- cure the ordination of Rogers. But the bishop per- ceiving it, and in consequence of an unfavourable opinion entertained, declared that he never would ordain him. He afterwards went into the back parts of the state of New York; and there, by efforts of zeal and apparent prospect of usefulness, laid the foundation of an application for holy orders, to bishop Provoost. While the case was under consideration, the Rev. Dr. Beach, having heard that Rogers had been rejected in Connecticut, made objections. On this, he repaired to that state with the view of pro- curing from the Rev. Philo Perry, the secretaiy of the convention of the diocess, a certificate that there did not appear on the minutes any entry of the rejec- tion of the person in question. Such a certificate might have been given with great truth, because no 243 formal application had been made. But Philo Perry being from home, Ammi Rogers fabricated a certifi- cate in his name; not only testifying to the said fact, but going to the point of the correct life and conver- sation of the bearer. The last circumstance, is of importance; because, although a certificate as to his not having applied for and been refused orders, was obtained from Philo Perry afterwards, yet it went no further. With the certificate forged as above, Ammi Ro- gers waited on Dr. Beach; and after thus satisfying him, requested permission to have the certificate in his possession for a while; in order to communicate it to some friends in New York, who had heard the stoiy against him. This was assented to. The cer- tificate was never returned: but in the mean time, Dr. Beach, relying on the integrity of it, withdrew his opposition, and Ammi Rogers was ordained. In a few years after his ordination, he returned to his native state, and made himself popular at Stamford. The bishop and the clergy, refused to know him as belonging to the diocess: and it was this which brought before the house of bishops, by mutual consent, the question to which diocess he belonged. In the investigation of this question, not only was the preceding fact proved by unquestionable testi- mony, especially the affidavit of Dr. Beach; but the clerical deputies from Connecticut, while they treated the man with the utmost decorum, produced ample evidence of a factious and mischievous disposition in 244 him. Still, the utmost length to which the bishops at finst thought themselves warranted to go, was, in giving their opinion on the case submitted to them, to notice incidentally the iniquity which had come within their knowledge, in the investigation of the subject. Here they should have stopped. But unfor- tunately, one of the bishops having proposed that there should be included a recommendation to de- grade the man from the ministry; the others, under the sensibility excited by the evidence of his great un worthiness and his flagitious conduct, consented to the proposal. This was ill judged, for these two reasons: first, it would give room, in the event of a condemnation, to object, that the opinion of the bishops, extra-JLidici ally expressed, had obtained un- due influence over the minds of those who were more properly the ecclesiastical judges of the offender. Perhaps, the same objection may seem to lie against the noticing of the forgery. But this was too glaring a fact to be denied, and indeed was admitted; while, on a succeeding trial, there would have still been a latitude as to the degree of punishment to be in- flicted. The pointing to what this should be occa- sioned the other reason referred to, by contributing to what is here thought to be the error into which the bishop and the clergy of Connecticut subsequently fell, of supposing that Anjmi Rogers had been tried by the house of bishops. This they never contem- plated, and indeed would have been contrary to the ecclesiastical constitution. 245 The recording of this tiansaction, may be a cau- tion against giving way in convention in future, to solicitations which will probably be occasionally niado, for the obtaining of determinations on points personally and locally interesting; but which may be left, without the endangering of any principle, to the judicial authority of the church in each state. That this is the most agreeable to the ecclesiastical con- stitution, will not be denied. If the said instrument be not wisely contrived in this particular; still it should govern, until altered by competent authority. The constitution, however, is here conceived to be not liable to objection, on this account: and it is sup- posed, that a contrary provision would be found im- practicable; because of the long intervals between the meetings of the general conventions, the difficulty of keeping them together, and other circumstances which might be mentioned. Alter the rising of the convention, this business of Ammi Rogers threatened serious consequences to the church in Connecticut, owing to what has been already hinted — its having been there con- ceived, that he had been tried; and that nothing re- mained, except to declare him degraded. IVhen the author found, that what the bishops had recorded on their minutes was so materially mis- understood, he wrote to bishop Moore, to know his sense of the matter; and found, from a letter of that bishop still in possession, that there was a perfect coinci 'eixe of opinion between them. The only bishop besides, who had been present — bishop Par- 246 ker — had died in a very short time after his return to Boston. Bishop Jarvis had absented himself, from a motive of delicacy; and bishop Claggett had left the city on his journey home, before any judgment had been delivered.* In the form in which the business stands on the journal, there does not sufficiently appear the ground, on which the bishops consented to give their senti- ments on the question, as to the jurisdiction to which Ammi Rogers belonged. That ground was in the urgent solicitations of both the parties; which were thought to justify the expression of opinion. The author supposes it due to the nature of this work, to annex to it the judgment of the bishops in the case of the said Ammi Rogers. Accordingly, it is in the Appendix, No. 26. Notice is taken on the journal of the convention, of an application from the episcopal church in New Jersey, relative to an unhappy dispute there subsist- ing between a minister and his congi'egation. As the issue of this was a canon, the object of which was novel in the episcopal church, and the conse- quences of which may be important; it may be pro- * The author and bisliop Moore afterwards received a letter from the committee of the clergy in Connecticut, requesting ad- vice on the question of again taking up the business of Rogers, and granting a trial. Both of those applied to advised the mea- sure, but it did not take place. It would have been more dis- creet in them to have witliheld their advice, until they should have known that it would have effect. 247 per to record tlie origin of it, and tlie general viovv entertained of its tendency by the author. The clergyman in contcnii)lation, was possessed of apparent zeal, and unexceptionable in his moral conduct. It is ditficult to ascertain, how far these circumstances should extend lenity to what cannot in itself be defended. But certain it is, that he had manifested a leaning to practices very different from those of his church. In addition to this, there were complaints of his overbearing of the vestry, and of his taking ol' all authority to himself, in the management of the temporal concerns of the con- gregation. That from dissatisfaction with him they had become very nmch lessened, was affirmed and believed. The former of the objections he con- firmed, by joining another religious communion, as soon as his severance from his particular congrega- tion took place. In regard to the merits of the canon, there may be doubts concerning the principle, on the ground that there should be no severance from a pastoral charge, except as the result of a trial for alledged misconduct: which is the most agreeable to the idea of exalting law above will. Besides, there is evident danger, that when a clergyman should be degraded, his congregation will avail themselves of this canon, from a false tenderness; and thus, while they rid themselves of the man, send him to disgrace the church elsewhere. Nevertheless, under the present circumstances of the church, and until some check can be given to the ease with which ministers are 248 admitted into congregations, the bishops consented to the canon. It deserves the name of a necessary, but — it is hoped — only temporary evil. The appre- hension of the abuse of it, has been verified. There appears on the journal to have been some difference of opinion between the houses, in refer- ence to two canons, and occasioning a conference proposed by the house of bishops. As the difference did not involve any important principle, and as it was done away by mutual concession in the conference, no notice is taken of it in these statements. It was in this convention, that the house of bishops prescribed the course of ecclesiastical study, still sub- sisting, for students in theology. This was doing something, towards the improving of the literary re- putation of our ministry, and an advance towards the desirable object of a seminary or seminaries, in which the preparation of candidates may be the better se- cured by daily examinations held by qualified pre- ceptors. At this convention there was established, as pro- posed by the last, a change of the season of holding the conventions. There will be propriety in record- ing the reason. It was on account of our country's having been for some years visited by epidemic dis- ease, in the autumn. Agreeably to a proposal from the house of bishops, it having been there moved by bishop Jarvis, the busi- ness of the convention was concluded by prayer, per- formed by the presiding bishop; in the presence of both houses. It had been the rule during every con- 249 vention, to have morning prayer in the liouse of cleri- cal and lay deputies, at which the bishops, by votes of their body, had attended. The city of Baltimore was fixed on as the place of the next convention, to be held on the third Tues- day in May, 1808. P. Page 31. Oftlie Convention o/ 1808. Bishop White presided in the house of bishops, and Dr. Beach in the house of clerical and lay depu- ties. The secretaries of the two houses, were the Rev. Dr. James Whitehead of the former, and the Rev. John H. Hobart of the latter. Bishop Parker, who, at the request of the last convention, was to have opened the present with a sermon, being deceased, that office was discharged by the presiding bishop. The thin attendance on this convention, must at- tract the notice of every one, who shall inspect the journal. In the house of clerical and lay deputies, the church was represented from seven states only: none coming from Virginia; on the account of the church iu which state, a city so far south as Bal- timore was principally chosen. In the house of bishops, there were two only — bishop Claggett and the author. When the latter repaired to the place of meeting; it was under an apprehension, having learned by letter from the other his being exceed- I i 250 ingly indisposed, that the question would be raised — Whether a single bishop can constitute a house. On this, he was prepared to sustain the affirmative, as being the most agreeable to the letter of" the con- stitution; and because, on the contrary supposition, there could have been nothing done. The case, however, would have been very disagreeable. It was prevented by the attendance of bishop Claggett, although with a considerable degree of indisposition; under which he laboured during the whole session. Bishop Jarvis was said to be indisposed with the asthma, and bishop Moore was confined by an in- flammation in his eyes. Why bishop Madison was absent, was not known; unless he were prevented by a loss sustained of a son, not long before. In revising and arranging the canons, there oc- curred nothing material, besides the two following particulars. One of them respected candidates for holy or- ders. The proposed canon prescribed different ex- aminations to be held, during the time in which a case should be under consideration: and among the matters to be inquired into, was the party's being possessed of " a practical knowledge of religion.' ' When this came before the bishops, they could form no idea of practical knowledge. They knew, that in the other house it had been consented to by the majority, in order to get rid of an expression pressed by some — that of " an experimental knowledge:" an expression much abused by its application to feehngs merely animal, and unwelcome on that account. We 251 could, however, form an idea of the sense of it per- fectly unexceptionable; supposing it to be such know- ledge as is the result of experience. But the bishops did not perceive, how the candidate could satisfy his examiners as to this point, on any other evidence than that of his own declarations; the requiring of which was thought liable to much abuse. Accord- ingly, they proposed to leave out the clause concern- ing " practical knowledge;" and that after the other requisitions, there should be inserted an admonition to the candidate, of there being required in him those inward graces, which cannot be brought to any outward standard; and are named in Scripture " the fruits of the Spirit" — by which alone his sacred influence can be " known." In addition to this, the bishops sent to the other house a paper, of which the following is a copy, to be read to them but not entered on their journal; in the printing of which, it accordingly does not appear, and is therefore inserted in this place. " Having proposed the omission of an expression which seems designed to require inward piety, we wish to be clearly understood in this matter. " Far be it from us to suppose, that any qualifi- cations are sufficient, without pious affections, the effects of the grace of God on the heart. But al- though the living piously, that is in a visible profes- sion and in the duties attached to it, may be certified; yet, the actual possession of piety must be the sub- ject of the experience of the party, and not of the testimony of his fellow-men. If it should be thought. 252 that they may ascertain his experience by an inquiry into the movements of his mind; we remark, that the issue must be precarious, independently on some manifest abuses incident to it. " The church of England, has always contented herself with a visible profession, a suitable life, and the solemn declarations at the altar. That in these, there may be imposition and insincerity, is unques- tionable. But how they would have been prevented by further requisition, we do not discern. We re- collect within that church many wise and holy men, who have been satisfied with her discipline in this particular. But we doubt of there having been any dissentients, whose opinions we would wish to see influential in this church. We call to mind a certain period in the history of England; when one effect of the entire prostration of her church, was the triumph of the principle here objected to. But we have learn- ed too much of the consequent hypocrisy and tyranny, to be reconciled to any thing which bids fair to lead to the same result. " In America, a question raised on the same ground, divided for some time a numerous and re- spectable body of Christians. But in consequence of more mature reflection among them, the contro- versy has been dying away; and, we believe, that there is now very little of it. " But what in our opinion should over-rule all doubt, is not only the scheme of Scripture generally, as to the requisition in question; but that St. Paul, in his first epistle to Timothy, where he lays down the 253 qualifications of the Christian ministry, says not a word of any kind of scrutiny, which can he satisfied only hy the testimony of the party, concerning him- self " The subject being important, we have thought it expedient to make this formal profession of our opinion." ^\'hen the alteration of the proposed canon by the bishops came into the house of clerical and lay deputies, it occasioned a warm debate, which turned altogether on the word "known:" the word "mani- fested" being proposed as a substitute, by those who objected to the other. The reason was, there being some in the convention who could not brook its being declared in a canon, that a man could no otherwise know the presence of the Spirit of God, than by his fruits. They evidently thought, there w^as a more immediate communication in the matter at issue; al- though they rested their objection chiefly on the sup- position, of its cutting off all hope from a dying peni- tent; as if such a person might not be sensible of new affections, which the Spirit only can produce: what- ever difference there may be between him and a holy liver, as to the certainty of those around him con- cerning the existence of such affections. Some, without deciding on which side the truth lay, remon- strated against the establishing by a side-blow, of what they called a controverted point. In the issue, the amendment of the bishops was accepted, but much to the dissatisfaction of the dissentients; who even talked of entering a protest. After the business 254 of the day, two respectable clergymen, who had ar- gued and voted in the majority, privately recom- mended to the consideration of the two bishops — whether it w^ould not be best for them to propose the change of " known" for "manifested;" this word not being opposed to their belief, although not so pre- cisely suited to the sentiment intended to be con- veyed. Their motive, was the expectation until now entertained, that the convention would close the next day, with a conciliatory spirit on all sides: which expectation would be disappointed, if the recommended measure should be rejected. The bishops, influenced by the same motive, comphed with the proposal. But when the alteration came into the other house, there again arose a warm de- bate; a considerable proportion arguing against the acceptance of the revision. However, the more moderate counsel prevailed; but whether to any good purpose, can be known only by future events. The transaction is recorded under the mortifying reflec- tion, that there has been an interference in the counsels of this church, of the wild and pernicious opinion manifested in this argument. After the session was ended, in company with a member who had distinguished himself in the mi- nority, the author remarked to him, that in the insti- tutions of the episcopal church, there was nothing like the opinion which he seemed to entertain. He defended himself by the seventeenth article, where it speaks of election in Christ, as " full of sweet, pleasant and unspeakable comfort to godly persons. 255 and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things:" words evidently harmonizing with the position, that "by the fruits of the Spirit only his holy influence can be knovm," Should such reasoners obtain the sway in the coun- sels of this church, her system will be overturned. The other matter relative to the canons, was what occurred concerning the office of induction, established at the last convention. It is to be hoped, that the consequences of the measure will be an il- lustration of the maxim, that " the art of governing consists, in a great measure, in not governing too much." No objection had been made to the office: but the requiring of induction as essential to a vahd settlement, was evidently perceived to militate against the ideas so prevalent in many places, of dismissing ministers at pleasure. Now although there can hardly be any principle, more evidently hostile to the permanent respectability of the ministry-; yet it would have been better to have left the correction of it to time and attendant inconveniences, than to have brought the full force of it into operation by the measure now in question. Certainly it would have been best, to have rested the service on a recom- mendatory rubric. In Maryland, the measure inter- fered directly with the vestry-law. From Carohna, there was a memorial, desiring an alteration of the canon. And in other places, complaints were known to have been made. On the other hand, the service 256 and the result of it were with great reason so ac- ceptable to some, that they refused to concur in do- ing away the former measure; but consented to the dispensing with it in those states or diocesses, in which it interfered with charters or usages. In this shape, the matter was brought before the bishops; who were reluctant to the saying of any thing, liable to be construed into an approbation of charters or usages, which they hold to be contrary to good order in the church. Still, the consequences of rejecting the canon were so stated to them, as to induce on their part the consenting to it; with a subjoined de- claration, that it should not be construed as giving a sanction to the charters and the usages in contem- plation; concerning which they also expressed the hope, that they will in time be altered. This amend- ment was accepted, and the canon passed. A new arrangement of the canons made by this convention, had been pressed on every preceding oc- casion, and objected to by the author; who at last withdrew his opposition, submitting to the alleged advantage, of having all the provisions pertaining to the same subject classed together. It is to be hoped, that the course of conduct will end here, at least for a considerable time; or else, in the different diocesses, it will be to no purpose to refer to any particular canon, because of the uncertainty, whether it will retain its station after the next triennial convention. It will be much more convenient, to exhibit the canons of each conventional body as their act; and in every edition of the canons, to retain the titles of 257 such as are repealed, printing the titles in italics. A repeal will be tlie result of the considerable improve- ment of" a former canon. But it was obligatory in its old form, while it remained in force; and may still require to be referred to, on some question con- nected with discipline. The title will direct to the journal; which will show how the canon stood, at the time to which it is desirable to apply it. The journal shows, that there was accomplished at this convention, what has been from the beginning ardently desired by many, both of the clergy and of the laity — the giving of a full negative to the house of bishops. It is to be hoped, that the recollection of the course of this business, as tbund on the vari- ous journals, will show the propriety of leaving to time and mature reflection, to effect what may be for a while opposed by prejudices, not to be disregarded without extreme danger. What is here said, how- ever, is designed of those prejudices only, which may be yielded to without the sacrifice of essential principle. This was the case in the present instance; and must have been perceived to be such, even by those who conceive the highest of episcopal claims. In the year 178.5, even the necessity of the presi- dency of a bishop, when such a character should be obtained by consecration and should be present in the convention, was rejected. Still, nothing was decreed to the contrary; and in the next year, the absurd prejudice against the proposal was over- ruled. When another constitution was formed in 1 789, if a provision for the episcopal negative had Kk 258 been insisted on, it would have been destructive of the whole system. Nevertheless, in the many years intervening, no measure has passed, under the refu- sal of the episcopal sanction. Indeed, it may be a question, whether, had things remained on the old footing of the three fifths, made necessary to carry any resolution contrary to the opinion of the house of bishops, the weight of their negative would not have had more effect, than under the present change. This would have happened in the following manner. There would always be in the other house a propor- tion, who would doubt of the validity of a measure, adopted without the episcopal sanction. Some of these would occasionally differ from the bishops, on a subject under consideration. But when the dis- sent of the bishops should have been declared, those of the description referred to would have thrown themselves into the scale, against the putting of the matter to the test of the three fifths. This supposition has been verified, in a transaction which took place between the two houses of the convention of 1804. It is evident to the author's mind, that owing to the causes stated, while it would be scarcely possible ever to carry a measure against the bishops, there would be a discouragement of even that free discus- sion with them, which may be expected to take place sometimes, under their present full possession of a negative. On the above subject, there is an error in the journal, respecting the votes of the lay-gentlemen from Pennsylvania. It is there said, that they were 259 in favour of the resolution; but voted in the negative, because uninstructed by their constituents. The de- claration of" the gentlemen is, that they declined voting for a measure of which they approved; because it did not appear from the journals of their state conven- tions, that t}\e projected change had been laid before them, as the constitution has prescribed. Neither had the gentlemen any recollection, that this was done. The author is persuaded, that the matter was notified to the state convention; but how it happened that an entry was omitted, he knows not.* The reason of the bishops for post[X)ning the consideration of the degrees of consanguinity and affinity prohibiting marriage, was simply as stated on the journal — the w eight of the subject, and the partial attendance at this convention. They did not compare their sentiments, on the many important points which the subject brings into view. The last subject, had been brought forwards, in consequence of an instruction from the church of Maryland, to the deputies from that state. From the same quarter there was a proposal made, to intro- duce " A Companion to the Altar,^^ as part of the Prayer Book. The reason of the rejection of the * It would Iiave been well, had the. subject recurred so as to be brought before the convention of 1811, to cause notice to have been given on the journal of that year. But the fact is as here related: and the gentlemen concerned were a little pained, by the misstatement on the preceding journal; although doubtless occasioned by misapprehension or by inadvertence. 260 proposal by the bishops, was its tending to make the book bulky. Many good treatises, may be usefully bound up with the Prayer Book: but to make them essential parts of it, would be manifestly productive of much inconvenience. Any printer may, at his discretion, do what was sohcited on this subject, although he may not notice the Companion to the Altar in the table of contents of the Book of Com- mon Prayer. It appears from the journal, that the conven- tion has endeavoured — and with propriety as is here conceived — to give a check to . the growing prac- tice of instituting associated rectorships. They de- stroy responsibility, and give occasion to rivalships between pastors of the same parochial church or churches. It is argued in favour of episcopacy, that independently on any arguments from divine institu- tion or from apostolic practice, it has a better ten- dency than presbytery to peace and order. The last argument, seems to apply with more weight to a con- gregational, than even to a diocesan. So far as the former connexion, in other denominations, has been known in any considerable degree to the writer of these remarks, it has been generally an illustration of the opinion here expressed. He recollects read- ing in the works of the celebrated Richard Baxter, that during the prostration of episcopacy in England, the pressing instances of that good man — for such he is here conceived to have been — for the increas- ing of the number of pastors in the churches, were defeated by the experience of the jealousies con- 261 stantly occurring, where more than one pastor was settled in any church. This is in a work called, The Reformed Pastor, abridged by S. Palmer, part 2, chap. 9. At this convention, the bishops were again assail- ed by the troublesome business of Ammi Rogers; who allccted to bring before them an appeal from the judgment of bishop Jarvis and the clergy of Con- necticut. There was no doubt on the minds of the two bishops present, that there had been an oversight in not granting to this man a trial, in the church in that state. But the oversight, if they were correct in supposing one, was not theirs; nor was it in their power to correct it. Nothing could have been easier, than the convicting of him of faults, which deserve degradation. But it did not become the bishops to advise the recalling of the act, and the giving of him a trial. There was the less call on the author to do so, because he had already advised this very measure, as did also bishop Moore; on an application made for their opinions on the subject, by the standing committee of the church in Connecticut. But al- though their opinions had been asked and given, there occurred insuperable difficulty in the seeking of a compliance with them. The bishops had no conference with Rogers; nor would they have no- ticed his business, had he not employed a gentleman of reputation in the law, to whom something was due on the score of politeness and respect. They spent a whole morning in discussing the matter with this gentleman; but persisted in declining to hear his 262 pleadings, because not eompetent to decide. The grounds of the treatment of Rogers, by the house of bishops, at the last convention and at the present, were accurately recorded on the journals. The other house properly refused to intermeddle; and the only reason of the papers being sent to them by the bishops, was their being addressed to both. On the subject of the Hymns sanctioned by this convention, much was said, as well out of doors, as in the house of clerical and lay deputies. Some members of that body, had contemplated the matter previously to the meeting, and had pressed it with great earnestness. The author of these remarks acknowledges, that it was with pain he saw the sub- ject brought forwards. This was not because he doubted either of the lawfulness of celebrating the praises of God in other strains than those of David, or of the expediency of having a few well selected hymns for the especial subjects of the evangelical economy; which can no otherwise be celebrated in the psalms, than in an accommodated sense. Never- theless, there is so little of good poetry except the scriptural, on sacred subjects; and there W'as so great danger of having a selection accommodated to the degree of animal sensibility, affected by those who were the most zealous in the measure; that the dis- cretion of adopting it seemed questionable. It was, however, yielded to by the bishops, under the hope, that the selection of a few and those unexception- able, although some of them, perhaps, are not to be extolled for the excellence either of the sentiments 263 or of the poetry, might prevent the unauthorized use of compositions which no rational Christian can ap- prove of. The matter, however, was executed with too much haste. The bishops had merely time to give a cursory reading to the hymns proposed; the result of which was the acceptance of them, with the exception of one hymn, containing a verse that seemed a little enthusiastic. In lieu of this, they proposed another hymn, which was admitted. They who were the most zealous for the measure, had pressed for the admission of about two hundred. On the subject of hymns, there is ground for considerable apprehensions. Some ministers, and other members of this church, have so strong an in- clination to multiply them, that, whatever might be in future the number of those allowed, there would be at every convention a wish for more. Others, are aware of the inconvenience of this continual enlarge- ment, but press for the setting aside of some of those selected, in order to introduce new ones more suited to their taste: not foreseeing, that on the same prin- ciple, there will be, in the next convention, new pro- posers of new hymns, and that this will happen with- out end. There are some religious societies, who think it ungodly to introduce, into the worship of the sanctuary, any other singing than that of the Psalms of David. This is unreasonable: but are we not run- ning into the opposite extreme.^ The principles which prevail in the estimation of the author, and which he proposes under subjection to the saying — " valeant quantum possunt valere^^ — 264 that is, let them pass for what they are worth — are these. In regard to the general subjects of psalmody, as the attributes of God, the mercies of creation and of providence, and what comes under the character of preceptive, or under that of devout desire and pi- ous purpose, he knows of no other compositions which have proved equally interesting to his mind: and without making his feelings a test of those of other persons, he cannot forget, that these composi- tions were the liturgy of the Jev\ish church, when its devotions Vv^ere joined in by the divine Author of our religion. It is no small argument in favour of the heavenly origin of the Old Testament, that strains of devotion, so far excelling whatever the world knows of prayer practised by the wisest men among the heathen, should adorn the worship of a people far below some other nations in the cultivation of the human intellect. It should be added, that there is no small proportion of the Psalms, so evidently point- ing to the Messiah and his spiritual kingdom, as only to require acquaintance with the contents of the New Testament, in order to their being accommodated to the celebration of the mercies of redemption. Nevertheless, as it is by the Gospel tliat " Life and immortality are brought to light;" there would seem to be a suitableness to its high design, in cele- brating its prominent subjects in definite terms: so that the nativity, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension, the descent of the Holy Ghost at pen- tecost, and other edifying events, embodied with 265 Cliristian doctrine and essential to it, may reasonably be rendered the more inijiressivc, by their being car- ried to the heart on the wings of poetry and of music. It is not intended to allege, that we are to stop here. But there is no hesitation to confess, that ad- ditions, if made, should be with a sparing hand; and tlien only admitted, when besides sound doctrine and weighty sense, the composition be such, as a poet of acknowledged genius would not be ashamed to own. As to the loading of our book with the same truths in a diversity of language and of metre, or, in any other way, the seeking of variety for its own sake, there is pleasure in recording the opinion, tliat it will never tend to the sustaining either of truth or of devotion. When devout feelings have often ac- companied certain words, the one bring the other along with them, by the law of association. This should be no hindrance to as much variety as is suited to the diversity of subject; yet it discounte- nances variety, admitted for the gratification of rest- less fancy. As to that species of hymns, which af- fects to clothe devout desire in the language of hu- man passion, it is to be hoped, that we shall continue to repel every effort for their admission. One effect of gratifying the passion for a con- tinued addition to the number of hymns, and for ex- pressing the same sentiments in a variety of forms, would be the swelling of the Prayer Book to an im- moderate size. Again, the probable effect of this. l1 266 would be the sometimes editing of the book without either hymns or metre psalms under the same cover; as may be done at any time without offence against any existing regulation; since they are no parts of the said book, but make a book by themselves. Ac- cordingly, selections from it may be made by any parochial minister, at his discretion; and either be bound with the book of Common Prayer, or kept in a separate manual for the use of his congrega- tion, and of others to whom it may be eligible. Something like the latter, the author has seen in sundry churches in England; in which all the me- trical compositions in use are on a large sheet of pasteboard, and kept hanging in the pews. It may be proper, to guard the above from being so misconstrued, as to be a sanction for the publish- ing of the book of Common Prayer, with the omis- sion of any portion of it, properly coming under any head of the table of contents. This was done in a former day, by an omission of the book of Psalms, and an insertion of the selections only: which unau- thorized act, being made known to the convention of 1801, produced the canon now numbered as the 43d, " Prescribing the mode of publishing authorized editions of the book of Common Prayer, &c.'^ But '^ The Articles of Religion," and "The Ordinal," are each of them a distinct book, although resting on the same authority; so that ''The book of Com- mon Prayer," with or without them, may be com- plete. 267 The subject of hymns has so evidently a bearing on that of tiie psahns, that it will not be irrelevant, and will be justified by the liberty which the author stipulated for in the preface, to give the outlines of his theory concerning the latter. It has produced some variety of opinion; although not in any such extent, as to endanger the peace of our churches. In the primitive church, says the learned Bing- ham, " the joining of all the worshippers in the psal- mody, was the most ancient and general practice, till the way of alternate psalmody was brought into the church." May eveiy attempt to supercede the former by an exclusive method, prove abortive. Is there, then, to be interdicted an higher grade of musical performance, calling for acquirements of more study, and confined to the select members of a choir .'^ Far from us be the opinion, that there should be wanting any matter which can help to swell the notes ot Christian praise; and, that all improvement in this line should be surrendered to mere amuse- ment and to licentiousness: but, let it be admitted on the indispensable condition, of subserviency to the worship of him who so framed the ear as to be de- lighted by melody and by harmony; and especially, rather than the permission of a contrariety to that end in sounds characterized by levity, let it be kept at a distance from the sacred enclosure of the house of God. The same reason, applies to the aid of in- struments. They may contribute to the effect of sentiment and of voice: but when there are emitted from them sounds hostile to every devout desire, 268 there is no person impressed by a serious sense of the duties of the place, who would not rather see them committed to the flames. It is stated by bishop Lowth, in his dissertation prefixed to his translation of the prophecy of Isaiah, that the book of Psalms was originally in metre. He considers the fact as proved by certain parts of them, in which there are alphabetical marks of the begin- nings of lines and of stanzas. To the same purpose Josephus affirms, that David wrote his psalms in trimeters and pentameters. This metre was not of the same number of syl- lables, as among the Greeks and the Latins; but, to use the words of the bishop, " that relation and pro- portion of one verse to another, which arises from the correspondence of terms, and from the form of construction; from whence results a rythmus of propositions, and a harmony of sentences." The pronunciation of the Hebrew language had become lost, long before the age of the Gospel; prin- cipally in consequence of its want of vowels: so that the subsequent invention of vowels by the Masorets, has never recovered the pronunciation with cer- tainty. Hence, the original metre is unknown: and even in the age of the Gospel, the worship of the temple was with the psalms in the prosaic form. The chanting of them in this form, will for ever claim the merit of their having been so sung, in the worship attended on by our blessed Savour and his apostles; and of their having continued to be so sung in the primitive church, and afterwards, universally 269 until the reformation. In the compiling of the htur- gy of the church of England, no metiical singing was contemplated: so that when Sternhold and Hop- kins made their version, it came in silently, under the general license to sing any portion of Scripture. To this day in England, it is only under the cover of the said permission, that either the said version, or the more poetic vei'sion of Tate and Brady shelters it- self In the American church, the latter is expressly sanctioned. How can the sanction be reasonably censured, as treating the words of Scripture irreverently.'' For tlie singing of the psalms in the original, none con- tend: and as for the original measure, the recovery of it is given up as desperate. To render them intel- ligible in any modern language, it is necessary to ac- commodate in a considerable degree to the genius of it. If the accommodation be a little extended for the making of poetic measure, it cannot be unlawful in its principle, provided the sense be faithfully pre- served. The same license is often taken in choral music; it being common to make transpositions and other alterations of the words of anthems, although not for the purpose of tying them to metre. But the license pleaded for is denounced, as a gratifying of sense; and there is an opprobrium at hand, in the expression of a tickhng of the ear. What is the use of any poetry, or of any music, but that through the inlets of the gratified senses, there may be an excitement of devout affections? Were it not for this advantage, it were better, that divine 270 truths should be always uttered, in the plainness of a dress suited to mathematics or to metaphysics. It has been remarked, that in England, metrical psalmody has been instrumental to schism, having been always the most esteemed by the dissenters tr-om the established church. It is difficult to per- ceive either the relation of the subjects, or the evi- dence of the position. In regard to the latter it is notorious, that metrical singing made its way not only to the parish churches, but to the cathedrals, without the sanction of command, or even of espe- cial permission; and that it retains its stand in them, under a provision which had it not in contemplation. If the dissenters have not manifested the same re- gard for an higher grade of singing, it should be re- membered, that at their origin, there was an ideal association of this with other matters; that it has been hereditary; and that we know not how far this may have been the result of another association — meaning of the subject with the supposed attribute of levity: for which too much cause has been given in faulty performance. x\s to the cliurches of the establishment, it is pro- bable that there is not one of them in which metrical singing is not practiced; although any parochial cler- gyman might banish it, without offence against any institution of his church. The gratifying of popular taste by the use of metre, has been urged to its disgrace. Now to sacri- fice truth to the opinion of the high or of the low, must be grievous sin. But on a question of taste, if 271 that of the people can be laid hold on for the increase of their piety, it would be dillicult to prove this an error: as much so, as to do the like in reference to the improvement of a talent ibr elocution, with the hope of rendering it instrumental to popular edifica- tion. After all, it must be acknowledged of our metre, requiring as it does lines answering to one another in the numbers of their syllables, that it is very un- equal to the force of what must have been accom- plished by Hebrew verse, as described by bishop Lowth; according to which, each line contained a complete sense. He calls the lines parallelisms: and he distinguishes them into — the synonymous, the an- tithetic, and the synthetic or consecutive. These names are descriptive of the diversity; and the ex- amples given by him are proof, how exceedingly all our translations in metre fall short of those poems in their original forms.* * In order to illustrate the sen«e of the bishop concerning parallelisms, the following examples are given from among those exhibited by him. The Synonymous. " Bow thy heavens, O Jehovah, and descend; " Touch the mountains, and they shall smoke: " Dart forth lightning, and scatter themj " Shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them." Ps. cxliv. 5, 6. The Antithetic. " They are bowed down, and fallen; " But we are risen, and maintain ourselves firm." Ps. XX. 8. 272 As to what is commonly called rhyme, in which the lines answer to one another, not only in the number of syllables, but in sound or jingle; if, as is alleged, there is something in the genius of the English lan- guage, rendering such an artificial construction, pe- culiarly agreeable; it is difficult to devise any prin- ciple on which it should be interdicted. And yet, the opinion here entertained is, that the most to be claim- ed for it is endurance, until there shall be exhibited a translation stript of it, and in other respects worthy of adoption. Certainly, there are psalms which have never been put into this chain, nor perhaps into that of syllabic measure, without material deterioration. In regard both to metre and to t*hyme it must be confessed, that sometimes by the throwing in of a superfluous word, to suit that species of translation, there is caused a considerable departure from the ori- ginal. Besides, there is commonly a suspending of the " For his wrath is but for a moment, his favour for life; " Sorrow may lodge for the evening, but in the morning glad- ness." Ps. XXX. 5. Thf Antithesis is in each of the lines. Sometimes it com- prehends a couplet, each line having a complete sense. The Synthetic, or Consecutive. " Whatsoever Jehovah pleaseth, " That doeth he in the heavens and in the earth; " In the sea and in all the deeps: " Causing the vapours to ascend from the ends of the eartli; " Making the light'nings with the rain; " Bringing forth the wind out of his treasures." Ps. cxxxv. 6, 7. 2*^ r» / ^ sense of" one line on what is to follow in another: which is contrary to the exanriple oi" Hebrew verse * In addition to all this, it is often necessary to take in so much of what has been suggested by the brain of the modern poet, as that the sentiment of inspira- tion is diluted in the exuberance of language, and sustains a material diminution of its strength.f * The difterence may be illustrated, by the following lines from the fourth psalm. In the first line, the sense is suspended for the second: and in the third, the same is done, in a dependence on the fourth, a disadvantage sometimes aggravated by an ab- surd flourish on the organ. But in the other four lines, what the bishop calls a consecutive parallelism is complete, and remarka- bly beautiful. 3 " Consider that the righteous man " Is God's peculiar choice, " And when to him I make my prayer, " He always hears my voice." 4 " Then stand in awe of his commands, " Flee every thing that's ill: " Commune in private with your hearts, " And bend them to his \vill." t Tlie two following examples are given from a comparison of the bible translation with that of the book in metre. The lines of the latter are fine, which make them serve the better for in- stances of the extending of a sentiment over too large a surface. The comparisons to be made are not intended in disparage- ment of the version of Tate and Brady: for whether on account of its merits, or from the influence of the recollection of sensi- bilities, extending as far back as any recollections extend, there is a preference of it to every other of the kind. Tlie imperfec- tion charged on it, is common to all the metrical translations. M m 274 There arises the question — What is the hne of conduct to be pursued in this church, in considera- tion of the premises? The answer is, first, in re- gard to chants, if there be any who have a disrelish for them, let such persons be aware of the high sanc- tion under which they have come down to us; and on that account, let them not dare to make an effort for the excluding of them.* Secondly, in regard to Bible Translation. Ps. cxiv. 1, 2. When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language; Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion." Book in Metre. " When Israel, by the Almighty led, " Enrich'd with their oppressor's spoil, ♦• From Egypt march'd, and Jacob's seed " From bondage in a foreign soil; " Jehovah, for his residence, " Chose out imperial Judah's tent, " His mansion royal, and from thence, •' Through Israel's camp his orders sent." Bible Translation. Ps. cxxxvii. 1. " By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea we wept, when we remembered Zion." Book in Metre. " When we our weary limbs to rest, " Sat down by pioud Euphrates' stream, " We wept, with doleful tlioughts opprest, " And Sion was our mournful theme." The whole of these two psalms are an illustration to the purpose. * There is an advantage incidental to chants, and worthy of notice: it is the exclusion of light airs, whicli, tacked to the 275 psalms in metre, rendered by habit dear to many de- vout minds; and there being in the use of them, a readiness to the desirable object of a general joining of the people; let not the taste for a species of sing- ing which requires more of science, invade the ground on which they stand. And, thirdly, let not that high grade of choral praise be undistinguishingly rejected by those who have no fancy for it. Rather let it be encouraged with moderation; under the condition rigorously required, not only of there being nothing of levity, but of there being a tendency to the excite- ment of devout affections. And let the advocates of it be aware of the disgust, which will and ought to be excited by a violation of this condition; and of the dissatisfaction which will be the reasonable result even of a defect of skill in the performance. It is probable that the chants, the metre psalms, and the choral anthems, might all be profitably laid aside, in the event of an approach in the English language, to Hebrew verse as above described by plain words of Scnpture, would be oftensive, not to say to every pious, but to every decent person. There are some religious people — it is surprising — who would introduce into metre psalmo- dy, the fashionable tunes of festivity and sport. The reason of- fered is — why sliould the best tunes be exclusively tlie property of Satan? Tlie author is not prepared to pass such a judgment on those tunes; which are not sinful, so long as they are used within the bounds of innocency. But if they be indeed the property of the aforesaid personage, let us be just even to him, and permit him to keep his own. Rational and evangelical devotion has no occasion for them, however suited they may be to the extravagances of enthusiasm. 276 bishop Lowth; and of which he says in another part of his dissertation, that the harmony of it arose " from accents, tones, and musical modulations." But the bishop evidently considered this as unattainable even in the Hebrew. On a retrospect of the transactions of this con- vention, there is entertained the trust, that it did not end without a general tendency to consolidate the communion; although, in the course of the business, there had been displayed more than in any other con- vention, the influence of some notions leading far wide of that rational devotion, which this church has in- herited from the church of England. The spirit here complained of, was rather moderated than raised higher during the session. But it being liable to be combined with schemes of personal consequence; there is no foreseeing, to what lengths it may extend in future. On the part of those inimical to the con- templated evil, the proper preservative — and may God grant that it may be applied — is the cultivating of an enlightened zeal in favour of the doctrines of our holy religion, as revealed in Scripture; and hitherto maintained in their integrity, by this church.* Lest what is said concerning schemes of personal conse- quence should bear the appearance of an insinuation not to be f-nstaiued by any fact; the author finds himself calle Benjamin Moore, D.D. Assistant Minister of Trinity church, JVew York, and others. His grace the archbishop of York. No. 3. Page 85. A letter from the Rev. Abraham Jarvis, in the name of the clergy of Connecticut. Reverend sir, We the clergy of Connecticut, met at Woodbury in voluntary convention, beg leave to acquaint you, that a small pamphlet printed in Philadelphia has been transmitted to us, of which you are said to be the author. This pamphlet proposes a new form of government in the episcopal church, and points at the method of erecting it. As the thirteen states have now risen to independent sovereignty, we agree with you, sir, that the chain which connected this with the mother church is broken; that the American church is now left to stand in its own strength — and that some change in its regulations must in due time take place. But we think it premature and of dangerous consequence, to enter upon so capital a 333 business, till we "have resident bishops (if they can be obtained) to assist in the performance of it, and to form a new union in the American church, under proper superiors, since its union is now broken with such superiors in the British cluirch. We shall only advert to such things in the pamphlet, as we esteem of dangerous consequence. You say the conduct you mean to recommend, is to include in the propo- sed frame of government a general approbation of episcopacy, and a declaration of an intention to pro- cure the succession as soon as conveniently may be; but in the mean time to carry the plan into effect, without waiting for the succession. But why do you include a general approbation of episcopacy, in your proposed new frame of government? not because you think bishops a constituent part of an episcopal church, unless you conceive they derive their office and existence from the king's authority; for though you acknowledge we cannot at present have bishops here, and propose to set up without them, yet you say no constitutional principle of our church is changed by the revolution, but what was founded on the authority of the king. Your motives for the above general approbation, seem indeed to be purely political. One is, that the general opinion of epis- copalians is in favour of bishops, and therefore, (if we understand your reasoning) it would be impolitic, not to flatter them with the hopes of it. Another rea- son is, that too wide a deviation from the British church might induce future emigrants from thence, to set up independent churches here. But could 334 you have proposed to set up the ministry, without waiting for the succession, had you beheved the episcopal superiority to be an ordinance of Christ, with the exclusive authority of ordination and go- vernment, and that it has ever been so esteemed in the purest ages of the church? and yet we conceive this to be the sense of episcopalians in general, and warranted by the constant practice of the christian church, lie ally, sir, we think an episcopal church without episcopacy, if it be not a contradiction in terms, would, however, be a new thing under the sun; and yet the episcopal church, by the pamphlet propo- sed to be erected, must be in this predicament till the succession be obtained. You plead necessity, how- ever, and argue that the best writers in the church admit of presbyterian ordination, where episcopal cannot be had. To prove this, you quote concessions from the venerable Hooker and Dr. Chandler, which their exuberant charity to the reformed churches abroad, led them to make. But the very words you quote from the last mentioned gentleman prove his opinion to be, that bishops w^ere as truly an ordi- nance of Christ, and as essential to his church as the sacraments; for, say you, he insists upon it (mean- ing the episcopal superiority,) as of divine right, as- serts that the laws relating to it bind as strongly as the laws which relate to baptism and the holy eu- charist, and that if the succession be once broken, not all the men on earth, not all the angels in hea- ven, without an immediate commission from Christ, can restore it — but you say, he does not, however. hold this succession to be necessaiy, only where it can be had. Neither does he or the christian church, hold the sacraments to be necessary, where they cannot be had agreeable to the appointment of the great head of the church. Why should particular acts of authority be thought more necessary than the au- thority itself? why should the sacraments be more essential than that authority Christ has ordained to administer them? It is true that Christ has appointed the sacraments, and it is as true that he hath ap- pointed officers to administer them, and has express- ly forbid any to do it but those who are authoiized by his appointment, or called of God as was Aaron. And yet these gentlemen (without any inconsistency with their declared sentiments) have, and all good men will express their charitable hopes that God in compassion to a well meant zeal, will add the same blessings to those who, through unavoidable mistake, act beside his commission, as if they really had it. As far as we can find, it has been the constant opi- nion of our church in England and here, that the episcopal superiority is an ordinance of Christ, and we think that the uniform practice of the whole American church for near a century, sending their candidates three thousand miles for holy orders, is more than a presumptive proof that the church here are and ever have been of this opinion. The sectaries, soon after the reformation, declared that the book of consecration, &c., was superstitious and contrary to God's word, and the moderation you mention in the articles and canons, consists in affirming that this 336 declaration was entirely false; and would you wish to be more severe? The instances you adduce, wherein presbyterian ordination has been tolerated in the church, have, by its best writers, been set in such a point of view as to give no countenance to your scheme, and the authorities you quote have been an- swered again and again. If you will not allow this superiority to have an higher origin than the Apos- tles, yet since they were divinely inspired, we see not why their practice is not equal to a divine war- rant, and as they have given no liberty to deviate from their practice in any exigence of the church, we know not what authority we have to take such liberties in any case. However, we think nothing can be more clear, than that our church has ever believed bishops to have the sole right of ordination and government, and that this regimen was appoint- ed of Christ himself, and it is now, to use your own words, humbly submitted to consideration, whether such episcopalians as consent even to a temporary departure, and set aside this ordinance of Christ for conveniency, can scarcely deserve the name of Chris- tians. But would necessity warrant a deviation from the law of Christ, and the immemorial practice of the church, yet what necessity have we to plead.** Can we plead necessity with any propriety, till we have tried to obtain an episcopate, and have been rejected.^ We conceive the present to be a more fa- vourable opportunity for the introduction of bishops, than this country has before seen. However dan- gerous bishops formerly might have been thought to 337 tlie civil rights of these states, this danger has now vanished, for such superiors will have no civil autho- rity. They will be purely ecclesiastics. The states have now risen to sovereign authority, and bishops will be equally under the control of civil law with other clergymen; no danger, then, can now be feared from bishops, but such as may be feared from pres- byters. This being the case, have we not the high- est reason to hope, that the whole civil authority upon the continent, (should their assistance be need- ed) will unite their influence with the church, to pro- cure an office so essential to it, and to render complete a profession, which contains so considerable a propor- tion of its inhabitants. And on the other hand, is there any reason to believe, that all the bishops in England, and in all the other reformed churches in Europe, are so totally lost to a sense of their duty, and to the real wants of their brethren in the episcopal church here, as to refuse to ordain bishops to preside- over us, when a proper application shall be made to them for it? If this cannot be, why is not the pre- sent a favourable opportunity for such an applica- tion? Nothing is further from the design of this letter than to begin a dispute with you; but in a frank and brotherly way to express our opinion of the mistaken and dangerous tendency of the pamphlet. We fear, should the scheme of it be carried into execution in the southern states, it will create divisions in the church at a time^ when its whole strength depends upon its unity: for we know it is totally abhorrent from the principles of the church in the northern states, and u u 338 are fully convinced they will never submit to it. And indeed should we consent to a temporary departure from episcopacy, there would be veiy little propriety in asking for it afterwards, and as little reason ever to expect it in America. Let us all then unite as one man to imprc'e this favourable opportunity, to pro- cure an object so desirable and so essential to the church. We are, dear sir, your affectionate brethren, the clergy of Connecticut. Signed by order of the convention, Abraham Jarvis, Sect'y. Rev. Mr. White. iVoodbury, March 25, 1783. No. 4. Page 99. A letter of the Rt. Rev. bishop Seabury, to the Rev. , Dr. Smith. August 15, 1785. Rev. and dear sir. It has not been in my power till this day, to pay that attention to your letter of July 19, which the importance of its several subjects demanded. The grand difficulty that defeated my application for con- secration in England, appeared to me to be the want of an application from the state of Connecticut. Other objections are made, viz., that there was no precise diocess marked out by the civil authority, nor a stated revenue appointed for the bishop's sup- port: but these were removed. The other remained, for the civil authority in Connecticut is presbyterian, 339 and tliercfore conlrl not be supposed would petitiou for a bishop: and had this been removed, T am not sure that another would not have started up: for this happened several times. I waited and procured a copy of an act of the legislature of Connecticut, which puts all denominations of Christians on a foot- insj of equality, except the Roman Catholics, and to them it gives a free toleration, certified by the secre- tary of the state: for to Connecticut all my negotia- tions were confined. The archbishop of Canterbury wished it had been fuller, but thought it afforded ground on which to proceed, yet he afterwards said it would not do; and that the minister, without a for- mal requisition from the state, would not suffer the bill, enabling the bishop of London to ordain foreign candidates without their taking the oaths, to pass the commons, if it contained a clause for consecrating American bishops. And as his grace did not choose to proceed without parliamentary authority, though if I understood him right, a majority of the judges and crown lawyers, were of opinion he might safely do it. I turned my attention to the remains of the old Scots episcopal church, whose consecration T knew was derived from England, and their authority in an ecclesiastical sense, fully equal to the English bishops. No objection was ever made to me on ac- count of the legacies left for American bishops: some people had surmises of this kind, but I know not whence they arose. I can see no good ground of apprehension con- cerning the titles of estates, or emoluments belonging^ 340 to the church in your state: your church is still the church of England, subsisting under a different civil government. We have in America the church of Holland, of Scotland, of Sweden, of Moravia, and why not of England? Our being of the church of England, no more implies dependence on or sub- jection to England, than being of the church of Hol- land implies subjection to Holland. The plea of the Methodists is something like impudence. Mr. Wesley is only a presbyter, and all his ordinations presbyte- rian, and in direct opposition to the church of Eng- land. And they can have no pretence for calling themselves churchmen, till they return to the unity of the church, which they have unreasonably, unne- cessarily and wickedly broken, by their separation and schism. Your two cautions, respecting recommendations and titles, are certainly just. Till you are so hap- py as to have a bishop of your own, it will be a plea- sure to me to do any thing I can, for the supply of your churches. And I am confident the clergy of Maryland and the other states, will be very particular with regard to the qualifications and titles of persons to be admitted into their own order. Should they think proper to send any candidates hither, I would wish that it might be at the stated times of ordina- tion ; because the clergy here being so scattered, it is not easy on every emergency to get three of them together; and never without some expense, which they cannot well afford. I cannot omit to mention again the particular satisfaction Mr. Ferguson gave. 341 not only to me, but to all our clergy. I hope he will prove a worthy and useful clergyman. I flatter my- self he got home without any disagreeable accident. I thank you for your communication respecting Washington college, and the various conventions you have had in your state and neighbourhood. The clergy and laity have particular merit in making so great exertions, to get our church into a settled and respectable state. But on subjects of such magnitude and variety, it is to be expected that sentiments will differ. All men do not always see the same object in the same light: and persons at a distance are not always masters of the precise reasons and circumstan- ces, which have occasioned particular modes of acting. Of some things therefore in your proceedings I can- not be a competent judge, without minute informa- tion ; and I am very sorry that my present circum- stances and duty here, will not permit me to make so long a journey at this time; because by personal interview and conversation only, can such informa- tion be had. But, my dear sir, there are some things which, if I do not much misapprehend, are really wrong. In giving my opinion of them, I must claim the same privilege of judging for myself which others claim, and also that right of fair and candid interpretation of my sentiments which is due to all men. 1. I think you have done wrong in establishing so many and so precise fundamental rules. You seem hereby to have precluded yourselves from the benefit of after consideration. And by having the 34S power of altering fundamental laws diffused through so large a body, it appears to me next to impossible to have them altered, even- in some reasonable cases; because cases really reasonable may not appear so to two thirds of so large an assembly. It should also be remembered, that while human nature is as it is, something of party passion or partiality will ever be apt, in some degree, to influence the views and debates of a numerous and mixed assembly. 2. I think you have too much circumscribed the power 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, (Pamph. p. 16.) is a position that carries Jerom's opinion to the highest pitch. Quid facit episcopus quod presbyter nonfaciat, 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 or- dination; nay ordination is but the particular exercise of government. Whatever share of government pres- byters have in the church, they have from the bish- op, 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 concur- rence or license is necessary, because they are part of his charge; has the care of their souls; and there- fore the minister's authority to take charge of that congregation must come through the bishop. 34S The choice of the bishop is in the presbyters; but the «eighl)ouring bishops who are to consecrate him must have the ri^ht of judging whether he be a j)ro- per person or not. The presbyters are the bishop's council, witli whom lie ouglit to do nothing but mat- ters of course. The presbyters have always a check upon their bishop; because they can, neither bishop nor presbyters, do any thing bejond the common course of duty, without each other. I mean with re- gard to a particular diocess; 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 re- quire, to censure, suspension, or deposition of the of- fending 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 con- stitution 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 govern- ment, discipline and order, a pure and perfect model of primitive simplicity. 344 Presbyters cannot be too careful in choosing their bishop; nor the people in choosing their minis- ter. Improper men may, however, sometimes suc- ceed ; and so they will, make exact rules as you can and circumscribe their power as you can. And an improper man in the chuch is an improper man, however he came there, and however his power be limited. The more you circumscribe him, the great- er 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 regula- tions will not be effectual; if a good man, the general laws of the church are sufficient. Where civil states have made provision for mi- nisters, it seems reasonable that they should define the qualifications and regulate the conduct of those who are to enjoy the emoluments. But voluntary as- sociations 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 aggran- dizing the clergy at the expense of the laity; nor in- deed of aggrandizing them at all. Decent means of living is all they have a right to expect. But I cannot 345 conceive that the laity can, with any propriety, be ad- mitted to sit in judgment on bishops and presbyters; especially when deposition may be the event; because they cannot take away a character which they can- not 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 depriva- tion 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 par- ty and confusion, I see not but that it might be ad- mitted. 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 main- tain them as the holy Apostles left them. The go- vernment, sacraments, faith and doctrine of the church, are fixed and settled. We have a right to ex- amine wlmt 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 chm'ch, 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 re-consider the matter, X X 346 before a final step be taken: and to endeavour to bring their church government as near to the primi- tive pattern as may be. They will find it the simplest and most easy to carry into effect; and if it be adlier- ed 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 cir- cumstances, I know, will call for particular conside- rations. But in so essential a matter as church go- vernment 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 vn'ong name, even though he should have the power of ordination and confirmation. Let me therefore again entreat, that such mate- rial alterations, and forgive me if I say unjustifiable ones, may not be made in the government of the Church. 1 have written freely as becomes an ho- nest man; and in a case which I think calls for free- dom 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 1 am not interested; my ground is taken, and I wish not to 347 extend my authority beyond its proper limits. But I do most earnestly wishto liave our churches in all the states so settled, that it may be one church uni- ted 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 conven- tion, 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 deter- minations 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 dread- ful 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 accommo- date 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 348 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 N. Haven the 11th of September. Should we come to any deter- mination, the brethren to the southward shall be in- formed 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 com- municate to the convention ; you will also perceive it to be my wish that this letter should be communica- ted to them; to which, I presume, there can be no objection. No. 5. p. 101. Address of the Convention of 1785, to the English Prelates. To the Most Reverend and Right Reverend the Archbisliops of Canterbury and York, and the Bish- ops of tJie 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 349 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 Ecclesias- tical 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 uni- verse, 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 accom- plishing 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 ackjiowledging of such spiritual subjection as may be inconsistent with the civil duties of her children; it was never- theless 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 wor- ship 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 de- sire of completing the orders of our ministry, so diffused and unconnected were the members of our 350 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 episcopahans in these States; and owing to the same causes, it was not until this convention, that sufficient powers could be procured for the addressing of your lordships on this subject. The petition which we offer to your venerable body, is — that from a tender regard to the religious interests of thousands in this rising empire, professing the same religious principles with the church of En- gland, you will be pleased to confer the episcopal character on such persons as shall be recommended by this church in the several States here represented: full satisfaction being given of the sufficiency of the persons recommended, and of its being the intention of the general body of the episcopalians in the said States respectively, to receive them in the quality of bishops. Whether this our request will meet with insur- mountable impediments, from the political regulations of the kingdom in which your lordships fill such dis- tinguished stations, it is not for us to foresee. We have not ascertained, that any such will exist; and are humbly of opinion, that as citizens of these States, interested in their prosperity, and religiously regard- ing the allegiance which we owe them, it is to an ec- clesiastical source only, we can apply in the present exigency. It may be of consequence to observe, that in these states there is a separation between the concerns of policy, and those of religion; that accordingly, our 351 civil rulers cannot officially join in the present appli- cation; that, however, we are far from apprehending the opposition or even displeasure of any of those honorable personages; and finally, that in this busi- ness we are justified by the constitutions of the states, which are the foundations and control of all our laws. On this point, we beg leave to refer to the en- closed extracts from the constitutions of the respec- tive states of which we are citizens, and we flatter ourselves that they must be satisfactory. Thus, we have stated to your lordships the nature and the grounds of our application; which we have thought it most respectful and most suitable to the magnitude of the object, to address to your lordships for your deliberation, before any person is sent over to carry them into effect. Whatever may be the event, no time will efface the remembrance of the past ser- vices of your lordships and your predecessors. The archbishops of Canterbury w'ere not prevented, even by the weighty concerns of their high stations, from attending to the interests of this distant branch of the church under their care. The bishops of London were our diocesans: and the uninterrupted, although voluntary submission of our congregations, will re- main a perpetual proof of their mild and paternal government. All the bishops of England, with other distinguished characters, as well ecclesiastical as civil, have concurred in forming and carrying on the be- nevolent views of the society for propagating the gos- pel in foreign parts; a society to whom, under God, the prosperity of our church is in an eminent d gree to be ascribed. It is our earnest wish to be permitted 352 to make, through your lordships, this just acknow- ledgment to that venerable society; a tribute of grati- tude which we the rather take this opportunity of paying, as while they thought it necessary to with- draw their pecuniary assistance from our ministers, they have endeared their past favors by a benevolent declaration, that it is far from their thoughts to alien- ate their affection from their brethren now under an- other government; with the pious wish, that their former exertions may still continue to bring forth the fruits they aimed at of pure religion and virtue. Our heaits are penetrated with the most lively gratitude by these generous sentiments; the long succession of former benefits passes in review before us; we pray that our church may be a lasting monument of the usefulness of so worthy a body; and that her sons may never cease to be kindly affectioned to the mem- bers of that church, the fathers of which have so tenderly watched over her infancy. For your lordships in particular, we most sincere- ly wish and pray, that you may long continue the or- naments of the church of England, and at last receive the reward of the righteous from the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls. We are, with all the respect which is due to your exalted and venerable characters and stations, Your Lordships Most obedient, and hi Convention. Most humble servants,* Christ Church, Philadelphia, October 5th, 1785. * Signed by all the members. 353 The preceding address and consequent measures for obtaining the episcopacy, were contemplated by the following plan of the convention recorded on their journal. Ordered: First, That this convention address the arch- bishops and bishops of the church of England, re- questing them to confer the episcopal character on such persons as shall be chosen and recommended to them for that purpose, from the conventions of this church in the respective states. Secondly, That it be recommended to the said conventions, that they elect persons for this purpose. Thirdly, That it be further recommended to the different conventions, at their next respective ses- sions, to appoint committees, with powers to corres- pond with the English bishops for the carrying of these resolutions into effect; and that, until such com- mittees shall be appointed, they be requested to direct any communications which they may be pleased to make on this subject to the committee, consisting of the Rev. Dr. White, president, the Rev. Dr. Smith, the Rev. Mr. Provoost, the honorable James Duane, esq. and Samuel Powell and Richard Peters, esquires. Fourthly, That it be further recommended to the different conventions, that they pay especial attention to the making it appear to their lordships, that the persons who shall be sent to them for consecration are desired in the character of bishops, as well by the laity as by the clergy of this church, in the said states respectively; and that they will be received by them in that character on their return. Yy 354 Fifthly, And in order to assure their lordships of the legaHty of the present proposed appHcation, that the deputies now assembled be desired to make a respectful address to the civil rulers of the states in which they respectively reside, to certify that the said application is not contrary to the constitutions and laws of the same. Sixthly, And whereas the bishops of this church will not be entitled to any of such temporal honors as are due to the archbishops and bishops of the pa- rent church, in quality of lords of parhament; and whereas the reputation and usefulness of our bishops will considerably depend on their taking no higher titles or stile than will be due to their spiritual em- ployuients; that it be recommended to this church in the states here represented, to provide, that their re- spective bishops may be called "'The Right Rev. ^. B. bishop of the protestant episcopal church in C. D." and as bishop may have no other title; and may not use any such stile as is usually descriptive of temporal power and precedency. No. 6. Page 116. Letter of the English prelates. London, February 24-, 1786. To the clerical and lay deputies of the Protestant Episcopal church in sundry of the United States of America. The archbishop of Canterbury hath received an address, dated in convention, Christ church, Phila- delphia, October 5, 1785, from the clerical and lay deputies of the Protestant Episcopal church in sun- ^55 (Ivy oftlie United States of America, directed to the arclibisliops and bishops of England, and requesting them to confer the Episcopal character on such per- sons as shall be recommended by the Episcopal church in the several states by them represented. This brotherly and christian address was com- municated to the archbishop of York, and to t,lie bishops, with as much despatch as their separate and distant situations would permit, and hath been re- ceived and considered by them with that true and affectionate regard which they have always shown towards their episcopal brethren in America. We are now enabled to assure you, that nothing is nearer to our hearts than the wish to promote your spiritual welfare, to be instrumental in procuring for you the complete exercise of our holy religion, and the enjoyment of that ecclesiastical constitution, which we believe to be truly apostolical, and for which you express so unreserved a veneration. We are therefore happy to be informed, that this pious design is not likely to receive any discounte- nance from the civil powers under which you live; and we desire you to be persuaded, that we, on our parts, will use our best endeavours, which we have good reason to hope will be successful, to acquire a legal capacity of complying with the prayer of your address. With these sentiments we are disposed to vake every allowance which candour can suggest for the difficulties of your situation, but at the same time we cannot help being afraid, that, in the proceedini!;s of your convention, some alterations may have been 356 adopted or intended, which those difficulties do not seem to justify. Those alterations are not mentioned in your ad- dress, and, as our knowledge of them is no more than what has reached us through private and less certain channels, we hope you will think it just, both to you and to ourselves, if we wait for an explana- tion. For while we are anxious to give every proof, not only of our brotherly affection, but of our facili- ty in forwarding your wishes, we cannot but be ex- tremely cautious, lest we should be the instruments of establishing an ecclesiastical system which will be called a branch of the church of England, but after- wards may possibly appear to have departed from it essentially, either in doctrine or in discipline. In the mean time, we heartily commend you to God's holy protection, and are, your affectionate brethren, J. Rochester, ' T. Cantuar, R. Worcester, W. Ebor, I. Oxford, R. London, I. Exeter, W. Chichester, Tho. Lincoln, C. Bath & Wells, John Bangor, S. St. Asaph, L Lichfield & Coventry, S. Sarum, S. Gloucester, J. Peterborough, E. St. David's, James Ely. Chr. Bristol, To the reverend and honourable the cUncal and lay deputies of the Protestant Episcopal church in sundry of the United Staies of America, Philadelphia. 357 No. 7. 131. A memorial from the convention in JSeiv- Jersey. To the general convention of the Protestant Epis- copal church oftiie United States of America, to be held in the City of Philadelphia in June next. Tli€ memorial of the convention of the said church in jyeiv- Jersey, now lield in the City of Perth Amhoy, Respectfully sheweth, That your memorialists have unanimously ap- proved of the alterations in the liturgy as they appear in the new Prayer Book, to render it consistent with the American revolution and the constitutions of the respective states, as made and concluded on by the late general convention of said church held at Phi- ladelphia, in September and October last; they being satisfactory and agreeable to their wish. They have also approved of their plan for ob- taining consecration of bishops; and pursuant to their recommendation have appointed a committee to cor- respond with the English bishops for that purpose. They have also with great pleasure considered their address to the archbishops and bishops of the church of England; which your memorialists are of opinion was properly calculated to obtain the end proposed. But it is with the greatest concern they are con- strained to remark, that the other proceedings of the said convention, in their opinion, have an undoubted tendency to prolong, if not entirely prevent, the ob- taining the prayer thereof. In this opinion your me- Q. 58 morialists conceive they are supported by the answer of the said venerable bishops, with a copy of which they have been favoured during their sitting at this place; for which reason among others, they did not ratify, but disapproved of the other parts of the pro- ceedings of the said late general convention. Your memorialists do not question the right of every National or Independent Church to make such alterations from time to time, in the mode of its pub- lic worship, as upon mature consideration may be found expedient; but they doubt the right of any or- der or orders of men in an episcopal church, with- out a bishop, to make any alterations not warranted by immediate necessity; especially such, as not only go to the mode of its worship, but also to its doc- trines. Wherefore your memorialists cannot for- bear remarking, that in their opinion, all unnecessa- ry alterations must be unseasonable and impolitic, and will prove highly detrimental to the church in general. Your memorialists cannot approve of the said late general convention having published in the man- ner they have, the new book of Common Prayer as altered, with the psalms and calendar transposed and changed by their committee, without their revision and express approbation; but since they have done so, and if it was proper to have been considered, your memorialists have to regret, that the same was not sooner published, that they might have been en- abled to have declared the sentiments of their con- stituents as well as their own. The prejudices anil 359 prepossessions of mankind in favour of old customs, especially in religious matters, are generally so strong as to require great delicacy and caution in the introduction of any alterations or innovations, al- though manifestly for the better; which was also one reason why they could not at this time ratify the al- terations so unnecessarily made; and they are veiy apprehensive, that until alterations can be made con- sistent with the customs of the primitive church, and with the rules of the church ot England from which it is our boast to have descended, a ratification of them would create great uneasiness in the minds of many members of the church, and in great probabihty cause dissentions and schisms. Although they may not disapprove of all the alterations made in the said new book, yet they have to regret the unseasonable- ness and irregularity of them. Your memorialists having an anxious desire of cementing, perpetuating, and extending the Union so happily begun in the church; with all deference and submission, humbly request and intreat the said ge- neral convention, now soon to meet, that they will revise the proceedings of the said late convention and their aforesaid conmiittee, and remove every cause that may have excited any jealously or fear, that the episcopal church in the United States of America have any intention or desire essentially to depart, either in doctrine or disciphne, from the church of England; but on the contrary, to convince the world that it is their wish and intention, to maintain the doctrines of the gospel as now held by the church of England, 360 and to adhere to the liturgy of the said church as tar as shall be consistent with the American devolution, and the constitution of the respective states: thereby removing every obstacle in the way of obtaining the consecration of such and so many persons to the epis- copal character as shall render our Ecclesiastical government complete, and secure to the episcopa- lians in America, and to their descendants, a succes- sion of that necessary order: And that they will use all means in their power to promote and perpetuate harmony and unanimity among ourselves, and with the said church of England as a Mother or Sister church, and with every protestant church in the uni- verse. By order of the convention, Abrm. Beach, President. PeHh Amboy, May 19, 1786. No. a Page 131. Second address to the English prelates. To the most reverend and right reverend fathers in God, the archbishops and bishops of tJie church of England. Most worthy and venerable prelates. We, the clerical and lay deputies of the Protestant Episcopal church in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina, have received the friendly and af- fectionate letter which your lordships did us the ho- nour to write on the 24th day of February, and for 361 which we request you to accept our sincere and grateful acknowledgments. It gives us pleasure to be assure'!, that the suc- cess of our application will probably meet with no greater obstacles than what have arisen from doubts respecting the extent of the alterations we have made and proposed; and we are happy to learn, that as no political impediments oppose us here, those which at present exist in England may be removed. While doubts remain of our continuing to hold the same essential articles of faith and disciphne with the church of England, we acknowledge the propriety of suspending a compliance with our re- quest. We are unanimous and explicit in assuring your lordships, that we neither have departed nor propose to depart from the doctrines of your church. We have retained the same discipline and forms of wor- ship, as far as was consistent with our civil constitu- tions; and we have made no alterations or omissions in the book of Common Prayer, but such as that consideration prescribed, and such as were calcula- ted to remove objections, which it appeared to us more conducive to union and general content to ob- viate, than to dispute. It is well known, that many great and pious men of the church of England have long wished for a revision of the liturgy, which it was deemed imprudent to hazard, lest it might be- come a precedent for repeated and improper altera,- tions. This is with us the proper season for such a z z 362 revision. We are now settling and ordering the af- fairs of our church, and if wisely done, we shall have reason to promise ourselves all the advantages that can result from stability and union. We are anxious to complete our Episcopal sys- tem, by means of the church of England. We esteem and prefer it, and with gratitude acknowledge the patronage and favours for which, while connected, we have constantly been indebted to that church. These considerations, added to that of agreement in faith and worship, press us to repeat our former re- quest, and to endeavour to remove your present he- sitation, by sending you our proposed Ecclesiastical constitution and Book of Common Prayer. These documents, we trust, will afford a full an- swer to every question that can arise on the subject. We consider your lordships' letter as very candid and kind; we repose full confidence in the assurances it gives; and that confidence, together with the liberali- ty and Catholicism of your venerable body, leads us to flatter ourselves, that you will not disclaim a branch of your church merely for having been in your lordships' opinion, if that should be the case, pruned rather more closely than its separation made absolutely necessary. We have only to add, that as our church in sun- dry of these states have already proceeded to the election of persons to be sent for consecration, and others may soon proceed to the same, we pray to be favoured with as speedy an answer to this ourse- 363 cond address, as in your great goodness you were pleased to give to our former one. We are, With great and sincere respect, Most worthy and venerable Prelates, Your obedient and In Convention, Very humble servants, Christ church, Philadelphia, June 26, 1786. Signed by all the members. No. 9. p. 131. Communications from the archbishops of Canterbury and York. To tJie committee of the general convention at Philadelphia, the Rev. Dr. White, jyresident, tJie Rev. Di\ Smith, the Rev. Mr. Provoost, the honorable James Duane, Samuel Powell, and Richard Peters, Esqrs. Mr. President and Gentlemen, Influenced by the same sentiments of fraternal regard, expressed by the archbishops and bishops in their answer to your address, we desire you to be persuaded, that if we have not yet been able to com- ply with your request, the delay has proceeded from no tai'diness on our part. The only cause of it, has been the uncertainty in which we were left by re- ceiving your address unaccompanied by those com- munications with regard to your liturgy, articles and ecclesiastical constitution, without the knowledge of which we could not presume to apply to the legisla- ture, for such pow ers as were necessary to the com- pletion of your wishes. The journal of the conven- 364 tion, and the first part of your liturgy, did not reacU us till more than two months after our receipt of your address; and we were not in possession of the re- maining part of it and of your articles, till the last day of April. The whole of your communications was then, with as little delay as possible, taken into consideration at a meeting of the archbishops and fifteen of the bishops, being all who were then in London and able to attend; and it was impossible not to observe with concern, that if the essential doctrines of our common faith were retained, less respect how- ever was paid to our liturgy than its own excellence, and your declared attachment to it, had led us to ex- pect. Not to mention a variety of verbal alterations, of the necessity or propriety of which we are by no means satisfied, we saw with grief, that two of the confessions of our christian faith, respectable for their antiquity, have been entirely laid aside; and that even in that which is called the apostle's creed, an article is omitted, which was thought necessary to be insert- ed, with a view to a particular heresy, in a very early age of the church, and has ever since had the vene- rable sanction of universal reception. Nevertheless, as a proof of the sincere desire which we feel to con- tinue in spiritual comaiunion with the members of your church in America, and to complete the orders of your ministry, and trusting that the communica- tions which we shall make to you, on the subject of these and some other alterations, will have their de- sired effect, we have, even under these circumstances, prepared a bill for conveying to us the powers neces- 1 365 sary for this purpose. It will in a few days be pre- sented to parliament, and we have the best reasons to hope that it will receive the assent of the legisla- ture. This bill will enable the archbishops and bish- ops to give episcopal consecration to the persons who shall be recommended, without requiring from them any oaths or subscriptions inconsistent with the situa- tion in which the late revolution has placed them; upon condition that the full satisfaction of the sufficiency of the persons recommended, which you offer to us in your address, be given to the archbishops and bish- ops. You will doubtless receive it as a mark both of our friendly disposition toward you, and of our de- sire to avoid all delay on this occasion, that we have taken this earliest opportunity of conveying to you this intelligence, and that we proceed (as supposing ourselves invested with that power which for your sakes we have requested) to state to you particularly the several heads, upon which that satisfaction which you offer, will be accepted, and the mode in which it may be given. The anxiety which is shown by the church of England to prevent the intrusion of un- qualified persons into even the inferior offices of our ministry, confirms our own sentiments, and points it out to be our duty, very earnestly to require the most decisive proofs of the qualifications of those who may be offered for admission to that order, to which the superintendence of those offices is committed. At our several ordinations of a deacon and a priest, the candidate submits himself to the examination of the bishop as to his proficiency in learning^ he gives the 366 proper security of his soundness in the faith by the subscriptions which are made previously necessary; he is required to bring testimonials of his virtuous conversation during the three preceding years; and that no mode of inquiry may be omitted, public no- tice of his offering himself to be ordained is given in the parish church where he resides or ministers, and the people are solemnly called upon to declare, if they know any impediment for the which he ought not to be admitted. At the time of ordination too, the same solemn call is made on the congregation then present. Examination, subscription and testimonials are not indeed repeated at the consecration of an Eng- lish bishop, because the person to be consecrated has added to the securities given at his former ordi- nations, that sanction which arises from his having constantly lived and exercised his ministry under the eyes and observation of his country. But the ob- jects of our present consideration are very different- ly circumstanced; their sufficiency in learning, the soundness of their faith, and the purity of their man- ners, are not matters of notoriety here; means there- fore must be found to satisfy the archbishop who consecrates, and the bishops w^ho present them, that, in the words of our church, " They be apt and meet for their learning and godly conversation, to exercise their ministry duly to the honour of God, and the edifying of his church, and to be wholesome exam- ples and patterns to the flock of Christ. 367 With regard to the first qualification, sufficiency in good learning, we apprehend that the subjecting a person, who is to be admitted to the office of a bishop in the church, to that examination which is required previous to the ordination of priests and deacons, might lessen that reverend estimation which ought never to be separated from the Episcopal cha- racter: we therefore do not require any farther sa- tisfaction on this point, than will be given to us by the forms of testimonials in the annexed paper; ful- , \y trusting that those who sign them will be well aware, how greatly incompetence in this respect must lessen the weight and authority of the bishop and aflfect the credit of the Episcopal church. Under the second head, that of subscription, our desire is to require that subscription only to be re- peated, which you have already been called upon to make by the tenth article of your ecclesiastical con- stitution. But we should forget the duty which we owe to our own church, and act inconsistently with that sincere regard which we bear to yours, if we were not explicit in declaring, that, after the disposi- tion we have shewn to comply w ith the prayer of your address, we think it now incumbent upon you to use your utmost exertions also for the removal of any stumbling block of offence, which may possibly prove an obstacle to the success of it. We therefore most earnestly exhort you, that previously to the time of your making such subscription, you restore to its integrity the apostle's creed, in which you have omitted an article merely, as it seems, from 368 misapprehension of the sense in which it is under- stood by our church; nor can we help adding, that we hope you will think it but a decent proof of the attachment which you profess to the services of your liturgy, to give to the other two creeds a place in your book of Common Prayer, even though the use of them should be left discretional. We should be inexcusable too, if at the time when you are request- ing the establishment of bishops in your church, we did not strongly represent to you that the eighth ar- ticle of your ecclesiastical constitution appears to us to be a degradation of the clerical, and still more of the episcopal character. We persuade ourselves, that in your ensuing convention some alteration will be thought necessary in this article, before this reaches you; or, if not, that due attention will be given to it in consequence of our representation. On the third and last head, which respects purity of manners, the reputation of the church, both in England and America, and the interest of our com- mon Christianity is so deeply concerned in it, that we feel it our indispensible duty to provide, on this sub- ject, the most effectual securities. It is presumed, that the same previous public notice of the intention of the person to be consecrated will be given in the church where he resides in America, for the same reasons, and therefore nearly in the same form, with that used in England before our ordinations. The call upon the persons present at the time of conse- cration, must be deemed of little use before a con- gregation composed of those to whom the person to 369 be consecrated is unknown. The testimonials, signed by persons living in England, admit of reference and examination, and the characters of those who give them are subject to scrutiny, and, in cases of criminal deceit, to punishment. In proportion as these cir- cumstances arc less applicable to testimonials from America, those testimonials must be more explicit, and supported by a greater number of signatures. We therefore think it necessary that the several per- sons, candidates for episcopal consecration, should bring to us both a testimonial from the general con- vention of the episcopal church, with as many sig- natures as can be obtained, and a more particular one, from the respective conventions in those states which recommend them. It will appear from the tenor of the letters testimonial used in England, a form of which is annexed, that the ministers who sign them bear testimony to the qualifications of the candidates on their own personal knowledge. Such a testimony is not to be expected from the members of the general convention of the episcopal church in America, on this occasion. We think it sufficient, therefore, that they declare they know no impedi- ment, but believe the person to be consecrated, is of a virtuous life and sound faith. We have sent you such a form as appears to us proper to be used for that purpose. More specific declarations must be made, by the members of the convention in each state from which the persons offered for consecration are respectively recommended. Their personal know- ledge of them there can be no doubt of We trust. 3 a 370 therefore, they will have no objection to the adoption of the form of a testimonial which is annexed and drawn up on the same principles, and containing the same attestations of personal knowledge with that above mentioned, as required previously to our ordi-< nations. We trust we shall receive these testimonials signed by such a majority in each convention that recommend, as to leave no doubt of the fitness of the candidates upon the minds of those whose con- sciences are concerned in the consecration of them. Thus much we have thought it right to commu- nicate to you without reserve at present, intending to give you farther information as soon as we are able. In the mean time, we pray God to direct your coun- sels in this very weighty matter, and are, Mr. Presi- dent and Gentlemen, your affectionate Brethren, J. Cantuar. W. Ebor. Form of a Testimonial for Priest's Orders in En- gland. To the Right Rev. Father in God by Divine permission Lord Bishop of . We, whose names are here underwritten, testify from our personal knowledge of the life and beha- viour of A. B. for the space of three years last past, that he hath during that time, lived piously, soberly, and honestly: T\'or hath he at any time, as far as we know or believe, written, taught or held, any thing contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the church of England. And, moreover, we think him a person 371 worthy to be admitted to the sacred order ot^ priest. In witness whereof we have liereunto set our hands. Dated the day of in the year of our Lord . Testimony from the General Convention. We, whose names are underwritten, fully sensi- ble how important it is that the sacred office of a bishop should not be unworthily conferred, and firm- ly persuaded that it is our duty to bear our testimo- ny on this solemn occasion without partiality or affec- tion, do, in the presence of Almight}' God, testify, that A. B. is not, so far as we are informed, justly liable to evil report, either for error in religion or for vi- ciousness of life; and that we do not know or beheve there is any impediment or notable crime, on ac- count of which he ought not to be consecrated to that holy office, but that he hath led his life, for the three years last past, piously, soberly and honestly. Testimony from the members of the Convention in the state from whence the person is recommended for consecratimi. We, whose names are underwritten, fully sensi- ble how important it is that the sacred office of a bishop should not be unworthily conferred, and firm- ly persuaded that it is our duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without partiality or affection, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify, that A. B. is not, so far as we are informed, justly liable to evil report either for error in religion, or for vi- ciousness of life-, and that we do not know or believe 372 there is any impediment or notable crime for which he ought not to be consecrated to that holy office. We do, moreover, jointly and severally declare, that having personally known him for three years last past, we do in our consciences believe him to be of such sufficiency in good learning, such soundness in the faith, and of such virtuous and pure manners and godly conversation, that he is apt and meet to e^xercise the office of a bishop, to the honour of God and the edifying of his church, and to be an whole- some example to the flock of Christ. No. 10. Page 131. Communication from the archbishop of Canterbury. Canterbury, July 4, 1786. To the committee of the general convention, &c. &c. Gentlemen, The enclosed act being now passed, I have the satisfaction of communicating it to you. It is ac- companied by a copy of a letter, and some forms of testimonials, which I sent you by the packet of last month. It is the opinion here, that no more than three bishops should be consecrated for the United States of America; who may consecrate others at their return, if more be found necessary. But whether we can consecrate any, or not, must yet de- pend on the answers we may receive, to what we have written. I am your humble servant, J. Cantuar. 373 An act to empower the archbishop of Canterbu- nj, or the archbishop of York, for the time being, to consecrate to the office of a bishoji, peisons being sub- jects or citizens ofcountnes out of his majesty's do- minions. Whereas by the laws of this realm no person can be consecrated to the office of a bishop, without the king's license for his election to that office, and the royal mandate under the great seal for his con- firmation and consecration: And whereas every per- son who shall be consecrated to the said office is re- quired to take the oaths of allegiance and suprema- cy, and also the oath of due obedience to the arch- bishop: And whereas there are divers persons sub- jects or citizens of counti'ies out of his majesty's do- minions, inhabiting and residing within the said coun- tries, who profess the public worship of Almighty God according to the principles of the church of England, and who, in order to provide a regular suc- cession of ministers for the service of their church, are desirous of having certain of the subjects or ci- tizens of tliose countries consecrated bishops, ac- cording to the form of consecration in the church of England: Be it enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and commons in this present pai'liament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act, it shall and may be lawful to and for the arch- bishop of Canterbury, or the archbishop of York, for the time being, together with such other bishops 374 as they shall call to their assistance, to consecrate persons being subjects or citizens of countries out of his majesty's dominions, bishops for the purposes, aforesaid, without the king's license for their elec- tion, or the royal mandate under the great seal for their confirmation and consecration, and without re- quiring them to take the oaths of allegiance and su- premacy, and the oath of due obedience to the arch- bishop for the time being. Provided always, that no persons shall be consecrated bishops in the manner herein provided, until the archbishop of Canterbury, or the archbishop of York, for the time being, shall have first applied for, and obtained his majesty's li- cence, by warrant under his royal signet and sign manual, authorizing and empowering him to perform such consecration, and expressing the name or names of the persons so to be consecrated; nor until the said archbishop has been fully ascertained of their sufficiency in good learning, of the soundne&s of their faith, and of the purity of their manners. Provided also, and be it hereby declared, that no person or persons consecrated to the office of a bish- op in the manner aforesaid, nor any person or per- sons deriving their consecration from or under any bishops so consecrated, nor any person or persons admitted to the order of deacon or priest by any bishop or bishops so consecrated, or by the succes- sor or successors of any bishop or bishops so conse- crated, shall be thereby enabled to exercise his or their respective office or offices within his majesty's dominions. Provided always, and be it furtiier en- 375 acted, that a certificate of such consecration shall be given under the hand and seal of the archbishop who consecrates, containing the name of the person so consecrated, with the addition as well of the coun- try whereof he is a subject or citizen, as of the church in which he is appointed bishop, and the further description of his not having taken the said oaths, being exempted from the obligation of so doing by virtue of this act. No. 11. p. 134. Address to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Most w^orthy and venerable Prelates, In pursuance of your graces' communications to the standing committee of our church, received by the June packet, and the letter of his grace the arch- bishop of Canterbury, of July the fourth, enclosing the act of /parliament " to empower the archbishop of Canterbury, or the archbishop of York, for the time being, to consecrate to the office of a bishop, persons being subjects or citizens, of countries out of his majesty's dominions," a general convention, now sitting, have the honour of offering their unani- mous and hearty thanks, for the continuance of your christian attention to this church; and particularly for your having so speedily acquired a legal capacity, of complying with the prayer of our former addresses. He have taken into our most serious and de- liberate consideration, the several matters so affec- tionately recommended to us in those communica- tions, and whatever could be done towards a com- 376 pliance with your fatherly wishes and advice, con- sistently with our local circumstances, and the peace and unity of our church, hath been agreed to; as, we trust, will appear from the enclosed act of our con- vention, which we have the honour to transmit to you, together with the journal of our proceedings. We are, with great and sincere respect, Most worthy and venerable Prelates, Your obedient and very humble servants, (By Order) In general Convention, Samuel Provoost, Prest. At Wilmington, in the State of Delaware, October nth, 1786. No 12. Page, 136. A letter from Granville Sharp, esq. to Dr. Benja- min Franklin, with extracts of letters. Extract of a letter from Granville Sha)^ to tlie Archbishop of Canterbury, dated ISth. September, 1785. " All these circumstances prove that the present time is very important and critical for the promotion of the interests and future extension of the Episco- pal church in America, and that no time should be lost in obtaining authority for the archbishops and bishops of England to dispense with the oaths of allegiance in tiie consecration of bishops for foreign churches, that they may be restored to their unques- tionable right as christian bishops to extend the Epis- eopal church of Christ all over the world.'^ 377 '• An immediate interference is become the more necessary, not only on account of the pretensions of Dr. Seabury and the noajnr'uig bisliops of Scotland (to which, however, I hoi)e my letters will have given a timely check) but also to guard against the pre- sumption of Mr. Wesley and other JMetlwdists; who, it seems, have sent over some persons under the name of Supcnntendcmts, with an assumed authority to ordain Priests, as if they were really invested with Episcopal authority." " Some accounts of this were read to the society for propagating the gospel in May last, from the let- ters oi' their missionaries; and I have since heard that some methodistical clergymen have procured con- secration from the Mm^avian churches, which the latter had received from the bishops of Poland. These attempts of the sectaries prove, however, that they perceive among the Americans an increasing inclination towards Episcopal government, of which they want to take an undue advantage; and conse- quently they prove, also, that the exertions of every sincere fiiend to the church of England are pecu- liarly necessary at this time to counteract them, and to facilitate the communication of a pure and irre- prehensible Episcopacy to America, by removing the obstacles which at present restrain the archbishops and bishops of England, from extending the church of England beyond the bounds of English govern- merU" "I should also inform your grace, that America is not the only part wherein protestant Episcopacy is 378 likely to be extended, when the rights of election are better understood: for had I been prepared in the year 1767, on this point, as I am at present, I have reason to believe that a protestant Episcopal church would have been promoted in Holland, and in seve- ral parts of Germany and Switzerland, long before this time." " How I happened to be concerned in so import- ant an affair, (if your grace should have leisure and curiosity to be informed) I am ready to communi- cate on receiving your commands, &c. Extract of a letter from Otanville Sharp to the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated llth. February, 1786. " Since I had the honor of speaking to your grace on this subject, I have perused Dr. Smith's sermon, which was preached before the convention at Phila- delphia; and though I have still great fears about the propriety of the alterations they have made in the liturgy, yet there seems to be some ground to hope that they will be able to assign a reasonable excuse for the changes, without giving occasion to suspect any want of belief in the several articles which they have omitted: for Dr. Smith plainly insinuates that they proceeded on the model of the alterations that were proposed to the English convocation in 1689: for which, several circumstances have induced me to entertain a favourable opinion. In looking over the MS. account of archbishop Sharp's life, 1 find that he was one of the King's commissioners for 379 that business, and took infinite pains therein, being sensible that some alterations might be made with advantage. He was also the person, who first pro- posed in convocation that Dr. Tillotson should be appointed prolocutor, in order to favour the intended alterations. Dr. Nichols has given a short general account of that business in his ' Apparatus ad de- fen^iomm ccdcsice anglicance;" but I never heard that the transactions at length were ever printed; and therefore am surprised to find that the convention at Philadelphia had a full account of that important bu- siness before them for their guidance. Dr. Nichols highly commends the alterations that were then in- tended, and few men were better qualified to be com- petent judges of that matter. If these circumstances be duly considered there seems room to discriminate between the motives which might induce the con- vention at Philadeiphia to make such large subtrac- tions from our lituj'gy, and the real propriety or impropriety of those subtractions, at least so far that the latter need not be held forth as a ground of objection against the candidates for consecration, if in other respects the candidates themselves should be found unexceptionable, and should readily profess a sound and unequivocal belief in the fundamental articles of our faith; for this will surely justify their consecration before God and man; and more espe- cially if they will previously engage and promise, that when they have received authority, they w ill not lay hands on any man except on the like christian condi- tions, independent of all national forms and rituals of 380 mere human authority, which cannot annul the ne- cessity of maintaining an ortJiodox ministry in Christ's Episcopal Church, howsoever the governments under which they hve, should think proper to model the public forms of worship for their respective jurisdic- tions. And therefore I beg leave humbly to submit to your grace, that if any notice is to be taken of the late rejection of creeds fiom the liturgy in your grace's intended answer to the American requisition : whether, instead of stating that measure as a just cause of re- fusal, it may not be more advisable to mention it rather as a just cause for your exhorting and giving them timely warning not to send c^ver any candidates for consecration, but such as are known to profess a sound belief in the fundamental articles of the Chris- tian faithl and more particularly in the Scriptural doctrine of the holy trinity, and in the real personali- ty and actual agency of the holy spirit as the divine comforter and instructor to the end of the world? For these necessary articles of faith are not more perverted by tlie Socinians, than by a sect professing principles diametrically opposite to them, I mean the modern Mysticks, who assert that Chnst is the only God; though the effect of these very opposite tenets is precisely the same, viz. that both sects are led to deny the personality of the holy spirit; and therefore, by what spirit they are so led, we may fairly judge by the fruits. Some Americans have lately adopted these strange notions, which is the reason of my mentioning them," &c. ^1 381 Letter to Dr. Franklin. • Old Jeivry, London, Jlugust 19, 1786. Dear sir, Nothing could have been more truly acceptable to me than your excellency's obliging present of the new American Prayer Book; and the more especi- ally, as I had the happiness of finding that the con- vention have retained in the litany and other pray- ers, as well as in the articles of religion, an ample testimony to the most essential doctrines of the church of England, and that they have really pro* ceeded upon the plan laid down by the king's com- missioners in 1689, of whom my own grandfather (afterwards archbishop Shai'p) was one, who took a very active part in that business, though he is not mentioned in the preface of the new Prayer Book. This I discovered by a MS. account of my grand- father's life, much about the time that many vague reports were current here, of immoderate and un- justifiable changes made in the liturgy by tjie Ameri- can convention: for the Socinians flattered them- selves (through a mere mistake of Dr. Price, in a note which he had added to Dr. Rush's letter of October 25, 178.5, as pubhshed in the newspapers) that the proceedings of the convention had been '^ similai" to those of one episcopal congregation at Boston, which adopted a liturgy — "formed after the manner of Dr. Clarke and Mr. Lindsey." These reports would have given me much more uneasiness, if the perusal of Dr. Smith's sermon (preached before the convention) had not induced me to Jiope that the plan of the year 1689 would really be adopted by the 382 convention as a model of proceeding; and I was well satisfied that the said plan was sufficiently orthodox, because I was confident, that if it had been other- wise, my grandfather would not have endeavoured to promote it. Nevertheless the reports of socinian- ism gave great offence to many worthy people here, and more especially to the bishops, who had been sincerely disposed to promote the church of Ameri- ca, as declared in my former letters: but on hearing of the confident reports of the Socinians they seem- ed to give up all hopes of being able to hold any com- munication with the convention. In this state of the business I thought it my duty to explain in \\Titing to our worthy primate, the archbishop of Canterbu- ry, my reasons for hoping that the convention would be able to assign such a reasonable excuse for the changes they were reported to have made, as might be sufficient to remove that ground of objection against the candidates for consecration, if, in other respects, the candidates themselves were found un- exceptionable. An extract from that letter I have inclosed for your excellency's perusal, dated Febru- ary 17, last: and I earnestly entreated that the bish- ops here, might, at least, be prepared with authority to dispense with the oaths in giving consecration, a point which I had also previously solicited in a let- ter dated September 13,1 785. As the convention transmitted no account of their transactions, when they wrote to the two archbishops, tliere was no suffi- cient evidence for a direct confutation of the reports respecting socinianism; and therefore the great caution 383 and reserve expressed in the joint answer ofthe arch- bishops was unquestionably right and perfectly ne- cessary, under such a state o^ uncertainty respecting chiisiian doctnne! The Archbishop of Canterbury, with his usual condescension and politeness, was pleased to com- municate to me, very lately, the contents of that let- ter, as also the proposed forms of testimonials which it enclosed: and howsoever these may be received by the convention, I am bound to acknowledge my hear- ty approbation of them, being thoroughly convinced that they were dictated by the most unaffected sin- cerity of heart, and (I may even say) apostolical con- cern for the promotion of the true catholic church in America. Nevertheless, the archbishops have not yet re- ceived any acknowledgment that their letter has reached America, except the short mention of it in your excellency's obliging letter to me. Had the gentlemen, deputed by the convention to correspond with the archbishops, thought proper to send them a short general description of the new liturgy, with some account also of the plan upon which it was formed, they would have prevented the apprehen- sions and suspicions occasioned by the late reports about socinianism, against which the liturgy itself bears ample testimony. I had hoped, however, that nothing would have been omitted therein, but the too frequent repetitions of our liturgy: and that if nicne aeeds than one had been considered as falling under the same head of correction, that, at least the JSicme 384 creed might have been appointed to be used instead of the common creed, on some particular festivals, as Christmas Day, or Trinity Sunday, with a discre- tionary power in the minister to use occasionally the Athanasian creed, as all these creeds may equally be proved by unquestionable testimonies of scripture. Nevertheless the resolution expressed in the preface, that they dont mean to separate from the church of England in principles, together with the unequivo- cal declarations still retained in the new liturgy of the indispensable faith and worship due to the three divine persons (whose existence in the one divine nature or godhead is so clearly revealed in scrip- ture, and into whose religious service we are equally enlisted by the baptismal profession and vows being made expressly in the names of all the three) must undoubtedly give sincere satisfaction to all true chris- tians, notwithstanding the omission of several other things which they would wish to have been also re- tained. And, therefore, from my confidence of the unexceptionable religious character of the English bishops in general (without waiting to hear their sentiments declared by themselves) I may venture to repeat what I asserted in my former letters, that the bishops of England will be still sincerely inclined to promote the welfare of the episcopal churches in America, and to maintain an affectionate communi- cation with them as sister churches, provided that the gentlemen elected to be sent for consecration are really in themselves unexceptionable: and I have the satisfaction to inform your excellency, that the arch- bishops have already prepared themselves to com- 385 ply with the requisition of the American churches, by obtaining an act of Parliament in the last session to remove the former difficulty about the oaths, a co- py of which is inclosed. The late accounts in the public papers, that the episcopal churches of Virgi- nia and New York had elected candidates for the Episcopal Office in their respective Provinces, gave me very particular satisfaction, because I had under- stood from former accounts that the general con- vention had nominated the candidates; which would have been a dangerous precedentof infringement on the ancient rights of the clergy and people in each province respectively to elect tJieir own bishops; and I should have had still much more sincere satisfac- tion if these two provinces had adopted the Apostolic mode of electing tioo unexceptionable candidates for each see, whose acceptance should be determined by lot, as revived by the Spanish bishops in the coun^ cil of Barcelona (see my tract on congregational courts p. 89, 90.) but perhaps, upon the whole, it may be more prudent to defer tJie decision of tJie lot, until three or four bishops are actually resident in America; who can then more effectually examine (as their apostolical duty requires) the qualifications and characters of the elected candidates, by calling upon the people, publickly, for information whether any just exceptions are known, before the lot is cast, because even a legal exception would seem to be made too late, if discovered after the solemn appeal to Divine Providence by lot and previous prayer; for in such a case there seems to be no alternative: no- 3 c 386 thing but an humble submission and rehance on the same Providence, for all the future consequences of the decision whatever they may be; unless some sub- sequent misconduct should render the interference of the other bishops necessary. I send herewith a duplicate of my letter respect- ing a paper currency not liable to depreciation, which was sent by the Mediator, capt. Kennydy; and I re- main with true respect and esteem, dear sir, Your excellency's most obliged Humble servant, Granville Sharp. His excellency Benjamin Franklin, Esq. President of the State of Pennsylvania. No. 13. Page 137. An act of the general convention of clerical and lay deputies of the Protestant Episcopal church, in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylva- nia, Delaware and South Carolina, held at Wil- mington, in the state of Delaware, on Wednesday, the 11th of October, 1786. Whereas, at a general convention of clerical and lay deputies of the Protestant Episcopal church in sundry of the United States of America, viz. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary- land, Virginia and South Carolina, holden at the ci- ty of Philadelphia, on the Tuesday before the feast of St. Michael, in the year of our Lord, 1785, and divers subsequent days, it was agreed and declared, that " the Book of Common Prayer and Administra- 387 tion of the Sacraments and other Rites and Cere- monies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England/' should be continued to be used by this church, as the same was altered by the said convention, in a certain instrument of writing, pas- sed by tlieir authority, entitled, " alterations of the liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal cliurch, in the United States of America, in order to render the same conformable to the American revolution and the constitutions of the respective states;" And it was further agreed and declared, that the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacra- ments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the church, according to the use of the church of England, as altered by an instrument of writing passed under the authority of the aforesaid convention, entitled " Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the church, according to the use of the church of England, proposed and recommend- ed to the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States of America, should be used in this church, when the same should have been ratified by the con- ventions which had respectively sent deputies to the said general convention;" — And thereupon the said convention, anxious to complete their Episcopal sys- tem by means of the church of England, did tran- scribe and transmit an address to the most reverend and right reverend the archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the bishops of the church of England, earnestly entreating that venerable body to confer 388 the Episcopal character on such persons as should be recommended by this church, in the several states so represented: And whereas the clerical and lay deputies of this church, have received the most friendly and affec- tionate letters in answer to the said address, from the said archbishops and bishops, opening a fair pros- pect of the success of their said apphcations; but at the same time earnestly exhorting this convention to use their utmost exertions for the removal of certain objections by them made, against some parts of the alterations in the Book of Common Prayer and Rites and Ceremonies of this church, last mentioned; In pursuance whereof, this present general convention hath been called and is now assembled; and being sincerely disposed to give every satisfaction to their lordships, which will be consistent with the union and general content of the church they represent; and declaring their steadfast resolution to maintain the same essential articles of faith and discipline with the church of England: JYow tJiere/ore, the said deputies do hereby deter- mine and declare. First, That in the creed commonly called the Apostle's creed, these words — " He descended into Hell,'' shall be and continue a part of that creed. Secondly, That the Nicene creed shall also be inserted in the said Book of Common Prayer, im- mediately after the Apostle's creed, prefaced with the Kubrick lor this.] 389 ^ind whereas, In consequence of the objections expressed by their lordships to the alterations in the book of Common Prayer last mentioned, the con- ventions in some of the states, represented in this general convention, have suspended the latification and use of the said book of Common Prayer, by rea- son whereof it will be improper that persons to be consecrated or ordained as bishops, priests or dea- cons, respectively, should subscribe the declaration contained in the tenth article of the general ecclesi- astical constitution, without some modification. Therefore, it is hereby determined and declared, Thirdly, That the second clause so to be sub- scribed by a bishop, priest or deacon of this church, in any of the states which have not already ratified or used the last mentioned book of Common Prayer, shall be in the words following — " And I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine and worship of the protestant episcopal church, according to the use of the church of England, as the same is altered by the general convention, in a certain instrument of writing, passed by their authority, entitled, jilterations of the Liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in order to render the same conformable to the Amencan revolution and the constitutions of the respective States, until the new book of Common Prayer, recommended by the ge- neral convention, shall be ratified or used in the state in which I am (bishop, priest or deacon, as the case may be) by the authority of the convention thereof. 390 And I do further solemnly engage, that when the said new book of Comnion Prayer shall be ratified or used by the authority of the convention in the state for which I am consecrated a bishop (or ordained a priest or deacon) I will conform to the doctrines and worship of the protestant episcopal church, as settled and determined in the last mentioned book of Com- mon Prayer and administration of the sacraments, set forth by the general convention of the protestant episcopal churcli in the United States." And it is hereby further determined and declared, That these words in the preface to the new pro- posed book of Common Prayer, viz. " In the creed commonly called the apostle^s creed, one clause is omitted as being of uncertain meaning; and" — to- gether with the note referred to in that place, be, from henceforth, no part of the preface to the said proposed book of Common Prayer. And it is hereby further determined and declared, That the fourth article of religion in the new proposed book of Common Prayer, be altered to ren- der it conformable to the adoption of the Nicene creed, as follows, " of the creeds. The two creeds, namely, that commonly called the apostle's creed and the Nicene creed, ought to be received and beUeved, because they," &c. &c. Done in general convention . at Wilmington, in the state of Delaware, the day and year first aforesaid. 391 No. li. Page 162. To all persons to whom these presents sliall come, or whom the same shall or may in any wise or at any time concern, we, John, by divine Providence, lord archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all Eng- land, and metropolitan, send greeting Whereas by an act of Parliament passed at West- minster, in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of our sovereign lord George the third, king of Great Bri- tain, France and Ireland, entituled, " An act to em- power the archbishop of Canterbury, or the arch- bishop of York, for the time being, to consecrate to the office of a bishop, persons being subjects or citi- zens of countries out of his majesty^s dominions," it is enacted, that it shall and may be lawful to and for the archbishop of Canterbury, or the archbishop of York, for the time being, together with such other bishops as they shall call to their assistance, to consecrate persons, being subjects or citizens of countries out of his majesty's dominions, bishops, for the purposes aforesaid, without the king's license for their election, or the royal mandate under the great seal for their confirmation and consecration, and without requiring them to take the oaths of al- legiance and supremacy, and the oath of due obedi- ence to the archbishop for the time being. Provided always, that no persons shall be consecrated bishops in the manner herein provided, until the archbishop of Canterbury, or the archbishop of York, for the time being, shall have first applied for and obtained 392 his majesty^s license, by warrant under his royal sig- net and sign manual, authorising and empowering him to perform such consecration, and expressing the name or names of the persons so to be consecra- ted, nor until the said archbishop has been fully as- certained of their sufficiency in good learning, of the soundness of their faith, and of the purity of their manners. Provided also, and be it hereby declared, that no person or persons consecrated to the office of a bishop in the manner aforesaid, nor any person or persons deriving their consecration from or under any bishop so consecrated, nor any person or per- sons admitted to the order of deacon or priest by any bishop or bishops so consecrated, or by the succes- sor or successors of any bishop or bishops so conse- crated, shall be thereby enabled to exercise his or their respective office or offices within his majesty's dominions. Provided always, and be it further en- acted, That a certificate of such consecration shall be given under the hand and seal of the archbishop who consecrates, containing the name of the person so consecrated, with the addition, as well of the coun- try whereof he is a subject or citizen, as of the church in which he is appointed bishop, and the fur- ther description of his not having taken the said oaths, being exempted from the obligation of so doing by virtue of this act. — Now, know all men by these pre- sents, that we, the said John lord archbishop of Canterbury, having obtained his majesty's license, by warrant under his royal signet and sign manual, did, in pursuance of the said act of Parhament, on Sun- 393 day, the fourth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, in the chapel of our palace, at Lambeth, in the coun- ty of Surry, admit our beloved in Christ, William White, clerk, D. D. a subject or citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, in North America, and rector of Christ church and St. Peter's, in the city of Phila- delphia, in the said state, of whose sufficiency in good learning, soundness in the faith, and purity of man- ners we were fully ascertained, into the office of a bishop of the Protestant Episcopal church, in the state of Pennsylvania aforesaid, to which the said William White hath been elected by the convention for the said state, as appears unto us by due testi- mony thereof by him produced, and him the said William White did then and there rightly and ca- nonically consecrate a bishop, according to the man- ner and form prescribed and used by the church of England, his taking the oaths of allegiance, supre- macy, and canonical obedience only excepted, he being exempted from the obligation of taking the said oaths by virtue of the above recited act. Provi- ded, that neither he the said bishop, nor any person or persons deriving their consecration from or under him, nor any person or persons admitted to the or- der of deacon or priest by him, or his successor or successors, shall be enabled to exercise his or their respective office or offices within his majesty's domi- nions. In testimony whereof we have caused our Archi-episcopal seal to be affixed to these presents, 3d 594 — Given at Lambeth house, the day and year above written, and in the fourth year of our translation. J. (L. S.) Cantuar. We, Wilham lord archbishop of York, Charles lord bishop of Bath and Wells, and John lord bish- op of Peterborough, were present and assisting at the consecration within mentioned. W. Ebor. C. Bath and Wells. J. Peterborough. The signatures of the archbishops of Canterbury and York, and of the bishops of Bath and Wells, and Peterborough, were made in my presence, Fe- bruary 4th, 1787. Wm. Dickes, (Copy.) Secretary to the archbishop of Canterbury. On Sunday, the fourth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and in the fourth year of the transla- tion of the most reverend father in God, John, by Divine Providence, lord archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and metropolitan, in the chapel at the palace at Lambeth, in the county of Surry, the said most reverend father in God, by vir- tue and authority of a certain hcense or warrant from his most gracious majesty, and our sovereign lord George the third, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, and so forth, to him, in this behalf, directed. c 395 the most reverend father in God, Wilham, by the same Providence, lord archbishop of York, primate of England, and metropoUtan, and the right reverend fatliers in God, Charles, by divine permission, lord bishop of Bath and Wells, and John, by divine per- mission, lord bishop of Peterborough, assisting him, consecrated the reverend William White, doctor in divinity, rector of Christ church and St. Peter's, in the city of Philadelphia, a subject or citizep of the United States of North America, and the reverend Samuel Provoost, doctor in divinity, rector of Trinity church, in the city of New York, a subject or citizen also of the United States of North America, to the office of a bishop, respectively, the rites, circum- stances and ceremonies anciently used in the church of England being observed and applied, according to the tenor of an act passed in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of his said majesty, entituled " An act to empower the archbishop of Canterbury, or the archbishop of York, for the time being, to consecrate to the office of a bishop, persons being subjects or citizens of countries out of his majesty's dominions," in the presence of me, Robert Jenner, notary public, one of the deputy registers of the province of Can- terbury, being then and there present, the reverend and worshipful William Backhouse, doctor in di- vinity, archdeacon of Canterburj', the Rev. Lort, doctor in divinity, the Rev. Drake, doc- tor in divinity, William Dickes, Esquire, notar}' pub- lic, secretary to his grace the said lord archbishop of 396 Canterbury, with many others in great numbers then and there assembled. Which I attest. Rt. Jenner, (Copy.) Notary Public, actuary assumed. And we, the underwritten notaries public, by royal authority duly admitted and sworn, residing in doctor's Commons, London, do hereby certify and attest, to all whom it may concern, that Robert Jen- ner, whose name is subscribed to the aforegoing act, was and is a notary public, and one of the deputy registers of the province of Canterbury, and that the letters, name and words " Rt. Jenner, notary pub- lic," thereto subscribed, were and are of the proper hand writing and subscription of the said Robert Jenner, and that we saw him sign the same, and that full faith and entire credit is and ought to be given to all the acts, subscriptions and attestations of the said Robert Jenner, as well in judgment as out. In testimony whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names, to serve and avail as occasion may require, at doctor's Commons. London, this fifth day of Feb- ruary, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven. Which we attest. Edward Cooper, Notary Pubhc. (Copy.) William Abbot, Notary Pubhc. No. 15. p. 162. Note of the Archbishop. The archbishop desires to have the proper direc- tion for a letter to bishop White at Falmouth; where if he can find time, he means to send a letter to Dr. 397 Chandler. If he should not be able to write to Dr. Chandler, he begs tlie bishop to assure him of his affectionate esteem and regard, and his hearty prayers for his better health. He wishes also for such a di- rection, as will be most proper for a letter, should occasion call for one, to the bishop in Philadelphia. It is proper that the bishops should be informed, that the archbishop was mistaken about the conse- crations in the province of York. They have always been attended by two bishops with the archbishop. No. 16. p. 163. 1 . Frotn his excellency Richard Henry Lee, Esq. president of congress, to the Hon. John Adams, Esq. J\Enister Plenipotentiary to the Court of Great Bri- tain.* JVew York, October 2^, 1785. Dear Sir, Having yesterday written a long letter to you, I have now only to request your attention to the fol- lowing business, which is of very great importance to those whom it concerns; and who form a con- siderable portion of the citizens of these states. The representatives of those professing the church of England system of religion, having been lately as- * In the answer of Mr. Adams, he calls Mr. Lee " late presi- dent of Congress." The presidency of the latter ended two days after his writing of the letter, as appears from the printed Jour- nals of the body, and the circumstance must have been known to Mr. Adams. Therefore, the letter was written while Mr Lee was president, and must have been designed to carry with it the weight of his ofl&cial character." 398 sembled at Philadelphia, where lay and clerical de- puties from seven states were convened in general convention, for the purpose, among other things, of preserving and maintaining a succession of divines in their church, in a manner which they judge con- sonant to the gospel, and no way interfering with the religious or civil rights of others, have sent an ad- dress to the archbishops and bishops of England proposing a plan for the consecration of American bishops. — It is imagined that before any thing is done in this business by the bishops of England, they will consult the king and ministry; who it is apprehended may now, as heretofore, suppose that any step of the kind being taken in England, might be considered here as an officious intermeddling with our affairs that would give offence on this side the wa- ter— Should this be the case, the church of England members of congress have the greatest reliance on your liberal regard for the religious rights of all men, that you will remove mistaken scruples from the mind of administration, by representing how perfect- ly consonant it is with our revolution principles, pro- fessed throughout all these states, that every deno- mination of christians has a right to pursue its own religious modes, interfering not with others. That instead of giving offence, it must give content by evi- dencing a friendly disposition to accommodate the people here who are members of the church in ques- tion. In proof of this, congress did lately show their attention to the accommodation of this class of chris- 399 tians, by communicating to the different executives your information from the Danish Minister of that king's wiHingness to facihtate the business of ordina- tion for our church, and the assembly of Virginia hath incorporated this society, under which act of incorporation the assembly was held in that state, that sent both lay and clerical deputies to the general convention lately held in Philadelphia. I have the honour to be, with sentiments of the truest esteem and regard, dear Sir, your most obe- dient and very humble servant, Richard Henry Lee. His Excellency John Adams, Esq. Minister Pleni- potentiary from the United States of America to the Court of London, at his house in Ch'osven&r square London. 2. From Mr. Adams to Mr. Lee, in ansiver.* Grosvenor Square, January 4, 1786. Dear Sir, A day or two after the receipt of your letter of November 1, and that of Mr. Jay's which came with it, I wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury, by Col. Smith, for an hour when I might have the honour to pay my respects to his grace, and was answered very politely, that he would be glad to have the honour of seeing me, next day, between eleven and twelve. Accordingly I went yesterday, and was very agreeably * There is in possession a copy of a letter to John Jay, Esq. containing the same in substance; it being in answer to a letter ef that gentleman, then secretary of State for foreign affairs. 400 received, by a venerable and a candid prelate, with whom I had before only exchanged visits of ceremo- ny. I told his grace, that at the desire of two very respectable characters in America, the late president of congress and the present secretary of state for the department of foreign affairs, 1 had the honour to be the bearer to his grace of a letter from a convention of delegates from the episcopal churches in most of the southern states, which had been transmitted to me open, that 1 might be acquainted with its contents. That in this business however, I acted in no official character, having no instructions from congress, nor indeed from the convention; but I thought it most respectful to them, as well as to his grace, to present the letter in person. — The archbishop answered, that all that he could say at present was, that he was himself very well disposed to give the satisfaction de- sired— for that he was by no means one of those who wished that contention should be kept up between the two countries, or between one party and another in America — but on the contrary, was desirous of doing every thing in his power to promote harmony and good- humour. — I then said, that if his grace would take the trouble of reading two letters from Mr. Lee and Mr. Jay, he would perceive the motives of those gentlemen in sending the letter to my care — I gave him the letters, which he read attentively and returned, and added that it was a great satisfaction to him to see, that gentlemen of character and re- putation interested themselves in it — for that the epis- copahans in the United States could not have the full 401 and complete enjoyment of their religious liberties without it — and he subjoined that it was also a great satisfaction to him, to have received this visit from me upon this occasion — and he would take the li- berty to ask mc, if it were not an improper question, whether the interposition of the English bishops — would not give uneasiness and dissatisfaction in Ame- rica.— I replied that my answer could be only that of a private citizen, and in that capacity I had no scruple to say that the people of the United States in general were for a liberal and generous toleration. I might indeed employ a stronger word, and call it a right, and the first right of mankind, to worship God according to their consciences, and therefore that I could not see any reasonable ground for dis- satisfaction, and that I hoped and believed that there would be none of any consequence. His grace was then pleased to say, that religion in all countries, especially a young one, ought to be attended to, as it was the foundation of governnjent He hoped the characters w^hich should be recom- mended, would be good ones. I replied that there were in the churches in America, able men of char- acters altogether irreprgachable — and that such and such only, I presumed, would be recommended. I then rose to take my leave, and his grace then asked me, if he might be at liberty to mention, that I had made him this visit upon this occasion. I answered — certainly, if his grace should judge it proper. Thus, sir, I have fulfilled my commision, and remain as 3e 402 usual— your sincere friend and most obedient servant, Ji tiiie Copy, John Adams. Richard Henry Lee. 3. Letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Mr. Mams. Lambeth House, Febn^ary 21, 1786. Sir, After full communication with the archbishop of York, and the bishops, on the subject of the address, which you delivered to me from the deputies of the protestant episcopal church, in convention in Philadelphia, I concur with them in requesting the favour of you, to forward our answer to the commit- tee appointed to receive it. Duplicates of the an- swer accompany this letter; which, if sent by differ- ent ships, we hope may give a better chance of the early arrival of one of them. I have the honour to be. Sir, your most obedient Humble servant, J. Cantuar. 4. Certificate of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania, ss. The Supreme Executive Council of the Common^ wealth of Pennsylvania Do hereby certify and make known to all whom it may concern, that agreeably to the frame of go- vernment and laws of this commonwealth — the cler- 403 gy and others, members of the church of England in Pennsylvania, are at liberty to take such means as they may think proper for keeping up a succes- sion of religious teachers — Provided only, that the means they adopt for this purpose do not induce a subjection to any foreign jurisdiction civil or eccle- siastical. Given in council under the hand of the honour- able Charles Biddle, Esquire, Vice President, and the seal of the State, at Philadelphia, this twenty-fourth day of November in the year of our Lord one thou- sand seven hundred and eighty-five, and in the tenth yeai' of the commonwealth — Charles Biddle, V. P. (Attest) John Armstrong, Jr. Sec. 5. A cetiijicafe of his excellency Patrick Henry, Esq. Governor of Virginia* By his excellency Patrick Henry Esq. governm^ of the commonwealth of Virginia. It is certified and made known to all whom it maj concern — That the protestant episcopal church is incorporated by an act of the legislature of this commonwealth, for that purpose made and provided: that there is no law existing in this commonwealth, which in any manner forbids the admission of bish- ops, or the exercise of their office* on the contrary, by the 16th article of the declaration of rights, it is * This copy of the certificate of the governor of Virginia, was sent to the author by the Rev. Dr. Griffith, bishop elect of that state, to be laid before the convention of October, 1786 404 provided in the words following, viz. — " That reli- gion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exer- cise of religion, according to the dictates of con- science; and that it is the mutual duty of all, to practice christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other," — which said article is now in full force. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the commonwealth to be affixed at Richmond, this first day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six, and tenth of the commonwealth. P. Henrit. No. 17. p. 163. From Richard Peters, Esq. London, March 4, 1 786. Gentlemen, I yesterday waited on the archbishop of Canter- bury, who received me with great politeness. I de- livered the parcels you sent by me, but he had pre- viously received the originals. He opened the con- versation by saying, that on receipt of the address from the convention, which was conceived in terms that gave great satisfaction, the bishops had de- termined at once to comply with it, if the govern- ment would enable them by passing a law for the purpose. But hearing a number of reports, which the committee had not put it in their power to clear 405 up, by sending them all the proceedings of the con- vention, they thought it their duty to act cautiously, and restrained their desire to nject our wishes, till they had more full information on the subject. He said it was unnecessary to enter into the various re- ports of alterations said to be made, or intended by our churches, for he did not give credit to commou reports, which are often circulated without founda- tion. Some alterations however, it appeared, had been made, and what the rest were, could not be told until the whole was laid before them. That some alterations were necessarily brought about by the change of circumstances, and were therefore pro- per, he allowed; but he hoped there would be found none which rendered our church substantially dif- ferent from theirs, of which he considered it as a branch, and the bishops were obliged to examine what church ours was, before, from their source, they established an episcopacy over a people, who might perhaps hold tenets opposite to theirs. He did not know or believe this was the case with respect to us, but it became them to inquire. He feared some of our business had been done hastily. He showed me the answer to the address, which he said had been sin- cerely felt by every bishop who had signed it. He seemed very desirous of removing any doubts about their firm intentions to comply with our wishes: showed me the original draft of the answer in his hand writing. I observed there were no alterations made in it, and among nineteen bishops, who were all that were in town at the meeting of Parhament. 406 there was not a dissenting voice. He hoped so unani- mous an opinion, must evidence beyond a doubt, the great desire all had to grant our request. They all from the bottom of their hearts wished our prosperi- ty, and would do all in their power to promote it. But before they had the necessary information, it would be imprudent in them to act. He said there would be no difficulties with government, and was happy that all embarrassments, with respect to the civil powers of the United States, were removed by the certificates and papers transmitted. He had spoke to the king, on the receipt of the address, who ex- pressed great satisfaction in it, and was ready to do what was required of him. That administration would promote the law, when it was recommended by the bishops as proper. They therefore, being in a res- ponsible situation, must proceed with caution. He desired nothing he had said, should be thought cal- culated to throw difficulties in the way; for there really was no disposition of that kind in the bishops, or members of the government. He hoped our con- vention at the next meeting, would consider the embarrassments too many alterations would throw in the way of their application here, and if any of them substantially deviated from the doctrines, or worship of this church, it would frustrate the views of our churches, by putting it out of the power of those here, who have every good disposition to serve us, to forward our application. He wished great care might be taken, of the character of those sent for consecration, as much depended on this. They should, 407 however, commit themselves to our discretion in this respect, and hoped tliey should have no reason to repent it. He declined answering the question I was desired by Dr. White to put to him, respecting the validity of Scotch consecrations, having first ask- ed me whether the question came from the conven- tion? 1 told him it was to satisfy private inquiries, which were made with no view of seeking conse- cration from that source.* I find we can have no bishop, until we let the prelates here see what church we have made. I think it would be prudent in our church, to put off any material alterations until we have bishops consecrated. If we make any substan- tial alterations, they will be carped at by those who will make the bishops uneasy; and to keep peace at home, they will refuse to meddle abroad, notwith- standing their strong desire to do what we wish. I am, gentlemen, With much esteem Your very obedient servant, Richard Peters. Rev. Dr. White, Rev. Br. Smith, Rev. Mr. Pro- voost, Hon. James Duane, Samuel Powell, Esq. P. S. Mr. Adams has been very attentive to the business of an address, with which he waited on the * Notwithstanding the prudent reserve of the archbishop at this time, he is said to have given his influence in favour of the non juring bishops about three years afterwards; when, on the decease of the last pretender, they began to pray for the king on the throne, and some of them came up to London, to solicit the repeal of the penal laws made against them. 408 archbishop, who in return waited on him with the an- swer traiiSinitted. I think the committee should re- turn him their thanks, for the part he (Mr. Adams) has taken. Dont pubhsh the bishop's answer, as it will get over here, and be a subject of news-paper discussion. No. 18. Page 167. ^n act of the clergy of Massachusetts and JVew Hampshire. The good Providence of Almighty God, the foun- tain of all goodness, having lately blessed the pro- testant episcopal church in the United States of Ame- rica, by supplying it with a complete and entire minis- try, and affording to many of her communion the benefit of the labours, advice and government of the successors of the Apostles; We, Presbyters of said church in the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, deeply impress- ed with the most lively gratitude to the Supreme Go- vernor of the universe, for his goodness in this res- pect, and with the most ardent love to his church, and concern for the interest of her sons, that they may enjoy all the means that Christ, the great shep- herd and bishop of souls, has instituted for leading his followers into the ways of truth and holiness, and preserving his church in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace; to the end that the people committed to our respective charges may enjoy the benefit and advantage of those offices, the adminis- tration of which belongs to the highest order of the 409 ministry, and to encourage and promote, as far as in us lies, a union of the whole Episcopal church in these states, and to perfect and compact this mysti- cal hody of Christ, do hereby nominate, elect and appoint the Rev. Edward Bass, a Presbyter of said church, and Rector of St. Paul's, in Newburyport, to be our bishop; and we do promise and engage to receive him as such, when canonically consecrated, and invested with the apostolic office and powers, by the right reverend the bishops hereafter named, and to render him all that canonical obedience and sub- mission, which, by the laws of Christ and the con- stitution of our church, is due to so important an office. And we now address the right reverend the bish- ops in the states of Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania, praying their united assistance in con- secrating our said brother, and canonically investing him with the apostolic office and powei^s. This request we are induced to make, from a long acquaintance with him, and from a perfect knowledge of his be- ing possessed of that love to God and benevolence to men, that piety, learning and good morals, that prudence and discretion, requisite to so exalted a sta- tion, as well as that personal respect and attachment of the conmiunion at large in these states, which will make him a valuable acquisition to the order, and, we trust, a rich blessing to the church. Done at a meeting of the Presbyters, whose names are underwritten, held at Salem, in the 3 F 410 county of Essex, and commonwealth of Mas- sachusetts, the fourth day of June, Anno Sa- lutis, 1789. Samuel Parker, Rector of trinity church, Boston. T. Fitch Oliver, Rector of St. Michael's church, Marblehead. John Cousens Ogden, Rector of Queen's chapel, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. William Montague, minister of Christ's church, Bos- ton. Tillotson Brunson, assistant minister of Christ's church, Boston. Resolves on the foregoing. 1st. Resolved, That a complete order of bishops, derived as well under the English as the Scots hne of episcopacy, doth now subsist within the United States of America, in the persons of the right Rev, WilHam White, D. D. bishop of the protestant epis- copal church in the state of Pennsylvania; the right Rev. Samuel Provoost, D. D. bishop of the said church in the state of New York, and the right Rev. Samuel Seabury, D. D. bishop of the said church in the state of Connecticut. 2d. Resolved, That the said three bishops are fully competent to every proper act and duty of the episcopal office and character in these United States, as well in respect to the consecration of other bish- ops, and the ordering of priests and deacons, as for the government of the church, according to such rules, canons and institutions, as now are, or here- 411 after may be duly made and ordained by the church in that case. 3d. Resolved, That in christian charity, as well as of duty, necessity and expediency, the churches represented in this convention ought to contribute, in every manner in their power, towards supplying the wants, and granting every just and reasonable request of their sister churches in these states; and, therefore, 4th. Resolved, That the right Rev. Dr. White and the right Rev. Dr. Provoost be, and they hereby are, requested to join with the right Rev. Dr. Seabury, in complying with the prayer of the clergy of the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, for the consecration of the Rev. Edward Bass, bishop elect of the churches in the said states; but that, before the said bishops comply with the request aforesaid, it be proposed to the churches in the Mew England states to meet the churches of these states, with the said three bishops, in an adjourned convention, to settle certain articles of union and discipline among all the churches, previous to such consecration. 5th. Resolved, That if any difficulty or delicacy, in respect to the archbishops and bishops of England, shall remain with the right Rev. Doctors White and Provoost, or either of them, concerning their com- pliance with the above request, this convention will address the archbishops and bishops, and hope there- by to remove the difficulty.^' 412 No. 19. p. 169. An Address to the Most Reverend the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Most Venerable and illustrious Fathers and Prelates: We, the bishops, clergy and laity of the protest- ant episcopal church in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina, impressed with every sentiment of love and veneration, beg leave to embrace this earliest occasion, in general convention, to offer our wannest, most sincere and grateful acknowledgments to you, and (by your means) to all the venerable bi- shops of the church over which you preside, for the manifold instances of your former condescension to us, and solicitude for our spiritual welfare. But we are more especially called to express our thank- fulnessj for that particular act of your fatherly good- ness, whereby we derive, under you, a pure episco- pacy and succession of the ancient order of bishops, and are now assembled through the blessing of God, as a church duly constituted and organized, with the happy prospect before us of a future full and undis- turbed exercise of our holy religion, and its exten- sion to the utmost bounds of this continent, under an ecclesiastical constitution, and a form of worship, which we believe to be truly apostolical. The growing prospect of this happy diffusion of Christianity, and the assurance we can give you that our churches are spreadingand flourishing throughout these United {States, we know, will yield you more 413 solid joy, and be considered as a more ample reward of your goodness to us, than all the praises and ex- pressions of gratitude which tlie tongues of men can bestow. It gives us pleasure to assure you, that, during the present sitting of our convention, the utmost har- mony has prevailed through all our delibrations, that we continue, as heretofore, most sincerely attached to the faith and doctrine of the church of England; and that not a wish appears to prevail, either among our clergy or lait} , of ever departing from that church in any essential article. The business of most material consequence which hath come before us, at our present meeting, hath been an application from our sister churches in the eastern states, expressing their earnest desire of ? general union of the whole episcopal church in the United States, both in doctrine and disciphne; and, as a primary means of such union, praying the assistance of our bishops in the consecration of a bishop elect for the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. We therefore judge it necessary to ac- company this address with the papers, which have come before us on that very interesting subject, and of the proceedings we have had thereupon, by which you will be enabled to judge concerning the particu- lar delicacy of our situation and, probably, to reheve us from any difficulties which maybe found therein. The application from the church in the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire is in the follow- ing words. 414 [Here follows the application as in the preceding number.] At the meeting aforesaid. Voted, That the Rev. Samuel Parker be author- ised and empowered to transmit copies of the fore- going a( t, to be by him attested, to the right Rev. the bishops in Connecticut, New York and Penn- sylvania; and that he be appointed our agent, to ap- pear at any convocation to be holden at Pennsylva- nia or New York, and to treat upon any measures that may tend to promote an union of the episcopal church throughout the United States of America, or that may prove advantageous to the interest of the said church. Edward Bass, Chairman. A true copy. Jtttest. Samuel Parker. This was accompanied with a letter from the Rev. Samuel Parker, the worthy rector of Trinity church, Boston, to the right Rev. bishop White, dated June 21st, 1789, of which the following is an ex- tract:— " The clergy here have appointed me their agent, to appear at any convocation to be held at New York or Pennsylvania; but I fear the situation of my family and parish will not admit of my being absent so long as a journey to Philadelphia would take. When I gave you encouragement that I should attend, I was in expectation of having my parish sup- plied by some gentlemen from Nova Scotia; but I am now informed, they will not be here till some time in August. Having, therefore, no prospect of attending in person at your general convention next month, I 415 am requested to transmit you an attested copy ol' an act of the clergy of this and the state of New Hamp- shire, electing the Rev. Edward Bass our bishop, and requesting the united assistance of the right Rev. bishops of Pennsylvania, Sew York and Connecti- cut, to invest him with apostolic powers. This act I have now^ the honour of enclosing, and hope it will reach you before the meeting of your general con- vention in July. " The clergy of this state are very desirous of seeing an union of the whole episcopal church in the United States take place; and it will remain with our brethren at the southward to say, whether this shall be the case or not; whether we shall be an united or divided church. Some little difference in government may exist in different states, without affecting the essential points of union and com- munion." In the like spirit, the right Rev. Dr. Seabury, bishop of the church of Connecticut, in his letter to the Rev. Dr. Smith, dated July 23d, writes on the subject of union, &.c. as followeth. " The wish of my heart, and the wish of the clergy and of the church people of this state, would certainly have carried me and some of the clergy to your general convention, had we conceived we could have at- tended with propriety. The necessity of an union of all the churches, and the disadvantages of our present dis-union, we feel and lament equally with you; and I agree with you, that there may be a strong and efficacious union between churches, where the 416 usages are different. I see not why it may not be so in the present case, as soon as you have removed those obstructions, which, while they remain, must prevent all possibility of uniting. The church of Con- necticut consists, at present, of nineteen clergymen in full orders, and more than twenty thousand peo- ple, they suppose, as respectable as the church in any state of the union.^' After the most serious deliberation upon this im? portant business, and cordially joining with our bre- thren of the eastern or New England churches in the desire of union, the following resolves were unani- mously adopted in convention, viz: [Here follow the resolves, as given in the pre- ceding number.] We have now, most venerable Fathers, submit- ted to your consideration whatever relates to this im- portant business of union among all our churches in these United States. It was our original and sin- cere intention to have obtained three bishops, at least, immediately consecrated by the bishops of England, for the seven states comprehended within our present union. But that intention being frustrated through unforeseen circumstances, we could not wish to deny any present assistance, which may be found in our povver to give to any of our sister churches, in that way which may be most acceptable to them, and in itself legal and expedient. We ardently pray for the continuance of your fa- vour and blessing, and that, as soon as the urgency of other weighty concerns of the church will allow, we may be favoured with that fatherly advice and di- 417 rection, which to you may appear most for the glory of God and the prosperity of our churches, upon the consideration of the foregoing documents and pa- pers. Done in convention, this 8th day of August, 1789, and directed to be signed by all the mem- bers, as the act of their body, and by the presi- dent officially. [Signed by the president and all the members.] No. 20. p. 175. ^9. genentl Constitution of the Protestant Ejnscopal church in the United States of Ameiica. Art. 1 . There shall be a general convention of the protestant episcopal church in the United States of America, on the first Tuesday of August, in the year of our Lord 1792, and on the first Tuesday of August in every third year afterwards, in such place as shall be determined by the convention; and special meetings may be called at other times, in the manner hereafter to be provided for; and this church, in a majority of the states which shall have adopted this constitution, shall be represented, before they shall proceed to business, except that the representation from two states shall be sufficient to adjourn; and in all business of the convention, freedom of debate shall be allowed. Art. 2. The church in each state shall be en- tifled to a representation of both the clergy and the laity; which representation shall consist of one or more deputies, not exceeding four of each order, 3g 418 chosen by the convention of the state; and in all questions, when required by the clerical or lay repre- sentation from any state, each order shall have one vote; and the majority of suffrages by states shall be conclusive in each order, provided such majority comprehend a majority of the states represented in that order. The concun^ence of both orders shall be necessary, to constitute a vote of the convention. If the convention of any state should neglect or decline to appoint clerical deputies, or if they should neglect or decline to appoint lay deputies, or if any of those of either order appointed should neglect to attend, or be prevented by sickness or any other accident, such state shall nevertheless be considered as duly represented by such deputy or deputies as may at- tend, whether lay or clerical. And if, through the neglect of the convention of any of the churches which shall have adopted, or may hereafter adopt this constitution, no deputies, eiiher lay or clerical, should attend at any general convention, the church in such State shall nevertheless be bound by the acts of such convention. Art. 3. The bishops of this church, when there tshall be three or more, shall, whenever general con- ventions are held, form a house of revision, and when any proposed act shall have passed in the genei'al convention, the same shall be transmitted to the house of revision, for their concurrence. And if the same shall be sent back to the convention, with the nega- tive or non-concurrence of the house of revision, it shall be again considered in the general convention,. 419 and if the convention shall adliere to the said act, by a majority of three-fifths of their body, it shall be- conie a law to all intents and purposes, notwithstand- ing the non-concurrence of the house of revision; and all acts of the convention shall be authenticated by both houses. And in all cases, the house of bish- ops shall signify to the convention their approbation or disapprobation, the latter with their reasons in writing, within two days after the proposed act shall have been reported to them for concurrence, and in failure thereof it shall have the opeiation of a law. But until there shall be three or more bishops, as aforesaid, any bishop attending a general convention shall be a member ex officio, and shall vote with the clerical deputies of the state to which he belongs. And a bishop shall then preside. Art. 4. The bishop or bishops in every state shall be chosen agreeably to such rules, as shall be fixed by the convention of that state. And every bishop of this church shall confine the exercise of his episco- pal office to his proper diocess or district, unless re- quested to ordain, or confirm, or perform any other act of the episcopal office, by any church destitute of a bishop. Art. 5. A protestant episcopal church in any of the United States, not now represented, may, at any time hereafter, be admitted, on acceeding to this con- stitution. Art. 6. In every state, the mode of trying cler- gymen shall be instituted by the convention of the ehurch therein. At every trial of a bishop, there 420 shall be one or more of the episcopal order present; and none but a bishop shall pronounce sentence of deposition or degradation from the ministry on any clergyman, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon. Art. 7. No person shall be admitted to holy or- ders, until he shall have been examined by the bish- op, and by two presbyters, and shall have exhibited such testimonials and other requisites, as the canons, in that case provided, may direct. Nor shall any per- son be ordained, until he shall have subscribed the following declaration: "I do believe the holy scrip- tures of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salva- tion: And I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the protestant episcopal church in these United States.^^ No person ordained by a foreign bishop shall be permitted to officiate as a minister of this church, until he shall have com- phed with the canon or canons in that case provided, and have also subscribed the aforesaid declaration. Art. 8. A book of common prayer, administra- tion of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremo- nies of the church, articles of religion, and a form and manner of making, ordaining and consecrating bishops, priests and deacons, when established by this or a future general convention, shall be used in the protestant episcopal church in these states, which shall have adopted this constitution. Art. 9. This constitution shall be unalterable, unless in general convention, by the church in a ma- jority of the states, which may have adopted the 421 same; and all alterations shall be first proposed in one ceneral convention, and made known to the se- veral state conventions, before they shall be finally agreed to, or ratified in the ensuing general conven- tion. AUenations in the subsequent sessimi. " The committee reported, tiiat they have had a full, free and friendly conference with the deputies of the said churches, who, on behalf of the church in their several states, and by virtue of sufficient au- thority from them, have signified, that they do not object to the constitution, which was approved at the former session of this convention, if the third article of that constitution may be so modified, as to declare explicitly the right 6f the bishops, when sitting in a separate house, to originate and propose acts for the concurrence of the other house of convention; and to negative such acts proposed by the other house, as they may disapprove. " Your committee, cbnceiving this alteration to be desirable in itself, as having a tendency to give greater stability to the constitution, without diminish- ing any security that is now^ possessed by the clergy or laity; and being sincerely ftnpressed with the im- portance of an union to the future prosperity of the church, do therefore recommend to the convention a compliance with the wishes of their brethren, and that the third article of the constitution may be al- tered accordingly. Upon such alteration being made, it is declared by the deputies from the churches in the eastern states, that they will subscribe the con- 422 stitution, and become members of this general con- vention/* Upon special motion, the above report was read a second time; whereupon the following resolution was proposed, viz: — Resolved, That this convention do adopt tliat part of the report of the committee, which proposes to modify the third article of the constitution, so as to declare explicitly " the right of the bishops, when sitting in a separate house, to originate and propose acts for the concurrence of the other house of con- vention; and to negative such acts proposed by the other house, as they may disapprove; provided they are not adhered to by four-fifths of the other house." After some debate, the resolution, with the pro- viso annexed, was agreed upon, and the third arti- cle was accordingly modified in the manner follow- ing, viz: — Art. 3d. The bishops of this churchy when there shall he three or more, shall j ivhenever general conven- tions are held, form a separate house, tvitn a nght to originate and propose acts for the concurrence of the house of deputies, composed of clergy and laity; and when any proposed acP shall have passed the house of deputies, the same shall be transmitted to tlie house of bishops, ivho shall have a negative thereupon, un- less adiiered to by four-fifths of the other Jiouse; and all acts of the convention shall be authenticated by both houses. And, in all cases, the house of bishops shall signify to the convention their approbation or disapprobation, the latter, imih their reasons in w^i- 423 hig, imth'm three days after the proposed act sludl have been reported to them for concurrence; and in failure thereof it sliall have tlie operation of a law. But until iJiere shall be three or more bishops, as aforesaid, any bishop attending a general convention sliall be a mem- 6e?% ex officio, and shall vote with the clerical deputies of the state to which he belongs; and a bishop shall then preside. Acceptance by bishop Seabiiry, and the presby- ters from New England. October 2d, 1789. We do hereby agree to the constitution of the church, as modified this day in convention. Samuel Seabury, D. D. bishop of the episcopal church in Connecticut. Abraham Jarvis, A. M. rector of) Chr St church, Middletown, I State of Bela Hubbard, A.M. rector off Connecticut. Trinity church, New Haven. I Samuel Parker, D. D. rector of Trinity church, Bos- ton, and clerical deputy for Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Letters of consecration of bishop Seabury. IN DEI NOMINE. Amen. Omnibus ubique Catholicis per Presentes pafeat, Nos, Robertum Kilgour, miseratione divina, Epis- copum Aberdonien — Arthurum Petrie, Episcopum Rossen et Moravien — et Joannem Skinner, Episco- pum Coadjutorem; Mysteria Sacra Domini nostri 424 Jesu Christi in Oratorio supradicti Joannis Skinner apud Aberdoniam celebrantes, Divini Numinis Pre- sidio fretos (presentibus tarn e Clero, quam e Populo testibiis idoneis) Samuelem Seabury, Doctorem Di- vinitatis, sacro Presbyteratus ordine jam decoratum, ac nobis prse Vitag integritate, Morum probitate et Orthodoxia, commendatum, et ad docendum et re- gendum aptum et idoneum, ad sacrum et sublimem Episcopatus Ordinem promovisse, et rite ac canonice, secundum Morem et Ritus Ecclesise Scoticanag, con- secrasse. Die Novembris decimo quarto, Anno Mrae Christlanse Millesimo Septingentesimo Octagesimo Quarto. In cujus Rei Testimonium, Instrumento huic (chirographis nostris prius, munito) Sigilla nos- tra apponi mandavimus. Robertus Kilgour, Episcopus, et Primus. (L. S.) Arthurus Petrie, Episcopus. (L. S.) Joannes Skinner, Episcopus. (L. S.) No. 21. p. 214 A letter from the Rev. Dr. Coke, and the answer. Right Rev. Sir, Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a subject of great importance. You, 1 believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the church of England, and have been ordain- ed a presbyter of that church. For many years I was prejudiced, even I think to bigotry in favour of it: but through a variety of causes or incidents, to mention which would be tedious and useless, my mind was ex- 425 ceedingly biased on the other side of the question. In consequence of this, 1 am not sure but I went iartiier in the separation of our church in America, tlian Mr. Wesley, from whom 1 had received my commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with Episcopal au- thority, but did not intend, I think, that an entire separation should take place. He, being pressed by our friends on this side of the water for ministers to administer the sacraments to them, (there being very few clergy of the church of England then in the states,) went farther, I am sure, than he would have gone, if he had foreseen some events which fol- lowed. And this I am certain of — that he is now sorry for the separation. But what can be done for a re-union, which I much wish for; and to accomplish which Mr. Wes- ley, I have no doubt, would use his influence to the utmost.'^ The affection of a very considerable number of the preachers and most of the people, is very strong towards him, notwithstanding the excessive ill usage he received from a few. My interest also is not small; and both his and mine would readily and to the utmost be used to accomplish that (to us) very desirable object; if a readiness were shown by the bishops of the protestant episcopal church to re- unite. It is even to your church an object of great im- portance. We have now above 60,000 adults in our society in these states, and about 250 travelling ministers and preachers; besides a great number of 3r 426 local preachers, very far exceeding the number of travelling preachers; and some of those local preach- ers are men of very considerable abilities. But if we nmnber the methodists as most people number the members of their church, viz. by the families which constantly attend the divine ordinances in their places of worsliip, they will make a larger body than you probably conceive. The society, I believe, may be safely multiplied by five on an average to give us our slated congregations; which will then amount to 300,000. And if the calculation which, I think, some eminent writers have made, be just, that three fifths of mankind are im-adalt (if 1 may use the ex- pression) at any given period, it will follow that all the families, the adults of which form our congrega- tions in these states, amount to 750,000. About one fifth of these are blacks. The work now extends in length from Boston to the south of Georgia; and in breadth from the At- lantic to lake Champlain, Vermont, Albany, Red- stone, Holstein, Kentucky, Cumberland, &c. But there are many hindrances in the way. Can they be removed.'' 1. Our ordained Ministers will not, ought not, to give up their right of administering the sacraments. I don't think that the generality of them, perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a re- ordina- tion, if other hindrances were removed out of the way. I must here observe that between 60 and 70 only out of the two hundred and fifty have been ordained 427 presbyters, and about GO deacons (only). The pres- byters are the choicest ol'the whole. 2. The other preachers would hardly submit to a re-union, ii" the possibility of their rising up to or- dination depended on the present bishops in Ameri- ca. Because though they are all I think I may say, zealous, pious and very useful men, yet they are not acquainted with the learned languages. Besides, they would argue, — If the present bishops would wave the article of the learned languages, yet tlieir successors might not. My desire of a re-union is so sincere and earnest that these difficulties almost make me tremble: and yet something must be done before the death of Mr. Wesley, otherwise I shall despair of success : for though my influence among the methodists in these states as well as in Europe is, I doubt not, increasing, yet Mr. Asbury, whose influence is very capital, will not easily comply: nay, I know he will be exceedingly averse to it. In Europe, where some steps had been taken, tending to a separation, all is at an end. Mr. Wes- ley is a determined enemy of it, and I have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it. Shall I be favoured with a private interview with you in Philadelphia.'' I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday, the 17th. of May. If this be agreeable, I'll beg of you just to signify it in a note directed to me, at Mr. Jacob Baker's, merchant. Market street, Philadelphia: or, if you please, by a few lines sent me by the return of the post at Philip Rogers's, Esq. 428 in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. Magaw, and I will wait upon you with my friend Dr. Magaw. We can then enlarge on these subjects. I am conscious of it, that secrecy is of great im- portance in the present state of the business, till the minds of you, your brother bishops, and Mr. Wes- ley, be circumstantially known. [ must therefore beg that these things be confined to yourself and Dr. Magaw, till I have the honour of seeing you. Thus, you see, I have made a bold venture on your honour and candour, and have opened my whole heart to you on the subject as far as the extent of a small letter will allow me. If you put equal confi- dence in me, you will find me candid and faithful. I have, notwithstanding, been guilty of inadver- tencies. Veiy lately I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience) to write a penitential letter to the Rev. ISIr. Jarratt, which gave him great satisfaction: and for the same reason I must write another to the Rev. Mr. Pettigrew. When I was last in America, I prepared and corrected a great variety of things for our magazines, indeed almost every thing that was printed, except some loose hints which I had taken of one of my journeys, and which I left in my hurry with Mr. Asbury, without any cor- rection, intreating that no part of them might be prin- ted which would be improper or offensive. But through great inadvertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections on the characters of the two above- mentioned gentlemen to be inserted in the magazine, for which I am very sorry: and probably shall not 429 rest till I have made my acknowledgment more pub- lic; though Mr. Jarratt docs not desire it. I am not sure whether I have not also ofTended you, Sir, by accepting of one of the offers made me by you and Dr. Magavv of the use of your churches about six years ago on my first visit to Philadelphia, without informing you of our plan of separation from the church of England. If I did offend, (as I doubt I did, especially fiom what you said on the subject to Mr. Richard Dellam, of Abington,) I sincerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I'll endeavour to amend. But, alas! I am a frail, weak creature. I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only 1 will claim from your candor — that if you have no thoughts of improving this proposal, you will burn this letter, and take no more notice of it (for it would be a pity to hare us entirely alienated from each other, if we cannot unite in the manner my ardent W'ishes desire.) But if you will further negotiate the business, I will explain my mind still more fully to you on the probabilities of success. In the mean time permit me, with great respect, to subscribe myself. Right Rev. sir, Your very humble servant in Christ, Thomas Coke. Richmond, dpril S4, 1791. The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop White. You must excuse interlineations, &c. as I am just going into the country, and have no time to trans- cribe. 430 Answer. Rev. Sir, My friend, Dr. Magaw, has this day put into my hands, your letter of the 24th of April, which, I trust, I received with a sense of the importance of the sub- ject and of the answer 1 am to give to God, for the improvement of every opportunity of building up his church. Accordingly, I cannot but make choice of the earliest of the two ways you point out to in- form you, that 1 shall be very happy in the opportu- nity of conversing w ith you at the time proposed. You mention two difficulties in the way of the proposed union. And there are further difficulties which suggest themselves to my mind. But I can say of the one and of the other, that I do not think them insuperable, provided there be a conciliatory disposition on both sides. — So far as I am concern- ed, I think that such a disposition exists. It has not been my temper. Sir, to despond in regard to the extension of Christianity in this new' world: And in addition to the promises of the great head of the church, I have always imagined that I perceived the train of second causes so laid by the good Providence of God, as to be promoting what we believe to be his will in this repect. On the other hand, 1 feel the weight of most powerful discour- agements, in the increasing number of the avowed patrons of inttdelity, and of others, who pretend to confess the divine authority of our holy religion while they endeavour to strip it of its characteristic doc- trines, in this situation, it is rather to be expected, that distinct churches, agreeing in fundamentals, 431 sliould make mutual sacrifices for a union, than that any church should divide into two bodies, without a difference being even alleged to exist, in any leading point. For the preventing of this, the measures which you may propose cannot Tail of success, unless there be on one side, or on both, a most lamentable defi- ciency of christian temper. I remember the conversation you allude to with Mr. Dellam: I hope I did not express myself unchari- tably, or even indelicately. As to personal offence to- wards me, it is out of the question: for I had not at that time any connection with St. Paul's church — But this, as well as the other parts of your letter may be discoursed of at the proposed interview. There- fore, with assurance of the desired secrecy, and with requesting you to accept a like promise of candour to that which I credit from you, I conclude myself at present — Your Brother in Christ and very Humble servant, W. W* * The writer of the above answer kept silence on the sub- ject of it, except in the permitted communication to the bishops, until the summer of 1804: when he received, in one day, two letters from the eastern shore of Maryland. One of them, was from the Rev. Simon Wilmer of the episcopal church, and the other was from the Rev. Mr. Mc Klaskey of the methodist com- munion. In a conversation between tl\ese two gentlemen, the former had aflirmed the fact of Dr. Coke's application, which was disbelieved by the other. This produced thoir respective let- ters, which were answered by a statement of the fact. The mat- ter being afterwards variously reported, a copy of the letter, was 432 No. 22. Page, 218. Testi7nonial of tJie Rev. Charles Pettigrew. We the subscribers having met iii convention, at Tarborough, in North CaroHna, on the 28th day of May, 1794, for the purpose of considering the de- clining situation of the protestant episcopal church in this state, and having chosen the Rev. Charles Pettigrew as a person fit to be our bishop, and wor- thy to be redommended for consecration to that holy office — but being sensible that the great distance at which the laity as well as the clergy of this state live from each other deprives us of sufficient person- al acquaintance with one another to subscribe a tes- timonial in the words prescribed by the general con- vention of the protestant Episcopal church, have thought it necessary and proper to make some devi- ation therefrom, which we presume to hope will be no obstacle to our laudable pursuit. We therefore do hereby recommend to be consecrated to the office of a bishop, the said Reverend Charles Pettigrew, whom, from his morality, religious principles, piety of life, from his general reputation in a clerical cha- racter, from the personal knowledge we have of him, and from his sufficiency in good learning, and sound- ness in the faith, we are induced to believe worthy of being consecrated to that important office. We hereby promise and engage to receive him as such when canonically consecrated and invested therewith, and to render that canonical obedience after some lapse of time, delivered to the Rev. Dr. Kemp of Maryland, and at last became published in a controversy laised in the diocess. W. W. 433 which we believe to be necessary to the due and pro- per discharge of so important a trust in tiie church of Christ. And we now address the Right Reverend the bishops in the several United States, praying their united assistance in consecrating this our said brother and canonically investing him with the apos- tolic office and powers. In testimony whereol, we hereunto subscribe our names, the day and year above written. ' J. Leigh, M. D. N. Blount, J. Guion, M. D. J. L. Wilson, R. Whyte, ) Lawyers ^ ^"'^">^' B. Woods, \ sawyers. g ^3^,,^^ W. Clements, R. J. Miller, L. Desseaux, • (of the clergy) W. Grimes, R. Godly, (of the laity.) No. 23 Page. 219. Circular of a Committee in S. Carolina. Gentlemen, * Impressed with a fervent desire of being bene- ficial to the state in general, and of supporting religion among us, we the subscribers, being a select commit- tee from several of the united episcopal churches in this state, who met on the 16th of last October, are *In the document, some of the words are in larger charac- ters than the rest. The same words are here given in italics witK the view of making a faithful representation of the instrument: the framers of which were careful to give this explanation of their design; however beneath them an attention to the laws of grammar. 3 I 434 directed to address you. The subject is an impor- tant one, and requires consideration. From the pro- ceedings of the two last general conventions, held at Philadelphia and New York, it has with regret beea found by the representatives of this state, that the intention of all the eastern states was to form two separate houses of discussion on the forms and pro- pagation of religion. To this all consented, not fore- seeing any ill effects immediately arising from it. The one composed of bishops solely, the other of clergy and laity conjointly; and that a full consent of one house, together with two thirds of the other, must be obtained, to effectually carry any proposition into effect. But in these two last meetings as above, many proposed, that the house of bishops should have " an absolute negative" over the clergy and laity. To this Virginia and South Carolina were firmly oppo- sed; theeastern states as firmly supported. The next general convention will beheld at Philadelphia, where we wish to be represented, but upon the same deter- mination, if approved by the vestries of our associated churches in this state, of opposition to the absolute ne- gative; which, more than probably, will cause a seces- sion of this state and Virginia from the general associ- ation. Considering the situation we shall then be left in, we are desirous, by the blessing of Almighty God directing us in our choice, to select one from the cler- gy of this state, to be sent forward immediately to the northward and to obtain authority solely to ordain mi- nisters for tliis state, as well as to renew that ordinance 435 which has too long laid dormant in our country, cmfmnation. We have thought proper, therefore, to request your opinion on the subject, as we con- ceive from many of our rising young men having de- voted themselves to the study of divinity, and by selecting some worthy and good man resident in a Parish, and desirous of taking the oifice of the mi- nistry upon him, and having him ordained, we shall be better enabled to have our churches provided than we are at present by the clergy which we have of late experienced from Europe, or from our nor- thern states; and as this country will then be their native country, and from being accustomed to reside in it, the complaints of its sickliness, which have been the great arguments of desertion from their pa- rishes, will in some measure, if not totally, lose their effect: and as, in that case, the minister may have some property of his own, the subscription of parish- es where small, will in this manner be rendered suffi- ciently ample; as well as the doctrines propagated consistent with the situation the Almighty has been pleased to allot us. We beg leave farther to men- tion, not with an intention to bias your opinion, but as a reason for our present application, that Virginia has pursued the steps marked out, and with the bles- sing of Heaven upon their endeavours and under the direction and guardianship of bishop Madison* have obtained sixty good and reputable divines, men, if but of moderate learning, of sound and good morals, * "Who showed himself very indignant at tlie intended com- pliment. 436 who have undertaken the ministry, not from a desire of gain, but from a desire of doing good, and spread- ing the effects of piety, brotherly love, and charity in the several parishes where they reside. From these motives, and from the distressed situation we shall be in, if a secession takes place before we are pro- vided with one to confirm and ordain, for then we must either take what they are pleased to send, or humbly intreat their favours to ordain for us, which might be refused after our secession, we have pre- sumed to address you, hoping when these important concerns shall come before you, you will not refuse to lend us your aid, both in consulting in the most public manner the sentiments of our brethren at large, and informing us of them by a representative or representatives at our next state convention, to be held at St. Michaels church, on the 10th day of next February, for the express purpose of relinquishing or carrying the above measures into effect. And we have appointed this day in particular (anxious- ly desirous of being fully represented) as it is the day previous to the anniversary meeting of the revo- lution society to commemorate the birth day of gene- ral Washington, and conceiving many gentlemen may be in town upon so pleasing an occasion. And we are gentlemen, with all respect and esteem, Your humble servants. 437 No. 24. p. 229. A letter from bishop Provoost. ''JVew York, Sept. 7, 1801. *' Right Rev. and dear Sir, " I think it my duty to request, that, as Presi- dent of the house of bishops, you will inform that venerable body, that, induced by ill health, and some melancholy occun*ences in my family, and an ardent wish to retire from all public employment, I resign- ed, at the last meeting of our church convention, my jurisdiction as bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the state of New York. I am, with great regard, Dear and Right He v. Sir, Your affectionate brother, Samuel Provoost. Right Rev. Bishop White." The house of bishops having considered the sub- ject brought before them by the letter of bishop Pro- voost, and by the message from the house of clerical and lay deputies, touching the same, can see no grounds on which to believe, that the contemplated resignation is consistent with ecclesiastical order, or with the practice of episcopal churches in any ages, or with the tenor of the office of consecration. Ac- cordingly, while they sympathize most tenderly with their brother bishop Provoost, on account of that ill health, and those melancholy occurrences which have led to the design in question, they judge it to be in- consistent with the sacred trust committed to them, to recognize the bishop's act as an effectual resigna- 438 tion of his episcopal j uri sdiction . Nevertheless, being sensible of the present exigencies of the church of New York, and approving of their making provision for the actual discharge of the duties of the episco- pacy, the bishops of this house are ready to conse- crate to the office of bishop, any person who may be presented to them with the requisite testimonials from the general and state conventions; and of whose re- ligious, moral, and literary character, due satisfac- tion may be given. But this house must be under- stood to be explicit in their declaration, that they shall consider such a person as assistant or co-adjutor bish- op, during bishop Provoost's lil'e, although competent in point of character to all the episcopal duties; the extent in which the same shall be discharged by him, to be dependent on such regulations as expediency may dictate to the church in New York, grounded on the indisposition of bishop Provoost, and with his concurrence. No. 25. Forms of Subscription. Form in this church — "I do believe the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, and to contain all things necessary to sal- vation. And I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the protestant episcopal church in these United States.^^ Form in the church of England — The 36th ca- non requires the candidates, after reference 1st, to the royal supremacy, 2nd, to the Book of Common Prayer with the ordinal, and 3rd, to the 39 articles, 439 to signify liis assent as follows — " I. N. N. do wil- lingly and ex animo subscribe to those three articles above mentioned, and to all things that are contained in them." No. 26. p. 246 The house resumed the consideration of the mat- ters brought before them by the Rev. Ammi Rogers, and came to the following determination concerning the same: After full inquiry, and fair examination of all the evidence that could be procured, it appears to this house, that the said Ammi Rogers had produced to the standing committee of New York (upon the strength of which he obtained holy orders) a certifi- cate, signed with the name of the Rev. Philo Perry, which certificate was not written nor signed by him. That the conduct of the said Ammi Rogers in the state of Connecticut, during his residence in that state, since he left New York, has been insulting, re- fractory, and schismatical in the highest degree; and, were it tolerated, would prove subversive of all or- der and discipline in the church; and that the state- ment which he made in justification of his conduct, was a mere tissue of equivocation and evasion, and, of course, served rather to defeat than to establish his purpose. Therefore, this house do approve of the pro- ceedings of the church in Connecticut, in reproving the said Ammi Rogers, and prohibiting him from the performance of any ministerial duties within that diocess; and, moreover, are of opinion, that he de- 440 serves a severer ecclesiastical censure, that of de- gradation from the ministry. In regard to the question, To what authority is Mr. Rogers amenable? this house are sensible, that there not having been previously to the present con- vention, any sufficient provision for a case of a cler- gyman removing from one diocess to another, it might easily happen, that different sentiments would arise as to this point. We are of opinion, that Mr. Rogers^s residence being in Connecticut, it is to the authority of that diocess he is exclusively amenable. But as the imposition practised with a view to the ministry was in New York, we recommend to the bishop and standing committee of that state, io send to the bishop in Connecticut such documents, duly attested, of the measure referred to, as will be a ground of procedure in that particular. We further direct the secretary, to deliver a copy of the above to the clerical deputies from Connecti- cut, and another copy to the Rev. Ammi Rogers. And we further direct, that either of the aforesaid parties be permitted to have any documents respec- tively delivered in by them, a copy of it being first taken; except the petition and affidavit of the Rev. Ammi Rogers, of which he may have a copy if de- sired, as may either of the parties have of any docu- ment delivered by the other party. No. 27. Of tJie Homilies. The house of bishops, taking into consideration, that the two books of homilies are referred to in the 441 35tii article of this church, as containing a body of sound christian doctrine; and knowing, by their re- spective experience, the scarcity of the volume, ren- dering it diliicult for some candidates in tlie ministry to possess opportunities of studying its contents, pro- pose to the house of clerical and lay deputies, to make it a standing instruction to every bishop, and to the ecclesiastical authority in every state destitute of a bishop, to be furnished (as soon as may be) with a copy or copies of said work, and to require it to be studied by all candidates for the ministry within their respective bounds: under the expectation, that when offering for ordination, the knowledge of its contents will be indispensibly required. This was concurred in, by the house of clerical and lay deputies. No. 28. Concerning posture, dwing psalmody. Whereas, a diversity of custom has of late years prevailed in the posture of ministers and of the peo- ple, during the act of singing the psalms and the hymns in metre; the former practice of sitting du- ring this part of the service gradually giving way to the more comely posture of standing; it is hereby recommended by this convention, that it be consider- ed as the duty of the ministers of this church, to en- courage the use of the latter posture, and to induce the members of their congregations, as circumstances may permit, to do the same: allowance to be made for cases, in which it may be considered inconvenient by age, or by infirmity. Practice under this recom- 3 K 442 mendation, is to begin from the time when suitable information shall have been given by the clergy to their respective flocks. And, it shall be the duty of every minister, to give notice of this recommendation to his congregation, at such time, as in his discretion may be the most proper. The carrying into effect of the contemplated change, may be delayed by the bishop of any diocess, or, where there is no bishop, by the ecclesiastical authority therein, until there shall have been time and opportunity of explaining satisfactorily the grounds of the measure. No. 29. Of a proposal of iieio anthems, and of sanction re- quested in favour of a proposed hook. The following proposition was submitted and agreed to, and communicated to the house of clerical and lay deputies. The house of bishops communicate to the house of clerical and lay deputies, the following resolve, and the following rule of the house of bishops, to be entered on their journal after being returned by the house of clerical and lay deputies. There was laid before the house, an address from the Rev. Dr. Wm. Smith, of Connecticut, togetlier with sundry anthems selected from holy scripture, and adapted to certain fasts and feasts of the church. The object of the address, is to induce the establish- ment of the said anthems as parts of the liturgy. Whereupon, Resolved, That it is not expedient during this convention, to go into a review, either in 443 whole or in part, of the book of Common Prayer. It could not, however, but give satisfaction to the bishops to recollect, that anthems taken from scrip- ture, and judiciously arranged, may, according to the known allowance of this church, be sung in congre- gations at the discretion of their respective ministers. On this occasion, a question arose, how far it may be proper at any meeting of the convention, to give their sanction, or that of this house in particular, to any work, however tending to religious instruction, or to the excitement of pious affections. In reference to this subject, it is the unanimous opinion of the bishops present, tliat no such sanction should be given. And it is hereby made a rule of the house, that if any application should be made tending to such effect, it shall not be considered as regularly brought before them. The above was returned by the house of clerical and lay deputies, with their respectful thanks, for what they were pleased to call the judicious course adopted by the bishops, in reference to the two sub- jects. No. 30. Concerning the identity of this church, with the foiiTier church of England, in America. The following declaration was proposed and agreed to: It having been credibly stated to the house of bishops, that on questions in reference to property devised before the revolution, to congregations be- 444 longing to " the church of England," and to uses connected with that name, some doubts have been entertained in regard to the identity of the body to which the two names have been appRed, the house think it expedient to make the declaration, and to request the concurrence of the house of clerical and lay deputies therein — That " The protestant episco- pal church in the United States of America" is the same body heretofore known in these states, by the name of ''the church of England;" the change of name, although not of religious principle, in doctrine, or in worship, or in discipline, being induced by a characteristic of the church of England, supposing the independence of christian churches, under the different sovereignties, to which, respectively, their allegiance in civil concerns belongs. But that when the severance alluded to took place, and ever since, this church conceives of herself, as professing and acting on the principles of the church of England, is evident from the organization of our conventions, and from their subsequent proceedings, as recorded on the journals; to which, accordingly, this conven- tion refers for satisfaction in the premises. But it would be contrary to fact, were any one to infer, that the discipline exercised in this church, or that any proceedings therein, are at all dependent on the will of the civil or of the ecclesiastical authority of any foreign country. The above declaration having been communi- cated to the house of clerical and lay deputies, they returned for answer that they concurred therein. 445 No. 31. From the Journal. The house of bishops, solicitous for the preserva- tion of the purity of the church, and the piety of its members, are induced to impress upon the clergy the important duty, with a discreet but earnest zeal, of warning the people of their respective cures, of the danger of an indulgence in those worldly pleasures which may tend to witiidravv the affections from spi- ritual things. And especially on the subject of gaming, of amusements involving cruelty to the brute creation, and of theatrical representations, to which some pe- culiar circumstances have called their attention, — they do not hesitate to express their unanimous opi- nion, that these amusements, as well from their li- centious tendency, as from the strong temptations to vice which they afford, ought not to be frequented. And the bishops cannot refrain from expressing their deep regret at the information, that in some of our large cities, so little respect is paid to the feelings of the members of the church, that theatrical represen- tations are fixed for the evenings of her most solemn festivals. Fiom the Pastoral Letter, Both to the clergy and to the laity we desire to say, but most pointedly to the former, that the chris- tian profession exacts a greater abstraction from the world than that which consists in the abstaining from acknowledged sin. There are practices so nearly allied, and so easily abused to it, that we conceive of a professor of religion in duty bound either not to countenance them in the least degree; or, as is 446 allowable in regard to some of the matters contem- plated, to avoid the so employing of time, and the so lavishing of affection, as puts into a state of sin, although not necessarily belonging to the subject. We would be far from an endeavour after an abridg- ment of christian liberty. But we cannot forget, that in a list of the classes of evil hvers, there is in- troduced the description of persons who are " lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God;" nor, in respect to the female professors of religion in particular, the admonition, that " she who liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." We are aware of the difficulty of drawing the line between the use of the world and the abuse of it: that being conceived of by different persons equally pious and virtuous, according to the diversity of natural temperament, and of the states of society in which they have been placed by educa- tion or by habit: but we know, that where the con- science can reconcile itself to the drawing as near to the territory of sin, as it can persuade itself to be consistent with the still standing on secure ground, deadness to spiritual good at the best, but more com- monly subjection to its opposite is the result. In speaking of subjects of the above description, we would not be understood to class among them any practice which is either immoral in itself, or so customarily accompanied by immorality, that the one is necessarily countenanced with the other. Of the former description, is gaming in all the variety of its exercise: and the like may be said of whatever in- volves cruelty to the lower animals of the creation. If the same cannot be affirmed of works of tiction, 447 and of putting speeches into the mouths of feigned characters, for the purpose of instruction or of en- tertainment; yet as the question is apphcable to the exhibitions of the theatre, such as they have been in every age, and are at present; we do not hesitate to declare unanimously our opinion, that it is a foul source of very extensive corruption. We lay little stress on the plea, that it is a matter practicable in social institutions, to purge the subject from the abuses which have been attached to it. When this shall have been accomplished, it will be time to take another ground. But, in truth, we are not persuaded of the possibility of the thing, when we consider that the prominent and most numerous patrons of the stage are always likely to be the least disposed to the seriousness which should enter into whatever is designed to discriminate between innocence and guilt. While the opinions and the passions of such persons shall continue to serve the purpose of a looking-glass, by which the exhibited characters are to be adjusted to the taste of so great a proportion of the public, we despair of seeing the stage rescued from the dis- gusting effusions of profaneness and obscenity; and much less of that mean of corruption, more insinu- ating than any other — the exhibiting of what is radi- cally base, in alliance with properties captivating to the imagination. While we address this alike to the clergy and to the laity, we consider it as especially hostile to the usefulness of the former. And even in regard to some matters confessed to be innocent in themselves. 448 their innocency may depend much on many circum- stances, and of professional character among others. The ear of a clergyman should always be open to a call to the most serious duties of his station. What- ever may render it difficult to his own mind to recur to those duties with the solemnity which they require, or may induce an opinion in others, that such a re- currence must be unwelcome to him from some en- joyment not congenial with holy exercise, ought to be declined by him. If it be a sacrifice, the making of it is exacted by what ought to be his ruling wish, the serving of God, and the being useful to his fellow- men, in the discharge of the duties of the ministry. No. 32. Page. 312. £cts of the Convention of 1 785. ^ General Ecclesiastical Constitution of the Pro- testant Episcopal Church, in tJie United States of America. Whereas, in the course of Divine Providence, the protestant episcopal church in the United States of America is become independent of all foreign au- thority, civil and ecclesiastical: And whereas, at a meeting of clerical and lay deputies of the said church in sundry of the said states, viz. in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode- Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Penn- sylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, held in the city of New York, on the 6th and 7th days of October, in the year of our Lord 178i, it was recommended to this church in the said states represented as afore- said, and proposed to this church in the states not 449 represented, that they should send deputies to a con- vention to be held in the city of Philadelphia, on the Tuesday before the feast of St. Michael in this pre- sent year, in order to unite in a constitution of ec- clesiastical government, agreeably to certain funda- mental principles, expressed in the said recommen- dation and proposal: And whereas, in consequence of the said recom- mendation and proposal, clerical and lay deputies have been duly appointed from the said church in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina: The said deputies being now assembled, and ta- king into consideration the importance of maintain- ing uniformity in doctrine, discipline and worship in the said church, do hereby determine and declare, 1. That there shall be a general convention of the protestant episcopal church in the United States of America, which shall be held in the city of Phi- ladelphia, on the third Tuesday in June, in the year of our Lord 1786, and for ever after, once in three years, on the third Tuesday of June, in such place as shall be determined by the convention; and special meetings may be held at such other times, and in such place, as shall be hereafter provided for, and this church, in a majority of the states aforesaid, shall be represented before they shall proceed to bu- siness; except that the representation of this church from two states, shall be sufficient to adjourn; and, in all business of the convention, freedom of debate shall be allowed. 3l 450 2. There shall be a representation of both clergy and laity of the church in each state, which shall consist of one or more deputies, not exceedin^^; four, of each order; and in all questions, the said church in each state shall have one vote; and a majority of suffrages shall be conclusive. 3. In the said church, in every state represented in this convention, there shall be a convention con- sisting of the clergy and lay deputies of the congre- gations. 4. " The book of Common Prayer, and adminis- tration of the sacraments, and other rites and cere- monies of the church, according to the use of the church of England," shall be continued to be used by this church, as the same is altered by this con- vention, in a certain instrument of writing, passed by their authority, entituled " Alterations of the liturgy of the protestant episcopal church, in the United States of America, in order to render the same con- formable to the American revolution and the consti- tutions of the respective states." 5. In every state where there shall be a bishop duly consecrated and settled, and who shall have ac-^ ceded to the articles of this general ecclesiastical constitution, he shall be considered as a member of the convention ex officio, 6. The bishop or bishops in every state, shall be chosen agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by the respective conventions; and every bishop of this church, shall confine the exercise of his episcopal 451 office to his proper jurisdiction; unless requested to ordain or confirm by any church destitute of a bishop. 7. A protestant episcopal church in any of the United States not now represented, may at any time hereafter be admitted, on acceding to the articles of this union. 8. Every clergyman, whether bishop, presbytei or deacon, shall be amenable to the authority of the convention in the state to which he belongs, so far as relates to suspension or removal from office; and the convention in each state shall institute rules for their conduct, and an equitable mode of trial. 9. And whereas, it is represented to this conven- tion, to be the desire of the protestant episcopal church in these states, that there may be further al- terations of the liturgy, than such as are made neces- sary by the American revolution; therefore, the " book of Common Prayer, and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the church, according to the use of the church of England," as altered by an instrument of writing, passed under the authority of this convention, en- tituled " Alterations in the book of Common Prayer, and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the church, according to the use of the church of England, proposed and recom- mended to the protestant episcopal church in the United States of America," shall be used in this church, when the same shall have been ratified by the conventions which have respectively sent deputies to this general convention. 452 10. No person shall be ordained or permitted to officiate as a minister in this church, until he shall have subscribed the following declaration, " I do be- heve the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Tes- tament to be the word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly en- gage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the protestant episcopal church, as settled and deter- mined in the book of Common Prayer, and adminis- tration of the sacraments, set forth by the general convention of the protestant episcopal church in these United States." 1 1 . This general ecclesiastical constitution, when ratified by the church in the different states, shall be considered as fundamental; and shall be unalterable by the convention of the church in any state. Alterations agreed on and confirmed in conven- tion, for rendering the liturgy conformable to the principles of the American Revolution, and the con- stitutions of the several states. 1st. That in the suffrages after the creed, instead of O Lord, save the king, be said 0 Lo^d, bless and preserve these United States. 2nd. That the prayer for the royal family, in the morning and evening service, be omitted. 3rd. That in the Litany the 15, 16, 17, and 18th. petitions, be omitted, and that instead of the 20 and 2 1 st petitions, be substituted the following — that it may please thee to endue the congress of these United States, and all others in authority, legislative, execur 453 five, and judicial, ivith grace, imsdom and under- standing, to execute justice and maintain truth. 4th. Tliat when the litany is not said, the prayer for the high court of parliament be thus altered — '' Most gracious God, we Juunbltj beseech thee, as for these United States m general, so especially for their deles^ates in congress, that thou wouldest be pleased to direct and prosper all tJieir consultations to the ad- vancement of thy gloiy, the good of thy church, the safety, honour and ivelfare of thy people, that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endea- vours upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be establisJied among usfoi^ all generations," ^c. to the end: and the praye^rfor the king's majesty, as follows: viz. — O Lord, Our heavenly Father, the high and mighty Ruler of the universe, ivho dost from thy throne, behold all the dwellers upon earth; we most heartily beseech thee, with thy favour to behold all in autfiority, legislative, executive and judicial in these United States; and so replenish them with the grace of thy holy spint. that they may alivay incline to thy will and ivalk in thy way. I}rulu£ them plenteously with heavenly gifts, grant them in health and wealth long to I've and, that after this life, they may attain everlasting joy and felicity, through Jems Christ our Loi^d. Amen. 5th. That the first collect for the king in the com- munion service be omitted; and that the 2nd be al- tered as follows — instead of "f/ie heaHs of kings are \n thy iixles and governance" be said — " the heaiis 454 of all rulers are in thy governance; and instead of the words — '■' Jieart of George thy servant, insert — so to direct the rulers of these states, Wc/' changing the singular pronouns to the plural. 7th. That in the answer in the Catechism to the question — " What is thy duty towards thy neigh- bour?' for " to Jioiwur and obey the king" be substitu- ted— " to honour and obey my civil rulers, to submit myself ^c." 8th. That instead of the observations of the 5th of November, the 30th of Jauuary, the 29th of May, and the 25th of October, the following service be used on the 4th of July, being the Anniversary of Independence. 9th. That in the forms of prayer to be used at sea, in the prayer " O eternal God, ^c" instead of those words — " unto our most gracious sovereign Lord king George and his kingdoms," be inserted the words — " the United ^tofes of America," and that in- stead of the word " Island" be inserted the word " country;" and that in the collect " O Almighty God, the Sovereign Commander, is'c" be omitted the words — " the honour of our sovereign," and the words " tlie honour of our country" inserted. Service for the Uh of July. With the sentences before inorning and evening prayer. The Lord hath been mindful of us, and he shall bless us, he shall bless them that fear the Lord, both small and great. 0 that men w ould therelbre praise 455 the Lord, for his goodness, and declare the w onders that he docth for the childicn of men. Hymn, itistead of the Venite. My song shall be ahvay of the loving kindness of the Lord: with my mouth will I ever be showing his truth from one generation to another. Psal. 89. 1. The merciful and gracious Lord hath so done his marvellous works: that they ought to be had in remembrance. Psal. 111. 4. Who can express the noble acts of the Lord: or show fortli all his praise. Psal. 106. 2. The works of the Lord are great: sought out of all them that have pleasure therein. Psal. 111. 2. For he will not alway be chiding: neither keep- eth he his anger for ever. Psal. 103. 9. He hath not dealt with us after our sins: nor re- warded us according to our wickedness. Verse 10. For look how high the heaven is in comparison of the earth: so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. Verse 11. Yea, like as a father pitietli his own children: even so is the Lord merciful unto them that fear him. Verse 11. Thou, 0 Godj hast proved us: thou also hast tri- ed us, like as silver is tried. Psal. 66. 9. Thou didst remember us in our low estate, and redeem us from our enemies: for thy mercy endu- reth for ever. Psal, 136. 23, 24. Proper Psahns, 118, except. V. 10, 11, 12, 13, 22. 23, to conclude with V. 24, 456 1. Lesson Deut 8. 2. Lesson Thess. 5. V. \2, ™23 both inclusive. Collect for the day Almighty God, who hast in all ages showed foitli thy power and mercy in the wonderful preservation of thy church, and in the protection of every nation and people professing thy holy and eternal truth, and putting their sure trust in thee; we yield thee our unfeigned thanks and praise for all thy public mer- cies, and more especially for that signal and w onder- ful manifestation of thy providence which we com- memorate this day; wherefore not unto us, 0 Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name be ascribed all ho- nour and glory, in all churches of the Saints, from generation to generation, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Thanksgiving for the day. 0 God, whose Name is excellent in all the earth, and thy glory above the heavens; who as on this day didst inspire and direct the hearts of our delegates in Congress, to lay the perpetual foundations of peace, liberty, and safety; we bless and adore thy glorious Majesty, for this thy loving kindness and providence. And we humbly pray that the devout sense of this signal mercy may renew and increase in us a spirit of love and thankfulness to thee its only Author, a spirit of peaceable submission to the laws and govern- ment of our country, and a spirit of fervent zeal for our holy religion, which thou hast preserved and se- cured to us and our posterity. May we improve 457 these inestimable blessings for the advancement of religion, liberty, and science throughout this land, till the wilderness and solitary place be glad through us, and the desert rejoice and blossom as the rose. This we beg through the merits of Jesus Christ our Sa- viour, dmen* Alterations in the book of Common Prayer and administration of the saa^aments, and other rites and ceremonies of tlie church, according to the use of the church of England, poposed and recom- mended to the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States of Jlmenca. The order for morning and evening service, dai- ly throughout the year. 1st. The following sentences of Scripture, are or- dered to be prefixed to the usual sentences, viz. The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. Hah. ii. 20. From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be oflbred unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. Mai. i. 11. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be alway acceptable in thy sight, 0 Lord, my strength and my Redeemer. Psal. xix. 1 4. * The Epistle and the gospel were added by the committee, agreeably to an authority which they conceived to be vested in fhem. 3m 458 2d. That the rubric preceding the absolution, be altered thus — " ^ declaration to be made by the Mi- nister alone, standing, concerning the forgiveness of sins.'' 3d. That in the Lord's prayer, the word " who" be substituted in the room of '' which;" and that "those ivho trespass" stand instead of " them that trespass." 4. That the " Gloria Patri" be ommitted after the " 0 come let us sins;, ^c." and in every other place, where, by the present rubric it is ordered to be in- serted, to " the end of the" reading psalms; when, shall be said or sung " Gloria Patri, ^c." or, " Glo- ry be to God on high, and in earth peace and good will towards men, is'c" at the discretion of the Mi- nister. 5th. That in the " Tedeum" instead of " honour- able" it be " adorable, true, and only son;" and in- stead of " didst not abhon- the Virgin's womb," " didst humble thyself to be born of a Virgin" 6th. That until a proper selection of psalms be made, each minister be allowed to use such as he may chuse. 7th. That the same liberty be allowed, respecting the lessons. 8th. That the article in " the Apostles creed" " he descended into hell" be omitted. 9th. That the Athanasian and the JVicene creeds be entirely omitted. 10th. That after the response " and ivith thy spir- it," all be omitted to the words " O Lord show thy mercy upon us" which the Minister shall pronounce, still kneeling. 459 1 Ith. That ill the suffrage " make thy chosen peo- ple joyful," the word " chosen'' be omitted; and also the following suiFrages, to " O God, make clean our hearts ivithimis," 12th. That the rubric after these words " and take not thy holy spintfrom its/' be omitted. Then the two collects to be said: in the collect for grace, the words " be ordered,'^ to be omitted; and the word " be" inserted, instead of " to do alway that is." 13th. In the collect ''for the clergy and people" read — "Almighty and everlasting God,senddown up- on all bislwps and other pastors, and the congregations committed to their charge, ^c" to the end. 14th. (here is an erasure from the manuscript: the article being found a repetition of part of the 13th.) 15th. That the Lord's prayer after the litany, and the subsequent rubric be omitted. 1 6th. That the short litany be read as follows — " Son of God, we beseech thee to hear us. Son of God, we beseech tJiee to hear us. O Lambof God, that takest away the sins of the ivoild, grant us thy peace. O Christ, hear us. O Chnst, hear us. Lmd, have mercy upon us and deal not with us according to our sins, neither reward us accoi^ding to our iniquities." After which, omit the words — " let us pray." 17th. That the Gloria Patri, after O Lord anise, &?c. be omitted; as also ''let us pray" after "we put our timst in thee." 18th. That in the following prayer, instead of " righteously have deserved," it be "justly have deser- ved." 460 19th. That in the 1st. warning for the communion, the word " damnation,^' following the words " in- crease your^^ be read " condemnation;" and the two paragraphs after these words — " or else come not to that holy table, be omitted; and the following one be read, and if there be any of you, who by these means, cannot quiet their conscience, c. The words " iea> n- ed and, discreet," epithets given to the Minister, to be also omitted. 20th. In the exhortation to the communion, let it run thus — "/or as the benefd is great, ^c. to drink his blood, so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily. Judge therefore yourselves, ^c." 21st. That in the rubric preceding the absolu- tion, instead of " projiownce this absolution," it be — " then shall the Minister stand up, and turning to the peojjle, say, b c" 22d. That in the baptism of Infants, Parents may be admitted as sponsors. 23d. That the Minister, in speaking to the spon- sors, instead of these words " vouchsafe to release him, ^c" say — " release him from sin;" and in the 2d prayer, instead of " remission of his sins," read — " remission of sin." 24th. That in the questions addressed to the sponsors, and the answers, instead of the present form, it be as follows — " the sinful desires of the flesh." 25th. " Dost thou believe the articles of the chnstian faith, as contained in the ^^postles creed, and wilt thou endeavour to have this child instructed accoidin^- 461 ly?" Answer: I do believe tliem, aiid, by God's help will endeavour so to do." Wilt tlwu emleavour to have him brought up in the fear of God, and to obey God's holy will and com- mandments? Answer '• /i6'i//, 6/7 God's assistance." 2Gth. That the sign of the cross may be omitted, if particularly desired by the Sponsors or Parents, and tlie prayer to be thus altered (by tlie direction of a short rubric) " We receive this child into the congi^e- gation of Christ's fiock; and pray that hereafter he may never be ashamed, ^c." to the end. 21. That the address — " seeing now dearly belov- ed, tjfc." be omitted. 28th. That the prayer after the Lord's prayer, be thus changed — " ive yield thee our hearty thanks, ^c." to " receive this Infant as thine own child by baptism, and to inccn^porate him, ^c." 29th. That in the following exhortation, the words *' to renounce tJie devil and all his works," and in the charge to the Sponsors, the words '^ vulgar tongue" be omitted. 30th. That the forms of private baptism and con- firmation, be made conformable to these alterations. 31st. That in the exhortation before matrimony, all between these words " Iwly matiimony, and there- fore if any man, Sec." be omitted. 3 2d. That the words " I plight thee my troth" be omitted in both places; and also the words — " ivith my body I thee worship;" and also — '^pledged their troth either to other.''' 33d. That all after the blessing be omitted. 462 34th. In the burial service, instead of the two Psahiis, take the following verses of both — viz. Psal. 39, V. 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and Psal. 90, V. 13. In the rubric, the word ^'^ unbaptized" to be omitted. In the declaration and forms of interment, begin- ning— "forasmuch as, ^c." insert the following — " Forasmuch as it hath pleased Mmighty God, in his wise Providence, to take out of this world the soul of our deceased brother (sister) we therefore commit his (her) body to the ground — earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; looking for the general resurrec- tion in the last day and the life of the world to come through our Lord Jesus Christ; at wlwse second coming in glorious Majesty to judge the world, the earth and the sea shall give up tlieir dead; and the corruptible bo- dies of those who sleep in him shall be changed, and made like unto his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. In the sentence " / heard a voice,'^ Slc. insert "who'' for "which.'' The prayer following the Lord's prayer to be omitted. In the next collect, leave out the words " as our hope is, this our brother doth." For " them that," insert " those who." 35th, In the visitation of the sick, instead of the absolution as it now stands, insert the declaration of forgiveness which is appointed in the communion service; or, either of the collects which are taken from the coinmination office, and appropriated to Ash Wednesday, may be used. 463 In the psalm, omit the 3d, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 1 Ith verses. In the commendatory prayer, for " miserable and naughty," say "vain and miserable." Strike out the word "purged." In the "prayer for persons troubled in mind" omit all that stands hetween the words " afflicted servant," and " his soul is full," Sic. and instead there- of say " afflicted servant, iclwse soul is full of trou- ble," and strike out the particle " but," and proceed, " 0 merciful God," &c. 36. A ibrm of prayer and visitation of prisoners for notorious crimes, and especially |)ersons under sentence of death, being much wanted , the form en- titled " prayers for persons under sentence of death, agreed on in the synod of the archbishops and bish- ops, and the rest of the clergy of Ireland, at Dublin, in the year 1711,^^ as it now stands in the book of Common Prayer of the chni'ch of Ireland, is agreed upon, and ordered to be adopted, with the following alterations: viz: For the absolution, take the same declaration of forgiveness, or either of the collects above directed for the visitation of the sick. The short collect " 0 Saviour of the world," &:c. to be left out; and for the word "frailness," say "frailty." 37. In the catechism, besides the alteration re- specting civil rulers, alter as follows: viz. " fVhat is your name? JV. M. When did you receive this name? I received it in baptism, ivhereby I became a member of the chiistian church. What was pomisedfor you in baptism? That I should be instructed to believe the 464 christian faith, as contained in the apostle's creed, and to obey God's holy ivill, and keep his commandments. Dost thou think thou art bound to believe all the articles of the christian faith, as contained in the creed, and to obey God's holy will and keep his com- mandments? Yes verily," ^c. Instead of the words " verily, and indeed taken," say — "spiritually taken." Answer to the question " How many sacraments? Two, baptism' and the Lord's supper." 38. Instead of a particular service for the church- ing of women, and psalms, the followins; special prayer is to be introduced, after the general thanks- giving: viz. This to be said, when any woman de- sires to return thanks. "O Almighty God, we give thee most humble and hearty thanks, for that thou hast been graciously pleased to preserve this woman, thy servant, through the great pains and. perils of cnild- hirth. Incline her, we beseech thee, to show forth her thankfulness, for this thy great mercy, not only with her lips, but by a lioly and virtuous life. Be pleased, O God, so to establish her health, that she may lead the remainder of her days to thy honour and glory, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen." 39. The commination office for Ash Wednesday to be discontinued, and therefore the thiee collects, the first beginning — " O Lord, we beseech tliee," — 2d, " 0 most mighty God," — 3d, " Turn us, O good Lord," shall be continued among the occasional prayers; and used after the collect on Ash Wedues- 465 day, and on such other occasions as tiie minister shall tliink fit. Articles of Religion. 1. Of Faith in the Holy Tiinity. There is but one living, true, and eternal God, the Father Almighty; without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and invisible: and one Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, begotten of the fatlier before all worlds, very and true God; who came down from heaven, took man's nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin of her substance, and was God and man in one person, whereof is one Christ; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sa- crifice for the sins of all men; he arose again from death, ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he shall return to judge the world at the last day: and one holy spirit, the Lord and giver of life, of the same divine nature with the Father and the Son. 2. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salva- tion. In the name of the holy scripture we do un- derstand those canonical books of the Old and New 3 N 466 Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. Of the names and numbers of the canonical Books. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuter- onomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The 1 Book of Samu- el, The 2 Book of Samuel, The 1 Book of Kings, The 2 book of Kings, The 1 Book of Chronicles, The 2 Book of Chronicles, The 1 Book of Esdras, The 2 Book of Esdras, The Book of Hester, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesi- astes or Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, 4 Prophets the greater, 12 Prophets the less. And the other books (as Hierome saith) the church doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to es- tablish any doctrine; such are these following: The 3 Book of Esdras, The 4 Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Hester, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bell and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The 1 Book of Maccabees, The 2 Book of Maccabees. All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical. 3. Of the Old and Keio Testament. There is a perfect harmony and agreement be- tween the Old Testament and the New; for in both, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who 467 is the only mediator between God and man: and although the law given by Moses, as to ceremonies and the civil precepts of it, doth not bind christians; yet all such are obliged to observe the moral com- mandments which he delivered. 4. Of the Creed. The creed, commonly called the Apostles creed, ought to be received and believed: because it may be proved by the holy scripture. 5. Of Oiiginal Sin. By the fall of Adam, the nature of man is be- come greatly corrupted, having departed from its primitive innocence, and that original righteousness in which it was at first created by God. For we are now so inclined naturally to do evil, that the flesh is continually striving to act contrary to the spirit of God: which corrupt inclination still remains even in the regenerate. But although there is no man living who sinneth not, yet we must use our sincere en- deavours to keep the whole law of God, so far as we possibly can. 6. Of Free-mil The condition of man, after the fall of •3£?«m, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasing and acceptable to God, with- out the grace of God by Christ giving a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will. 468 7. Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith; and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort. 8. Of Good Works. Although good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit. 9. Of Christ alone without Sin. Christ, by taking human nature on him, was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted. He was a lamb without spot, and by the sacrifice of himself once offered, made atonement and propitia- tion for the sins of the world; and sin was not in him. But all mankind besides, although baptized and born again in Christ, do offend in many things. For if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 10. Of Sin after Baptism. They who fall into sin after baptism may be re- newed by repentance: for although after we have re- ceived God's grace, we may depart from it by falling into sin; yet, through the assistance of his holy spirit. 469 we may by repentance and the amendment of our lives, be restored again to his favour. God will not deny forgiveness of" sins to those who truly repent, and do that which is lawful and right; but all such through his mercy in Christ Jesus, shall save their souls alive. 11.0/* Predestinaticni. Predestination to life, with respect to every man^s salvation, is the everlasting purpose of God, secret to us: and the right knowledge of what is revealed concerning it, is full of comfort to such truly religious christians, as feel in themselves the spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of their flesh and earthly affec- tions, and raising their minds to heavenly things. But we must receive God's promises as they are generally declared in holy scripture, and do his will, as therein is expressly directed: for without holiness of life no ujan shall be saved. 12. Of Obtaining eternal Salvation only by the name of Christ. They are to be accounted presumptuous, who say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature. For holy scripture doth set out unto us only the Bame of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved. 13. Of the Church and its Authority. The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, Avherein the true word of God is preach- 470 ed and the sacraments are duly administered, accord- ing to Christ's ordinance in all things requisite and necessary: and every church hath power to ordain, change, and abolish rites and ceremonies, for the more decent order and good government thereof; so that all things be done to editying. But it is not law- ful for the church to ordain any thing contrary to God's word, nor so to expound the scripture, as to make one part seem repugnant to another; nor to decree or enforce any thing to be believed as neces- sary to salvation, that is not contained in the scrip- tures. General councils and churches are liable to err, and have erred, even in matters of faith and doctrine, as well as in their ceremonies. 1 4. O/* Ministering in the Congregation. It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of pubHc preaching, or ministering the sa- craments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, who are chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard. \5. Of the Sacraments Sacraments ordained by Christ are not merely badges or tokens of christian men's profession; but rather certain sure wPAiesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirai our faith in him. 471 There are two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, baptism, and the supper of the Lord. 16. Of Bapi\sm. Baptism is not merely a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby christian men are dis- cerned from others that are not christened; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they who receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of the Ibr- giveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable to the institution of Christ. 17. Of the Loi'd's Supper. The supper of the Lord is not merely a sign of the love that christians ought to have among them- selves one to another; but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break, is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing, is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transubstt.ntiation (or the change of the sub- stance of bread and wine) in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ: but is repugnant to the plain words of scripture, overthroweth the nature 472 of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper of the Lord, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper, is faith. IS. Of the one oblation of Christ upon tJie cross. The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual: and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. 19. Of Consecration and Oidination. The book of consecration of bishops and ordering of priests and deacons, excepting such parts as re- quire any oaths inconsistent with the American revo- lution, is to be adopted, as containing all things ne- cessary to such consecration and ordering. 20. Of a Christian Man's Oath. The christian religion doth not prohibit any man from taking an oath, when required by the magistrate in testimony of truth; but all vain and rash swearing is forbidden by the holy scriptures. Ordered, that the plan for obtaming consecra- tion, be again read: which being done, the same was agreed to, and is as follows: [The plan follows in the instrument, but is here omitted, because given in No. 5. p. 353.] 473 Done in Philadelphia, Christ church, in conven- tion of the clerical and lay deputies of tlie protestant episcopal church in the states under-mentioned, this 5th day of October, 1785. (Signed by the president, and all the members of the convention, ranged ac- cording to their respective states: as was also the address to the English prelates, published in the jomnalof 1786.) Extracts from the Jommal. Resolved, That the liturgy shall be used in this church as accommodated to the revolution, agreeably to the alterations now approved of and ratified by this convention. On motion. Resolved, That the fourth of July shall be obsened by this church for ever, as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the inestimable blessings of religious and civil liberty vouchsafed to the United States of America. On motion. Resolved, That the first Thursday in November in every year for ever, shall be observed by this church as a day of general thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the fruits of the earth, and for all the other blessings of his merciful providence.* Resolved, That a committee be appointed to pub- lish the book of Common Prayer with the alterations, as well as those now ratified, in order to render the liturgy consistent with the American revolution, and the constitutions of the respective states, as the al- terations and new offices recommended to this * The preparing of a suitable service, was left to the committee. 3o 474 church; and that the book be accompanied with a proper preface or address, setting forth the reason and expediency of the alterations; and that the com- mittee have the hberty to make verbal and gram- matical corrections; but in such manner, as that no- thing in form or substance be altered. The committee appointed were the Rev. Dr. White, (President) the Rev. Dr. Smith, and the Rev. Dr. Wharton. Ordered, That the said committee be authorised to dispose of the copies of the Common Prayer when printed; and that after defraying all expenses incur- red therein, they remit the nett profits to the trea- surers of the several corporations and societies for the relief of the widows and children of deceased clergymen in the states represented in this conven- tion ; the profits to be equally divided among the said societies and corporations. Resolved, l^hat the same committee be authorised to publish, with the book of Common Prayer, such of the reading and singing psalms, and such a kal- eiidar of proper lessons for the different Sundays and holydays throughout the year, as they may think proper. LATELY PUBLISHED, AND FOR SALE BY S. Potter <^ Co. JVo. 55, CHESJ^UT STREET. EPISCOPAL MAGAZINE, in monthly numbers of 32 pages each, at 250 cents per annum The fifth No. of the above work is this day published, whicii, together with the pre- ceding Nos, may be had of the publishers. BEAN'S FAMILY WORSHIP, being a course of Morning and Evening Prayers for every day in the month. To which is prefixed, a Discoujse on Family Religion. By James Bean. First American from the twelfth London edition, carefully revised and adapted to the use of Christians in the United States. FROM THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER. " We are glad to hare an opportunity of introducing Beanos Family Worship to such of our readers as may be unacquainted with it. It is a work, which, while it conveys just and scriptural views of the momentous truths of Christianity, it well adapted to promote the cultivation of bright affections towards God and man, and of a holy, devout and spiritual frame of mind. We particularly recommend the discourse on Family Religion to the serious attention of all, who are either negligent in the performance of its essential duties, or anxious to obtain farther information respecting them." SACRA PRIVATA, the private meditations and prayers of the Right Rev. Thomas Wilson, D. D. Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man, accommodated to general use. " In the Prayers of Bishop Wilson (say the editors of the Christian Journal,) we meet with the purest sentiments of Christianity; and his Sacra Privala bear ample testimony of his uniform piety and the excellency of his understanding." A BOOK OF CHANTS, of the morning and evening prayer, and communion service, of the protestant episcopal church in the United States of America. OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONVERSION AND APOS- TLE SHIP OF ST. PAUL. By the Hon. George Lyttle- ton, esq. A FAMILIAR EXPOSITION OF THE CHURCH CATE- CHISM, in Five Parts. To which are added, prayers for the use of parents and children. By Isaac Mann, D. D. Bishop of Cork and Ross. THE CATECHISM OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH in the United States of America. To which is annexed, a Catechism, designed as an explanation and en- largement of the church Catechism, with suitable prayers. A COMMON PLACE BOOK, upon the plan recommended and used by the celebrated John Locke, esq. Id a letter to M. Toignard, be says, " There is no need I should tell you of what iniiDite service I have found the above book, after five and twenty years ex- perience." TRIAL OF EPISCOPACY, Reported by R. C. C. A. M. COMPARATIVE VIEWS of the controversy between the Calvinists and Arminians. By William White, D. D. bish- op of the protestant episcopal church in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in 2 vols. 8 vo. LECTURES ON THE CATECHISM of the protestant epis- copal church, with supplementary lectures: one on the mi- nistry, the other on the public service, and dissertations on select subjects in the lectures. By William White, D. D. bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the common- wealth of Pennsylvania, in 1 vol. 8 vo. AN ESSAY containing objections against the position of a per- sonal assurance of the pardon of sin, by a direct communi- cation of the holy spirit, with notes, occasioned by a pam- phlet containing remarks on the essay, under the name of " A Reply." By Wm. White, D. D. bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. REVIEW of the question of a personal assurance of pardon of sin, by a direct communication of the Holy Spii it; in an essay and notes on the subject, and in a reply and a farther reply to the same; the two last being under the signature of John Emory, a minister of the gospel, of the methodist episcopal church, with an Appendix on the notice of the subject, in the Quarterly Review, by the Rev. E. S. Ely, A. M. By William White, D. D. bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ffi DATE DUE km^^^^W'- SH!«-rr»{ GAYLORD