"ft: 
 
 
^.'^. ^ 
 
 /fs^ 
 
 Jh-umi?. (L.Ujivnall. 
 
FROM THE LIBRARY OF 
 REV. LOUIS FITZGERALD BENSON. D. D. 
 
 BEQUEATHED BY HIM TO 
 
 THE LIBRARY OF 
 
 PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 
ismim msimsL'^ mis,\r.\ms'd^iLiJisM( '^'j-rMwsm.m.m. 
 
 SENIi'Ii UlSaOP OF THK PROT I 
 
 :: THE ITNITK' 
 v.-iVl.VANIA. 
 

 ,\U1 OF PHI^ 
 APR 22 1932 
 
 MEMOIRS V*^^ CO 
 
 FllOTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 FROM ITS ORGANIZATION UP TO THE PRESENT DAY: 
 CONTAINING, 
 
 I. A NARRATIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND OF THE 
 EARLY MEASURES OF THE CHURCH; 
 
 II. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND REMARKS; 
 
 HI. AN APPENDIX OF ORIGINAL PAPERS. 
 
 Z^' 
 
 BY WILLIAM WHITE, D. D. 
 
 BtSHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF 
 
 PENNSVLVANIA. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 NEW- YORK : 
 
 SWORDS, STANFORD, AND CO. 
 
 No. 152 Broadway, 
 
 i836. 
 
D E D I C A T I O N. 
 
 TO THE BISHOPS OF THE 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 Chiirdi at large, the harmony which has subsisted 
 among us in our joint counsels for the conducting of our 
 ecclesiastical concerns. If, 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 yo!i 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 supposed a natural conse- 
 quence, 1 can thankfully acknowledge, that it has been 
 bestowed., 
 
 Having lived in days in which there existed prejudices 
 in our land against the name, and much more against the 
 cfficc, of a bishop; and when it was doubtful, whether any 
 
iv DEDICATION. 
 
 person in that character would be tolerated in the com 
 munity ; I now contemplate nine of our number, conducting 
 the duties of their office without interruption ; and in re- 
 gard 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 citizens 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 satisfaction 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 affectionate brother, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
P R E F A C E 
 
 THE FIRST EDITION 
 
 Many years ago, tlie author of the following work ucgau 
 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 continuance of life and health, 
 to carry on the recital. This was not with a view to early 
 publication, because of the small extent of the sphere, in 
 %vhich the detail of very recent events was likely to interest 
 curiosity. Accordingly, what was thus prepared laid un- 
 noticed, until an application was made, about twelve years 
 ago, by the editor of the American edition of Dr. Rees's 
 Cyclopedia, requesting attention to certain parts of that 
 work, with a view to otiier objects. On this occasion it 
 occurred, that there might be propriety and use in insert- 
 ing, in a work of that kind, a brief account of what had 
 baen 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 
 sufficiently general concern for insertion in the Cyclopedia^ 
 it was afterwards reviewed under the impression that the 
 time might come, when the former labour would not be 
 unacceptable, within ihc communion for which it had been 
 designed. In the present publication, the narrative has 
 been continued to the present time. With it, there arc 
 
VI PUEFACi: T(J THK FIR^T KDITruV. 
 
 given the matters leapt buck fioiii tlic j)n!)lication i:i I lie 
 Cyclopedia; and a continuation of similar statements and 
 remarks. 
 
 It i^a.s been occasionally suggested, from a knowledge of 
 the materials in the hands of the author, and in considera- 
 tion of the opportunities which he has possessed of personal 
 observation of characters and of facts, that it would be 
 better to embody the narrative with the remarks, and to 
 make a history 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 considerable advant- 
 age ; and as to the name of *' a history," it would not only 
 be disproportioned to the work, but perhaps pledge to an 
 attempt, beyond what there are materials to accomplish. 
 Of materials concerning the aggregate Church, the author 
 possesses ail 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, although he is furnished 
 with almost all their journals, and thinks himself well in- 
 formed as to all the material 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 
 inconsistent with the fulness, and, considering what is to be 
 expected in such a work, the fidelity of a history. One of 
 these points is, that he chooses to be silent in regard to a 
 few transactions, which, although sufficiently known and 
 discoursed of when they happened, are not of so much im- 
 portance to the future concerns of theChurch, as to induce 
 n wish to perpetuate the remembrance of them; and there- 
 by the personal irritation by which they were accompanied. 
 Besides th.ese reasons, there is one arising from the de- 
 sire of avoiding such a development of the characters of 
 agents, as might induce the relating and the unintentional 
 misstating of what may have passed in unguarded conver- 
 sation. It is an unfair a<lvantag(' taken of a dcccas&d 
 
PKKFACC TO THE FIRST EDITION, yn 
 
 «harFiCter, lor an author to represent him as iiis own j)r<'-^ 
 j^idices or his passions dictate; when, perhaps, tiie other 
 party would have had the precaution to inake his own story 
 known, had he foreseen such a result oi" the freedom ot" 
 social intercourse. 
 
 Another license which has grown out of the adopted \>h\n, 
 is the anticipating of some circumstances which took place 
 in England, during tlie intercourse with his grace the arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury; when such anticipation might illus- 
 trate any matter previously under review. The motive, 
 was the desire to record the said intercourse in the form in 
 which it now appears, that is, in letters to the committee of 
 the Church in Pennsylvania; which, having been written 
 when the matters related were fresh on tlie mind of the 
 narrator, is the more likely to be a faithful exhibition of 
 them. To have enlarged the letters would have been in- 
 correct; and yet, in what passed in the intercourse, there 
 was such connexion with some points in an earlier part of 
 the work, as was too material to be disregarded. Although 
 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, containing 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 be thought due. It is, that the 
 habits of his life having exercised him much, on subjects 
 which have bearings on the concerns of the Church in doc- 
 trine, in discipline, and in worship; and his principles 
 having been formed with deliberation, and acted on with 
 perseverance, not without prayer to the Father of Lights 
 for his holy guidance; there seems to him nothing unrea- 
 sonable 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 
 
nil PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 lew years, in which there will be a possibility of his bein«' 
 j)i*esent in iier councils : but he commits his opinions, to the 
 issue of what may be thought in reason due to them. 
 
 On the author's review of his statements and remarks. 
 he had often a painful sensation of the frequent prominence 
 in tliem of Jiimself. In the way of apology, let it be re- 
 marked — first, that the apparent fault is in a great degree 
 inseparable from the delivery of the results of personal 
 observation ; and, secondly, that he has had more agency 
 than any other person, in the transactions recorded : owing 
 to the circumstances in which he was placed ; to a cause for 
 which he cannot be sufficiently thankful, the continuance of 
 his health and strength ; and to his having attended every 
 General Convention, from the beginning to the present 
 time. Under the weight of these considerations, he com- 
 mits himself to the candour of the reader. 
 
 Of the papers in the Appendix, a great proportion 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 perpetuate. The printing of any 
 document which took the shape of a canon, has been 
 judged unnecessary. 
 
 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 public influence. In private letters, there 
 is much to confirm the statements made, and to enlarge 
 them, if that were the design. 
 
P il E F A C E 
 
 THE SECOND E D I T I O N 
 
 The Moinoirs of tjie Episcopal Church, edited some years 
 ago by the present outhor, being out of print; and there 
 being none on hand so far as is known to him, except a 
 few copies in his possession; belays by the following sheets, 
 under the idea, that in the event of a future reprint, they 
 may be thought a desirable addition to the volume. It will 
 then contain whatever relates materially to the concerns of 
 the Episcopal Church for the space of fifty-two years; of 
 which the former publication was devoted to the first thirty ; 
 and the present is limited to the remaining twenty-two. 
 
 The author cannot expect, at his time of life, that be will 
 much longer live to be present at the counsels of the Church ; 
 or that, if living, his mind will be competent to the continua- 
 tion of the present work. Accordingly, in these considera- 
 tions, he perceives a call on him, to say, in accordance with 
 a sentiment of the Mantuan poet—" Clauditejam Rivos:' 
 
 To whatever period the days of his earthly pilgrimage 
 may be extended ; and whatever may be the dispensations 
 of Providence in the course of them ; whether, as hitherto, 
 the uninterrupted enjoyment of health, and a considerable 
 
 2 
 
CONTEiN'Tf?. 
 
 Of Proceedings in tiiindry States, previous tu tlie Meetings in 1784, at 
 
 New-Bruns\vi;;k and at New -York 
 Of the General Convention, in Philadelphia, in September and Octobe 
 
 1785 ... 
 
 JOf the Convention in Philadelph 
 Of Personal Intercourse with the 
 Of the Convention in 17S9 
 1792 
 1795 
 1799 
 1801 
 1804 
 1803 
 1811 
 1814 
 1817 
 Postscript 
 
 ,Of the Convention of 1520 
 1821 
 1823 
 182G 
 1829 
 1832 
 1835 
 Conclusion 
 
 a and Wilraingtoji, in 1786 
 Archbisiiop of Canterbury 
 
 82 
 
 96 
 115 
 124 
 140 
 161 
 171 
 176 
 179 
 187 
 192 
 209 
 216 
 224 
 230 
 235 
 213 
 247 
 251 
 259 
 262 
 267 
 271 
 
 3. AN APPEiNDIX OF ORIGINAL PAPERS. 
 
 Communication with the Court of Denmark . . . 275 
 
 Communication of the Cler^jy of Connecticut, to the Archbi.shop of York 277 
 A Letter from the Rev. Abraham Jarvis, in the Name of the Clergy of 
 
 Connecticut ...... 282 
 
 A Letter from the Right Rev. Bishop Seabury, to the Rev. Dr. Smith . 286 
 Address of the Convention of 1785, to the English Prelates . . 293 
 
 Letter of the English Prelates ..... 297 
 
 A Memorial from the Convention iiv New-Jersey, to the General Conven- 
 tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, 
 to be held in the City of Philadclpliia in June next . . 298 
 
 Second Address to the English Prelates .... 301 
 
 ■Communications from the .Archbishops of Canterbury and York . 303 
 
 Communication from the Archbishop of Canterbury . . 309 
 
 Address to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York .311 
 
 A Letter from Granville Sharp, Esq. to Dr. Benjamin Franklin, with 
 
 Extiacts of Letters . . . .312 
 
 An Act of the General Convention oC Clerical and Lay Deputies of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the States of New- York, New-Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, and South-Carolina, lield at Wilmington, in 
 tlip State of Delaware, on Wednesday, the Jlth of October, 1786 . 21fi 
 
CONTENTS- Xlll 
 
 Page 
 
 Inslrnmant of ConsecraUon . . . i . 321 
 
 Note of the Archbishop of Canterbury .... 325 
 
 Letters from the President of Congress, (Richard Henry Lee, Esq.) and 
 
 from the Minister of the United States at the Court of Great-Britain, 
 
 (John Adams, Esq.) and from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Mr. 
 
 Adams: also Certiflcates from the E.\ecutive of Pennsylvania and Vir- 
 
 u.'0 
 
 ginia ....-• 
 
 Letter from Richard Peters, Esq. . . • .330 
 
 An Act of the Clergy of Massachusetts and New-Hampshire . . 333 
 An Address to the Most Reverend the Archbishops of Canteiliury and 
 
 York . . . . ■ • .335 
 
 A (jieneral Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 
 States of America ..... . 333 
 
 A Letter from the Rev. Dr. Coke, and the Answer . . . 343 
 
 Testimonial of the Rev. Charles Pettigrew . . . 348 
 
 Circular of a Committee in South-Carolina . . . 349 
 
 A Letter from Bishop Provoost, and the Determination of the Bishops . 351 
 
 Forms of Subscription ..... 253 
 
 Decision of the Bishops on the Case of Ammi Piogei-s . . 353 
 
 Of the Homilies ...... 354 
 
 <Joncerning Posture during Psalmody .... 355 
 
 Of a Proposal of uevv Anthems, and of Sanction requested in favour of 
 
 a proposed Book ...... 355 
 
 Concerning the Identity of this Church witli the former Church of Eng- 
 land in America ...... 2^6 
 
 Concerning certain Amusements . . ■ . 337 
 Acts of the Convention of 1785 . . . .330 
 
 Of the Office of Confirmation ..... 377 
 
 Concerning the last Rubric in the Communion Service . . 378 
 Thoughts on the Proposal of Alterations in the Book of Psalms in Metre, 
 and in the Hymns, now before a Committee of the General Convention: 
 
 By a Member of the Committee .... 384 
 
 Constitution of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as established 
 
 in 1820, and amended in 1823, 1829, 1832, and 1835 . . 387 
 
 Concerning the Division of Dioceses .... 389 
 
1. A NARRATIVE 
 
 ORGANIZATION 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 EARLY MEASURES 
 
 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 tiie number was not 
 so considerable as might be supposed from the existing 
 relation ; owing probably to tlie circumstance, that several 
 of the colonies arose in a great measure from dissatisfaction 
 with the establishment at honu?, 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 
 tunnber 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 ; ana 
 tbat those clergymen derived the greater part of their 
 subsistence from the society instituted in England, for the 
 Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts ; with the ex- 
 ception of those resident in the towns of Boston and New- 
 port, 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 them- 
 selves.* In Maryland and in Virginia the Episcopal Church 
 was much more numerous, and had legal establishments 
 for its support. It was especially numerous in those parts 
 of the said provinces which were settled when the establish- 
 ments took place; for in the more recently settled counties, 
 the mass of the people were of other communions, scarcely 
 
 • The clergy in the province of Pennsvlvmiia, exclusive of those in the city of 
 Pliiladelphia, were never more than six in number; all of wlioni were mission- 
 aries, raceiving salaries i'rom England. The paiociiia! tler.ffy of the city were 
 four, 
 
18 
 
 ttiiown among iliein in llie enrly period of their hisloriea. 
 In the more southern colonics, tlie Kpiscopahans were 
 fewer in proportion than in the two last inentionetl; but 
 more than in the northern. 
 
 It may be supposed, that however conij)arative]y 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 parent state, through 
 the medium of its representatives, the governors. Thi3 
 was, indeed, the case in a degree; but the aid was incon- 
 siderable, and confined to two or three of the earliest seats 
 of po|)ulation. Besides, it may well be doubted, whether^ 
 imtler the continually existing jealousy in the colonies of 
 the parent power, there did not result some disadvantage 
 to a denomination comparatively small, from a community 
 of profession: for this circumstance may have had n ten- 
 dency to render the denomination unpopular among a great 
 proportion of their fellow-citizens ; especially under the 
 apprehension that it might, at some future day, be an engine 
 aiding in the introduction of a new system of colonial 
 government.* 
 
 But even if the Episcopal Church found any source of in- 
 crease in the connexion, this was more than counterbalanced 
 by the peculiar circumstances under which it existed; which 
 prevented, and probably, 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 emjgratioft 
 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 respectable permanent supply. And the 
 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 although the bishoj) 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 removing of unworthy clergymen ; besides 
 which, there were civil institutions supposed to be irt oppo- 
 sition to it, in the provinces where establishments had been 
 provided. In Maryland, in particular, all interference of 
 
 • Perhaps tliP auly ronsi(h'ral)li'' endow niciit by tlie I'liglish govermiiont \va« 
 of lanJs to Trinity Cluirch. Ncw-Vork. Its l)elii£; c-oiiHiderable, i:i owiu^ to iu 
 Imviiig LieconiH ofgrcnt valn« by the iiirroasi' of tlmt city. 
 
19 
 
 the bishop of l^niulon, except if) tlse siingle matter of ordiiift- 
 tion, was held by the proprietary government to he an ou- 
 croachment on its authorities.* 
 
 For these reasons, and on the g;round of the eriUent 
 propriety of being supplied with all the orders of the minis- 
 try, recognised 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 reasonahleness of being in- 
 dulged in the full enjoyment of their religion; and their op- 
 ponents 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 tbe 
 powei's 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 prohlem, 
 ■which it will be for ever impossible to solve. In regard to 
 the motives of the parties in the dispute, there are circum- 
 stances which charity may apply to the most favourable 
 interpretation. As the Episcopal clergy disclaimed the de- 
 signs and the expectations 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 
 l^reat and good Archbishop Seeker, they ought to be sup- 
 posed to have had in view an Episcopacy purely religious. 
 On the other Iiand, as their opponents laid aside their re- 
 sistance of the religious part of it, as soon as American 
 independence had done away all political danger, if it be- 
 fore existed, it ought to be believed, that in their former 
 professed apprehensions they were sincere. A. 
 
 " The author, l>efore his being in the ministry, knew a jrenfleuian (the Rer. 
 Blr. Edniinston) who, being in London ibr orders, had brouglit with him such 
 recommendations to l>jrd Baltimore, proprietary of Maryland, as induced tbe 
 promise of an order to his governor, for any future parish that might he vacant. 
 It was necessary after ordin;ition, to show the testimonial of the transaction to tlie 
 proprietary: who, perceiving with the instrument a license to preach in tJie 
 province of Maryland, was much dissatisfied with the bishop of London on that 
 account. The bishop usually gave such a license, according to the province foi 
 which the party was ordained ; a practice similar to what obtains in England, 
 From this, and from other ^-innimstances, the conviction is felt, that his lordship 
 would not have endured in his province nnv Episcopal authority distinct from 
 hi? designation of the person. It is mentioned, as one of the difficultiet attendant 
 en the lubject of an American Episcopacy. 
 
20 
 
 If such was the difficulty of hciug supphcJ with a ministry 
 (luring the acktiowhxlgeJ supremacy of the British crown; 
 much greater, as may be suj)posed, was tiie samedilliculty 
 during the struggle which ended in the elevating of the 
 colonics to the rank of independent states. During that 
 term, there was no resource for the sui)ply 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 colonics 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 restriction of omitting the appointed 
 prayers for him, ceased to officiate. Owing to these cir- 
 cumstances, 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 tiie 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, ])r. 
 Lowth, for orders. As the bishop could not ordain them, 
 without requiring 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 nuittcr was de- 
 pending, and the success of the candidates was doubtful, 
 there was an incident, wiiich it may be proper to record, in 
 justice to the intended gootl oJiices of a foreign sister 
 church. 
 
 Mr. Adams, then the minister of the United States at 
 the court of St. James, being in company with IM. 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 opinion, whether they could be gratified 
 in the kingdom which he represented. Some time after, 
 the Danish minister niade a communication to the Ameri- 
 can, from which it appeared, that the inquiry of the latter 
 had been notified to the Danish court ; that the consequence 
 had been a reference to the theological faculty of the king- 
 dom ; and that they had declared their readiness to ordaia 
 
21 
 
 candidates froni America, on the condition of their signing 
 of the thirty-nine Articles of tlie Chnrch of England, with 
 the exception of the pohtical parts of them; the service to 
 he performed in Latin, in accommodation to the candidates, 
 who might be supposed unacquainted witli the language of 
 the country. This conduct is here the more cheerfully 
 mentioned to the honour of the Danish Church, as it is rea- 
 sonable to presume, that there would have been an equal 
 readiness to the consecrating of bishops, had necessity re- 
 quired 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 American government by Mr. Adams ; a 
 copy of whose letter to the president of congress, was sent 
 to the author by the then supreme executive council of 
 Pennsylvania. Mr. Adams stated, that the t ansaction 
 arose from his having been applied to by an American 
 gentleman, in behalf of the candidates for ordination re- 
 ferred to. Mr. Adams mentioned the matter to M. de St. 
 Saphorin, the Danish minister ; who accordingly wrote to 
 the Count dc Rosencrone, i)rivy 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 English 
 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 churches. 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 
 anotlicr ; excepting the bond of union which had subsisted 
 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 dift'erent 
 states, and even those in the same state, might adopt such 
 varying measures as would for ever prevent their being 
 combined in one communion. 
 
 The first step towards the forming of a collective 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 Pennsylvania, at Brunswick, 
 in Kew-Jeisey, on the 13th and 14th of May, 1784. These 
 
22 
 
 dergrmcn, in consequence of prior 604'respondeucG« had 
 met for the purpose of consulting, in what way to renew a 
 society that had existed under charters of incorporation 
 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 fifth of 
 the ensuing October, in New-York ; not only for the pur- 
 pose 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 present exigencies of 
 the Church, they happily, and with great unanimity, laid 
 down a few general principles, to be recommended in the 
 respective states, as the ground on which a future ecclesi- 
 astical government should be established. These principles 
 were approbatory of Episcopacy and of the Book of Com- 
 mon 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 recommendation 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 following year. D. 
 
 Although at the meeting last held, there were present 
 two clergymen from the eastern states ; yet it now ap- 
 peared, 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 representative 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 gentle- 
 man of their choice was then standing. Tliis gentleman 
 was the Rev. Samuel Seabury, D. D. formerly missionary 
 on Staten-lsland ; who had been recommended to England 
 for consecration before the evacuation of New- York by the 
 British army. 
 
 On the 27th of September, 1785, there assembled, 
 agreeably to appointment, in Philadelphia, a convention of 
 clerical and lay dejiuties, from seven of the thirteen United 
 States, viz. from New- York to Virginia, inclusive, with 
 the addition of South-CaroUna. They applied themselves 
 
23 
 
 to the making of sucli alterations in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, as were necessary for the accommodating of it to 
 the late changes in the state ; and the proposing, hut 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 principal articles of faith; 
 these were published in a book, ever since knovvo by the 
 name of the proposed book. E. 
 
 The convention entered on the business of the Episco- 
 pacy, with the knowledge that there was now a bishop 
 in Connecticut, consecrated, not in England, but by the 
 non-juring bishops of Scotland. For Dr. Seabury, nol 
 meeting assurance of success with the bishops of tlie 
 former country, had applied to the latter quarter for the 
 succession, which had been there carefully maintained; 
 notwithstanding their severance from the state, in the revo- 
 hition 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 gen- 
 tlemen of the southern states had received ordination from 
 his hands. Nevertheless, the members 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 Epis- 
 copacy, thought it the most pro{)er to direct their views ia 
 the first instance towards England. In this they were en- 
 couraged by information which they thought authentic, as- 
 signing for Dr. Seabury's failure these two reasons; that 
 the administration had some apprehension of embroiling 
 themselves with the American government, the sovereignty 
 of which they had so recently acknowledged; and that the 
 bishops were doubtful how far the act of some clergymen, 
 in their individual capacities, would be acquiesced in by 
 their respective flocks. For the meeting of the former 
 difficulty, it was thought easy to obtain, and there were 
 afterwards obtained, from the executive authorities of the 
 states in which the new bishops were to reside, certificates, 
 that what was sought did not interfere with any civil laws 
 or constitutions. The latter difficulty was thought suffi- 
 ciently obviated by the powers under which the present 
 convention was assembled. 
 
 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; acknow- 
 
24 
 
 ledglng the favours formerly received from the bishops of 
 London in particular, and from the archbisliops and bishops 
 in general, through the medium of the Society for Propa- 
 gating the Gosi)el ; declaring their desire to perpetuate- 
 among them the principles of the Church of England, in 
 doctrine, discipline, and worship ; and praying, thai their 
 lordships would consecrate to the Episcopacy those persons 
 who should be sent, with that view, from the churthes in 
 any of the states respectively. 
 
 In order that the present convention might be succeeded 
 by bodies of the like description, they framed an ecclesias- 
 tical constitution, the outlines of which were, that there 
 should be a triennial convention, consisting of a deputation 
 from the Church in each state, of not more than four clergy- 
 men, and as many laymen; that they should vote statewise, 
 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 different orders of 
 clergy should be accountable to the ecclesiastical authority 
 in the state only to which they should respectively belong ; 
 and that the engagement previous to ordination should be a 
 declaration of belief in the holy Scriptures, and a promise 
 of conformity to the doctrines and the worship of the 
 Church. 
 
 Further, the convention appointed a committee, with 
 various powers; among which was, that of corresponding, 
 during the recess, with the archbishops and bishops of 
 England ; and they adjourned, to meet again in Philadel- 
 phia, on the 20th of June, in the following 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 rerpiest, that it might be delivered by him to his Grace 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury. There were also forwarded 
 certificates from the executives of the states in which there 
 was a probability of there being bishops chosen. The ex- 
 ecutives who gave these certificates were those of New- York, 
 Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. These evidences, 
 agreeably to instructions of the convention, were applied 
 for by the members of that body from the said states re- 
 pectively. 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 promote the object of it. F. 
 
25 
 
 In the spring of the year 1786 the committee teceived 
 an answer, signed by the two archbishops, and eighteen of 
 the twenty-four bishops of England, acknowledging the 
 receipt of what they were pleased to call the Christian and 
 Brotherly Address of the Convention, and declaring their 
 wish to comply with the desire of it ; but delaying measure* 
 to the effect, until there should be laid before them the 
 alterations which had been made by the convention: it 
 having been represented to the bishops, through private 
 channels, that the aherations were essential deviations from 
 the Church of England, either in doctrine or in discipline^ 
 Not long after the receipt of this letter, the committee 
 received another from the archbishops of Canterbury 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 received the edited ]jook of Com- 
 mon 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 Apostles' 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 presbyters 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 representative. The prelates went on to 
 inform the committee, that they were likely to obtain an 
 act of parliament, enabling them to consecrate for America. 
 They, however, expected, that before they should proceed 
 under the act, satisfaction should be given in reo-ard to the 
 matters stated. The same communication laid down what 
 would be required, in regard to the characters individually, 
 who should be sent for consecration. As to faith, they 
 were to make the subscription which the American Church 
 had prescribed, to future candidates for orders. On the 
 subject of learning, it was thought disrespectful to the 
 persons to be sent, to subject them to an examination, it 
 being at the same time trusted, that the American Church 
 would be aware of the disparagement of the Episcopacy, 
 which would be the result of its being conferred on persons 
 not sufficiently respectable in point of literary qualification. 
 In order to give satisfaction in regard to the religious and 
 
 4 
 
\ 
 
 26 
 
 morcil character of each person to be sent, the archbishops 
 required, that it should be testified by the convention 
 choosinj^ him ; and, in addition, that there should be a cer- 
 tificate from the General Convention, to the eflfect that they 
 knew no reason why the person should not be consecrated 
 to the Episcopal office. These determinations 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 Canterbuiy alone, 
 enclosing the act of parliament. 
 
 After the receipt of the first of the letters of the English 
 prelates, and before the receipt of the second, the General 
 Convention assembled, agreeably to appointment, in Phila- 
 delphia, 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 afi'ectionate letter, a declaration of not intending to 
 depart from the doctrines of the English Church, and a 
 determination of making no further alterations than such 
 as either arose from a change of circumstances, or appeared 
 conducive to union ; and a repetition of the prayer for the 
 succession. Before their adjournment, they appointed a 
 committee, with power to reassemble 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 10th of October following. The principal matter 
 which occupied the body when assembled, was the question, 
 how far they should accommodate to the requisitions of the 
 English prelates. 
 
 The difficulty concerning the oflfensive article of the 
 constitution had been done away before the arrival of the 
 objection of the archbishops. This objection, as already 
 observed, was grounded on a misapprehension of the design 
 of the article. But another objection had been made within 
 the American Church, on the score of there being no express 
 provision for the presidency of a bishop in conventions 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, aceonlingly, it 
 was now, without debate or difficulty, restored to the Book 
 of Common Prayer, to stand after the Apostles' Creed, with 
 
27 
 
 permission of the use of either. The clause in the latter 
 creed, of the descent into hell, occasioned considerable de- 
 bate, but it was finally restored. The restoration of the 
 Athanasian Creed was negatived. The result of the de- 
 liberations 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, for information, whether 
 any persons had been chosen in them respectively, to pro- 
 ceed 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 convention 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 convention 
 in Pennsylvania ; and that the Rev. David Griffith, D. D. 
 rector of Fairfax Parish, Virginia, had been chosen by the 
 convention there. Testimonials in their favour from the 
 conventions in the respective states, agreeable to the form 
 prescribed by the archbishops, were laid before the General 
 Convention, who immediately signed, in favour of each of 
 the bishops elect, a testimonial, according to the form pre- 
 scribed 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 o^" 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 con- 
 sulted. The greater number of them were at their diocesses, 
 but wclrc expected to be in town at the ensuing opening of 
 j)arliament, appointed for about the middle of January. 
 V^ery soon afterwards, the 4th of February, was appointed 
 for the consecration. 
 
 On that day, and in the chapel of the archiepiscopa! pa- 
 
26 
 
 laeeof Lainbetli, Dr. Wiiitc and Dr. Provoost wcrertrdaiucd 
 and cotisecratcd bishops, by tlie l\iost Kcv. John Moore, 
 archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Kev. WilHani Mark- 
 ham, arcld)ishop of York, presented. And the bishops 
 who joined with the two archbishops in the imposition of 
 hands, were the Jiight Rev. Charles Moss, bishoj) of Bath 
 and VVells, and the Right Rev. John Ilinchbff, bishop of 
 Peterborough. Before the end of the same month, thq 
 newly consecrated bishops sailed from Falmouth for New- 
 York, where they arrived on Easter Sunday, April the 7th, 
 and soon afterwards began the exercise of the Episcopacy 
 in their respective diocesses. H. 
 
 On the 2Sth of July, 1789, 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 sickness, was duly recognised. 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 consi- 
 derable difficulty. The Rev. Dr. Griffith had been pre- 
 vented 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. Tn conse- 
 quence 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 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 addressed a letter to the bishops in Con- 
 necticut, 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 tiie 
 letter addressed lo him before the body, intimating his sin- 
 cere 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 
 
29 
 
 t'o be canonically necessary to such an acl. This sentiment, 
 which he also supposed to be entertained by the gentleman 
 who had been consecrated with him, was duly respected by 
 the body, while tl>ey 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 consecration; 
 in which their president concurred. 
 
 In order to carry the sentiments of the convention into 
 effect, they signified their request to the two bishops con- 
 secrated hi England, thai they would unite with Bishop 
 Seabury in the consecration of Mr. Bass ; and they framed 
 an address to tlic archbishops and bishops of England, re- 
 questing their approbation of the measure, for the removing 
 of any difHculty 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 the Rev. James Madison, D. D. presi- 
 dent of William and Mary 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 re- 
 quired by the clerical or by the lay rejjresentation 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 meetings 
 might be called by the bishops. 
 
 When the convention adjourned, it was to the 29th of 
 September following : and before the adjournment, an invi- 
 tation 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 ap- 
 peared that Bishop Seabury, with sundry of the clergy from 
 Blassachusetts and Connecticut, had accepted the invitation 
 given them. There was laid before the convention, and 
 by them ordered to be recorded, evidence of that bishop's 
 consecration ; which had been performed by Bishops Kil- 
 gour, Petrie, and Skinner, of the non-juring Church in 
 Scotland. There then ensued a conference between a 
 committee of the convention and the clergy from the 
 eastern states; the result of which was, that, after one 
 
30 
 
 alteration of the constitution at their desire, they declared 
 their acquiescence in it, and gave it their signatures accord- 
 
 It had been provided in the constitution, that the arrange- 
 ment 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 liturgy , the 
 bishops originating alterations in some services, and the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies proposing others. The 
 result was the Book of Common Prayer, as 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 substantially the same; but with 
 some alterations and additions by succeeding conven- 
 tions. 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 convention, although nothing further 
 was brought before them from Massachusetts, relative to 
 Dr. Bass, the deputies from Maryland applied to the as- 
 sembled 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 accordingly 
 consecrated, during the session of the convention, 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 circum- 
 stances. 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 Triennial 
 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 consecrating of a chureh or 
 
 * Dr. ClaggRtt was consecrated by Bifhop Provoost^ who presided at thu 
 coavenlion, assisted by Bishops Seabury^ White, and Madison. 
 
31 
 
 cUapel. It is substantially the same with a service com- 
 posed by Bishop Andrews, iu the reign of Jaraes the First; 
 and since commonly used by the English bishops in such 
 consecration ; but without the authority of convocation or 
 of parliament. During the session, there took place the 
 consecration of the Rev. Robert Smith, D. D. rector 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 con- 
 secrated the Rev. Edward Bass ; again recommended 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 effect.t 
 
 And on the 18th of October of the same year, there was 
 consecrated, in Trinity Church, in the city of New-Haven, 
 the Rev. Abraham Jarvis, D. D. for the state of Connec- 
 ticut.J 
 
 There would have been a convention in Philadelphia, 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 commit- 
 tee 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, as a report of a 
 committee of one of the houses, to lie over for the con- 
 sideration of the next convention ; which was appointed to 
 be in the city of Trenton, New-Jersey. M. 
 
 It assembled there, in September, 1801; when there 
 was brought before the bishops present at it, three ia 
 number, the question of the admissibility of a resignation 
 of the Episcopal charge. A letter from Bishop Provoost 
 had been addressed to one of the bishops present, and by 
 iiini laid before the house, stating, that, induced by ill 
 
 • The consecration of Dr. Smith was by the presiding bishop, assisted far 
 Bishops Provoost, Madison, and Claggett. 
 
 t The consecration of Dr. Bass was in Christ Church, in the city of Philadel- 
 phia, May 7th, 1797, by the presiding bishop, assisted by Bishops'Provoost and 
 Claggetl. 
 
 t The consecration of Dr. Jarvis was by Bishop White, assisted by Bishopt 
 Provoost and Bass. j r 
 
32 
 
 health and some circumstances of a domestic nature, h« 
 wished to retire from all public employment ; and had 
 therefore resigned, at a late meeting of the convention in 
 New- York, his jurisdiction of bishop in that state, lu 
 consequence of this resignation, the Her. Benjamin Moore, 
 D. D. who, on account of Bishop Provoost's resignation of 
 the rectory of Trinity Church, in the city of jNew-York^ 
 had been chosen to that place, was also elected to swcceed 
 to the Episcopacy. The House of Bishops having taken 
 this subject under their serious consideration, and doubting- 
 of the propriety of sanctioning Episcopal "resignation, de- 
 clined 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 under- 
 stood, 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 discharged by him, should be dependent 
 on such regulations as expediency might dictate to the 
 Church in New- York ; grounded on the indisposition of 
 Bishop Provoost, and with his concurrence. Conformably 
 with the line of conduct thus laid down, Dr. Benjamin 
 Moore, being duly recommended, was consecrated during 
 the session, in St. Michael's Church, Trenton ; and took 
 his seat in the House of Bishojjs. 
 
 In this convention, the important business of the articles 
 was again taken up ; and now, for the first time, authori- 
 tatively acted on. After repeated discussions and propo- 
 sitions, it had been found, that the doctrines of the Gospel, 
 as they stand in the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of 
 England, with the exception of such matters as are local, 
 were more likely to give general satisfaction than the 
 same doctrines in any new form that might be devised. 
 The former were therefore adopted by the two houses of 
 convention, without their altering of even the obsolete 
 diction in them ; but with notices of such changes as change 
 of situation had rendered necessary. Exclusively of such, 
 there is one exception, that of adapting the article con- 
 cerning the creeds, to the former exclusion of the Athanar 
 sian. 
 
 It is farther to be remembered, that, in regard to sub- 
 scription to the articles, there is a considerable difference 
 between the form required in the Church of England, as 
 laid down in her thirty-sixth canon, and that prescribed in 
 the constitution of the American Church. The latter fonu 
 had so far acquirwl the approbation of the English prelates. 
 
33 
 
 as to be thou<Tlit 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 held, and 
 the determinations formed, was the perpetuating of the 
 Episcopal (/luirch, on the ground of the general principles 
 whicb she had inherited from the Church of England ; and 
 of not departing from them, except so far as eitlier 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 object 
 here stated was accomplished on the ratification of the 
 articles. 
 
 The next Triennial Convention was in the city of New- 
 York, September lith, 1804. Canons were passed, ex- 
 tending to a greater variety of objects than had been 
 provided for before. An office was framed and ordered to 
 bo 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 con- 
 .stitution 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 ('onventions shall 
 be in the month of May, instead of September. During 
 the session, tho Rev. Samuel Parker, D. D. rector of 
 Trinity Church, in Boston, was consecrated bishop in 
 Trinity Church, New- York, in the room of IJishop Bass, 
 who had departed this life. There had also died, since the 
 last convention. Bishop Smith, of South-Carolina. And it 
 was understood, that the Rev. Edward Jenkins, I). D. who 
 had been elected to supply his place, had declined the 
 station. Since the events here recorded, Bishop Parker- 
 departed this life, a few months after his consecration. O. 
 
 The next meeting of the General Convention was in the 
 city of Baltimore, from May 17th, !808, to the 2()th of the 
 same month. Two bishops only (Bishops White and Clag- 
 gett) were present at this convention: and the Church in 
 seven states only was represented. 
 
 There was now ratified the long proposed amendment 
 of the constitution; annulling the provision, by which four- 
 fifths of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies could ac- 
 complish a measure, without the concurrence of the House 
 of Bishops. 
 
 There was also proposed another amendment of the 
 eonstitution, for the preventing of alterations in the liturgy, 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 unless the same sliould have been proposed at a previous 
 convention. 
 
 The whole body of the canons was reviewed, and un- 
 derwent considerable alterations. 
 
 A committee was appointed, to address the Church in 
 the different states. The objects in view, were to procuro 
 a more full attendance on future conventions, and to extend 
 the Episco()ucy to the western states. 
 
 " The Office of Induction," established by the last con- 
 vention, was changed in name to " The Office of Institu- 
 tion," and rested on recommendation, not on requisition, 
 as before. 
 
 The sense of the two houses was given on two points, 
 which bad created diversity of opinion and of practice — 
 Whether a minister ought to officiate at the ftmeral of any 
 person killed in a duel ; and — Wiiether a minister should 
 ui>ite in marriage any person who has been divorced; un- 
 less it be on account of the other party's having been guilty 
 of adultery. Botii these questions were decided in the 
 negative. 
 
 There was also introduced into the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies, on recommendation of the Churcli in Mary- 
 land, the subject of marriage, as connected with the degrees 
 of consanguitiity and affinity. IJut on communication of 
 the matter to the House of Bishops, it was, on their recora- 
 mendation, 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 thi» 
 Church was drawn up by them, communicated to the House 
 of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and there read. 
 
 On the rising of the convention, New-Haven, in the state 
 of Connecticut, was appointed as the next place of meeting. 
 The session was ended, by an attendance 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 New-Haven, on Tuesday, 
 the 21st of May, 181L It continued in session until Friday, 
 the 24th. Only Bishops AVhite 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 alterations of the 
 
35 
 
 liturgy, except such as may be proposed at one convention 
 and determined on at another. 
 
 On the subject of the canons, nothing was done, except 
 the repeahng of the last, or forty-sixth of the canons, as 
 passed at the last convention, entitled, " Providing for 
 making known the Constitution and Canons of the Church." 
 
 Tlie rule prohibiting the othciating 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. 
 
 Tliere were some communications made in regard 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 i'ew 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 marriages, within certain degrees 
 of consanguinity and affinity. 
 
 A |>astoral address was sent by the bishops to the other 
 house, to be printed with the journal, agreeably to a requi- 
 sition of the forty-iifth canon. 
 
 It had been expected, that on the occasion of this con- 
 vention, there would have been a consecration of two 
 bishops : of the Rev. Dr. John Henry ilobart, chosen 
 assistant bishop for the state of New- York; and the Rev. 
 Alexander Viets Griswold, chosen bishop for the four 
 states of Massachusetts, New-Hamj^shire, Vermont, and 
 Rhode-Island. The expectation was disappointed, by the 
 want of the canonical number on the spot. But the testi- 
 monials 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 Right Rev. Bishop 
 Provoost, whose indisjjosition, although, with difficulty, 
 permitted his attendance in the jjlace of his residence, and 
 with the assistance of Bishop Jarvis, the consecration 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 address a let- 
 ter, in behalf of this convention, to the venerable Society in 
 England for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, in- 
 forming them that the Church in the state of Vermont is duly 
 organized, and in union with the Protestant Episcopal 
 
36 
 
 Church in the United States, beiri<^- placed under the juris- 
 diction of the hiHliop of rSiew-Hanipshire, Massachusetts, 
 Rhode-Island, and Vermont ; that a board of trustees of do- 
 nations 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 Ver- 
 mont to such attorney or attornies as may be recommended 
 by the said board of trustees, and approved of by the ec- 
 clesiastical convention of Vermont." 
 
 When the convention arose, it was agreed to hold the 
 next Triennial Convention in the city of Philadelphia. Q. 
 
 The next Triennial Convention was held, agreeably 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, l^ishop White, of the Church in Pennsylvania; 
 Bishop Hobart, the assistant bishop of the Church in INevv- 
 York; Bishop Griswold, of the Eastern Diocese; Bishop 
 Dehon, of South-Carolina;* and, the second day of the 
 session, Bishop Richard C. Moore, of Virginia. 
 
 Ill the last mentioned state, the Church liad been for 
 many years, more and more under a decline. On the 
 decease of Bishop Madison, there had ensued 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 gentlemen mentioned above, who had ac- 
 <piired considerable popularity in the city of IN ew- York ; 
 wherein there was a large congregation under his ministry. 
 The defect of Episcopal maintenance was expected to be 
 surmounted, by connecting the oilice of bishoj) with that of 
 the rectory of a church recently erected in the city of 
 Richmond, on the site of a tiicatre, destroyed a few years 
 before by a fire, wherein a considerable [)roportion of the 
 inhabitants had been consumed. The rec|uisite testimonials 
 having been furnished. Dr. Moore was consecrated in St. 
 James' Church, Philadelphia, by the presiding bishop, as- 
 sisted by Bishops Hobart, (iriswold, and Dehon. The 
 sermon preached at the opening of the convention, serving 
 for the consecration also, was by Bishop Hobart, of New- 
 York. He sui)plicd the place of Bishop Claggett, of Mary- 
 land, who was kept away by indisposition. 
 
 • Bifhop Drhon had hoen cotisocraled. Octobrr ir)lh. 18)2. in Christ Church, 
 m thp rity of Philadelphia, h>' the prt'siding bulicji, aisisled hy Bishops Juivn 
 and Hohan'. 
 
37 
 
 There were three canons parsed at this convention. 
 One of them was concerning the ahns and contributions at 
 the holy communion. They are subjected to the distribu- 
 tion of the minister, or such person as they may be com- 
 mitted to by him. The provision was designed to hmit 
 munificence of this description to poor communicants, and 
 to sustain a pastoral intercourse with them. The cause of 
 interposition in this matter, was some proposals of appro- 
 j)riation said to have been made, for Church purposes in- 
 deed, but wide of the original design of the oblations at the 
 Lord's table. 
 
 The next canon was explanatory of the twenty-ninth, 
 guarding against the effect of its excluding from diocesan 
 conventions and votes in the choice of bishops, of unin- 
 stituted ministers and deacons, where these are not ex- 
 cluded by the respective diocesan constitutions ; and further, 
 against the extending of the Office of Institution to gather- 
 ings 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 
 forty-fifth, as requires the reading, in the General Conven- 
 tion, of the parochial reports entered on 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 resolve. 
 
 There was also entered on the journal an explanation of 
 the nineteenth canon, which regulates the dress of candi- 
 dates for orders, and other particulars relative to them. 
 The explanation goes to the point, that such provisions are 
 merely a giuird against popular mistakes. 
 
 At the instance of the clerical members from the diocese 
 of Connecticut, who acted under instructions from the con- 
 vention of that state, the bishops gave their sense of some 
 matters in the ninth canon, and in the fortieth. Their 
 sense, which was sanctioned by the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies, is as follows: — 
 
 The ninth canon having provided, that some literary 
 ♦|ualifications, therein specified, may be dispensed with, in 
 consideration of certain other qualifications of the candidate 
 for the ministry, the bishops define the latter to be, a con- 
 siderable extent of theological learning, a peculiar aptitude 
 to teach, and a large share of jirudcnce. The fortieth canon 
 having referred to persons, who join a congregation of this 
 Ohurch from some other religious society, the bishops 
 
33 
 
 rested the evidence of tlic membership of such a congrega- 
 tion on the two circumstances, of their being baptized per- 
 sons, and of tiieir possessing an interest in its concerns, by 
 express or implied permission. But there is a caution 
 against its being supposed, that a more definite mode for 
 the same object may not hereafter be profitably adopted. 
 
 It was thought proper, in this convention, to issue a de- 
 claration, that the Protestant Episcopal Cliurch in the 
 United States, is the Church formerly known among us 
 under the name of " the Church of England in America." 
 Accordingly, an instrument to tiiis effect was drawn up by 
 the bishops, and received 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 instrument, designed 
 for the introduction of the posture of standing during the 
 singing of any portion of the psalms or hymns in metre. 
 Tins comely practice had recently been introduced in some 
 of the congregations 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 England, and of their being recognised by the 
 articles of this Church, although with due regard to the 
 diversity of local circumstances, the two houses made a 
 provision, which has occasioned 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 respective 
 
 states. 
 
 On the journal of the last Triennial Convention, the 
 providing for an Episcopacy in the western states was held 
 out as a desirable object. Intermediate circumstances 
 having prevented the acting on this business, it was again 
 held out as a matter to be kept in view. 
 
 On the same journal there was recorded a measure, 
 designed to obtain from the Society (in England) for Pro- 
 pagating 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 proceeding 
 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. 
 
 * Published in IBirj by T. & J. Swords, nnd may now be had at the store of 
 SwordB, Stanford, &. Co. New-York. Publishers. 
 
39 
 
 In consequence of a communication to the bishops, pro- 
 posing to them, what was considered as a profitable im- 
 provement in the Book of Common Prayer, they proposed 
 to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies a declaration, 
 that it was not intended to bring the book under review 
 during this convention. And in consequence of a commu- 
 nication, proposing to the bishops to give their sanction to 
 a wark on a subject 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 De- 
 puties, a declaration to the same eifect. The House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies signified theip concurrence in 
 the proposals, with their thanks, for what they called "the 
 judicious course adopted in reference to these subjects." 
 
 A question was moved in each of the houses, as to the 
 propriety of establishing a theological school, to be exclu- 
 sively under the patronage of the General Convcntion- 
 The subject was referred to a future meeting of the body ; 
 and, in the mean time, measures were to be taken to 
 ascertain tho 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 valuajt>le con- 
 sideration. This also was delayed, under the same pro- 
 vision, for the ascertaining of the general 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 Conven- 
 tion, 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, Gris- 
 wold, Dehon, Moore, Kemp, and Croes. The occasion 
 was opened by a discourse from Bishop Griswold.* 
 
 In consequence of an application from the Church in 
 
 * During the recess of the convention, Dr. Kenip h;id been consecrated on the 
 first day of September, 1814, in Christ Church, in the city of Brunswick, New- 
 Jersey, by the presiding bishop, assisted by Bisliops Ilobart and Moore. And 
 Dr. Croes had been consecrated on the 19th day of November, 1815, in St, 
 Peter's Church, in the city of Pliiladelphia, by the presiding bishop, sssiatedby 
 Bishops Hobart and Keuip. 
 
40 
 
 North-Carolina, in which a convention had been held, the 
 said (/hiirch was considered as having acceded to the 
 occleslaslical constitution. From the time of the revohi- 
 tionary war, there had been but temporary siipphes of the 
 ministry in a few places ; but eome clergymen, recently 
 settled in the state, in connexion with some influential lay 
 gentlemen, had taken active measures for the revival oh' 
 our communion. 
 
 The presiding bishop made report of sundry rtiotters 
 committed to him by the last convention. They were the 
 certifying to the venerable Society (in England) for the 
 Propagation of the Gospel, of certain facts in favour of tlift 
 Church in Vermont, relatively to lands of which the title* 
 were vested in the society — the taking of measures rela- 
 tively to the organizing of the Church beyond the Alleg- 
 hany mountains, and the republishing of the journals of 
 this Church from the beginning. The first and the las! 
 liad been carried into elfect, 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 follows : — 
 
 " Resolved, That it be recommended to the Episcopal 
 congregations in the states referred to in the above com- 
 munications, where conventions are not already organized, 
 to organize conventions, which may be received into union 
 with this convention, and, when expedient, may unite, 
 according to the canons, in the choice of a bishop, having 
 jurisdiction over those states; and that this convention 
 liave 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 convention 
 comprising sundry states in the western country, may be a 
 measure of temporary expediency, it cannot be authorized 
 by this convention consistently with the general constitution 
 of the Church, which recognises only a convention of tiie 
 Church in each state. 
 
 " Resolved, That it be earnestly recommended to the au- 
 thorities of this Church, in each state respectively, to adopt 
 measures for sending missionaries to our destitute brethren 
 in the western states : such missionaries to be subject to 
 the direction of the ecclesiastical authority of the state of 
 states in which they may olliciate. 
 
 •' Resolved, That the presiding bishop be requested to 
 
4t 
 
 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 forwarding of the 
 contemplated communications. 
 
 The several bishops made reports on the sense of the 
 Church in their respective diocesses, on the subject of a 
 theological school. There was diversity of opinion, but the 
 general sense, in both houses, was 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 com- 
 mittee, consisting 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, Hon. Rufus King, Charles Fenton Mercer, Esq. and 
 William Meredith, Esq. 
 
 The House of Bishops thought it expedient to make a 
 solemn call on the attention of the clergy in relation to the 
 twenty-second 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 practical piety. 
 
 It being represented to the House of Bishops by Bishop 
 Hobart, that the congregation du St. Esprit, in the city 
 of New- York, having joined the communion of the Episcopal 
 Church, with their minister, who had lately received Epis- 
 copal ordination, which congregation consisted originally 
 of Protestant emigrants 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 convention, it was 
 recommended to the said bishop to 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 amendments 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 officiate in a con- 
 gregation to whom the French language is familiar. 
 
 The bishops issued the following call on the members 
 of this Church, and sent it to the House of Clerical and 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 Lay Deputies, to be there read : which was accordingly 
 done. 
 
 " The House of Bishops, solicitous for the preservation 
 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 bnt earnest zeal, of warning the people of 
 their respective cures, of the danger of an indulgence in 
 those worldly pleasures 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 attention, — they 
 do not hesitate to express their unanimous opinion, that 
 these amusements, as well from their licentious 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 re- 
 presentations 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 disap- 
 proved of, so far as opinion could be ascertained. 
 
 A proposed change in the ecclesiastical constitution was 
 referred to the several state conventions. It was to change 
 the time of the triennial meeting to the first 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 fulfil- 
 ment of the request of the House of Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties, on the subject of an authentic edition of the Holy 
 Bible, a matter requiring very serious attention and deli- 
 beration, resolve, that its members will give such attention 
 and deliberation 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, pro- 
 hibitory of marriage, was again referred, and a committee 
 was appointed on the subject, consisting of Bishops White, 
 Kemp, and Croes. 
 
 There passed three canons. The first was the limiting 
 
43 
 
 of the operation of the second and thirty-seventh canons, 
 so far as regarded the states westward of the mountains. 
 The professed reason was, the providing of tljat country 
 with a bishop, if a suitable person should be presented, 
 whatever might be the number of resident presbyters, and 
 even if there be none. There was the further reason, that 
 if it should be thought convenient to unite with a western 
 diocese the western 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 provision for 
 the purpose, consistent with the integrity of the Church in 
 each state. 
 
 The second canon makes a clergyman's renunciation 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 instituted. The bishop, on receiving 
 complaint, is to institute an inquiry, and the notice given 
 by the minister 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 De- 
 puties. 
 
 When the convention adjourned, Philadelphia was ap- 
 pointed to be the place of the next meeting. S. 
 
 [TAe narrative of the first edition here concluded.'] 
 
 Agreeably to appointment, the General Convention as- 
 sembled in St. James's Church, in the city of Philadelphia, 
 on Tuesday, the 16th of May, 1820, and continued in ses- 
 sion until Wednesday, the 24th of the same month. The 
 bishops present, were Bishops White, Hobart, Griswold, 
 Moore, Kemp, Croes, Bowen, and Brownell ; being the 
 whole of the Episcopal body, with the exception of Bishop 
 Chase. Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops, 
 and Dr. William Wilmer in the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies. The Bev. William Augustus Muhlenburg was 
 secretary of the former house, and the Rev. Ashbel Bald- 
 win, with the Rev. John C. Rudd, were secretary and assist- 
 ant secretary of the latter. On Wednesday, the 25th, the 
 houses having been organized on the preceding day, the 
 convention was opened with a sermon from Bishop Moore. 
 
44 
 
 The territory formerly known by the name of the Dis- 
 trict of Maine, having been received by Congress as an 
 independent state, and the Church therein having become 
 organized, it was admitted as a member of the ecclesias- 
 tical union. 
 
 That part of the forty-fifth canon which requires the 
 reading of episcopal addresses from the journal of the 
 state conventions, being thought to occasion an unnecessary 
 spending of time, was repealed by the first canon of this 
 convention. 
 
 The first canon of 1816 having been accommodated to 
 the existing circumstances of the Church in the state of 
 Ohio, and the object of it having been accomphshed, it 
 was repealed by the second canon of those now passed. 
 
 By the third, the pastoral letters, to be issued hereafter 
 at the times of the Triennial Conventions, are required to 
 be read by the clergy in their respective congregations. 
 
 By the fourth, an improvement was made in the seven- 
 teenth canon of 1808, in reference to testimonials to be 
 accommodated to the respective cases. 
 
 By the fifth, the same canon of 1808 was so far altered, 
 as to require from a candidate for the ministry, not a 
 citizen of the United States, and having officiated as a 
 minister of another denomination, that he produce evidence 
 of his residence for one year. 
 
 The sixth concerned the consecration of bishops. The 
 testimonials of the bishop elect, instead of being presented 
 to any three bishops, are to be presented to the presiding 
 bishop, who is to communicate them to the other bishops. 
 In the event of the consent of the major number of them, 
 the presiding bishop, or any three to whom he may com- 
 municate the testimonials and the consent of the major 
 number, may proceed to the consecration. But if a bishop 
 have been elected within one year of a General Convention, 
 his consecration is to be deferred to the time of their 
 assembling. 
 
 It was thought conducive to the exercise of discipline, 
 to moderate the publicity of ecclesiastical censures on any 
 offending minister, in the event of his voluntary renunciation 
 of the ministry : which is the purport of the seventh canon. 
 The eighth provides, that in the case of a candidate for 
 orders, his sufficiency in the acquirements exacted for the 
 first exavnination, prescribed by the tenth canon of 1808, 
 (shall be ascertained before his admission as a candidate ; 
 and fmther, that the said acquirements shall not be dis- 
 
45 
 
 pensed with, unless there be a testimonial from at least five 
 presbyters, " stating, that, in their opinion, he possesses 
 extraordinary strength of natural understanding, a pecuhar 
 a};titude to teach, and a large share of prudence." 
 
 On an application for the sanctioning of a selection of 
 Psalms and Hymns, made from the authorized Book of 
 Psalms and Hymns in metre, there was a refusal, on the 
 ground of the resolution of the two houses in the convention 
 of 1814, against the giving of a conventional sanction to any 
 publication not issued as of authority in this Church. 
 
 The convention thought it a matter of sufficient import- 
 ance, to give instruction concerning the title page of future 
 editions of the Book of Common Prayer, for the securing 
 of accuracy; and further, for the observing of the due dis° 
 tinction between the said book, and other books and docu- 
 ments not the same, although of equal authority in this 
 Church. 
 
 The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies requested the 
 House of Bishops, who referred it to the presiding bishop, 
 with such aid as he may think proper to employ, to take 
 measures for making known any errors or omissions in the 
 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, printed in New- 
 York, by Hugh Gaine, in the year 1793, and established 
 by the forty-third canon of 1808, as the standard book, so 
 that they may be avoided or supplied in future editions. 
 
 There was a similar request and a similar reference to 
 the presiding bishop, to correct or supply any errors or 
 omissions in the calendar and tables prefixed to the said 
 book, and to extend the table of the days on which Easter 
 will fall for two cycles of the moon, from the year 1823. 
 [By an evident typographical error, it is 1813 on the 
 Journal.] 
 
 The two houses appointed a joint committee, to make a 
 collection of the journals of the General Conventions, and 
 of the several Diocesan Conventions, and of other important 
 documents, connected with the history of the Church in the 
 United States, and to deposit the same, subject to the dis- 
 posal of the General Convention, in such hands as may be 
 deemed proper for the present, and until a further order of 
 the convention. The difficulty of procuring sets of the 
 journals of the preceding years, was strong proof of there 
 being a use in the present measure. 
 
 There was also a committee appointed by the two houses, 
 to take such measures in the recess of the convention, as 
 they might find suitable " for the cstabUshmcnt of a stand- 
 
46 
 
 ard, according to which all copies of the scriptures, to be 
 recommended to the use of the members of this Church, 
 shall be printed." This matter, at the rising of the General 
 Convention of 1817, had been submitted by the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies, to the consideration of the 
 bishops during the recess. The bishops, in the convention 
 of 1820, noticing the cause of the reference in a corruption 
 of a particular text in a late edition, tending to sustain a 
 species of ordination unknown in scripture, had reported 
 to the following effect. They were of opinion, that in con- 
 sequence of the exclusive privilege enjoyed in England for 
 the printing of the Bible, and the heavy fines which may be 
 inflicted on the patentees for a falsifying of the text, the 
 Enghsh editions may in general be depended on ; there 
 having been noticed but few inaccuracies in any of them, 
 and those being unimportant. An edition by Eyre and 
 Strahan, in 1806, and another^by them in 1812, had been 
 spoken of as the most perfect extant, but the bishops had 
 not been able to procure a copy. They gave a caution 
 against certain fraudulent copies of the Bible imported from 
 England, printed by unauthorized individuals, who avoided 
 the law by a few notes in the lower margin, which may be 
 cut from the text, but favours the pretence of the editing 
 of a commentary. Such copies had been found exceedingly 
 corrupt. 
 
 In regard to editions issued in the United States, the 
 bishops had found them generally as correct as could have 
 been reasonably expected, considering the difficulty of avoid- 
 ing typographical errors. 
 
 Further, they were aware, that their report did not go to 
 the desirable extent ; and it was this consideration wiiicli 
 led to the appointment of the joint committee. 
 
 There came before the two houses, the proposal of tiie 
 last General Convention for the changing of the time of the 
 meeting from May to October. The House of Bishops 
 proposed the ratifying of it, but the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies now convened, signified their non-concur- 
 rence. Then there came from the latter house such an 
 alteration of the first article of the constitution, as subjects 
 to the discretion of every Triennial Convention, the time as 
 well as the place of the assembling of the next, with autho- 
 rity in the presiding bishop, in the case of the occurrence of 
 epidemical disease, to make a change of place. In this the 
 House of Bishops concurred, and it will rest with the next 
 convention to decide. 
 
47 
 
 The principal subject of discussion related to tlie Theo- 
 logical Seminary, the location of which became transferred 
 by tiiis convention from New-York to New-llaven, iu 
 Connecticut, adopting sundry measures for the furtherance 
 of the design. When the bishops concurred in the pro- 
 posal, they unanimously declared, that they did not "mean 
 by this concurrence to interfere with any plan now con- 
 templated, or that may hereafter be contemplated in any 
 diocese or diocesses, for the establishment of theological 
 institutions or professorships; and further, they esteem it 
 their duty to express the opinion, that the various sums 
 subscribed, having been thus subscribed nnder an act of the 
 convention establishing the seminary in New- York, the sub- 
 scribers who have not paid are not now bound, except they 
 think proper, to pay their subscriptions ; the institution 
 being removed to a different city." This declaration was 
 received, and read, and not objected to, in the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 
 There was proposed by the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies, and concurred in by the bishops, a constitution of 
 a missionary society, for foreign and domestic missions, 
 which became inefficient from an irregularity in the choice 
 of the trustees. The society was located in the city of 
 Philadelphia, and the members there resident, after fre- 
 quent consultations, did not think themselves authorized to 
 proceed. The error resulted from the press of business 
 on the last day of the session. 
 
 When the convention adjourned, it was with the deter- 
 mination that the next General Convention should meet in 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 The whole was concluded with prayer by the presiding- 
 bishop. T. 
 
 The next General Convention being special, was held in 
 1821, in St. Peter's Church, in the city of Philadelphia, 
 from October 30th to November the 3d, inclusive. The 
 bishops present, were Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, pre- 
 siding bishop ; Bishop Hobart, of New- York; Bishop Gris- 
 wold, of the Eastern Diocese; Bishop Kemp, of Maryland ; 
 Bishop Croes, of New-Jersey; and Bishop Brownell, of 
 Connecticut, in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
 the Rev. Dr. William Wilmcr presided, the Rev. Ashbel 
 Baldwin was secretary, and the Rev. John C. Rudd was 
 assistant secretary. The Rev. William Augustus Muhlen- 
 burg was secretary of the House of Bishops. 
 
 This convention assembled on the call of the presiding 
 
48 
 
 bishop, indiicetl by the desire of the major number of the 
 bishops ; it being induced by the desire of the trustees of 
 the Theological Seminary, to consider whether any or what 
 measures should be adopted, for the obtaining of a legacy 
 of about sixty thousand dollars, bequeathed by Jacob Sher- 
 red, of the city of New- York, to a seminary which should 
 be instituted within the state, either by the General Con- 
 vention or by that of the diocese in which the testator lived 
 and died. It became a question, which of two seminaries 
 was entitled to the legacy. On the one hand, the general 
 seminary being the first named, was thought entitled to it, 
 on the condition of removal to New- York: and several 
 eminent gentlemen of the law had given their opinions in 
 the affirmative. On the other hand, legal gentlemen of 
 equal eminence were of opinion, that as the diocesan semi- 
 nary was in a capacity to go into immediate operation, it 
 had the preferable claim. 
 
 The convention was opened by a sermon from Bishop 
 Kemp. U. 
 
 The two houses became immediately occupied by the 
 business for which they had been called together. There 
 was appointed a joint committee, who, after contemplating 
 the subject in its various points of view; and after discussing 
 various projects for the combining of the seminaries now 
 existing in New-Haven and New- York ; all in the spirit of 
 conciliation and mntual concession ; arrived at the result, 
 which appears in the organization as it now stands. All 
 the members of the committee concurred in giving praise 
 to Judge Cameron, of North-Carolina, for the ability and 
 good temper manifested by him in the progress of the 
 business: and the same were again displayed by him, when 
 it came before the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 
 However, it did not pass in the house without opposition ; 
 which was almost confined to the clerical and lay gentlemen 
 from Virginia; with whom it is a favourite idea, to establish 
 a theological professorship in the college of William and 
 Mary, in Williamsburg. 
 
 The outlines of the newly organized institution are as 
 follow. The school of New-Haven, and that of New- York, 
 are to be combined, and to be seated in the latter state. 
 All the bishops are to be trustees officially. The other 
 trustees arc to be chosen in the several states, and to be 
 residents in them respectively. In each state there is to be 
 a trustee chosen for every eight of its clergy, and for every 
 two thousand dollars contributed ; except, that when ten 
 
40 
 
 thousand dollars shall have been contfibutcd in any state', 
 ten thousand dollars shall be required for every additional 
 trusteeship. The seminary is empowered to establish 
 branches; and it is understood, that a branch school is to^ 
 be forthwith established at Geneva, in New- York. W. 
 
 Another business of similar importance was brought 
 before the two houses-^that of a missionary society, de- 
 signed by the last convention, but so strangely instituted, 
 that the gentlemen named as managers fouml themselves 
 incompetent to the purpose of the appointment. There' 
 was now a new scheme proposed by the bishoj)s, more com- 
 plete, and in every respect more reasonable than the former. 
 The scheme had the concurrence of the House of Clerical 
 and Lay Deputies. X. 
 
 Tiie House of Bishops sent to the other house, an opinion 
 explanatory of the last rubric in the communion service, 
 which had been interpreted by some as dispensing with the 
 reading of the ante-communion service, if a sermon were 
 to follow. This was not ta be acted on by the house to 
 which it was sent, and accordingly they only noticed the 
 communication. Y. 
 
 The presiding bishop laid before the House of Bishops a 
 report on certain subjects committed to him by the last con- 
 vention. They were, the calculating of a table of the days 
 on which Easter will fall for two cycles of the moon, the 
 making of necessary alterations in the calendar, and the 
 ascertaining of errors in the book published by Hugh Gaine, 
 in 1793, and made the standard Book of Common Prayer. 
 It was proposed in the report to appoint a joint committee 
 to establish another standard book in the recess. The re- 
 port was sent to the other house, and required nothing on 
 their part except concurrence in appointing a joint commit- 
 tee, which took place. Z. 
 
 When the convention adjourned, it was after prayers by 
 the presiding bishop, and a short address by him, expres- 
 sive of the feeling which possessed him, at so happy a con- 
 clusion, and so different from what had been apprehended. 
 Then followed the singing of the 133d Psalm, and the 
 Benediction. 
 
 The next General Convention was held in Philadelphia, 
 from the 23d to the 26th day of May, 1823. The bishops 
 present, were Bishop White, ot* Pennsylvania ; Bishop 
 Griswold, of the Eastern Diocese; Bishop Moore, of Vir- 
 ginia ; Bishop Kemp, of Maryland ; Bishop Croes, of 
 New-Jersey ; Bishop Bowcn, of South-Carolina ; Bishop 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 ■Chase, of Ohio; Bishop Brownell, of Connecticut; and, 
 (after liis consecration) Bishop Ravenscroft, of North-Caro- 
 lina. Of the two absent, Bishop Hobart was detained by 
 sickness. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Wilham Wihner, of Virginia, was chosen 
 president of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The 
 Rev. Ashbel Baldwin was chosen their secretary, and the 
 Rev. John C. Riidd, their assistant secretary. The Rev. 
 William H. De Lancey was chosen secretary of the House 
 of Bishops. 
 
 The Church of Georgia was received into the union. 
 The Rev. John S. Ravenscroft, elected bishop of the 
 Church in North-Carolina, being duly recommended to the 
 bishops by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, was 
 consecrated in St. Paul's Church, and took his seat in the 
 House of Bishops. 
 
 Sundry communications from Bishop Chase, of Ohio, 
 were received through the presiding bishop, by the House 
 of Bishops, and it was referred to the presiding bishop to 
 answer them. AA. 
 
 At the convention of 1820, a committee had been ap- 
 pointed, consisting of the presiding bisliop, the Rev. George 
 Boyd, and the Rev. Jackson Kemper, to make a collection 
 of journals and other documents, connected with the history 
 of the American Church. They made a report, which was 
 accepted. BB. 
 
 A canon was passed, regulating the admission of candi- 
 dates for holy orders, and repealing the first paragraph of 
 the seventh canon of 1808. CC. 
 
 Another canon was passed, prescribing the mode of pub- 
 lishing authorized editions of the standard Bible of this 
 Church. 
 
 The two houses concurred in approbation of a report 
 made on the subject of the Theological Seminary. 
 
 On the subject of the Psalms and Hymns, a joint com- 
 mittee was appointed, consisting of the presiding Bishop, 
 Bishop Hobart, and Bishop Croes, the Rev. William Meade, 
 the Rev. Samuel F. Jarvis, D. D. the Rev. William A. Muh- 
 lenburg, the Rev. Jackson Kemper, the Rev. Samuel 
 Turner, D. D. the Rev. Richard S. Mason, the Hon. 
 Kensey Johns, the Hon. Robert H. Goldsborough, John 
 Read, Esq. Edward J. Stiles, Esq. Tench Tilghman, Esq. 
 Francis S. Key, Esq. and Peter Kean, Esq. 
 
 A report was made by a committee appointed at the last 
 General Convention, on the subject of a standard edition 
 
51 
 
 of the Holy Bible. The report was accepted ; and a mode 
 was appointed of publishing authorized editions. The ap- 
 proved edition was by Eyre and Strahan (London) in 18UG 
 and 1812. 
 
 A report was made of the proceedings of the executive 
 committee of the Missionary Society. During the session, 
 there was a meeting held of the society in St. Paul's Church. 
 The report of the executive committee was approved of by 
 both houses, and the printing of it was ordered. DD. 
 
 A message was sent to the House of Bishops, concerning 
 the American Colonization Society. The bishops, consider- 
 ing it rather of a political than of a religious nature, declined 
 the proposal of sending a delegate to an intended meeting 
 of that body, but expressed approbation of their object. 
 The resolve of the bishops was sent to the House of Cleri- 
 cal and Lay Deputies, and was there read and returned. 
 Nothing further was done in the business. EE. 
 
 A joint committee was appointed to report on the circum- 
 stances of different colleges in the United States, in refer- 
 ence to religious instruction given in them respectively, and 
 on the practicability of establishing a seminary or seminaries 
 for the education of youth, under the influence and authority 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The committee were 
 the presiding Bishop, Bishops Bowen and Brownell, Rev. 
 Dr. Wharton, Rev. Mr. Baldwin, Rev. Mr. Hooper, Mr. 
 Kean, and Mr. AVilkins. FF. 
 
 The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies drew up a re- 
 port on the state of the Church in the several diocesses, and 
 sent it to the House of Bishops. That house returned it 
 with their triennial pastoral letter, which was read. 
 
 There was a nomination of trustees of the General 
 Theological Seminary, and a recommendation of further 
 efforts for the increase of its funds. 
 
 During the session, a sermon was preached before the 
 body by the presiding bishop, in St. Peter's Church, and a 
 collection was made for the Domestic and Foreign Mission- 
 ary Society. 
 
 A plan was adopted for the defraying of the expenses of 
 every General Convention. 
 
 The next meeting was appointed to be in the city of Phi- 
 ladelphia, on the first Tuesday in November, 1826. 
 
 As usual, the session was concluded with devotional 
 exercises by the presiding bishop. 
 
 The next General Convention was held in St. Peter's 
 Church, in the city of Philadelphia, from the 7th to the 
 
52 
 
 15th of November, in the year 182C. All the bishops were 
 present, except Bishop Moore, of Virginia ; who, previously 
 to the occasion, with the intention of attendance, had pro- 
 ceeded from that state to Hartford, in Connecticut ; in 
 which town he continued during the session, under the 
 visitation of a very dangerous disease. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Wilmer, of Virginia, was chosen president 
 of the House of Clerical and l^ay Deputies, and the Rev. 
 Dr. Benjamin T. Onderdonk, of New- York, was chosen 
 secretary ; who, with permission of the house, appointed 
 the Rev. George Weller, of Pennsylvania, assistant secre- 
 tary. The Rev. William H. De Lancey, of the latter state, 
 was chosen secretary of the House of Bishops. 
 
 The convention was opened by divine service, by a ser- 
 mon from Bishop Bowen, of South-Carolina, and by the 
 administration of the holy communion. 
 
 There was submitted to the two houses the organization 
 of the Church in the state of Mississippi; which, being 
 considered constitutional, the said Church was admitted 
 into union, and a clerical deputy from it took his seat in 
 the convention. 
 
 The most interesting business brought before the body, 
 was that presented by the unanimous vote of the bishops, 
 to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, for the shorten- 
 ing of the service in sundry particulars. This immediately 
 produced a great excitement in the minds of many of the 
 members, both clerical and lay; and it was especially a 
 matter of surprise, that the proposal should come from the 
 bishops, who had been thought by many too strict, and by 
 none too lax in the requisition of conformity to the entire 
 service. GG. 
 
 It would not appear from the journal, but is a fact which 
 ought to be recorded in this place, that the proposal for 
 abbreviation, as at first sent by the bishops, contained the 
 limiting of the use of the litany to seasons and days especi- 
 ally appointed for humiliation. This occasioned so great 
 a sensation in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
 that the bishops tacitly withdrew their communication, and 
 then presented it in the form in which it now appears on 
 the journal. HH. 
 
 So far as regards the morning and the evening services, 
 the proposed abbreviations were a permission to exercise 
 discretion as to the number of psalms, and to the portions 
 of lessons ; provided, in regard to each lesson, there be at 
 Jeast fifteen vorscs. License was also given, in reference 
 
53 
 
 to the calendar, that in churches in which there is the 
 observance of what are called the prayer days, the minister 
 may make his choice of a chapter intervening between one 
 such day and another. The notoriety that the calendar 
 was constructed with a view to a daily morning and evenino- 
 service, is proof, that where this does not obtain, but there 
 is service on Wednesdays and Fridays, it is conducive to 
 edification to admit the proposed latitude. II. 
 
 Besides, the alterations in the morning and evening 
 services, there were proposed two in the Office for Confir"^ 
 mation — both of tliem permissive. The first was a preface, 
 confessed by all to be more suited to present times than 
 that now in the book. The other was a prayer, substan- 
 tially the same with the present, which was to remain, and 
 the proposed alternative was because of oftence taken in 
 various places, at the following words in it liable to be 
 misunderstood — " and hast given them forgiveness of all 
 their sins." For the preface and the prayer, see the Ap- 
 pendix, No. 33. KK. 
 
 In the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, there were 
 not a few of the objectors, who would have found no diffi- 
 culty as to the proposed alterations in the service, had they 
 not been combined with a rubric, considered as requiring 
 the recital of the ante-communion service, more explicitly 
 than before. There was an endeavour to divide the two 
 subjects ; but this was impossible, as they constituted but 
 one proposal from tlie bishops. In consequence of the 
 adoption of the whole instrument, the sense of the House 
 of Clerical and Lay Deputies is now declared in favour of 
 what the bishops have all along declared, and that unani- 
 mously, to be the meaning of the rubric, pronounced by 
 so many to be dubious. LL. 
 
 After much discussion, the proposal of the bishops, com- 
 prehending the particulars which have been enumerated, 
 was adopted by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
 so far as is permitted by the constitution ; that is, to be 
 referred to the conventions of the difllerent states, and to 
 be acted on at the next General Convention. MM. 
 
 The business which may be thought the next in import- 
 ance, is that concerning the Psalms in metre and the 
 Hymns. On the first of these subjects, the committee 
 were continued; no progress being made in it at this time. 
 The other was brought to a consummation, the number 
 being enlarged to two hundred and thirteen. There had 
 foeen many meetings of the committee on that work j and 
 
54 
 
 great pains had been bestowed on it. Considerable expense 
 having been incurred by various impressions from the press 
 of what was to be brought under consideration, tiiere was 
 permission given to a committee, with a view to retribution, 
 to dispose of a copy-right of these Hymns for one year. 
 NN. 
 
 There was but one canon passed. It altered the former 
 canon, requiring one year for the admission of a candidate 
 to holy orders ; extending the term to three years ; unless* 
 in the diocese to which he belongs, the bishop, with the 
 advice and the consent of the clerical members of the 
 standing committee, shall deem it expedient to ordain him 
 after the expiration of a shorter term, not less than one 
 year. The bishops transmitted two other canons ; bnt they 
 were referred to a committee on the canons, who were to 
 be in existence during the recess ; in order to make an 
 arrangement of the whole body of the canons ; with such 
 improvements as they may devise ; to be submitted to the 
 next convention. One of these canons restricted applica- 
 tion for orders, to the bishop in whose diocese he had been 
 admitted a candidate ; unless, in pursuance of letters di- 
 missory from such bishop. The other, was for " the deter- 
 mining of the rights and the duties of the presbyters and 
 deacons of this Church, in respect to residence and account- 
 ability." OO. 
 
 In the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, two days 
 were spent in discussing the project of a clerical deputy 
 from South-Carolina, for the forming of a society, the 
 object of which should be, the printing of books calculated 
 to promote the cause of religion, and of the Episcopal 
 Church in particular. The society was to be entitled — 
 " for the Promoting of Christian Knowledge." The oper- 
 ation was to be begun with seventy-two thousand dollars, 
 to be raised by the subscriptions of the members ; to be 
 repaid to them in books, and the capital to be finally ex- 
 tended to one hundred thousand dollars. A great majority 
 of the members considered the scheme as not coming within 
 the sphere of congregational business, and it was accord- 
 ingly rejected : but of these ^here was a i)roportion, who 
 were otherwise persuaded of its utility. PP. 
 
 There was made a satisfactory report of the state of the 
 Theological Seminary. It was drawn at considerable 
 length, by a joint committee of the two houses. In the 
 course of the session, there was a settlement of the propor- 
 tions of the different states to trusteeships. 
 
05 
 
 There was also a rejDort, considered as satisfactory, of 
 the proceedings of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary 
 Society. 
 
 There was the continuation of a committee, with a view 
 to the future estabhshment of a college for general science, 
 under the authority of the convention ; and to report on the 
 interests of this Church in seminaries now existing. 
 
 A committee was appointed, for the ascertaining of any 
 errors which there may be, in the editions of the Bible. 
 
 There was drawn up and adopted, as usual, a view of 
 the state of the Church, by a committee appointed for the 
 purpose ; and grounded on documents from the conventions 
 of the several states. 
 
 It was referred to the Church in the different states, to 
 consider of and to adopt an amendment to the second clause 
 of the eighth article of the constitution, so as to place the 
 thirty-nine articles of religion on the same footing with the 
 liturgy, in respect to any alterations which may be pro- 
 posed. 
 
 A pastoral letter to the members of the Church having 
 been submitted to the House of Bishops, and approved of 
 by them, was sent to the House of Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties, and there read. 
 
 In consequence of a report from a joint committee of the 
 two houses, it was determined, that the next meeting shall 
 be in the city of Philadelphia, on the first Wednesday of 
 August, 1829. 
 
 The session was closed by prayer and a psalm, with a 
 short address by the presiding bishop. 
 
 The next session of the General Convention began on 
 Wednesday, the 12th of August, 1829, and ended on 
 Thursday, the 20th day of the same month. The bishops 
 present at the opening of the session, were Bishop White, 
 of Pennsylvania ; Bishop Hobart, of New-York ; Bishop 
 Griswold, of the Eastern Diocese ; Bishop Moore, of Vir- 
 ginia; Bishop Croes, of New- Jersey ; Bishop Brownell, of 
 Connecticut ; Bishop Ravenscroft, of North-Carolina ; and 
 Bishop Onderdonk, assistant bishop of Pennsylvania, who 
 had been elected and consecrated during the recess. 
 
 The convention was opened with a sermon by Bishop 
 Brownell, from Galatians iv. 18, by divine service, and by 
 the administering of the holy communion. 
 
 The Rev. William E. Wyatt, D. D. of Maryland, was 
 chosen president; and the Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk, 
 D. D. of New-York, secretary of the House of Clerical and 
 
56 
 
 Lay Deputic<:. The Rev. Bird Wilson, D. D. of Pennsyl- 
 vania, was chosen secretary of the House of Bishops. 
 
 The Church having become organized in the state of 
 Kentucky, it was admitted into the union ; as was also the 
 Church in the state of Tennessee. This Church had been 
 organized, although with a fault in one of its canons, which 
 was strongly recommended to be corrected. From infor- 
 mation received, this was confidently expected to be the 
 result. QQ. 
 
 There was the adoption of the alterations proposed by 
 the last General Convention, requiring, in regard to any 
 alterations in the thirty-nine articles, that they shall be 
 presented at one General Convention, with the view of 
 being carried into efl'cct by the next, after intermediate 
 submission to the churches in the several states ; in liker 
 manner as is provided for in regard to alterations in the 
 Book of Common Prayer. The alterations of this book, 
 proposed by the last General Convention, were not acted 
 on by the present, having been found unacceptable to tho 
 major number of the diocesan conventions. KR. 
 
 What principally occupied the attention of this conven- 
 tion, was the presentation of the Rev. William Meade, 
 D. D. of Virginia, to be assistant bishop of the Church in* 
 that state; under the proviso, that the election did not confer 
 on him the right of succession to the diocesan Episcopacy. 
 The evils residting from such an economy were so manifest, 
 that there was unanimity of opinion in opposition to it in 
 both houses: even the deputies from the diocese in question 
 not defending it ; and expressing their confident persuasion, 
 that tiie ground would be changed at the next meeting of 
 the convention. 
 
 The only difterence of opinion in the House of Clerical 
 and Lay Deputies, during a discussion of several diiys, was 
 on the point pressed by many of the members, that in the 
 presentation for consecration, it should be made dependent 
 on the condition of withdrawing the restriction which had 
 occasioned the dissatisfaction. On the other hand, it was 
 pleaded, that as the course taken in Virginia, however ex- 
 ceptionable, was not without precedent ; as the occurrence 
 of the like in future might be prevented by a canon; and 
 as the deputies from the state concerned had come under 
 instructions to move for some provision, relatively to the 
 relation subsisting between a diocesan and his assistant ; 
 by which they seem to have pledged themselves to submit 
 to the declared sense of the body now assembled ; it would 
 
57 
 
 be a reasonable dictate of moderation, to carry the proposet! 
 measure into effect. During some days, the defeat of it 
 seemed almost certain ; but towards the close of the con- 
 troversy, the matter took a different turn ; and the measure 
 of presentation was carried, but not witijout the dissent of 
 a very considerable minority. All the speakers against it 
 were careful to make it known, that they had no grounds 
 of personal dissatisfaction with Br. Meade ; for whose 
 character they professed great respect. 
 
 When the presentation came to the House of Bishops, 
 they determined on the consecration, and notified it to the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. At the same time, 
 they declared their dissatisfaction with the non-succession 
 scheme of the convention of Virginia ; resolving, that they 
 never would hereafter consecrate an assistant, not intended 
 to be of course the successor ; and recommending the same 
 forbearance to their absent and to any future brethren. 
 They also prepared a canon against any future occurrence 
 of the present difficulty : which canon was sent to the other 
 house, and passed by them. SS. 
 
 On the next day, being Wednesday, October 19th, tho 
 Rev. William Meade, D. D. was consecrated in St. James's 
 Church, by the presiding bishop; six other bishops, to wit, 
 Bishops Hobart, Griswold, Croes, Moore, Brownell, and 
 Ondcrdonk, joining in the imposition of hands. The ser- 
 mon was preached by tho presiding bishop, from Revela- 
 tions ii. 10. 
 
 At this convention, seven canons were passed. 
 
 The first was principally designed to provide for tho 
 reception of a minister from another denomination, without 
 the delay exacted in other cases, by a provision additional 
 to what existed in a former canon, (the fifth of 1820,) to 
 tho effect. It had been a matter of difference of opinion, 
 whether it was exacted by the former provision, that the 
 minister admitted should have undergone some species of 
 ordination. The present canon rendered this necessary. 
 
 The second canon extends the substance of the twenty- 
 sixth of 1808, so as to enjoin inquiry into probable reports 
 of such offences of the clergy as ought to subject them to 
 ecclesiastical discipline. 
 
 The third, in addition to the eighth of 1820, provides, that 
 on the deposition of a clergyman, because of his declaration 
 that he will no longer officiate as a clergyman of the Epis- 
 copal Church, it shall be certified, if the fact be so, that his 
 severance is not for any cause affecting his moral standings. 
 
 8 
 
58 
 
 TIio fourth respect:* a niiiiister's cliange of residence 
 from one diocese to another. It so far enlarges the sense 
 of the thirty-iirrft canon of 1803, as to provide, that in the 
 case of liis being under any charge in the diocese from 
 which he removes^, a certificate of his acquittal of the same 
 shall be requisite to his admission to any other. 
 
 The fifth made the provision, which the crisis called for, 
 declaring the succession and the duties of an assistant 
 bishop. 
 
 The sixth abrogated the neeessitVy in the ease of a 
 foreigner, intending to oliiciate in a foreign language, to 
 wait a year for ordination. This provision was accommo- 
 dated to the case of the French church in the city of New- 
 York. 
 
 The seventh was additional to the thirty-third of 1808, 
 providing more distinctly, for consent to a numster's oflici- 
 ating within the parochial boiindarics of any city, borough, 
 ¥iilage, town, or township, of which he is not a resident. 
 
 The presiding bishap presented to the convention certain 
 documents relative to the Church of Denmark; which he 
 had received through the medium of the kind offices of 
 Peter Pederson, Esq. the minister plenipotentiary of his 
 majesty tiic King of Denmark ; containing considerable 
 information, not gerrerally ])osscsscd. These documents 
 have been deposited, with others formerly presented, and 
 in the possession of the Rev. Dr. Kemper; at whose in- 
 stance those now given were procured by Mr. Pederson, 
 during his late visit to his native country, from Dr. Munter, 
 the present bishop of Copenhagen. 
 
 There was submitted to the convention the report of the 
 Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society ; of whose pro- 
 ceedings there was expressed very strong approbation, 
 with an earnest recommendation of a more extensive 
 patronage. Sundry alterations of the constitution, pro- 
 posed by the society, were sanctioned by the convention. 
 
 The proceedings of the trustees of the Theological Semi- 
 nary were submitted ; and there was made a nomination 
 of the requisite number of the trustees of the institution. 
 
 The committee on tlie canons was continued. 
 
 It was recommended to the bishops, to consider of and 
 report to the next General Convention, a plan for the 
 Episcopal superintendence of the churches in the states 
 destitute of bishops. 
 
 The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies signified their 
 wish to the House of Bishops, that in their pastoral ad- 
 
5& 
 
 dress, they woiild notice the dcficicticy of the nnniber of 
 clergy, in comparison of the extent of the fiehi of laboiiv ; 
 and that with a view to a remedy of the evil, they would 
 recommend the instituting of scholarship::;. This desire 
 was complied with. 
 
 Tiie committee on the Psalms in metro was continued. 
 
 For the meeting of the next General Convention, the 
 two houses agreed on the tliird ^Vednesday in October, 
 1832— to be in New-York, 
 
 The business of the session was concluiied with prayer 
 hy the presiding bishop, and by singing u part of a psalm. 
 
 The next meeting of the General Convention was in the 
 year 1832, in the city of New-YorU. Tt began on Wednes- 
 day, tlie 17th of October, u'.id ended its session on Wednes- 
 day, the; 3ist of the same month. The bishops present, 
 were Bishop Wliite, of Peniisylvuiua ; Bisliop Griswold, of 
 the Eastern Diocese; IJishop Bowen, of South-Carolina; 
 Bishop Brownell, of Connecticut ; Bishop il. IJ. Onder- 
 donk, assistant bishop of Fenn:--ylvania ; Bishop ?«Ieade, 
 assistant bishop of Virginia; Bishop Stone, of Maryland; 
 Bishop B. T. Onderdonk, of New-York; and Bishop ives, 
 of North-Carolina. 
 
 The House of Bishops chose for tlieir secretary, the Ilev. 
 Bird Wilson, D.l). of Pennsylvania. 
 
 The Hoase of Clerical and Lay Deputies, beginning with 
 a full deputation, chose the Ilev. William E. ^Vyalt, D. D. 
 their president, and the Ilev. Henry Anlhon, D. D. their 
 secretary. 
 
 The first and principal business occurring and occupying 
 both of the houses, was the singular state of things which 
 had taken place in the diocese of Ohio. The origin of it 
 was as follows J — 
 
 Jn forming the constitution of Kenyon College, located 
 at Gambier, in that state, it vvas provided, that the presidency 
 should be necessarily connected with the Episcopacy of the 
 diocese. In the collegiate tlcpartment, tlio principal autho- 
 rity was vested in a board of trustees, to which that of the 
 j)resident, and of every professor, was subordinate and ac- 
 countable. The incongruity of this is obvious. In the 
 event of the charge of insufficiency or of misconduct in the 
 president, the trustees must sit in judgment on him, not only 
 in that character, but as bishop. If he should resign, or 
 be dismissed from the former of these stations, it must be 
 Si'om the latter also. 
 
 Tiie matter was soon tested, in the person of the first 
 
bishop. There arose serious and irreconcilable differences 
 between him and all the professors ; in which each party 
 a])pealed to the trustees, whose power was alike acknow- 
 icdged by them. The trustees decided in favour of the 
 professors. On this the bishop sent in his resignation ; 
 and, the convention of the diocese being then in session, 
 he notified to them the act ; considering it as inducing a 
 resignation of the Episcopacy. The convention, after a 
 fruitless endeavour, by a committee, to persuade to, a recall 
 of the resignation, declared their acceptance of it. They 
 then proceeded to the choice of a successor, and it fell on 
 the Rev. Charles P. M'llvaine, of Brooklyn, in the state of 
 New-York. 
 
 This transaction was in September, 1831, and there the 
 matter rested until the meeting of the diocesan convention, 
 in the present year, owing to doubts entertained and ex- 
 pressed in former proceedings of our ecclesiastical councils, 
 on the subject of episcopal resignations. At the last diocesan 
 convention of Ohio, the choice of Dr. M'llvaine was re- 
 newed, which brought up the matter before the General 
 Convention, combined with the case of Bishop Chase abovo 
 related. 
 
 On this case there was no material difference of opinion 
 in the House of Bishops. In the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies, it led to a wide range of debate on the questions, 
 whether a bishop have a right to resign for any reasons 
 judged by him to be sufficient ; and on the supposition of 
 the negative of this, whether the diocese of Ohio be not 
 nevertheless vacated by the bishop's abandonment of his 
 charge, and by his retirement beyond the limits of our ec- 
 clesiastical union, which cannot be reasonably stretched to 
 a territory not within it. Under the latter of these heads, 
 there could not be any doubt of the fact to which the argu- 
 ment related, but it was earnestly pressed by a respectable 
 portion of the house, that there should be adopted concilia- 
 tory measures, through the interposition of the bishops to 
 renew the harmony between Bishop Chase and his late 
 diocese. This project miscarried, and it does not appear to 
 have been held feasible by any of the bishops. The result 
 was the recommending of Dr. M'llvaine for consecration. 
 
 The bishops, on receiving the instrument of his presenta- 
 tion, manifested the determination, that for the acting under 
 it, and to guard against capricious resignations, there should 
 be a canon prescribing the circumstances in which alone 
 such an act should be held valid. Accordingly, the canon 
 
61 
 
 was prepared, and sent to the other house. There it ex- 
 cited a warm opposition, but was at hist carried. It is the 
 thirty-second of the code now in force. The bishops heUl 
 it to be an indispensable preliminary, to the supply of tho 
 exigency in Ohio, which, they thought, might else be iiere- 
 after pleaded, to sanction what they considered and feared 
 as a future evil. TT. 
 
 Out of the case of Bishop Chase, and bearing a relation 
 to it, there arose two incidental subjects, which could not 
 but engage the attention of the convention. 
 
 To the House of Bishops there were communicated two 
 resolves of the convention of Ohio, directed to two points. 
 The first of the resolves invited the bishops to exercise a 
 visitatorial power over their seminary. The second made 
 to the convention at large the request, that they would no- 
 tice the rules, statutes, and other proceedings of the semi- 
 nary, with a view to the same, as contemplated in the con- 
 stitution; meaning, to secure its adhesion to the Episcopal 
 Church. This document was referred to a committee of 
 both houses. 
 
 As the first of the said resolves was to be acted on by the 
 bishops only, they declared themselves incompetent to ex- 
 ercise the power of visitors as a body, leaving to each bishop 
 the privilege of acting in the premises according to his dis- 
 cretion. 
 
 The report of the joint committee, accepted by both 
 houses, on the other resolve, contented itself with stating, 
 that the convention of Ohio had not pointed out any con- 
 trariety to the doctrine, or the discipline, or the worship of 
 the Church ; and that they had not been furnished with the 
 copies of the proceedings which they were desired to notice. 
 With the declaration, that they could not at present accede 
 to the request of the convention of Ohio, they said, that 
 they did not intend thereby to accept or to refuse the autho- 
 rity, which, by the seventh section of the constitution of the 
 Theological Seminary in the diocese of Ohio, is conferred 
 on this convention. UU. 
 
 In this convention, the canons of the Church came under 
 a careful consideration ; time and experience having ren- 
 dered some alterations expedient, and there having been 
 appointed, at the last convention, a committee for the re- 
 modelling of the code ; whose report was made and acted 
 on at the ])resent session. WW. 
 
 The Church of Alabama was admitted to the federal 
 onion, as was also that in the territory of Midiigan, 
 
02 
 
 There was read a report from the trustees of ihe General 
 Theological Seminary, and a call was made on every paro- 
 chial clergyman of this Church, for an annual collection in 
 aid of the institution. XX. 
 
 The prayer which has been always used in the Genera! 
 Convention during their session, being the same which has 
 been provided by the Church of England, was so prepared 
 and enacted, as to be used in all our churches during all 
 future sessions. 
 
 It was thought not unworthy of the assembled body, to 
 give directions as to the postures to be observed during the 
 administration of the communion. There have been dif- 
 ferent constructions of the rubrics, as to that point, the di- 
 versity of positions, in persons equally de-irous of rubrical 
 conformity, bearing a very unseemly appearance. 
 
 There being something wanting, to perfect the permission 
 given at the last convention, of the use of the Book of 
 Common Prayer, translated into the French langiiage, the 
 defect was now supplied. 
 
 The churches in Mississippi, Alabama, and Lousiana, 
 were authorized to associate in the choice of a bishop. 
 
 There was an alteration made in the constitution of the 
 General Missionary Society, providing, that they shall meet 
 triennially, in the place where the General Convention shall 
 hold its session ; the body of deputies to apjwint the times 
 of meeting, and nine to form a quorum. 
 
 There was corrected an error in " The Form of Private 
 Baptism," as it stands in the editions of the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer. The error was pronounced to be tyjmgraphi- 
 cal, and may be perceived to be such, by a coniparison of 
 the form with that of the Church of England : no alteration 
 in the premises having been made by this Church. 
 
 It was proposed to the next convention, to insert among 
 the occasional prayers, that provided for conventional meet- 
 ings, as above stated. 
 
 The bishojTs ordained a rule of seniority and of presidency, 
 to be observed in their body; also a rule of seniority in re- 
 lation to bishops elect. YY. 
 
 They also recorded their pointed disallowance of the 
 union of the Episcopacy with the presidency of a college, 
 designed to be indissoluble, as constituted in Ohio. 
 
 There was proposed and adopted the position, that in the 
 rubric immediately before *' The Administration of the 
 Holy Communion," instead of " standing at the north side 
 of the table," it should be, " standing at the right side of 
 
G8 
 
 the table." This is certainly the most nc^reeablc to the 
 spirit of the rubric, and the most consistent, where a nhiuch 
 does not stand cast and west, with the table at the former, 
 as were all the churches of England when the liturgy was 
 framed. ZZ. 
 
 In addition to the election to the Episcopacy of the Rev. 
 Dr. M'llvainc, for Ohio, there came before the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies, that of the Rev. John 11. Hop- 
 kins, for the diocese of Vermont ; that of the Rev. Benjamin 
 B. Smith, for the diocese of Kentucky ; and that of the 
 Rev. George W. Doane, for the diocese of New-Jersey. 
 
 At a meeting of the two houses, there was read by the 
 presiding bishop a pastoral letter, issued by the House of 
 Bishops. 
 
 The four reverend brethren elected to the Episcopacy, 
 were consecrated in St. Paul's Chapel, in the city of New- 
 York, on the 31st of October, in the year 1832; the day 
 concluding the forty-sixth year since the administrator of 
 the service embarked for England in the said city, with the 
 view of receiving consecration. AAA. 
 
 After the said act, the convention adjourned, to meet in 
 the city of Philadelphia, on the third Wednesday in August, 
 in the year 1835; there being previously recited some 
 prayers by the presiding bishop, and the 133d Psalm sung. 
 
 The next General Convention was held in the city of 
 Philadelphia, in the year 1835, from the 19th of August to 
 the 1st of September, inclusive. 
 
 The session was opened in St. Peter's Church, when a 
 sermon was delivered by the Right Rev. Bishop Stone ; 
 and prayers were read by the Rev. Dr. Wyatt, and the 
 Rev. Dr. Burroughs. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Wyatt was chosen president of the House 
 of Clerical and Lay Deputies; and the Rev. Dr. Anthon, 
 secretary of the same. 
 
 in the House of Bishops there was prepared an admis- 
 sion into the ecclesiastical union, of the diocese of Illinois, 
 with their bishop, the Right Rev. Philander Chase, D. D. 
 who, having resigned the Episcopacy of the diocese of 
 Ohio, was considered as eligible to this new charge. The 
 measure was concurred in by the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies. BBB. 
 
 The House of Bishops disagreed to the proposal of the 
 last General Convention, altering the rubric before " The 
 Selections of Psalms ;" which was concurred in by the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. CCC, 
 
64 
 
 The House of nishops agreed to the proposal of the last 
 General Convention, altering the rubric before the eoni- 
 munion service, by substituting the word " right" for the 
 word " north." This also was agreed to by the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies. DDJD. 
 
 There took place an entire change in the organization 
 of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society. The 
 convention are, in future, to be that body. They are to 
 act through the medium of a board, the members of which 
 were accordingly chosen towards the close of the session. 
 Under this board, and accountable to it, there are two 
 committees, one for the domestic department, and the other 
 for the foreign. They are located, the former in New- 
 York, and the latter in Philadelphia ; with liability to the 
 change of place, at the discretion of the board of missions. 
 EEE.* 
 
 Provision was made for the division of the larger dio- 
 cesses ; when, in their opinion respectively, from increase 
 of the Episcopal population, such a measure shall become 
 necessary to the giving of due cftcct to the Episcopacy. 
 For the accomplishing of this, there was required an alter- 
 ation of the second article of the constitution, which was 
 therefore recommended. FFF. 
 
 To the board of missions, constituted as above, the con- 
 vention committed the providing for the support of two 
 missionary bishops ; one for the state of Louisiana, and tho 
 territories of Florida and Arkansas ; and the other for Mis- 
 souri and Indiana. For the former of these departments, 
 the House of Bishops nominated the Rev. Francis L. Hawks, 
 D. D. ; and for the latter, the Rev. Jackson Kemper, D. D. 
 In each of the cases, the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
 ties concurred, by a unanimous election. GGG. 
 
 There was also provision made for the consecrating of a 
 bishop for any country exterior to the United States, where 
 such a measure should be expedient for the discharge of 
 the connnission to preach the gospel to all nations. HHH. 
 
 In the House of Bishops certain proposals were matured, 
 for the better exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But, 
 the proposals being sent to the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies, towards the close of the session, they voted a 
 reference of the subject to the next General Convention, 
 and in this the House of Bishops concurred. III. 
 
 Both boards arc now ia New-York. 
 
65 
 
 There was referred to certain clergymen, acquainted 
 with the German language, the providing of a translation 
 of the liturgy therein. KKK. 
 
 It was determined by both houses, that in the confession 
 in the morning and evening prayer, the voices of the minis- 
 ter and of the congregation should be concurrent ; and that 
 the word " Amen" should be in the Roman letter, to show 
 that it is to be repeated by both. In the same letter the 
 word is to be printed, and for the same reason, in the 
 Lord's Prayer, after the confession, in the trisagion and 
 in the Creed. LLL. 
 
 Directions were issued, and committees appointed, for 
 correct editions of the Bible, and of the Book of Common 
 Prayer in future. MMM. 
 
 Both houses accepted, from the Rev. Dr. Hawks, his 
 present of certain books and other documents, illustrative 
 of the early history of the Episcopal Church. NNN. 
 
 Recent circumstances having rendered a few additional 
 canons expedient; and experience having suggested the 
 use of a few alterations of those now in force ; the said 
 exigencies were provided for. Of measures to that effect 
 there is no need of a recital here ; as the canons, in their 
 present form, will, it is presumed, be printed in a separate 
 pamphlet. OOO, 
 
2. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
ADDl riONAL STATEMENTS, &c. 
 
 Ae Page 19. Of the Q^uestio/i of American Episcopaa/, as 
 agitated in the Colonies. 
 
 There were two periods which were especially productive 
 of pamphlets and newspaper essays on this subject. The 
 first of these periods was about the time of the civil con- 
 troversy, which arose on the occasion of the stamp act. 
 The question of American Episcopacy was brought forward 
 in a pamphlet by the Rev. East Apthorp, missionary at 
 Cambridge, 3Iassachusetts, a native of that province, but 
 afterward possessed of several considerable preferments 
 in England. His production was answered by Dr. Mayhew, 
 a congregational minister of Boston. Several others en- 
 gaged in the dispute ; among whom was Archbishop 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 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 
 pamphlets published by the Doctor and others. In addition 
 to these, the newspapers abounded with periodical and 
 other productions. The author of the present performance 
 was at that time a youth ; but from what he then heard 
 and observed, he believes it was impossible to have obtained 
 the concurrence of a resi>ectable 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 Pres- 
 jjytery ; and of a form of prayer, to that which is extern- 
 
70 Note to page 19. 
 
 porary ? It is believed to have been owing to an exisiing 
 jealousy, that American Episcopacy would have been made 
 an instrument of cn(orcin<.; liic now plan of civil govern- 
 ment, W'iiich had been adopted in Great-Britain; in con- 
 trariety to original compact and future security for freedom : 
 a regard to which was as prevalent among Episcopalians, 
 as among any description of their fellow-citizens. 
 
 Perhaps these sentiments may bo supposed to be con- 
 tradicted by the circumstance, that during the revolutionary 
 war, a considerable number of the American people became 
 inclined to the British cause; and, that of them, a great 
 proportion were Episcopalians. But this is not inconsistent 
 with the sentiments expressed. On the subject of parlia- 
 mentary taxation, it would probably have been impossible 
 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 of governmental influence, there was scarcely 
 a man of that description. When the controversy became 
 ripened into w^ar, some fell off from the cause, from danger 
 to their persons and their properties ; others, from the 
 sentiment tiiat the public evil hazarded might prove worse 
 than that intended to be avoided; and others perhaps, 
 although very few, from scruples of conscience. They who 
 were influenced by these, had stopped short at the taking 
 of arms ; for which, the passion was general. To find 
 freedom in this step, and yet to withdraw while the cause 
 of so important a measure existed, may have been the 
 dictate of prudence, but could not have been that of con- 
 science. AH the aforesaid circumstances operated with 
 increased vigour, when ihe question of independence was 
 forced on the reluctant public. Had the British arms suc- 
 ceeded, and thus the right of parliamentary taxation been 
 established — for there was no ofler of relincpjishment of it, 
 until after the alliance with France — a membership of the 
 Episcopal Church would have been little more than a poli- 
 tical mark, to distingui!^:h those who should advocate claims 
 hostile to American interests. 
 
 To persons who may give their attention to tlio colonial 
 history, the question may occur — Why did not the British 
 government so far consult its own interests, as to autho- 
 rize the consecrating of bishops for America? This (pics- 
 tion 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 
 
Note to page 19, 71 
 
 the whole of the dissenting intercBt in England, and the 
 weight of that interest was more iiiijiortant to them in their 
 estimation than the making of a party for the mother 
 country in the colonics The matter is resolvable into tiie 
 ignorance of govevnmcnt of the real state of the people, 
 whom they expected to govern so easily, at so great a dis- 
 tance. Again, this ignorance is resolvable into their de- 
 pending on information received from persons whose jiulg- 
 mcnts, or whose honesty, they ought, the most of all, to have 
 distrusted: an error, which hung heavily on all their pro- 
 ceedings, until the period when it ceased to be of conse- 
 quence. 
 
 Lest it should be thought, that the dissenting interest in 
 England has been magnified, it ought to be known, that the 
 forces of the diiTcrent denominations 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 opposition. They had 
 great influence in elections to parliament. 
 
 As to the laity's uniting in an application for the Episco- 
 pacy, it is natural to suppose that this, if to bo found any 
 where, would have been found in Virginia, a province set- 
 tled by members of the Church of England, who were still 
 the great mass of its inhabitants. Ifow far they were from 
 favouring the endeavour, may be learned from the following 
 statement. 
 
 In the year i 771, a convention of twelve clergymen, there 
 being about a hundred in the province, and, after a larger 
 convention had rejected the measure 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 ; that they must have felt the want 
 of ecclesiastical discipline over immoral clergymen, and the 
 burden of sending to England for ordination ; there seems 
 no way of accounting for their conduct, but the danger re- 
 sulting from the newly introduced system of colonial govern- 
 ment. This is warranted by the absurdity of the reasons 
 
72 Note io page 19. 
 
 on which the protest of the four clergymen was bottometfj 
 among which, perhaps the most absurd, was professed re- 
 spect for the diocesan authority of the bishops of London ; 
 it being notorious, that the then bishop and his immediate 
 predecessors had manifested zeal for the appointment now 
 opposed. In consequence of the proceeding 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 unan- 
 swerable; and that, as the address expresses, there were, 
 on the other side " only unreasonable jealousies and ground- 
 less susj)icions :" unreasonable and groundless, so far as 
 they were declared, and referring to titles to civil offices, 
 and the like ; while there was a sentiment silently operat- 
 ing, to the effect above stated. Whether the address of 
 the twelve clergy crossed the Atlantic is not here known. 
 This was to depend 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 protesters, the first named of them 
 — Richard Henry Lee, fifteen years after, and then presi- 
 dent of Congress, did not hesitate to furnish to the two 
 bishops who went for consecration, a certificate, that the 
 business on which they went was consistent with the civil 
 institutions of the American republic* 
 
 Certain it is, that no endeavours for a lay petition for 
 Episcopacy were made. Some accounted for this, on the 
 principle, that as the wished for bishop would have a rela- 
 tion 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 tlie clergy ? The well informed 
 advocates for Episcopacy must doubtless have known the 
 imperfection of such a scheme : but they who suggested 
 the proviso must have considered it as a prudential ex- 
 pedient. 
 
 * For tho porrcctues^ of tho opinion expressed of the utter in;ibility of the 
 British adniini.stratioiH for the government of the colonies, there may be here a 
 reference to liissett's History ol' the Reign of George III. This author wrote in 
 opposition to IJelsham, and may, therefore, be .snp])osed. on tlie whole, favourable 
 to government. But he points out, with candour, the contrariety between the 
 views of ministers and the consequences of their acts — evidently bottomed on 
 false information, and their relying on tin; persons whom they ought the most to 
 have (listrusteil. 
 
Note to page 19. 73^- 
 
 Had bishops been consecrated for America on the plan 
 projjosed by Archbishop Seeker ; the civil government no 
 further intcrreritiir than in tlie grant of the royal permis- 
 sion ; it is ditiiciih. to perceive, how hinderance could have 
 been attempted by any description of persons, without an 
 avowal of intolerance ; and v.ithout a disposition to un- 
 provoked insurrection, beyond what can be supposed from 
 any thing that passed of a poMtical description. That good 
 prelate's scheme is unfolded in his letter to Mr. Walpole, 
 printed among the prelate's works. From the circum- 
 stance, that, since the revolution, an act of Parliament was 
 held necessary to permit the giving of a beginning to the 
 American succession, it may be thought, that the archbishop 
 was mistaken in his opinion of the sufficiency of the license 
 of the king. But this would not be a correct inference. 
 The case became altered by the event of American inde- 
 pendence : and although there was legislative interference 
 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 Parliament; it was the opinion of the 
 author, at the time of the controversy here noticed, that no 
 disturbance would have hap|>ened, 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 subser- 
 vient to the support 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 ))eojile; the great mass of whom, including the best 
 informed, and those who had the property of the country in 
 their hands, had set themselves in a determined, and, as 
 the author thinks, a justifiable opposition to the new system. 
 
 It is well known, that religious opinion has been often 
 made, by circumstances, the test and the instrument of a 
 political party ; when the views of the party had not any 
 more natural connexion with the opinion, than with its 
 opposite. Thus, in England, Arminianism was conceived 
 of as allied to absolute monarchy, and Calvinism to popular 
 privilege ; at the same time that, in the United Netherlands, 
 
 10 
 
74 Note Ut page 1 6. 
 
 the latter supported the monarchical, and the former the 
 republican branch of the constitution. The grievances 
 which produced the American war, were the result of 
 claims of one peo])le over another; and not of the question, 
 as to what would be the wisest distribution of the internal 
 powers of either. Besides, it may be remarked, that Epis- 
 copacy, 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 
 deliberation has established over the union; and to those 
 plans which, even during the heats of popular commotion, 
 were adopted for the individual states. The sentiment 
 wished to be here impressed, is, that Episcopacy, under the 
 old regimen, would have probably been considered as sub- 
 servient 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 author has 
 here written, were it applied as a censure on what some of 
 his brethren, who were before him, have advanced in favour 
 of their right to an Episcopate. Far from this, he honours 
 their meniories ; 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 tlie 
 character and the circumstances of the American people, 
 to what would have been the eft'ects 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 contrariety to the ge- 
 neral sentiment of their countrymen. But this is apparent 
 only. There were no persons more hostile to the British 
 claims, than they who withdrew from the resistance of 
 them : this with very few exceptions. When the contro- 
 versy issued in war, and afterward 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 increased by 
 unjustifiable measures of the newly erected governments in 
 some of the states. Still, the sentiment was universal, of 
 the sacred nature of the rights invaded, and would again 
 
Ncfte to page 19. 75 
 
 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 indica- 
 tive of aversion to the British character, in the author's 
 mind. Far from entertaining any such aversion, he prefers 
 the laws and the manners of the British nation to those of 
 any other; either from partiality to the country of his an- 
 cestors, or, as he believes, in consequence of an impartial 
 comparison. But he reasons on the principle, 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 otherwise, according to 
 his personal character : but no people ever stuck at any 
 crimes which advanced their 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 Church in America by the revolution , 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 deliver- 
 ed, on account of the estabHshments existing in Maryland 
 and Virginia ; which would not have been overset by the 
 British government. The subsequently prostrate condition 
 of the Church in these states, may be urged as a proof of 
 the advantages which would have attended a continuance 
 of the establishment. But this reasoning is inadmissible, 
 if, as before sHpposed, the prostration was owing to the 
 preceding system, of an amendment 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 
 establishment. Even in the ohl parts, numbers were leaving 
 the Church, to attend the ministrations of preachers, who 
 had recently availed themselves of the very little regard 
 entertained for therr clergy, to produce a popular desertion 
 of the Church itself. Under such circumstances, it was 
 hardly to be expected, that the establishment would have 
 redounded to the reputation and the increase of the Church 
 generally. It was becoming more and more unpopular; 
 \yith some, because it was not considered as promoting 
 
76 Note to page 20. 
 
 piety ; and with these and others, because they thought the 
 provision for it a useless burden on the community.* 
 
 There is a remarkiible fact in Virginia, countenancing 
 the sentiments delivered. After the fall of the establish- 
 ment, a considerable proportion of the clergy continued to 
 enjoy the glebes — the law considering them as freeholds 
 during life — without performing a single act of sacred duty, 
 except, perhaps, that of marriage. They knew that their 
 pubhc ministrations would not have been attended. 
 
 B. Page 20. Of the ^ueMion of using ike 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 owing to scruples on this point, it 
 may be thought important, in reference to such future 
 political changes, as are rendered possible by the uncer- 
 tainty of human affairs. 
 
 So far as the author knows or believes, the difficulties 
 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 connexions with their flocks were 
 rendered, by their personal characters, dependent wholly 
 on the continuance of the establishment, and, of course, 
 fell with it. Again, many worthy ministers entertained 
 scruples in regard to the oath of allegiance to the states, 
 
 * On the qnestion of burden, as detached from all other considerations, there 
 is a fallacy not geuerall)' perceived. Under ihe 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 disproportioiiably on people of moi !eiate means. 
 During liie establishment it fell on llieiich, in tolerable projiorliou to their wealili. 
 
 There is another fallacy in this business, in llie reproach bioiiglil on the Cluiich, 
 when it ought to have fallen on the want of wisdom in iho making of ministerial 
 endowments, without some provision for ministerial fidelily. 
 
 Hence, however, a great proportion of the iiiipoptilarity, which led to the 
 seizure and the sale of churches and glebes bv the legislature of Virginia. It 
 ought to be remembered, to the honour of Patrick Henry, thai he resisted the said 
 act, and that it could never be obtained until after his decease. This eminent 
 man has been accused, of having always set his sail to tiie popular gale. There 
 are several facts against the charge, and this is one of them: for he iiad to resist, 
 through many years, the united efi'oils of iren Jioslileto revealed religion in every 
 form, and of other men who were jjrofessors of religion, but cherished rancorous 
 hatred against the Church of England in particular. 
 
 The author is the more free in sjjeaking of die act of the legislature of Virginia, 
 as it will go down to posterity loaded with the reproach of unroiisliliitionality, by 
 the Supreme Court of the United Stales: although their judgniciit wiil have no 
 ^effect beyond the district of Colanibia. See Cranch's Reports, vol» ii. 
 
Note to page 20. 77 
 
 \vithout 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 officiating, on the ground of their eccle- 
 siastical tie to the liturgy of the Church of England. As 
 they were generally men of respectable characters, the 
 discontinuance 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 conscientious 
 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 solemnity — made previously to 
 ordination in the Church of England. It is as follows : — 
 The candidate declares — " That the Book of Common 
 Prayer, and of ordering of bishops, priest-s, and deacons, 
 containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God ; and 
 that it may 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 discharge 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 sacraments. 
 
 But there occurs a case, in which there is an external 
 necessity of omitting a few petitions, not involved in any 
 Christian duty ; so far as civil rulers are identified byname, 
 or other personal description. In such a case, it seems 
 evident, that the promise is the most nearly complied with, 
 by the use of the liturgy to the extent which the external 
 necessity permits. 
 
 When the Church of England was oppressed under the 
 usurpations of parliament 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. 
 
78 Note to page 22. 
 
 C. Page 22. Of the Mectinir in New-Bmnswick^ in May, 
 
 1784. 
 
 The first communications, between the clergy of different 
 states, were at this meeting. It took its rise from a pre- 
 vious 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 3Ioore, and Thomas 3Ioore; 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 
 interest in the welfare of the Church, were requested to at- 
 tend. They were Mr. John Stephens, Mr. Richard Ste- 
 phens, Mr. Richard Dennis, and Mr. Hiet. The author 
 presided at the meeting, and opened it with a sermon. Mr. 
 B. Moore was secretary. 
 
 The first day was chiefly taken up with discussing prin- 
 ciples of ecclesiastical union. The clergy from Philadel- 
 phia read to the assembly the principles just before adopted, 
 under appointments of their vestries, as will be related 
 hereafter, and strongly recommended their taking of similar 
 measures. The next morning, the author was taken aside, 
 before the meeting, by Mr. Benjamin Moore, who expressed 
 the wish of himself and others, that nothing should be urged 
 further on the subject, as they found themselves peculiarly 
 circumstanced, in consequence of their having joined the 
 clergy of Connecticut in their application for the consecra- 
 tion of a bishop. This brought to the knowledge of the 
 clergy from Philadelphia, 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 
 ivhicli the meeting ended — was principally confined to the 
 
Note to page 22. 79 
 
 bu^insRS of the revival of the corporation for the relief of 
 the widows and the children of the clergy ; which had been 
 held oat, as an additional object of the interview.* But 
 before the clergy parted, it was agreed to procure as gene- 
 ral a meeting as might be, of representatives of the clergy 
 and of the laity of the different states, in the city of New- 
 York, on the 6th of October following. The gentlemen of 
 New- York were to notify the brethren eastward, and those 
 of Philadelphia were to do the same southward. 
 
 The author remarked at this meeting, that, notwithstand- 
 ing the good humour which prevailed at it, the more north- 
 ern clergymen were under apprehensions 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 system, 
 in some respects, to the prevailing sentiments and habits of 
 the people of this country, now become an independent and 
 combined commonwealth. 
 
 For the communication with the court of Denmark, as 
 contained in the Narrative, see Appendix, No. 1. 
 
 For the application of the clergy of Connecticut to the 
 archbishop of York, the English primacy having become 
 vacant, and the successor to it being not yet known in 
 America, see Appendix, No. 2. 
 
 D. Page 22. Of the Meeting in New-York, in October, 
 
 1784. 
 
 There were present from Massachusetts, the Rev. Mr. 
 Parker; from Connecticut, the Rev. Mr. Marshall; from 
 New- York, the Rev. Messrs. Provoost, Beach, B. Moore, 
 Bloomer, Cutting, T. Moore, and the Hon. James Duane, 
 Marinas Willet, and J. Alsop, Esquires; from New-Jersey, 
 the Rev. Mr. Ogden, and John De Hart, John Chetwood, 
 Esquires, and Mr. Samuel Spragg; from Pennsylvania, the 
 Rev. Drs. White and Magaw, the Rev. Mr. Hutchins, and 
 Matthew Clarkson, Richard Willing, Samuel Powell, and 
 
 • This corporation, by mutual consent, and with a fair partition of the funds, 
 has siaco resolved itself into three corporations, under charters from the three 
 states. 
 
80 Note to page 22. 
 
 Richard Peters, Esquires ; from Delaware, the Rev. Messrs. 
 Thorne and Wharton, and Mr. Robert Clay; from Mary- 
 land, the Rev. Dr. Smith; and from Virginia, the Rev. Mr. 
 GrilHth. The Rev. Dr. Smith presided, and the Rev. B. 
 Moore was secretary. The names of the members are set 
 down, because they do not appear on the subsequent jour- 
 nals ; and because the short j)rinted account of the proceed- 
 injjs of this rneetini;: was in verv few hands at the time, and 
 is probably at this time generally destroyed or lost. 
 
 The ])resent meeting, like that in May, is here spoken of 
 as a voluntary one, and not an authorized convention, be- 
 cause there were no authorities from the churches in the 
 several states, even in the appointments of the members, 
 which were made from the congregations, to which they 
 respectively belonged; except of Mr. Parker, from Massa- 
 chusetts, 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 jiro- 
 pose. Accordingly, the acts of the body were in the form 
 of recommendation and proposal. 
 
 The principles of ecclesiastical union, recommended at 
 the meeting, Se|)tember, 1784, are as follows: — 
 
 1st. That there shall be a general convention of the 
 Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 
 
 2d. That the Episcopal Church, in each state, send de- 
 puties to the convention, consisting of clergy and laity. 
 
 3d. That associated congregations, in two or more states, 
 may send deputies jointly. 
 
 4th. That the said Church shall maintain the doctrines 
 of the gospel, as now held by the Church of England, and 
 shall adhere to the liturgy of the said Church, as far as shall 
 be consistent with the American revolution, and the con- 
 stitutions of the respective states. 
 
 5th. That in every state where there shall be a bishop 
 duly consecrated and settled, he shall be considered as a 
 member of the convention ex officio. 
 
 Cth. That the clergy and laity, assembled in convention, 
 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 
 Philadelphia, the Tuesday before the feast of St. 3Iichael 
 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 authorized to 
 
Note to jyage 22. §f. 
 
 jtfocccd on the necessary business herein proposed for theif 
 deliberation. 
 
 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. 
 
 It is proper to remark, that although a clergyman ap- 
 peared at this meeting, on the part of the Churcli in Con- 
 necticut, it is not to bethought, that there was an obligation 
 on any in that state to support the above principles ; because 
 Mr. Marshall read to the assembly a paper, which expressed 
 his being only empowered to announce, that tlie clergy of 
 Connecticut had taken measures for 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 for- 
 ward, with their bishop, for the doing of what the general 
 interests of the Church might require. 
 
 With this exception, the principles laid down appeared 
 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 oversetting 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 circumstance, of taking the stand of an independent 
 Church. There was a much more common prejudice against 
 the embracing of the laity in a scheme of ecclesiastical legis- 
 lation. Besides these things, the confessed necessity of 
 accommodating the service to the newly established civil 
 constitution of the country, naturally awakened apprehen- 
 sions of unlimited licence. Hence the restriction to the 
 English liturgy, except in accommodation to the revolution; 
 which restriction was not acquiesced in, as will be seen. 
 
 11 
 
82 Note to page 23. 
 
 E. Page 23. Of Proceedings in sundry States, previous to 
 the Meetings in 1784, at New-Brunswick and at New- 
 York. 
 
 As this convention acted by delegation, an account 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 tiie excej)tion 
 
 of what was done by the clergy, individually, in Connecticut. 
 
 In Massachusetts 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 resolves, which have evidently an allusion 
 
 to what had been done in Philadelphia in the preceding 
 
 May, and communicated to Mr. Parker. The articles 
 
 a^-reed on in Philadelphia 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 regulate the concerns of its 
 own communion. 
 
 3dly, That the doctrines of the Gospel be maintained, as 
 row 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 recpiireth the three orders, of bishops, 
 priests, and deacons ; that the rights and powers of the 
 same be respectively ascertained; and that they be exer- 
 cised according to reasonable laws, to be duly made. 
 
 5thly, That the power of making canons and laws bo 
 vested solely in a representative body of the clergy and the 
 laity conjointly ; in which body, the laity ought not to ex- 
 ceed, or their votes be more in number, than those of the 
 clergy. 
 
Note to page 23. 83 
 
 6thly, That no power be delegated to a general ecclesi- 
 astical 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 
 which will be recorded as laid down in Philadelpliia, are, 
 that in the former they provide for an application to a 
 foreign quarter; wliich was agreeable to intentions enter- 
 tained in framing the latter, although 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 afterward settled to mutual satisfaction, in the 
 meeting at New-York. It is here taken notice of, because 
 there was afterward manifested a disposition in Massa- 
 chusetts, to depart from the principles agreed on ; that the 
 clergy of that state, instead of sending a deputation to Phi- 
 ladel[)hia in September, 1785, held a meeting of their own, 
 about the same time, in Boston, in which they made con- 
 siderable alterations in the liturgy. Although they doubt- 
 less 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 estab- 
 lished. 
 
 In Connecticut there was a meeting of the clergy, in 
 March, 1783, the principal measure of which, was the re- 
 commending of Dr. Samuel Seabury tothe English bishops 
 for consecration. This was an act of the clergy generally 
 in that state, and of a few in New- York ; and is rather to 
 be considered as done by them in their individual capacities, 
 than as a regular ecclesiastical proceeding ; because, as yet, 
 there had not been any organized assembly, who could 
 claim the power of acting for the Church in consequence of 
 either the express or the implied consent of the body of 
 Episcopalians. They who consider the bishop of a diocese 
 as related to its clergy alone, may differ from the author in 
 this remark. But although he has heard such an opinion 
 advanced in conversation, and even remembers it to have 
 been sometimes published in the former controversies con- 
 cerning American Episcopacy; yet it is so evidently con- 
 trary to the system as gathered from scripture and primi- 
 tive antiquity, that he does not suppose it will be maintained 
 in deliberate argument. His recording of this circumstance 
 is not designed, either in disparagement of the personal 
 character of Bishop Seabury, or as doubting of the appro- 
 
Bi Note to page 23. 
 
 bation of the measure by the whole Church, in uhicli ho 
 has since ])resided. In regard to the former, the author 
 entertained for that bishop much affection and respect, the 
 result of what was afterwards perceived in person, of his 
 good sense and Christian disposition. As to the latter, it 
 is believed from what has been since learned, that no man 
 could have been more acceptable, independently on the in- 
 clination said to have been afterward manifested, of leaving 
 all ecclesiastical matters to the clergy : which was done for 
 a while, although the laity have been since introduced into 
 the convention, as in the other states. But the subject is 
 here noticed, as one cause accounting for the failure of the 
 application in England ; a sentiment confirmed by subse- 
 quent information, as will appear in its proper place. 
 
 From letters in possession of 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 conse- 
 quence of a ])revious agreement with the Rev. Dr. Magaw, 
 the rector of St. Paul's Church, and the Rev. Mr. Black well, 
 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 suit- 
 able measures were taken, for the obtaining of the meeting 
 of the convention. 
 
 The result of their deliberations was the establishing 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 foreign authority, ecclesias- 
 tical or civil. 
 
 2dly, That it hath, and ought to have, in common with 
 all other religious societies, full and exclusive powers to 
 regulate the concerns of its own communion. 
 
 3dly, That the doctrines of the gospel be maintained as 
 now professed by the Church of England, and uniibrmity of 
 worship continued, as near as may be, to the liturgy of the 
 said Church, 
 
Note to j)agc 23. 85 
 
 4tlily, That tlie succession of the ministry be nirrecablo 
 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 exer- 
 cised 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. 
 
 Gthly, That no powers be delegated to a general eccle- 
 siastical government, except such as cannot conveniently 
 be exercised by the clergy and laity, in their respective 
 congreirations.* 
 
 The steps preparatory to the resolves were as follow: — they were the first 
 advances towards a general orguuizatioii, and are copied from the original journal 
 in possession. 
 
 . , FhUiuhlpltin, March 29//;, 1784. 
 
 At the house of the Rev. Dr. White, rector of Christ Church and St. Peter^s. 
 
 In consequence of appointments made by the vestry of Christ Church and St 
 Peter's, as llilloweth : — 
 
 " The rector mentioned to the ve.'^try, that he lately had a conversation with the 
 Rev. Dr. Magaw, on the subject of appointing committees from the vestries of 
 their respective 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 the vestry thereon. After some consideration, the 
 vestry agreed to appoint Matthew Clarkson and William Pollard for Christ 
 Chiu-ch, and Dr. Clarkson and John Chaloner for St. Peter's ;" and by the vestry 
 of St. Paul's Church, as followeth :— " A copy of the minute of the vestry of 
 Christ Church and St. Peter'.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 
 concurring in opinion thereon, unanimously appointed Lambert Wihner and 
 Plnnket Fleeson, Esquires, on the part of this church, to carry into execution the 
 good inteiillons of the said mhuite." 
 
 The clergy, together with the gentlemen named in the said appointments 
 (except Matthew Clarkson, Esq, and Dr. Clarkson, who were detained by sick- 
 ness,) 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 snch importance 
 ought to be taken up, if possible, with the concuiTence oi'the Episcopalians of the 
 United States in general. They, therefore, resolved to ask a conference with 
 such members of the Episcopal congregations 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 meeting the body ut 
 Christ Church, on Wednesday evening at seven o'clock. 
 
 _,, , , Claist Church, March 31 sf. 
 
 llie clergy and the two committees assembled, and elected Dr. White their 
 chairman. 
 
 The clergy reported, that agreeably to their promise, they had spoken to several 
 gentlemen, who readily consented to the conference proposed. 
 
 The meeting continued for some time, when it was signified to them, that 
 several gentlemen who had designed to attend, were detained by the unexpected 
 sitting of the honourable House of Assembly, they being meml)ers of that house. 
 The Hon. James Read, Esq. attended, according to desire. After some conver- 
 
86 Note to page 23. 
 
 As this was the first ecclesiastical assembly in any of the 
 states, consisting partly of lay members, and as the author 
 was considered at the time to be the proposer of the mea- 
 sure, the principle of it having been advocated, about a 
 year before, in a pamphlet known to be his, he thinks it 
 proper to give, in this place, a short statement of his rea- 
 sons, 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 dis- 
 trict round it, was an ecclesiastical commonwealth, with all 
 the necessary powers of self government, the body of the 
 people had a considerable 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 pas- 
 sages quoted to the effect by his lordship proving no more 
 than that some of the laity were occasionally present at the 
 deliberations. But there is here spoken of the practice 
 which was prevalent before the introduction of ecclesias- 
 tical 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 reference 
 to very ancient practice, it would be an omission not to take 
 notice of the council of Jerusalem, mentioned in the 15th 
 
 sation on the business of this meeting, it was resolved, that a circular letter be 
 addressed to the wardens and vestrymen of tlie respective Episcopal congregations 
 in the 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 connnittee appointed by the 
 vestry of St. Paul's Chnrch, in the same city, for the purpose of proposing a plan 
 of ecclesiastical goveriunent, being now assembled, are of opinion, that a snbject 
 of such importance ought 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 consultation, to retjuest the church-wardens and vestry- 
 men of each Episcopal congregation in the stale, to delegate one or more of their 
 body to assist at a meeting to be held in this city on Monday, the 24th day of May 
 next; and such clergymen as have parochial cure in the said congregations to 
 attend the meeting, which they hope will contain a full representation of the 
 Episcopal Church in this stale. The above resolve, gentlemen, the first step in 
 their proceedings, they now respectfully and ati'ectionalely communicate to you, 
 Signed, in behalf of the body now assembled, 
 
 WM. WHITE, Chairman. 
 
 In consequence of the above circular, the contemplated meeting was held in 
 Christ Church, on the 24th of May, 17H4. The minutes of the meeting are in 
 the printed journals of the Church in Pennsylvania. The principal result was 
 communicated, a lew days after, to the meeting ia Kew-Brunswick. 
 
Note to page 23. 87 
 
 chapter of the Acts. That the people were concerned in 
 the transactions of that body, is granted generally by Epis- 
 copalian divines. Something has been said, indeed, to dis- 
 tinguish between the authoritative act of the apostles and 
 the concurring act of the lay brethren : and Archbishop 
 Potter, in support of this distinction, corrects the common 
 translation, on the authority of some ancient manuscripts, 
 reading (Acts xv. 23,) " elders brethren :" a similar ex- 
 pression, he thinks, to " men brethren," in chapter ii. 29; 
 where the and is evidently an interlopation, to suit the idiom 
 of the English language. It does not appear, that our best 
 commentators, either before or since the time of Archbishop 
 Potter, have followed his reading. Mills prefers, and 
 Griesbach rejects it. The passage, even with the correc- 
 tions, amounts to what is pleaded for — the obtaining of the 
 consent of the laity ; which must have accompanied the de- 
 cree of Jerusalem ; nothing less being included in the term 
 " muhitude," 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 tiie recorded mission. On no other principle than 
 that here affirmed, can there be accounted for many par- 
 ticulars introduced in the apostolic 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 
 respectively addressed. 
 
 If then the matter pleaded for be lawful, the question of 
 the propriety of adopting it ought to be determined by ex- 
 pediency. 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, discipline, and worship. We could not, in any 
 other way, have had a substitute for the parliamentary 
 sanction to legislative 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 recognise the canons of 
 1603, as binding over the laity. So far as they are a de- 
 claration 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 judgnnents of the courts, to be not bind- 
 
88 Note to page 23. 
 
 inn^ on the laity, for the express reason, that they were not 
 represented in the convocation. — 2clly, From a doubt of our 
 being able to carry Episcopacy in any other way. The 
 prejudices of even some of the members 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 occasions, by persons of other denomina- 
 tions, that not spiritual powers only, but civil also, were in- 
 tended, rendered it very ujicertain whether we could accom- 
 plish 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 reli- 
 gious rights was in contemplation. — 3dly, Without the order 
 of laity permanently making a part of our assemblies, it were 
 much to be apprehended, that the laymen would never be 
 brought to submit to any of our ecclesiastical laws, in 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 im- 
 portant — 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 pur- 
 pose to give the following extract from Bishop Warburton'g 
 " 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 ecclesiastical synods ; there appearing to be much the 
 same reasons for laymen's sitting in convocation, as for 
 churchmen sitting in parliament." On the question 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 
 discipline. 
 
 To what extent lay-interference was carried in the Eng- 
 lish 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 matters of religion, was a just jea- 
 lousie 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 Romish superstition. It was there- 
 
Note to page 23. S9 
 
 fore 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 convocation. However, this convo- 
 cation 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 convenerat.' " 
 
 Afterward, 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 (1 should 
 be thankful! to him who would produce the originall instru- 
 ment thereof) to the select divines appointed by the king-, 
 in which sense, they maybe said to have done it themselves 
 by their delegates, to whom they had deputed their autho- 
 rity. A case not so clear, but that it occasioned a cavill at 
 the next convocation, in the first of Queen 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 
 controversy between the Romanists and the Protestants, 
 concerning the sanction to the principle of persecution by 
 the fourth Lateran Council, in 1225, the defence made is, 
 that the pope read the decrees as prepared by himself, and 
 that they were adopted by the council without discussion. 
 It is an insufficient 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 
 clergy in ecclesiastical proceedings, but when the matter is 
 carried so far, as that without their permission, there shall 
 not be the rejection of corruptions in contrariety to the 
 records on which their commission rests, the claim is extra- 
 vagant, 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 without his name, 
 in which pamphlet was the first public suggestion, tending 
 to the introduction of the laity into our ecclesiastical coun- 
 
 12 
 
JX) Note to page 23. 
 
 oils, induces the takhii? of this opportunity of declaring', 
 that, after the years which have passed, there does not ap- 
 pear to his mind any cause to rotract the leading sentinients^ 
 of that perforniance. Tiie necessity urged in it ceased to 
 exist, within a shn^rt time after the publication, and there- 
 fore, all thoughts of the measure intended to have been 
 founded on it, were laid aside. But had Great-lJritain drop- 
 ped the war, yet continued her claims, as many judicious per- 
 sons expected would be the case, and as had happened for- 
 merly, between Spain and the United Netherlands, it is 
 difficult to perceive how any thing materially different from 
 what is recommended in that pamphlet, conld 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, assembled in conven- 
 tion, their secretary, the Rev. Abraham Jarvis, addressed 
 a letter, complaining of the performance, although doubtless 
 mistaking the object 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 evidence 
 of a design entertained to set up an Episcopacy, on the 
 ground of presbyterial and lay authority. No personal ani- 
 mosity becan>e the result of this misapprehension ; and 
 other events have manifested consent in all matters essen- 
 tial to ecclesiastical discipline. Before the author's subse- 
 quent visit to England, he knew that his pamphlet had been 
 in the hands of the archbishop — not the prelate to whom the 
 convention had addressed their letter — of York, the chair 
 of Canterbury being recently vacated by the decease of Dr. 
 Cornwallis, and the appointment of his successor being not 
 yet known in America. The latter, Archbishop Moore, did 
 not express any dissatisfaction with the pamphlet, or with 
 the author on its account, nor has any other English ])relate, 
 so far as is known to him. It had been enclosed to Mr. 
 Adams, the American minister, when there was officially 
 sent to him the address of the convention of 1785, to the 
 
 * It is not to be supposed, that under such circumstances, the non-juring 
 bishops of Scotland, labouring under penal laws, not executed indeed, but t) 
 which they were obnoxious, and studying to live in quiet submission to an 
 authority which liiey did not acknowledge, would have provoked it by the mea- 
 sure in (jueslion. It is equally iniprol)able, that any kingdom, the establishment 
 of which was Protestant and Kpiscopalian, would have provoked Great-Britiau 
 by an intercourse with those whom she would have considered as her subjects ia 
 rebcUiou. 
 
Note to page 23. Wl. 
 
 archbishops and bishops of England, and was by him de- 
 livered to the archbishop of Canterbury.* 
 
 On the communication from Connecticut, it will not be 
 cfFensive at the present day, to make the following remarks. 
 
 There pervades it the defect, of not distinguishing be- 
 tween the then state of public concerns, and as they stood 
 when the pamphlet was published. Nearly a year, and the 
 acknowledgment of independence had intervened. The 
 intimation in the letter, that the author of the pamphlet re- 
 garded 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 feehngs, 
 had his brethren of Connecticut possessed a knowledge of 
 him. They were, at titat time, strangers to one another. 
 The intimated suspicion was then resolved, and is now re- 
 solved by him on whom it fell, into a difference of appre- 
 hension 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 pre- 
 tensions, entertained the opinion, that the most improper is 
 when the subject under discussion concerned the Episcopal 
 Church alone. The members of this Church were supposed 
 to have been satisfied with the principles on which they had 
 acted, and which they still professed. To have involved 
 the merits of those principles with the object in view, would 
 have given a plausible pretence for the interference of those 
 who might be disposed to defeat the measure in contem- 
 plation. 
 
 It is diflicult, in avoiding one extreme, not to fall under 
 
 * The pamphlet, written at a time when there were few Episcopalian piilpita 
 in the United Stcitesfrom wliich the sound of the Gospel w;is heard, was to the 
 following effect : — 
 
 It proposed the combining of the clergy and of representatives of the congrega- 
 tions, in convenient districts, with a representative body of the whole, nearly on 
 the plan subsequently adopted. This ecciesiastical representative was to make a 
 declaration approving of Episcopacy, and professing a determination to possess 
 the succession when it could be obtained; but they were to carry the plan into 
 immediate act. 
 
 The expedient was sustained by the plea of necessity, and by opinions of 
 various authors of the Church of England, acknowledging a valid ministry under 
 circumstances sii'iilar to those of the existing case, aldiough less imperious. It 
 was also alleged, that as much as what was now pre posed might be seen to be 
 implied, in the ground on which Episcopacy rests in tk(? 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 the Church, that " from the apostles' time, 
 there have been in the Gliurch of Christ, the three orders, of bishops, priests, aiid 
 deacons;" nothing was said in proof of the fact, because it was not questioned in 
 this Church, and because argument to the eiVect would have been indiscreet, as 
 >o be staled above. 
 
92 }foie to page 23. 
 
 the appearance of its opposite. Many years after tlie pub- 
 lication of the pamphlet, a clergyman of standing in an anti- 
 Episcopalian society, alleged some passages of the perform- 
 ance as sustaining ordination not Episcopal. But he iiad 
 the candour publicly to acknowledge his mistake, when it 
 was pointed out to him. 
 
 For the communication from the clergy of Connecticut, 
 see Appendix, No. 3. 
 
 It is no slight instance of the 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 denomi- 
 nations, 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 before the house, and was considered as principally 
 influential in producing an abandonment of the design. 
 Perhaps the hasty enterprize was over-ruled to good ; for 
 almost as soon as there became known the happy event of 
 peace, there were held two conventions in IMaryland ; the 
 first, on the 13th of August, 1783, and the other, on the 
 22d of June, 1784. The 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 August, 1783, 
 was the making of" A declaration of certain fundamental 
 rights and liberties of the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
 Maryland," consisting of the following articles: — 
 
 1st. We consider it as the undoubted right of the said 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, in common with other Chris- 
 tian churches under the American revolution, to complete 
 and preserve herself as an entire Church, agreeably to her 
 ancient usages and professions; and to have a full enjoy- 
 ment and free exercise of those purely spiritual powers, 
 which are essential to the being of every Church or congre- 
 gation of the faithful, and which, being derived from Christ 
 and his apostles, are to be maintained indejiendent of every 
 foreign or other jurisdiction, so far as may be consistent 
 *vith the civil rights of society. 
 
 2d. That over since the reformation, it hath been the 
 
JVo^6' to i)age 23. 93 
 
 received doctrine of the Church of which we arc members, 
 (and which, by the constitution of this state, is entitled to a 
 perpetual enjoyment of certain property and rights, under 
 the denomination of the Church of England,) " That there 
 be three orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, 
 priests, and deacons," and that an Episcopal ordination and 
 commission are necessary to the valid administration of the 
 sacraments, and the due exercise of the ministerial function 
 in the said Church. 
 
 3d. 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 con- 
 sider and declare it to be an essential right of the said 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, to have and enjoy the con- 
 tinuance of the said three orders of ministers for ever, so 
 far as concerns matters purely spiritual, and that no per- 
 sons, 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, formerly 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 denominated. 
 
 4th. That as it is the right, so it will be the duty of the 
 said Church, when duly organized, constituted, and repre- 
 sented in a synod or convention of the different orders of 
 her ministers and people, to revise her liturgy, forms ot 
 prayer, and public worship, in order to adapt the same to 
 the late revolution, and other local circumstances of Ame- 
 rica; which, it is humbly conceived, will and may be done, 
 without any other or farther departure from the venerable 
 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 included lay- 
 deputies from the different parishes, the aforesaid declara- 
 tion was again approved, and certain fundamental princi- 
 ples 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 
 
94 Nole to page 23. 
 
 officiate or settle in this state, shall, at the time of their 
 ordination, or at any time afterward, take or subscribe 
 any obligation 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 taktni 
 for a settlement in any foreign country, without renouncing 
 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 ecclesi- 
 astical meetings or synods, and rdiall accordingly be so ex- 
 ercised in this Church, the duty and office of priests and 
 deacons remaining as heretofore. And if any further dis- 
 tinctions and regulations, in the different orders of the 
 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 future ecclesiastical synods or conven- 
 tions. 
 
 3. The third section is intended to define or discriminate 
 some of the separate rights and powers of the clergy, and 
 was proposed and agreed to as follows, viz. that the clergy 
 shall be deemed adequate judges of the ministerial commis- 
 sion and authority, which is necessary to the due adminis- 
 tration 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 approving and re- 
 ceiving 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 con- 
 ventions 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 fourth 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 snuiUer represen- 
 tation of the Church, as may be judged necessary. JJut 
 fundamental rules, once duly made, shall not lie altered, 
 unless two-thirds of such majority, as aforesaid, duly assem- 
 bled, shall agree therein. 
 
Note to page 23. 95 
 
 The following heads of additional articles were set down 
 for the consideration of the next convention. 
 
 1. That the power and authority necessary for reclaim- 
 ing or excluding scandalous members, whether 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-government, and 
 all alterations, changes, and reforms, in the Church service 
 and liturgy, or in points of doctrine to be professed%nd 
 taught in tlie Church, shall also be by the like authority. 
 
 The proceedings of these conventions, besides the circum- 
 stance of their showing an accommodation to the civil sys- 
 tem, 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 second of the articles established. It is, evi- 
 dently, the much controverted position of St. Jerome. The 
 author does not think it accurate : and although his princi- 
 ples on the subject of Episcopacy allow of an accommoda- 
 tion of its powers to the circumstances of the Church, at 
 different times, he was afraid of there arising some incon- 
 venience from the asserting, as a fundamental principle, of 
 what was in the opposite extreme to that of the overstrained 
 authorities of the office, maintained by others. 
 
 In consequence of the recommendation and proposal of 
 the meeting of 1784, 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 apprehended, an opposition to the very principle of 
 Episcopacy, from its being connected, in the minds of some 
 people, with the idea of an attachment to the British govern- 
 ment. The citizens of South-Carolina were the last visited 
 by the British armies, and had suffered 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 accom- 
 pany their compliance with the measure, by its being un- 
 derstood, 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 gentlemen, it is said, 
 
96 Note to page 24. 
 
 declarod in conversation, that they had contemplated an 
 opposition, but were prevented by this caution. 
 
 Besides the conventions whicli have been mentioned, 
 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 appointing of deputies to the General 
 Convention, it is not necessary to notice them any further, 
 than is dictated by this circumstance. 
 
 F. Page 24. Of the Gemral Convention, in Philadelphia ^ 
 in September and October, 1785. 
 
 The president of this convention was Dr. White, and the 
 secretary was the Rev. Dr. Griflith. 
 
 There being journals of this convention, and of the con- 
 ventions following, the matter of those journals 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. Of 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, liad been recommended to the churches re- 
 presented, and proposed to those not represented. As all 
 the articles except the fourth, which recognized the English 
 liturgy, with the exception of the political parts of it, were 
 adopted by the present convention, they became a bond of 
 union, and indeed, the only one acted under, until the year 
 1789. For as to the general constitution, framed at the 
 period now before us, it stood on recommendation only, 
 and was of no use, except in hel|)ing 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 purpose of such inconclusive proceedings. 
 
 The fifth and the eighth articles of this proposed constitu- 
 tion deserve particular notice, because they have been sub- 
 jects of considerable conversation and censure. 
 
J^o/c. to page 24, 97 
 
 Tiic former of these articles provided, that every bishop 
 should 1)0 a member of the convention " r.?; o/Z/c/o." Ac- 
 cordinijly, the article was loiully objected to I)y the clergy 
 to the eastward ; because of its not providing for Episcopal 
 presidency. 
 
 The constitution was drafied by the author, in a sub- 
 committee; a t)art of a general committee, consisting 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, withont mucli con- 
 sideration of the subject, and contrary to what his good 
 sense, with such an advantage, woidd Imve dictated, ob- 
 jected to the clause ; and insisted, that ho had read, although 
 lie could not recollect in what book, that this had not been 
 a prerogative of bishops in ancient ecclesiastical assemblies. 
 The objection was over-ruled, by all the other members of 
 the sub-committee. But when the instrument, after |)assing 
 in the general committee, was brought into the convention, 
 the same gentleman, not expecting to succeed, and merely, 
 as he afterwards said, to be consistent, iDade a motion to 
 strike out the clause. Contraiy to expectation, he was 
 supported by another lay-gentleman, 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 produced 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 gentleman, were 
 for the clause, might have quashed the whole article. But 
 this appeared to them to be wiong ; because it contained 
 nothing contrary to the principle of Episcopal presidency ; 
 and the general object was such as ought to have been 
 provided for. Accordingly, 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 jus- 
 tified 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, hke that of the other, 
 
SQ Note to 'page 24. 
 
 was ratlior in omission, than in any thing positively de- 
 clared. For the bishop's being amenable to the convention 
 in the state to which he belonged, does not necessarily 
 involve any thing more, than that 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 censnred, 
 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 
 altercations 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 Epis- 
 copacy. 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 diffierent Episcopalian congregations knew of no union 
 before the revolution ; except what vv^as the result of the 
 connexion which they in common had with the bishop of 
 London. The authority of that bishop being 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 eflfected, what is there in Chris- 
 tianity generally, or in the principles of this Church in 
 particular, to hinder them from taking different courses in 
 different places, as to all things not necessary to salvation? 
 Which might have produced different liturgies, different 
 articles. Episcopacy from different sources, and, in shorty 
 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 another's rights. The 
 course taken has embraced all the diff'erent congregations. 
 It is far from being certain, that the same event would have 
 been produced by any other plan that might have been de- 
 vised. 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 contem- 
 plated plan of settlement, had acted for themselves, instead 
 of joining with their brethren. It would be impossible to 
 prove the unlawfulness of such a scheme ; or, until an or- 
 ganization were made, that the minor part were bound to 
 
Note to page 24. 99 
 
 submit to the will of the majority. There was no likeli- 
 hood of such an indiscreet proceeding in Connecticut. But 
 in some other departments which might be named, it would 
 not have been surprising. 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 sentiment is congenial with Chris- 
 tianity itself, and with Christian discipline in the beginning; 
 the connexion not existing congregationally, but, in every 
 instance, without dependence on the houses in which the 
 worship of the different portions of the aggregate body may 
 be carried on. 
 
 Section II. Of the Measures taken to ohtaiu the Episcopacy. 
 
 The expression should be noticed, on account of the 
 pi-etence made by some, that the Episcopal Church in the 
 United States begun with its obtaining of the Episcopacy. 
 According to this notion, where dioceses 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 conceived 
 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 London, by the providence of 
 God, but assumed a new name, as the dictate of propriety. 
 
 It may be matter of surprise, that, after the clamour made 
 but a few years before this period, on the proposal of an 
 American Episcopacy, and considering the fashion of 
 objecting to it prevailing even among a considerable 
 proportion of our own communion, there should now be a 
 unanimous application for it, from a fair representation of 
 the Church in seven states of the Union; the lay part 
 consisting principally of gentlemen who had been active in 
 the late revolution, and made under circumstances which 
 required the consent of the very power we had been at war 
 with.* The truth is, that if there existed any inclination 
 to object — and there is no certainty of the contrary — it was 
 prevented by what is to be related. 
 
 * In eyidence of the unanimity, there is in possession of the author, the originaJ 
 instrument, signed by all the clerical and all the lay members who gave attend- 
 -aiiee on the business of the convention. 
 
100 .Yo/« to page 24. 
 
 A few months before the present period, Bishop Seabury 
 had arrived in Connecticut, uith consecration from the 
 non-juring bishops of Scotland. Tlie clergy in that state, 
 not liking the complexion of the measures taken for the 
 calling of a General Convention, 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 the invitation ; congratulated Bishop 
 Seabury on his arrival; apologized for the not coming, by 
 the expectation of the convention in Se))teniber; 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. Bishop Seabury, besides objecting to 
 sundry of the measures taken 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 
 although his expressions are, that they were not admitted 
 into general councils, and this is very indefinite, yet it would 
 seem from the connexion, tliat he disapproved of submitting 
 the general concerns of 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 expressed in it, 
 was laid before the convention, produced some animadver- 
 sions. A few of the lay gentlemen spoke more warndy 
 than the occasion seemed to justify, considering, that the 
 letter appeared 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 acfjuaintance 
 with the writer. And as for its being designed for the 
 hearing of the body then assembled, it sliould 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, sec Appendix, No. 4. 
 
 It naturally happened in regard to any apprehensions 
 entertained of an excessive hierarchy, that they influenced 
 
ISioie to page 24:. 101 
 
 to the very application to England, whicli had' formerly, 
 from the very same cause, been contemplated with jealousy. 
 It was generally understood, that the door was open to 
 consecration in Scotland ; or at least, that if there should 
 be any impediment, it must arise from some particulars, 
 whicii 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 stiffness, on the points 
 objected to by Bishop Seabury ! it may be added — in which 
 the political principles obtaining, although monarchical, 
 were not such as favoured arbitrary power. It ought to be 
 understood, that this is the sujjposed strain of reasoning of 
 a few only. The nsajority of the convention certainly 
 thought it a matter of choice, and even required by decency, 
 to apply, in the tirst instance, to the Church of whicii the 
 American had been till now a j)art. No doubt, the sentiment 
 was strengthened by the general 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 family 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 conviction, that a proper application, from such a 
 body as was in contemplation, that is, the present convention, 
 of whose intended meeting he had been informed, would be 
 followed by success. As the doctor was supposed to have 
 conversed with leading characters on the subject, which 
 was found afterward to have been the case, his letter had 
 great weight in encouraging 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 resolves and the address, as they 
 stand on the journals, with tlie exception of a few verbal 
 alterations. Tims a foundation was laid for the procuring 
 of the present Episcopacy. It was a |;rudent provision of 
 the convention, to instruct the deputies from the respective 
 states, to apply to the civil authorities existing in them 
 
102 Note to page 24. 
 
 respectively, for their sanction of the measure, in order to 
 avoid one of the impediments which had stood in the way 
 of Bishop Seabiiry. The address above aUuded to, which 
 was the first step in the correspondence with the Enghsh 
 prelates, is in the Appendix, 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 sulFer by a comparison with any other 
 mode which might have been pursued. To have abandoned 
 the Episcopal succession, would have been in opposition to 
 primitive order and ancient habits ; and besides, would at 
 least 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 foreign 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 without 
 exacting the usual oaths. But, besides that this would 
 have kept the Church under the same hardships which had 
 heretofore existed, and had been so long complained of; 
 dependence on a foreign country in spirituals, when there 
 had taken place independence in temporals, is what no 
 prudent person would have pleaded for. 
 
 Section III. Of the Alterations in the Book of Common 
 
 Prayer. 
 
 When the members 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 apply, is that of 
 Virginia; which authorized its deputies to join in a review, 
 liable however to a rejection by their own convention. 
 Every one, so far as is here known, wished for alterations 
 in the dificrcnt offices. But it was thought, at New- York, 
 in the preceding year, that such an enterprise could not be 
 undertaken, until the Church should be consolidated and 
 
Note to page 24. 10:3 
 
 or^anizeJ. Perhaps it would have been better, if the same 
 opinion had been continued and acted on. 
 
 But it happened otherwise. Some of the members 
 hesitated at making the book so permanent, as it would 
 have been by the fourth article of the recommendatory 
 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 doctrine. 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 might be confidently expected. 
 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 committee, they were 
 not reconsidered ; because the ground would have been to 
 go over again in the convention. Accordingly, he cannot 
 give an account of any arguments arising in the preparatory 
 stage of the business. Even in the convention, there were 
 but few points canvassed, with any material difference of 
 principle : and those only shall be noticed. 
 
 The first controversy of this description was introduced, 
 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 defended by 
 scripture. The objection lay to the word " Trinity," 
 which he remarked to be unauthorized 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 occurred, would leave the other petitions 
 liable to the charge of acknowledging three Gods; and 
 therefore, he moved to strike out the whole. The llev. 
 Dr. West, of Baltimore, answered Mr. Page, in a speech 
 in which the doctor appeared to be in great agitation, 
 partly because, 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 
 
104 Nolc io page 24:. 
 
 at very hazardous and essential alterations. Perhaps much 
 more would have been said, but during Dr. West's S|)eech, 
 it was whispered about, that there was really no use in going- 
 into sucli a controversy; that Mr. Page had mauc the 
 motion, merely to preserve conssistency 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 coidd 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 materia! question, to the best of the recollection 
 
 retained, was on a motion for framing a service for the fourth 
 
 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 
 
 offensive holiday.'' Besides this point of prudence, was it 
 
 not the dictate of moderation, to avoid the introducing of 
 
 extraneous matter of difference of opinion, in a Church 
 
 that was to be built up f Especially, when there was in 
 
 contenq)!ation the moderating of religious tests, was it 
 
 consistent to introduce a political one .^ It was said, that 
 
 the revolution being now accomplished, all the clergy ought, 
 
 as good citizens, to conform to it ; and to uphold, as far as 
 
 their influence extended, the civil system which had been 
 
 established. 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 disaffected they might have 
 
 been, thmughout the war. But, the argument did not 
 
 ap|)ly to a retrospective approbation of the origin of the 
 
 civil constitutions, or rather, to a profession of such 
 
 approbation, contrary to known fact. 
 
 This was one of the few occasions on which the autlior 
 used the privilege reserved by him on his acceptance of the 
 presidency, to deliver Ins opinion. To his great surprise, 
 
 * In a controversy since moved in Boston, Bishop Provoost has been named, 
 as havin<' endeavoured U\ accom|>lish the omission of tlu; acknowledgment of the 
 Trinity. It in not true: and the error maybe supposed to liave arisen from 
 wliat lias been related of the ellbrt of Mr. Page. There have been various 
 misrepresentations of llie matter, which have made it the more necessary to state 
 the fact. 
 
X>)le io page ZX. .10.5' 
 
 there was but one tccntlemati — and he a professed friend to 
 American independence — who spoke on the same side of the 
 question ; and there were very 'iew, if any, who voted with 
 the two sjjeakers against the measure. 13odies of men arc 
 more aj)t than individuals to calculate on an implicit 
 submission to their determinations. The present was a 
 strikin^^ instance of the remark. The members of the 
 convention seem to have thoui;ht themselves so established 
 in their station of ecclesiastical legislators, that they might 
 expect of the many clergy who had been averse to the 
 American revolution, the adoption of this service ; although, 
 by the use of it, they must make an implied acknowledgment 
 of their error, in an address to Almighty God. What must 
 further seem not a little extraordinary, the service was 
 principally arranged and the prayer alluded to was composed, 
 by a reverend gentleman, (Dr. Smith) who had written and 
 acted against the declaration of independence, and was 
 unfavourably looked on by the supj)orters of it, during the 
 whole revolutionary war. His conduct, in the present 
 particular, was different from what might have been 
 ex|>ected from his usual discernment; but he doubtless 
 calculated on what the good of the Church seemed to him 
 to require, in consequence of a change of circumstances; 
 and he was not aware of the effect which would be produced 
 by the retrospective jnoperty of the appointment. The 
 greater stress is laid on this matter, because of the notorious 
 fact, that the majority of the clergy could not have nsed 
 the service, without subjecting themselves to ridicule and 
 censure. 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 besides Philadelphia. He is 
 thus particular in recording the incidents attached to the 
 matter stated, with the hope of rendering it a caution to 
 ecclesiastical bodies, to avoid that danger into which human 
 nature 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 Rev. Dr. Griffith — and by the author. 
 The proposed article was at last withdrawn, and the 
 words of the thirty-nine articles, on that subject, were 
 restored. In this there is certainly no superaddition to 
 
 14 
 
1 00 Xoie to page 24. 
 
 what li held <^cncrally by divines oftho Church of England. 
 As to the siihstitntc proposed, the objection made to it, was 
 its heini^ liable to a construction contrary to the great 
 ovanijclical truth, that salvation is of grace. It would 
 liave been a forced construction, but not to be disregarded. 
 Some wished to get rid of the new article introduced 
 concerning pretlestination, v/ithout 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 reality says nothing. But many 
 gentlemen were of o[)inion, that the sui)ject was not to be 
 passed over in silence altogether; and therefore consented 
 to the article on predestination, as it stands on the proposed 
 book. The opinion of the author was, that the article 
 should 1)0 accommodated, not to individual condition, and 
 to everlasting reward and punishment, but to national 
 designation, and to a state of covenant with God in the 
 present life. Although this is u 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 controversy on the meanings of the 
 terms jiredestination and election, as used in the New 
 Testament. If we cannot do away the ground of contro- 
 versy 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 professed 
 scruples against what is there aiHrmed, yet there seemed 
 a difficulty in discovering for what purpose it was introduced. 
 The author never met with any who were satisfied with it. 
 On the subject o-f original sin, an incident occurred, 
 strongly marking the propensity already noticed, unwarily 
 to make private opinion the standard of public faith. The 
 sidj-committee had introduced into this article the much 
 controverted j)assage in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to 
 the Romans, begitining at the ninth verse; and they had 
 applied it as descrijjtive of the Christian state. The con- 
 struction is exacted by a theory, than which nothing was 
 further I'rom ihat of the gentleman (Dr. tSmith) who would 
 have bound this sense of the passage on the Church. The 
 interpretation generally given by divines of the Church of 
 England, makes the words descriptive of man's unregene- 
 rate 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 conformity with the Christian 
 character, as drawn in innumerable places. It was on a 
 
Nole to page 2^\. 107 
 
 proposal of the author, that the article was altered in this 
 particular, although the gentlcinan who had drafted it not 
 only earnestly contended for ids construction of t!ie text, 
 but could not he 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 articles are 
 not here noticed. Whatever is novel in them, was taken 
 froui a book in the j)ossession of the Ilev. Dr. Smith. The 
 book was anonymous, and was one of tlie j)ublications 
 which have abounded in England, projecting changes in the 
 established articles. 
 
 On this business of the review of the Hook of Common 
 Prayer and of the articles, the convention seem to have 
 fallen into two capital errors, independently on the merits 
 of the alterations themselves. The lirst error was tiie 
 ordering of the printing of a large edition of the book, 
 which did not well consist with the principle of mere pro- 
 posal. Perhaps much of the opposition to it arose from this 
 very thing, which seemed a stretch of |)Ower, 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 a high hand, and 
 subjected the clergy of Philadelphia to extraordinary diffi- 
 culty ; 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 imnie- 
 diately on their return. This the greater number of theiK 
 never did ; and there are known instances, in each of which 
 the stipulation was shrunk back from, because some influen- 
 tial member of a congregation was dissatisfied with some 
 one of the alterations. This is a fact which shows very 
 strongly, how much weight of character is necessary to such 
 changes as may be thought questionable. 
 
 Section IV. Of sundry Measures and Escents, connected 
 with the Acts oftlte Convention of 1785. 
 
 The first particular claiming attention under this head, 
 is the publication of the Book of Common Prayer; that is, 
 of the edition which has received the name of Plie proposed 
 book. 
 
1^5 Note to jKiii^e 24. 
 
 Dr. Smith, Dr. Wiiartoii, and the autlior, Avho were 
 appointed to this service, gave their application to it witliout 
 delay. But here, unexpected difficulties occurred, which 
 are taken notice of, principally with the view of guarding 
 against the like in future ecclesiastical proceedings. 
 
 The committee had been authorized to make verbal alter- 
 ations, but were restrained from departing, either in form 
 or in substance, from what had been agreed on. Setting 
 aside the questions arising on this distinction, the imperfec- 
 tions evidently remaining 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 
 be acceptable to all, were such, that, in the end, they were 
 drawn on to take a greater latitude than ought to be al- 
 lowed in such a work. 
 
 Besides discretion as to verbal alterations, the commit- 
 tee 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 psiilms, selecting such as fall in 
 with the general subjects of divine worship, and leaving the 
 officiating minister to his choice, among those which slioidd 
 be selected. But the other members of the committee 
 were of opinion, that as much should be retained as could 
 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 particular passages, on the principle of 
 their being offensive. Although the omissions were not 
 made on that ground, because it is not every part of scrip- 
 ture 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 se- 
 lection of psalms in any shape, a better way would have 
 been to print the psalter entire, and to leave every officiat- 
 ing minister to his choice, from lime to time. This would 
 have less interfered with the ideas of those who, on account 
 of the sublime 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 gratilied every individual 
 wnder the proposed alternative, yet there might have been 
 
Nuic io page 24. 100 
 
 taken which ever side of it was the most likely to be satis- 
 factory. 
 
 It has been painful to the author, that he has found him- 
 self opposed in opinion to that of some of his bretliren, 
 whose views of the subject have the appearance of being 
 opened to them by the sentiment of devotion. Yet, he 
 cannot perceive the propriety of putting into the mouths of 
 a whole congregation devotions 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 the lowest depths of sorrow. He is 
 aware of what is argued in favour of tiiis, from the senti- 
 ment of Christian sympathy, by which every member of a 
 Church may enter into feelings which are otherwise not his 
 own, but which he may reasonably suppose to belong to some 
 who are fellow-members 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 useof impressing the whole of those excellent composi- 
 tions 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 Genesis 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, demonstra- 
 tive of the great use of these compositions in the early ages 
 of the 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 fund of devotion, consistently with 
 choice made, as subject and as circumstances might dictate. 
 He has not yet found evidence, that in the primitive Church, 
 as in the Church of England, the book was gone through in 
 a routine of successive 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 aim- 
 ing 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 print- 
 ing 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 
 
110 Nuti to page 24. 
 
 profit from the book, although for a charitable purpose. It 
 had two bad consequences; that of exciting the supposition 
 that tiie books were made the dearer — although, in reality, 
 this was not the fact; and that of inducing the committee to 
 send them to the clergy, in the different parts of the conti- 
 nent, confiding in their exertions for the benevolent purpose 
 declared. Several of the clergy again intrusted tliem to 
 persons from whom they got no returns. Hence it happened, 
 that when the ex|)enscs of the edition were paid, there was 
 not so much left for the charity, as to be an adequate con- 
 sideration for such an undertaking. The committee were 
 at last obliged to relinquish the design, of saving for the 
 charity the usual profit of the booksellers, who, on that 
 change of plan, made rapid sales of them. 
 
 Another bad effect of the pidjlication was, that the Eng- 
 lish prelates were not furnished with an account of the alter- 
 ations so soon as they should have been, considering the 
 application that had come before them. For the committee, 
 having had good reason to believe that the imjiression would 
 go on rapidly, had not furnished a copy of the instrument 
 containing the alterations. Their waiting first for ])aper 
 from the mills, and then, for one interfering object and an- 
 other occurring to the printer, brought it to spring before the 
 edition was out. It is true, that the sheets were sent by 
 parcels during the progress. None however arrived before 
 the answer to the address was sent ; and this inattention — 
 or what seemed such — the bishops could not account for, 
 as the archbishop afterward distantly intimated to those 
 who received consecration in England. Hence arose the 
 caution with which the convention were answered by the 
 right reverend bctich ; a caution evidently to be discerned, 
 in their letter of the 24th of February, 178G. For some of 
 tlie clergy in the eastern states, from what is here supposed 
 to have been mistaken zeal, had been very early in convey- 
 ing to their clerical accjuaintance in England, an unfavour- 
 able representation of the spirit of the j)rocceding.s ; a fact 
 which is glanced at in the same letter. Although the im- 
 j)ression thus produced was so far done away on the arrival 
 of the book, as that there remained no radical iirij)ediment 
 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 misapprehension would have been obviated, if the 
 printing had been confined to the list of the proposed alte- 
 rations. 
 
Note to pa^e 24. Ill 
 
 For the letter of the English prelates, see Appendix, 
 No. 6. 
 
 From the letter of their lordships it appears, that the 
 omission of the article of Christ's descent into iieii, in the 
 Apostles' Creed, was the thing principally faulted. It uas 
 theohjection made by Dr. Moss, bishop of Bath and Wells, 
 that swayed in this matter. A gentleman who had been a 
 member of the convention — Richard Peters, Es(|. — happen- 
 ing to visit England a few months after, and having waited 
 on the archbishop at the request of 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 afterward in England, from 
 Dr. Watson, bishop of Landaff, that the objection came 
 principally from the quarter here noticed. Indeed he ex- 
 pressed 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 subject of the omitted article. 
 However, from the different particulars attending the trans- 
 action, the author is disposed to believe, that, had it not 
 been for the above-mentioned circumstance, they would 
 hardly have started their objection to the omission in such 
 a manner as carries the appearance of their making of a 
 restoration of the clause a condition of their compliance 
 with 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 authority of the article, unless it were 
 the passage in 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 objection in which 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 learning as for an exemplary life 
 and conversation, and rested by him on the grouud of the 
 contradiction of an ancient heresy, it must have been 
 difficult in the body to waive the objection, considering the 
 novel line in which they were acting j and their inability, 
 in a corporate capacity, to act at all. 
 
J 1-3 Kole lo pa^-e '21. 
 
 Section V. Of Proceedings of Convendons in the Statcff 
 
 subsequent to those of the General Convention. 
 
 For a while there was fe't the evil of the mistake made 
 in the beginning, of not forwarding co|)ies of the alterations > 
 a mistake, less to be imputed to the committee than to 
 the convention, who had given no order on the subject j 
 but who, pcrhai)s, presumed on the editing of the book, 
 before the other conventions could be held. They were 
 held in the months of 3Iay and June, 1786; very soon 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, ex- 
 j)ressing at the same time their approbation of the other 
 proceedings of the convention, except of the constitution. 
 Tn Pennsylvania some amendments were proposed. The 
 san)e was done in Maryland. No convention met in Dela- 
 ware. 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 author 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 Virginia, was that 
 allowing the minister to repel an evil liver from the com- 
 munion. The author, some time after, held serious argu- 
 ment on the point, with a gentleman who had been inllu- 
 ential in the state convention. The offensive matter was 
 not the precise provisions of the rubric, but that there 
 should be any provision of the kind, or ])ovver exercised to 
 the end contemplated. In South-Carolina the book was 
 received without limitation. On the whole, it was evident 
 that, in regard to the liturgy, the labours of the convention 
 had not reached their object. It did not appear that the 
 constitution was objected to in any state, excej)t in that of 
 New-Jersey. The propriety of the application to the Eng- 
 lish bishops was not contradicted any where, except in 
 South-Carolina : and even in this state there was carried 
 an acquiescence in it. Under the circumstances stated, 
 the convention to be lield in June, 1786, was looked for- 
 ward to, as what would either remedy the difficulty or 
 increase it. 
 
 There has been given an account of the proceedings 
 of sundry conventions in the difTerent states, prior to the 
 meeting in New-Brunswick, in 3Iay, 1784. At that period 
 no convention had assembled in Virginia. But in May, 
 
ISnie in 'page 24. 113 
 
 1785, there \v:i.> one in the city of Richmond; of the pro- 
 ceedings of which there shall he here given a general 
 account ; for the same reason as in reference to the pro- 
 ceedings for the organization of the other churches com- 
 prehended within the union. 
 
 There had heen previously passed, in the year 1784, an 
 act of the legislature, incorporating the Episcopal Church 
 in the respective parishes individually, and as existing 
 throughout the state; that is, not only in each parish, 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 vestries, competent to self-government. In this 
 act, there was no vestige of the former establishment : oh 
 the contrary, it contained provisos, guarding against all 
 claims tending to that point. Nevertheless, the current 
 set so strong against the Episcopal Church, 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 year 
 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 acceptance of the fourth, 
 concerning the liturgy, until it should be revised at the 
 expected meeting in Philadelphia ; and in respect to the 
 sixth article determining the manner of voting, they ob- 
 jected to it as a fundamental article of the constitution ; 
 but acquiesced in it as regarded the ensuing convention, 
 reserving 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 instruction to deputies 
 appointed by them to the General Convention, and are as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Gentlemen, during your representation of the Protest- 
 
 * A law, substantially the same as that of 1784, so far as if incorporated the 
 Church throughout the state, was passed by the legislature of Mar>-[and in the 
 year 1802, in favour of the Roman Catholics: which does not appear to have 
 given offence, or to have been productive of bad effects; although the like favoiu- 
 has been refuaed to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the same state. 
 
 15 
 
114 Nule to -page 2'\. 
 
 ant Episcopal Cluirch, \vc coinmond to your observance 
 the following sentiments concernini^ doctrine and worship. 
 AVc refer you, at tlie 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 unquestionably 
 contribute to the prosperity of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church. 15ut we earnestly wish that this may be pursued 
 with liberality and moderation. The obstacles which stand 
 in the way of union among Christian societies, are too 
 often founded on matters of mere form. They are sur- 
 mountable, 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 alterations be 
 few, and the style of prayer continue as agreeable as may 
 be to the essential characteristics of our persuasion. Wc 
 will not now decide, what ceremonies ought to be retained. 
 We wish, however, that those which exist may be estimated 
 according to their utility ; and that such as may appear fit 
 to be laid aside, may no longer be appendages of our Church. 
 " 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, noticed in 
 the proceedings of Pennsylvania, having been communi- 
 cated by the governor of Virginia to the body now assem- 
 bled ; tlieir 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 govern- 
 ment 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 concerning which there has 
 been so much dissatisfaction, because of its not being 
 directly provided against by the General Convention held 
 within a few months after this convention lield in Richmond. 
 
Note lo page 27. 115 
 
 O. Page 27. Of the Convention in rhiladelphia and Wil- 
 mington, in 1786. 
 
 The Rev. David Griffith, D. D. rector of Fairfax parish, 
 Alexandria, Virginia, who had been elected to the episco- 
 pacy in that state, presided in tljis convention. Francis 
 Hopkinson, Esq. was the secretary. The convention was 
 opened with a sermon by the president of the preceding 
 convention. 
 
 The convention assembled nnder circumstances, which 
 bore strong appearances of a dissolution of the union, in 
 this early stage of it. The interfering instructions from 
 the churches in the different states — the embarrassment 
 that had arisen from the rejection of the proposed book in 
 some of the states, and the use of it in others — some dis- 
 satisfaction on account of the Scottish Episcopacy — and, 
 added to these, the demur expressed in the letter from the 
 English bishops, were what the most sanguine contem- 
 plated with apprehension, and were sure prognostics of 
 our faUing 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 refer- 
 ing them to the first convention, which should meet fully 
 authorized to determine on a Book of Common Prayer. 
 The instructions, far from proving injurious, had the con- 
 trary effect; by showing, as well the necessity of a duly 
 constituted ecclesiastical body, as the futility of taking- 
 measures, to be reviewed and authoritatively judged of, in 
 the bodies of which we were the deputies. Such a system 
 appeared so evidently fruitful of discord and disunion, that 
 it was abandoned from this time. The author, who had 
 contemplated the meeting of the interfering instructions 
 with the motion recorded as his own on the journal, was 
 especially pleased with the effect of it — the silence of un- 
 necessary discussion. 
 
 Between the deputies of the churches which had received, 
 and those of the churches which had rejected the proposed 
 Book, or else been silent on the subject; the expedient was 
 adopted, of letting matters remain for a time in the present 
 state with both. 
 
 The (juestion of the Scottish Episcopacy gave occasion 
 
116 Xote to page 27. 
 
 to some warmth. That matter was struck at by certain 
 motions whicli appear on the journals, and which {)articu- 
 larly aftected two gentlemen of the body ; one of whom — 
 the llev. Mr. Pilmore — had been ordained by Bishop 
 Seabury ; and the other, the llev. William Smith — the 
 younger gentleman of the convention of that name — had 
 been ordained by a bishop of the Church, in which Bishop 
 Seabury had been consecrated. The convention did not 
 enter into the opposition to the Scottish succession. A 
 motion, as may be seen on the journals, was made to 
 the effect, by the Rev. Mr. Provoost, seconded by the 
 Rev. Robert Smith, of South-Carolina, who only, of the 
 clergy, were of that mind. But the subject was sup- 
 pressed — as the journal shows — by the previous question, 
 moved by the Rev. Dr. Smith, and seconded by the 
 author. Nevertheless, as it had been affirmed, that 
 gentlemen ordained under the Scottish succession, settling 
 in the represented churches, were understood by some to 
 be under canonical subjection to the bishop who ordained 
 them ; and as this circumstance had been urged in argu- 
 ment; the proposal of rejecting settlements under such sub- 
 jection was adopted ; although Mr. Pilmore denied that 
 any such thing had been exacted of him. As the measure 
 is stated on the journal, to have been carried on the motion 
 of the author; he thinks it proper to mention, that he never 
 conceived of there having been any ground for it, other than 
 in the apprehension which had been expressed. This tem- 
 perate guarding against the evil, if it shoidd exist, seemed 
 the best way of obviating measures, which might have led 
 to disputes with the northern clergy. The line of conduct 
 taken, drew oft' from the ineditated rejection some lay gen- 
 tlemen ; who would otherwise have warmly pressed the ob- 
 jections which occur, against the circumstance that had 
 been imagined. 
 
 The letter from the English bishops, in answer to the 
 address of the former convention, came to hand not long 
 before the meeting of this. All that could be done in the 
 present stage of the business, was to acknowledge the kind- 
 ness of their letter, to repeat the application for the Epis- 
 copacy, and to re-assure them of attachment to the system 
 of the Church of England. This was accordingly done, in 
 a letter drafted by the Rev. Dr. Smith, but considerably 
 altered on a motion of the lion. John Jay, Esq. who thought 
 the draft too submissive. It was in substance an expression 
 oi' gratitude for the fatherly sentiments contained in the 
 
Note to i>age 27. 117 
 
 letter of tlie right reverend prelates ; an assurance of there 
 being no intention of departing from the constituent princi- 
 ples of the Church of England; an expectation that the 
 proposed alterations had been received ; and a repetition of 
 the request of the former address. 
 
 This second application went with no small advantage, 
 from the alterations made in the constitution, before tiie 
 receiving of the objections made against it, on the part of 
 the English bishops. The issue of this branch of the busi- 
 ness may serve, not only for a caution against being preci- 
 pitate, but for encouragement under inconveniences result- 
 ing from the precipitancy of others. In the preceding year, 
 the points alluded to were determined on with too much 
 warmth, and without investigation proportioned to the im- 
 portance of the subjects. The decisions of that day were 
 now reversed — not to say without a division, but — without 
 even an opposition. 
 
 The general temper of moderation displayed in the letter 
 of the archbishops caused it to be a matter of surprise, that 
 the only thing which looked like a condition made on the 
 subject of the Common Prayer Book, was the restoring of 
 the clause concerning the descent into hell, in the Apostles' 
 Creed. The undeniable fact, that the clause had been an 
 addition to the original creed, occasioned a criticism on 
 the expression in the letter — its " integrity ;" to which, it 
 was required to be " restored." Besides, as the clause is 
 not understood in the general acceptation of the words ; 
 and as they who hold it in the strict sense must ground it 
 on very uncertain authority of scripture ; it was thought, 
 that more stress was laid on this particular, than the 
 comparative importance of the alteration merited. This 
 can be accounted for no otherwise, than by the facts which 
 have been mentioned. It is true, that the clause is stated 
 to have been introduced, in opposition to an ancient heresy 
 — meaning the Apollinarian. Is it necessary, then, that 
 every heresy should be denied, in so short a formulary as 
 that of the Apostles' Creed ^ 
 
 The members of the convention were doubtful, how far 
 the restoring of the Athanasian Creed was contemplated by 
 the archbishops as an essential condition. In that case, the 
 matter was desperate ; because, although there were some 
 who favoured a compliance, the majority were determined 
 otherwise ; among whom were two members present, who 
 had been chosen to the Episcopacy ; and who voted against 
 t.h^ restoration, as appears on the journal. It was however 
 
118 Note to yage 21 . 
 
 thought, that the words did not import absolute requisition. 
 The author will here record his opinion, afterward formed 
 in England. It is, that the inclination of the archbishops 
 on that head was, not to give any trouble, but only to avoid 
 any act or omission, which might have been an implicating 
 of themselves and of their Church. His reason is, that in 
 one of the conversations of Bishop Provoost and himself 
 with the archbishop of Canterbury, he brought this matter 
 forwards ; evidently intending to say as much of it as he did, 
 and no more; and not wishing a discussion of the point. 
 What he said, was to this effect : — " Some wish that you 
 liad retained the Athanasian Creed: but I cannot say that 
 I am uneasy on the subject; for you have retained the doc- 
 trine of it in your liturgy; and as to the creed it?elf, I 
 suppose you thought it not suited to the use of a congrega- 
 tion." Then, without waiting to hear whether this were 
 the reason or not, he passed to another subject; and never 
 introduced that of the Athanasian Creed again. 
 
 It was a matter of wonder, that there was not laid in the 
 letter, more stress on the Nicene Creed, than on the Atha- 
 nasian. To the latter, there are other objections than its 
 protest against Arianism and Socinianism : objections which 
 have weight with many, who are not either Socinians or 
 Arians. It had been expected, that the Nicene, being the 
 faith of the early Church, would have been more strongly 
 insisted on by the English bishops ; of whom not more than 
 two or three — and perhaps they unjustly — were suspected 
 of being at all inclined to the opinions alluded to. Proba- 
 bly the opposition to them, apparent in the liturgy, was 
 what principally gave satisfaction. In what is here said, it 
 is not designed to hold up the necessity of the use of the 
 Nicene Creed in the liturgy, but there is pleaded for the 
 making of it a part of the declared ftxith of the Church; 
 which may be done, without a congregational repetition of 
 it. Even to this there is no objection made. The distinc- 
 tion is grounded on the circumstance that what was suffi- 
 cient as a symbol of profession in the primitive Church, 
 must be so now; unless on the principle already adverted 
 to, of contradicting all errors in the forms of our devotions. 
 To what this leads, is very evident ; or rather, it is impos- 
 sible to calculate. The question as to the Nicene Creed 
 had been determined in the preceding session. 
 
 The moderation of the letter of the archbishops on the 
 subject of the ecclesiastical constitution, and especially the 
 manner of the objection to the part of it which was cer- 
 
Note to page 21 . 119 
 
 tainly exceptionable, was universally acknowledged. Their 
 conduct was the more agreeable on this account, that the 
 offence had been done away, before the receipt of their 
 letter. The silence of it in regard to the including of the 
 laity, gave a great advantage over those of the clergy, who 
 were representing the introduction of that order as in oppo- 
 sition to correct principles of ecclesiastical government. 
 
 The moderation which governed in this convention, must 
 be conspicuous. One principal reason, was the moderation 
 of the English prelates. They who were thought the least 
 devoted to the Episcopal regimen, acknowledged the great 
 forbearance in their being no such high notions on the sub- 
 ject, as had been avowed by some of the clergy on our side 
 of the Atlantic. Added to this, there was noticed the ab- 
 sence of the most distant intimation, of offence taken at the 
 presumed independency of the American Church. For 
 although the bishops could not have denied this, consistently 
 with the known principles of their own Church ; yet it had 
 been reckoned on, as a source of difiiculty. 
 
 Some gentlemen, who thought that the convention had 
 gone too far as to some points of evangelical doctrine, were 
 liighly gratified at finding more zeal in that respect, than 
 perhaps they had calculated on. The author had an op- 
 portunity of seeing the operation of this sentiment, within 
 a few hours after his receipt of the letter. There happen- 
 ing to pass, near his door, a worthy lay-member of the con- 
 vention of 1785, who had been in the habit of thinking the 
 clergy of the Church of England not sufficiently evangelical, 
 he accepted of an invitation to walk in, and hear the com- 
 munication of the bishops. He was highly delighted ; and 
 it is not improbable, that this very circumstance contributed 
 towards such a zeal for our ecclesiastical system, as induced 
 the same gentleman, at his decease, which was a few years 
 afterward, to bequeath a considerable legacy, which fell 
 after the decease of two relatives then living ; the income 
 to be applied towards the support of the bishop of the 
 Church in Pennsylvania. 
 
 There was another incident, which contributed to render 
 the proceedings of the convention temperate ; because it 
 must have convinced them, that the result of considerable 
 changes would have been the disunion of the Church. The 
 incident alluded to, was the reading of a memorial from the 
 convention in New-Jersey, approving of some of the pro- 
 ceedings of the late General Convention ; but censuring 
 others, and soliciting a change of counsels in those particu- 
 
ISO Nateio pa^eTl, 
 
 lars. The memorial, as was conjectured at the time, and 
 as the author afterwartl learned with certainty, was drawn 
 up by the Rev. Dr. Chandler, of Elizabeth-Town. This 
 learned and respectable gentleman, after having been in 
 England during the war, had returned to his family and 
 former residence ; labouring under a cancerous or scorbutic 
 complaint, which had consumed a considerable proportion 
 of his face. He had been designed for the contetnplated 
 bishopric of Nova-Scotia^ as the author was afterwards 
 informed by the archbislvop of Canterbury. His complaint 
 became too bad, to admit of his undertaking the charge. 
 The same cause, rendered it impossible for him to take an 
 active part, in the organizing of the American Church.- 
 The author has no doubt, that his letter, written on the 
 present occasion, was among the causes which prevented 
 the disorganizing of it. 
 
 For this memorial, see the Appendix, No. 7. 
 
 The present state of things induced the conventiorr,. 
 before their adjournment, to appoint a committee; vvitl» 
 po^wer to re-assemble them in Wilmington, in the state of 
 Delaware. Previously to their adjournment, they deter- 
 mined on their second address, already noticed, to the 
 English prelates : for which^ see the Appendix, No. 8. 
 
 Soon after the rising of the convention, there came to 
 the author's hands a letter of the archbishops of Canterbury 
 and York: for which, see the Appendix, No. 9. 
 
 Shortly afterward, there came a letter from the arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury only, enclosing a recently obtained 
 act of parliament, authorizing the solicited consecrationsv 
 See the Appendix, No. 10. 
 
 On the receipt of the letters, the committee exercised 
 the power committed to them, of summoning the convention 
 to meet at Wilmington on tlve 10th day of October. 
 
 On the said day, the convention re-assembled ; and. Dr. 
 Griffiths being absent, the Rev. Dr. Provoost presided. 
 But, before a relation of what passed at this meeting, 
 occasion is taken to record the comments generally made 
 on the communications from England. 
 
 There was expressed general satisfaction with the testi- 
 monials to be required of those who might come for the 
 Episcopacy ; and especially with the testimonial to be signed 
 by the members of the General Convention. This body 
 had not been without their apprehensions, that some un- 
 suitable character, as to morals, might be elected : and yet, 
 for them to have assumed a control, might have been ao 
 
Note to page 27. 121 
 
 improper interference with the churches in the individual 
 states. What was demanded by the archbishops, went to 
 the point in the general wish ; and yet, was not to be com- 
 plained of or evaded by any individual. 
 
 The question to be determined on at the present session 
 was — VVhether the American Church would avail herself 
 of the opportunity of obtaining the Episcopacy; which had 
 been so earnestly desired, ever since the settlement of the 
 colonies ; the want of which had been so long complained 
 of; and which was now held out in offer. When the author 
 considers how much, besides the preference due to Epis- 
 copal government, the continuance or the restoration of 
 divine worship in the almost deserted churches, their very 
 existence as a society, and of course the interests of religion 
 and virtue were concerned in the issue, he looks back with 
 a remnant of uneasy sensation, at the hazard which this 
 question run; and at the probability which then threatened, 
 that the determination might be contrary to what took 
 place. 
 
 On the meeting of the convention, a committee were 
 appointed. Those who acted in the business were, from 
 New- York, Rev. Dr. Provoost and James Duane, Esq. j 
 from New-Jersey, Rev. Uzal Ogden and Henry Waddell, 
 Esq. ; from Pennsylvania, Rev. Dr. White and Samuel 
 Powel, Esq.; from Delaware, Rev. Sydenham Thorne; 
 from Maryland, Rev. Dr. Smith ; and from South-Carolina, 
 Rev. Robert Smith. We sat up the whole of the succeeding 
 night, digesting the determinations in the form in which 
 they appear on the journal. When they were brought into 
 the convention, little difficulty occurred in regard to what 
 was proposed concerning the retaining of the Nicene and. 
 the rejecting of the Athanasian Creed. But a warm debate 
 arose on the subject of the descent into hell, in the Apostles' 
 Creed. Although this was at last carried, agreeably to the 
 proposal of the committee; yet whoever looks into the jour- 
 nal will see, that the result was not owing to the having of 
 a majority of votes, but to the nullity of the votes of those 
 churches in which the clergy and the laity were divided. 
 
 Had the issue been different, there could have been no 
 proceeding to England for consecration at this time, be- 
 cause they who went had all along made up their minds 
 not to go, until the way should be opened by previous ne- 
 gotiation. As the matter now stood, there was evidently 
 no ground on which the English bishops could have rejected 
 the persons sent, unless they had made the Athanasian Creed 
 
 16 
 
122 Note to page 27. 
 
 an essential ; which would not have been warranted by the 
 feeble recommendation of their letter, not to say by the 
 impossibility of jiistifyin<^ to the world the withholding of 
 Episcopal succession, for no other reason than this, from a 
 Cluirch descended from their own, and once a part of it. 
 It is here supposed, that the very awkward appearance on 
 the journal of the preceding vote, must have attracted the 
 attention of the archbishop of Canterbury, and of those 
 whom he consulted ; for he took occasion to remark, what 
 he thought the exceptionable plan of making the records on 
 the journal so particular. His cautious avoiding of minute 
 discussion, especially in the way of censure, induced us to 
 account for this remark in the way stated. 
 
 An address to the two archbishops was drawn up by this 
 eonvention, to be forwarded by the two bishops elect present 
 in it, who now declared their intention of embarking for 
 England. See for it the Appendix, No. 11. 
 
 It would be a withholding of justice from a highly deserv- 
 ing gentleman, not to notice his zeal and probably his in- 
 fluence, in accomplishing the views of the American Church. 
 The hostility to the Scotch Episcopacy had derived some 
 weight irom scruples on the subject, which were communi- 
 cated by Granville Sharp, Esq. the author of many learned 
 publications, himself being of a religious and amiable cha- 
 racter, and zealous for the system of the Church of England. 
 In a letter to Dr. Manning, a Baptist minister, and presi- 
 dent of Rhode-Island College, who had been recently in 
 England, Mr. Sharp had expressed his doubts on the sub- 
 ject of the Scotch Episcopacy, grounded on documents in 
 his hands, of his grand-father. Archbishop Sharp, who was 
 so conspicuous for his opposition to the arbitrary measures 
 of James II. Dr. Manning had communicated the informa- 
 tion in such aline, as that it was privately circulated during 
 the convention of 1785. On its being urged in conversation, 
 advantage was taken on the other side of the singularity of 
 the channel of communication. This, however, was acci- 
 dental; it not appearing that the writer contemplated any 
 public effect. He afterward watched the progress of the 
 business, and gave his aid in every step of it. 
 
 Before the meeting on the adjournment, there had been 
 sent to the author by Dr. Franklin, then president of the 
 state, a letter to him from Mr. Sharp, manifestino- Christian 
 concern in the business pending, uneasiuess at some reports 
 which had reached England, of our declining towards So- 
 einianism, and satisfaction from some discoveries which 
 
Note to page 27. 12$ 
 
 contradicted the reports. In the letter to Dr. Franklin, 
 there were extracts of letters written by Mr. Sharp to the 
 archbishop of Canterbury, evincive of interest taken in our 
 behalf. In some late publications in England, there have 
 been erroneous statements of the agency of Mr. Sharp. 
 For this reason, and to manifest the (Jiiristian ztal of that 
 worthy person, his communications are given in the Aj^pen- 
 dix, No. 12. 
 
 Afterward, when Bishop Provoost and the authw were 
 in England, they became acquainted with the said worthy 
 person, who continued to interest himself for the Church. 
 On a certain day, he made us a visit, and expressed m«ch 
 solicitude on the subject of our business, which he supposed, 
 irom its not having been accomplished immediately, to have 
 met with some interruption, lie was on his way to visit 
 the archbishop of Canterbury, intending, he said, to remind 
 his grace of some things by which he seemed to stand 
 pledged, considering the shape in which the matter was 
 now before him. Mr. Sharp was thanked for his benevo- 
 lent zeal, but was requested not to offer to the archbishop 
 any thing in the way of complaint, and was informed that 
 there was no room for any; his grace having intimated 
 that the short delay would be only until the ensuing meeting 
 of parliament. There was also given to Mr. Sharp the 
 reason of this short delay, which will appear in its proper 
 place. 
 
 Before the declaration made by two of the bishops elect, 
 of their intention to embark for England, there was per- 
 ceived a difficulty likely to occur in the case of Dr. Provoost, 
 on account of subscription to be made as proposed by the 
 convention of 1785, and considered as satisfactory by the 
 English bishops. The convention in New- York had held 
 in suspense the proposed liturgy, including the articles. 
 This was the faith and the worship recognized in the con- 
 stitution, and not yet adopted by the Church in which Dr, 
 Provoost was to preside. 
 
 To meet this difficulty, the convention adopted the expe- 
 dient of a form to be subscribed by him, and by any other 
 person in the same circumstances. The form bound the 
 subscriber to the use of the English book of Common 
 Prayer, except so far as it had been altered in consequence 
 of the civil revolution, until the proposed book should be 
 ratified by the convention of the state in which the party 
 lived, and to the use of the latter book, when so ratified. 
 A promise to this effect was signed by Dr. Provoost, and 
 
124 Note to page 28. 
 
 the document is in possession of the author. It is part of 
 an act of the present convention, predicated on the requisi- 
 tions of the archbishops. See for it the Appendix, No. 13. 
 The provision thus made by the convention, did not alto- 
 gether reheve Dr. Provoost from the difficuhy. Subscrip- 
 tion was to be repeated in England, agreeably to the 
 requisition of the archbishoi)s, doubtless with the concur- 
 rence of the bishops generally. It was not probable, that 
 the archbishop of Canterbury would accommodate to an- 
 other form, without further consultation, which would at 
 least have occasioned trouble and delay. Dr. Provoost 
 candidly stated his situation in this particular to the arch- 
 bishop, to whom the disclosure was evidently unexpected. 
 After a short pause the author remarked, that if in England 
 any changes should be made in the ecclesiastical institutions, 
 by competent authority, and in themselves not contrary to 
 Christian doctrine, the subscription of the clergy would not 
 — it was supposed — be hindered by the ordination vows by 
 which they were now bound. On a look of appeal to the 
 archbishop for the correctness of this sentiment, he assented 
 to it unequivocally. He would never have given a decision 
 on the special case of Dr. Provoost : but the supposed case 
 had so evident a bearing on it, that the scruple was dis- 
 missed. It had rested on the mind of the doctor, who, on 
 a question of truth and honour, would not have erred on 
 the side of laxity, in regard to promise to be pledged. 
 
 H. Page 28, Of Personal Intercourse ivitk the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury. 
 
 Sundry matters having passed in this intercourse which 
 may be thought connected with the subject of these sheets, 
 the author supposes that it may be of use to insert in this 
 place certain letters, which he addressed from England to 
 the committee of the Church in Pennsylvania, with notes 
 taken for another letter intended to have been written, if 
 an opportunity had offered. The committee were the Rev. 
 Dr. Samuel Magaw, the Rev. Robert Blackwell, and the 
 Rev. Joseph Pilmore of the clergy ; and of the laity, the 
 Hon. Francis Hopkinson, Dr. Gerardus Clarkson, and John 
 Swanwick, Esquire. 
 
Note to page 2Q. 125 
 
 Westminster, December 6, 1786. 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I think it my duty, and it is my inclination, to embrace 
 the earUest opportunity of acquainting you with my arrival 
 in England, and of the progress made, by the blessing of 
 God, in the important business of my voyage. 
 
 On Thursday, the 2d of November, I embarked at New- 
 York, in company of my worthy friend and brother, Dr. 
 Provoost. The next day we left land. After a passage, 
 in which we had some tempestuous, although for the most 
 part pleasant weather, we made the lights of Scilly, on 
 Monday, the 20th of the same month, and the next day 
 landed, in good health, at Falmouth. In giving this account 
 of my prosperous voyage, I am happy in the conviction that 
 I am writing to those who, as well from private friendship, 
 as from their interest in the great concerns of the Church, 
 will rejoice with me on the occasion, and join me in devout 
 acknowledgments to Almighty God. 
 
 Owing to sundry incidents, we did not reach the metropo- 
 lis until Wednesday, the 29th, when we made it our first 
 business to wait on his excellency, Mr. Adams, who politely 
 returned our visit, on the evening of the same day, and 
 finding that it was our wish to be introduced by him to his 
 grace, the archbishop of Canterbury, readily undertook the 
 office, and named Friday for the purpose. Accordingly, on 
 that day we accompanied Mr. Adams to the palace of Lam- 
 beth. His grace having received no intimation of the 
 intended visit, was not at home. In the evening. Colonel 
 Smith, the secretary of the legation, waited on him, to re- 
 quest the appointment of an hour: he named twelve 
 o'clock, on Monday. At that time, we again accompanied 
 Mr. Adams to Lambeth, where we had a polite and con- 
 descending reception, entirely answerable to the sentiments 
 which we had been taught to entertain of this great and 
 good archbishop. 
 
 After some questions on his part respecting our passage, 
 we presented our papers : on which we were asked — 
 Whether we expected another gentleman, in time to be 
 consecrated with us ? In answer to this, his grace was 
 informed, that the Rev. Dr. Griffith, the only gentleman 
 recommended by the General Convention beside the present 
 company, would not, in all probability, be over before the 
 spring. Here I must note, that my saying of this was in 
 consequence of a letter received from that gentleman after 
 my embarkation. 
 
126 Not€ to page 28. 
 
 Dr. Provoost then mentioned that there was a peculiarity 
 in the charter of his church, requiring his presence at the 
 annual election at Easter: on which his grace said, that he 
 had no inclination to detain us so long, and indeed would 
 give us no delay, provided our papers should be found satis- 
 factory, which he presumed would be the case. But at the 
 same time he apologized for his postponing of our business 
 for two or three days, being engaged in some ecclesiastical 
 business, depending before the privy council, and also in 
 some concerns of a college, of which he is the visiter. He 
 added, that when this was done, he would see us again. In 
 the course of the conversation, the archbishop asked me, 
 whether I had received the letter signed by himself alone, 
 in which he had mentioned that three was a sufficient num- 
 ber to be sent for consecration, and whether we understood 
 it to be the sentiment that three only should come. On 
 his being told that the letter had been received, and so un- 
 derstood, he gave the reason — That as the present service 
 was asked of the Church of England, in consequence of an 
 extraordinary exigency, it seemed proper to do no more in 
 the affair, than the exigency required, and to leave all sub- 
 sequent measures for the continuing of our ministry, to be 
 taken among ourselves. 
 
 This is, gentlemen, to the best of my recollection, the 
 substance of the conversation ; and we shall be daily in ex- 
 pectation of renewing our intercourse with his grace. 
 
 Having paid our respects in the first place to the arch- 
 bishop, we were of opinion that it was our duty to wait on 
 the lord bishop of London ; his lordship's predecessors 
 having been the diocesans of our Church ; although we un- 
 derstood, that the present bishop — the venerable Dr. Lowth 
 — had undergone a decay of his great talents, as well as 
 laboured under gievous bodily complaints. Accordingly we 
 waited yesterday on the Rev. Mr. Eaton, his chaplain, by 
 whom I had been hospitably entertained when formerly in 
 this country. Mr. Eaton, after much conversation concern- 
 ing the affairs of our Church, stated to us his lordship's 
 situation, mentioning, among other things, his d(l)ility of 
 mind to be such, that although he should answer a question 
 properly and pointedly, yet he might in half an hour, forget 
 both the question and the answer : and his indisposition was 
 so considerable, that a morning might be appointed, and 
 yet, when the time should come, his lordship might be inca- 
 pable of receiving us. These things he thought it necessary 
 to mention, but doubted not that there would be named an 
 
Note to pa^e 2S. 127 
 
 early day for our introdaction. Accordingly, in the evening, 
 we received a note from Mr. Eaton, appointing to-morrow 
 morning for the interview. 
 
 I have the pleasure of acquainting you, gentlemen, that 
 we find from many, who had conversed with the archbishop 
 before our arrival, of there not being the least doubt of our 
 Church's having retained the essential doctrines of the 
 Gospel, as held by the Church of England. 
 
 These, gentlemen, are the particulars, which I have 
 thought it important to convey to you. By the next packet 
 I intend, if it please God, to acquaint you with any further 
 progress that may be made in the business committed to 
 me; and I remain, in the meantime, with my prayers for 
 your health and happiness. 
 
 Your affectionate brother, 
 and very humble servant, 
 
 WM. WHITE. 
 TJie Committee of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 
 in the Co7nmonwealth of Penmyhania. 
 
 P. S. I trust there will be no occasion, that my friends 
 should write to me after the receipt of this. But they will 
 not expect, that in the present stage of the business, I 
 should fix the time of my leaving England. 
 
 Westminster, January 1, 1787. 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 1 embrace the opportunity of the packet of this month, 
 to communicate to you the present state of the business, 
 on which I am in England. 
 
 Between the writing of my last and our hearing from 
 the archbishop, there intervened about a fortnight: during 
 which Dr. Provoost and myself had been informed by 
 several who had seen his grace, particularly by the lord 
 bishop of Oxford, that our papers were satisfactory. The 
 delay was accounted for, by certain business that required 
 immediate attention. At the end of that term, we received 
 an invitation from the archbishop to dine with him on the 
 21st. We accordingly attended ; and had every reason to 
 be satisfied with our reception and entertainment. His 
 grace did not introduce the subject of our application to 
 him, until our leaving the company, when he stepped aside 
 with us, and mentioned, as near as my memory serves, to 
 the following effect — That having, from the beginning, 
 
128 Note to yagc 28. 
 
 consulted tlic bench of bisliops on this business, he was 
 desirous of takini^ their opinion, as to the manner of ac- 
 complishing it — That he iiad shown our papers to a few 
 who were in town — That he expected to see more of them 
 in a short time — And that he would then see us again. 
 We have not heard from him since; for the greater number 
 of the bishops are still at their respective dioceses, although 
 expected to be in town soon. 
 
 In my last I mentioned our intention of waiting on the 
 lord bishop of London, as an instance of the respect which 
 wo thought due from us, to the successor of the former 
 diocesans of Atnerica. We accordingly attended on the 
 day appointed by himself, and were courteously received 
 by this celebrated prelate, who expressed himself gratifted 
 by our waiting on him, and asked for our address, as in- 
 tending to see us again; which, however, can hardly hap- 
 pen, as his lordship has been since taken extremely ill, 
 and, I believe, continues in imminent danger.* 
 
 I fully expected to have mentioned to you, gentlemen, by 
 this opportunity, the time of the accomplishment of the pur- 
 j)ose, for which you desired rae to come. Although disap- 
 pointed in this, I can express to you my full persuasion, that 
 the delay does not arise from any cause, which can defeat 
 our object. 
 
 With my constant prayers for yourselves and our whole 
 Church, 1 am, gentlemen. 
 
 Your affectionate brother, 
 
 WM. WHITE. 
 The Committee of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 
 in Fennsylvania. 
 
 P. S. January 2. This morning, the lord bishop of Lan- 
 daff did us the honour, on his coming to town, to call on 
 us, without waiting for our being introduced to him, and 
 to desire us to appoint a day for our dining with him. I 
 mention this, to enable me to confirm the sentiment already 
 expressed ; because his lordship, not only showed the utmost 
 
 • We probably saw thi.s eminent man on the last day on which onr visit conU 
 have been received. His appearance was that of health, and he followed us ta 
 the head of his stairs, witiiout any ajipearance of debility. We understood th.at 
 he bad a violent return of his disease (the stone) the next day; and he died very 
 soon after otir d(>partnre from England. In the conversation of about an hour 
 which we held with him, lie made various inquiries concerning America, ami 
 was the most pointed on the subject of slavery. On being informed of the then 
 late act in Pennsylvania for the gradual abolition of it, he answered with strong 
 •mphaeia — ^That is a very good oieasura. 
 
jSote to page 28. ]29- 
 
 <^oo(l will as to our business, hut .seemed surprised llmt it 
 was not already finished, until we mentioned the reason of 
 the archbishop, whom his lordship had not seen. 
 
 Westminster, January 20, 1787. 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I now address you, with the pleasin<T prospect of being' 
 soon able to re-embark for America, after the accomplish- 
 ment of the business committed to me. It is possible, 
 indeed, that I may arrive before the vessel, by which this 
 letter will be conveyed. Even in that case, it may serve 
 for a continuation of the narrative of the proceeding-sof my 
 honoured colleague and myself. And as there is entire 
 harmony between us, both of sentiment and of affection, I 
 shall, for the sake of brevity, omit distinguishing between 
 us in the following account; using the plural number, in 
 .stating any thing that was said by either of us on the 
 occasion. 
 
 After my last letter, v/e received from the archbisliop, 
 through a friend who had spoken to him on the subject, 
 full satisfaction, that the delay arose from no other cause, 
 than his grace's waiting for the arrival of the bishops; and 
 that it was his intention to finish the transaction in time for 
 our departure by the February packet ; it being the oppor- 
 tunity, by which he had understood from us, that it was our 
 inclination to return. 
 
 The queen's birth-day, and the near approach of the 
 meeting of parliament, have brought to town many of the 
 right reverend bench. Accordingly, we received yesterday 
 a note from the archbishop, desiring us to call on him this 
 morning. We attended, and had a conversation of two 
 hours; of which it is now my intention to give you the 
 substance, as far as my memory serves, and as is connected 
 with the affairs of our Church. 
 
 His grace began with expressing his hopes that we had 
 not thought him inattentive to our business. He said, that 
 soon after our arrival, he had mentioned the matter to the 
 king ; that the necessary powers from government would 
 be soon obtained; and that the consecration should be 
 either on the 28th instant, or on that day seven-night ; and 
 that the latter day the best suited his convenience, and 
 should be made the appointment, provided it were consist- 
 ent with our intentions of returning by the packet. 
 
 After making the suitable acknowledgments of his sood- 
 
 17 
 
130 Nute to jmge 28. 
 
 iiess, and (leclaiiiii]: our full conviction that he lind used al? 
 possible expedition, we said, that tlie day after the last 
 mentioned Sunday was the intended time of our de|mrture, 
 in the event of our being ready for the packet; and that, 
 therefore, we could not press for the matter to be expedited, 
 sooner than was convenient to his grace. 
 
 He tiien gently touched on the subject, in regard to which 
 our last convention had not complied with the recommenda- 
 tion of the two archbishops. He said, that some were dis- 
 satisfied with the omission of the creed here alluded to ; 
 that, for his part, he was not uneasy on the head, being 
 satisfied that the doctrine of the creed is retained in many 
 places of the Prayer Book ; but that, however, he did not 
 like the manner in which it appeared on the minutes; 
 preferred the mode of doing business used in all the bodies 
 with which he was ac{juainted; among whom, it was cus- 
 tomary to mention the business brought before them, and 
 the result of the debate, without specifying the votes of the 
 individual mend)ers. AV'hether his grace had here a vievv^ 
 to the votes of those whom he was addressing in regard to 
 the Athanasian Creed, we did not know; but the answer 
 which he received was to this purpose — That if the con- 
 vention liad taken a wrong method in the above particular, 
 it proceeded from their wish to show themselves open and 
 candid ; and that the Church in one of the states, had in- 
 structed their deputies to move for the so specifying of the 
 votes. 
 
 His grace then said, that in thebeginningof the business, 
 there had been many reports and apprehensions ; that this 
 required of the bisho|)s to be circumspect ; and that even 
 when our proeeedings arrived, there were some things, 
 which they could not but wish otherwise. And here, said 
 he, I am not alluding to the liturgy, but to the very easy 
 manner in which the tlcgradation of bisho])s seems allowed 
 to be done. It was remarked to his grace, that the offensive 
 article had been altered. He answered — Yes, and much 
 for the better. 
 
 From this, his grace passed to some remarks concerning 
 the Psalter. He said, that whatever use there might be. 
 in leaving out some parts of the Psalms, he saw no propriety 
 in altering the connexion, in the manner in which we had 
 done it. He did not mean to undervalue the abilities of 
 those employed in it, but thought it was a work of more 
 time and dilliculty, than they seem to have conceived. 
 From a desire of taking his grace's meaning precisely on 
 
Note to page 2b. I SI 
 
 this subject, it was here mentioned to him, that if we un- 
 derstood hin), he did not object to the omission of some 
 portions of the Psahns, from the worship of the Church. 
 The reply was — He had not fully considered that subject ; 
 F.nd only meant at present to remark on the connecting of 
 portions to2:ether, in such a manner as might break the 
 connexion, and alter the sense of the original compositions ; 
 especially of such of them as are prophetical. But his 
 grace did not allege, that the sense had been actually 
 altered, in any place. 
 
 Tn speaking of the liturgy, the archbishop expressed his 
 hopes, that it would not be a matter liable to alterations, at 
 every convention. He was answered, that although it was 
 still submitted to the Church as a proposed liturgy, so as 
 to allow of the correction of any part of it, which might 
 appear, on mature consideration, to have been hastily done ; 
 yet there were no description of men in this country, who 
 would more object to the leaving of the liturgy in so fluctu- 
 ating a state, than the great body of Episcopalians in 
 America. 
 
 The archbishop took notice of a want of formality, in 
 our not having brought a regular instrument of our election : 
 although he allowed, that our election was fully implied in 
 the papers which had been produced ; so as to leave no 
 doubt of the fact. This naturally led us to speak of the 
 forms of recommendation, prescribed by the two arch- 
 bishops. In respect to these we ventured to declare, that 
 the Church at large in America acknowledged great obli- 
 gations; and would expect that their future bishops should 
 make it a rule of their conduct. He replied, that the ap- 
 ])ointment of persons to the Episcopal ciiaracter was of the 
 highest consequence; and earnestly wished that it may be 
 managed with great discretion in America ; and that he 
 thought himself obliged to use the precautions which we 
 had mentioned. For, said he, gentlemen, you were stran- 
 gers to me ; although I had heard you respectfully spoken 
 of. At the same time, there were some who apprehended, 
 that persons of a very unsuitable description would be sent. 
 I thought it improbable — he continued — that general and 
 particular conventions would unite in recommending such 
 .persons ; and yet it was my determination, that if such 
 should be sent, and under circumstances carrying fuU 
 evidence of the unsuitableness, not to have troubled the 
 bishops with the aff'air, but to have taken the brunt of a 
 refusal on nsyselfo The answer was to this effect — That if 
 
132 Note to page 2b. 
 
 tlieie had been any dan<;cr of such a nicasuic, the requisi- 
 tions of the two archbishops must have operated as a pre- 
 vention: that we trusted, however, there was not a suflici- 
 cnt number of our brethren, in any state, capable of wil- 
 fully imposing an improper character on his grace ; and 
 that, therefore, if any such character had been reconi- 
 njended, it must have been some years ago, and from the 
 want of due information. 
 
 His grace, in some part of the conversation, was led to 
 speak of the act of parliament : in respect to which, we took 
 notice of the clause, requiring the consent of the king, under 
 his sign manual. This clause, we told him, we had under- 
 stood from private information, not to have been in the act 
 as |)roposed by the bishops. We ventured to say, however, 
 that the principle of the restriction was well understood in 
 America, so as to occasion no ofience there. The arch- 
 bishop answered, that it was not in the act, as proposed by 
 the bishops, but that he thought it a very proj)er clause, and 
 that it was particularly acceptable to himself; since other- 
 wise the matter would have rested wholly with him, which 
 he did not wish. 
 
 He introduced a subject which was unexpected to us, and 
 may influence measures in America. He said, that, wheii 
 bishop of Bangor, he had presented the bishop elect of the 
 Isle of Man to the archbishop of York for consecration ; and 
 that none were concerned in the consecration besides the 
 archbishop and liimself : that he had set on foot an inquiry, 
 respecting past usage in the province of York : and that if 
 the practice had been the same in times past, perhaps it 
 might prove unnecessary for another gentleman to come 
 from America. In the conversation tliat ensued on this 
 head, it was thrown out on our side, that if the ancient 
 canonical number should be dispensed with, j)erhaps doubts 
 might subsist in the minds of some, in regard to the validity ; 
 and that such an apprehension might be j)roductiveof some 
 irregularity and inconvenience. To this the archbishop re- 
 plied, that the latitude, if left, would be intended merely for 
 our accommodation, but was by no means to prevent the 
 coming over of a third applicant, if that should be thought 
 eligible by us. 
 
 I think it a matter worthy to be mentioned in this letter, 
 
 that the archbishop informed us of thoughts entertained by 
 
 him, of giving to the world a publication, relative to the 
 
 business before us, stating tjie reasons influencing him in 
 
 :thc measures which he had adopted. We look the liberty 
 
Note to -page 28. 133 
 
 •of expressin<r our hearty approbation of the proposal; aiul 
 as his grace did not seem to have come to a detenniiiation, 
 we hoped tliat he would lind no objection to it, on further 
 consideration. 
 
 After discussing the above-mentioned subjects more fully 
 than 1 can be expected to relate, we apologized for taking 
 up so much of his grace's time, and arose to take our leave. 
 But we were encouraged by the condescension shown, to 
 mention, that as the king was to open the parliament in a 
 few days, it would be a gratification to us to gain admittance 
 to the House of Lords, on tliat occasion, through the good 
 offices of his grace. The archbishop took this freedom in 
 very good part, desired us to consider him as on terms of 
 friendship, and assured us, that he would send us a note of 
 admission, and express in it the time, which his majesty 
 should appoint for his coming to the house, in order to pre- 
 vent our unnecessary waiting.* 
 
 1 suppose that this incident reminded the archbishop of a 
 question which had been asked him by Mr. Adams, at our 
 first interview — Whether it would not be proper for us to 
 wait on the king; and whether, in that case, the archbishop 
 or himself would be the jjroper person to introduce us. To 
 this question the archbishop had answered at the time, that 
 the first step was for himself to be satisfied, before any no- 
 tice could properly be given to the king. In relation to this 
 subject, his grace now said, that if we were to be introduced 
 to the king, it ought to be on the ground of thankit)g him, 
 for his leave given for the ensuing consecration, under his 
 feign manual; and that whether this would be liable to any 
 objection or not, we must judge. We made no scru])lc to 
 answer, that there could be no objection to it, arising out 
 of the relations in which we stood. He then said, that he 
 supposed Mr. Adams chose to introduce us himself. We 
 answered, that although the proposal originated with Blr. 
 Adams, yet we believed he wished to leave it to his grace 
 to determine on the manner. To this he replied, that he 
 would consider of it further, and let us know. 
 
 His grace then said, that he was desirous of appointing 
 some day for our dining with him again; intending to ask 
 some of the bishops to meet us, and also some of our friends. 
 This led us to ask his grace's opinion, as to the propriety 
 of our calling at the houses of all the bishops ; in order to 
 thank them for the good office soon to be done, through the 
 
 * The promise was fuUlllccl. 
 
134 Nole to page 28. 
 
 favour of tlic whole bench, although especially of his grace, 
 to the Episcopal (Miurch in America. He answered, that 
 he thought it proper, and that it would be very kindly taken. 
 
 As the gentlemen to whom 1 am writing are members of 
 the corporation for the widow's fund, it may be proj)er for 
 me to inform them, that I stated to his grace the appoint- 
 ment of Dr. Smith, J\Ir. Chew, and myself, for the address- 
 ing of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 
 respecting the arrears due on their former grants. He 
 promised to consider of the foundation of the intended ap- 
 plication, and for that purpose, as I had mentioned my being 
 I'urnished with a former abstract of the proceedings of our 
 corporation, noticing the grants, he desired me to send it to 
 him. 
 
 I liave given you, gentlemen, a long, and, I am afraid, 
 tedious account of this conversation; but I hope that the 
 motive will excuse me, which is my desire of your having 
 as complete a view as possible, of the accomplishing of a 
 negotiation so important, as we all conceive, to our commu- 
 nion, not only of the present, but also of every future gene- 
 ration. 
 
 That God may bless the event, which, under Iks good 
 providence, is soon to take place, is the constant wish and 
 ■prayer of, gentlemen, 
 
 Your affectionate brother, 
 
 and humble servant, 
 
 WM. WHITE. 
 The Committee of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 
 in Pennsjjlvania. 
 
 Materials for another letter to the committee, if an op- 
 portunity should offer, before my reaching of Philadelphia, 
 
 Monday, January 2i)th. We received a verbal message 
 irom the archbishop, desiring us to call on him. We at- 
 tended. His design was to ask some questions respecting 
 the forms of our testimonials, and the titles to be given t© 
 ^is, in our letters of consecration. We staid w ith him nearly 
 two hours, and had much conversation with him, concerning 
 the affairs of our Church ; which confirmed us in our high 
 t)pinion of his regard for her, and of his desire to advance 
 the interests of religion. 
 
 Friday, February 2d. The mornings of the two preced- 
 ing days had been spent in visiting the different l)ishoj)s who 
 were in town; agreeably to the proposal before made to the 
 
^ote to page 28. J35 
 
 srchbishoii. A few of them— the archhislioj) of York, and 
 Elie bishops of Oxford, Laudafi; Rochester, a\n\ Kaiiiror', had 
 previously visited us; and we had seen the bisliops of Wor- 
 cester and Exeter, a few days before, at the archbishop's, 
 at dinner; an occasion which I have not particidarly noticed', 
 because nothin<;- passed on it, interestin<; to our mission.* 
 Those of the bishops whom we found at home, seemed to 
 take the compliment in g-ood part, expressed great good- 
 will to our Church, and wished that our longer stay, after 
 their coming to town, had permitted their showino- of us 
 attentions. t ° 
 
 On this day we waited on the archbishop, in consequence 
 of his own appointment at our former interview, in order 
 to accompany him to court. Thither we went together in 
 his coach. On being introduced to the king, I made this 
 preconceived address— That " we were happy in the oppor- 
 tunity of thanking his majesty, for his license granted to his 
 grace the archbishop, to convey the E])iscopal successioii 
 to the Church in America." The king made this answer, 
 which I set down to show the kindness of the archbishopj 
 — " His grace has given me such an account of the gentle- 
 men who have come over, that I am glad of the present op- 
 portunity of serving the interests of religion." His majesty 
 
 fn 1,. . occasion, we witnessed a sHigular ceremony, v,l,ich we supposed 
 
 to be a remnant of the state of former times. Soon in the morninir, we had re 
 ceived a note from the archbishop, intimating, tliat the then day of die week was 
 his public day, during the session of parhament; and that he should be glad to see 
 us on any weekly day so mentioned-on tliat day in particular, if disen-aaed 
 We waited on him, and supposed IVorn what we saw, that the several eminent 
 persons who entered came uninvited as to that particular time. Before dinner 
 the archbishop rose bowed to the company, and left the room. They followed 
 all ol tliem, no doubt, besides ourselves, understanding the transaction After 
 passing through a saite of rooms, we found ourselves in the chapel : in which 
 were the two chaplains in their surplices. One of them read the litanv afte- 
 which, we returned to the room wherein we had been received. Soon alterward 
 we were called to dinner. It is probable, that such a visit on some Wednesday 
 -It vvas the vveeldy day-during the session of parliament, is expected of twerr 
 member of either house, who lives in habits of acquaintance with the primate 
 R^L 7n " r.''' ^'^^"^' '»c'"ding the prayers attached to it in the En-Ii.h 
 Book of Common Prayer, and none other, seems a remnant of former pracTice 
 
 has beeS reTilld"'"" ^ " ^"''""' ""'"" ^' " "' ^'"^ ^^^°""' '^'^' tl/inciclent 
 t The prelates whom we found, were the archbishop of Yoik, tJie bishon of 
 Rodiestei the very aged bishop of Carlisle, in whom vie saw the vv ' ck o ' Ene 
 of thehi-st scholars of the age, and the bishops of Salisbury, Bristol, and Ely 
 The first mentioned of these three, since bishop of Durham, conm ended tl; 
 moderation manifested m our service for the fourth of July. This was SiVin. 
 as It had been pronounced by some on our side of the Atlantic, that th" said seV 
 AmerrnChuS "^"^"' ^° '"'^"^^ ^ rejection of the Application of the 
 
 nlale^! '"''^ ^^ presumed, however, that sucii civility is the usual courtesj- of the 
 
1 3G Note io jjagc 26. 
 
 then asked Dr. Provoost, wliptlier the Episcopal communion 
 were not numerous in New- York, and was answered by the 
 Doctor in the allirmative, with further thanks for the license 
 »?ranted. The kinii' then passed to the next in the circle, 
 and after a little while we withdrew, with the archbishop.* 
 
 We had contemplated this measure of waiting on the 
 king, as of peculiar delicacy. Tn tiie character of citizens 
 of the United States of America, we should have thought it 
 inconsistent in us to have made any application to the civil 
 autiiority of Groat-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 4tth. We attended at the palace of 
 Ijambeth, for consecration. The assistants of the arch- 
 })ishop on the occasion, were the archbishop 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, be- 
 cause we had all along understood, that in the beginning, 
 this aged and venerable prelate had entertained scrujdes on 
 the subject of the application of our Church: and it was 
 ])rincipally owing to his lordship, that such a point was made 
 of the descent into hell, in the Apostles' Creed. We pre- 
 sumed that his dilliculties were now removed. Dr. Drake, 
 one of the archbishop's chaplains, preached; and Dr. Ran- 
 dolph, 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 ceremonies. 
 The text was — " Let all things be done decently and in 
 order." 1 Cor. xiv. 40. The discourse had very little 
 reference to the peculiarity of the occasion. The truth was, 
 as the archbishop had told us on Friday, on our way to 
 coint, that he had 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 
 
 * While we were waiting in our places, until the king should come to ns in liig 
 passing from one attendant to another, there occurred an additional instance of the 
 attention of the archbishop to the delicacy of our situation. When the king 
 speaks to you, said he, yon will only bow ; adding, with a smile — when an Eng- 
 lish bishop is presented, he docs something more. This alluded to the ancient 
 form of doing homage ibr his barony on his knees. We were aware of the dif- 
 ferent circnmstanccH in which we stood ; but it was considerate, to guard againsH 
 the danger of mistake. 
 
Note to page 28. 137 
 
 sient him information of a domestic calamity, which would 
 excuse him from attendance; and the archbishop 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. 1 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 received from his instructions in early life, and a 
 tender sense of the attentions which he had shown me 
 almost from my infancy, together with the impressions left 
 by the harmony which had subsisted between us in the 
 discharge of our joint pastoral duty in Philadelphia, being 
 no improper accompaniments to the feelings suited to the 
 present very interesting transaction of my life. 1 hope, 
 that I felt the weight of the occasion. May God bless the 
 meditations and the recollections by which I had endea- 
 voured to prepare myself for it; and give them their due 
 effect on my temper and conduct, in the new character iu 
 which 1 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 mention to his grace my conviction, 
 that the American 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 
 regret her act, performed on this day. He answered, that 
 he fully believed 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 individually. 
 
 After spending the remainder of the evening very agree- 
 ably, 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.* 
 
 * During dinner this day at Lambeth, we were surprised at a conversation in- 
 troduced by the bishop of Peterl)orough. We had been accustomed to think it a 
 sort of adjunct to the claim of churchmanship to consider the " E<k.&v Bsio-za/km" 
 or " Royal Portraiture" as a true expression of the feelings of king Charles I, in 
 some of the most trying circumstances of his life. The bishop remarked, and iiis 
 
 18 
 
13S Noic to 'paga 28. 
 
 Mondiij/, Fehrunrij 'yth. As an oviJence of his srace's- 
 <}elicary, I (iepo.-il tlio acroniil of I'eo^, bronirlit to us this 
 inoniiiii^ by his socrotary ; and givo tire followiiii^ narrative 
 of the manner in which that business was conducted. 
 
 On tlio morning of our visit to coitrt, I mentioned to the 
 archbishop, agreeably to preconcert with Dr. Provoost, 
 that there must necessarily have been some charges for the 
 expenses of oflice, in carrying the business of our Churcli 
 ihrotigh the civil department; and requested to know tlie 
 amount, that we might discharge it. The archbishop an- 
 swered, that if he should inform us on that point, it must 
 he on the principle, that in an affair of no great magnitude, 
 it might seem disrespectful to us, to withhold the satisfaction 
 demanded. He added, that on the occasion of the conse- 
 cration of an English bishop, there were vei-y considerable 
 expenses to different persons of the archbishop's court and 
 of his household; wjiich expenses he thought improper on 
 the present occasion, and should therefore prohiliit them. 
 After the consecration, he, within our hearing, informed a 
 gentleman 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 gentlem-an's answering, that he would wait on us 
 with them, the archbishop replied — No; you arc 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 £l4tSs. hi. being altogether in the line- 
 of pid>lic offices, and which the archbishop must have paid,, 
 but for the request made on our part. 
 
 For the instrument of consecration, recorded in^ the- 
 archicjiiscopal 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 conveying of information, guarding 
 against an impression which might have been made by 
 
 hrethren assented to tlie position, tliat the contrary was now clearly proved, by s 
 late publication of some papers of Lord Clarendon. These papers, it was said, 
 show the work to have been written by Bishop (iauden. The simplicity of the 
 3tyle of the work, and the contrary property said to be discernible in the writing* 
 of that bishop, aro the circumatancos wJiich inclined Mr. Huroe to give the credit 
 «>rthe composition to the kinf . 
 
Note tv page 2S. 1 31) 
 
 ■what had passed concerning consecration in the province 
 ■of York. The note shall be given, becanse 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 
 Ikie, sustaining facts mentioned in the statements, the 
 present opportunity is improved to the perpetuating ot 
 them. They are, 
 
 (1) A letter from his excellency Ricliard Henry Lee, 
 Esq. president of Congress, to his excellency John Adams, 
 Esq. minister plenipotentiary to the court of Great-i5ritain. 
 
 (2) A letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Lee, in ansv^cr. 
 
 (3) A letter from the archbishop of Canterbury to Mr. 
 Adams, after an interview between them. 
 
 (4) A certificate of the supremo executive council of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 (5) A certificate of his excellency Governor Patrick 
 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 conse- 
 quence of an instruction of the General Convention. They 
 may reasonably be supposed to have had an effect in ac- 
 complishing the views of the Episcopal Church. See the 
 Appendix, No. 16. 
 
 It was in the statements, that Richard Peters, Esq. hav- 
 ing 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 Enghsh 
 prelates had been addressed. The consequent letter of Mr. 
 Peters to the committee has a tendency to throw light on 
 the subject, and is therefore given in the Appendix, No. 17 
 
 * 
 
 * There being nothing more in the letters to tfie committee concerning the 
 claim of the corjjoration of the Widows' Fund, the silence seems to require a 
 reason. The abstract was sent to the archbishop, agreeably to his desire. In the 
 next interview 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, 177G, 
 there could be no claim beyond that day, on a fund appropriated by charter to 
 the dominions of the British crown. On the other hand, to have dated inde- 
 pendence from the acknowledgment of it by Great-Britam, would have been in- 
 consistent with American citizenship. Accordingly, nothing more passed on the 
 subject. It should be noticed, that to tiie former period there was very little due. 
 
140 Note to page 30. 
 
 We left London on the evening of the 5th of February, 
 reached Falmouth on the 10th, were detained there by con- 
 trary winds until Sunday the 17th, when we embarked, and 
 after a voyage of precisely seven weeks, landed at New- 
 York on the afternoon of Easter Sunday, April the 7th; 
 sensible, I trust, of the goodness of God in our personal 
 protection and safety, and in his having thus brought to a 
 prosperous issue the measures adopted for the obtaining 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. 
 
 I. Page 30. 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 pre- 
 sent presided, and the secretary was Francis Hopkinson, 
 Esq. 
 
 Previously to the meeting of the convention, it was fore- 
 seen that the unfinished business of the Episcopacy, and the 
 relative situation of the Church in Connecticut, would be 
 the principal objects of attention, and must be thought im- 
 portant, not only in themselves, but because of the influence 
 which each of them had on the other. It maybe 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 English prelates, 
 that the American Episcopal Church was to obtain from 
 them the beginnin": of the succession in the mimber of 
 bishops competent, according to the English rule and j)rac- 
 tice, to perpetuate it. Doubtless this sentiment was much 
 strengthened by the consideration of the antiquity and the 
 expediency 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 of the Church of England ; 
 yet, on this point of procuring from England the canonical 
 number of bishops, the promise seemed to have been volunta- 
 rily pledged, so that the English prelates might, in the event 
 of non-compliance, have laid the charge of imposition. It is 
 
Nole to ])aii-e 'SO lil 
 
 Crne, tiie archbishop of Canterbury seems not to have bcea 
 tenacious of the canonical number, as appears from what he 
 said of a consecration for the Isle of Man, related in the 
 author's letter from England. Yet his grace was careful 
 to correct his mistake in regard to that measure, as is evi- 
 dent from the note written by him to the autJjor, on the day 
 on which he left London. If some of the archbishop's 
 brethren, of the right reverend bench, should have been 
 found stricter than himself on 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 
 being particular on this point; it is the guarding against 
 the mischievous consequences of a disposition to irregu- 
 larity in any future American bishop, who might have less 
 concern for the peace and theorder of the Church, than tor 
 the sustaining of his consequence with a jjarty. 
 
 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. liut 
 as the Scotch succession could not be oUicially 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, althouyh 
 lie did not appear to be possessed of jicrsonal ill-will tr) 
 15ishop Seabury, was opposed to having any tiling to do with 
 the Scotch succession, which he did not hesitate to pronounce 
 irregular. Yet he w^as very little sup])orted in this senti- 
 ment; and least of all, by the clergy of his own diocese. It 
 was therefore natural to infer, that he would see the exj)e- 
 diency of what was the general wish, or at least waive his 
 objection for the sake of peace ; as indeed hapj)ened.* 
 
 Although these subjects would of course have engaged 
 the attention of the convention, yet an aj^plication which 
 
 * In the last preceding convention of the Churcii in New-York, tliey had de- 
 clared 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 lolhc 
 Scotch Episcopacy. What is now referred to, are the two following resolves, 
 •passed unanimously on the 5tli of November. 17P8. 
 
 " Rcsohed, That it is highly 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 ^rreal importance and much to be desired; and that 
 the delegates of this state, in the next General Convention, be instructed to pro- 
 mote that union by every prudent measure, consistent with the constitution of the 
 iChurch, and the eontinuaiace of the F.piscopa! succession in the Lni^liih Iluo.' 
 
142 Note to pai>-e 30. 
 
 came from the Cliiircli in Massachusetts, addressed to each 
 of the three bishops, and received by the author a few days 
 before the assembling of tlie convention, brouglit the matter 
 forward in a very strong point of view. The object of tlie 
 address, was the procuring of the consecration of the Jlev. 
 Edward Bass of the said state, as the concurrent act of 
 the three bishojis. 
 
 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 repeatedly declared, and it is in a letter under his 
 hand, that this hint was the origin, and that the promoting 
 of the measure mentioned was the motive, of the application 
 for the consecration of Mr. Bass. Dr. Parker, even after 
 the favourable close of the subsequent session, vvhicli lie 
 had attended, intimated, that the object of the application 
 having been accomplished, he and his brethren would be 
 indifferent as to any thing further. A confirmation of this 
 appeared soon afterwards, in the resignation of Mr. Bass. 
 
 The application was received but a few days before the 
 meeting of the convention, and very soon engaged the 
 notice of that body ; who, from the beginning, manifested a 
 strong desire of complying with it. This put their president 
 in a very delicate situation ; standing alone as he did in the 
 business, and as president of the assembled body. Many 
 speeches were made, which im})lied, that the result of the 
 deliberation must involve the acquiescence of the two bi- 
 shops of the English line; while it was thought by the only 
 one of them present, that no determination of theirs would 
 warrant the breach of his faith impliedly pledged, as he 
 apprehended, in consequence of measures taken by a 
 l)receding convention. Accordingly, he took occasion to 
 state to several of the members, in the intervals of the 
 meetings, the difficulty under which he lay. They urged 
 the necessity, which they thought the Church was under ; 
 and as to the inq)lication involved in the first address to 
 the English bishoj)s ; they said it was intended at the time, 
 but prevented by unexpected occurrences in the case of 
 
Note to page 30. 143 
 
 Dr. Griffith. On the oj)posito side, no such necessity was 
 j)erceivecl ; and as to the resignation of Dr. (xritHth, another 
 might he chosen. He had heen himself chosen after the 
 date of tiie letter to the English bishops. The issue of 
 these conferences, were the resolves on the journal of this 
 session, 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 journal of the 
 next session. 
 
 For the resolves and the address to the archbishops, see 
 the Appendix, iVo. 19. 
 
 The author, on being consulted in regard to this expe- 
 dient, saw an objection to it in the call v»'hich 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 favourable, it must be in ojiposi- 
 tion to the positive provisions 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 
 contemplation, was the being relieved at the present time, 
 from the pain of standing opposed to the wishes of the con- 
 vention. 
 
 The measure was adopted; and this seems the proper 
 place of mentioning the result of it. When Bishop Madi- 
 son went to England, in the following summer, for conse- 
 cration; the archbishop of Canterbury informed him, and 
 desired him to inform the author, as president of the con- 
 vention, 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 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 explicit declaration on the subject. 
 In short. Bishop Madison 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, attending 
 this subject.* 
 
 * In an interview with the archhishop, he expressed himself to Bishop Madison 
 to the following effect, as appears from a communication of the latter to the author, 
 dated December 19, 1790: from which the other particulars are also taken—" A 
 few days before I left London, the archbishop requested a particular interview 
 with me. He said, he wished to express his hopes, and also to recommend it to 
 our Church, that in such consecrations as might take place in America, the per- 
 sons who had received their powers from the Church of England should be alone 
 concerned. He spoks with great delicacy of Dr. Seabury ; but thought it most 
 
14 1 Note to page 30. 
 
 Tlint so little !)iisino?s was transacted in tliis session of 
 the (;onv(MUioii, may bo seen from the journal to have been 
 owino^ to the adjoiirnniont, made lor the express purpose of 
 invitiii«' the clergy ol' Connecticut to meet the convention in 
 S(;ptond)er ; an object which it was expected would be pro- 
 moted by the conviction generally prevailing in the conven- 
 tion, that the formerly proposed constitution was inadequate 
 to the situatio!! of this Church, and by the new constitution 
 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 what- 
 ever additional powers it might be thought necessary to as- 
 sign to the bishops, such powers should not lie under the 
 reproach of having been pressed for by one of the number, 
 hut be the result of due deliberation, and the free choice of 
 all ordei-s oi" persons within the Church, and given with a 
 view to hor good government.* 
 
 advisabli?, tlnit the line of bishops shoald be handed dowa from those w ho had 
 received their cominission from the jauie source." 
 
 It Wiis aCiervvards supposed, that tiie sense of the archbishop was fiiHy accom- 
 plished by the presence and the assistance of tiic canonical number of the English 
 lino; ami the umtter was so understood by Eishop Madison. Besides, the ques- 
 tion had changed its ground, by the repeal of the laws against the Scottish bishop3; 
 and by their reception in their proper character, in England. This happened, 
 after llishop Madison's visit to that country. 
 
 * During the session there took place in the house of the author, tlie decease 
 of the Rev. Dr. Gritfith, of Virginia. The respect entertained for him by the con- 
 venlion, apjiears in the arrangements made for attendance on his funeral as re- 
 corded on the journal. lie had been much indisposed from the day of his arrival. 
 I lis (hMtli, however, was in one sense sudden, and certainly unexpected to the 
 very aiile physician who attended liim, and with whom he had been in long habits 
 of acquaintance. His disorder was tJie inflammatory rheumatism, wliich passed 
 to his head during sleep. The following statement is thought due to the memory 
 of a resjiectable divine, who had manifested great zeal for the organizing of 
 the (;hurch. 
 
 It lias been reported, and had weight on some minds in a more recent election 
 to the I'.jiiscopacv. that he had been under the necessity of resigning, on account 
 of his having 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 
 Mav, 17PS. Some private concerns, and the not being supj)lied u\\h monev, 
 pre\eiited his crossing of the Atlantic, with the two who crossed it in November 
 of that year. In May. 1767, about a year after his election, and about a month 
 after the return of the bishops consecrated in England, there was held a conven- 
 tion in Virginia, from the printed journal of which the following is an e.xtract:— ^ 
 
 " Hi'sulriil. 'I'hal the standing connnittee, without delay, request of the Right 
 Rev. Dr. White, bislnq) of tiie Protestant Episcoptd Church in the commonwealth 
 of Pennsylvania, and the Right Uev. Dr. Provoost, bishop of the said Church in 
 the st;it(' of j\cw-VorU. thattlu'v, or either of th<Mn, admit to consecration the Rev. 
 Dr. Gritlith. nominated by the last convention bisluq) of the Church in this state.'' 
 
 The standing coimnittee were the Rev. Dr. Madison, the Rev. Mr. Bracken, 
 the Rev. Mr. t^hield, the Hon. John Blair, Mr. Page, ofRosewell, and Mr. An- 
 ilrews. The prominent applicant to the American bishops was Dr. ftladison, 
 who was al'terwards bisho)). The principle on which the bishops declined com- 
 pliance, has been set forth in its proper place ; being their opinion, tlialthey were 
 pledged to their first obtaining of three bishopa from England, 
 
Note iu page 30. 145 
 
 In the second session, the clergy who came from the 
 eastward, besides Bishop Seabury, were two of his presby- 
 ters, Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Jarvis, from Connecticut, and 
 Dr. Parker, from Massachusetts. AW 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 there 
 were more, having obtained information that Bishop Sea- 
 bury, who had been chaplain to a British regiment during 
 the war, was now in the receipt of half-pay, entertained 
 scruples in regard to the propriety of admitting hini as a 
 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 ecclesi- 
 astical 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 impliedly 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 circumstances be returned a member of 
 Congress from that state, he must necessarily be admitted of 
 their body. The gentleman to whom the reasoning was 
 addressed, 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 prejudices of the gentleman who 
 addressed him on the subject, but because of those of an- 
 other, who had started the difficulty. 
 
 On the day succeeding that of the above conversation, 
 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 
 
 19 
 
1 46 Note to page 30. 
 
 to the negative of the bisho})s, leads to the remark, tiiat 
 from the sentiments exj3iesse(l in the debate, there is rea- 
 son to beheve that the fidl negative would have been allowed, 
 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 desire 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 th^ greater force to his 
 apprehensions: the consequence of which was, the referring 
 of the subject of the full negative to some subsequent Gene- 
 ral Convention, to be determined according to instructions 
 from the conventions in the several states. The eastern 
 gentlemen acquiesced, 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-concurrence 
 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 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 acceded to in this session by Bishop 
 Seabury and the presbyters from Connecticut 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. 
 
 ' The caseof 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 the organiza- 
 tion of the Church. He was a first cousin of the Rev. Dr. Andrews, with whom 
 and witii the author he had been a student in the college of Philadelphia. At the 
 time in (piestion, he was a professor in the college of Williamsburg, in Virginia. 
 Although in priests' orders, he had discontinued his ministry, and acted in some 
 civil employments of responsibility, with repnlation. lie was a very sensible 
 and a very amiable man, in iiis temper and deportment. He had, doubtless, in 
 Bome way reconciled his departure from the clerical character, with a sincere 
 desire of settling the concerns of the Church, and of contributing his best endeav- 
 ours to that elfoct. Certain it is, that they were directed, not to the pulling down, 
 but to the builditig up of the Church, the ministry of which he had forsaken. 
 Probably he was the easier reconciled te this measure, by the almost total pros 
 Iration of the Church in Virginia during th« war of the revolution. 
 
Note to pa;re 30. I47 
 
 in the appointment of comtnittees on tlio different depart- 
 ments of the Book of Common Prayer, Dr. Parker prooosed 
 that the English book should be the ground of the proceed- 
 ings held, without any reference to that set out and proposed 
 in 1785. This was objected to by some, who contended, 
 that a liturgy ought to be formed, without reference to anv 
 existing book, although with liberty to take from any, what- 
 ever the convention should think fit. The issue of the de- 
 bate, was the wording of the resolves as they stand on the 
 journal, in which the different committees are appointed, 
 to prepare a morning and evening prayer — to prepare a 
 litany — to prepare a communion service — and the same, in 
 
 regard to the other departments, instead of its being said 
 
 to alter the said services; which had been the lan^-uaoe in 
 1785. " "^ 
 
 This was very unreasonable ; because the different con- 
 gregations of the Church were always understood to be pos- 
 sessed of a liturgy, 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 released 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 
 speaking 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 precedin.rr part of 
 the session, had been looked to for the opening of the sen- 
 timents of the clergy present from Connecticut, who had 
 said but little all along, and evidently depended on him, to 
 press the points which they had most at heart, it is proba- 
 ble, that in this instance, he accommodated more than was 
 either necessary or well considered, to make matters affree- 
 able to their minds. The direct course would have been, 
 to have taken the English 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 pao-e. 
 Certain it is, that the extreme j)roposed tended very much 
 to the opposite extreme, which took effect — an evident im- 
 plication in all the proceedings of the house, that there 
 were no forms of prayer, no offices, and no rubrics, until 
 they should be formed by the convention now assenjbled. 
 Every one must perceive, that this abridged the species of 
 
148 Note tu page ^{i. 
 
 negative, lod<re(l 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 otlice of 
 the Church, if ihe 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 differently from the 
 conventions before and after them : who have recognized 
 the contrary principle when any matter occurred to which 
 it was applicable. 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 destroyed, 
 and each Christian minister lay under the necessity to dis- 
 charge the scriptural duty of praying for his civil rulers ac- 
 cording 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, con- 
 sisting of two only — Bishop Provoost, although ahsent, 
 being considered as making up the constitutional numher — 
 were soon settled. They were drafted 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 plau- 
 sible objection heard to the other — which, however, lies 
 equally against that afterward 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 case, a vice-president, or a presi- 
 dent pro tempore, might be appointed. 
 
 The principal act of this session was the preparing of 
 the Book of Common Prayer, as now the established liturgy 
 
]\'ule to pui^e .30. I49 
 
 of the Church. It will not be noticed any further, than, 
 on the ground of information possessed, to' account for the 
 doing or for the omitting of any important matter. The 
 journal shows, that some parts of it were drawn up bv 
 the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and other parts 
 of it, by the House of Bishops. In the latter, owing to the 
 smallness of the number and a disposition in both of them 
 to accommodate, business was despatched with great ce- 
 lerity ; 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 die Christian 
 temper which he manifested all along. 
 
 In the daily prayer for morning and evening service; 
 the principal subjects of difference arising between 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 pro- 
 posal 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, 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 effect. 
 Bishop Seabury, on the contrary, thought that witliout 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 tenacious of the doctrine af the Nicenc 
 Creed; and yet not possessed of the Athanasian in any 
 liturgy, or even of an acknowledgment of it in any confes- 
 sion 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 resided in Con- 
 stantinople. He says (p. 196) after mention of the Apos- 
 tles' Creed and the Nicene— " as to that of St. Athanasius, 
 they are wholly strangers to it." However, the creed was 
 inserted by way of amendment ; to be used or omitted at 
 
150 Note to page 30. 
 
 discretion. But the aiuendinent was negatived by the 
 other house: and when the subject afterward came up in 
 conference, they would not allow of the creed in any shai)e ; 
 which was thought intolerant by the gentlemen from INew- 
 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 embarrassed 
 the committee, who had the charge of printing the book. 
 The amendments of the bishops, whether verbal or other, 
 to the services sent to the other house, had all been num- 
 bered. The president of that house, as afterwards aj)- 
 peared on un<iaestionable verbal testimony, accidentally 
 omitted the reading of the article in its full force, with the 
 explanatory 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 between hooks, 
 with a rubric permitting the use of the words — "He went 
 into the place of departed spirits." 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 inserting 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 com- 
 plied with their wishes, in that respect. 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 consecration had been obtained. Thus, the 
 matter passed without further notice. Jiut Bishop Seabury, 
 before he left the city, conceived a suspicion, that there 
 had been a misunderstanding. For on the evening bcibre 
 his departure, he took the author aside from company, and 
 mentioned his apprehension ; which was treated as ground- 
 less, 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 
 ApoUinarian heresy; and that, therefore, tiie withdrawing 
 of it was an indirect encouragement of the same. The 
 author saw no such inference; but wished to retain the 
 article, on the ground, that the doing so would tend to 
 
Ao/e to page 30. 151 
 
 peace; that it would he actins; consistently towards tiie 
 English Church; and that a latitude would he lett hy the 
 proposed ruhric, for the understandiuii,- of the article as 
 referring to the state of departed spirits, geneially. It is 
 curious to remark by the way, that when the book came 
 out, Bishop Provoost disliked the Ibrm in which this part 
 of it aj)peared, more than either the article as it stood 
 originally, or the omitting of it altogether : on the principle, 
 that it exacted a belief of the existence of departed spirits, 
 between death and the resurrection. So easy is it, in ex- 
 tending latitude of sentiment on one side, to limit it on 
 another. 
 
 However, when the committee assembled to prepare the 
 book for the press, great was th.eir surprise and that of the 
 author, to find that the two houses liad misunderstood one 
 another altogether. The question was — what is to be 
 done.'* And here, the different principles on which the 
 business had been conducted, had their respective operation. 
 The committee contended, that the amendment made by 
 the bishops to the service as proposed by their house, not 
 appearing to have been presented; the service must stand 
 as proposed by then), 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 was 
 thought a duty to maintain the principle, that the creed, 
 as in the English 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 pub- 
 lished 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 a!f 
 future editions, with the article not in italics and between 
 hooks as before; but with the rubric leaving it todiscretiorj 
 to use or to omit it ; or to use, instead of it, the words con- 
 sidered by the rubric as synonymous. Some such compo- 
 sition seemed to be rendered absolutely necessary by exist- 
 ing circumstances. 
 
 The importance given to this article by the requisition of 
 the English prelates, and the litigation which it lias conse- 
 quently undergone in our conventions, induce the being 
 particular in regard to it. Therefore, as the delivery of 
 
I'V3 Note to page ^(i. 
 
 opinion on tlio subject will fall within the design of these 
 sheets ; it is proposed to recur to it ai^ain, before the finish- 
 ing- of remarks on the transactions of this convention. 
 
 As cunnected with the morning and evening prayers, the 
 reading psalms come under notice in this place; and the 
 following information is to he given concerning them. 
 
 Tile House of Jiishops did not approve of the expedient 
 of the other house, in relation to the selections as they now 
 stand ; to he used at the discretion of the minister, instead 
 of tiie 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 alterna- 
 tive, but that they woidd adhere to the old practice. For 
 the author'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 improving 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 attended — he thoucjht — with the advantage of 
 breaking the jiractice of reading the psalms, without any 
 regard to their suitableness to the general circumstances 
 and state of mind of a mixed congregation, and yet, not 
 hazard such capricious omissions of particular passages 
 as might be construed by some into a disrespectful treat- 
 ment of holy writ, and thus prevent all improvement in 
 this branch of tlie 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 encour- 
 agement to the introduction of the practice of singing this 
 j)art of the service, instead of repeating the verses by the 
 njinister and the clerk alternately- As to the selection 
 made, he considers some of the omissions of particular 
 verses as very capricious: and the selections in general as 
 Iiaving 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 witli 
 too little deliberation; of w'hich there needs not to be given 
 any stronger proof, than that the selections which stand as 
 the seventh and the eighth were proposed by the House of 
 Bishops, at his desire, as an amendment. The excellency 
 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 
 
Xole to page 30. lo3' 
 
 of having the printed selections, since tliere were to he 
 such, to contaia as many or" tiie psalai^ as wore suited to 
 rlie ordinary devotions of a conirregation. T!ie selections 
 which the bishops made contained whole psalms, on the 
 principle already stated. Tlie other house accepted them 
 as sent ; ordy that they excluded one verse from the eiglity- 
 Iburtli psaliii. But this sui>ject has been spoken to more 
 particularly in a former department of the present 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 estabiisiied on the principles of rational piety and i^ood 
 taste. But there are great difficulties in the way. On the 
 one hand there are very many, who remain attached to 
 the old practice of reading all the psalais, according to the 
 daily arrangement. Against this, besides the objection so 
 often made, that some of liicm have more of the severity 
 of the legal, tlian of the mercy ot the evangelical dispensa- 
 tion ; there is the circumstance, that a very great proportion 
 of these compositions are expressive of peculiar states of 
 mind ; no one of wliich can be supposed descriptive of any 
 body of people, convened on a common occasion of devotion. 
 Accordingly, the |iarts referred to seem to be not suited to 
 such an occasion ; however adujirabiy 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, 
 Jinless it could be proved, that the psalms were so used in 
 the earliest ages of the Ciiurch ; the contrary to which is 
 liere taken to be the fact. 
 
 But although these objections lie, as is conceived, against 
 the past practice; there is such a propensity 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 entire 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 Book, in the 
 hymn in the 30th of January service, to be used instead of 
 the " Venite." But it is wished to distinguish between a 
 selection, made with a reference to a particular subject ; 
 and rejection, on a supposed unfitness for any act of Chris- 
 tian devotion, 
 
 20 
 
154 Xott to pagti 30. 
 
 in the service for tlie administration of the communion; 
 it may perhaps be expected, that the great change made, 
 in restoring to the consecration prayer the oblatory words 
 and the invocation of tlie Holy Spirit, left out in King 
 Eihvard's reign, must at least iiave produced an opposition. 
 But no such thing happened to any considerable extent ; 
 or at least, the author did not hear of any in the other 
 house, further tlian a disposition to the efl'ect 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 service 
 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 olierer of sacrifice, and that the 
 table is an altar and the elements a sacrifice, in any other 
 than figurative senses, he would have zealously opposed 
 the admission of such uncvangelical 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 con- 
 tained the oblation and the invocation. Although they 
 were left out on a subsequent review ; 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 restoring of those parts of the service by the 
 American Chr.rch, has been since objected to by some few 
 among us. To show that a superstitious sense must iiave 
 been intended, they have laid great stress on the i)rinting 
 of the words "which we now offer unto thee," in a diflerent 
 character from the rest of the prayers. But this was mere 
 accident. The bishops, being possessed of the form used 
 in the Scotch Episcopal Church, which they had altered in 
 soirje respects ; referred to it, to save the trouble of copying. 
 But the reference was not intended to establish any parti- 
 cular manlier of j)rinting ; and accordingly, in all the edi- 
 tions 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 appoint- 
 ment. Bishop Seabury's attachment to these changes, 
 raay be learned from the following incident. On the 
 morning of the Sunday which occurred during the session 
 
Note to page 30. ISS 
 
 of the convention, the author wished liini to consecrate the 
 «lements. This he dechned. On the offer being again 
 made at the time when the service was to begin, he still, 
 dechned; 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 visit to the bishops from 
 whom he received his Episcopacy. 
 
 In the occasional services, there was so httie difference of 
 opinion, that nothing interesting is recollected. 
 
 Although the canons, published at the last convention, 
 came under review in this, and received alterations and ad- 
 ditions, yet there was no memorable incident connected with 
 tliem. 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 re- 
 currence to the article in the Apostles' Creed, this was with 
 the view of delivering sentiments entertained 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 misunderstanding. 
 
 Philadelphia, December, 1789. 
 Right reveremd and dear Sir, 
 
 I received your friendly letter of October 11th, and laid 
 it before the committee, who have expressed no formal de- 
 termination 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 purposes of a friend- 
 ly communication with you, and of leaving a record of the 
 principles on which 1 act, if I exhibit, as briefly as possible, 
 and without citing authorities, a general view of my senti- 
 ments 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 particu- 
 lar creed, to have been as stated in the preface to the pro- 
 posed 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 reference of this sort. Nevertheless, as Christ'^ 
 
156 Note io page 30. 
 
 descent into hell, before the insertion of the article, was uii- 
 (jnestionabiy appealed to by the Catholics, as a confutation 
 of the heresy, I should not be surprised to find evidence of 
 its being inserted with a view to that. Further, the univer- 
 sal and uncontradicted prevalence of the belief of the descent 
 in the beginnini^ of the fifth century, notwithstanding the 
 ^vhims 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 connected with 
 the subject, let me mention what I take to be the meaning 
 of the Hebrew word ^Ti^'!;^ and the Greek word a.dn;. The 
 former signifies, sometimes, merely the grave, and some- 
 times, most evidently to my mind, a place of unhapjiiness. 
 A^ni 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 opinion 
 of our best judges, that its general and proper 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 superadded to the burial, it was universally un- 
 derstood in the strict sense, and so continued to the time of 
 the reformation, was then adopted by our Church in the 
 same sense; although afterward, 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 (luestion. Here, truth and can- 
 dour require mo to acknowledge, that th.ey who hold the 
 doctrine in the strict sense of the words, have much to say. 
 It takes off most of the obscurity of the ])lace in St. Peter, 
 above alluded to, which, otherwise, seems incoherent and 
 unintelligible. There is another passage in the next chaj)- 
 ter, (iv. 6.) which, on this construction, is natural and of 
 obvious meaning, but of which 1 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 
 lower parts of the earth," and with the entire loss of con- 
 nexion with the quotation from the Old Testament. The 
 passage Col. ii. 15, has also a leaning this way. That in 
 the sixteenth Psalm, if we consider it a mere prophecy con- 
 ^erninff our Saviour, may n)ean his resurrection only ; for 
 ^he word " soid" is often put for person, and sometimes for 
 
Note to page 30. 157 
 
 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 re- 
 motely and completely to the Messiah, the beautiful verses 
 which follow, show the psalmist's expectation of spiritual 
 happiness, antecedently to and independently on resurrec- 
 tion. 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 pass- 
 ages are few, that they are obscure, and tiiat they are in- 
 troduced incidentally — except the last, which admits of 
 another interpretation ; and that the sense does not appear, 
 like the divinity, the incarnation, 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 Alnc sometimes means the invisi- 
 ble state, without any appropriation to happiness or misery, 
 agreeably to the use of it among the Greeks, from whom 
 the word was taken. The truth of the doctrine, with this 
 latitude, rests on passages more explicit than those quoted, 
 and indeed, on the whole analogy of our faith. Into the 
 proof of this, I do not go not understanding it to be in dis- 
 pute among us. However, I will not affirm the necessity 
 of making it, although true, an article in so short a compo- 
 sition as the Apostles' Creed. As to the absurd tenet of the 
 Apollinarians, it might be guarded against in another 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 amendment, 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 
 1 now pass — the present state of the article in our Church- 
 It appears most unquestionable to my understanding, that 
 if a person of good sense, but a stranger to what has passed 
 on the subject, and entirely indiiferent to the question, were 
 s.Q make out a copy for the printer from the papers prepared 
 
158 Note to page 30. 
 
 by the convention, 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 n)ight truly declare, 
 that they never meant it. And it would appear in full proof, 
 that the amendnjent was never read to them. 
 
 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 con- 
 science, 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 com- 
 munion. 
 
 What then is the sense of the Church of England in this 
 matter!^ The archbishops, in their communication, allude 
 to such a declared sense. But with the utmost deference 
 to so high an authority, I never could find it in any institu- 
 tions 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 proposed 
 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 matter as we found it, is 
 the rigour of requiring the belief of it in that high sense. 
 For although I should fear to insert any thing in oj)|)osition 
 to it — " lest haply we be found to fight against God" — yet, 
 on the other hand, it is involved in so much difficulty as to 
 make meequally fear the being, by the requisition of it, "wise 
 above what is written." The latter may perhaps be ob- 
 jected to the English creed, without some explanatory ex- 
 tension ; for notwithstanding all that was said concerning 
 "hell" being synonymous with "a place of departed 
 spirits," without a special application to a state of unhappi- 
 ncss, 1 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 rejecting our rubric 
 
\ote to page 30. j.>j« 
 
 tfeey retain their own, and that the body of the creed should 
 be altered accordingly, 1 proceed to state tiie bud conse- 
 quences of their plan. 
 
 1st. As the article is acceptable to many, on the princi- 
 ple of its combating of a glaring error, 1 would not even 
 seem to countenance that error, when the diiiiculty com- 
 plained 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 sepa- 
 rately, threatens in either case much dangerous litigation. 
 
 3dly. Without entering into the question, how fiu- a con- 
 vention 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 the case, it does not square with ray 
 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 secure pos- 
 session of the Episcopacy, it is highly imprudent 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 particu- 
 lar church would tend to distract the minds of the people. 
 
 6thly. There are proofs on this very point, that gentle- 
 men may resolve on such matters in convention, 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 singularly forward in innovation. 
 
 7thly. We shall have the less to justify ourselves in the 
 event of the inconveniences apprehended, because of the 
 general acceptation of this article of the creed ; it being 
 retained by the Roman CathoHcs, 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 delcaration 
 from me annexed to the record, that my signing of the 
 morning prayer is not to be construed as involvine- an ac- 
 
 C3 
 
idO Noie to page SO. 
 
 knovvledgnicnt of the consent of the House of Bishops to* 
 that matter, I am very vvillin!>' to {)romise, on the condition 
 of being thus not answerable for the consequences, to throw 
 no impediment in the way of the book on that account, but, 
 on the contrary, to give it all t)ie 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 
 <)thcr particulars, T am subjected by the late fixture of the 
 constitution. So far as the making of the bishops a sepa- 
 rate liouse tended to conciliate our eastern brethren, 1 re- 
 joice in it, as for the good of the Church. And so far as it 
 lately gave me much of your company and conversation, I 
 remember it with peculiar personal satisfaction. 1 think 
 further, tiiat on this plan, matters arc more likely to be 
 matured, than on that of a single house. But it is a dictate 
 of natural justice, that there should be no apparent, where 
 there is no real responsibility. If any one should compare 
 the constitution, with the known fact and general persua- 
 sion 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 favourable to all the alterations made. This, you 
 know, was not the fact. And although, in regard to the 
 points given up, I shall think nothing of them, if, in the 
 event, the great good should be accomplished, of having one 
 service for the Church in these states; yet I wish that the 
 thing had been otherwise contrived as to that same respon- 
 sibility. And if the operation bean hard one, in relation to 
 matters to which we gave our sanction, although we wished 
 them otherwise, it will be more so, on a point to which we 
 have given no sanction. Still 1 know of no expedient be- 
 sides that suggested. 
 
 You will rejoice to find, that I have nothing to add on a 
 subject on which 1 must have been at this time very tedious 
 to you; and therefore I conclude myself. 
 
 Your affectionate brother, 
 
 WM. WHITE. 
 Right Rev. Bishop Seahury. 
 
Xot3 to pui^e SO- 161 
 
 K. Pai;o 30. Of the Convention in 1792. 
 
 The bishops pi-esont af thir^ co?n-eiition, were Bishops 
 8eabtjry, White, Piovoost, Madison, and, after consecra- 
 tion, Clai^oett. 
 
 Bishop Provoost presided in the House of Bishops, and 
 Dr. William Smith, oi' Pennsylvania, in the House of 
 Clerical and Lay De[)uties. 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; airreeabiy to the desire of the last convention. 
 
 An unpropitious circumstance attended the opening of 
 this convention ; but was happily removed, before proceed- 
 ing to business. Bishop Seabury and Bishop Provoost 
 had never, when the former had been in New-York at 
 different times since his consecration, exclianged visits. 
 Although the author knows of no persona! offence, that 
 had ever passed from either of them to the other, and 
 indeed was assured of the contrary by them both ; yet the 
 notoriety, that Bishop Provoost had denied the validity of 
 Bishoj) 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 consequences, on the 
 proceeding of the conventions : which is here stated, as a 
 caution against such partial considerations, acted on with- 
 out due deliberation, and producing inconsistencies of con- 
 duct. For in the convention of June, 1786, on the question 
 of denying the validity of Bishop Seabury's ordinations, the 
 vote of New- York is " Aye" although it was well known, 
 that tvvo of the three clergymen from that state had paid 
 attentions to Dr. Seabury, as a bishop ; and that he stood 
 high in their esteem. But they acted under instructions 
 from the Church in their state ; when the convention of it 
 was of a complexion, corresponding with that vote. After- 
 ward, in the General Convention of 1789, the convention 
 of New- York having been, at its preceding meeting, com- 
 posed principally of gentlemen of an opposite sentiment on 
 this subject, the deputies from that state were among the 
 foremost in producing the resolution then come into, of re- 
 cognising 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 
 
 21 
 
162 Nole to page 30. 
 
 beUvef.'ii them; which would give an unlavourablc appear- 
 ance to themselves, and to the whole body, and might per- 
 haps have an evil influence on their deliberations. But it 
 happened otherwise. On a proposal being made to them 
 by conimon friends, and through the medium of the present 
 author, on the suggestion of Dr. Smith, they consented with- 
 out the least heskation, Bishop Seaburyto 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 present when it took place. Bishop Provoost asked 
 his visitant to dine with him on the same day, in company 
 of the author and others. The invitation was accepted; 
 and from that time, nothing was perceived in either of 
 then), which seemed to show, that the former distance was 
 the result of any thing else, but difference in opinion. 
 
 There was another matter, which threatened the excite- 
 ment 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 September, it ajjpeared, 
 that Bishops Provoost and Madison were dissatisfied with 
 the rule in regard to the presidency, as established in 1789. 
 As the house were 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 without any deter- 
 mination ; which was not productive 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 contemplation the debarring 
 of him from any hand in the consecration, expected to take 
 place during this convention — that he could not submit to 
 this, without 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 
 superintendence. 
 
\oi€ to pagr 30. 16S 
 
 "The author expressed his persuasion, that no sucii design 
 was entertained, either by Bishop Frovoust or by Bishop 
 IVIadison ; and his determination, that if it were, it should 
 not have his concurrence. He beUeved they wished, as he 
 also did, to have three bishops present under the English 
 consecration, whenever such an occasion, as that now ex- 
 pected, should occur. The being- united in the act with a 
 i)ishop who sliould consecrate through another line, would 
 not weaken the English chain. In regard to the question 
 of presidency, on wliich Bishop Seabury had intimated that 
 he should not be tenacious; 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 Sea- 
 bury think it proper in tliis way to waive his right under 
 the rule, the author pledged himself, that in no event would 
 he have a hand in the ensuing consecration, if it were to 
 be accompanied by the rejection of Bishop Seabury's as- 
 sistance in it ; although 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 absented him- 
 self that 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 ; which made Bishop 
 Provoost the president on the present occasion. 
 
 At the opening of this convention, it was no small satis- 
 faction 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 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 convention without 
 another review, and this was not intended, except the see- 
 ing that the book had been properly executed. In the cor- 
 recting of any thing amiss touching this matter, there could 
 be no ground of ditfercnce, except in the article of the descent 
 into Itell, which had been settled as already related, and the 
 
164 Nate to page SO. 
 
 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 
 measure, however, was generally censured, and was re- 
 versed. 
 
 The alterations of the ordinal were prepared by the 
 bishops. There was no material difference of opinion, ex- 
 cept in regard to the words used by the bishop at the ordi- 
 nation of priests — " Receive ye the Holy Ghost" — and 
 *' Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose 
 sins thou dost retain, 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 the afore- 
 said 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 sup- 
 posed to express the conveyance of the ministerial char- 
 acter, which St. Paul recognises 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, <fcc." he supposes it to re- 
 late, according to the intention of the service, principally, 
 under due regulation, to the power of passing ecclesiastical 
 censures and of releasing from them, and partly, to the de- 
 claring of the forgiveness of sins, repented of and forsaken; 
 such forgiveness not to apply independently on the sincerity 
 of the receiver. But although each of the expressions will 
 thus admit of a good interpretation, which should be given 
 by the clergy as occasion may call for it; yet the worclsare 
 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 the less reason to 
 stickle for 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 Deputies, was taken up 
 with debates on the jnoposed absolute negative of the 
 bishops, but without any interference on their part. The 
 debates ended in what ap[)ears on the journal of the House 
 
Nok to page 30. 165 
 
 <®f Clerical and Lay Deputies, Saturday, September 15 — ■ 
 its being notified to the churches, that it was proposed to 
 determine on the subject at the next convention. 
 
 On the subject of the articles, the author will begin with 
 the opinions of the bishops in regard to the general ques- 
 tion, so far as they are within his knowledge : and his be- 
 ginning with his own opinion, is merely because of the com- 
 plexion which it may perhaps be supposed to give to the 
 facts to be narrated. 
 
 He professed himself an advocate for articles, the abolish- 
 ing of wiiich would, he thought, only leave with every pas- 
 tor of a congregation the right of ju<lging of orthodo.xy, 
 according to his discretion or his prejudices, while the arti- 
 cles determine that matter by a rule, issuing from the public 
 authority of the Church. 
 
 When the question has been put — whether the thirty-nine 
 articles are the best rule that can be devised, he has an- 
 swered, that he thought Xhan better than any other, likely 
 to be obtained under j)resent circumstances. Conventional 
 business is too much hurried, and the members of the con- 
 ventions are not sufficiently retired from other avocation?, 
 for the entering 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 
 io this point, in the estimation of the world. Until such a 
 character shall be 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 tnaterial 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 
 thirty-nine articles, not excepting the general principles 
 maintained in the fx)litical parts of them; but with an ex- 
 ception, 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 
 £o the tenour of the thirty-sixth canon of that Church. He 
 
198 .Vu/r io page 30. 
 
 preferred the resting of the obligation of tliem on the promise 
 made at ordination, as required by the seventh article of the 
 constitution, considered 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 general 
 tenour of the thirty-nine articles, he trusted, that however 
 he might have supposed, in his private judgment, the possi- 
 bility of omitting some of them and of altering others to ad- 
 vantage, yet not perceiving a probability, either that such 
 a change, if made, would have been for the better; or, that 
 if so, it would have found such general acceptance as to 
 prove a sufficient bond of union, he thought he acted con- 
 sistently, in endeavouring to obtain them on the terms 
 stated. 
 
 Bishop Seabury was free to declare his dissatisfaction 
 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 being 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 thirty-nine articles. 
 
 Bishop Provoost did not deliver his sentiments on the 
 subject, which was the less exacted of him, because of the 
 circumstance of his being in the presidential chair. But 
 the author has always sujiposed that they do not materially 
 differ from those of Bishop Madison, who gave his opinion 
 against articles altogether. He had long before declared 
 himself on this point, in a sermon preached before the con- 
 vention of Virginia, some years j)reviously to his election to 
 the Episcopacy. This sermon was printed, and opposes 
 articles, on the principles of the Confessional and the like 
 books. 
 
 Bishop Claggett no further gave his opinion, than as it 
 was implied in his vote on the question, in the conference 
 between the two houses. What little had passed among the 
 bishops, was before the consecration, the recency of which 
 was prol)ably the cause of his giving of his mere vote in the 
 conference of the houses. His sense was decidedly in favour 
 of articles, as appeared also in his usual conversation on the 
 subject. 
 
Not€ to page 30. iqj 
 
 There was no formal discussion of the subject, in tiu» 
 House of Kisliops, but they negatived the question of refer- 
 ence to a future convention, when it becnnie the subject of 
 conference between the two houses. The nei^ative liap- 
 pened by Bishop Seabury's, Bishop Clairgett's, and the 
 author's votes, against Bishop Madison's in the aflirmative; 
 so that the president 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 after the conference, deter- 
 mined 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 author, 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 so sanguine as to believe, 
 that by an accommodation 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 intercourse held 
 with Dr. Coke, one of the superintendents* of that society, 
 which might have showed to Bishop Madison, how hopeless' 
 all endeavours for such a junction must prove. Neverthe- 
 less, he persisted in his well meant design. The result of 
 this, was his introducing into the House o^f Bishops of a pro- 
 position, which his brethren after some modifications, ap- 
 proving of the motive, but expecting little 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 Christian world, that, uninfluenced by any 
 
 * This was the name that was then borne by those who presided in the Metho- 
 
 dist communion. 
 
i(>^ Note to page 'SO. 
 
 other considerutions than those of dulr as Christians, and 
 an Ciiinest desire for the jirosperity of pure Christianity, 
 and the fiirtherance of our lioly reli<^ion ; they are ready 
 and \villin<^ to unite and i'orni one body with any religious 
 society, uiiich shall be iniluenced by the same Catholic 
 spirit. And in order that this Christian end may be the 
 more easily effected, ihey further declare, that all things 
 in wiiich the great essentials of Christianity or the char- 
 acteristic principles of their Church are not concerned, 
 they are willing to leave to future discussion ; being ready 
 to alter or modify those points, which in the opinion of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church; arc subject to human altera- 
 tion. And it is hereby recomn^endcd to the state conven- 
 tions, to adopt such measures or propose such conferences 
 with Christians of other denominations, as to themselves 
 may be thought most prudent} and report accordingly to 
 the ensuing General Convention." 
 
 On the reading of this in the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Dc[)uties, they were astonished, and considered it as alto- 
 gether preposterous ; tending to produce distrust of the 
 stability of the system of the Episcopal Church, without the 
 least prospect of embracing 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 correspondence be- 
 tween 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 effect, spoke in favour of the |)roposition.. 
 But it was not to be endured ; and the bishops silently 
 withdrew it, agreeably to leave given. 
 
 To guard against misconstruction, at some future time, 
 of the correspondence between Dr. Coke and the author, 
 he records it here. 
 
 In the spring of the year 1791, the author received from 
 that gentleman a letter, containing a plan of what he con- 
 sidered as an union of the Methodistical society with the 
 Episcopal Church. The plan was, in substance, that all 
 the Methodist ministers, at the time in connexion, were to 
 receive Episcopal ordination, as also those who should come 
 forwards in future within the connexion; such ministers to 
 remain under the government of the then superintendents 
 and their successors. Dr. Coke's njotive to the proposed 
 union, as stated in his letter, was an apprehension enter- 
 
Note to page 30. 10& 
 
 tained by him, that he had gone further in the separation 
 than had been desig-ned by Mr. Wesley, from whom he 
 had received liis commission. Mr. Wesley himself, he 
 was sure, had gone further than he would iuivc i^one, if he 
 had foreseen some events which followed. The doctor 
 was certain, that the same gentleman was sorry for the 
 separation, and would use his influence to the utmost, for 
 the accomi)lishment of a re-union. Dr. Coke's letter was 
 answered by the author, with the reserve which seemed 
 incumbent on one, who was incompetent to decide with 
 eftect on the proposal made. 
 
 It happened that Dr. Coke, before he received the an- 
 swer to his letter, hearing of the decease of Mr. Wesley, 
 the news of which reached America during the short in- 
 terval between the dates of the two letters, set off imme- 
 diately from Baltimore for Philadelphia, to lake 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 incident, 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 concern. 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 Episcopal congregations, while there was 
 sufficient security provided, to prevent the clergy of the 
 latter from having access to congregations of the Metho- 
 dists. 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 ap- 
 pointment at Dr. Magaw's, where nothing material 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 suggesting to Bishop Seabury as 
 follows — That although the Methodists would have confi- 
 dence in any engagements which should be made by the 
 present bishops; yet there might in future be some, who, 
 
170 NuU to page 30. 
 
 on the arrivjil of thoir inferior grades of preachers to a 
 competency to the ministry, would not admit them as pro- 
 posed in the letter — that to guard against the danger of 
 this, there would be use in consecrating Mr. Asbury to the 
 Episcopacy — and that although there would not be the 
 same reasons in his (Dr. Coke's) case, because he was a 
 resident of England ; 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 condition 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 
 afterward embarked for England ; 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 in conversation with Dr. Coke, 
 that there was a^degree of jealousy, if not of misunder- 
 standing, between him and Mr. Asbury. Whether this 
 had any influence in the enterprise of the former; or he 
 perceived advantage likely to arise to him, under the state 
 of things which would take place in England on the decease 
 of Mr. Wesley ; arc questions on which there is no judgment 
 liere formed. The determination was adopted, not to 
 hinder any good which might possibly 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. 2L 
 
 Perhaps it may not be foreign to the present subject to 
 take notice, that the author, when in England, entertained 
 a desire of seeing the late Mr. John Wesley, with the view 
 of stating to him some circumstances, of which he might be 
 uninformed, in reference to the design then lately adopted 
 of vs^ithdrawing 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. Pil- 
 raore, which the author left at the house of Mr. Wesley. 
 
Nole lo page 31. 171 
 
 when he was from home ; but no notice was taken of it. 
 Hefore the author's departure, intending to goon a certain 
 day into the city, he sent to that gentleman a letter by the 
 ])enny-})OSt, 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. Wesley was then engaged in a 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 inter- 
 view proposed. As the stay was only ten days after, and 
 the latter part of the time was taken up by the business of 
 the consecration and in returning visits, there was no re- 
 newal of the proposal of an interview, especially as doubts 
 were entertained of the delicacy of doing so; the resting of 
 an hour's conversation on the event of a stay of a fortnight 
 longer, having very much the appearance 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 relinquished. 
 
 The author had also carried a letter from the Rev. Mr. 
 Pilmore to the Rev. Charles Wesley, and had a conversa- 
 tion 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 pro- 
 })osed by some. And he remarked, that the whole of the 
 j)amphlet might be considered as a censure on what had 
 been done recently in America. 
 
 L. Page 31. Of the Conveniion in 1795. 
 
 Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops, and the 
 Rev. Dr. Smith, of Pennsylvania, in the House of Clerical 
 and Lay Deputies. The secretaries, were the Rev. Joseph 
 Turner, of the former house, and the Rev. James Aber- 
 crombie, of the latter. 
 
 The preacher on this occasion was Bishop Provoost. 
 
 Before the assembling of this convention, there took 
 ])lace an incident, threatening to produce permanent dis- 
 satisfaction between Bishops Seabury and Provoost, which, 
 however, was happily prevented. Although Bishop Seabury 
 had been chosen biyiiop of the Church in Rhode-Island, the 
 
17-2 Note to page '^\. 
 
 congregation ot" Narraganset, in that state, had associated 
 with the Cliurcli in Massachusetts, wiiicli had unwarily ad- 
 mitted the junction. In consequence, a clergyman had been 
 ordained for the congregation by Bishop Provoost. The 
 author, during the sitting of the convention, received a letter 
 from Bishop Seabury, respectfully and affectionately com- 
 plaining of the matter. Bishop Provoost, on the letter's 
 being read to him, said, that on receiving the letter from 
 the clergy of 31assachusetts, he had doubted of the pro- 
 priety of the proposal in it; but that on consulting the 
 clergy of New- York, and especially those in the most inti- 
 macy with Bishop Seabury, he was advised by them to com- 
 pliance ; but that he perceived objections to such conduct 
 in individual congregations, and would much approve of a 
 eanon to prevent it. Such a canon was accordingly pre- 
 pared and passed. It is believed that no dissatisfaction re- 
 mained. 
 
 The author was enabled to lay before this convention an 
 application from a convention in North-Carolina, for the 
 consecration of the Rev. Charles Pettigrevv their bishop. 
 This gentleman, as appears by a subsequent letter from 
 him, set off to attend the convention, with a view to conse- 
 cration, but was prevented by an interruption of his journey 
 in consequence of an epidemic fever in Norfolk, which made 
 him despair of arriving in time; there being some interrup- 
 tions in the usual accommodations for travelling. Why 
 nothing was done afterward, for the carrying of the design 
 into effect, is not known, unless it be the decease of the 
 reverend person in question, which must have hap])ened 
 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 inac- 
 tivity is resolveable into the want of some clergymen of 
 sufficient zeal and influence, to take the lead in such busi- 
 ness. 
 
 There had been, previously, an exertion to the same good 
 effect. The Rev. James L. Wilson, ordained by the author 
 in 1789, embarked as a deputy to the General Convention 
 of 1792; but after an unusually long passage, arrived too 
 late. At his special request, his arrival after the adjourn- 
 jTient was noticed by the secretary, as it now stands, below 
 •the journal. Mr. Wilson returned to North-Carolina, and 
 •soon after died. 
 
Note to pQ'^c 31. 173 
 
 With the recommendation of Mr. Petti,i,a-c\v, there came 
 a letter to the author, expressive of solicitude because of 
 what he considered, and his electors api)ear in the instru- 
 ment to have considered a departure in his certilicate from 
 the appointed form. The letter was answered, and the 
 answer communicated the information, that the supposition 
 of defect was owing to their not having been made ac- 
 quainted with a canon passed at the immediately preceding 
 convention, providing for such a case as that now existing, 
 in which some of the electors, because of the want of per- 
 sonal acquaintance, had rested their recommendation 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 lay- 
 man, and addressed to the different 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 de- 
 sign 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 testimonials of Dr. Robert Smith 
 had been presented to them with a view to his consecration, 
 desired an interview with him. In that interview, the au- 
 thor, as president, being so instructed by the bishops, asked 
 him, whether the convention, which had been held in con- 
 sequence of the said printed paper, had adopted the senti- 
 ments of it. Dr. Smith then asked — Whether his conse- 
 cration was to depend on his answer to that question r The 
 president replied, that he was not instructed on the point. 
 Tlie doctor then immediately said, that the convention had 
 not adopted the principles of the paper. So all ditHculty 
 on that score was done away. There existed no evidence 
 to the contrary, nor has there been any subsequently re- 
 ceived to that effect. It has never been learned, who was 
 the penman of that wretched production. Probably, the 
 offensive sentiments contained in it were a temporizing ex- 
 pedient, designed to obviate prejudices which were known 
 to exist in South-Carolina, against the having of a bishop 
 lor that state. The tendency of the paper to a severance 
 of the Church in South-Carolina from the union was une- 
 quivocal. 
 
 Although the principles of the paper were not adopted bv 
 
 the convention of South=Carolina, us ap{)cars from the tcs- 
 
174 Xulc tii jjat^c '61. 
 
 tiinony of IJisIiop Siiiitli ; yet, as it was issued with a virw 
 to important consequences ; and as the propriety of the 
 conduct of the House of IJishops is inipHcated in its con- 
 tents ; it is given without the signatures, in tlie Appendix, 
 J\o. 23. 
 
 There appear on the journals some entries requiring 
 exj)lanatiun, concerning the llev. 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 en- 
 deavoured to procure consecration in England, with the 
 view of being bishop in Vermont: having obtained a request 
 to that effect, from a convention held in the said state. 
 The archbishop of Canterbury had declined 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 consecrate 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 bishoi)s. There was but one clergyman 
 in that state — The Rev. John Cosins Ogden — who had not 
 been, and who did not stay there long. Probably 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 business, is rested on the circumstance, 
 that the Church in Vermont had not acceded to the consti- 
 tution. There were besides some personal cireunistances, 
 which prevented the paying of much respect to the solicita- 
 tion. 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 jomnals 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 the l)ody ; the only 
 punishment in their power, since there could have been no 
 ecclesiastical trial, except before the authority of his proper 
 diocess, where he would iiave been still liable to it. There 
 also arose the question, whether the bishops had acted cor- 
 rectly, in rescuing him from expulsion. 
 
 It appears on the journal of the House of Clerical and 
 
Note to page SI. 175 
 
 Lay Depulies, tliat on Friday, the lltli of Srptrmher, "the 
 attention of the house was called by the Rov. 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 Protestant Episcopal Association in South- 
 Carolina — which he declared to be a virulent attack upon 
 the doctrines and discipline of our Church, and a libel 
 a<rainstthe House of Bishops; and which was alleged to be 
 written by a member of this house." On Thursday, the 17th, 
 it is recorded on the journal of the House of Kishops — 
 " This house requested the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies, to appoint a committee of their house, to meet a 
 committee of the House of Bishops. The conjmittee of 
 this house is Bishop White ai;d Bishop Provoost. The 
 House of Clerical und 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 yester<!ay, which was iTom the an- 
 ther of the pamphlet 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 considerable 
 opposition ; and to the last, three very respectable lay 
 gentlemen, who were of a reniarkably conciliatory charac- 
 ter, 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 dis- 
 cussion, the recording of a denial of the right, tails in with 
 the design of the present work. 
 
 Whether the course of conduct adopted were right or 
 otherwise, it happened as is here related. The autlior of 
 the pamphlet, seeing expidsion full before him, thought fit 
 to look to the House of Bishops for a shelter. Ai'ter con- 
 siderable negotiation, 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 in- 
 duced them to interfere, in order to put a stop to the pro- 
 ceedings : and hence their proposal of a joint committee. 
 The offender gave subsequent evidence, that his professed 
 
1*6 Nole to pii'j;c 31. 
 
 pciiitfiicn was in.^inccro, nltiioiiirli it had been accompaniefl 
 by a prol'iisioii ol" tears, when he discussed the subject with 
 tlie author, in the |)rcsence of the Rev. J)r. Smith, of Penn- 
 sylvania. This was an issue which could not have been 
 foreseen, and which it would have been uncharitable t& 
 liave thouu^ht probable. The House of Bishops committed 
 the apoloiiy to the keeping of the author, (where it now 
 rentains,) not to be made use of, unless in the case of future 
 misconduct. When this happened, Bishops Provoost and 
 Madison, who alone were present when the deposit was 
 made, were written to for their permission to send a copy 
 of the apology to the ecclesiastical authority of the diocess 
 to which the oifender belonged. Leave was given, and the 
 document was sent.* 
 
 JM. Page 31. 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. .Tohn 
 Henry Hobart, of the former, and the Rev. James Aber- 
 crombie, of the latter. 
 
 The consecration of Dr. Bass during the recess of the 
 convention, and his appearing on this occasion induces the 
 record, that on the 7th of May, 1797, lie was consecrated 
 in Christ Church, in the city of Philadelphia, by the pre- 
 siding bishoj), 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 
 fpicstion of jiublishing the draft of articles 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 
 
 * The porsoiial iibnse in the licenlions pamplilet. was principally lerelleJ at 
 Bishop Seabiiry; and the ground of it, was his supposed authorship of a printed 
 defence of the Kpiscopal negative, written and acknowledged by another respect- 
 able 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 tlie Prelacy." C-oming from such a pen, it could 
 ho no cause of self-gratulation; but it was encouragement to assist in the e.T- 
 posiire which took phice, and wiiicli is to be attributed principally to Dr. .Andrews. 
 
Nole to pa^c 31- 177 
 
 article. But this was not the worst. It tended to excite 
 religious acrimony, without any possible good effect at the 
 j)resent; and with the probable bad effect of the greater 
 acrimony, on an opportunity of settlement in future. 
 
 In order to s!iow the importance of the exercise of great 
 care and much dehberation, 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 ninth 
 article, to denote all the orders of the Christian ministry; 
 and not confined to the order of presbyters, as in the 
 established ordinal, of the former of which there is no ex- 
 ample in the institutions of the Church of England. 
 
 It is well known, that the English reformers took care 
 to show, that they did not mean to identify the names of 
 the Christian ministry with those of the Jewish priesthood. 
 Although they retained the name of " priest," which is 
 UfiaSvTSfo; (or " presbyter") with an English termination, 
 and in the Roman Catholic Church had stood alike for that 
 Greek word and for i;p=u,- ; yet this Church having in Latin 
 adopted 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 " priesthood" to the single order of 
 presbyters. But it is applied to the three orders collec- 
 tively ; which is another matter. To perceive the effect, 
 it is only necessary to suppose the said ninth article trans- 
 lated into Latin : in which case, if the word " presbyteri- 
 atus" should be used, it would be wide of the intended 
 sense. On the other hand, if " sacerdotium" should be 
 taken, the innovation would stand confessed. This would 
 have been agreeable to the theory of the individual clerffy- 
 man who drafted the articles ; but the rest of the committee 
 are here believed to have been unaware of it. The above 
 fact is recorded in order to show, that if ever the doctrinal 
 system should be reviewed, it should be done under some 
 other circumstances, than during the hurry 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 or the rejection of what had been so 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 anv other fault on the 
 
 23 
 
178 Note to pa^e 31. 
 
 articles proposed. They are, in substance, what is con- 
 tained in the thirty-nine Articles, without any superaddition, 
 except in the particular stated. Hut the remarks may 
 serve to show, that in the work of clearing that code of 
 what may be thought unuecessary positions, there is the 
 danger of admitting some novelty, more fruitful of contro- 
 versy than what may be done away. In the present in- 
 stance,tbe novelty introduced is susceptible of the construc- 
 tion, 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 personal matters then only when neces- 
 sary 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 being more attached to the doc- 
 trines and the practices obtaining in some other churches, 
 than to those of his own. What rendered the management 
 of the case the more difficult, was his being brought for- 
 wards by some gentlemen, who had always professed the 
 strongest disapprobation of the least deviation from the 
 institutions of the Church. No doubt, they thought they 
 perceived some advantages, counterbalancing the unques- 
 tionable fiict, that the bishop elect had been not a little 
 reprehensible in that line. The bishops kept themselves 
 from taking any interest 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 approbation 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 which 
 might be made, at the time of the former application ; and 
 a paper purporting to be the dissent of two clergymen. 
 
Note lo page 33. 1 79 
 
 This may otherwise be thought to have influenced the 
 determination in the first instance, and to liave prevented 
 the consecration of Dr. Bass. But it would be a mistake. 
 The objections referred to, were generally supposed to 
 receive no weight from the characters of the two objecting 
 clergymen. They were represented as being not at all 
 attached to the ecclesiastical system of the Episcopal 
 Church. Of this, or of the contrary, the bishops possessed 
 no such evidence, as was sufficient to be a ground of their 
 conduct at the time. There was no use in looking out for 
 evidence, as there was other ground on which the conse- 
 cration was declined — the want of the requisite number of 
 bishops to be consecrated in England. When Bishop Bass 
 was subsequently admitted to the Episcopacy, the bishops 
 who consecrated him had made up their minds on the 
 merits of the preceding objection to him. 
 
 There was also a paper, purporting to be the dissent of 
 his own vestry, which was denied and found to be not true- 
 
 N. Page 33. Of the 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 Deputies a call 
 for a letter w hich they understood to have been sent to the 
 author by Bishop Provoost, on the sidjject 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 their journal: which is therefore given in the 
 Appendix, JNo. 24. 
 
 As the articles were at last established by this conven- 
 tion, the author thinks it may be of use, to give a narrative 
 of some particulars in the management of that matter ; in 
 addition to what has been stated relative to the proceeding 
 in 1792. 
 
 When the book was edited with the proposed alteration* 
 
180 Nok io page 33. 
 
 ol" 1785 ; no sooner were they known in the diftbrcnt states, 
 than the sentiment became general, that they were not to 
 be received withont alterations ; while yet there was no- 
 thini; 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 
 little prospect. 
 
 Accordingly, the Churcli was left in a situation very em- 
 barrassing, in regard to the standard of her doctrinal pro- 
 fession. On the one hand, the articles, with the exception 
 of the political parts, the obligation of which had been 
 abrogated by Divine Providence 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 exhibit- 
 ing them, which no individual had a right to regulate. 
 What rendered the situation of the Church the worse in this 
 respect, was, that it suited the opinions of some, to declare 
 in consequence of it, that she had no articles, and could 
 have none, until they should be framed by a convention, and 
 established by its authority. In support of this sentiment, 
 ihey pleaded what has been stated as the very exceptionable 
 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 which 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 subsecjuent con- 
 vention in which there had been any alteration of a fornicr 
 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 1789, although nothing was 
 done relatively to the articles, there was much serious con- 
 versation on the subject : when the author was surprised to 
 find, that Bishop Scabury, the only bishop at the convention 
 
Note lo page 33. \^\ 
 
 besides iiimsclf, doubted of the need ot* articles ; and was 
 rather inchned to believe, that the object of tlieiii might be 
 accomplished through the medium of the liti;rgy. ^ This 
 was so wide of what might have been expected from his 
 usual turn of sentiment, that, to the author, there seemed 
 at the time no way of accounting for it, otherwise than by 
 the supposition, that the bishop conceived the articles to bo 
 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, tiiat 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 lie was very 
 much attached. But the said Church, very soon after t!ie 
 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 supposed to have existed a dis- 
 agreement in regard to doctrine: but it was the result of 
 the independency of each Church on the other.* 
 
 In the convention of 1702, the subject had been discussed 
 among the bishops in friendly conversation, when the 
 opinions of Bishops Provoost and Madison were directly 
 against the having of articles, while Bisiiop Claggett and 
 the author were in favour of them. The remarks of Bishop 
 Seabury were general; 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 authority, 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 diocese thought 
 differently ; as appeared in the convention of 1799, held not 
 long after his decease. At the pressing instance of the 
 
 In Mr. Belsliam's Life of Mr. Theophilns Lindsey, Bishop Seabury \s re- 
 presented as a Calvinist. Nothing can he further from the trutJi. In the same 
 work, there is an anecdote tending to lower his character, on account of an inci- 
 dent 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 autho^nty. It was equally unworthy of the biograoher, to speak with 
 contempt ol the fccottish consecrators of the bishop, not only because their charao^ 
 ters repel the charge of ignorance thrown on them, but, because their haviriff 
 been so long under the lash of the law, for adherence to the dictates of their con- 
 sciences, ought to have produced a fellow-feeling in a man similarly situated 
 
182 Note to page 33. 
 
 deputies from that state, and in consequence of instructions 
 to them, the business was then entered on ; although pro- 
 bably with the |)resutnption 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 intimated, that this was a 
 very injudicious measure; but there may now be added, that 
 it proved beneficial in its unexpected consequences. It ap- 
 peared an injudicious measure, on the same ground on 
 which the proposal of 1785 was found to be such: that is, 
 fis unsettling a present fixture, without any reasonable 
 prospect of establishing a substitute. If it were beneficial 
 in its consequences, this happened by its showing of the im- 
 probability of agreement in a new form, and its thus con- 
 tributing to the recognizing of the old articles. Even the 
 mistakes of readers contributed to this effect. For it is 
 astonishing how many, even of the clergy, considered what 
 was edited as proposed for the acceptance of a future con- 
 vention ; 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 articles, 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 con- 
 sidered as having no reference to any question concerning 
 the correctness of the report. Let it have been correct or 
 not; and although the author thinks it substantially cor- 
 rect, 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 sentiment had obtained generally, 
 that no new set of articles should be attempted, the author 
 was often assailed by members who had adopted the prin- 
 ciple ; urging, each of them, that there might be an exemp- 
 tion in regard to some one point, the most desired by him 
 to be corrected. To all ajjplications 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, 
 without any conventional act) as the ground of union; that 
 if they should be thrown open to discussion, there were va- 
 rious particulars in which he thought they might be im- 
 proved; that all those particulars he should think himself 
 
yule to page S3. j 35. 
 
 bound in conscience to bring forwanls; that no doubt many 
 other members would do the like ; and that thcn—Whai 
 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 con- 
 duct, he thinks that there will be propriety in his presentincr 
 of the grounds of it. '' 
 
 On the general question— Wiiether it be expedient to 
 have a body of articles, it has always appeared, as already 
 hmted, that to establish them, is merely to accomplish by a 
 general regulation, what will otherwise be done by indivi- 
 dual 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 
 atonement 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 articles, written or unwritten- 
 and the inquiry should be confined to the point of the most 
 judicious depositary of the power. 
 
 When the author was in England, being one day in com- 
 pany with a Unitarian minister— a gentleman of considera- 
 ble note in the literary world— liberty was taken to inquire 
 m what way the societies of his faith held their places of 
 worship, and whether, as in America, the property were 
 vested in persons chosen by the congregations. He an- 
 swered with a smile— Oh no ; for then, in consequence of 
 the ease with which respectable applicants are permitted to 
 take pews among us, it might happen, that in the choice of 
 a mmister, an interest would be created in favour of a pas- 
 tor, not entertaining the belief, for the maintenance of 
 which a house had been erected. He said, that to guard 
 against this, the meeting-houses were vested in persons who 
 may be depended on ; and who perpetuate the trust to others 
 of the same faith. What is this, but an indirect way of ac- 
 complishing the object for which articles are desio-ned ? 
 There was not omitted a remark to the effect in the conl 
 versation alluded to : a freedom, which grew out of a pre- 
 vious conversation on the subject. 
 
 The house of worship especially referred to, was that 
 known by the name of " Essex-street Chapel." Within 
 these few 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. 
 
184 Nvtf to pao-€ \\{\. 
 
 tlmt the trustees of the buildin^^ have ordered the Book of 
 (?oi!Hi!ou Prayer, as corrected by Mr. Lindsey, to be depo- 
 sited in the chest with tlie title deeds, to be the rule of wor- 
 nhip in future, and no alterations to be permitted, without 
 the consent of the major numlicr 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 impracticability of the principle on 
 which the theory in question is grounded. 
 
 In the book referred to, there is an office for infant bap- 
 tism; why should this be required by a permanent regula- 
 tion, when some professing Christians confine the institution 
 to adults, and others allow of no baptism, but that of the 
 Spirit? The remark applies to the celebrating of the 
 eucharist under the elements of bread and wine, in opposi- 
 tion 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 sufi'erance, 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 his reasons was — " no man or number of men together, 
 have any authority to make a creed for others." This 
 brings the matter to a question of 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 de- 
 fended on the principle, that the trustees, who have the 
 custody of the book, and thereby jurisdiction over the wor- 
 ship of the chai)el, are the j)roprietors of it. Let but the 
 plea be extended to any church or chapel, in any part of 
 England or of America, with the proviso that none are com- 
 pelled to join in the worship performed in it, and there 
 ceases all ground of complaint 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 dis- 
 
iSi'oie to page 33. |g5 
 
 cipline must bo exercised in one shape or in another. If. 
 is called discipline : for as to the truth of synodical detcrmi- 
 imtion?!, further than as they agree with scripture, no sound 
 Protestant will airu ni it. 
 
 Accordingly, we are necessarily led to the question, 
 whether the proper mean be the formula of the thirty-nine 
 Articles. God forbid that they should be admitted, other- 
 wise than on tlie ground of their being in substance a body 
 of divine truth ; \vhich they may be, consistently with incor- 
 rect 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, f n the sixth article, the books of holy 
 scripture are aliirmed to be the rule of faith; and the re- 
 quired subscription is evidently inconsistent with the rejec- 
 tion of any of the books specified. But when there are 
 introduced the incidental expressions — " of which there 
 never was aiiy doubt in the Church;" it is apparently con- 
 tradictory to what ecclesiastical history informs us, ni re- 
 ^av(] 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 ui) on full in- 
 quiry. 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 acknowledged, while the subordinate 
 fact, couched under the recited expressions, is rejected. 
 It is not equally manifest that the same latitude of inter- 
 pretation is allowable on the ground of the form of subscrip- 
 tion in the Church of England. 
 
 IJut 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, embracing the tenets of the 
 Calvinistic system. In contrariety to this assertion, the 
 persuasion is entertained, that they will be found, on a dili- 
 gent attention to the subject, to have been framed with a 
 studied latitude on the questions, which were afterward 
 denominated the five points, in the controversy between the 
 Calvinists and the Arminians ; this, with the exception of 
 the doctrine of final perseverance, to which the whole sys- 
 tem of the Church of England stands opposed; the doctrine 
 not being held at that time by the description of people 
 afterward 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 wore 
 
 24 
 
186" Note to page '^. 
 
 framed, there was a diversity of sentiments on those points, 
 und yet, that neither side complained of their being excUided. 
 Far from it, when, in the reign of Elizabeth, Calvinism 
 came 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 afterward in the reign of King 
 James, although 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 lirst 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 this be not so, are they 
 to remain for ever, with known and acknowledged imper- 
 fection? And if this be not contended for, what are the 
 circumstances which will render the altering of them an ex- 
 pedient 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 furtlier, before any altering of them be attempted, 
 these two circumstances should concur — first, a better es- 
 tablishment in the estimation of the Church generally, of 
 the ecclesiastical 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 
 lives 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 respects. The other cir- 
 cumstance, 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 deliberation: what is so prepared to be laid be- 
 fore the body, to be by them adopted or rejected, without 
 discussion. 
 
Noie to page 33. 187 
 
 These sentiments are g:iven, under a sense of responsi- 
 bility to the great Head of the Cliurrh ; and under the con- 
 viction, that until tiie two stated circumstances shall combine, 
 a new code of articles will have tlie effect of S]>litiin<; the 
 Church into no one knows how many different communions, 
 very much to the hinderance of true piety, and of those 
 characteristics of our communion, in which we suppose it 
 to approach nearer than others, to the standard of the best 
 ages. 
 
 In this convention, the question of recommending to the 
 Episcopacy the clergyman elected to it, as related under 
 the head of the last preceding convention, came to a crisis. 
 The Church in New-Jersey persevered 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 particular state which 
 had decided in the affirmative. These things were reported 
 to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies ; and the result, 
 was a direct refusal to recommend. The incident, although 
 given in the journal, should not be noticed in these remarks, 
 were it not to record, that the extreme dissatisfaction con- 
 ceived by a few gentlemen, was prevented from ending in 
 the inconveniences of which there was entertained an ap- 
 prehension, 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 certainly have failed: 
 but the project was communicated by one of the gentlemen 
 to the author. The bishop elect, a few years afterward, 
 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 
 Episcopacy. 
 
 O. Page 33. Of the Convention in 1804. 
 
 Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops, and Dr. 
 Beach, in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The 
 secretaries of the two houses, were the Rev. Cave Jones, of 
 the former, and the Rev. John H. Hobart, of the latter. 
 
 The opening sermon was by Bishop Moore. 
 
186 Nutt O iu ^agc 33. 
 
 There needs some explanation of what aijpeais on the 
 journal, concerning- the Rev. Animi lvO£:ers. 
 
 lie was a native of Connecticut, and educated at Yale 
 College. During the Episcopacy of Kishop Seabury, in- 
 terest was making among the clergy, to procure the ordi- 
 nation of Rogers. Cut the bishop perceiving it, and in 
 consequence of au unfavourable opinion entertained, de- 
 clared that he never would ordain him. He afterward 
 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 re- 
 paired to that state with the view of procuring from the 
 Rev. Philo Perry, the secretary of the convention of the 
 diocese, a certificate that there did not appear on the 
 minutes any entry of the rejection of the j)erson in question. 
 Such a certificate might have been given v.'ith great truth, 
 because no formal application had been made. But Philo 
 Perry being from home, Ammi Rogers fabricated a certi- 
 ficate in his name; not only testifying to the said fact, but 
 going to the point of the correct life and conversation of 
 the bearer. The last circumstance is of importance; be- 
 cause, although a certificate as to his not having applied 
 for and been refused orders, was obtained from Philo Perry 
 afterward, yet it went no further. 
 
 With the certificate forged as above, Ammi Rogers 
 waited on Dr. Beach ; and after thus satisfying him, re- 
 quested 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 story against him. This 
 was assented to. The certificate was never returned : but 
 in the mean time. Dr. ]>cach, relying on the integrity of it, 
 withdrew his ojjjjosition, and Ammi Rogers was ordained. 
 
 In a few years alter 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 diocese: and it was this which brought beiore the House 
 of Bishops, by mutual consent, the question to which diocese 
 he belonged. 
 
 In the investigation of this question, not only was the 
 preceding fact proved by unquestionable testimony, es|)e- 
 cially the afiidavit of Dr. Beach ; but the clerical de|)uties 
 from Connecticut, while they treated the man with the 
 
Note O to pu'^e 33. \^\) 
 
 utmost decorum, produced ample evidence of a ftictious 
 and mischievous disposition in him. Still, the utmost length 
 to which the bishops at first 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 unfortunately, one 
 of the bishops having proposed that there should be included 
 a recommendation to degrade the man from the ministry ; 
 the others, under the sensibility excited by the evidence of 
 his great unworthiness and hisiiagitious conduct, consented 
 to the proposal. This was ill judged, for these two reasons : 
 lirst, it would give room, in tlie event of a condemnation, 
 to object, that the opinion of the bishops, extra-judicially 
 expressed, had obtained undue 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 
 Jaticude as to the degree of punishment to be inHicted. 
 Ihe pomtmg to what this should be occasioned the other 
 reason referred to, by contributing to what is here thouo-ht 
 to be the error into which the bisiiop and the cler"y°of 
 Connecticut subsequently fell, of supposing tlint Ammi 
 Kogers had been tried by the House of Bishops. This 
 they never contemplated, and indeed would have been 
 contrary to the ecclesiastical constitution. 
 
 The recording of this transaction, may be a caution 
 against giving way in convention in future to solicitation^ 
 which Will probably be occasionally made, for the obtaining 
 ot determinations on points personally and locally intercsr- 
 ing; but which may be left, without the endanoerin<r of 
 any principle, to the judicial authority of the Church in 
 each state. That this is the most agreeable to the ecclesi- 
 astical constitution, will not be denied. If the said instru- 
 ment be not wisely contrived in this particular, still it 
 should govern, untd altered by competent authority. The 
 constitution, however, is here conceived to be not liable to 
 objection, on this account : and it is supposed, that a con- 
 trary provision would be found impracticable ; because of 
 tlie long intervals between the meetings of the General 
 Conventions, the difficulty of keeping them together, and 
 other circumstances which might be mentioned: 
 
 After the rising of the convention, this business of Ammi 
 
190 Note O tu jjui^c 3:i. 
 
 Rogers threatened serious consequences to the Church in 
 Connecticut, owing to what has been uh'eady hinted — its 
 having been there conceived, that he had been tried; and 
 that nothing remained, except to declare iiim degraded. 
 
 When tiic author found, that what the bishops had re- 
 corded on their minutes was so materially misunderstood, 
 he wrote to Bishop 3Ioore, to know his sense of the matter; 
 and found, from a letter of that bishop still in possession, 
 that there was a perfect coincidence of opinion between 
 them. The only bishop besides, who had been present — 
 Bishop Parker — 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 sentiments 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 subsisting between a 
 minister and his congregation. As the issue of this was a 
 canon, the object of which was novel in the Episcopal 
 Church, and the consequences of which may be in)portant; 
 it may be proper to record the origin of it, and the general 
 view entertained of its tendency by the author. 
 
 The clergyman in contom|)hitiun, was j)ossesscd of ap- 
 parent zeal, and unexceptionable in his moral conduct. It 
 is difficult to ascertain how far these circumstances should 
 extend lenity to what cannot in itself be defended. But 
 certain it is, that he had nianifesled a leaning to practices 
 
 * The author and Bishop Moore afterward rrrfived a letter from the com- 
 mittee of the cleriiy in Connecticut, requesting advice on the qnestion of again 
 taking up the bu.siness of Rogers, and granting a trial. Both of those applied to 
 advised the measure, but it did not take place. It would have been more discreet 
 in thera to have withheld their advice, until thcj should have known that it 
 would have cflTect. 
 
Note O to page 33. 191 
 
 rery difl'erent from those of his Church. In addition to 
 this, there were complaints of his overbearing of the vestry, 
 and of his taking of all authority to himself, in the manage- 
 ment of the teniporal concerns of the congregation. That 
 from dissatisfaction with him they had become very much 
 lessened, was atfirmed and believed. The former of tho 
 objections he confirmed, by joining another religious com- 
 munion, as soon as his severance from his particular con- 
 gregation 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 re- 
 sult of a trial for alleged misconduct; which is the most 
 agreeable to the idea of exalting law above will. Besides, 
 there is evirient 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 admitted into conjf relations, 
 the bishops consented to the canon. It deserves the name 
 of a necessary, but — it is hoped — only temporary evil. The 
 apprehension of the abuse of it has been verified. 
 
 There appears on the journal to have been some differ- 
 ence of opinion between the houses, in reference 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, stitl subsisting, 
 for students in theology. This was doing something to- 
 wards the improving of the literary reputation of our 
 ministry, and an advance towards the desirable object of a 
 seminary or seminaries, in which the preparation of can- 
 didates may be the better secured by daily examinations 
 held by qualified preceptors. 
 
 At this convention there was established, as proposed by 
 the last, a change of the season of holding the conventions. 
 There will be propriety in recording the reason. It was 
 on account of our country's having been for some years 
 visited by epidemic disease, in the autumn. 
 
 Agreeably to a proposal from the House of Bishops, it 
 
19- Note to page 34. 
 
 having been there moved hy IJishop Jarvis, the business of 
 the convention was conchided by prayer, performed by the 
 presidiiiir bishoj), in the presence of both houses. It had 
 been the rule during- every convention, to liave morning 
 jjrayer in the House of Clerical 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 lield on the third Tuesday in May, 
 180S. 
 
 P. Page 34. Of llie Convention 0/I8O8. 
 
 Bishop AVhitc presided in the House of Bishops, and Dr. 
 Beach in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The 
 secretaries of the two houses, were the Rev. Dr. James 
 Whitehead, of the former, and the Ilev. John H. Hobart, 
 of tlie latter. 
 
 Bishop Parker, who, at the request of the last convention, 
 was to have opened the present with a sermon, being de- 
 ceased, that olHce was discharged by the presiding bishop. 
 
 The thin attendance on this convention, must attract the 
 notice of every one who shall inspect the journal. In the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, the Church was re- 
 presented from seven states only ; none coming from Vir- 
 ginia; on the account of the Church in which state, a city 
 so far south as Baltimore was principally chosen. In the 
 tfouse 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 exceedingly indisposed, that 
 the (piestion 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 constitution ; 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 con- 
 siderable 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 inllammation 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. 
 
Note to page -i^. VM 
 
 \n revi:siii2,' and arrano'mg the canons, thorn occnnTd 
 rlothini^ niateruil, besides the two loilowini'- particukirs. 
 
 One of thesu respected candidates for holy orders. The 
 proposed canon prescribed different examinations to be 
 liekl, daring- the time in wliich a case should be under 
 consideration : and amon^ the matters to be inquired into, 
 was the |)arty'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 Iiouse it had been consented to by the 
 majority, in order to get rid of an exjiression pressed by 
 some— that of " an experimental knowledge :" an expres- 
 sion much abused by its application to feelings merely 
 animal, and unwelcome on that account. We could, how- 
 ever, form an idea of the sense of it perfectly unexception- 
 able ; supposing it to be such knowledge as is the result of 
 experience. But the bishops did not |>erceive, how the 
 candidate could satisfy his examiners as to this point, on 
 any ottier evidence than that of his own declarations; the 
 requiring of which was thought liable to much abuse. Ac- 
 cordingly, they proposed to leave out the clause concerning 
 " practical kncnvledge ;" and that after the other requisi- 
 tions, there should be inserted an admonition to the candi- 
 date, 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." 
 
 \n 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 jirinting of which it 
 accordingly does not appear, and is therefore inserted in this 
 place. 
 
 " Having projjosed the omission of an expression which 
 seems designed to reciuire inward piety, we wish to be clearly 
 understood in tliis matter. 
 
 " Far be it from us to suppose, that any qualifications are 
 sufficient, without pious affections, the effects of the grace 
 of God on the heart. But although the living piously, that 
 is in a visible profession, and in the duties attached to it, 
 may be certified ; yet, the actual possession of piety must be 
 the subject of the experience of the party, and not of the 
 testimony of his fellow-men. If it should be thought, that 
 they may ascertain his experience by an inquiry into the 
 movements of Ids mind; we remark, that the issue must 
 he precarious, independently on some manifest abuses in- 
 cident to it. 
 
 25 
 
lOi Note fo j)aL>-e M. 
 
 " The Churcli of EiigUind lias always contented herself 
 with a visible prolession, a suitable life, and the solenm 
 declarations at the altar. That in these there may be 
 imposition and insincerity, is unquestionable. But how 
 they would have been prevented by further requisition, we 
 do not discern. We recollect within that Church niany 
 wise and holy men, who have been satisfied with her disci- 
 jdine in this particular. But we doubt of there having 
 been any dissentients, whose opinions we would wish to see 
 influential in this Church. Vv'e call to mind a certain 
 period in the history of England; when one effect of the 
 entire prostration of lier Church, was the triumph of the 
 principle here objected to. But we have learned 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 tpiestion raised on the same ground, 
 divided for some time a numerous and respectable body of 
 Christians. But in consequence of more mature reflection 
 among them, the controversy has been dying away; and, 
 we believe, that there is now very little of it. 
 
 " But what in our opinion should overrule all doubt, is 
 not only the scheme of scripture generally, as to the requi- 
 sition in (piestion ; but that St. Paul, in his iirst Epistle to 
 Timolhv, where he lays down the qualifications of the 
 Christian ministry, says not a word of any kind of scrutiny, 
 which can be satisfied only by the testimony of the party,, 
 concerning himself. 
 
 '• The Subject being important, we have thought it ex- 
 pedient to make this formal profession of our opinion." 
 
 When 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 "manifested" 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 Cod, than 
 by his fruits. They evidently thought, there was a more 
 immediate communication in the matter at issue; although 
 they rested their objection chiefly on the supposition, of its 
 cutting ofi' all hope from a dying penitent; as if such a 
 person might not be sensible of new affections, which the 
 Spirit only can produce: whatever difference there may be 
 between him and a holy liver, as to the certainty of those 
 around him concerning the existence of such affections. 
 
I^ole to page 34. 195 
 
 Some, without deciding on which side the truth lay, re- 
 monstrated against the establishing by a side-blow, of what 
 they called a controverted point. In the issue, the amend- 
 ment of the bishops was accepted, but much to the dissatis- 
 faction of the dissentients, who even talked of entering a 
 l)rotest. After the business of the day, two respectable 
 clergyman, who had argued and voted in t!ic majority, pri- 
 vately recommended to the consideration of the two bishops 
 — whether it would not be best for them to proj)ose the 
 change of " known" for " manifested ;" this word not being 
 opposed to their belief, although not so precisely suited to 
 the sentiment intended to beconveyeil. Tlieir niotive, was 
 the expectation until now entertained, tiiat the convention 
 wotdd close the next day, with a conciliatory spirit on all 
 sides; which expectation would be disappointed, if the re- 
 commended measure should be rejected. The bishops, in- 
 fluenced by the same motive, complied with the proposal. 
 But when the alteration came into the other house, there 
 again arose a warm debate, a considerable proportion argu- 
 ing against the acceptance of the revision. However, the 
 more moderate counsel prevailed ; but whether to any 'j-ood 
 purpose, can be known only by future events. Tlietrans- 
 action is recorded under the mortifying reflection, 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 minority, the author 
 remarked to him, that in the institutions of the Episcopal 
 'Church, there was nothing like the opinion which he seemed 
 to entertain. He defended himself by the seventeenth ar- 
 ticle, where it speaks of election in Christ, as " full of 
 sweet, pleasant and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, 
 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 known," Should such reasoners obtain the sway in the 
 counsels of this Church, her system will be overturned. 
 
 The other matter relative to the canons, was what oc- 
 curred concerning the oflice of induction, established at the 
 last convention. It is to be hoped, that the consequences 
 of the measure will be an illustration 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 
 
196 Note to page ;J4. rT'^. 
 
 office; but the lequirin!^ of induction as cssciitial to a valid 
 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 prin- 
 ciple, more evidently hostile to the permanent respectability 
 of the ministry, yet it would have been better to have lel't 
 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 beeii 
 best, to have rested the service on a recommendatory ru- 
 bric. In Maryland, the measure interfered directly with 
 the vestry-law. From Carolina 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 and the result of it were with great rea- 
 son so acceptable to some, that they refused to concur in 
 doing away the former measure, but consented to the dis- 
 pensing with it in those states or diocesses, in which it in- 
 terfered with charters or usages. In this siiape, the matter 
 was brought before the bishops; who were reluctant to the 
 saying of any thing, liable to be construed into an approba- 
 tion 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 declaration, 
 that it should not be construed as giving a sanction to the 
 charters and the usages in contemplation, concerning which 
 they also ex|)ressed the hope, that they will in time be 
 altered. This amendment was accepted, and the canon 
 passed. 
 
 A new arrangement of the canons made by this conven- 
 tion, had been pressed on every preceding occasion, and 
 objected to by the author, who at last withdrew his oppo- 
 sition, submitting to the alleged advantage, of having all 
 the provisions pertaining to the same subject classed to- 
 gether. 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 such as are repealed, printing 
 the titles in italics. A repeal will be the result of the con- 
 siderable improvement of a former canon. JBut it wa^ 
 
Note to jxigc 34. 197 
 
 ■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 de- 
 sired 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 found on the various 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, however, is 
 designed of those prejudices only, which may be yielded to 
 without the sacrifice of essential principle. This was the 
 case in the |)resent instance, and must have been perceived 
 to be such, even by those who conceive the highest of Epis- 
 copal claims. In the year 1785, even the necessity of the 
 presidency of a bishop, when such a character should be 
 obtained by consecration, and should be present in the con- 
 vention, was rejected. Still, nothing was decreed to the 
 contrary ; and in the next year, the absurd prejudice against 
 the proposal was overruled. When another constitution 
 was formed, in 1789, if a provision for the Episcopal nega- 
 tive had been insisted on, it would have been destructive of 
 the whole system. Nevertheless, in the many years inter~ 
 vening, no measure has passed, under the refusal of the 
 Episcopal sanction. Indeed, it may be a question, wliether, 
 had things remained on the old footing of the three-fifths, 
 made necessary to carry any resolutiou contrary to the 
 opinion of the House of Bishops, the weight of their nega- 
 tive would not have had more efl'ect than under the present 
 change. This would have happened in the following man- 
 ner. 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 oc- 
 casionally differ from the bishops, on a subject under con- 
 sideration. But when the dissent 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 supposi- 
 tion 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. 
 
1 1)8 Note lo page 34. 
 
 while it would be scarcely possible ever to cany a measure 
 against the bishops, there would be a discouragement of 
 even that free discussion 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 tlie journal, re- 
 specting the votes of the lay-gentlemen from Pennsylvania. 
 It is there said, that they were in favour of the resolution, 
 but voted in the negative, because uninstructed by their 
 constituents. The declaration of the gentlemen is, that they 
 declined voting for a measure of which they approved, be- 
 cause it did not appear from the journals of their state con- 
 ventions, that the projected change had been laid before 
 them, as the constitution has prescribed. Neither had the 
 gentlemen any recollection, that this was done. The au- 
 thor 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 postponing the consideration 
 of the degrees of consang-uinity and affinity prohibiting 
 marriage, was simply as stated on the journal — the weight 
 of the subject, and the partial attendance at this convention. 
 They did not compare their sentiments, on the many im- 
 portant points which the subject brings into view. 
 
 The last subject had been brought forward, in conse- 
 quence of an instruction from the Church of Maryland, to 
 the deputies from that state. From the same quarter there 
 was a proposal made, to introduce •' A Companion to the 
 Altar," as part of the Prayer J]ook. The reason of the 
 rejection of the proposal by the bishops, was its tending to 
 make the book l)ulky. Many good treatises, may be use- 
 fully bound up with the Prayer Book : but to make them 
 essential parts of it, would be manifestly j)roductive of much 
 inconvenience. Any printer may, at his discretion, do what 
 was solicited on this subject, although he may not notice 
 the Companion to the Altar in the table of contents of the 
 Book of Conmion Prayer. 
 
 It appears from the journal, that the convention has 
 endeavoured — and with propriety as is here conceived — to 
 give a check to the growing practice of instituting associated 
 
 * It would have been well, had the sn)>jpct recurred so as to be brought i)ef()ro 
 ihn convention of 1811, to cause notice to h;ive been given on the journal of that 
 vear. But the fart is as liero related: and the £;(.'iillcineu roiiccrued were a htlle 
 pained, by the misslateuienl ou the nreccdin;: journal ; altiiougli doulitlcss orca- 
 •^oned by misapprehension or by inadvertence. 
 
Nuie to pa^c ^\. jt^jl 
 
 rectorships. They destroy responsibility, and o:ivc occasion 
 to rivalshijis between pastors of tiie same parochial church 
 or chiirciies. It is argued in favour of Episcojwcv, that 
 independently on any arguments from divine institution or 
 from apostolic practice, it has a better tendency than Pres- 
 bytery to peace and order. The last argument seems to 
 apply with more weight to a congregational, than even to 
 a diocesan. So far as the former connexion, in other de- 
 nominations, 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 
 reading 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 increasing of the number 
 of pastors in the churches, were defeated by the experience 
 of the jealousies constantly 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 ii' 
 eiiap. 9. 
 
 At this convention, the bishops were again assailed by 
 the troublesome business of Ammi Rogers; who affected 
 to bring before them an appeal from the judgment of Bishop 
 Jarvis and the clergy of Connecticut. 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. Bat 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 deo-ra- 
 dation. 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 Con- 
 necticut. But although 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 noticed 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 
 faear his pleadings, because not competent to decide. The 
 
^U(> Note to page :]4. 
 
 grounds of the treatment of Ko<;ers, by tiie House of Bi- 
 wliops, at the last convention and at tlic present, were 
 accurately recorded ou the journaU'. The otlier house 
 j)roperly refused to intermeddle ; and the only reason of 
 the papers being sent to them by the bishops, was their 
 beitig addressed to both- 
 
 On the subject of the Hymns sanctioned by this conven- 
 tion, 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 meet- 
 ing, and had pressed it with great earnestness. The author 
 of these ronarks acknowledges, that it was with pain he 
 saw the subject brought forward. This was not because 
 he doid)ted either of the lawfulness of celebrating the praises 
 of God in other strains than those of David, or of the ex- 
 pediency of having a i'ew well selected hymns for the especial 
 subjects of the evangelical economy; which can no other- 
 wise be celebrated in the psalms, than in an accommodated 
 sense. Nevertheless, there is so little of good poetry except 
 the scriptural, on sacred subjects ; and there was so great 
 danger of having a selection accommodated to the degree 
 of animal sensibility, alfected by those who were the most 
 zealous in the measure; that the discretion of adopting it 
 seemed questionable. It was, however, yielded to by the 
 bishops, under the hope, that the selection of a few, «nd 
 those unexceptionable, although some of them, perhaps, 
 are not to be extolled for the excellence either of the senti- 
 ments or of the poetry, might prevent the unauthorized use 
 of compositions which no rational Christian can ai)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 pro- 
 posed another hymn, which was admitted. They who were 
 the most zealous for the measure, had pressed for the ad- 
 mission 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 inclination to multiply them, 
 that, whatever might be in future the number of those al- 
 lowed, there would be at every convention a wish for more. 
 Others, are aware of the inconvenience of this continual 
 enlargement, but press for the setting aside of some of those 
 selected, in order to introduce new ones more suited to their 
 
Nate to page 34. 201 
 
 taste; not roresoelii^, that on the same principle, there will 
 he, in the nc.vt convention, new proposers of new hymns, 
 and that this will hapj)en without 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 running into the opposite extreme? 
 
 The principles which prevail in tlie estimation of the 
 author, and which he proposes under subjection to the say- 
 ing — " vaieant quantum possunt valei'e" — that is, let them 
 pass for what they are wortli — are these. 
 
 In regard to the general subjects of psalmody, as the at- 
 tributes of God, the mercies of creation and of providence, 
 and what comes under the character of preceptive, or un- 
 der that of devout desire and pious 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 compositions 
 were the liturgy of the .Jewish Church, when its devotions 
 were 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 peo- 
 ple far l)elow 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 pointing to the Mes- 
 siah and his spiritual kingdom, as only to require acquaint- 
 ance with the contents of the "^qw Testament, in order to 
 their being accommodated to the celebration of the mercies 
 of redemption. 
 
 Nevertheless, as it is by the Gospel that " life and im- 
 mortality are brought to light," there would seem to be a 
 suitableness to its high design, in celebrating its prominent 
 subjects in definite terms; so that the nativity, the cruci- 
 fixion, the resurrection, the ascension, the descent of the 
 Holy Ghost at Pentecost, and other edifying events, 
 embodied with Christian doctrine and essential to it, may 
 reasonably be rendered the more impressive, by their 
 being carried 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 additions, if made, 
 should be with a sparing hand, and then only admitted, 
 when besides sound doctrine and weighty sense, the compo- 
 
 26 
 
2m Xole to page 34', 
 
 sition l»o siicli, as a j)oet of acknowledged genius would not- 
 be ashamed to own. 
 
 As to the loa<liii<^ 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, that It will never tend to the sustain- 
 ing either of truth or of devotion. When devout feelings 
 have often accompanied certain words, the one bring the- 
 other along with them by the law of association. This- 
 should be no hinderance to as much variety as is suited to 
 the diversity of subject; yet it discountenances variety, 
 admitted for the gratification of restless fancy. As to that 
 species of hymns, which aftects to clothe devout desire in the 
 language of human 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 continued addi- 
 tion to the number of hymns, and for expressing the same 
 sentiments in a variety of forms, would be the swelling of 
 the Prayer Book to an immoderate size. Again, the pro- 
 bable eft'ect of this, 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 oflence against 
 any existing regulation; since they are no parts of the said 
 book, but make a book by themselves. Accordingly, selec- 
 tions 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 con- 
 gregation, and of others to whom it may be eligible. Some- 
 thing like the latter, the author has seen in sundry churches 
 in England ; in which all the metrical compositions in use,aro 
 on a large sheet of pasteboard, and kept hanging in the pews. 
 
 It may be proper, to guard the above from being so mis- 
 construed, as to be a sanction for the publishing of the Book 
 of Common Prayer with the omission of any jjortion of it, 
 properly coming under any head of the tal)le 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 
 unauthorized act, being made known to the convention of 
 1801, produced the canon now numbered as the forty-third^ 
 " Prescribing the Mode of publishing authorized Editions of 
 the Book of Common Prayer, <fcc." 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 Common Prayer," with or without them, may be 
 complete. 
 
jSule to page 34. 203 
 
 The subject of hymns has so evidcntlj a beariti!,' on that 
 ^of the psalms, that it will not be irrelevant, anil will be jus- 
 tilied 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. 
 
 [n the primitive Church, says the learned Bingham, "the 
 joining of all the worshippers in the psalmody, was the most 
 ancient and general practice, till the way of alternatti 
 psalmody was brought into the Church." May every at- 
 tempt to supercede the former, by an exclusive method, 
 prove abortive. 
 
 Is there, then, to be interdicted an higher grade of mu- 
 sical 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 of Christian praise; and, 
 that all improvement in this line should be surrendered to 
 mere amusement and to licentiousness: but, let it be admit- 
 ted on the indispensable condition, of subserviency to the 
 worship of him, who «o framed the ear as to be delighted 
 i)y melody and by harmony ; and especially, rather than the 
 permission of a contrariety to that end in sounds character- 
 ized 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 instrnments. They may contribute to the ef- 
 fect of sentiment and of voice ; but when there are emitted 
 from them sounds hostile to every devout desire, there is no 
 person impressed by a serious sense of the duties of the 
 place, who would not rather see them committed to the 
 Hames. 
 
 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 beginnings of lines and of stanzas. 
 To the same purpose Josephus atiirms, that David wrote 
 his psalms in trimeters and pentameters. 
 
 This metre was not of the same number of syllables, as 
 among the Greeks and the Latins; but, to use the words of 
 the bishop, " that relation and proportion 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." 
 
204 Note Lu yugc 34. 
 
 The pronunciation of the Hebrew language had become 
 lost, long before the age of tiie Gospel ; principally in con- 
 sequence of its want of vowels; so that the subsequent in- 
 vention of vowels by the 3Iasorets, has never recovered the 
 pronunciation with certainty. 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 Saviour and his apostles; and 
 of their having continued to be so sung in the primitive 
 Church, and afterwards universally until the reformation. 
 In the compiling of the liturgy of the Church of England, 
 no metrical singing was contemplated: so that when Stern- 
 hold and Hopkins 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 un(ier the cover of the 
 said permission, that either the said version, or the more 
 poetic version of Tate and Brady shelters itself. In the 
 American Church, the latter is expressly sanctioned. 
 
 How can the sanction be reasonably censured, as treating 
 the words of scripture irreverently ? For the singing of 
 the psalms in the original, none contend : and as for the 
 original measure, the recovery of it is given up as desperate. 
 To render them intelligible in any modern language, it is 
 necessary to accommodate 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 preserved. 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 op[)robrium at hand, in the ex- 
 pression of a tickling of the ear. W hat 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 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 from the established 
 Church. It is dillicult to perceive cither the relation of 
 
 I:-' 
 
Nolc to page 34. 205 
 
 the subjects, or the evidence of the position. In rcgnrtl to 
 the latter it is notorious, that metrical singing nmde its 
 way not only to the parisli churches, but to the catliedrals, 
 without the sanction of command, or even of especial j)er- 
 mission ; and that it retains its stand in them, under a 
 provision which had it not in contemplation. If the dis- 
 senters have not manifested the same regard for an higher 
 grade of singing, it should be remembered, that at their 
 origin, there was an ideal association of this v*'ith other 
 matters; that it has been hereditary; and that we know 
 not how far this may have been the result of another asso- 
 ciation — meaning of the subject with the supposed attribute 
 of levity : for which too much cause has been given in faulty 
 performance. 
 
 As to the churches of the establishment, it is probable that 
 there is not one of them in which metrical singing is not 
 practised; although any parochial clergyman might banish 
 it, without offence against any institution of his Church. 
 
 The gratifying of pojjular taste by the use of metre, has 
 been urged to its disgrace. Now to sacrifice truth to the 
 opinion of the high or of the low, irmst be grievous sin. 
 But on a question of taste, if that of the people can be laid 
 hold on for the increase of their piety, it would be difficult 
 to prove this an error: as much so, as to do the like in 
 reference to the improvemeni of a talent for elocution, with 
 the hope of rendering it instrumental to popular edification. 
 
 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 unequal to the force of what 
 must have been accomplished by Hebrew verse, as described 
 by Bishoji Lowth; according to which, each line contained 
 a complete sense. He calls the lines parallelisms: and he 
 distinguishes them into — the synonymous, the antithetic, 
 and the synthetic or consecutive. These names are de- 
 scriptive of the diversity; and the examjjles 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 sense of tlie bishop concerning piirallelisms, the 
 following examples are given from among those exhibited by him : — 
 
 The Svnonymous. 
 " Bow thy heavens, O Jehovali, and descend ; 
 Toucii the mountains, and they shall smoke: 
 Dart forth lightning, and scatter them ; 
 Shoot out thine arrows, and destroy tiieni." 
 
 Psalm cxliv. 5, 6. 
 
^^OQ Note iu jjat-e 34. 
 
 As to wluit is coniinonly called rhyme, in which the hues 
 answer to one anotlier, 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 language, rendering such an 
 artificial construction pecidiarly agreeable ; it is difficult to 
 <levise any principle on which it should be interdicted. And 
 yet, the opinion here entertained is, that the most to be 
 claimed 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 perhajis into that of syllabic 
 measure, without material deterioration. 
 
 In regard both to metre and to rhyme it must be con- 
 fessed, that sometimes by the throwing in of a superfluous 
 word, to suit that species of translation, there is caused u 
 considerable departure from the original. Besides, there 
 is commonly a suspending of the sense of one line on what 
 is to follow in another : which is contrary to the example 
 of Hebrew verse.* In addition to all this, it is often neces- 
 
 The Antithetic. 
 
 " They are bowed down, and fallen ; 
 But we are risen, and maintain ourselves firm." 
 
 I'sabn XX. 8. 
 
 " For his wrath is but for a inoiiient, his favour for life; 
 
 Sorrow may lodye for tJie cvcninsr, but in the morning gladness." 
 
 Psalm XXX. 5. 
 
 The Antithesis is in each of the lines. Sometimes it comprehends a couplet, 
 each line having a complete sense. 
 
 The Synthetic, ok 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 tlie earth; 
 
 Making the light'nings with the rain ; 
 
 Bringing forth the wind out of his treasures." 
 
 Psalm cxxxv. 6, 7. 
 
 " The differenco may be illnstrated, 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 absurd flourisiion the organ. But in the other four lines, what 
 the bishop calls a consecutive parallelism is complete, and remarkably beautiful. 
 
 " 3. Consider that the righteous man 
 
 Is (xod's pe<uiliar choice, 
 
 And when to him 1 make my prayer, 
 
 lie always hears my voice." 
 " 4. Then stand in awe of his commands, 
 
 Floe every thing that's ill : 
 
 Commune in private with your hearts. 
 
 And bend them to his will.'' 
 
Note 1o page 34. 207 
 
 sary to take in so much of what has been sufrgestod by the 
 brain of the modern poet, as that the sentiment of inspira- 
 tion is diluted in the exuberance of lan<juage, and sustains 
 a material dimunition of its stren^^th.* 
 
 There arises the question — What is the line of conduct 
 to be pursued in this Church, in consideration of the pre- 
 mises? The answer is, fir&t, in reg'ard to chants, if there 
 be any who have a disreHsh for them, let such persons be 
 aware of the liii^li sanction umler which they have come 
 down to us; and on that account, let them not dare to make 
 an effort for the excluding of them.t Secondlv, in regard 
 
 * The two following examples are given from a comparison of the Bible trans- 
 lation with that of the book in metre. The lines of the latter are fine, which 
 make them serve the better for instances of the extending of a sentiment over too 
 large a surface. 
 
 The coinjwrisons to be made are not intended in disparagement of the version 
 of Tate and Brady : for whether on acconnt of its merits, or from the influence of 
 the recollection of sejisibilities, extending as Cm- back as any recollections extend, 
 there is a preference of it to every other of the kind. The imperfections charged 
 on it, is common to all the metrical transJatioas. 
 
 Bible Translation. PsoZj/i cxrv. 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. Psa/m cxxxvii. 1. 
 
 " By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we 
 jeniembered Zion." 
 
 Book in Metre. 
 
 " When we our weary limbs to rest. 
 Sat down by prond Euphrates' stream. 
 We wept, with doleful thoughts o[)prest. 
 And Siou was our mournful theme." 
 
 The whole of these two psalms are an illustration to the purpose. 
 
 t There is an advantage incidental to chants, and worthv of notice : it is the 
 exclusion of light airs, which, tacked to the plain words of scripture, would b« 
 offensive, not to say to every pious, bnt to every decent person. There are some 
 religious people — it is surprising — ^who would introduce into metre psalmody, the 
 fashionable tunes of festivity and sport. The reason offered is — why should tho 
 best tunes be exclusively the property of Satan? The 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. 
 
208 Note f.o pai;c 34:. 
 
 to psalms in metre, rendered by habit dear to many devout 
 iiiiiids ; 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 singing which requires more of 
 science, invade the ground on which they stand. And, 
 thirdly, let not that high grade of choral praise be nndistin- 
 guishingly rejected by those who have no fancy for it. 
 Kather 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 ex- 
 citement of devout affections. And let the advocates of it 
 1)0 aware of the disgust, which will and ought to be excited 
 by a violation of this condition, and of the dissatisfaction 
 whicii 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 jjrofitably laid aside, in the 
 event of an approach in the English language, to Hebrew 
 verse, as above described by 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." 
 Jiut the bisliop evidently considered this as unattainable 
 even in the Hebrew. 
 
 On a retrospect of the transactions of this convention, 
 there is entertained the trust, that it did not end without a 
 general tendency to consolidate the communion; although, 
 rn the course of the business, there had been displayed 
 more than in any other convention, the influence of some 
 notions leading far wide of that rational devotion, which 
 this Church has inherited from the Church of England. 
 The spirit here complained of, was rather moderated than 
 raised higher during the session. Kut 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 contemplated 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 consequence should hear 
 the appearance of an insinuation not to be sustained by any fact, the author finds 
 himself called on to specify an attempt made to congregate some select clergymen 
 in Baltimore, at tlie time of the General Convention, as a distinct body, and for 
 the greater increase of piety. The tendency of such a scheme must be obviouF. 
 Almost all of the invited clergymen saw the matter in a proper point of view, and 
 declined the invitation. The consequence was, tliat the project came to nothing. 
 
Note to jHi^c 36. ^^ 
 
 Q. Page 36. Of the Convention in 1811. 
 
 Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops, and the 
 Rev. Dr. Wilkins in the House of Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties. The secretaries of the two houses, were the Rev. 
 Philo Shelton, of the former, and the Rev. Ashbel Baldv/in, 
 of the latter. Bishop Claggett, who was to have opened 
 this convention v.'ith a sermon, being detained by sickness, 
 that office was performed by the presiding bishop. 
 
 This convention was held under very serious and well 
 founded apprehensions, that the American Church would 
 be again subjected to the necessity of having recourse to 
 the mother Church, for the Episcopacy ; or else of continu- 
 ing it without requiring the canonical number ; which might 
 be° productive of great disorder in future. Bishop Moore 
 had been lately visited by a paralytic stroke, and was sup- 
 posed to be incompetent to the joining in a consecration, 
 unless in his chamber r v^hich was contemplated as the last 
 resort. Bishop Claggett, after severe indisposition, was 
 so far recovered as to be encouraged to attempt the journey ; 
 but after proceeding a few miles, found himself under the 
 necessity of returnmg. Bishop Madison thought himself 
 not at liberty to leave the duties of his college.* The 
 author left home, under the hope of inducing Bishop Pro- 
 voost to go on to New-Haven ; although he had never per-^ 
 formed any ecclesiastical duty, since the consecration of 
 Bishop Moore, in 1801. But besides Bishop Provoost's 
 being under the effects of a slight stroke of the paralytic, 
 sustained two years before, he was, at this time, only be- 
 o-innin<r to recover from the jaundice. He found himself 
 utterly^ incompetent to the taking of a journey ; but pre- 
 mised, if possible, to assist in a consecration, if it should be 
 held in the city of New-York. With the expectation of 
 this. Bishop Jarvis, after the rising of the convention, came 
 with the author to the said city ; as did the two bishops 
 elect. To the last hour, there was danger of disappoint- 
 ment. On our arrival, a day also having been publicly 
 notified for the consecration, we found that Bishop Provoost 
 had suffered a relapse during our absence. But finally, he 
 found himself strong enough to give his attendance ; and 
 thus, the business was happily accomplished. 
 
 * It appears from a letter of Bishop Madison to the author, that these duties 
 had been made the more imperative by the solemnity of au oath. 
 
 27 
 
210 Note to page 3G. 
 
 What is mentioned on the journals, in relation to the- 
 introduction of Episcopacy into the western states, arose 
 from a correspondence which had been entered into be- 
 tween the author and the Rev. Joseph Doddridge, who had 
 been ordained by hitn many years before; and who lived 
 near the western line of Pennsylvania, which divides it 
 from Virginia. This gentleman wrote in behalf of himself, 
 and of a few other clergymen settled in those western 
 regions. The line of direction given to this business by 
 the convention, renders it premature to say much concern- 
 ing it at present. The hinderances to the carrying of the 
 design of the preceding General Convention into eflect, 
 were the difficulty of selecting a suitable person, and that 
 of supporting him. The same difficulties are to be appre- 
 hended in the new shape of the business. There is this 
 difference in the two designs. According to the former, 
 the bishop would have been on the missionary plan, selected 
 and paid on this side of the mountains. If the latter idea 
 should be realized, the churches to the westward must be 
 organized, and a bishop must be chosen by themselves. 
 
 It appears on the journal, that the convention were called 
 on to give their sanction to the endeavours of the Episco- 
 palians in Connecticut, for the establishment of an Episco- 
 pal academy with corporate powers. This design originated 
 in the exclus-ive constitution of the college in that state, 
 which is entirely in the hands of Congregationalists; and 
 is so patronized by the government, and so supplied with 
 occasional grants of money from the treasury, as is thought 
 to amount to a species of state establishment of a particular 
 religious denomination. It is considerably owing to this 
 circumstance, that there is a degree of dissatisfaction be- 
 tween the Episcopalians and the dominant society, beyond 
 what prevails in any other state in the union. 
 
 The application to the society (in England) for the Pro- 
 pagating of the Gospel, originated in the following circum- 
 stances. Before the revolution, and when the state now 
 known by the name of Vermont, was considered as part of 
 the province of New-Hampshire, Governor Wentworth, in 
 his grants of the western lands of that province, laid out in 
 every township a tract for the use of the Episcopal Church, 
 which should in future be within the limits of the township; 
 and conveyed the lands so given to the said society. Some 
 of these lands are within the present bounds of New-Hamp- 
 shire, and the rest are in Vermont. After the peace of 
 1783, the society conveyed the former to certain gentlemen. 
 
Note to page 36. 21 1 
 
 within the state to which they belonged. The present ap- 
 pHcution, for a similar grant of the lands in Vermont, was 
 with the view of making them productive, for the acconi- 
 jdishing of the original ol)ject of the grants. 
 
 It appears further on the journal, that two Rev. gentle- 
 men, Benjamin lionham, and Virgil H. liarber, made to 
 the convention an application, the purport of which is not 
 recorded, but became an object of attention in conversation, 
 during and after the session, besides its occasioning of a 
 debate at the time, in the House of Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties. The subject is contemplated as likely to be a cause 
 of future litigation, and therefore now noticed with sorrow. 
 The object of the two gentlemen alluded to, was to procure 
 a declaration of the invalidity of lay-baptism; and they 
 were said to be conscientiously scrupulous of admitting as 
 members of their congregations, persons who had received 
 no other.* This of coarse precluded accessions, except on 
 the condition of compliance with their proposal, from the 
 most numerous denomination in the state: their baptism 
 by the Congregational ministers, being considered as per- 
 formed by laymen. Although the clergymen referred to 
 were singular in carrying the matter so far ; yet there has 
 been an increasing tendency in some of the clergy, to ad- 
 minister Episcopal baptism to such as desire it, on alleged 
 doubts of the validity of former baptism. Even this is con- 
 trary to the rubrics, as is proved by many judicious divines 
 of the Church of England. It happened, that a distin- 
 guished lay-member of the convention — the Hon. Rufus 
 King — had brought with him a pamphlet lately sent to him 
 from England, containing a judgment recently given in an 
 ecclesiastical court of that country, in a case precisely to the 
 point. It was occasioned by a suit brought by a dissenter 
 against a parish minister for refusing to bury a child who 
 had been baptized by a minister dissenting from the estab- 
 lishment. The judge — Sir John Nichols — decided it against 
 the clergyman. His reasons, grounded altogether on the 
 rubrics, must carry conviction to every mind, so far as con- 
 cerns the question of the sense of the Church of England. 
 It is true, that this does not settle the question of the sense 
 of scripture. On the most serious consideration of the sub- 
 ject many years ago, conviction is entertained, that the 
 
 * One of the two clergymen (IMr. Barber) distinguishing themselves as above, 
 a few years after, became a Roman Catholic. In the communion thus joined by 
 him, it is not uncommon for midvvives to baptize. It is a well known propertjr 
 of extremes, that they are often seen making the connecting points of a circle. 
 
212 Note to page 'SQ. 
 
 holy scriptures and the Church are not at variance in this 
 matter. What adds to the sorrow felt, at the introduction 
 of a new ground of difference in the American Church, is 
 the observing, that it never existed in the mother Church, 
 until about the year 1712; and that it had then the strongest 
 appearances of a political manoeuvre, played off against the 
 family on whom the succession to the crown had been settled 
 by act of parhament.* 
 
 If the prejudice should prevail, it is very unfortunate that 
 two of our bishops (Dr. Provoostt and Dr. Jarvis) never 
 received baptism from an Episcopalian administrator. So 
 that who knows what scruples this may occasion, as to the 
 validity of many of our ordinations, and among the number, 
 those of the very two gentlemen, who made the stir at the 
 late convention? It is true, that to meet this difliculty, the 
 distinction is devised, of the possibility of transmitting the 
 Episcopal succession through persons who are not members 
 of the Christian Church. This was the sense of Mr. Law- 
 rence, who wrote with much zeal on the subject, about the 
 time above referred to. But Dr. Hickes, who corresponded 
 with Mr. Lawrence relatively to the nuiin question, and 
 harmonized with him in it, disagreed with him on the sub- 
 ordinate point of a man's being a bishop, without being a 
 Christian. Dr. Hickes is high in the esteem of all the gen- 
 tlemen who incline to the opinion of the invalidity of lay 
 baptism. Therefore, who can tell to what extent his senti- 
 ment may prevail, and what inconveniences it may occasion ? 
 There would be no certainty of the existence of a bishop 
 in Christendom. 
 
 In England, the scruple arose in the latter end of the 
 reign of Q,ueen Anne, when there opened the prospect of 
 introducing the Pretender. It was a political measure to 
 serve that cause, and fell with it. A reproach was thrown 
 on the electoral family, that they were unbaptizod Luthe- 
 rans: as is noticed in Tindal's continuation of Kapin — (p. 
 725, of vol. iii. of the continuation the first.) 
 
 * .Tainrs the First, when he ascoiulpd tlio throne of Fngland, and prohably his 
 Eon Charles the First, who succeeded him, iiad lieen l)aptizcd in Scotland by non- 
 episcopahan ministers. And at the restoration of Cliarles the Second, when tho 
 j^reat mass of persons who liad grrovvn up dnrinjr the troubles, had been iion- 
 episcopally baptized ; it does not appear, tiiat :iny motion was made to rebaptize 
 them. Tliis confirms the sentinn lit. tb;it wlien liie doctrine was broached in the 
 reign of Queen Anne, it was in liostility to the Hanoverian family. 
 
 t Bishop Provoost was of an Episcopalian family, but from .some local or acci- 
 dental cause, was baptized by a minister of the low Dutch Ch.urch. Bishop 
 Jarvis had been born and educated among the Congregationali.-ts. 
 
Note to page ZQ. 213 
 
 In confirmation of the preceding statement, there shall 
 be given in a note an extract from a charge of Archdeacon 
 Sharp to the clergy of his archdeaconry. His book is a 
 body of charges delivered by him on the rubrics and the 
 canons. He gives an account of a meeting held at Lambeth, 
 of the two archbishops, and all the bishops who were in town. 
 The year in which their conference was held — 1712 — shows 
 the coincidence of the occasion with the existing state of 
 politics. The assembled prelates deterriiined unanimously 
 in contrariety to the scruple, which the artifice had excited. 
 
 As Mr. Lawrence's well known book on lay-baptism was 
 issued about the same time, it was probably in aid of the 
 political design. For Dr. Sharp's account of the matter, 
 see the note.* 
 
 There being notice on the journals of the rejection of a 
 request of a clergyman in Connecticut, and no reason given, 
 it comes within the design of these statements to record 
 the case. 
 
 The book is well esteemed ; and it was not from dissatis- 
 faction with it, that the application was rejected; but be- 
 cause the rerpiest to enjoin the use of the chants and tunes 
 exclusively of all others, was thought unreasonable. The 
 expectation of the ajiplicant has been misunderstood by 
 some; who have supposed, that he included in his demand 
 the prohibition of the singing of psalms in metre. It is 
 true, that he disapproves of such singing, from the opinion 
 
 * " In that year (1732) the dispute about the invalidity of lay-baplism running 
 pretty high, the two archbishops, with all the bishops of their provinces that were 
 in town, came unanimously to this reso!ntio!i — that lay-baptism should be dis- 
 couraged as much as possible : hut. if the essentials fuid been preserved in a baptism 
 by a lay hand, ii vas not to be repeated. But then, when it was proposed that a 
 declaration of their sentiments to this purpose should be published, in order to 
 silence or determine the debates raised on this question, it was resolved upon 
 mature dcliberatioli, to li^avf the question as mnch utiderided by any public 
 declaration, as it was left in the public offices and canons of the Church, for the 
 better security of discipline, and to prevent any advantages that n ight be taken 
 by dissenters, or seem to be given them, in favour of their baptisms; thougli they 
 do not properly come within the question of lay-baptisms in cases of extremity." 
 
 Ur. Sharp professes to have taken the above from the original papers signed 
 by the two archbishops. 
 
 The matter above referred to, as intended to be left undefined, was not the re- 
 baptizing by the form at large, or by the hypothetical form, for against both of 
 these measures, the archdeacon cautions his clergy. But, as in the English Book 
 of Common Prayer, in the introductory instrument entitled, " Concerning the 
 Service of the Churcli," a minister under doubt is directed to have recourse to 
 the ordinary, and as a doubt may occur concerning the words to be made use of 
 sn the admission of a child privately baptized — " I certify that all is well dene, 
 &c." not because of the insufficiency of the administrator, but on account of the 
 irregularity of the act, the minister is counselled by Dr. Sharp to avail himself of 
 the said proviso, attached to the preface of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
214 Nole to pa^e 36. 
 
 that it has an alliance with schism. But lie meant no 
 further, than as regarded chanting and the sitiging of an- 
 thems. Yet to have gratified him, would have heen an 
 high exercise of power. To set ecclesiastical authority at 
 work on a sulijcct, which heretofore, in the Church of 
 England and in this Church, and probably in every other, 
 has been left at large; would not forward, but hinder the 
 carrying of more important discipline into effect. 
 
 This is not said, withiuit the being aware of the great 
 abuse abounding in the department of psalmody, partly, by 
 leaving the portions to be sung to the choice of clerks des- 
 titute of judgment; and partly, by singing tunes either un- 
 suitable to divine worship; or suitable to some of the sacred 
 compositions, yet not to those with which they are unskil- 
 fully connected. It was designed to guard against both of 
 these evils, by the rubric prefixed to the Book of Psalms in 
 metre. That provision, if applied, is a sufiicient remedy 
 for both. If any thing further should be attempted, in a 
 field open to so great a diversity of taste, it is probable, 
 that no convention would assemble, without projected im- 
 provements prepared to be laid before them. The fault of 
 the unnecessary extension of authority, v/ould be felt in 
 changes without end. 
 
 In consequence of a canon passed at the convention of 
 1804, there was drawn up by the House of Bishops, and 
 sent to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, a Pastoral 
 Letter, addressed to the members generally of this Church. 
 It had been understood, that this was a transaction, over 
 which the latter house were to have no control. 
 
 Philadelphia was fixed on as the next place of meeting: 
 and, as in the last convention, t'lie business was concluded 
 with prayer by the presiding bishop, in presence of both 
 houses. 
 
 POSTSCIUPT- 
 
 The consecration which took place in Trinity Church, in 
 the city of New- York, May 29, 1611, soon after the rising 
 of the convention, may be considered as in some sort the 
 unfinished business of it. Accordingly, any important cir- 
 cumstance attending said act, may properly have a place in 
 these statements. 
 
 Such a circumstance occurred during the service, and 
 was the consequence of the inadvertence of the author; 
 who, in the imposition of hands on each of the two bishops 
 
JSoie to page 36. 215 
 
 elect, omittod the words — "In the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The oiliciatin^^ bishop 
 was unconscious of the omission; and the first intimation 
 of it to him, was by Bishop Jarvis in the way from church. 
 Althou<^h the author regretted what had hapf)ened, yet 
 he had no expectation that any conchision would he drawn 
 from it, for the impeaching of the validity of the act. Nei- 
 ther would this have happened, if it had not fallen in with 
 the passions which had been excited by rlie late election in 
 New- York. 
 
 Not long after the consecration, it was published to the 
 world, that the supposed act of consecration was essentially 
 defective, because of the want of these solemn words. 
 Lamentations were made concerning the consequences 
 which may ensue, to affect the Episcopal succession throuo-ji 
 future ages ; altogether owing to its invalidating of Bishop 
 Hobart's Episcopal character ; for not a word was said in 
 the publications, of its having of the same effect on Bishop 
 Griswold's ; although all the gentlemen who had noticed 
 the omission, testified that it applied to both the cases. 
 
 The clamour thus raised, was of course met with the 
 denial, that any precise form of words was essential to such 
 an occasion. But this not producing silence, inquiry was 
 made into the history of the form, as it stands in the ordinal; 
 when it appeared, that the words in question were no part 
 of the form of the Church of England, until the reign of 
 Charles II.; were never in that of the primitive ChiTrch; 
 and are not in the Roman pontifical, at this day. So that 
 on the principle of the opposite argument, there is not at 
 this time a Christian bishop in the world.* 
 
 Then the objection took a new turn, and was rested on 
 the preface to the ordinal; which requires the consecration 
 to be conducted agreeably to the form in that book. Ac- 
 cording to this, the accidental omission of a word or two, 
 contained in the book, nirist invalidate any consecration or 
 ordination in which it may happen. The absurdity being 
 stated as a consequence, the answer was, that in this in- 
 stance, the omitted words involve an important doctrine of 
 our holy religion. It was replied, that the doctrine appears 
 in many places in the service ; and that it is manifestly in- 
 consistent to yield, that the mention of the Trinity during 
 the imposition of hands, is not essential on the mere ground 
 
 * See Bishop Sparrow's collection, and De Courayer's Defence of the English 
 Ordinations. 
 
21 G Note io page 39. 
 
 of the importance of the doctrine; to yield further, that ne- 
 cessity is not created hy positive institution only; and yet 
 to contend that these united render the words indispensable. 
 The disposition manifested soon spent itself; owing, as 
 is conceived, to the circumstance, that a few j^entlemen of 
 talents, who had interested themselves on the occasion, 
 without havitii^ been in the habit of attending to the con- 
 cerns of the Church, would not commit their characters by 
 joining in a criticism so indefensible. 
 
 R. Page 39. Of the Convention in 1814. 
 
 Bishop White presided in the House af Bishops, and the 
 Rev. Dr. Croes in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 The secretaries of the two houses, were, of the former, the 
 Rev. Jackson Kemper, and of the latter, the Rev. Ashbel 
 Baldwin, assisted by James Milnor, Esq. 
 
 The opening sermon was by Bishop Hobart, of New- York. 
 
 The object at present, as in relation to transactions of 
 former conventions, is principally to bring into view some 
 facts which might otherwise be forgotten, after having had 
 an influence in the determination of the measures adopted. 
 
 The ninth canon, which dis|>enses with certain literary 
 qualifications in some cases, had been misunderstood ; and 
 abused to the sustaining of the notion, that the qualification 
 serving for a substitute, is mere fluency of speech ; evidently 
 found in some very ignorant men, and even in some whose 
 understandings are naturally weak. It was thought, that a 
 solemn declaration, guarding against the error, might be of 
 use. 
 
 The alteration of the twenty-ninth canon, was occasioned 
 by a difference found in the diocesan constitutions; and by 
 a wish not to interfere therewith, but to leave them to their 
 respective operation. In some states, no minister, not pro- 
 vided with a parish, and no deacon, has a seat or vote in 
 the convention. In others, a contrary provision had been 
 made. What brought the subject into view at this time, 
 was a change which had taken place in Connecticut; the 
 old law, of excluding non-j)arochial ministers and deacons, 
 having given way to the contrary regulation, much to the 
 dissatisfaction of some of the clergy. The difference did 
 not come under question in the General Convention. But 
 it seemed reasonable in this body, while they avoided in- 
 
Note to page 39. 21 1 
 
 eluding the two descriptions of persons alluded to, in the 
 provision for the office of institution, not to interfere with 
 the economy of those dioceses wherein they were admitted. 
 
 The opinion is here avowed, that the latter course is the 
 most proper, although not alleged to be necessary. Other- 
 wise, the Church may he deprived of the counsel of some 
 of the ablest of her ministers, who are prevented from the 
 acceptance of parishes by allowable causes; for example, 
 the filling of professorshijjs in literary institutions. Besides, 
 there may be aged clergymen, unfit for active service, andl 
 yet, not the less competent to the giving of advice. It is a 
 very great injury to religion, what has occasionally hap- 
 pened, and will be especially apt to occur in every large 
 city, that a man in holy orders may find it an eligible place 
 of residence, for enjoyment or for the management of some 
 secular business. His life may be a scandal to the Church: 
 and yet, it would be thought unreasonable to sidjject him 
 to religious discipline, under a constitution not acknowledg- 
 ing him, as having an interest in it. 
 
 What was done in relation to the fortieth canon, was at 
 the instance of the clerical members from Connecticut. 
 The canon provides, that every clergyman shall keep a list 
 of his adult parishioners. In the said state, considerable 
 diflicidty vvas alleged to have arisen, as to what may be 
 called a joint act, in the case of a person baptized in some 
 other communion, but joining his or herself to this Church. 
 In the case supposed, the joint act must have been of the 
 person and of the minister recording his name. Under 
 existing circumstances, it does not appear how the query 
 could have been solved, except in the way suggested by the 
 bishops ; that is, by bringing the matter to the test of 
 whatever was considered by both of the parties, as tending 
 to the eflTect contemplated. It must be confessed, however, 
 that this manifests an imperfect state of discipline. The 
 subject is worthy of the provision of a religious form, with 
 the view of establishing the certainty of the transaction. 
 But to make such a provision consistent, none besides per- 
 sons of fiiir characters should be admitted within the pale : 
 others to be allowed as hearers, and even to occupy sittings 
 within a church, but not to have votes in its concerns. 
 
 There was nothing further done in relation to the canons, 
 except the making of a slight alteration in the forty-fifth ; 
 designed to dispense with the duty of reading, in the General 
 Convention, the reports of the conventions in the diflferent 
 states. 
 
 28 
 
218 Note to page 31^. 
 
 Perhaps some reason may be requlreJ for llie delay stllTv 
 occurring in re<^artl to llic review of the Homilies, recog- 
 nized as they are in the articles. There had been some 
 correspondence on the subject between two of the bishops, 
 the author and Bishop llobart. But it is involved in more 
 difficulty than would easily be supposed by any person 
 who has not attcnrled to it particularly. That besides- 
 Tcrbal alterations, some others are callt;d for, is universally 
 agreed. But to make the latter, without departing from 
 ihe principle of avoiding the charge, and even of giving, 
 ])lausible ground to any t(^ pretend, that we have deviated, 
 in respect to doctrine, is scarcely to be expected. On this 
 account the author is not sure, that it will not be best to 
 leave the two books as they now stand : being referred to 
 in the articles, as a larger explication of Christian doctrine y 
 without its being understood, that assent to the article 
 implies approbation of every sentiment in the Homilies, or 
 of every series of reasoning whereby any doctrine of them 
 is sustained. At the same time, if any minister incline to 
 read a hoiiiily from his pulpit or from his desk, and will 
 take the trouble of clearing it from its obsolete terms and 
 local references, (if there be any) there is nothing to hinder 
 his doing so. In another point of view, however, it ap- 
 peared of the utmost consequence to take some measure in 
 regard to those very instructive compositions. Their being 
 sanctioned by the thirty-fifth article, which is assented to 
 by all persons admitted to the ministry, renders it absolutely 
 necessary that they should have the means of perusing them, 
 and even of well weighing their contents. This is not al- 
 ways easily to be accomj>lished. Accordingly, it was judged 
 expedient to encourage a publication of them; with a cau- 
 tion against its being understood, that this Church is con- 
 cerneil in what relates to the civil policy of Great-Britaiu 
 tinder these views of the subject, they have since been 
 printed. 
 
 For the sense of the House of Bishops, delivered by thena 
 on this subject, see Appendix, No. 27. 
 
 The measure which appears on the minutes, designed to 
 introduce the posture of standing during the act of singing 
 portions of the psalms and of the hymns in metre, requires 
 to be accounted for. It professes to have been adopted for 
 the avoiding of diversity of custom. But there may be an 
 interesting question, as to the cause of that diversity. 
 
 It is evident, that psalms in metre are not known in the 
 njubrics of the Church of England. And yet, it was pro- 
 
N(jtc to page 39. t>19 
 
 'vided in the very beginning of the reformation, by the act 
 of uniformity then passed, that psahns or prayers, taken out 
 of the Bible, might be used in divine service, provided it 
 were not done to the omitting of any part thereof. Tiiis 
 Avas in the reign of Edward VI. In the course of that reign, 
 'Sternhold and Hopkins edited their version; which must 
 have been brought into use, not by any special act of au- 
 thority, but under the sanction of tiiat provision. These 
 facts have been stated, in a preceding part of the present 
 work. They are again referred to, in order to make tbeni 
 a ground of the supposition, that the posture of sitting grew 
 out of the laxity of manner, in which this part of the public 
 devotion was introduced. When the present writer was in 
 England, during the whole of the year 1771, and nearly the 
 half of 1772, he was not in any church wherein the people 
 stood at the singing of the metre psalms. He does not re- 
 member to have seen it, during his short visit to that coun- 
 try, about fifteen years afterwards. And yet it seems well 
 attested of late, that the posture of standing prevails in 
 London and its vicinity, and elsewhere. It is said to have 
 been introduced by the late excellent bishop of London — Dr. 
 Porteus; and this is very probable. The custom had 
 travelled to some congregations in this country ; wherein, 
 until lately, it is not probable that there was a single con- 
 gregation who stood during this part of the service. In 
 order to put an end to the diversity, and under the convic- 
 tion that standing is the more fit and decent posture, the 
 ■bishops proposed, and the other house a|)proved of the 
 measure which has been adopted. 
 
 For this document, see Appendix, No. 28. 
 
 It appears on the journal, that on a proposal of a presby- 
 ter of this Church, to add to the anthems serving on certain 
 festivals, instead of the " Venite," certain forms from the 
 Psalms, &c. prepared by himself with musical accompani- 
 ments, the House of Bishops proposed, and were concurred 
 with by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, a deter- 
 mination not to enter on a review of the Book of Common 
 Prayer during the present session ; which may seem too 
 general for the occasion. Certainly tho two houses had it 
 so pleased thein, might have proposed to the next conven- 
 tion a particular change, without going a step farther. But 
 had it been moved by any member, and made a subject of 
 discussion, any other member might have done the same ; 
 so that a general review might have been the consequence. 
 As for the anthems, they were such as might have been ex- 
 
220 Note to page 39. 
 
 pected from the musical sufficiency ofthe proposer. There 
 was another matter of a different nature, comprehended 
 under the determination of the two houses. A reverend 
 memher of the convention had brought to it a manuscript 
 work of his own, on an important subject of rehgion, which 
 he wished to be sanctioned by the body. It is not easy to 
 calculate the time tlicy might have been ke]jt together, for a 
 due examination of a work of this sort, nor how many simi- 
 lar applications in future would have grown out of compli- 
 ance in the present instance. The reasons of the conven- 
 tional measures in the above cases, are recorded with the 
 hope, that they will have weight on the like occasions, if 
 they should occur. 
 
 For the determination, see the Appendix, No. 29. 
 
 The reference to the bishops, and to other ecclesiastical 
 authorities, for the obtaining of information on the subject 
 of a theological school, originated thus. The convention in 
 South-Carolina, had instructed their deputies to propose 
 the establishing of such an institution; and accordingly, it 
 had been moved and discussed in the House of Clerical 
 and Lay Deputies, and by them negatived. On the last 
 day of the session, it was moved in the House of Bishops, 
 by the bishop of the Church in that state. The question 
 was argued with much interest, although with the utmost 
 moderation, by that bishop on one side, and by the assistant 
 bishop of the Church in the diocese of New-York, on the 
 other. The design interfered especially with the views of 
 the latter, who had adopted measures, and issued proj)osals, 
 for the instituting of a seminary under the immediate super- 
 intendence of himself and his successors. It was to have 
 been seated in New-Jersey, and the bisho|)of that state was 
 to have been joined in the superintendence. The present 
 author, conscious that he had not given much attention to 
 the subject in this comparative view of it, and ])crcciving 
 that existing circumstances woidd prevent a determination 
 during the present session, avoided the opening of his mind 
 as to the merits ofthe question. 
 
 The proposal respecting a copy-right of the Book of 
 Common Prayer, had been suggested as a mean of obtain- 
 ing an handsome fund for beneficial j)urji<)scs. Besides the 
 difficulties in the vv.ay, suggested in the instrument relative 
 to the obtaining of information on the subject, there is the 
 insuperable objection which it seemed the most ])rudent not 
 to notice, that although the Church docs not now contcm- 
 ulate alterations in her liturgy, yet she ought not to commit 
 
Note to page 39 . 22 1 
 
 herself in a measure, which would put it beyond her power 
 for a considerable course of years. To have given this as 
 a reason, might have been misunderstood by the public. 
 Independently on that circumstance, there were those who 
 had been formerly witnesses of jealousy excited by this 
 cause, which they wished never to see renewed, so long as 
 there are other ways of guarding the integrity of the book 
 against corrupt copies. In most, and probably ail, of the 
 present, there are some errata ; which, in general, may be 
 detected by the reader, and which might be more effectually 
 guarded against by an authoritative table. 
 
 The declaration of the bishops, approved of by the other 
 house, relative to the identity of this Church with the body 
 formerly known by the name of " the Church of England in 
 America," arose from the circumstance, that in some cause 
 or causes pending in the courts, this identity had been 
 denied. 
 
 The bishops were informed by one of their body, that not 
 long ago, the sentiment had been expressed to him by a 
 gentleman high in otlice, who grounded what he alleged on 
 the Book of Common Prayer, edited in 17i:^5. The title of 
 this book declares it to be a proposal. It was never ratified, 
 as will appear on a reference to the journals. Had a sub- 
 sequent convention ratified it, the inference would have been 
 untenable in regard to a Church, the principles of which, a-! 
 of the Church from which it became separated by a dispen- 
 sation of Providence, declares its competency to every act 
 of self-government. The identity of the body remained, 
 although accompanied by a newly acquired independence. 
 Still the plea, on the ground taken from it, is invalidated 
 by the non-acceptance of the book. It being foreseen, that 
 this pretence will be set up, whenever the appeal shall 
 come on in Washington ; there was supposed to be a call for 
 the declaratory instrument, which has occasioned the present 
 explanation. 
 
 There was a consideration which rendered the declaration 
 especially expedient, but not proper to be noticed on the 
 journal. The opposite principle was the known opinion of 
 some leading characters of Virginia; who, on that ground, 
 had defended the act of the legislature of that state, which 
 deprived our communion of its churrhes and its glebes. 
 
 Although the question here referred to, was brought be- 
 fore the convention incidentally; yet, as it may hereafter be 
 a subject of more considerable attention, and big with im- 
 portant consequences, occasion shall be taken to state the 
 
222 Note iQ pa^e 39. 
 
 reasons for supporting the position, that what is now called 
 •' the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,'* 
 is precisely, in succession, the body formerly known by the 
 name of " the Church of England in America ;" the changes 
 of name having been the dictate of a change of circum- 
 stances, in th-j civil constitution of the country.* 
 
 1st. From the beginning of the organizing of this Church, 
 the principle has prevailed. It impelled the applying to 
 England for consecration, in preference to another country, 
 where it might have been easily had, without the making of 
 requests, not to be complied with but by the interference of 
 the legislature of a foreign country, which the venerable 
 persons petitioned, might not be able to obtain. 
 
 2dly. It will very much tend to check the spirit of inno- 
 vation, on any essential point of doctirine, because, if such 
 a matter should be attempted, the original standard will be 
 appealed to ; and the adherents to it will plead, that they 
 are the Church from which the innovators, whether many 
 or few, have departed. This needs not to hinder altera- 
 tions in less important matters ; because, notwitlistanding 
 the parentage gloried in by us, we are an independent 
 •Church, and so acknowledged by that from which we plead 
 to have descended. 
 
 3dly. The security of property is a consideration. This 
 has been spoken of already ; but there shall be added in- 
 formation received from a respectable source. It is, that 
 on the arrival of I5ishop Seabury in Connecticut, he con- 
 sulted his friend. Dr. William Samuel .Johnson, of Strat- 
 ford, whose leaning to him and his cause, with a strong at- 
 tachment to the Episcopal Church, cannot be doubted, as 
 to his right to the income of a handsome landed property, 
 left for the support of a future bishop of the Church of 
 Enulnnd in America. Dr. Johnson is said to have been of 
 ■opinion, that Bishoj) Seabury could not claim it. 
 
 4thly, and princij)ally ; regard is here had to there being 
 a fence to the truths of the gospel, prevalent in the days of 
 Edward VI. Any superadditions, which may have been 
 either popular, or introduced by influential churchmen 
 aftervv'ards, are here j)ut out of view. 
 
 " Since the penning of tliese remarks, the author has seen, in print, a serious 
 endeavour to date the origin of the Episcojjal Churcii, iVoni the period of the 
 consecration of her bishops. Tiie position is rested on grounds, whicli do not 
 hern seem to call for a professed refutation : hut it may be remarked, that the 
 sentiments expressed by the House of IJisliops, and advocated in this place, apply 
 to the notion now referred tu, as well as to that of which they were professedly 
 intended . 
 
Note io pa^e 39, 223 
 
 The principle contended for cnnnot be uiKlcrstood, witli- 
 out remarking the distinction between a sameness of two 
 C'hnrches in doctrine, discipline, and worship, and their 
 identity in a corporate capacity. When in the reign of 
 James I., and afterward in that of Charles IL, there\vere 
 consecrated in England bishops for the Chnrch of Scotland, 
 the Churches of the two countries were the same in the 
 particulars of principle above mentioned; but were so far 
 from being one, that to avoid the appearance of it, and to 
 guard against a consequent ascendancy of the English 
 hierarchy over that of Scotland, it was carefully provided, 
 at each of the times referred to, that the bishops of the 
 latter country should not be consecrated by either of the 
 archbishops of Canterbury and York. 
 
 Neither is what is here said intended to discountenance 
 all changes, which succeeding circumstances may render 
 expedient. In respect to doctrine, if, at any time, for the 
 sake of comprehension, there should be silence on any 
 points not essential to Christian verity, it would not super- 
 sede the principle here sustained. On the subject of 
 rites and ceremonies; it is the judgment of the Church 
 of England, that they may be regulated according to the 
 circumstances of different times and places. And under 
 the head of the constitution of the Christian Church and 
 the discipline of it, there is no reluctance to record the 
 opinion, that if an important object were likely to be 
 accomplished, there would be no difficulty in taking a 
 ground, whi^h would not be objected to by the more 
 moderate of the non-episcopalians, provided there ceased 
 objections of another kind; especially the greatest hin- 
 derance of all, in the irritation kept alive by the intem- 
 perate zeal of some on each side. But, if ever there should 
 be a surrender of those evangelical truths, which are not 
 only affirmed in the thirty-nine Articles, but pervade the 
 services, and are generally understood to be the leading- 
 doctrines of the reformation, its fall may be counted on"; 
 and because of such change, ought not to be regretted. 
 
 The maintaining of the above principle, consistently with 
 a strong desire of comprehending Bishop Seabury and his 
 Church within our connexion, placed the author of this in 
 very delicate circumstances for some time; especially as 
 he was not so happy as to have the concurrence of Bishop 
 Provoost, on the latter subject. The author persevered 
 with him, in the plan of obtaining the canonical number 
 from England ; but thought there would be no inconsistency, 
 
224 Note to jmgc 43. 
 
 after the succession had become complete, and even during' 
 the nieasures leading to it, in yielding |)crsonal priority to 
 Bishop Seabury. 
 
 Accordingly, the author will conclude with the expression 
 of a feeling, which from his very early years, has been 
 attendant on his views of religion ; and which he cannot 
 clothe in more appro|)riate words than those of Father Paul, 
 of Venice — " Esto perpetua:" that is, may the Church so 
 constituted and continued, last for ever. 
 
 Because of the importance of the declaration of the con- 
 vention on the preceding subject, it is given in the Ap- 
 pendix, ISo. 30. 
 
 S. Page 43. Of the Convention of 1817. 
 
 Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops. In the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, first Dr. Isaac Wil- 
 kins, of New- York, and afterward the Rev. William H. 
 Wilmer, of Alexandria, presided. The secretaries were, 
 of the former house, the Ilev. Benjanjin T. Onderdonk, 
 and of the latter, the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin. 
 
 After divine service, and the sermon by Bishop Griswold ^ 
 and in compliance with a resolve of the last convention, 
 there was an administration of the holy communion. 
 
 There having appeared at this convention two bishops, in 
 addition to those formerly nientioned, it falls within the de- 
 sign of this work to record, that the first of them, the Rev. 
 Dr. James Kemp, of Maryland, was consecrated on the first 
 of September, 1814, in Christ Church, in the city of New- 
 Brunswick, New-Jersey, by the jiresiding bishop, assisted 
 by Bishops Hobart and Moore ; and that the other, the Rev. 
 Dr. John Croes, of New-Jersey, was consecrated on the 19th 
 day of November, 1815, in St. Peter's ('hurch, in the city 
 of Philadelphia, by the presiding bishop, assisted by Bishops 
 Hobart and Kemp. 
 
 Opposition having been made to the consecration of 
 Bishop Kemp, the three consecrating bishops weighed very 
 seriously the objections presented to their notice; the more 
 so, as among the signers of the protest sent, there appeared 
 the names of persons known to have possessed respectability 
 in the diocese. The detailing of the objections included in 
 the protest, with the reasons of their adjudged irrelevancy, 
 seems called for by regard to the future respectability of 
 
iSole to pagii 4'?. 225' 
 
 ^he Church, and to the consistency of the consecralin"- 
 bishops. 
 
 The first ohjection was, that the office of a suflragan 
 bishop was unknown in the constitution of the Church of 
 Maryland. On this point it was considered, that althouoh 
 neither the office of a suffragan nor that of a coadjutor or 
 assistant bishop, was noticed in the constitution, either of 
 them might be rendered expedient by existing circum- 
 stances, as a character often met with in the history of the 
 (yhristian Church ; that a coadjutor or assistant bishop had 
 been introduced into another diocese, without being men- 
 tioned in its constitution, and yet without the charge of 
 unconstitutionahty ; that as the bishop of the diocese now 
 in question, in the year 1811, had proposed the electing of 
 a bishop to aid him, he must have presumed the legality of 
 the measure, and it did not since appear that he had altered 
 his mind, or that the sentiment had been until now contra- 
 dicted by any person ; that in 1812, the convention had 
 balloted on tlie question of having a suffragan, and although 
 it was then carried in the negative, it does not appear that 
 they were supposed by any of the members to be irregularly 
 occupied. Even the signers of the protest must have 
 thought it regular at the time. 
 
 The second objection denied that Dr. Kemp had been 
 chosen by a constitutional majority: but the journal mani- 
 fested the contrary ; there appearing, to have been in his 
 favour two-thirds of the members present. This objection 
 was stated in such general terms, that it could not have 
 been much relied on. 
 
 The third objection imported, that the general opinion 
 concerning the measure of choosing a suffragan, had been 
 expressed by the silence of the convention of 1813; the ne?it 
 after that which had negatived the measure. There may 
 have been some reason for this, which the consecrating 
 bishops had no means of obtaining. The prospect of the 
 returning health of the diocesan bishop, may have been the 
 reason. The bishops however perceived, from inspection of 
 the journals, that of nineteen clergymen ^and thirty-two 
 laymen present in the convention of 1813, not a third of 
 either order had been induced to sign the protest. Although 
 there were in this convention two more of the clergy, and 
 seven more of the laity than in that of 1814, when the 
 choice was made ; yet the members of the latter were pre- 
 cisely those of 1812; when no fault appears to have been 
 alleged against the balloting for a suffragan, because of the 
 
 29 
 
22f> Note to pa^c 4®. 
 
 pai»cit!y of electors. It was further considered under thi> 
 head, that the rojjiiisition of two-thirds for theelectin*^ of a 
 bishop, as provided hy the constitution of the Church of 
 Maryland, and which was satisfied hy the issue of tho 
 election in the present instance, was prohahly for the pur- 
 pose of guarding against an advantage which might ho 
 taken of a thin convention. On any other principle, '\% 
 would seem to have been unwise to make a provision, by 
 which a sixth of the number and one more, would have it 
 in their power to arrest, at pleasure, all Episcopal adminis- 
 tration in the diocese. 
 
 The fourth objection rested on the charge of surprise 
 and management. Nothing of these v/as apparent on the 
 journal. They are not a gromid on which an election may 
 be set aside. In the collision of parties, they are commonly 
 charged by each on the other. On the present occasion, no 
 specific facts were alleged, and no evidence was offered. 
 
 On the whole subject of the objections, the bishops were 
 of oj)inion, that if the substance of the protest was designed 
 to arrest the consecration, it ought to have been communi- 
 cated to the convention by which Dr. Kemp had been 
 elected; and that after the neglect of this, the defect ought 
 to have been in some measure supplied, by its being made 
 known to the bishops cabled on to consecrate, that the in- 
 strument, which was put into print for the ease of multiply- 
 ing copies, had been communicated individually to those 
 who were so materially interested in its contents. These 
 remarks were designed to have an es[)ecial bearing on the 
 position of the protest, that the succession of the bishop 
 elect to the diocesan Episcopacy was carried by acclamation. 
 The bishops were possessed of evidence, that the questioa 
 was put, and the vote taken, in the usual form of conven- 
 tional business. They were the more induced to rely on 
 the testimony to this effect by the circumstance, that among 
 the afiirmants of the contrary, there were some who were 
 not present at the disgraceful transaction, if it happened. 
 
 In addition to the protest, there was exhibited by the 
 presiding bishop, a letter to him from two clergymen of the 
 diocese, charging the bishop elect with being unsound in 
 the faith, and an enemy to vital godliness. If the signers 
 of the letter had substantiated the first of the two charges-, 
 or the latter of them, in the sense understood in scripture 
 under the term " godliness," essentially involving renovation 
 of the affections manifested in the fruits of holiness, the 
 bishops would have rejected the application before them, 
 
JSote to jm^e 4-3. 227 
 
 from the respectable diocese of Maryland. But, the writers 
 oi" the letter alleged no specific facts; they referred to no 
 evidence ; and the accused party declared, that they had 
 not even notified to him the accusation. 
 
 The writers of the letter demanded a hearing by counseL 
 Getting aside the insufficiency of the aj)plicants, the novelty 
 of the proposal, and all question of the propriety of such 
 a precedent to be set by any three bishojjs who might be 
 assembled ; it could not but occur to those now present, 
 that the other party in the case would be the convention of 
 Maryland, who had no opportunity of being heard by coun- 
 sel. Had Dr. Kemp been considered as the other party, 
 there would have been evident impropriety in subjecting him 
 to a kearing, under a charge brought against him unex- 
 pectedly, and remote from his place of residence. Perhaps 
 it was expected, that the •consecration would be delayed, 
 with a view to a future hearing. But neither ought the 
 bishops to have acceded to this, when it would have been 
 to subject to reproach the character of a clergyman, who 
 had been greatly respected in the diocese during nearly 
 twenty-five years, and this at the request of two clergymen, 
 who do not appear to have hazarded the charges in the 
 convention ; and who, in bringing them forward at this time, 
 must have thought differently from tliose who joined with 
 them in the protest. For it would be injurious to the reli- 
 gious profession, and to the understandings of the latter, to 
 suppose that they had withheld those charges, while they 
 were urging objections of far less magnitude.* 
 
 These were the reasons on which the bishops rested their 
 procedure, and they were detailed by them, in a letter to 
 Bishoj) Claggett. 
 
 Soon after the consecration of Dr. Kemp, the object of 
 the oj)position to him, as it was cherished by some of his 
 opponents, showed itself without disguise. Four or five 
 clergymen, who had obtained the concurrence of some re- 
 spectable persons in that preparatory measure, but not in 
 what followed, applied first to Bishop Claggett, and, on his 
 refusal, to Bishop Provoost, to consecrate singly the person 
 who should be elected by the applicants. It is not necessary 
 to prove, that the bishops so applied to were men of too 
 
 * It was with a view to an influence on the question of the election of Dr. 
 Kemp, that the story concerning the election of Dr. Griffith, noticed in this worU 
 (page 144.) was handed about; probably fabricated by some, but certainly be- 
 .Sieved without intentional error by others. 
 
•228 Note io page 43. 
 
 much truth and honour, to have considcrcti for a moment of 
 so unprincipled a proposal. Jiut the matter should be re- 
 membered, as pregnant with admonition. A bishop of this 
 Church, during the service of consecration, after uttering 
 the solemn words — "In the name of God, amen," promises 
 conformity and obedience to the doctrine, the discipline, and 
 the worship of this Church. According to the application, 
 all the checks designed to govern in admission to the Epis- 
 copacy, were to be disregarded. 
 
 That small number of clergymen exhibited themselves as 
 competent to an act, to which they had recently affirmed an 
 incompetency, in two-thirds of the clergy and representa- 
 tives of the laity, in convention. And all this was under 
 the profession of serving the cause of vital godliness. 
 
 On the subject of a theological school, discussed in the 
 General Convention, as set forth on the journal, a plan, 
 different from that adopted, was recommended by the con- 
 vention of Pennsylvania. It w'as as follows : — 
 
 " 1st. That there be a recommendation to the Church in 
 the several states, to raise a fund, the income of which may 
 be apphed, as the general wisdom of the Church may 
 direct. 
 
 " 2dly. That wherever there is such a concentration of 
 clergymen, as that they can assemble often, and at conve- 
 nient times, they may be requested to bestow their endea- 
 vours gratuitously, for the accomplishing of the present 
 object; and, 
 
 " 3dly. That the income of the contemplated funds be 
 applied to such local endeavours, if thought expedient, so 
 as to secure the especial attention of one or more of the 
 clergy, to be devoted altogether or in part, to the educating 
 of young men for the ministry, until a general plan be 
 adopted, if that should be considered hereafter as more 
 eligible." 
 
 The reasons whicli weighed to the preference of this plan, 
 were — the time intervening between one convention and 
 another — the expediency of limiting the views of that body, 
 to what is essential to the keeping of us together as one 
 Church — the danger of local jealousies, and — the easier 
 maintenance of students, under their paternal roofs: which 
 would not always apply according to cither of the schemes, 
 but would be much more frequent under that proposed than 
 under the other. There was, hovA'cver, such a latitude left 
 by the suggestion from Pennsylvania, as that there might 
 hereafter be a general seminary grafted on it, cither to the 
 
Note to page 43. 229 
 
 superseding oi'the local schools, or for the finishing- of the 
 education of the scholars, as might be expedient, it is to 
 be hoped, that the other plan, after having been generally 
 adopted, will be universally, and with effect, supported. 
 
 On the subject of improper amusements, tliere was a con- 
 troversy of some warmth, in the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies. In the House of Bishops, there was unanimity 
 in the course taken. Tiiis course as recorded on the journal, 
 and including some sentiments in the Pastoral Letter, ad- 
 dressed to the members of the Church generally, and read 
 as usual in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, was 
 said to have conciliated to their disappointment, these in the 
 latter house who had pressed for a stronger measure, which 
 had not been carried. There having been misrepresenta- 
 tions of what passed on this subject from speakers on each 
 side; and, as what finally proceeded from the bishops was 
 said to have been satisfactory to each, tiiere may be use in 
 presenting it at large ; accordingly, it is given in tiie Appen- 
 dix, No. 31. 
 
 The proposal for the adopting of a standard edition of the 
 Bible, was in consequence of the discovery of a large edition, 
 extending very widely a corruption of Acts vi. 3. by per- 
 verting it to a sanction of congregational ordination. In- 
 stead of " wXmmice may appoint over this business," which 
 is the exact translation of the original, the edition has it 
 " whom ye may appoint over this business." While the 
 matter was before the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
 a lay member, standing in a pew, and observing a Bible, 
 took it to turn to the place in question, when he perceived 
 it to be a copy of the edition in which the corruption had 
 been detected. The proposal of determining on a standard 
 edition, had been made without the expectation of its being 
 acted on during the session. It was closed with a joint 
 vote of the two houses, to hold the next triennial meeting 
 in the city of Philadelphia, and with prayer by the presiding 
 bishop, before both houses, as usual. 
 
 Although the object of the " Additional Statements and 
 Remarks" is limited to the proceedings of the General 
 Convention of 1S17; there being no subsequent transac- 
 tions which have bearings on the doctrine, or the worship, 
 or the discipline of the Church ; yet it may not be irrelevant 
 to record, that, since that period, there have been conse- 
 crated the Rev. Philander Chase, D.D. for the state of Ohio, 
 and the Rev. Thomas C. Browneli, D. D. LL. D. for the 
 gtate of Connecticut: the former, on the 11th day of Fe- 
 
230 Postscript. 
 
 bruary, 1819, in St. James's Clitircli, Philadelphia, by the 
 presiding bishop, assisted by Bishops llobart, Kemp, and 
 Croes; and the latter, on the 27th day of October, 1819, in 
 Trinity Church, New-Haven, by tlie presiding bishop, as- 
 sisted by Uishops Hobart and Griswokl. 
 
 As the act of the convention of 1785 was authenticated 
 by the signatures of all the members of the body ; as it laid 
 tbe foundation of the succeeding transactions ; and as it 
 has never been given in full to the public ; the only evidence 
 of it being the original, in the possession of the author; it 
 has appeared to him, while the preceding sheets were in 
 the press, that the object of this work calls for the editing 
 of the instrument in its proper form. The address to the 
 English prelates is referred to, but not comprehended m 
 the act. Delicacy having dictated the allowance of rea- 
 sonable time for the delivery of it. 
 
 Neither of the instruments entitled " Alterations, &c." 
 has been before published ; although the results of them 
 have appeared, in what has been called the Proposed Book: 
 but, as the book is gradually disappearing, it may be here- 
 after important, to have an exhibition of them as they stand 
 in the original act. The constitution as then proposed, as 
 ratified in 1786, and as done away in 1789, is in the book 
 of printed journals, but not in any preceding part of this 
 work. 
 
 For the said act, see Appendix, No. 32. 
 
 POSTSCPJPT. 
 
 In the foregoing statements and remarks, the more im- 
 jnediate object was the recording of facts, throwing light 
 on the measures of conventional bodies; and the expressing 
 of opinions, which arose out of the various subjects under 
 notice: the opinions being proposed, with the hope that 
 they will have such weight, as on examination may bo 
 thought their due. The work bcjing brought to a conclu- 
 sion, and the reader being (jualitied to judge of tlie merits 
 of another motive to be disclosed ; it is now declared to be 
 the conviction, that instruction may be gathered from the 
 detail. 
 
 1st. On a retrospect of the low condition in which the 
 Episcopal Church had been left by the revolutionary war; 
 of her clergy, reduced almost to annihilation ; of the novelty 
 
Postscrlpl, 231 
 
 of the hiislness arising out of the existini^ crisis; of the 
 ♦lespair of many, as to the perpetuating of the communion, 
 otherwise than in connexion with an estahlisliment, frotn 
 which it was for ever severed ; of an unwillingness to re- 
 cognize such a severance, although brought about by the 
 providence of Ciod, and the recognizing of it agreeable to a 
 prominent principle in the institutions of the parent Church ; 
 of a difficulty, to be done away only by legislative acts, 
 which perhaps it would be impossible to obtain, and which 
 we could not apply for, consistently with our civil duties ; 
 of the apprehension of conflicting opinions in different sec- 
 tions of the United States, between which there had been 
 hitherto no religious intercourse ; of the existence of known 
 differences, on some points ; and with all these things, of 
 danger from selfish passions, so apt to intrude under im- 
 I)osirig appearances, defeating the best intended endeavours 
 in collective bodies ; it must be perceived, that there were 
 formidable obstacles to be surmounted, in combining the 
 insulated congregations with the respective clergy of those 
 who had any, under an indisputable succession of the Epis- 
 copacy ; and with an ecclesiastical legislature, necessarily 
 differing in form from that under which we had been from 
 the beginning, yet the same with it in principle. The dif- 
 ference between what has been thus looked back on, and 
 the present circumstances of the Church, is a ground of 
 gratitude to Almighty God. In what degree, this chano-e 
 of prospect has been promotive of piety and of correct con- 
 duct, will not be known until the day which will " try every 
 man's work, whether it be of gold, and silver, and precious 
 stones," or, " of wood, and hay, and stubble." In the mean 
 time, we have encouragement to proceed, in humble de- 
 pendence on him, without whom, even " Paul may plant, 
 and Apollos may water" in vain. 
 
 2d. It is trusted that there will be no indecorum in re- 
 calling the attention of the reader to the absence of selfish 
 passion in all the preceding records of the results of eccle- 
 siastical legislation. If those who have been eno-ao-ed in 
 the proceedings have been supposed in this work to have 
 fallen into error in some instances, it is hoped that the no- 
 ticing of it will not give offence ; especially as it is by one 
 who, in the same work, has occasionally acknowledged er- 
 ror in himself, and who is ready to believe, that it may have 
 happened to him in many instances, in which he has not 
 sufficient sagacity, nor sufficient distrust of himself, for 
 ih€ detecting of it. He confidently believes of the mem- 
 
"23 1 Postscript. 
 
 hers of the conventions generally, that they have been ac-* 
 Tiiated by upright motives. Of his brethren in the Episco- 
 pacy he bears testimony, that he has not seen any occasion 
 on whicii any one of tiiem has manifested a disposition to 
 sacrifice principle to any selfish gratification. If there be 
 thought correctness in these remarks, let the example be 
 influential in similar proceedings in future, in all the 
 affairs which interest the human mind, there is the danger 
 of estimating measures, according to thoir bearings on 
 some purposes, prompted by ambition or by vanity. The 
 purposes are not always discernible ; and there can scarcely 
 occur a question, on which talent, even if it amount to no 
 more than cunning, may not be capable of drawing to itself 
 a party. In this way, there have arisen most of the dis- 
 sentions which have torn Christendom into sects. As yet, 
 we have been preserved, by the grace of God, from any 
 material inroads of it : and the noticing of the fact may 
 serve, among other weighty considerations, to vigilance 
 against it in futiu'e counsels. 
 
 3d. Another lesson arising out of the review, is that of 
 mutual concession in small matters, and even in regard to 
 others more important yet not essential, the bearing with 
 what may not be approved of, under the expectation that it 
 will be foinul on trial better than had been expected; or, 
 that it will be corrected after more mature consideration. 
 Of the latter especially, many instances have occurred, on 
 questions which, without such fori)earance, would assuredly 
 have divided the Church into communions censuring, and 
 perhaps perpetuating hostility to one another. As to the 
 other branch of the recommendation, it is clearly the dictate 
 of a due consideration of the various casts of the tninds of 
 men. It would indeed be surprising, that any should \\\n 
 into the opposite error; did we not know, how unbending 
 some are in favour of their own opinions, even in matters 
 which cannot be brought before the tribunal of conscience; 
 so that on a question of taste, they are impatient under 
 every decision not conformable to their wishes. The way 
 to bear down the influence of men so fastidious, and under 
 so evident a propensity to disorder, is for those more reason- 
 able to make sacrifices to one another. 
 
 4tli. It will be a most important use of the review, to 
 notice the undeviating intention of the Church, to make no 
 such alterations, as shall interfere with the maintaining of 
 the doctrines of the gospel, as acknowledged at the reforma- 
 tion. That point of time should be kept in mind, in order 
 
Postscript. 2M 
 
 lO protect the Church, not only against threatened innova- 
 tions from without, but also against others which have occa- 
 sionally showed tlieir heads in the Church of England, and 
 may show their heads iu this Church, betraying a lurking 
 fondness for errors which had been abandoned. Neither 
 have there been wanting some among us, who would have 
 drawn our system towards opinions which we consider as 
 an approach to infidelity, and a mean of reconciling the 
 mind to it. We were under the suspicion of intending this, 
 in our first efforts for the organizing of the Church. It is 
 impossible to verify the suspicion by any of the transactions 
 recorded, or by any of a more private nature ; and if indi- 
 viduals harboured the design, which is not here known to 
 have been the case, they saw no opening for the accom- 
 plishing of it ; and accordingly, permitted it to die within 
 their bosoms. There is this further use in the reference to 
 the reformation, that it frowns disapprobation on endeavours 
 tending to debase our forms of worship, by the intermixture 
 of devotional exercises of a contrary cast of character. 
 How far tiiis abuse calls for tlie exercise of ecclesiastical 
 authority, and how far it may be borne v^ith, under the ex- 
 pectation that it carries in itself the seeds of its dissolution, 
 is a question partly of conscience, and partly also of religi- 
 ous prudence. It is a property of the past proceedings of 
 our newly organized Church, that the gold found by her in 
 possession, has not been adulterated by any debasing alloy ; 
 but that, on the contrary, she has followed the counsel given 
 by the prophet Jeremiah to the Jews, to " ask for the old 
 paths and to walk therein." In one who has kept this 
 object steadily in view, it will not be thought inadmissible, 
 to express his wish, and to put up his prayer, that the same 
 integrity of principle may be sustained by those who are 
 now his feliow-labourers, and may be expected to survive 
 him, and by those who may succeed. 
 
 If any thing were wanting to confirm him in his senti- 
 ments on the present subject, the deficiency would be sup- 
 plied by the many occasions which have occurred to him, 
 of remarking the vanity and the love of self-exhibition 
 manifested in endeavours to the contrary ; a fault, which, 
 if it be sometimes seen to subsist with general rectitude of 
 intentions, is only one instance out of many, verifying our 
 Lord's reproof of another species of misdirected zeal — = 
 " Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." 
 
 5th. These Memoirs may serve for a check to the 
 unnecessary exercise of authority ; and may sustain the 
 
 30 
 
2*"^ Postscript. 
 
 opinion, that there bein^ retained, in profession, the essen- 
 tials of Christian verity; and, in practice, the degree of 
 submission to pubHc will necessary to social worship ; mucb 
 of what is made the subject of ecclesiastical law, may be 
 safely left to the diversity of sentiment which is the result 
 of difference of intelligence, of education, and of constitu- 
 tional character. But, as in an array, combination of force 
 is found to excite their courage for an enterprise, more 
 hazardous to every one engaged in it than a danger from 
 which he would shrink in his individual character; so, in a 
 representative body, a member of it is prone to calculate on 
 a degree of submission, beyond what he woiild have ima- 
 gined in the capacity of a sole legislator, although clothed 
 with authority greater than that in the other case supposed^ 
 In the estimation of discreet persons generally, ecclesias- 
 tical legislation is thought to have been carried too far. 
 What the author sees cause to lament, is, that many who 
 acknowledge this fact, and who are ready to lay unsparing 
 hands on matters formerly established, would bind on the 
 Church something new and needless, and likely to excite 
 diversity of opinion. They will do this with good intentions, 
 and without being aware of the inconsistency. In a Church 
 having the secular arm for its support, what has been men- 
 tioned would be an evil ; but it must be ruinous, if it should 
 be dominant in a Church so much acted on as ours by 
 opinion of persons of all degrees in life, under an organiza- 
 tion as it were of yesterday, and therefore not having the 
 support of habitual submission to its decisions. In these 
 eircumstances, independently on other considerations, there 
 is a call to the acquiring of a weight of religious character, 
 not only in the Episcopacy, but in the other clergy, and m 
 the lay gentlemen, to whom may be committed the import- 
 ant work of making changes in ecclesiastical institutions. 
 Even with the advantage of such a character, let them be 
 aware of the truth of the maxim, that one property of the 
 art of governing, is the taking of care not to govern too 
 much.* 
 
 • During the convention of 1789, m\A while they were engaged in the reriew 
 of the Book of Common Prayer, a lady of excellent understanding, being ofttn 
 in the way of hearing the subject discussed by some members of the body, ad- 
 dressed them to the following etfect — " When I hear these things, I look back to 
 the origin of the Prayer Book : and I represent to my mind the venerable com- 
 pileraofit, ascending to heaven in the flames which consumed their bodies. I 
 then look at the improvers of this book in" — (naming some gentlemen not want- 
 ing in respectability, but very little furnished with theological knowledge.) 
 " Th« conseq^uence is, gentlemen, tliat I am not sanguine in my expectations or 
 
Nvte id page 47. 235 
 
 6lh. Tliclast contemplated itnprovenient, is tlie sui^gest- 
 wg of the hope, that the time which has been spent, and the 
 cares and the labours which have been bestowed, by some 
 who have gone to tiieir rest from their labours, and by 
 others who have still on their hands a part of their work to 
 be performed, will be applied to the proper end — the pro- 
 moting of truth and godliness. In every age of the world 
 there is open a wide field for exertions to this effect; but 
 •the remark applies especially to the present period, in which 
 there have occurred extraordinary and successful exertions, 
 for the propagation of the gospel; partly produced by for- 
 midable combinations for tlie destruction of it, which have 
 been overruled to events in contrariety to the licentious 
 principles taught, and to the disorders which they were in- 
 tended to perpetuate. Doubtless, we ar€ to ascribe the 
 issue to the good providence of God, who, in a variety of 
 ways, " makes the wrath of man to praise him." In 
 America, which lays open immense countries to future 
 population and culture, the incitement applies with extra- 
 ordinary stress of argument ; and while it should prompt all 
 the members of this Church to put forth their best endea- 
 vours, each man in his sphere, and according to his ability, 
 it admonishes him, to be liimself in the consistent profession, 
 in the practice of the duties, and in possession of the conso- 
 lations of the gospel; without which, he is not likely to be 
 influential over others; and if this should happen, his lamp 
 will be without the oil, which is necessary to prepare him 
 for the reception of the spiritual Bridegroom. 
 
 [The additiunal statements of the first edition here concluded.'] 
 
 T. Page 47. Of the Convention in 1820. 
 
 The reception of Bishop Moore's sermon, appears on the 
 journal in such a shape, as requires explanation. The 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies passed a vote, re- 
 questing a copy for publication. The House of Bishops 
 concurred in the vote, with the addition of their thanks, 
 
 respect to be puid to your meditated changes in the liturgy." Without raising 
 any question concerning the logic of this speech, can there be a doubt with those 
 who know human nature, that something like it is the language oCmany a heart 
 in the religions world, on the introduction oi" any novelty of which the propriety 
 .jjjay be donbll'iil ? 
 
236 Note to pui^e 4T. 
 
 which had been omitted by the other house. The reasoiij 
 was the preacher's having made baptismal regeneration 
 one of the points of his discourse. Some of the gentlemen, 
 and especially those the most in habits of friendship with 
 him, were displeased at this ; and hence the resolve on the 
 journal of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, that it 
 will be inexpedient hereafter to pass votes of thanks for 
 sermons delivered before General Conventions, and to re- 
 quest copies for publication. The author believes, that 
 with the majority of the house, this resolve was owing not 
 to their dissatisfaction with the doctrine of Bishop Moore, 
 but to their general viev*^ of the subject of voting thanks ; 
 which may have suggested the apprehension, that dissatis- 
 faction with any point in a conventional sermon, be it even 
 in the minds of a ^ew members of the body, may excite an 
 angry controversy, not having any tendency to settle the 
 matter in question. In the House of Bishops, the vote of 
 thanks for the sermon was passed unanimously. 
 
 So far as the duty of a conventional preacher is con- 
 cerned, the author is of opinion, that there should be care- 
 fully avoided all questions on which the sense of the Epis- 
 copal Church is doubtful : but it ii to be lamented, that 
 there should be brought under this head a doctrine, which 
 we have been taught to lisp in the earliest repetitions of our 
 catechism ; which pervades sundry of our devotional ser- 
 vices, especially the baptismal; which is affirmed in our 
 articles also ; which was confessedly held and taught during 
 the ages of the martyrs ; and the belief of which was univer- 
 sal in the Church, until it was perceived to be inconsistent 
 with a religious theory, the beginning and the progress of 
 which can be as distinctly traced, as those of any error of 
 popery. Tiiis is not a place for a discussion of the subject, 
 but the author has spoken fully to it in some of his publica- 
 tions. 
 
 The recorded rejection of an application concerning 
 psalms and hymns, is another proof of the utility of the re- 
 solve referred to of the convention of 1814. It is to be 
 hoped, that all future conventions will adhere to it. In the 
 contrary event, conventions will have the weight of the ex- 
 amination of many books, brought before them by authors 
 and by editors not destitute of respectability. Either the 
 examination will take up more time than the members will 
 be disposed to bestow, or, on that account, errors will oc- 
 ^casionally be sanctioned through haste. And what they 
 ^will sanction, may unreasonably be branded as error, which 
 
Note to page 47. 237 
 
 will at least have the effect of unnecessarily exciting con- 
 troversy. No objection was made to the selection presented ; 
 and it is certain, that any parochial minister is at hberty to 
 make or to adopt such a selection from the metre book of 
 psalms and hymns, as may be agreeable to his judgment 
 and to his taste. 
 
 In regard to the title page, and the disregard of the due 
 distinction of books, noticed in the Narrative, there have 
 been some editions inaccurately set forth. A little reiiec- 
 tion will show, that from want of precision in this matter, 
 there may result much confusion in the public proceedings 
 of the Church. 
 
 It was the misfortune of the author, when the scheme of 
 a theological seminary was devised in the convention of 
 1817, to differ from the majority of both houses, as to the 
 expediency of the measure; and he was supported by the 
 convention of the diocese of Pennsylvania, in proposing to 
 the General Convention a scheme, which would have left to 
 local seminaries the whole concern of theological education. 
 From the time that the contrary sentiment was adopted, he 
 has done what laid in his power, for the carrying of the 
 general wish into effect. It is probable, that time will de- 
 cide between the two schemes, on the question of preference ; 
 but as it is a subject of increasing importance, and of in- 
 creasing frequency of discussion, he will state his reasons, 
 for the preference given by him to the plan which he unsuc^ 
 cessfuily proposed. 
 
 1st. It has been all along his opinion, and there will be 
 more and more ground for it, in proportion as our ecclesi- 
 astical organization shall be operative over the American 
 territory, that the authority and the deliberations of the 
 General Convention should be limited to matters essential 
 to the keeping of us together as one body, and requiring 
 agreement with a view to that end. All enlargement of the 
 jurisdiction endangers controversy, and of course division, 
 in control over a theological seminary, contemplated by the 
 Church at large, as the nursery for her ministry, there is 
 much room for difference of opinion, and for local jealousies. 
 The complexion of the theology taught, in reference to sub- 
 jects on which there may be considerable diversity oi 
 opinion among ourselves, the choice of professors, with ac- 
 commodation to such difference; the suflficiency of the jiro- 
 fessors, in their respective branches; and other points 
 which might be mentioned, may be sources of animosity 
 pervading our communion. Even the branch of it from 
 
238 Note to page 47. 
 
 which a vacant professorship should be filled, may suine- 
 limes occasion embarrassment. In the civil concerns of 
 our country, the president of the L nited States, and the 
 governor of every state, has to consider not merely who is 
 the most proper man to fill a vacant office, but also what dis- 
 trict is to be gratified at the time. To suppose that the same 
 circumstance would have no bearing on our religious policy, 
 is more tlian is warranted by our knowledge of human nature. 
 
 2dly. There will be required what would else be unne- 
 cessary calls for the assembling of the General Convention. 
 For although there may be trustees, with considerable 
 powers for the management of the seminary, it can hardly 
 happen, but that exigencies will arise, in which they will 
 hesitate to assume the responsibility of acting. It is a great 
 injury to the essential duties of the ministry, to be unneces- 
 sarily calling the ministers from their respective spheres of 
 action — setting aside the expense incurred. We esteem 
 it an advantage in our Church, that judicial concerns, con- 
 ducted in other societies by legislative bodies, are acted on 
 by us in ways which do not require their being brought into 
 assemblies of that description. Why should we surrender 
 the resulting benefit, of there being very seldom need for 
 the call of a special convention? Perhaps in time, and 
 after an extension of territory within our connexion, it may 
 be thought sufficient to assemble statedly once in every five 
 years, instead of triennialiy, as at present.* 
 
 3dly. The jurisdiction over the seminary must be partial 
 and unfair, in respect to the comparative influence of the 
 different sections of our Church. It is not here proposed 
 to lay the chief stress on the inequality of our representa- 
 tion, and its being out of all j)ro{)ortion to our respective 
 population. When our Church was organized, it would 
 have been hopeless to have proposed any other scheme; 
 
 * The frequency of ecclesiastical synods and councils, for purposes not touching 
 the essentials of the Christian faith, was one of the causes which produced the 
 domination of the (church of Rome. In the fourth century, such assemblies were 
 multiplied: and often for the determining on questions which were more in the 
 province of metaphysics tiian in that of religion. What added to the evil, was 
 that the emperors defrayed the expenses of the travelling of the members. At 
 l;ist, the burden of the expense and of the waste of time became too great; ami 
 then, controversies were referred to the bishops of tlie four prmcipMl sees; and 
 finally, it became still more convenient to bring all within the vortex of the papacy^ 
 Thi.s, or endless division, wa.s necessarily the alternative. Tlie former will not 
 happen in our improved state of society, and with experience of the past. But 
 the latter, if ther(! should be very frequent conventions, extending their jiirisdictiou 
 over concerns which may be left to local determination, will probably proceed 
 iadefmitely and without end. 
 
Note to page 47. tW 
 
 and whether It can hereafter be made co!iA)rmablo to exist- 
 injff weif^ht of munbers, as in the civil line by the fe<iernl 
 constitution of 1788, must be left to time to determine. 
 The difficulty now contemplated is of a different nature, is 
 an immense ag;;Travation of the other, and requires the 
 bringing of the following circumstances under view. 
 
 The establishment of the General Seminary recognized 
 the possible instituting of seminaries supported by local in- 
 terest. It was well that this matter should be distinctly 
 understood, although there was no absolute necessity for 
 any declaration to the effect ; for it is a good civil maxim, 
 that liberty is to be presumed where restraint cannot be 
 shown ; and it is an unerring luaxim of scrij)ture, that 
 " where there is no law, there is no transgression." Be- 
 sides, can it be supposed that the General Convention, pos- 
 sessing an authority as it were of yesterda)^ and under the 
 necessity of considering its proceedings with the utmost 
 caution, and witii tenderness to the habits and the preju- 
 dices of a peoj)le not long accustomed to look up to them 
 for rules of conduct, would have wished to assume an au- 
 thority, not yet exercised by any large communion over its 
 whole range of country? The Church of England, con- 
 ceives of herself as deeply interested in the two universities 
 of that kingdom ; but when did she affect the government 
 of them ? In this country, certain societies have recently 
 given the weight of aggregate sanctions, to seminaries of 
 their immediate creation : but although much longer exer- 
 cised and obeyed in ecclesiastical legislation, they have not 
 ventured on the strong measure of disallowing seminaries 
 partially instituted and patronized. 
 
 Accordingly, there must have been left room for local 
 seminaries within our communion. Let there, then, be 
 remarked the effect of this on our concerns : an effect, dis- 
 proportioned to any obtaining in other societies, which have 
 both species of seminary within their bounds. 
 
 At the time of instituting our General Seminary, there 
 were avowed the designs of two local seminaries ; and how 
 many more of them may become instituted, we know not. 
 It is to be expected, that they will principally engross the 
 pecuniary aids of the districts in which they are respectively 
 seated. Considering the consequent rivalship, and perhaps 
 hostility, is it reasonable, that such districts should have 
 an equal share of control over the General Seminary, with 
 other districts by which it will be supported ? Certainly, 
 it is not, independently on the inequality of our representa- 
 
240 Noie to page 47. 
 
 tion. How great then will be the disparity, from the two" 
 causes ill combination ! 
 
 4tlily. It has been not nncommon, that a young man within 
 our communion, directing his views to the ministry, has 
 been supported under tlie paternal roof, when it would have 
 been difficult, or even impossible, to provide for him in a 
 distant part of the union, and to pay the expenses of the 
 many journeys which it would have required. 
 
 othly. There may be perceived a difficulty, in the mass 
 of proj)erty necessary to sustain a seminary on the contem- 
 plated plan; a difficulty consisting not only in raising it, but 
 in rendering it so productive, and at the same time so secure, 
 as to ensure the support of a collegiate body of professors. 
 In England, no provision for literary purposes is thought 
 stable, unless vested in real property, lot out from time to 
 time, on leases for years. The circumstances of this coun- 
 try are sodifterent, that no one thinks of getting from land, 
 rent bearing a tolerable ratio to its capital, or of guarding 
 the premises from deterioration, unless by a strictness of 
 personal oversight, not to be expected of a corporation. 
 To pecuniary capital, there are two objections — the ease 
 with which any portion of it may be called in, because of 
 some pressing exigency, or some favourite object, and — the 
 being lial)le to be reduced or annihilated by any of the na- 
 tional events, which are thought to justify the issuing of an 
 abundance of paper currency, occasioning its depreciation. 
 
 Perhaps it may seem, that these possible evils arc not 
 confined to the general school, and must even be increased 
 by there being several of the local. To obviate the sug- 
 gestion, there shall be drawn an outline of the plan proposed 
 for the latter. 
 
 Although no diocese would be debarred from instituting a 
 seminary under its own ecclesiastical superintendence; it is 
 not probable, that the privilege would be exercised in more 
 than in three or four instances. In each, a single professor 
 would be sufficient; an acquaintance with every branch of 
 theology not being too much to be found in one man of ta- 
 lents. In each of the two universities of England, there 
 are only two professors of divinity, and each of the profes- 
 sors has his distinct pupils. It is here understood, that the 
 principal labour of the professor would be the daily exami- 
 nation of the pupils, in the books of which he would enjoin 
 the reading. If there should be occasional lectures, they 
 may be few, and for the purpose of inviting general atten- 
 tion. In or near any of our cities, extraneous provision may 
 
Note to page 47. 241 
 
 be made for the study of Hebrew, and for other coincident 
 purposes. 
 
 Such a school would call forth all the energies of the 
 diocese in wliich it would be seated, and probably of any 
 neighbouring dioceses, having no prospects of seminaries of 
 their own. A fund for its support would the more easily 
 be created, and the more vigilatitly managed; and, until 
 the obtaining of a sufficiency, a partial support might be 
 annexed to a parochial cure. If the idea should occur of 
 there being rival and even hostile seminaries, the answer 
 is, that simple rivalship is attentled by advantages, as in 
 the instances of Oxford and Cambridge, in England. Hos- 
 tility would be an evil ; but may as easily happen between 
 professors in the same seminary: in which case the evil 
 would be more extensive, and productive of inore passion 
 and provocation. 
 
 It may be pleaded in favour of a general seminary, that 
 the different departments will produce a greater mass of 
 learning in the different professors, in consequence of the 
 devotion of each professor to his proper branch. But this 
 has the counterbalancing disadvantage, in the danger of 
 each professor's extending of the claims of hi? department 
 too far to be consistent with the necessary limits of a theo- 
 logical course. Doubtless, as well in a theological as in a 
 j)hilosophical lectureship, the principles of the professed 
 branch should be fidly tauglit : but it becomes a matter of 
 prudence, to draw the line between this object, and the 
 knowledge which it should be left to subsequent reading to 
 acquire. Besides, if a professor should possess a special 
 aptitude for a particular subdivision of the whole subject to 
 be taught, it does not appear that he may not improve his 
 talent and gratify his taste, consistently with due attention 
 to the other subdivisions, in which he ought not, even if he 
 were no professor, to be imperfectly informed. 
 
 It has been supposed an advantage in a single seminary, 
 that the pupils will be sent out with similar views, on points 
 concerning which some shades of difference are found 
 among Episcopalians. This is problematical; and, on the 
 contrary, it may easily happen, that diversity shall be gen- 
 dered by shades of difference among the professors. If, for 
 the avoiding of this, there should be a strict and jealous 
 scrutiny into the faith of those proposed for professorships, 
 there will be an outcry against the favourers of the dominant 
 opinion; and it will be well, if there be not some colour of 
 the charge of persecution. In seminaries of other religious 
 
 31 
 
243 Nuie lo page 4T. 
 
 societies, the difTiTenoes 9ubsi.stir)i» amoiir? ihem have ir;^ 
 truded into their tlieological seminaries, allliongh, on the 
 litij2:ated points, the professors have been of one mind. 
 
 There may he apprehended the rise of a local seminary> 
 ill which the instruction shall be such, as we may suppose 
 not the best calculated to make the most of the natural 
 talents of the stutlenls,- May there not be the same disad- 
 vantage to them, under the guidance of clergymen not ap- 
 pointed to tlie employment of preparing young men for the 
 ministry, yet not forbidden to be so occupied by any exist- 
 ing regulation, or by any that can reasonably be made? 
 The only remedy for both of these evils, must be in the 
 reputation of our authorized schools ; which should be sucii, 
 as that young men shall feel it to be a privation, not to have 
 been students in them ; an effect to be produced, not by any 
 possible regulation, but by the influence of opinion. 
 
 Of all the business which has come before our General 
 Conventions, the branch of it which related to a missionary 
 society, was the most mismanaged. That in the hurry of 
 the last day of the session, there should have been oversights, 
 v/as not so wonderful, as that the most palpable should be 
 made by gentlemen, with whom the subject had been con- 
 templated for some months before, and who have unfortu- 
 nately brought the whole scheme under what the author 
 thinks a mistaken suspicion; of its being an intended en- 
 gine against the institutions of our Church. There were 
 these two supposed grounds of the suspicion. Although 
 tJie constitution provided, that the trustees should be chosen 
 by the convention, it was so managed, that the bishops had 
 no share in the choice. They were also made the president 
 and the vice-presidents of a society existing in idea only^ 
 and composed of all the contributors, who could never be 
 constitutionally assembled ; while in the efficient body, that 
 of the trustees, there was no provision for the presidency 
 or even the membership of a bishop; and no such person, 
 if permitted to be present, could claim a right to vote or to 
 speak in their proceedings. 
 
 When the trustees, so imperfectly appointed, assembled 
 on the business, they saw the difficulties with which they 
 were clogged ; and that a society so constituted, would not 
 receive the support of the Church generally. Nevertheless,, 
 being aware of the responsibility attached to the fall of the 
 design, they devised ways in which, with the advice of the 
 major number of the bishops, they consented to give a be- 
 ginning, to the entrrprize ; looking, to the next conventionv 
 
Nuie JVio puj^c i^. 243 
 
 for tljc sanctioning of their doings, and for the supply. of 
 the manifest defects. Tliis sanction was not obtained, and 
 accordingly there has been a suspension of the scheme. 
 The author attended all the meetings of the trustees, and 
 bears witness at once to their zeal for the object, and to 
 their concern for the order and good government of the 
 Church. 
 
 U. Page 48. Of ike Convention in 1821. 
 
 The thanks of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
 were voted to Bishop Kemp for his sermon : but this was 
 afterward reconsidered, and the thanks withdrawn. N@ 
 objection to the sermon was offered ; but it was recollected, 
 that at the last General Conven>tion there had been a 
 resolve against such a notice of any conventional sermon. 
 The matter was considerably agitated, but the former re- 
 solve was persevered in. In the House of Bishops the 
 thanks were voted, and a copy of the sermon was requested 
 for publication. 
 
 W. Page 49. 
 
 The opposition to the scheme was principally from the 
 gentlemen of Virginia: and it was thought extraordinary, 
 that having heretofore avoided the taking of any interest 
 in the General Seminary, they should now manifest so much 
 zeal on the question of its final location. They avowed 
 their motive, which was, the ap[>rehension of an undue 
 ascendency of the diocese of New- York. But it was pro- 
 perly argued on the other side, that this was guarded against 
 by the provisions made, relative to the future increase of 
 the number of trustees. At present, the diocese of New- 
 York will have nearly half the namber : but this is owing 
 partly to the legacy, and the earlier date of measures begun 
 in that quarter for the endowing of a seminary. In addition 
 it is notorious, that solicitations for the General Seminary 
 in the other states have been suspended by the circumstance 
 of the bequest, and by the great variety of opinion which 
 has existed, as to the measures to be pursued in conse- 
 quence. The proper preventive of the undue ascendency 
 ^f New-York, if it be supposed to be fraught with danger 
 ,to the Church, will be the bestowing of plentiful contribu- 
 
244 Nuie X to page 49. 
 
 tions in the other slates : and to this there is great encour:^ 
 agement in the consideration, that in future, while, in tlie 
 said state, it will require $ 10,000 to entitle to an additional 
 trustee, 8 2,000 will be sufficient elsewhere. 
 
 The adopted plan had the entire consent of the writer 
 of these remarks; notwithstanding his reasons heretofore 
 given for the diocesan, in preference of the general scheme. 
 As is recorded in the remarks on the proceedings of the 
 last convention, he had sacrificed his peculiar sense of the 
 subject, to that of the Church generally, not without fore- 
 bodings of tliere being a door opened to litigation and to 
 disunion. The prospect of this seems to him to have ma- 
 terially lessened. Still, the record of his former objections, 
 if it should hereafter happen to be known, may have the 
 good effect of being a warning against the apprehended 
 danger. 
 
 X. Page 49. 
 
 There was but one particular in the scheme, which 
 created diversity of opinion between the two houses ; and 
 the diversity was owing to the not perceiving of the matter 
 at issue in all its bearings. According to the proposal of 
 the bishops, the meeting of the managers was to be annual ; 
 at which, it was thought, executive measures might be put 
 in a train, which needed not to require re-consideration 
 within the time prescribed. In the other house it was re- 
 ferred to a committee, who proposed quarterly meetings, 
 and a correspondent amendment was sent in to the bishops. 
 They persisted in their proposal, and the aniendment was 
 withdrawn. 
 
 The difference was of more importance than may at first 
 appear. The bishops residing in the nearer states, were 
 willing to attend once a year, but not at the risk of quar- 
 tci !y deviations from what might be then enacted ; and for 
 the preventing of these, they could not leave their dioceses 
 so often as was proposed. It needs not be concealed, that 
 there existed a jealousy, not without cause, of some gentle- 
 men in different states, who might wish to make the design 
 hostile to the peculiar institutions of our Church ; and hence 
 the desire of securing such an annual assembly, as may de- 
 feat the attempt, if made. 
 
Note Y to page 49. 24.5 
 
 Y. Page 49. 
 
 The history of the rubric is this. In the Enghsh book, 
 after the ante-communion service, it is immediately said — 
 " here follows the sermon." As, in churches in our cities, 
 the service is often used, without either sermon or commu- 
 nion, there seemed wanting a direction to justify the minis- 
 ter in proceeding to the blessing. This is the plain sense 
 of the words. In the case of there being either sermon 
 or communion, the places of their being introduced are pre- 
 cisely noted, if there be neither, the minister, if disposed 
 to do nothing without rubrical direction, might be put to a 
 stand ; and to prevent this, was the design. 
 
 But the notion has been lately taken up, that in the use 
 of the conjunction " if," the absence of the condition dis- 
 penses with the command. This is not always the case. 
 On the contrary, if there be a prior command of greater 
 extent, the defect of the condition has no further effect than 
 on the command appended to it. The matter may be illus- 
 trated thus. The executive issues a command to a proper 
 officer, first, to perform a certain service at the place of the 
 delivery of the command ; then, to proceed to a second place, 
 where another service is to be performed; and finally, to go 
 on to a third place, more distant, where also there is to be 
 a specified act of duty. But a doubt occurs, whether, on 
 his arrival at the second place, some circumstance may not 
 hinder the performance of the intended service. On this 
 a second command issues, that " if" any such circum- 
 stance should occur, the officer shall proceed to the end of 
 his destination, and to the act to be there done. How irre- 
 levant would it be, on the non-concurrence of the appre- 
 hended circumstance, to say that the command for the first 
 service is superseded! 
 
 The matter at issue is analagous to what has been sup- 
 posed. If there be a sermon, it is positively directed to 
 follow the ante-communion service. If there be no sermon, 
 but the communion, the latter is to follow in like manner ; 
 and the " if" has no force, except in the event of there 
 being neither sermon nor communion. 
 
 These remarks are justified by Dr. Johnson's interpreta- 
 tion of the conjunctive particle, for which he substitutes— 
 '' suppose It to be so"—" whether or no," and—" allowing 
 that." ^ 
 
 The rubric was made at the review in 17S9, and no cler- 
 
246 Note Z lu pa^re 49, 
 
 -jryrnan, then j)rcscnt, is known to have taken occasion fv» 
 tlrop the ante-communion service; which is very extraordi- 
 nary, if this, as must be supposed to have been the case, 
 was the wish of the major number present. 
 
 The contrary interpretation, is a device started within 
 these few years, and it goes to render ahnost superfluous 
 the whole body of the E[)istles and the Cospels, especially 
 those for the holidays, when they happen to fall on Sundays. 
 
 It may be questioned, whether this judicious selection 
 had not the effecl, in the middle ages, in preventing the 
 corruptions of Christianity from being greater than we find 
 them to have been ; for when it was rare to find a Bible in 
 the hands even of men of education, these precious portions 
 of it must have had some effect, although in Latin. At the 
 reformation, they were retained by the most resjiectable of 
 the Protestant Churches ; the English, and the Lutheran in 
 Sweden, Denmark, and Germany, and America ; all which, 
 with the addition of the American, continues the use of them 
 to the present day ; and with so high an esteem of them, that 
 in some of those Churches, the preacher is expected to take 
 his subject from this selection. 
 
 It is also a weighty recommendation of the ante-commu- 
 nion service, that the weekly reciting of the Ten Command- 
 ments, has been always supposed to have a happy effect on 
 morals. 
 
 Z. Page 49. 
 
 The former table, for thirty-eight years, was calculated 
 \>y the author of these remarks, in 17b5. He has had the 
 mortification to find, that in four instances, his computations 
 were inaccurate; but it has been some relief to him to learn, 
 from Wheatlcy on the Common Prayer, that there is jire- 
 cisely the same number of errors in what are called the 
 sealed books, and arc the standard of the Church of Eng- 
 land. 
 
 The other changes are as follows: — 
 
 The Table of the Rules for finding Easter has been 
 regulated by the change from the eighteenth to the nine- 
 teenth century. 
 
 On examining the Tal)le of Easts, tliere was discovered 
 an oversight of the committee, under whom was printed the 
 book of 1790, after the review of 1789; the error l)eing con- 
 tinued in II. (lainc's standard book of 1793; in contrariety 
 as well to the proposed book, as to the English table. Tiie 
 
Note to page 50. 247 
 
 error made fast (In3-s of the Sundays in Lent, deviatlno- fVoui 
 the rule of the Church in all ages, and iVom the table of 
 Feasts, which gives this name to all the Sundays in the year. 
 The error consisted in saying " the season of Lent," instead 
 of " the forty days of Lent ;" which words were accordingly 
 restored. 
 
 In the Calendar, the column of golden numbers, from the 
 twenty-first of March to the eighteenth of April, was omitted 
 us useless. This rendered it unnecessary to retain a note, 
 found in the English book under those two months; which 
 had been omitted in all our editions, owing^as is supposed, 
 to the preparing of the book of 1790, from an old English 
 book, edited before the change of style in 1751 ; for in none 
 of these editions is the note found. 
 
 The report presented a list of typographical errors in II, 
 Gaine's book, made out with the assistance of Mr. William 
 Hall, who had edited the proposed book in 1786. 
 
 A A. Page 50. Of the Convention in 1823. 
 
 The writer of th« Narrative and of the Statements dis- 
 charged the duty assigned to him, in regard to the points 
 presented by Bishop Chase, agreeably to what was con- 
 ceived to be substantially the sense of the bishops. 
 
 The first point was a proposal for the appointment of an 
 order of persons to teach in common schools; and autho- 
 rized to read, to pray,^ and to catechise on Sundays. To 
 this the answer was, that if such power should be dependent 
 on engagements to be made from time to time, there is 
 already authority to the purpose, and often carried into act. 
 But, if a permanent character should be constituted, it 
 would look like an addition to the number of the orders of 
 the ministr}^ Secondly, they would be apt to consider their 
 appointment as a stepping-stone to further advancement, 
 whatever pains might be taken to caution them to the con- 
 trary. This has been too often a consequence of the ap- 
 pointment of lay readers, without the designation of per- 
 manent character. It is a useful expedient, and not to be 
 laid aside on that account, although to be resorted to with 
 circumspection. The plea would be much stronger, on the 
 terms of the proposal. The present objector has thought 
 it a matter worthy of consideration, whether it would not 
 fee wise to ordain some deacons, with an understandino- to. 
 
248 Note to page 50. 
 
 the effect stated, and with permission to follow secular 
 occupations: the service to undergo a few corresponding 
 alterations. The only discouragement to his mind, is the 
 danger now noticed ; and the apprehension that it might 
 tend to the lessening of the literary cljaracter of our minis- 
 try : it being presumable that there would be exacted a less 
 measure of literary attainments in deacons admitted under 
 the conditions staled. Whether the good would not pre- 
 dominate, and whether the abuse might not be guarded 
 against, may admit of a question : but as to a new order, 
 the opinion was decidedly against it. 
 
 Tlie next point introduced, was that of theatrical enter- 
 tainments : in respect to which, the answerer took occasion 
 to develope his sentiments. They are, that the theatre, as 
 it has always been, and is likely to be always conducted, 
 has a general tendency to the corruption of morals : not 
 only because of profane and indecent words and sentiments 
 in some plays, but because vice is often insidiously set off 
 to advantage, by its being associated with agreeable and 
 even estimable qualities. Still, we cannot affirm that there 
 is sin in the introducing of fictitious characters, for a 
 favourable display of sentiments strictly moral and instruc- 
 tive: for whicli reason, it would seem improper in a cler- 
 gyman, as was the object of the proposal, to repel from the 
 communion, for being present at a play, not containing any 
 thing contrary to religion or to morals. If it should be 
 urged, that the stage is sometimes so abused as has been 
 admitted, it is an argument which may be transferred to 
 the pul|)it ; because of some discourses from it very dan- 
 gerous to the consciences of the hearers ; if not in the 
 same respects, yet in some other. If a communicant should 
 knowingly be present at an exhibition countenancing vice, 
 it is another matter, and might justly be made a ground of 
 exclusion. On this subject. Bishop Chase was referred to 
 the sense of the bishops, recorded on the journal of 1817- 
 
 A remaining point, was the ])ressing of a requisition, 
 that the lay members of conventions should be none other 
 than communicants. The answer to this, was the decided 
 opinion, that none but communicants should be sent : but 
 whether it would not be too strong an act of government, 
 and may not best be left to advice and persuasion, and of 
 even these to be governed by fitness of character in other 
 respects, may be made a question. When we organized 
 our Church, the proposal of such a measure would have 
 stopped us at the threshold. Whether we are now ripe 
 
Notes to page 50. 24^' 
 
 for it, should be well considered before the making of the 
 attempt. One great discouragement, is the direction given 
 to the public mind, by the use made of the same test in 
 England. Among us, it has been gone into in one diocese 
 only, and was subsequently abandoned. Should any diocese 
 again undertake the matter, they would seem to be com- 
 petent. These were the answers made to Bishop Chase : 
 and the responsibility in which it involved the penman of 
 them, induces to the present record. 
 
 BB. Page 50. 
 
 Among the documents delivered by the writer of this, to 
 be deposited among the materials for a future history, was 
 a body of transcripts from the archives of the diocese of 
 liOndon, made by Dr. Alexander Murray ; and given into 
 the hands of the writer. The said Dr. Murray had been 
 an officiating clergyman in the province of Pennsylvania 
 before the revolutionary war, and in the service of the 
 society for the Propagating of the Gospel. He made the 
 transcripts, with the view to their being of service to those 
 who were coming to England for consecration. They were 
 of no service, in reference to that object; but Dr. Murray 
 liaving subsequently returned to this country, where he 
 died, the transcripts were delivered into the hands which 
 have now deposited them in the conventional collection. 
 The preserving of them may contribute to the doing of 
 justice to those English bishops, who exerted themselves 
 for the extending of Episcopacy to the colonies; and may 
 also show, that the neglect of it was owing to the indiffer- 
 ence of statesmen, not aware of the importance of the sub- 
 ject to governmental views; and doubtless comprehending 
 (what there has been given reason to believe in the Memoirs,) 
 apprehended danger of offence taken by the dissenters; 
 and the consequent decline of their support, in elections to 
 seats in parliament. 
 
 CC. Page 50. 
 
 The canon was intended for any case of insufficiency of 
 a candidate, in classical and scientific literature ; and with 
 the view of arresting him at an early period of his intended 
 devotion to the ministry ; and to prevent disappointment, 
 after considerable time spent in theological study. 
 
 32 
 
200 Note.^ to page 5 1 . 
 
 DD. Piige 51. 
 
 Tlie report of the society shows too clearly that tli?' 
 executive committeo have not been so supported, as an 
 establisliment by the general authority of the Church gave 
 reason to expect. It is true, tliat there have been since in- 
 stituted several diocesan soeietie?, which, of course, advant- 
 ageously lessen the sphere of the operation of the other. 
 This, however, ought not to prevent their aid to the general 
 scheme, in consideration of the many states in which their 
 fostering care is so much needed; especially, as the known 
 existence of the institution is a cause of claims, which, as 
 matters are, cannot be complied with. 
 
 EE. Page 51. 
 
 In the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, there were 
 some members from Virginia, very ardent in pressing on 
 the convention the concerns of the Colonization Society. 
 It may be perceived that tlie proposal was waived, on the 
 ground that it was rather of a political than of a religious 
 nature. In addition to this, there exists in the community 
 of Pennsylvania, and probably elsev.'here, a variety of opinion 
 on the subject; many contending that the object is not the 
 lessening of the evil of slavery, but the getting rid of a free 
 coloured population. The writer of this believes, that the 
 motives of the men prominent in the design, are precisely 
 what they profess. Of this, it is to be hoped, there will be 
 gradually a general conviction ; but in the meantime, it 
 would be unwise to take a part in a controversy on a sub- 
 ject not within the sphere of ecclesiastical legislation. 
 
 FF. Page 51. 
 
 There is a prevalent sentiment in the public mind, and 
 perhaps is more diffused among Episcopalians than among 
 other denominations, that collegiate education should be 
 without regard to differences of religious profession. No 
 wish is here cherished, of obtruding on young persons forms 
 of profession disapproved of by those who have lawful au- 
 thority over them. But, in a country where every denomi- 
 nation may take its own course in this matter, why should 
 there be lost the opportunity of instilling religious principle 
 during the season in which it is the most likely to be effec- 
 
"Nule to page 52. 251 
 
 Inal? If this is to be done, it must be in some form, and 
 they who take a broader ground, never act consistently with 
 what they profess. Those societies flourish most wiio are 
 aware of this, and who therefore conduct religious education 
 conformably with their respective plans of doctrine, of dis- 
 cipline, and of worsliip. 
 
 GG. Page 52. Of the Convention in 1826. 
 
 Tfie proposal was considered an inconsistency in them by 
 some, who, in so judging, did not distinguish between their 
 sustaining of existing rubrics, and the inference that there 
 may be some changes for the better — especially in this par- 
 ticular. Of the morning service, the bishops were aware, 
 that it consisted of three services; and this has occasioned 
 repetitions, which otiierwise would not have been adtnitted 
 by our reformers. Further, the bishops knew of com- 
 j)laints of the length of the morning service, coming from 
 various portions of their respective dioceses ; and they had 
 witnessed, with sorrow, a wayward disposition in many of 
 the clergy, to make such omissions as the fancies of them- 
 selves or of some influential layjnen might suggest. It was 
 thought, that by a moderate measure of compliance with 
 existing circumstances, there might be the effect of giving 
 a check to those extravagances. 
 
 As for the reluctance to the deviating in any instance 
 from the old paths, it seems to have been worthy of consider- 
 ation, that there is an higher antiquity than that pleaded. 
 Jt has been stated, that the morning prayer, and the com- 
 munion service, were designed for different hours of the 
 day. Besides, the former, as at first established and used, 
 was without the initiatory sentences, the exhortation, the 
 confession, and the absolution; which is not now noticed, 
 as a denial of the expediency of the introduction of them. 
 The prayer for the king, that for the rest of the royal family, 
 that for the clergy and people, and the two final prayers, were 
 not in the morning service, until the reign of Charles II. 
 ' — more than a century after the comj^iling of the service; 
 the conclusion of it, until then, being with the collect for 
 peace. At the same period was composed the " General 
 Thanksgiving," ever since used with morning and with 
 evening prayer. So was the prayer " For all Conditions 
 of Men," to be used only when it is allowed to omit the 
 
25:i NvU 1o page rrZ. 
 
 litany. The coDimiinioii service was without the coiri' 
 mandinents; which ought not to be remarked, without an 
 acknowledgement of the edifying etiect of the introduction 
 of them ; and wiicn this service was used with the compre- 
 hension of any one of the services of ordination, the prefa- 
 tory rubric did not, as at present, require the ])recedent 
 use of the morning service. This requisition was intro- 
 duced at the aforesaid period, and lias added greatly to the 
 time occupied on the occasions referred to. 
 
 As for the litany, although it was a part of the Book of 
 Common Prayer from the beginning, it does not appear to 
 have had an early introduction into the use of the morning 
 service. The first we read of the litany, from the beginning 
 of the reformation, is the command of Henry VIII. to 
 Archbishop Cranmer, for the translation of it into the Eng- 
 lish, in order to its being understood by the people, when 
 used in processions, for which soletnnities and the like, it 
 was originally designed ; or, at least, it became associated 
 with them at an early period. 
 
 Perhaps it may be suggested, that there would be a re- 
 moval of all ditticuUy, if there were introduced the use of 
 the two distinct services for morning prayer and for the 
 communion, at different Viours in the first division of the day. 
 But if this, the original design in England, was obliged so 
 generally and almost universally, to give way to a combining 
 of the two, notwithstanding the demarcation of the parishes, 
 and the small distances around the churches within which 
 their respective parishioners reside ; it would be far more 
 difficult to be accomplished in America, where not to men- 
 tion the scattered population in the country, even in our 
 cities, a man's relation to a particular house of worship is 
 not a proof that he lives within a mile of it ; and in general 
 the greater number of the worshippers may not be within 
 convenient walking distances, to be traversed six times in 
 the day. Yet it is to be wished, that in future, as at pre- 
 sent, the form of the Prayer Book nuiy be such, as to per- 
 mit the severance unquestionably contemplated by the 
 compilers. 
 
 It may be said — why not then dispense with the ante- 
 communion service, on there being introduced a rubric to 
 the effect i* The answer is — better this, than the leaving 
 of it on the present footing; which tends to the producing 
 of two different books in substance, and eventually in form. 
 But it would be far from tending to edilication, to forego 
 jt)ie moral use of a weekly recital of the commandmenls, 
 
Note to page 53. 253 
 
 and the reading of selections of scrij)tiire adapted to the 
 times to which they are assio-iied, ancl of such early usf in 
 the Christian Church : and this, for the abbreviation by one 
 half of a quarter of an hour : which is about the average of 
 the time spent in the recital of that portion of the service. 
 
 HII. Page 52. 
 
 Had there been an accomplishment of the wish of the 
 "bishops, the services of the morning would have been ab- 
 breviated, it is thought, to desirable limits. This would 
 have been conformable to the purpose, for which litanies 
 were originally framed. In the English Church, the litany 
 stood in the first book of Edward, after the communion 
 service, with a rubric agreeable to the sentiments hero 
 entertained; and it was placed between that service and 
 the otHce for baptism. In the second book of Edward, it 
 took its present station, with a rubric extending the use of 
 it to Sundays. For these facts, see Wheatley. 
 
 Further; the writer of this ought not to be backward to 
 confess, that however convinced of the propriety of the 
 worshi[) of the adorable Redeemer, as sanctioned by the 
 word of God, he considers it as consentaneous with the 
 same high authority that worship should be principally ad- 
 dressed to the Father, through the merits of the Son. All 
 of the litany, between the first four petitions and the Lord's 
 Prayer are to the Son exclusively. At least, this is here 
 conceived to be the correct opinion, and it is sanctioned by 
 the sense of the commentators on the liturgy; althou"-h 
 there are some, who think that the Father is addressed 
 through the greater part of it, beginning at — " We sinners 
 do beseech thee, &;c." To show the want of consent in 
 this matter, it may be proper to notice, that when it was 
 discoursed of among the bishops, there appeared an oppo- 
 sition of interpretation on the point. 
 
 II. Page 53. 
 
 It must be acknowledged, that after the withdrawing of 
 what the bishops had contemplated in regard to the litany, 
 the abbreviations are very inconsiderable. Yet it is difficult 
 to perceive, with what consistency the mere permission of 
 them was argued against, by speakers who advocated in- 
 dulgence to the much larger extent of the omission of the 
 <ante-conimunion service; not because they considered it to 
 
254 Note to page 53. 
 
 be a true interpretation of the ruhric — for tliis they une- 
 ■quivocally denied ; but on a principle warranting any other 
 omissions, wliich the agents are ready to declare to be 
 reconcilable to their consciences. 
 
 Tn fact, in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, the 
 debate took such a turn, as threatens to give unbounded 
 license to such easy consciences; and to be operative on 
 those only who hold themselves to be bound by rubrics: 
 for this was a construction fairly put on the reasonings of 
 those who were in the highest grade of adherence to the 
 integrity of the service. 
 
 KK. Page 53. 
 
 To the insertion of this prayer, there have been made 
 two objections: not on the floor of the house, but in con- 
 versations. The first is, that it would add to the sanction 
 given to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, confessedly 
 contained in the original prayer. But O! what a purgation 
 must there be of our articles, of our services, and of our 
 homilies, if this prejudice is to be complied with! The 
 other objection, is its not being expressed, that the petition 
 is put up through the merits of the Redeemer. But it is 
 the same in this respect, with the present prayer. There 
 cannot be a more evangelical requisition, than that our 
 persons and our devotions can claim acceptance on this 
 ground only. But it may be questioned, whether the re- 
 coo-nition of this truth constitute a necessary circumstance 
 of every subdivision of a continued service. In the prayers 
 before sermons of our brethren of other denominations, 
 there are divers subjects, and not such a request in regard 
 to each of them. The great truth is usually recognised in 
 the conclusion of the prayer : and so it is in the progress 
 of ours, in various places. The compilers of our liturgy, 
 took the prayer in rpiestion from a father of the fourth 
 century. If there be weight in the objection, it ought to be 
 applied to the dispensing with both of the prayers. We 
 put up th.> Lord's Prayer without this adjunct; although, 
 doubtless, with the in)i)lication of it. In Acts iv. 24 — 31, 
 there is a prayer, of which the subject matter is not asked 
 through the merits of the Saviour, although he is recognised 
 as a worker of miracles. As to that in chapter i. 24, 25, it 
 is addressed to the Saviour himself. 
 
Notes to pan-e S3. 255- 
 
 LL, Page 53. 
 
 .Concerning the subject in the Narrative, it has ajjpeared 
 ^ the writer of these remarks, in regard to those who have 
 pleaded for laxity, that they have uniformly avoided notice 
 of the hinge, on which the question of permitted deviation 
 principally turns. It is not merely that the same is un- 
 rubrical, and a violation of the promises made at ordination ; 
 but, that the interpretation^, if acted on consistently, vvmild 
 abrogate the use of all those selections of collects, epistles, 
 and gospels, any of which may apply to days when the 
 minister delivers a sermon. This may happen on any week 
 day, noted by the calendar as a festival or a fast; and actually 
 happens in every church, opened on Christmas day or on 
 Good Friday. The writer will put a strong cese, existing 
 in his own person. For many years he has been in the 
 habit, besides a sermon on Good Friday, to deliver what 
 he has called a lecture, on every one of the rest of the days 
 in Passion week, as also on Easter Monday and Tuesday. 
 The rubric uses the word " sermon," and not the word 
 " lecture." What is a sermon ? " It is a discourse," say 
 the dictionaries, (see Johnson or Walker,) " delivered by a 
 divine, for the edification of the people." It would be a 
 subterfuge, in any clergyman, were he, in order to avoid 
 what the canons require on the subject of sermons, to call 
 his discourses lectures, for no other reason than the not 
 taking of a text, and perhaps the speaking from the reading 
 desk, instead of from the pulpit. Hereafter, some clergy- 
 man may deliver, on every day in Passion week, what is 
 more customarily called a sermon, as is done in many 
 churches in England. Such a clergyman would more con- 
 spicuously commit a palpable violation of the rubric. Of 
 those who are in the disuse of the ante-communion service, 
 it is not probable, that there are many who hold vvorship on 
 the days which have been referred to, except, perhaps, on 
 Good Friday. But why not be tolerant towards those of 
 their brethren, who, if they should adopt the interpretation 
 contended for, must abandon what they deem an edifying 
 improvement of those days of humiliation? 
 
 MM. Page 53. 
 
 It will be pertinent, in this place, to relate an incident^ 
 relative to a matter which was passed unanimously by the 
 
256 yote to page 54. 
 
 bishops, and sent to the other house, where, the turn taken* 
 by it dispensed with the inserting of the document on the 
 journal. It consisted of various reasons in favour of the 
 construction given by the bishops to what some were pleased 
 to call the dubious rubric, in addition to the reasons given 
 in the convention of 1823, and entered on their journal. 
 The additional reasons were handed in with the proposal 
 concerning the liturgy, as in its first form. Of course, when 
 this was withdrawn, as related above, the other came back 
 with it. 
 
 When the proposal concerning the liturgy was sent again 
 to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, it was accom- 
 panied, not as before, by the two sets of reasons, but by 
 a canon, explanatory of what the bishops conceived to be 
 the true sense of the rubric. In the mean time, the rea- 
 sons having been printed by the order of the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies, they were in the hands of the 
 members; and the acceptance of the canon, together with 
 the proposal concerning the liturgy, accomplished the object 
 for which the reasons had been drawn up. But, as they are 
 important towards an understanding of the transaction, they 
 are committed to the Appendix, No. 34. 
 
 NN. Page 54. 
 
 Within the memory of the author of this work there has 
 taken place a most remarkable change, in reference to the 
 subject now noticed. When he was a young man, and in 
 England, and even when he was there fifteen years af^er, 
 he never, in any church, heard other metrical singing than 
 what was either from the version of Sternhold and Hop- 
 kins, or from that of Tate and Brady. In this country it 
 was the same ; except on Christmas day and on Easter 
 Sunday, when there were the two hymns now appropriate 
 to those days: which was strictly rubrical; they being no 
 more than passages of scripture, put into the trammels of 
 metre and rhyme. Of late years, in England, an unbounded 
 license has taken place in this respect : and even an arch- 
 bishop of York has given his sanction to a collection of 
 hymns, made by one of his clergy. The like liberty has 
 crossed the ocean to this country, in a degree. 
 
 Let not the remark be misconstrued. The present waiter 
 has no leaning to the theory of those who consider all sing- 
 ing, except of David's Psalms, as irreverent and irreligious. 
 On the contrary, he is in favour of the opinion, for the 
 
Notes to page 5i. 25^ 
 
 introtliicing of some li^imns, expressly recognising events 
 and truths peculiar to the New Testament. Still, whether 
 it be the eflect of mature judgment or that of feelings ex- 
 cited during the earliest of his years within his recollection, 
 he declares, that in respect to the ordinary topics of prayer, 
 of praise, and of precept, he finds no compositions so much 
 tending to the excitement of devotion, as what we have in 
 the Book of Psalms : and, as they are the effusions of in- 
 spiration, he ought to be excused for his reluctance to 
 doubt of the correctness of iiis theoiy. 
 
 As chairman of the committee, he hopes his advice had 
 some effect, towards checking the multiplicity deprecated 
 by him, although not to the extent desired. For a more 
 full manifestation of his sentiments on the subject, he pre- 
 sents a document, read by him to the committee, and now 
 to be included in the Appendix, No. 35. 
 
 In this concern there was a course taken, whicii, it is to 
 be hoped, will be imitated in regard to the liturgy, in the 
 future event of a review, if this should happen. It is, that 
 after a preparation of the work by a committee, consisting 
 of members from all the orders in the Church, the convene 
 tion should have only to stamp on it their yea or their nay. 
 Had they gone into the consideration of the sense of every 
 liymn, and of the criticisms which would have been made on 
 the phraseology, the work would have taken some months 
 at the least. All were sensible, that the time would be 
 longer than they could sit together; and, therefore, the 
 dissatisfied members of the House of Clerical and Lay De^ 
 puties proposed a continuance of the subject to the nexli 
 Triennial Convention. It had already been before three 
 bodies of this description. The same reason would apply 
 at the meeting of the next: and, unless the principle should 
 be abandoned, we should have had no addition to the 
 hymns. Whether this would have been for the better or 
 for the worse might be uncertain ; were it not for the 
 license now taken in many places, because of the want of 
 more. 
 
 OO. Page 54. 
 
 The two canons not acted on, were directed against very 
 great evils, calling for immediate remedy. What was pro- 
 posed, would certainly have been, in substance, acceptable 
 to the members generally of the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies. But, some of the members having proposed 
 
 3a 
 
2;j8 ?fotes to paf^e 5»l. 
 
 ceitaiu amendmeutii to the lirst of the two canons; impa- 
 tience to put an end to the session, cunsed a reterence to 
 t-he committee on the canons, previously iippointed and t(y 
 sit in the lecessi. The second of the canons would have 
 had a beneficial effect on the present state of the Church 
 in this diocese. There would liave been no need of the 
 delay, but because of the time wasied on the business whicli' 
 is to follow. 
 
 PP. Page 54 
 
 There has never been before manifested so much jiatienco 
 under tedious repetition ofthe same sentiments, in referenct* 
 to a point concerning; which, a considerable majority were 
 of oi)inion from the beginning, that it was foreign to the 
 purposes for which they were assembled. In tjiree previous- 
 conventions, there had come forward applicants, with their 
 respective schemes relative to books ; and they had beeit 
 rejected, without examination. In the first instance, the- 
 bishops had sent to the other house, and had received their 
 thanks for it, a resolution interdicting all conventional 
 deliberations of that description. This transaction is re- 
 corded on the journal of 1814; and the principle has been 
 acted on ever since, until the present occasion. It is to bo 
 hoped, that the bad effects produced by a deviation from- 
 the precedent so set, will prevent the like in future. 
 
 Although the scheme was rejected, tliere were, among: 
 those who were averse to the reception of it, some who 
 thought it good in itself, and worthy ofthe endeavours of a 
 society, to be instituted for the purpose. The writer of 
 this was of a different opinion, for many reasons. His 
 principal reason was, that either there would be an addition 
 to the calls, of which there are already too many on the 
 clergy, to leave their respective dioceses and parishes for 
 the inanagement of the general business of the Church ; 
 while, as to the lay gentlemen, we should have no proba- 
 bility, that they would leave their occupations for the pur- 
 pose. The business would be at the command of a few 
 gentlemen, at the central seat ofthe measures to be taken. 
 The writer, in consequence of much experience in pecuniary 
 institutions, connected with religion and with literature, has 
 witnessed serious losses incurred ; sometimes from neglect^ 
 accompanied by the purest intentions with the most un- 
 guUied integrity ; and at other times, by the application of 
 public stock to private and unsuccessful speculations. II« 
 
KoU'S to page oQ. 2S§ 
 
 is therefore reluiitant to the onconrai^ement of a phjn, which 
 would commit to such hazards the large stock contemplatcjd : 
 when the disappointment of exiJectatioii may hring indelihie 
 iiis;j:racc on the Clmrch. 
 
 Qd. Page 06. Of Ihe Convention in IS29. 
 
 In the canons of the Church in Tennessee, it was pro- 
 rideci, that after a trial by the constituted ecclesiastical 
 authority, there should be an appeal to the diocesan con- 
 vention. Tiiis was judged by the bishops to be inconsistent 
 witli Episcopal governsiient. The opinion was concurred 
 in by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, without a 
 dissentient voice, so far as appears. 
 
 KR. Page 55. 
 
 The author of the ^aresent work, would have been grati- 
 *fied by the alterations in the liturgy proposed by the last 
 -convention, being convinced of the expediency of shortening 
 the Sunday service for the morning, consisting, as it does, 
 of services originally intended to be distinct, and of utiin- 
 tended repetitions. He was not, however, so much dissatis- 
 fied by the rejection of the proposals, as by the causes which, 
 as he conceives, conducted to the issue : causes, operating 
 as well with those who objected on the general ground of 
 dislike to innovation, as with others, who were dissatisfied 
 with the several proposed alterations. The former were 
 reluctant to the decisive measure of an authoritative sup- 
 pression of the licentiousness of generally omitting the ante- 
 communion service, where the omission of it was owing to 
 what they confessed to be a misconstruction of a rubric. 
 The latter, it is here believed, were averse to the shorten- 
 ing of the service in such a way, as not to leave any excuse 
 for omissions as individual discretion may suggest. These 
 ■opposite opinions may be considered as combining in the 
 point, of there being at last no established uniformity in the 
 use of the services of the Churcli. It is to be hoped, that 
 the providence of God will interpose, for the prevention of 
 such a result. To the author of these remarks, the only 
 expedient seems to be, as was suggested in a former part of 
 •this work, the appointment of a joint committee of bishops, 
 tiud other divines, for a deliberate review of the Book of 
 
260 Note to pug;*: oil. 
 
 Common Prayer; their work, when finished, to be laid be^ 
 fore the two houses of convention, and to be by them adopted 
 or rejected witiiout debate. This is a course, the nearest 
 that circuinstanccs admit, to the compilation of the Book 
 of Common Prayer by the reformers of the Church of Eng- 
 land, in the reis^n of Edward YI. 
 
 Perhaps it will be thought by some, that on supposition of 
 the correctness of the apprehensions which have been ex- 
 pressed, the present book, if continued in what will be called 
 its integrity, will be adhered to by a proportion of the clergy. 
 It is not probable. There occur to many of the body, the 
 most correct in adherence to order, many circumstances in- 
 ducing to abbreviations, countenanced by departure from 
 original design. Such clergymen will reconcile deviations 
 to their consciences, by the consideration, that it is unno- 
 ticed by the constituted authorities of the Church ; and thus 
 they will become accessory to the result of there being no 
 form in practice. This inconsistency is known to have hap- 
 pened with some clergymen, who have declared their hos- 
 tility to any alterations of the rubrics. 
 
 SS. Page 57. 
 
 The objections to the non-succession of an assistant 
 bishop, may be comprehended under the following heads: — 
 
 1st. It was the general course relative to a co-adjutor or 
 assistant Episcopacy, although there have been some devia- 
 tions from the general practice, and although, even in very 
 early times, some departures from the practice have taken 
 place, of which there was an instance jn the person of 
 Gregory Nazianzen. 
 
 2d. In the circumstances of this Church, it would be pe^ 
 culiarly unfortunate, if the precedent should lead to her 
 being encumbered with bishops not possessed of dioceses. 
 
 3cl. It would give an opening to factious presbyters, whose 
 ambition may prompt them to raise parties, with views to 
 the diocesan Episcopacy; and, 
 
 4th. That influential laymen may patronise this restric-r 
 tion, with the view of keeping the temporary bishop in sub- 
 jection to their control. 
 
 There may be proposed the (juestion — why did not these 
 considerations weigh with the bishops, so as to induce their 
 jelusal to consecrate? 
 
 The answer is, 
 
 1st. The convention of Virginia, although deviating from 
 
Note lu j)age 57. 261 
 
 «he original and reasonable practice, had to jilead the coun- 
 tenance of some precedents. 
 
 2d. From the assurances vvliich were given by the depu- 
 ties of the diocese interested, it was confidently believed, 
 that there would be a correction of the error at the next 
 session. 
 
 3d. That the canon passed against the practice by this 
 convention, was counted on as a barrier against any further 
 recurrence of the evil; and, 
 
 4th. That the convention of Virginia could, with the less 
 reason, resist the canon, as they had instructed their depu- 
 ties to move in the General Convention, for a regulation to 
 govern on the subject in future. 
 
 It was known at the time, that Bishop Browneli had de- 
 termined on a visit to the western states, and to those south 
 of Georgia, under a mission from the Domestic and Foreio-n 
 Missionary Society. It is probable, that this prompted ttie 
 proposal contained in the Narrative. There can be no doubt, 
 that the contemplated visit will contribute materially to the 
 object proposed by the General Convention. The hope of 
 this result is considerably strengthened by what Bishop 
 Ravenscroft has accomplished, in his way from his diocese 
 to the General Convention. He made a circuit throuiih the 
 states of Tennessee and Kentucky, v.'hich not only excited 
 the zeal of the scattered Episcopalians in those states, but 
 contributed to the organizing of the Church in each of 
 them. 
 
 There was a singular coincidence of the assistant bisliop 
 elect of the Church in Virginia, and that of the assist..nt 
 bishop who had been consecrated for Pennsylvania. In the 
 latter case, the consecration had been strenuously objected 
 to, on the ground, that the convention of Pennsylvania 
 had no right to elect a successor to their present bishop, 
 while living. In direct contrariety to this position, a Gene- 
 ral Convention, assembled soon after, are unanimously of 
 opinion, that to choose an assistant bishop, without the in- 
 tention of his succeeding, is an act utterly indefensible. 
 During the discussions, the matter which had been litigated 
 in Pennsylvania, was kept out of view, and the name of the 
 assistant bishop was not mentioned. This is evidence, of 
 vyhat little account was the opposition made to his consecra- 
 tion, in the estimation of the representative body of the 
 whole Church. 
 
 It is the opinion of the author of these remarks, that the 
 proceedings relative to the metre Psalms are unnecessary, 
 
i^(i'2 . Note lo jJUffc ai. 
 
 and fruitful of liti;zation. Such is the diversity, not only of 
 judgment hut of taste, that he the selection what it may, 
 there will be complaints of the omission of some passages, 
 and of what will he thought the injudicious preference of 
 others. 
 
 Still, there will be urged tlie small proportion of the 
 Psahiis in use. This objection is easily met. The metre 
 Psalms make no part of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 There may be editions of the one, in severance from the 
 other; or with selections from it, at the discretion of any 
 parochial minister. Nothing is wanting but a moderate 
 measure of attention, with or without the aid of consenting 
 brethren, to a printer and to a binder. Dilicrent selections 
 will be made for different congregations, without just cause 
 of offence. The selections will be submitted to such choice 
 as may be prompted by judgment or by caj)rice, to be bound 
 in the same covers with the Book of Common Prayer ; ami 
 they who do not like any of them, may attach to the book 
 the whole body of the Psalms in metre- 
 
 TT. Page CI. Of the Cojivention in 1832. 
 
 On the reading of the journal, without the knowledge of 
 an exterior cause having a bearing on the deliberations of 
 the body, it cannot but seem, that much time was unneces- 
 «arily spent in the House of Clerical and Lay Dcj)utics; 
 owing to the blending of two subjects, one of which might 
 properly have been dispensed with. Whether a bishop 
 have a right to resign his charge at discretion ; and when 
 the diocese being abandoned, whether it be not a duty to 
 supply the vacancy; are questions, resolveable on different 
 grounds. It was not from the being insen>:ible of the dif- 
 ference, that so much zeal and so much argument were 
 lavished on the affirmative of the first of these questions. 
 The effect was the result of o})posite opinions held relatively 
 to an event of thirty-three years standing. There has been 
 recorded in the "Memoirs," that in September, 1800, the 
 three bishops, tiien composing a house, denied the right of 
 Bishop Provoost to resign ; and consecrated Bishop Benja- 
 min 3Ioore, only as his assistant and successor. It lias also 
 been noticed, that some years after, on the occinrence oi' 
 an unhappy controversy in the diocese of New-Vork, this 
 matter came under the consideration of the diocesan con- 
 
No'es to pa'^e CI. ^(53 
 
 tention ; which refused to acknowledge any other diocesan 
 Episcopacy, than lliat ol' Bishop Moore. Althouffli iho 
 tjuestion, as rej,^ards the circumstances which or!<iinated \i, 
 has ceased to be interesting; yet the occurrence of another 
 professed resignation, brought again into view the diversity 
 f>f sentiment, which had so long ceased to cause any 
 disturbance to the Church. 
 
 Although, in the late convention, much time was lost in 
 the consequent discussion; yet it will result in benefit to 
 the Church, if the thirty-s€cond canon, which was tlie fruit 
 of it, should be efficient in guarding against resignations. 
 Hot induced by exterior necessity, or by some other extra- 
 ordinary consideration; and not resting altogether on the 
 will of the party, for the consummating of the act. Tho 
 threatened danger is not only that of giving occasion to 
 faction excited and conducted by clerical ambition ; and 
 that of coveting the EpiHcopal grade, with the design of 
 being speedily disengaged from its labo<irs; but may have 
 unforeseen consequences, by the sanction which it extends 
 to a very pernicious assumption of the papacy. The ad- 
 vocates of the right of resignation constantly affirm, that 
 there is a distinction between office and jurisdiction. The 
 primitive Church knew nothing of this. It was a notion 
 started by those called the schoolmen, and seized by the 
 popes, to favour the position that all jurisdiction is from 
 them. This was the shield opposed to what a great pro- 
 portion, probably a majority of the body, anxiously desired, 
 but could not accomplish — a determination in favour of the 
 divine institution of Episcopacy. 
 
 On the case of Bishop Chase, it ought to be noticed, tiiat 
 Jihere was given in to both houses^ a protest against the 
 considering of him as severed from the diocese ; signed bv 
 some members of the Church in Ohio, including one of the 
 clergy. It did not appear, that the sentiment was of sucl> 
 extent, as to claim an influence on the proceedings of the 
 body. 
 
 UU. Page 01. 
 
 It may be hoped, that no one will censure the bishops^ 
 because of their declining to exercise a visitatorial power, 
 in their aggregate capacity. The notion that they should; 
 be called from their dioceses, on any of the innumerable 
 cases of appeal, which may occur in such an institution, is 
 too extravagant to bo reasonably entertained. There ha* 
 
264 Xotes to page (ii. 
 
 been already an appeal to them, on tlie constitutionality of 
 the sale of a body of land, of tlie propriety of which they 
 knew nothing. The ai)peal was made to them individually. 
 But, had they given their determinations in that form, with- 
 out discussion, and without a comparing of their opinions, 
 it would surely not have been a wise expedient. As to the 
 other i)roi)osal, of noticing the concerns of the body apply- 
 ino-; it was perhaps from some oversight, that a copy of 
 the proceedings was not sent. It ought not to be supposed, 
 that the General Convention was expected to sanction them, 
 in utter ignorance of their nature and of their tendency. 
 
 It will not be foreign to the purpose, to record from what 
 cause, there originated the combining of tire presidency of 
 the college with the Episcopacy of the diocese. 
 
 When Bishop Chase was collecting in England, certain 
 contributioiTS were made, for the declared purpose of found- 
 ing a theological seminary, to be always under the care of 
 the bishop for the time being. This feature of the present 
 institirtion may well remain, becairse appendant to the 
 Episcopacy, o« swch terms as not to be liable to be exer- 
 cised to the dis()lacingof the occupant of the latter. After 
 the return of Bishop Chase, there was instituted Kenyon 
 College, enlarging the sphere of instruction. This produces 
 the incongruity complained of. It may be remedied by a 
 legislative act; which would not interfere with the faitly 
 pledged to the English donors. 
 
 WW. Page 61. 
 
 The author of this continuation is still of the opinion, 
 expressed in a former portion of it, and grounded, not 
 only on the discrepancies of ditlerent judgments, but on the 
 Tariety of taste, that it would have been better to have left 
 the whole book untouched. In this case every parish mi- 
 nister would have been at liberty, either to cause to be 
 bound the whole of the said book with the Book of Common- 
 Prayer, or such parts of the former as he might judge the 
 most edifying to his own congregation, and to any other 
 persons who nught prefer the acceptance of the volume in 
 that form. It is well known, that in this Church, as in the 
 Church of England, the use of the metre Psalms rests en- 
 tirely on the ground of permission. The entertaining of 
 these sentiments did not prevent the author, as a member 
 of the committee, from giving his aid to the perfecting of 
 the selection. Further, it is not intended to deny, that there 
 
Notes to page 62, 63. 26^ 
 
 may profitably be a review of the whole version of Tate 
 arid Brady. IJut, it is a work which would require, besides 
 other qualifications, a very exact knowledge of the original 
 Hebrew. 
 
 XX. Page 62. 
 
 The most beneficial designs are liable to drawbacks. 
 The munificent legacy of Frederick Kohne, Esq., although 
 the benefit of it is not to come into present efficiency, 1ms 
 led too many to imagine, that the institution is sufiiciently 
 provided for. It «vili be to the dishonour of our Church, if 
 the trustees shouM be under the necessity of anticipating 
 this fund. At present, the expenses of the institution con- 
 siderably exceed its income. Although the deficiency will 
 be lessened by the later legacy of George Lorillard, Esq., 
 of $ 20,000, to be paid within five years ; yet it will fall 
 short of the supply which the state of the funds demands. 
 It ought to be made known, that the seminary is under the 
 necessity of availing itself of the gratuitous services of some 
 of its professors, in whole or in part ; and that of those 
 who give their time entirely to the labour of instruction, 
 the compensation is far less than what is due to their 
 talents and their assiduity. 
 
 YY. Page 62. 
 
 The rule of presidency is seniority merely ; and seniority 
 is to be estimated according to the dates of consecration 
 respectively. When two or more bishops are consecrated 
 together, seniority is to be determined by the dates of the 
 election of thera severally. 
 
 ZZ. Page 63. 
 
 At the time of the reformation, all the churches stood east 
 and west. How it is with the many new churches lately 
 built, is not here known. Certainly there is no law, eccle- 
 siastical or civil, requiring such a position ; and it may be 
 rendered very inconvenient by the shape of a selected lot. 
 The origin ascribed to the custom, in the expectation that 
 the second coming of our Lord will be from the east, has 
 been proved to be groundless, by our improved knowledge 
 of the heavens and of the earth. 
 
 Still, the change now made, although agreeable to the 
 
 34 
 
266 Noks to page 63. 
 
 spirit of the rubric, is, in a slii^ht degree, a departure from' 
 the letter of it. Perhaps, considering the ground on which 
 our rubrics authoritatively rest, it would have been better to 
 have made the jiresent measure interpretative; affirming 
 that when the spirit and the letter of an instrument are in 
 opposition, the former should govern. 
 
 AAA. Page 63. 
 
 What a wonderful change has the author lived to witness, 
 in reference to American Episcopacy ! He remembers the 
 ante-revolutionary times, when the presses profusely emitted 
 pamphlets and newspaper disquisitions on the question, 
 whether an American bishop were to be endured ; and 
 when threats were thrown out of throwing such a person, 
 if sent among us, into the river; although his agency was 
 advocated for the sole purpose of a communion submitting 
 itself to his spiritual jurisdiction. It is true, that the subject 
 was entangled with the affirmed danger of subserviency to 
 the designs of the government of the mother country, in 
 her hostility to the rights of her colonies. Such was the 
 effect of the combining of these two oj)posite interests, and 
 so specious were the pretensions of the anti-episcopalian 
 opposition to the measure, that it would have been impos- 
 sible to have obtained a respectably signed lay petition for 
 it, to our superiors in England, although to relieve us from 
 the hardship of sending candidate?) for the ministry to that 
 country, to be ordained. When, after the revolution, it 
 was hoped that the door would be open for the accomplish- 
 ing of the object, even among those who were zealous for 
 the obtaining of it, there arose the question, whether, in 
 deference to prejudice, there should not be dropped the name 
 of bishop ; and the succession be continued under another 
 name. 
 
 Behold the difference of result. The order has now 
 existed among us for nearly the half of a century ; and not a 
 single complaint has been heard, cither of usurpation to 
 the injury of any other denomination, or of arbitrary 
 government within our own. If, in one instance, there has 
 been made the charge of such a character, it has not been 
 in the department of the Episcopacy, but in one of another 
 nature. 
 
 Tn regard as well to that property of ecclesiastical ad- 
 ministration, as the Church herself, the author prays, in 
 the words of father Paul, of Venice — " Esto perpetua." 
 
Koies (u page 63, 6-i. 267 
 
 BBB. Page 63. Of the Conventiun in 1835. 
 
 Bisiiop Chase had become severed from the diocese of 
 Ohio, by the circumstance, that in the constitution of Ken- 
 yon College, there was the provision, that the presidency 
 of it should be attached to the Episcopacy. The paramount 
 authority of the institution was in a board of trustees. On 
 a disagreement between them and the bishop in the man- 
 agement of the concerns, the latter resigned his collegiate 
 station ; which drew along with it the resignation of the 
 diocesan Episcopacy. This fact ought not to be recorded, 
 without notice of the impropriety of a provision, subjecting 
 the bishop to any other tenure of his ecclesiastical station, 
 than that provided by the canons. In a college, without 
 any charge against the bishop in his Episcopal character, 
 there may be dissatisfaction in the minds of the trustees, 
 resultin.1:' in his resignation of the presidency, or, he may 
 be dismissed by them, in the latter case, he is deposed 
 from the Episcopacy, by a body consisting of presbyters 
 and laymen. There is reason to expect, jhat this anomaly 
 will be corrected. 
 
 CCC. Page G3. 
 
 The writer of this was of opinion, that there would have 
 been advantages beyond those of the j)resent provision, if 
 the choice of the Psalms to be read had been left to the 
 officiating minister. 
 
 DDD. Page 64. 
 
 When the liturgy of the Church of England was framed, 
 •all the churches stood east and west, with the chancel at 
 the east end. In America, positions different from this 
 are frequent, there being no law to the contrary. The 
 rubric certainly intended, that the minister should stand at 
 the right end of the table. The author has always acted 
 on the principle, tliat the spirit of the rubric, being undeni- 
 able, should be preferred to the letter. But it was expe- 
 4lient, that the latter should be corrected. 
 
 EEE. Page 64. 
 
 In the management of the concerns of missions, there 
 
268 Notes to pa^e 64. 
 
 was no other embarrassment, than what arose between the 
 domestic department and the foreii^n. Tlie former has the 
 advantai^e ofits being a call as it were at our door, with its 
 being less costly than the other; and of course admitting 
 of more to be done with the same amount of means. Some, 
 jon these accounts, would have confined to it the exeitions 
 of our Church. Others, and it is here conceived the greater 
 number, were for the making of it the prominent object, in 
 consideration of the many and vast waste places of our Zion, 
 but were also willing to apply to fort^ign missions vvhut should 
 be (lonations so designated. On the other hand, there was 
 such an ardour for foreign missions in some minds, as 
 seemed to make them more prominent than the domestic; 
 although it was not denied, that these also shoidd be sus- 
 tained. Under the executive committee, every contributor 
 was left to his or her choice, and it is now the same under 
 the Board of Missions. Unfortunately, with the discussion 
 of the subject, there was mixed the question of the place or 
 the places of location. In the result, the domestic was lo- 
 cated in New- York, and the foreign in Philadel|)!iia ; but 
 with the hope of many, that both of them will be settled 
 finally in the fornier city. The Board of 3Iissions are com- 
 petent to this ; and it is thought, that considerable advantage 
 W'ill accrue from a concurrence of efibrt.* 
 
 The said board being clothed with considerable authority, 
 and their doings being, in a degree, trie agency of the 
 Church during the times intervening between the (Jeneral 
 Conventions, it is thought [)roper to insert tiieir constitution 
 in the Appendix, No. 3C. 
 
 FFF. Page C4. 
 
 This measure was dictated l)y the great increase of popu- 
 lation, in the lately settled counties of the state of ISew- 
 York. That the diocese had become too extensive and too 
 populous for a single bishop, was generally agreed. But 
 much doubt was entertained, as to its lieing now the wish 
 of the greater number of the clergy and of the laity within 
 its limits. In this originated the measure of sanctioning 
 .the principle of expe<iiency, and of referring to a future 
 convention the carrying of it into operation. 
 
 The author of this work, delivered at large his senti- 
 ments on the above point, and on the points connected with 
 
 Both bonrdu are now in New-York 
 
Kotes to page 64, 65. 269 
 
 it. His views were committed to the press, in the " Pro- 
 testant EpiscopaUan," and he judges it to be agreeable to 
 .the present design, to insert that document in the Appen- 
 dix, No. 37. 
 
 GGG. Page 61. 
 
 Within a year before the convention, it had been ex- 
 pected, that the Rev. Dr. Hawks, during the session of that 
 body, would have been consecrated for what has been 
 called the South- Western Diocese. But although there was 
 evidence that the measure would have been popular; yet, 
 there being objections made to the election as irregular, the 
 doctor declined compliance. During the session, there were 
 present from that quarter, several gentlemen who had re- 
 gretted the failure, but were gratified by the new shape which 
 the subject had taken, and were confident that it would be 
 acceptable to all the states and territories concerned. 
 
 HHH. Page 64. 
 
 This measure arose from the consideration, that in any 
 country to which the Church may send missionary presby- 
 ters, there may occur the expediency of superadding the 
 Episcopacy. 
 
 in. Page 64. 
 
 The proposals referred to are of great importance, and 
 were introduced in the House of Bishops by Bishop Hopkins. 
 When our Church was organized, it would have been impos- 
 sible to have carried the point of jurisdiction further than 
 as it now stands. But there is the imperfection attending it, 
 that in ecclesiastical trials, opposite decisions may be passed 
 in different dioceses; which is manifestly a great evil. 
 
 KKK. Page 65. 
 
 The providing of a German liturgy, arose from the 
 statement, that in some districts, there are German families, 
 desirous of attending on the services of our Church, and 
 whose acquaintance with the English language being im- 
 perfect, as expressive of devotional sentiment and feeling, 
 they would be aided by the possession of German Prayer 
 Books, and by a comparing of them with the English. 
 
Notes to page C5. 
 
 LLL. Page C5. 
 
 The peo{)le's repeating of the confession siinuUaneousl/ 
 with the minister, renders it the more solemn, and most 
 probably, as in other places, was contemplated by the 
 compilers. 
 
 As for the question of" Amen," the author must confess 
 himself not furnished with sufficient information. He does 
 not know any rubric or canon prescribing the difference of 
 type. There is before him a Prayer Book, edited under 
 Charles I. in which no such difference is made. In another, 
 under Queen Anne, it appears, not only in the places desig- 
 nated by the convention, but in njany others; although the 
 cause of the diversity is not obvious. In Baskerville's edition, 
 there is the difference of type; and perhaps in all the re- 
 cent editions in England. It is to be hoped, that the con- 
 vention had sufficient cause for the provision made; and if 
 not, it is of little moment. 
 
 Since the time of the General Convention, there has been 
 raised a question, as to the propriety of what they have 
 required, of the concurrent voices of the minister and of 
 the people. The doubt of the requisition rests on the mean- 
 ing of the v/ord " after," which has been construed as in- 
 applicable to concurrence. In oi)position to the doubt, the 
 following considerations had weight with the convention. 
 
 1st. The exhortation calls on tiie congregation, to •' ac- 
 company" the minister in the ensuing act, wliich cannot be 
 but by a concurrence. 
 
 2d. TJiere was not perceived any reason, why the con- 
 fession should be different from that in the communion 
 service, and from the Lord's Prayer in the morning and 
 evening services. 
 
 3d. The word " after" cannot have so restricted a mean- 
 ing as the doubt supposes. It often stands for " according 
 to" or " imitation of." See Johnson's Dictionary. See 
 also in scripture many places, among which are. Psalm 
 xxviii. 6 ; Psalm xi. 3 ; Matthew vi. 9 ; and 1 Peter iii. 5. 
 The Prayer Book is not without instances to the effect, as 
 in the twenty-eighth article, " after an heavenly and spirit- 
 ual manner;" and in the litany as in the English book — 
 ** neither reward us after our iniquities." 
 
Conclusion, 271 
 
 M3IM. Page G5. 
 
 In regard to the Bible, there having been occasionally 
 fypographical errors, so difficult to be avoided, there is 
 great reason of provision for strict accuracy. Some years 
 ago there had been a very large edition, in one instance 
 departing from the Greek text, in order to favour the Con- 
 gregational form of Church government. 
 
 Although there had been provided what was expected to 
 be a sufficient preventive of incorrect editions of the Book 
 of Common Prayer; yet, the provision having been found 
 not entirely to answer the purpose, further security was 
 thought necessary, and constituted. 
 
 NNN. Page G5. 
 
 The books and other documents, presented by Dr. 
 Hawks, will be added to those presented by the author of 
 this, some years ago, and now in the library of St. James' 
 Church, in this city. It is to be hoped, that they will be 
 placed under a proper supervision. 
 
 000. Page 65. 
 
 It is remarked often, and with truth, that much legisla- 
 tion is indicative of feeble administration. Still, there may 
 be fruits of experience, and changes of circumstances, call- 
 ing for corresponding changes of laws. It is to be hoped, 
 that our Church has pursued, and will continue to j)ursue, 
 a proper medium. For the enacted canons, it may suffice 
 to refer to the iournnl. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The author has brought to an end, a work comprehend- 
 ing the proceedings of the Episcopal Church, for somewhat 
 more than the half of a century. He discontinues it from 
 this time, partly because of his advance in years, and, fur- 
 ther, because he knows of some of the clergy, who have 
 been lately attentive to the preservation of facts, falling un- 
 der their respective notices. It has been formerly a matter 
 $00 little attended to. Incidents, not exciting much interest 
 
272 Conclusion. 
 
 at present, may help in future transactions, by unfolding 
 the grounds on whicli those i)receding them had been 
 adopted, and by which they should in some measure be ex- 
 plained. 
 
 At this finishing of these Memoirs, he lifts his heart in 
 prayer to the great Preserver of his health and strength, 
 that the peace and the prosperity of the Church, of which 
 he has been so long a witness, and to the promoting of 
 which he has given his best endeavours, however feeble, 
 and however in etfect far short of his desires, may be per- 
 petuated, to the glory of God, and to the best interests, re- 
 ligious and civil, of his people. 
 
 W, W. 
 
3. AN APPENDIX 
 
 ORIGINAL PAPERS. 
 
 35 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 1. Page 79, 
 
 Communication with the Court of Denmark, 
 
 ^opy of a Letter from John Adams, Esq. to the President of 
 Congress, dated the Hague, April 22, 1 784. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 1 received, some time since, a letter from an American 
 gentleman now in London, a candidate for orders, desiring 
 to know, if American candidates might have orders from 
 Protestant bishops on the continent, and complaining that 
 he had been refused by the bishop of London, unless he 
 would take the oaths of allegiance, &c. 
 
 Meeting soon afterwards the Danish minister, I had the 
 curiosity to inquire of him, whether ordination might be 
 had in Denmark. He answered me, that he knew not, but 
 would soon inform himself. I heard no more of it until to- 
 day, when the secretary of his embassy, Mr. De Rosen- 
 crantz, made me a visit, and delivered me the papers, copies 
 of which are enclosed. 
 
 Thus, it seems, that what I meant as current conversation 
 only, has been made the subject of the deliberation of the 
 government of Denmark and their faculty of theology ; 
 which makes it necessary for me to transmit it to congress. 
 
 I am happy to find the decision so liberal. 
 
 I have the honour to be, &c. 
 (Signed,) J. ADAMS. 
 
 Translation of a Communication of Mr. de St. Saphorin, to 
 Mr. John Adams, dated the Hague, April 21, 1784. 
 
 Mr. de St. Saphorin has the honour to communicate to 
 Mr. Adams the answer he has received from his excellency 
 
876 Appendix — No. 1. 
 
 the Count de Ilosencrone, privy counsellor and secretary 
 of state for foreign affairs of his Danish majesty, relativo 
 to what Mr. Adams desired to know. He shall be happy 
 if this answer should be a«^reeable to him, as well as to his 
 superiors, and usefid to his fellow-citizens. He has the 
 honour to assure him of his respect. 
 (Signed, &.c.) 
 
 Translation of the Copy of an Extract of a Letter from his 
 Excellency the Count de Rosencrone, Privy Counsellor of 
 his Majesty the King of Denmark, to Mr. de St. Saphorin, 
 Envoy Extraordinary from his Majesty to the States 
 General. 
 
 The opinion of the theological faculty having been taken 
 on the question made to your excellency by Mr. Adams, if 
 the American ministers of the Church of England can be 
 consecrated here by a bisliop of the Danish Church f I am 
 ordered by the king to authorize you to answer, that such 
 an act can take place according to the Danish rites; but 
 for the convenience of the Americans who are supposed not 
 to know the Danish language, the Latin language will be 
 made use of on the occasion; for the rest, nothing will be 
 exacted from the candidates, but a profession conformable 
 to the articles of the English Church, omitting the oath 
 called test, which prevents their being ordained by the 
 English bishops. 
 
 Secretary's Office, 6lh April, 1785. 
 Sir, 
 
 Copies of the enclosed letters fron) Mr. .John Adams and 
 Mr. de St. Saphorin, upon the subject of conferring holy 
 orders agreeably to the principles of the Church of England, 
 were this day received by council; who have been pleased 
 to direct that they should be communicated to you. 
 
 I must beg that they be returned to this office, as soon 
 as you may find it convenient, and am, 
 
 Sir, with the greatest respect, 
 Your most obedient, 
 Hund)le servant, 
 (Signed,) J. ARMSTROJNG, Jur. 
 
 Hev. Dr. Wm. White. 
 
Appendix' — Xo. 2. 277 
 
 A?iswer. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I request you to present to the honourable council, my 
 grateful sentiments of their polite attention to the interests 
 of the Episcopal Church, in your coninjunication of this 
 morning. 
 
 Their condescension will be an apology for my troubling 
 them with the perusal of an act of the British parliament, 
 having the same operation with the liberal and brotlicrly 
 proceeding of the Danish government and clergy. And tlie 
 liberty I have taken may hereafter exempt some of my 
 brethren from the suspicion of having entered into obliga- 
 tions inconsistent with their duty to their country. 
 
 But, sir, it would be injustice to the Episcopal Church, 
 were I to neglect to inform the honourable board, that 1 
 take it to be a general sentiment, not to depend on any 
 foreign authority for the ordination of ministers, or for any 
 other matter appertaining to religion. As the light in which 
 we shall hereafter be viewed by our fellow-citizens must 
 depend on an adherence to the above mentioned principle, 
 I take the liberty to submit to the honourable council two 
 printed accounts of proceedings held in this city and in 
 New- York. 
 
 With my most dutiful thanks to the honourable board, 
 and with all due submission, I am, sir, 
 
 Their and your very humble servant, 
 
 WM. WHITE. 
 April 6lh, 1785. 
 
 J. Armstrong, Esq. 
 
 No. 2. Page 79. 
 
 Communication of the Clergy of Connecticut, to the Arch- 
 bishop of York. 
 
 New-York, April 21, 1783. 
 Mv Lord, 
 
 The clergy of Connecticut, deeply impressed with anxious 
 apprehension of what may be the fate of the Church in 
 America, under the present changes of empire and policy, 
 beg leave to embrace the earliest moment in their power to 
 address your grace on that important subject. 
 
278 Appendix — No. 2. 
 
 This part ol* America is at length dismembered from tlj« 
 British empire; but, notwithstanding the dissolution of our 
 cicil connexion uith tlie parent state, we still hope to retain 
 the religious pulifij ; the primitive and evangelical doctrine 
 and discipline, which, at the reformation, were restored and 
 established in the Church of England. To render that 
 polity complete, and to provide for its perpetuity in this 
 country, by the establishment of an American Episcopate, 
 lias long been an object of anxious concern to us, and to 
 many of our brethren in other parts of this continent. 
 The attainment of this object appears to have been hitherto 
 obstructed by considerations of a political nature, which we 
 conceive were founded in groundless jealousies and misap- 
 prehensions that can no longer be supj)osed to exist: and 
 therefore, whatever may be the efi'ect of independency on 
 this country, in other respects, we presume it will be al- 
 lowed to open a door for renewing an application to the 
 spiritual governors of the Church on this head; an applica- 
 tion which we consider as not only seasonable, but more 
 than ever necessary at this time; because, if it be now any 
 longer neglected, there is reason to apprehend that a plan 
 of a very extraordinary nature, lately formed and published 
 in Philadelphia, may be carried into execution. This plan 
 is, in brief, to constitute a nominal Episcopate by the united 
 suffrages of presbyters and laymen. The peculiar situation 
 of the Episco|)al churches in Anjerica, and the necessity of 
 adopting some speedy remedy for the want of a regular 
 Episcopate, are offered, in the j)ublication here alluded to, 
 as reasons fully sufficient to justify the scheme. Whatever 
 influence this project may have on the minds of the ignorant 
 or unprinci|)lcd part of the laity, or however it may, j)ossi- 
 bly, be countenanced by some of the clergy in other parts 
 of the country, wc think it our duty to reject such a spuri- 
 ous substitute for Episcopacy, and, as far as may be in our 
 power, to ])revent its taking effect. 
 
 To lay the foundation, therefore, for a valid and regular 
 Episcopate in America, we earnestly entreat your grace, 
 that, in your archiepiscopal character, you will espouse the 
 cause of our sinking Church, and, at this important crisis, 
 afford her that relief on which her very existence depends, 
 by consecrating a bishop for Coimeclicut. The person 
 whom we have prevailed upon to offer himself to your grace, 
 for that purpose, is the reverend Doctor Samuel Seabury, 
 who has been the society's worthy missionary for many 
 years. He was born and educated in Connecticut — he is 
 
Appendix — Nu. 2. 27<) 
 
 personally known to us — and wo believe Iiiui to he every 
 way qualified for the Episcopal olfice, and for the dischar^'a 
 of those duties peculiar to it, in the present trying and dan- 
 gerous times. 
 
 All the weighty considerations which concur to enforce 
 our request, are well known to your grace; we therefore 
 forbear to enlarge, lest we should seem to distrust your 
 grace's zeal in a cause of such acknoudedged inqwrtance to 
 the interests of religion. Suffer us then to rest in humble 
 confidence that your grace will hear and grant our petition, 
 and give us the consolation of receiving, through a clear 
 and uninterrupted channel, an overseer in this part of the 
 household of God. 
 
 That God may continue your life and health, make you 
 in his providence an eminent instrument of great and ex- 
 tensive usefulness to mankind in general, a lasting blessino- 
 to the Church over which you preside in particular; and 
 that the present and future sons of the Church in America, 
 may have cause to record and perpetuate your name as 
 their friend and spiritual father, — and, when your sacred 
 work is ended, that you may find it gloriously rewarded, is 
 and shall be the devout prayer of the clergy of Connecticut, 
 by whose order (in convention assembled,) and in whose be- 
 half, this letter is addressed to your grace, by your grace's 
 most obedient, humble servant, 
 
 (Signed,) ABRAHAM JARVIS. 
 
 Minister of the Episcopal Church in Bliddlelown, 
 and Secretary to the Convention. 
 
 Testimonial. 
 
 Whereas our well beloved in Christ, Samuel Seabury, 
 doctor of divinity, and missionary of Staten-lsland, in this 
 province, is about to embark for England, at the earnest 
 request of the Episcopal clergy of Connecticut, and for the 
 purpose of presenting himself a candidate for the sacred 
 office of a bishop; and that when consecrated and admitted 
 to the said office, he may return to Connecticut, and there 
 exercise the spiritual powers, and discharge the duties 
 which are peculiar to the Episcopal character, among the 
 members of the Church of England, by superintending the 
 clergy, ordaining candidates for holy orders, and confirming 
 such of the laity as may choose to be confirmed — We, the 
 subscribers, desirous to testify our hearty concurrence iij 
 
280 Appendix— Nq. Z. 
 
 this measiiro, and promote its success ; as well as to declare" 
 tlio liigii opinion we justly entertain of Doctor Seabury'^i 
 learning, abilities, prudence, and zeal for religion, do hereby 
 certif)', that we have been personally and intimately ac- 
 quainted with the said Doctor Seabury for many years 
 past — that wc I)elievc him to be every way qualified for the 
 sacred office of a bishop; the several duties of which office, 
 we are firmly persuaded, he will discharge with honour, 
 dignity, and lldclity, and consequently with advantage to 
 the Church of God. 
 
 And we cannot forbear to express our most earnest 
 wish, tlint Doctor Seabury may succeed in this application, 
 as it will be the means of preserving the Church of England 
 in America from ruin, and of preventing many irregularities 
 which we see approaching, and which, if once introduced, 
 no after care may be able to remove. 
 Given under our hands, at New- York, this twenty-first day of 
 
 April, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred 
 
 and eighty-three. 
 
 JEREMIAH LEAMING, D. D. 
 CHARLES INGLIS, D. D. 
 
 Rector of Triirity Church, New-York. 
 
 BENJAMIN MOORE, D. D. 
 
 Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, 
 New- York, and others. 
 
 Letter to the Archbishop of York. 
 
 NeiD-York, May 24, 1783. 
 My LoKD, 
 
 The reverend Doctor Samuel Seabury will have the ho- 
 nour of presenting this letter to your grace. He goes to 
 England at the request of the Episcopal clergy of Connec- 
 ticut, on business highly interesting and important. They 
 have written on the subject to your grace, and also to the 
 archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishop of London. But, 
 as they were pleased to consult us on the occasion, and to 
 submit what they had written to our inspection, requesting 
 our concurrence in their application, their letters are dated 
 at New- York, and signed only by the Rev. Mr. Jarvis, the 
 secretary to their convention, whom they commissioned and 
 sent here for that purpose. 
 
 The measure proposed, on this occasion, by our brethren 
 of Connecticut, could not fail to have our hearty concurrence. 
 
Appendix — No. 2. 281 
 
 For we are decidedly of opidion, that no otlier means can 
 be devised to preserve the existence of the Episcopal 
 Church in this cor.ntry. We have therefore joined with 
 Mr. Jarvis in giving Doctor Scabiiry a testimonial, in which 
 we have briefly, but sincerely, expressed our sense of his 
 merit, and our earnest wishes for the success of liis under- 
 taking. 
 
 Should he succeed and be consecrated, he means (with 
 the approbation of the society,) to return in the character, 
 and perform tiie duties of a missionary, at New-London, in 
 Connecticut; and on his arrival in that country, to make 
 application to the governor, in hope of being cheerfully 
 pernsitted to exercise the spiritual powers of his Ej)iscopal 
 office there; in whicli, we are persuaded, he will meet with 
 little, if any opposition. For many persons of character in 
 Connecticut, and elsewhere, who are members of the Epis- 
 copal Church, have lately declared they have no longer any 
 objection to an Am.erican Episcopate, now that the inde- 
 pendence of this country, acknowledged by Great-Britain, 
 has removed their apprehensions of the bishops being in- 
 vested with a share of temporal power by the British 
 government. 
 
 We flatter ourselves that any impediments to the con- 
 secration of a bishop for America, arising from the peculiar 
 constitution of the Church of England, may be removed by 
 the king's royal permission ; and we cannot entertain a 
 doubt of his majesty's readiness to grant it. 
 
 In humble confidence that your grace will consider the 
 object of this application as a measure worthy of your 
 zealous patronage, we beg leave to remind your grace, that 
 several legacies have been, at different times, bequeathed 
 for the support of bishops in America, and to express our 
 hopes that some part of those legacies, or of the interest 
 arising from them, may be approjjriated to the maintenance 
 of Doctor Seabury, in case he is consecrated, and settles in 
 America. We conceive that the separation of this country 
 from the parent state, can be no reasonable bar to such 
 appropriation, nor invalidate the title of American bishops, 
 who derive their consecration from the Church of England, 
 to the benefit of those legacies. And perhaps, this charit- 
 able assistance is now more necessary, than it would have 
 been, had not the empire been dismembered. 
 
 We take this opportunity to inform your grace, that we 
 have consulted his excellency Sir Guy Carleton, on the 
 subject of procuring the appointment of a bishop for th^ 
 
 30 
 
282 Appendix — \u. 3. 
 
 province of iVova-Scotia, on which he 1ms expressed to ^m' 
 his entire approbation, and lias written to administration^ 
 warmly recommending the measure. We took the liberty, 
 at the same time, of mentioning our worthy brother, the 
 Rev. Dr. Thonias B. Chandler, to his excellency, as n 
 person every way qualified to discharge the duties of the 
 Episcopal office in that province, with dignity and honour. 
 And we hope for your grace's approbation of what we havo 
 done in that matter, and for the concurrence of your influ- 
 ence with Sir Guy Carleton's recommendation in promoting 
 the design. 
 
 We should have given this information sooner to your 
 grace, but that we waited for Doctor Seabury's departure- 
 for England, which we considered as alFording the best 
 and most proper conveyance. 
 
 If Doctor Chandler and Doctor Seabnry should both 
 succeed, as we pray God they may, we trust that, with the 
 blessing of heaven, the Episcopal Church will yet flourish 
 in this western hemisphere. 
 
 With the warmest sentiments of respect and esteem, we 
 have the honour to be, 
 My lord, 
 
 Your grace's most dutiful sons, 
 
 And obedient, humble servants, 
 
 JEREMIAH LEAMING, D. D. 
 CHARLES INGLIS, D. D. 
 Rector of Trinity Church, New- York. 
 BENJAMIN MOORE, D. D. 
 Assistant Minister of Trinity Churchy. 
 Neiv-York, and others. 
 His Grace the Archbishop of York. 
 
 No. 3. Page 92. 
 
 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 volun- 
 tary 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 
 
Appendix — No. 8. 283 
 
 •^lJIuu'cIi, and points at the method of erecting it. As the 
 thirteen states liave now risen to indej)endent sovereignty., 
 v/e agree with }0u, sir, that the chain which connected tliis 
 with the mother Church is hroken ; 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 cajjital a husiness, till we have resident 
 bishops (if they can he 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 Church. We shall only advert 
 lo such things in the pamphlet, as we esteem of dangerous 
 consequence. You say the conduct you mean to recom- 
 mend, is to include in the proposed frame of government a 
 general approbation of Episcopacy, and a declaration of an 
 intention to procure 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 con- 
 stituent part of an Episcopal Church, unless you conceive 
 they derive their otiice and existence from the king's au- 
 thority ; 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 approba- 
 tion, seem indeed to be purely political. One is, that the 
 general opinion of Episcopalians 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. An- 
 other reason is, that too wide a deviation from the British 
 Church might induce future emigrants from thence, to set 
 up independent churches here. But could you have pro- 
 posed to set up the ministry, without waiting for the succes- 
 sion, had you believed the Episcopal superiority to be an 
 ordinance of Christ, with the exclusive authority of ordina- 
 tion and government, and that it has ever been so esteemed 
 in the purest ages of the Church? and yet we conceive this 
 10 be the sense of Episcopalians in general, and warranted 
 by the constant practice of the Christian Church. Really, 
 sir, we think an Episcopal Church without Episcopacy, if it 
 l>e not a contradiction in terms, would, however, be a new 
 *shing under the sun ; and yet the Episcopal Church, by thft 
 
234 Appendix — Nu. 3. 
 
 pamphlet proposed to be erected, must be ia this j)rediciu 
 ment till the succession be obtained. You plead necessity, 
 however, and arffue that the best writers in the Church, 
 admit of Presbyterian ordination, where Lpiscopal cannot 
 be had. To prove this, you quote concessions from the 
 venerable Hooker, and Dr. Chandler, which their exube- 
 rant charity to the reformed churches abroad, led them to 
 jnakc. But the very words yo\i quote from the last men- 
 tioned gentleman prove his opinion to be, that bishops were 
 as truly an ordinance of Christ, and as essential to his 
 Church as the sacraments; for, say you, he insists upon it 
 (meaning 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 eucharist, and that if 
 the succession be once broken, not all the men on earth, 
 not all the angels in heaven, without an immediate commis- 
 sion from Christ, can restore it — but you say, he does not, 
 however, hold this succession to be necessary, only wliere 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 j)articular acts of authority be thought 
 more necessary than the authority 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 expressly forbid 
 any to do it but those who are authorized by his appoint- 
 ment, or called of God as was Aaron. And yet these gen- 
 tlemen (without any inconsistency with their declared 
 sentiments) have, and all good men will express their 
 charitable ho[)es, that God, in compassion to a well meant 
 zeal, will add the same blessings to those who, through un- 
 avoidable mistake, act beside his commission as if they 
 really had it. As far as we can find, it has been the con- 
 sstant opinion 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 |)resumptive 
 proof that the Church here are, and ever jiave been, of this 
 opinion. The sectaries, soon after tlie reformation, declared 
 that the book of consecration, c\:c. was superstitious and 
 contrary to God's word, and the moderation you mention in 
 Ihe articles and canons, consists in affirming that this decla- 
 
Appendix — iSo. 3. 285 
 
 ration was entirely false ; and would you wisli to l>o 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 answered again and again. It^ you will not 
 allow this superiority to have an higher origin than the 
 apostles; yet, since they were divinely inspired, we see not 
 why their practice is not equal to a divine warrant; 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 vvas aj)pointed of 
 Christ himself, and it is nov\^, to use youi- own words, humbly 
 submitted to consideration, whether such Episcopalians as 
 consent even to a temporary departure, and set aside this 
 ordinance of Christ for couveniency, can scarcely deserve 
 the name of Christians. 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 favourable ojipoitu- 
 nity for the introduction of bishops, than this country has 
 before seen. However dangerous bisliops formerly might 
 have been thought to the civil rights of these states, this 
 danger has now vanished, for such superiors will have no 
 civil authority. They will be purely ecclesiastics. The 
 states have now risen to sovereign authority, and bishops 
 will be equally under the control of civil law v^ith other 
 clergymen ; no danger, then, can now be feared from bi- 
 shops, but such as may be feared from presbyters. This 
 being the case, have we not the highest reason to hope, 
 that the whole civil authority iqjon the continent, (should 
 their assistance be needed) will unite their inlluence with 
 the Church, to procure an office so essential to it, and to 
 render complete a profession, which contains so consider- 
 able a proportion 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 
 
2fc6 Appendix— Nu. 4. 
 
 proper application bliall be made to lliem for it r If this 
 cannot be, wliy is not the ))resent a favourable op|)ort unity 
 ibr such an aj)|)lication ? Nothing is furtiier from tlie 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 |)rinciples of 
 the Church in the northern states, and are fully convinced 
 they will never submit to it. And indeed should we consent 
 to a temporary departure from Episcopacy, there would be 
 very 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 improve 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, Sec'ry. 
 Rev. Mr. Wliitc. 
 Woodbury, March 26, 1783. 
 
 No. 4. Page 100. 
 
 A Letter of the Right Rev. Bishop Scabvry, to the Rev. 
 Dr. Smith. 
 
 August 15, 1785. 
 Rev. AM) DEAR Sir, 
 
 It has not been in my power till this day, to pay that at- 
 tention to your letter of July 19, which the iniportance of 
 its several subjects demanded. The grand ditiiciilty that 
 defeated my application for consecration in England, ap- 
 peared to me to be the want of an application iVom the 
 state of Connecticut. Other objections are made, viz. that 
 there was no precise diocese marked out by the civil autho- 
 rity, nor a stated revenue appointed for the bishop's sup- 
 port ; but these were removed. The other remained, i'or 
 the civil authority in Connecticut is Presbyterian, and 
 therefore could not be supposed would petition for a bishop; 
 and had this been removed, I am not sure that anolhci 
 
Appendix — No. 4. 287 
 
 wouUl not have started up: lor this ha[)j)cnocl several times. 
 X waited and procured a copy ofan act of the le<;islatiire of 
 Connecticut, which puts all denominations of Clu'istians on 
 a footini^ of equality, except the Roman Catholics, and to 
 them it gives a free toleration, certiiied hy the secretary of 
 the state ; for to Connecticut all my negotiations were con- 
 fuied. The archbishop of Canterbury wished it had been 
 fuller, but thou»ht it aiforded ground on which to proceed; 
 yet he afterwards said it would not do; and that the minis- 
 ter, without a formal 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 bisho|)S. And as his grace did not choose to 
 proceed without parliamentary authority, though if I under- 
 stood him right, a majority of the judges and crown lawyers, 
 were of opinion he nught safely do it. I turned my atten- 
 tion to the remains of the old Scots Episcopal Church, 
 whose consecration 1 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 
 account of the legacies left for American bishops ; some 
 persons had surmises of this kind, but I know not whence 
 they arose. 
 
 1 can see no good ground of apprehension concerning the 
 titles of estates, or emoluments belonging to the Churcii 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 the Church 
 of England, no more implies dependence on or subjection to 
 England, than being of the Church of Holland implies sub- 
 jection to Holland. The plea of the Methodists is some- 
 thing like impudence. Mr. Wesley is only a presbyter, and 
 all his ordinations Presbyterian, and in direct opposition to 
 the Church of England. And they can have no pretence for 
 calling themselves Churchmen, till they return to the unity 
 of the Church, which they have unreasonably, unnecessarily, 
 and wickedly broken, by their separation and schism. 
 
 Your two cautions, respecting recommendations and 
 titles, are certainly just. Till you are so happy as to have 
 a bishop of your own, it will be a pleasure 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 
 
288 Appendix — No. 4. 
 
 of persons to be admitted into their own order. Should 
 they think proper to send any candidates hither, I would 
 wis!i that it might bo at the slated times of ordination; 
 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 i)articular satisfaction Mr. 
 Ferguson gave, not only to me, but to all our clergy. I 
 hope he will prove a worthy and useful clergyman. 1 llatter 
 myself he got home without any disagreeable accident. 
 
 [ thank you for your communication respecting Wash- 
 ington 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 circum- 
 stances, which have occasioned particular modes of acting. 
 Of somethings therefore in your proceedings I cannot be a 
 competent judge, without minute information ; and I am 
 very sorry that my present circumstances 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 information 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, 1 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 power of altering fundamental laws dif- 
 fused through so large a body, it appears tome next to im- 
 possible 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 de- 
 gree, to influence the views and debates of a numerous and 
 mixed assembly. 
 
 2. I think you have too much circumscribed the power 
 
Appendix — Nu> 4. 2^ 
 
 of ymir bishops. That the duty and office of a bishop differs 
 in nothimj^ from that of otittr priests, except in the power of 
 ordination and confirmation, {Pamphlet, p. 16,) is a position 
 that carries Jeroin's opinion to the highest pitch, i^uid 
 facitEpiscopus (piod^ preshytrr non faciat, excepta ordinatione'? 
 -But it does not appear that Jeroin had the support of the 
 Church in this opinion, hut rather the contrary. Govern- 
 ment as essentially pertains to bishops as ordination ; nay, 
 ordination is but the particuUir exercise of government. 
 Whatever share of government presbyters liave in the 
 Church, they have from the bishop, and must exercise it in 
 conjunction with or in s'ubordination to him. And though 
 a congregation may have a right, and 1 am wiUing to allow 
 it, to choose their minister, as they are to support him and 
 live under his ministry, yet the bishop's concurrence or 
 license is necessary, because tiiey are part of his charge ; 
 has the care of their souls ; and therefore the minister's 
 authority to take charge of that congregation must come 
 through the bishoj). 
 
 The choice of the bishop is in the presbyters; but the 
 neighbouring bisho{)s, who are to consecrate him, must have 
 the right of judging whether he be a proper person or not. 
 The presbyters are the bishop's council, with whom he 
 ought to do nothing but matters of course. The presbyters 
 have always a check upon their bishop; because they can, 
 neither bishop nor presbyters, do any thing beyond the 
 common course of duty, without each other. I mean with 
 regard to a particular diocese; 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 thrs 
 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 pro- 
 ceed, as the case may require, to censure, suspension, or 
 deposition of the offending 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 constitution which, 
 if adhered to, will carry itself into good effect. This con- 
 stitution we have adopted in Connecticut ; and we do hopm 
 and trust that we shall, by God's grace, exhibit to the 
 
 37 
 
290 Appemlix—No. 4. 
 
 world, in our government, discipline, and order, a pure and 
 perfect model of primitive simplicity. 
 
 Presbyters cannot be too careful in choosing their bishop ; 
 nor tiie people in choosing their minister. Improper men 
 may, however, sometimes succeed ; and so they will, make 
 exact rules as you can, and circumscribe their power as you 
 can. And an improper man in the Church is an improper 
 man, however he came there, and however his power be 
 limited. The more you circumscribe him, the greater 
 temptation he is under to form a party to support him ; 
 and when his party is formed, all the power of your con- 
 vention will not be able to displace him. In short, if you 
 get a bad man, your laws and regulations will not be 
 effectual; if a good man, the general laws of the Church 
 are sufficient. 
 
 Where civil states have made provision for ministers, it 
 seems reasonable that they should define the qualifications, 
 and regulate the conduct of those who are to enjoy the 
 emoluments. But voluntary associations 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 ])arty 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 aggrandizing the clergy at the 
 expense of the laity ; nor indeed of aggrandizing them at 
 all. Decent means of living is all they have a right to 
 expect. But I cannot conceive that the laity can, with any 
 propriety, be admitted to sit in judgment on bishops and 
 presbyters ; especially when deposition may be the event ; 
 because they cannot take away a character which they 
 cannot 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 deprivation 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 party and confusion, I see 
 not but that it might be admitted. But I do not apprehend 
 that thish was tlie practice of the primitive Church. In 
 
Appendix — No. 4. 291 
 
 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 maintain 
 them as the holy apostles left them. The government, 
 sacraments, faith, and doctrine of the Cisurch, are fixed 
 and settled. We have a right to examine irhat 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 Church, 
 but our Church, and would remain so, call it by what name 
 we please. 
 
 1 do therefore beseech the clergy and laity, uho shall 
 meet at Philadelphia, to reconsider the matter, before a 
 final step be taken : and to endeavour to bring their Church 
 government as near to the primitive pattern as may be. 
 They will find it the siojplest and most easy to carry into 
 effect; and if it be adhered to, will be in no danger of 
 sinking or i'ailing. 
 
 1 do not think it necessary that the Church, in every 
 state, should be just as the Church in Connecticut is ; 
 though 1 tliink that the best model. Particular circum- 
 stances, 1 know, will call for particular considerations. 
 But in so essential a matter as Church government 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 wrong name, even though he 
 should have the j)ower of ordination and confirmation. 
 
 Let me therefore again entreat, that such material alter- 
 ations, and forgive me if I say unjustifiable ones, may not 
 be made in the government of the Church. I have written 
 freely, as becomes an honest man ; and in a case which I 
 think calls for freedom of sentiment and expression. I wish 
 not to give offence, and I hope none will be taken. What- 
 ever 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 1 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 I am not interested ; my ground 
 is taken, and I wish not to extend my authority beyond its 
 proper limits. But I do most earnestly wish to have our 
 churches in all the states so settled, that it may be one 
 Church uQited in government, doctrine, and discipline — that 
 
29ii Appendi.i: — Nu. 4. 
 
 there may be no division among us — no opposition of ui^ 
 terests — no clashing of opinions. And permit me to hope 
 that you will, at your approaching convention, so far recede 
 in the points I have mentioned, as to make this practicable. 
 Your convention will bo large and very much to be re- 
 spected. Its determinations will influence many of the 
 American states, and j)osterity 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 dreadful consecjuences. Patience 
 and prudence must be exercised. And should there bo 
 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 solo 
 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 accommodate 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 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 1 would send you a copy had I 
 time to transcribe it. 
 
 The matter will be resumed at New-Haven the Hth of 
 September. Should we come to any determination, the 
 brethren to the southward shall be informed 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. 
 
 1 have taken the liberty to enclose a copy of my letters 
 of consecration, which you will please to communicate to 
 the convention ; you will also perceive it to be my wish that 
 this letter should be communicated to them ; to which, I 
 |)rcsume, there can be no objection. 
 
Appendix — No. 5, „*s)'3 
 
 No. 5. Page 102. 
 
 Address of the Convention of 1735, to the English Prelates. 
 
 To the Most Reverend and Right Reverend the Archbishops 
 
 of Canterhury and York, and the Bishops of the Chureh of 
 
 En2;land. 
 
 We, the clerical and lay deputies of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal 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 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 admi- 
 rable services of our liturgy, continued in willing connection 
 with their ecclesiastical 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 universe, 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 continu- 
 ance. And while, in accomplishing 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 ac- 
 knowledging of such spiritual subjection as may be incon- 
 sistent 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 worship of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and of the many great and pious prelates who have 
 adorned that Church in every succeeding age. But how- 
 ever general the desire of completing the orders of our mi- 
 nistry, so diffused and unconnected were the members of 
 our communion over this extensive country, that much time 
 and negotiation were necessary for the forming of a repre- 
 sentative body of the greater number of the Episcopalians 
 m these states ; and owing to the same causes, it was not 
 
294 Appendix — No. 5. 
 
 until this convention, that sufficient powers could be pro- 
 cured for the addressing of your lordships on this subject. 
 
 The petition which we ofter to your venerable body is — 
 that from a tender regard to the religious interests of thou- 
 sands in this rising empire, professing the same religious 
 princi|)lcs with the Church of England, 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 sutHciency 
 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 insurmountable 
 impediments, from the political regulations of the kingdom 
 in which your lordships fill such distinguished 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 tlieir prosperity, and religi- 
 ously regarding the allegiance which we owe them, it is to 
 an ecclesiastical source only we can apply in the present 
 exigency. 
 
 It may be of consequence to observe, that in these states 
 there is a (Reparation between the concerns of policy, and 
 those of religion; that accordingly, our civH rulers cannot 
 officially join in the present ap|)lication ; that, however, we 
 are far from apprehending the opposition or even displea- 
 sure of any of those honourable personages ; and, finally, 
 that in this business we are justiuod by the constitutions of 
 the slates, which are tlie foundations and control of all our 
 laws. On this point we beg leave to refer to the enclosed 
 extracts from the constitutions of the respective states of 
 which we are citizens, and we liatter oursehes that they 
 must h-^ satisfactory. 
 
 Thus, we have «tatcd 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 efl'ect. 
 Whatever may be the event, no time will efface the re- 
 membrance of the past services of your lordships and your 
 predecessors. The archl)i3hops of Canterbury were not 
 prevented, even by the weighty concerns of their high sta- 
 tions, 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 volun- 
 
Appendix — No. 5. 295 
 
 lary submission of om* congregations, will remain a ppr- 
 petiuil proof of their mild and paternal government. All 
 the bishops of England, with other di. tingaished characters, 
 as well ecclesiastical as civil, have concurred in forminp- 
 and carrying on the benevolent views of the Society for 
 Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts ; a society to 
 whom, under God, the prosperity of our Church is in an 
 eminent degree to be ascribed, it is our earnest wish to 
 be permitted to make, through your lordships, this just ac- 
 knowledgment 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 withdraw their pecu- 
 niary assistance from our ministers, they have endeared 
 their past favours by a benevolent declaration, that it is 
 far from their thoughts to alienate their aifection from their 
 brethren now under another government; with the pious 
 wish, that their former exertions may still continue to brin<?. 
 forth the fruits they aianed at, of pure religion and virtue- 
 Our hearts 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 members of that Church, the 
 fathers of which liave so tenderly watched over her infancy. 
 
 For your lordships in particular, we most sincerely wish 
 and pray, that you may long continue the ornaments 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 resj)ect which is due to your exalted 
 and venerable characters and stations, 
 Your lordships 
 
 Most obedient, and 
 
 Most humble servants.* 
 
 In Convent I mi, 
 Christ Church, Philadelphia, October 5fh, 1785. 
 
 The preceding address and consequent measures for ob- 
 taining the Episcopacy, were contemplated by the following 
 plan of the convention, recorded on their journal. Ordered : 
 
 First, That this convention address the archbishops and 
 bishops of the Church of England, requesting them to con- 
 fer the Episcopal character on such persons as shall be 
 
 ' Signed by all the members. 
 
2% Apj)cndix—No. 5. 
 
 rhoscn and rccommondod to thorn for that purpose, fror-^ 
 llic conventions of this Chnrch in tho rcspfctive states. 
 
 Secondlt/, That it be r<!Conimendcd to the said conven- 
 tions, that they elect persons for this purpose. 
 
 Third/}/, That it be further recommended to the different 
 conventions, at their next respective sessions, to appoint 
 commitlees, with powers, to correspond with the English 
 bishops for t'le carrying of these resolutions into effect ; and 
 that, until such committees shall be aj^pointed, they be re- 
 quested to direct any communications which they may bo 
 j)leased to make on this subject to the committee, consisting 
 of the ilev. Dr. White, president, the Rev. i)r. Smith, the 
 Jlev. Ttir. Provoost, the honourable James Duane, Esq. and 
 Samuel Powell and llichard Peters, Esqs. 
 
 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 bo 
 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 !>y them in that character on their return. 
 
 Fifthly, And in order to assure their lordships of the 
 legality of the present ])roposed application, that the depu- 
 ties 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 honours as are due 
 to the archbishops and bishops of the parent Church, in 
 quality of lords of parliament ; and whereas the reputatiou 
 and usefulness of our bishops will considerably depend on 
 their taking no higher titles or style than will be due to 
 their spiritual employments ; that it be recommended to this 
 Church in the states here represented, to i)rovide, that their 
 resj)ective bishops may be called, " The Right Rev. A. B. 
 bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in C. D." and, 
 as bishop, may have no other title ; and may not use any 
 such style as is usually descriptive of temporal power and 
 precedency. 
 
Appendix — Xo. 0. 297 
 
 No. 0. Parre 111. 
 
 Leiler of f lie IZiiglisli 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 ar{'hl)islio|) of Canterbury liatli received an address, 
 dated in convention, Christ Chnrch, Philadelphia, Octo- 
 ber 5, 1785, from the clerical and lay depsUies of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Chnrch in sundry of the United States ot 
 America, directed to the archl)ishops and bishops of Eng- 
 land, and re(|nesting them to confer the E|)iscopal character 
 on snch persons as sliall be recommended by the Episcopal 
 Church in tlie severaf states by them represented. 
 
 This brotherly and Christian address was communicated 
 to the archbishop of York, and totiie bishops, with as much 
 despatch as their sepaiate and distant situations would 
 permit, and hath been received 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 wel- 
 fare, to be instrumental in procuring ior you the complete 
 exercise of our holy religion, and the enjoyment of that 
 ecclesiastical constitution, which we believe to be truly 
 af)ostolical, 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 discountenance from the 
 civil powers under which you live; and we desire you to be 
 persuaded, that we, on our parts, will use our best endeav- 
 ours, 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 seiTtiments we are disposed to make 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 proceedings of your convention, some 
 alterations may have been adopted or intended, which those 
 difficidties do not seem to justify. 
 
 Those alterations are not mentioned in your address, 
 and, as our knowledge of them is no more than what has 
 rf'ached us through private and less certain channels, we 
 
 38 
 
298 Appendix — Yo. 7. 
 
 hope you will think it just, both to you and to ourselves, if 
 we wait for an explanation. 
 
 For while we are anxious to give every proof, not only 
 of our brotherly affection, but of our facility in forwarding 
 your wishes, we cannot but be extremely cautious, lest we 
 should be the instruments of establishing an ecclesiastical 
 system which will be called a branch of the Church of Eng- 
 land, but afterwards may possibly appear to have departed 
 from it essentially, either in doctrine or in discipline. 
 
 In tbe mean time, we heartily commend you to God's 
 holy protection, and are, your affectionate brethren, 
 
 J. ROCHESTER, T. CAN TUAR, 
 
 R. WORCESTER, W. EBOR, 
 
 I. OXFORD, R. LONDON, 
 
 I.EXETER, W. CHICHESTER, 
 
 THO. LINCOLN, C. r>ATH & WELLS, 
 
 JOHN BANGOR, S. ST. ASAPH, 
 
 I. LICHFIELD <fc COVENTRY, 
 
 S. GLOUCESTER, S. SARUM, 
 
 E. ST. D/VVID'S, J. PETERBOROUGH, 
 
 CHR. BRISTOL, JAMES ELY. 
 
 To the Reverend and Honourahle the Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties of the Protestant Episcopal Church in sundry of the 
 United States of America, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 7. Page 120. 
 
 A Memorial from the Convention in NeiD- Jersey, to the Ge- 
 neral Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the 
 United States of America, to he held in the City of Phila- 
 delphia in June next. 
 
 The Memorial of the Convention of the said Church in 
 New-Jersey, now held in the City of Perth-Amboy, 
 
 Respectfully showeth. 
 
 That your memorialists have unanimously approved of 
 the alterations in the liturgy as they ap|)ear in the new 
 Prayer Book, to render it consistent with the American 
 revolution and tlie constitutions of the respective states, as 
 made and concluded on by the late General Convention of 
 said Church,, held at Philadelphia in September and Octo- 
 
Appendix— No. 7. 299 
 
 ixsr last; ihey being satisfactory and agreeable to their 
 M'ish. 
 
 They have also approved of their plan for obtaining 
 consecration of bishops; and pursuant to their recommen- 
 dation, have appointed a committee to correspond with the 
 English bishops for that purpose. 
 
 They have also, with great pleasure, considered their ad- 
 dress to the archbishops and bishops of the Church of Eng- 
 land ; which your memorialists are of opinion, was properly 
 calculated to obtain the end proposed. 
 
 But it is with t!ie greatest concern they are constrained 
 to remark, that the other proceedings of the said convention, 
 in their opinion, have an undoubted tendency to prolong, if 
 not entirely prevent, the obtaining the prayer thereof. In 
 this opinion your memorialists 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 proceedings 
 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 public worship, as 
 upon mature consideration may be found expedient; but 
 they doubt the right of any order or orders of men in an 
 Episcopal Church, without 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 forbear re- 
 marking, that in their oj)inion, ail unnecessary alterations 
 must be unseasonable and impolitic, and v*^ill prove highly 
 detrimental to the Church in general. 
 
 Your memorialists cannot approve of the said late General 
 Convention having published, in the manner 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 con- 
 sidered, your memorialists have to regret, that the same 
 was not sooner published, that they might have been enabled 
 to have declared the sentiments of their constituents as well 
 as their own. The prejudices and prepossessions of man- 
 kind in favour of old customs, especially in rehgious matters, 
 are generally so strong as to require great delicacy and 
 caution in the introduction of any alterations or innovations. 
 
300 Appendix — No. T. 
 
 although manifestly tor the hcttcr ; which was aUa one 
 reason why they could not at this time ratify the alterations 
 so unnecessarily made ; and they are very aj)|)rehensive, 
 that until alterations can he made consistent with the cus- 
 toms of the primitive Church, and with the rules of th« 
 Church of England, from which it is our hoast to have 
 descended, a ratification of them would create great un- 
 easiness in the minds of many members of the Church, and 
 in great probability cause dissensions and schisms. Al- 
 though they may not disapprove of all the alterations made 
 in the said new book, yet they have to regret the unscason- 
 ableness and irregularity of them. 
 
 Your memorialists, having an anxious desire of ce- 
 menting, perpetuating, and extending the union so hap- 
 pily begun in the Church, with all deference and sub- 
 mission, humbly request and entreat the said General 
 Convention, now soon to meet, that they will revise the 
 proceedings of the said late convention and their aforesaid 
 committee, and remove every cause that may have exciteil 
 any jealousy or fear, that the Episcopal Church in the 
 United States of America have any intention or desire 
 essentially to depart, either in doctrine or discipline, 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, and to adhere to the litingy of the said 
 Clmrch as far as shall be consistent with the American 
 revolution, 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 govern- 
 ment complete, and secure to tlie Episcopalians in America, 
 and to their descendants, a succession 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 Cliurch in the 
 universe. 
 
 By order of the convention, 
 
 AKRAIIAM JJEACII, President. 
 Perth- Anihoi/, May 19, 1786. 
 
Aj^pcndix — No. 8. ,*Jftl 
 
 ]\o. S. Page 1-20. 
 
 Second Address io tJie English F relates. 
 
 'To the Most Reverend and Ri'j;ht Reverend Fathers in God^ 
 the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Eni^land. 
 
 Most Worthy and Venerable Prelate^^, 
 
 We, the clerical and lay deputies of the Protestant J'^pis- 
 <*opal Church in the states of New-York, New-Jcrsev, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and JSoutii- 
 ■Carolina, have received the friendly and alfectionate letter 
 which your lordships did us the honour to write on the 24th 
 <lay of February, and for which we request you to accept 
 our sincere and grateful acknowledgments. 
 
 It gives us pleasure to be assured, that the success of our 
 application will probably meet with no greater obstacles 
 than what have arisen froni 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 jjresent exist in England may be re- 
 moved. 
 
 While doubts remain of our continuing to hold the same 
 essential articles of faith and discipline with the Church of 
 England, we acknowledge the propriety of suspending a 
 compliance with our request. 
 
 We are unanimous and explicit in assuring your lord- 
 ships, that we neither have departed nor ])ropose to depart 
 from the doctrines of your Church. V^'e have retained the 
 same discipline and forms of worship, as far as was consist- 
 ent with our civil constitutions ; and we have made no 
 alterations or omissions in the iJook of Common Prayer, 
 but such as that consideration prescribed, and such as were 
 calculated to remove objections, which it appeared to us 
 more conducive to union and general content to obviate, 
 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 become a precedent for repeated and 
 improper alterations. This is with us the proper season 
 for such a revision. We are now settling and ordering the 
 affairs of our Church, and if wisely done, we shall have 
 reason to promise ourselves all the advantages that cun 
 result from stability and union. 
 
302 Appemlix—No. 8. 
 
 AVe are anxious to complete our Episcopal system by 
 means of the Church of England. We esteem and prefer 
 it, and with gratitude acknowledge the patronage and fa- 
 vours 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 request, and to endeavour to remove your pre- 
 sent hesitation, by sending you our proposed ecclesiastical 
 constitution and Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 These documents, we trust, will aftbrd a full answer to 
 every question that can arise on the subject. We consider 
 your lordship's letter as very candid and kind; we repose 
 full confidence in the assurances it gives ; and that confi- 
 dence, together with the liberality 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 lordship's opinion, if that should be llie case, 
 pruned rather more closely than its separation made abso- 
 lutely necessary. 
 
 We have only to add, that as our Church in sundry of 
 these states have already proceeded to the election of per- 
 sons to be sent for consecration, and others may soon pro- 
 ceed to the same, we pray to be favoured with as speedy an 
 answer to this, our second address, as in your great good- 
 ness you were pleased to give to our former one. 
 We are. 
 
 With great and sincere respect, 
 
 Most worthy and venerable prelates, 
 Your obedient, and 
 
 Very liumble servants,* 
 
 In Convention, 
 Christ Church, Philadelphia, June 26, 1780. 
 
 * Signed by all the members. 
 
Appendix — No. 9. 303 
 
 No. 9. Page 120. 
 
 Communications from the Archbishops of Canterbury and 
 
 York. 
 
 To the Committee of the General Convention at Philadelphia, 
 the Rev. Dr. JVhite, president, the Rev. Dr. Smith, the 
 Rev, Mr. Provoost, the Honourable James Duane, Samuel 
 Powell, and Richard Peters, Esqs. 
 
 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 yoa to be persuaded, that if we 
 have not yet been able to comply with your request, the de- 
 lay has proceeded from no tardiness on our part. The only 
 cause of it has been the uncertainty in which we were left 
 by receiving your address unaccompanied by those commu- 
 nications with regard to your liturgy, articles, and ecclesias- 
 tical constitution, without the knowledge of which we could 
 not presume to apply to the legislature, for such powers as 
 were necessary to the completion of your wishes. The 
 journal of the convention, and the first part of your liturgy, 
 did not reach 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 
 however, was paid to our liturgy than its own excellence^ 
 and your declared attachment to it, had led us to expecto 
 Not to mention a variety of verbal alterations, of the neces- 
 sity 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 Apostles^ 
 Creed, an article is omitted, which was thought necessary 
 to be inserted, with a view to a particular heresy, in a very 
 early age of the Church, and has ever since had the vener- 
 able sanction of universal reception. Nevertheless, as a 
 proof of the sincere desire which we feel to continue in 
 
304 Appnulix—Xo. \^. 
 
 >:j)irittiMl ooniniimion with tlie lueinljcrs of your Cimrcli irt' 
 AiiKM'ica, and to coinpltstc tlio orclLTs of vour ministry, and 
 tnistino- that the coniniiinications which we shall make to 
 you on the siihject of these and some other alterations, wiK 
 Jiave their desired effect, we have, even under those cir- 
 cumstances, prepared a bill for conveyitio- to us iIh; |)owers 
 necessary for this purpose. It will in a few days he pre- 
 sented to parliament, and we have the best reasons to liopo 
 that it will receive the assent of the legislature. This bill 
 \vill enable the archbishof)s and bishops to give J^piscopal 
 consecration to the persons who shall be reconimended, 
 without requiring from them any oaths or subscriptions in^ 
 consistent with the situation in which the late revolution has 
 placed them ; upon condition that the full satisfaction of the 
 sufficiency of the |)ersons recommended, whicii you offer tt> 
 us in your aildress, be given to the archbishops and bishops. 
 You will doubtless receive it as a mark both of our friendly 
 disposition toward you, and of our desire to avoid all delay oa 
 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 sukes we have requested) to state to you particularly 
 the several heads upon which that satisfViction which you 
 offer will be accepted, and the motle in which it may be 
 given. The anxiety w Inch is show n by the Church of Eng-' 
 land to prevent the intrusion of unqualified persons into 
 even the inferior offu;es 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 
 tliose 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 can- 
 didate submits himself to the examination of the bishop us 
 to his proficienc} in learning; he gives the proper security 
 of his soundness in the faith by the subscriptions which are 
 made previously necessary ; he is required to bring testi- 
 monials of his virtuous conversation during the three preced- 
 ing years; and that no mode of inquiry may be omitted, 
 public notice of his offering himself to be ordained is given 
 in the parish church where he resides or ministers, and the 
 people are solemnly called ujion 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 in- 
 
Appendix — No. 9. 305 
 
 jleeil repeated at the consecration of an English bishop, l)e- 
 cau.sc tlie person to be consecrated has added to the secu- 
 rities given at his former ordinations, that sanction which 
 aris^es from his having constantly lived and exercised his 
 ministry under tlie eyes and observation of his country. 
 But the o!)jects of our present consideration are very differ- 
 ently circumstanced ; their sutiiciency in learning, the sound- 
 ness of their faith, and the purity of their manners, are not 
 matters of notoriety here; means therefore must be found 
 to satisfy the archbisliop who consecrates, and the bishops 
 who 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 examples 
 and patterns to the flock of Christ." 
 
 With regard to the tirst qualification, sufficiency in good 
 learning, we ai)prehend 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 ordina- 
 tion of priests and deacons, might lessen that reverend 
 estimation which ought never to be separated from the 
 Episcopal character : we therefore do not require any far- 
 tiier satisfaction on this point, than will be given to us by 
 the forms of testimonials in the annexed paper; fully trust- 
 ing that those who sign them will be well aware, how greatly 
 incompetence in this resjjcct must lessen the weight and 
 authority of the bishop, and affect the credit of the Episcopal 
 Chin-ch. 
 
 Under the second head, that of subscription, our desire 
 is to require that subscription only to be repeated, which 
 yon have already been called upon to make by the tenth 
 article of your ecclesiastical constitution. 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 
 disposition we have shown to comply with 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 Apostles' Creed, in which 
 you have omitted an article merely, as it seems, from mis- 
 apprehension of the sense in which it is understood by our 
 Church ; nor can we help adding, that we hope you will 
 
 39' 
 
30G Appendix — Xu. 9. 
 
 think it but a decent proof of the attaciiinent 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 shoukl be left discretional. We 
 should be inexcusable too, if at the time when you are re- 
 questing the establishment of bishops in your Church, we 
 (lid not strongly represent to you that the eighth article of 
 your ecclesiastical constitution appears to us to be a degra- 
 dation 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 repre- 
 sentation. 
 
 On the third and last head, which respects purity of man- 
 ners, the reputation of the Church, both in England and 
 America, and the interest of our common Christianity, is so 
 deeply concerned in it, that we feel it our indispensable 
 duty to provide, on this subject, the most ellectual 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 rea- 
 sons, 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 consecration, must be deemed 
 of little use before a congregation composed of those to 
 whom the person to be consecrated is unknown. The tes- 
 timonials, 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 j)roportion as these circum- 
 tances arc less applicable to testimonials from America, 
 those testimonials moat be more explicit, and supported by 
 a greater number of signatures. We therefore think it ne- 
 cessary that the several persons, candidates for Episcopal 
 consecration, should bring tons both a testimonial from the 
 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, with as many 
 signatures as can be obtained, and a more particular one 
 from the respective conventions in those states which re- 
 commend thorn. It will appear from the tenour of the let- 
 ters testimonial used in England, a form of which is an- 
 nexed, 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 
 ihe members of the General Convention of the Episcopal 
 
Appendix — No. 9. 307 
 
 C!hurch in America, on this occasion. We think it sufficient, 
 therefore, that tiiey declare they know no ini{3edinient, birt 
 believe the jierson 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 conven- 
 tion in each state from which the persons offered for con- 
 secration are rcsj)ectiveiy recommended. Tlieir personal 
 knowledge of them there can be no doubt of. \Ve trust, 
 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 re- 
 quired previously to our ordinations. We trust we shall 
 receive these testimonials signed by such a majority in each 
 convention that recommend, as to leave no doubt of the fit- 
 ness 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 communicate to 
 you without reserve at present, intending to give you fur- 
 ther information as soon as we are able. In the mean time, 
 "ive pray God to direct your counsels in this very weighty 
 matter, and are, Mr. President, and Gentlemen, your affec- 
 tionate brethren, 
 
 J. CANTUARo 
 W. EBOR. 
 
 For?n of a Testimonial for Fricsl^s Orders in England. 
 
 To the Right Rev. Father in God , by Divine Per- 
 mission Lord Bishop of . 
 
 We, whose names are here underwritten, testify from 
 our personal knowledge of the life and behaviour of ^. J3., 
 for the space of three years last past, that he hath, during 
 that time, lived piously, soberly, and honestly: Nor hath 
 he at any time, as far as we know or believe, written, 
 taught, or held, any thing contrary to the doctrine or dis- 
 cipline of the Church of England. And, moreover, we think 
 him a person worthy to be admitted to the sacred order of 
 priest. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our 
 
 hands. Dated the day of , in the year of our 
 
 Lord . 
 
308 Appendix — Nu. 0. 
 
 Testimonij from the General Cunvcntion. 
 
 We, whose names are underwritten, fully sensible \\(ax 
 important it is that the sacred office ot" a bishop should not 
 be unworthily conferred, and tirmly persuaded that it is our 
 duty to bear our 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 
 viciousness of life ; and that we do not know or believe 
 there is any impediment or notable crime, on account of 
 Avhich 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 Consecration. 
 
 We, whose names are underwritten, fully sensible how 
 important it is that the sacred ollice of a bishop should not 
 be unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our 
 duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion witiiout 
 partiality or affection, do, in the presence of Almiglity God, 
 testify, thatyl. B. is not, so far as we are informed, justly 
 liable to evil report either for error in religion or for 
 viciousness of life ; and tliat we do not know or believe 
 there is any impediment or notable crime for which he 
 ouglit not to be consecrated to that holy office. We dQ, 
 moreover, jointly and severally declare, that having per- 
 sonally 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 exercise the office of a bishop, to the honour 
 of God and the edifying of his Church, and to be an vvhole- 
 ;3ome example to the flock of Christ. 
 
Appendix — Nu. 10. 30d 
 
 INo. 10. Page 120. 
 
 iJumnmnicatiun frum the Archbishop of Can/crhiin/. • 
 
 Canterbury', July 4, 178C. 
 To the Committee of the General Ccnvmiibn, i^c. ^;c. 
 
 <3rENTLEMf:N, 
 
 The enclosed act being now passed, I have the satisfac- 
 tion of communicating it to you. It is accompanied by a 
 copy of a letter, and some forms of testimonials, which I 
 sent you by tho packet of last month. It is the opinion 
 here, that no more than three bisiiops 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 depend 
 on the answers we may receive, to what we have written. 
 
 1 am, your humble servant, 
 
 J. CANTUAR. 
 
 An Act to cmpoicer the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the 
 Archbishop of York, for the Time being, to Consecrute to 
 the Office of a Bishop, Persons being Subjects or Citizms 
 of Countries out of his Majesty'' s Dominions. 
 
 Whereas, by the laws of this realm no person can be 
 ^'onsecrated 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 contirmation and consecration: 
 And, whereas every person who shall be consecrated to the 
 said office, is required to take the oaths of allegiance and 
 su})remacy, and also the oath of due obedience to the arch- 
 bishop : And, whereas there are divers persons subjects or 
 citizens of countries out of his majesty's dominions, inhabit- 
 ing and residing within the said countries, vv'ho profess the 
 public worship of Almighty God according to the principles 
 of the Church of England, and who, in order to provide a 
 regular succession of ministers for the service of their 
 Church, are desirous of having certain of the subjects or 
 citizens of those countries consecrated bishops, according 
 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 spirit uai and (cm- 
 poralj and commons in this present parliament assembled, 
 
310 Appendix— Xo. 10. 
 
 ami by the authority of tlic same, that from and after tlie 
 passing of this act, it shall and may be hiwful to and for 
 the archbishop of Canterbury, or tlie archbisliop of York, 
 for the time being, together with such other bisho|)s as they 
 shall call to their assistance, to consecrate persons being 
 subjects or citizens of countries out of his majesty's do- 
 minions, 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 allegiance and 
 supremacy, and the oath of due obedience 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 beins, shall have first applied for, and obtained 
 his majesty's license, 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 arch- 
 bishop has been fully ascertained 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 bishops so 
 consecrated, nor any person or persons admitted to the 
 order of deacon or priest by any bishop or bishops so con- 
 secrated, or by the successor or successors of any bishop 
 or bishops so consecrated, shall be thereby enabled to exer- 
 cise his or their respective office or offices within his 
 majesty's dominions. Provided always, and be it further 
 enacted, 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 country 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. 
 
Appendix — No. li. 311 
 
 No. 11. Page 122. 
 Address to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. 
 
 Most Worthy and Venerable Prelates, 
 
 In pursuance of your graces' communications to the 
 standing conimittee of our Church, received by the June 
 packet, and the letter of liis grace the arclibisliop of Can- 
 terbury, of July the 4th, enclosing the act of parliament, 
 " to empower 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 citizens of 
 countries out of his majesty's dominions," a General Con- 
 vention, now sitting, have the honour of offering their 
 unanimous 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 com- 
 plying with the prayer of our former addresses. 
 
 We have taken into our most serious and deliberate 
 consideration, the several matters so affectionately recom- 
 mended to us in those confimunications, and whatever could 
 be done towards a comt)liance with your fatherly wishes 
 and advice, consistently 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,) 
 
 SAMUEL PROVOOST, Pres'i. 
 
 In General Convention, 
 At Wilmington, in the State of Delaware, 
 October nth, 1786. 
 
312 Appendix— Xo. V^. 
 
 No. 12. Page 123. 
 
 A Tjciter from Granville Sharp, ]2sq. to Dr. Benjamin 
 Franklin, nith Extracts of Letters, 
 
 Exlracf of a Tjctter from Granville Sharp to the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury/, dated I3th September, 1785. 
 
 " All these circumstances prove that the present time is 
 very important and critical for the promotion of the interests 
 iuu\ future extension of the Episcopal Church in America, 
 and that no time should he lost in ohtaining authority for 
 the archbishops and bishops of England to dispense with 
 the oaths of allegiance in the consecration of bishops for 
 fore/L^n Churches, that they may be restored to their un- 
 (jucstionable right as Christian bishops to extend the Epis- 
 copal Church of Christ all over the world." 
 
 " An immediate interference is become the more neces- 
 sary, not only on account of the pretensions of Dr. Scabury, 
 and the nonjuring bishops of Scotland, (to which, however, 
 I hope my letters will have given a timely check) but also 
 to guard against the presumption of Mv. Wesley and other 
 Methodists ; who, it seems, have sent over some persons 
 under the name o^ superintendents, with an assumed autho- 
 rity 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 3Iay last, from the letters of 
 their missionaries; and I have since heard that some 
 Methodistical clergymen have procured consecration from 
 the Moravian 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 increasins; 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 
 friend to the Church of England are peculiarly necessary at 
 this time to counteract them, and to facilitate the communi- 
 cation of a pure and irreprehensible Episcopacy to America, 
 by removing the obstacles which at present restrain the 
 archbishops <ind bishops of England, from extending the 
 Church of England beyond the bounds of English govern- 
 ment.'^ 
 
 " I should also Inform your grace, that America is not 
 
Appendix— No. \t $"l.f 
 
 llie only part whoroin Protestant Epi.sco])acy is likely to he 
 extended, when the rights of election are better understood : 
 for had 1 been prepared, in the year 1767, on this point, as 
 I am at present, I have reason to believe that a Protestant 
 Episcopal Chnrch would have been promoted in Holland, 
 and in several [jurts of Germany and Switzerland, long be- 
 fore this lime." 
 
 " How I happened to be concerned in so important an 
 aflair, (if your grace shoidd have leisure and curiosity to be 
 informed) I am ready to communicate on receiving- your 
 eomnjands," <fcc. 
 
 Exlract of a Lefterfrovi Granville Sharp to the Archbishop of 
 Canterhary, dated Xlfk of February, 1780. 
 
 " Since I had t!ie honour of speaking to your grace on 
 this subject, I have perused Dr. Smith's serm.on, which was 
 preached before the convention at Philadelphia ; and though 
 I have still great fears about the propriety of the alterations 
 tliey 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 pro- 
 posed to the English convocation in 16S9 ; for wliich, 
 several circutnstances have induced me to entertain a 
 favourable opinion. In looking over the MS. account of 
 Archbishop Sharp's life, I find that he was one of the king's 
 commissioners for that business, and took infinite pains 
 therein, being sensible that sow<? alterations might bo made 
 with advantage. He was also the person who first proposed, 
 in convocation, that Dr. Tiliotson should be appointed pro- 
 locutor, in order to favour the intended alterations. Dr. 
 Nichols has given a short general account of that business 
 m his ^Apparatus ad Defensionem Ecclesicp AnglicaTKe f but I 
 never heard that the transactions at length were ever 
 printed ; and therefore am surprised to find that the conven- 
 tion at Philadelphia had a full account of th.at important 
 business before them for their guidance. Dr. Nichols highly 
 commends the alterations that were then intended, and few 
 men were better qualified to be competent judges of that 
 matter, if these circumstances be duly considered, there 
 seems room to discriminate between the motives which 
 
 40 
 
31 i Append ix — \o, l:i. 
 
 niii^lit indiine llie rom ontlon nl I'liihuiolpliiii to make sudv 
 lari^c siibstractioiis iVoni our liturgy, and the real propriety; 
 or iinpiopriety of those siihstiaclioiis, at least so far tha!r 
 the latter need not l>c held forth as a ground of objection 
 UjL^ainst the can<li<iatf;s for consecration, if in other respects 
 ihc candidates themselves should l)e found unexcrpiionable, 
 and should readily profess a sound and unequivocal belief 
 in the fuiulamental articles of our faith ; for this will surely 
 justify their consecration before (iod and man; and more 
 especially if they will previously engage and promise, that 
 when tiiey have received authority, they will nol lay hands 
 on any man except on the like Chrialian conditions, indepen- 
 dent of all national forms and rituals of mere human autho- 
 rity, which cannot annul the necessity of maintaining au 
 orthodox ministry in Christ's Episcopal Church, howsoever 
 the governments under which they live, should think proper 
 to model the public forms of worship for their respective 
 jurisdictions. And therefore I beg leave huml)ly to submit 
 to your grace, that if any notice is to be taken of the late 
 rejection of creeds from the liturgy m your grace's intended 
 answer to the American requisition, whether, instead of 
 stating that measure H3 ajust cause of refusal, it may not be 
 more advisable to mention it rather as n /ust cause for your 
 exhorting and giving them timely learning not to send over 
 any candidates for consecration, hut such as are huncn to pro- 
 fess a sound belief in the fundamental articles of the Christian 
 faith? and more particularly in the scriptural doctrine of 
 the Holy Trinity, and in the real personality and actual 
 agency of the Holy Spirit as the Divine Comforter and In- 
 structor to the end of the world? For these necessary 
 articles of faith are not more perverted by the Sociniatis, 
 than by a sect professing principles diametrically opposite 
 to them, 1 mean the modern Mysticks, who assert that 
 Christ is the only God; though the effect of these very oppo- 
 site 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 soled, we may fairly judge by the fruit*. 
 Some Americans have lately adopted these strange notions, 
 which is the reason of my mentioning them," &-c. 
 
Appendix — Xo. 12. 31& 
 
 Letter to Dr. Franklin. 
 
 Old Jewrij, London^ Au^uhi 19, 1786. 
 
 3Dear Sir, 
 
 Notliing- coLikl l}ave been niore truly acceptable to me 
 ■tli.m jour excclipticy's obliging" present of tlie new American 
 Prayer Book; and the more esi)ccialiy as 1 had the happi- 
 ness of finding- that the convention have retained, in the 
 litany and otlier prayers, as well as in the articles of re- 
 ligion, an ample testimony to the most essential doctrines 
 of the Church of England, and that they iiave really pro- 
 ceeded upon the plan laid down by the king's commissioners 
 in 1689, of whom my own grandfather, (afterwards Arch- 
 bishop Sharp,) was one, who took a very active part in that 
 business, though jje is not mentioned in the preface of the 
 new Prayer Book. This 1 discovered by a MS. account of 
 my grandfather's life, much about the time that many vague 
 re[jorts were current here, of immoderate and unjust ifiable 
 changes made in the liturgy by the American convention; 
 ■for the Socinians flattered themselves (through a mere mis- 
 take of Dr. Price, in a note which he had added to Dr. 
 Rush's letter of October 25, 1785, as published in the news- 
 papers) that the proceedings of tlie convention had been 
 '■^similar'''' tothoseof ojze Episcopal congregation at Boston, 
 which adopted a liturgy — '•'■formed after the manner of Dr. 
 Clarke and Mr. Lindsei/.^' These reports would have given 
 me much more uneasiness, if the perusal of Dr. Smith's 
 sermon, (preached before the convention) had not inchiced 
 me to hope that the plan of the year 1689 would really be 
 adopted by the convention as a model of proceeding; and I 
 was well satisfied that the said plan was sufficiently ortho- 
 dox, because I was confident, that if it had been otherwise, 
 my grandfather would not have endeavoured to promote it. 
 Nevertheless, the reports of Soeinianism gave great oflfence 
 to many worthy people here, and more especially to the 
 bishops, who had been sincerely disposed to promote the 
 Church of America, as declared in my former letters; but 
 on hearing of the confident reports of the Socinians, they 
 seemed to give up all hopes of being able to hold any com- 
 munication with the convention. In this state of the busi- 
 ness, I thought it my duty to explain in writing to our 
 worthy primate, the archbishop of Canterbury, my reasons 
 *ibr koinn-x that ihe convention would be able to assign sucfe 
 
310 Appendix — A'o. 12. 
 
 a reasonable c.tcuse for the changes they were reported tu 
 liave made, as might be suflicient to remove thai ground of 
 objeclion w^-ainst the candidates for consecration, it', in other 
 respects, the candidates themselves were found nncxceptioii- 
 able. An extract from that letter 1 have enclosed for your 
 excellency's perusal, dated February 17, hist ; and I earn- 
 estly entreated that the bishops 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 letter dated September 13, 1785. As the convention trans- 
 mitted no account of their transactions, when they wrote to 
 the two archbishops, there was no sufficient evidence for a 
 direct confutation of the reports respecting Socinianisrn ; 
 and therefore the great caution and reserve expressed in 
 the joint answer of the archbishops, was unquestionably 
 right and perfectly necessary, under such a state of iinccr- 
 tainiij respecting Christian doctrine! 
 
 The archbishop of Canterbury, with his usual condescen- 
 sion and politeness, was pleased to communicate to me, 
 very lately, the contents of that letter, 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 hearty approbation of them, being tho- 
 roughly convinced that they were dictated by the most un- 
 affected sincerity of heart, and (I may even sny) apostolical 
 concern for the promotion of the true Catholic Church in 
 America. 
 
 j\evertheless, the archbishops have not yet received 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 tlie conven- 
 tion 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 ai)prehensions and 
 suspicions occasioned by the late reports about Socinianisni, 
 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 [(more creeds than one had been considered as falling 
 under the same head of correction, that, at least the JSicene 
 Creed might have been appointed to be used instead of the 
 common creed, on some particular festivals, as Christmas 
 4ay, or Trinity Sunday, with a discretionary power in the 
 minister to use occasionally the Athanasian Creed, as aji 
 
Appendix — No. 12. *U7 
 
 ithese creeds may equally be proved by imqLiestioiiablc testi- 
 monies of scripture. Nevertheless, the resolution expressed 
 in the preface, that they do not mean to separate from the 
 Church of England in principles, together with llie unequi- 
 vocal declarations still retained in the new liturgy, of the 
 indispensable faith and worship due io the iltrce divine per- 
 sons (whose existence in the one divine nature or godhead is 
 so clearly revealed in scripture, and into whose religious 
 service we are equally enlisted by the l;aptismal profession 
 and vows being made expressly in the iiauies of all the 
 three), must undoubtedly give sincere satisfaction to all true 
 Christians, notwithstanding the omission of several other 
 things which they would wish to have been also retained. 
 And, therefore, from my confidence of the unexceptionable 
 religious character of the Englisii bishops in general (with- 
 out 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 b.c still sincerely 
 inclined to promote the welfare of the Episcopal Churches 
 in America, and to maintain an ali'ectionate communication 
 with them as sister Churches, j)rovided that the gentlemen 
 elected to be sent for consecration are really in themselves 
 tmexc€])tionahle : and I have the satisfaction to inform your 
 excellency, that the archbishops have already prepared 
 themselves to comply with the requisition of the American 
 Churches, by obtaining an act of parliament in the last 
 session, to remove tho former difliculty about the oatbs, a 
 eopy of which is enclosed. The late accounts in the public 
 papers, that the Episcopal Churches of Virginia and New- 
 York had elected candidates for the Episcopal office in tlieir 
 respective provinces, gave me very particular satisfaction, 
 because 1 had understood from former accounts, that the 
 General Convention had nojninated ilie candidates ; which 
 would have been a dangerous precedent of infringement on 
 the ancient rights of the clergy and people in each province 
 respectively, to elect their own his/wps ; and I should have 
 bad still much more sincere satisfaction, if these two pro- 
 vinces had adopted the apostolical mode of electing tico 
 unexceptionable candidates for each see, whose acceptance 
 should be determined by lot, as revived by the Spanisli 
 bishops in the council o( Barcelona, (see my tract on Con- 
 gregational Courts, p. 89, 90,) but perhaps, upon the whole, 
 it may be more prudent to defer tlie decision of ike lot, until 
 three or four bishops are actually resident in America; 
 t^vho can then more effectually examine (as their apostolical 
 
313 Appendix — AV;. 13. 
 
 duty requires) the qualifications ujitl characters of the 
 ■^ilccted candidates, hy caUing upon the people, publicly, for 
 information, whetlier any just exceptions are known, bcfort: 
 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 : nothing- but an 
 luimble submission and reliance on the same Frovideiice, for 
 all the future consequences of the decision, whatever they 
 may be; unless some subsequent misconduct should render 
 the interference of the other bishops necessary. 
 
 1 send herewith a duplicate of my letter respecting a 
 paper currency ?iot liable to depreciation, which was sent by 
 the Mediator, Captain Kennydy ; and I remain v/ith true 
 jespect and esteem, dear sir. 
 
 Your excellency's most obliged, 
 Humble servant, 
 
 GRANVILLE SHARP. 
 His Excellency Benjamin Franklin, Esq. 
 President of the State of Pennsylvania. 
 
 IVo. 13. Page 124. 
 
 An Act of the General Convention of Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the States of 
 J^ew-York, New- Jersey, Pennsylvania, Deluvare, and 
 South-Carolina, held at Wilmington, in the State of Dela- 
 ware, on Wednesday, the 11th of O-ctober, 17^6. 
 
 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-A^)rk, New-Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, ]>Luyland, Virginia, aiid South- 
 Carolina, holdi;n at the city of Philadelphia, on the Tuesday 
 liefore the feast of St. Michael, in the year of our Lord 
 1785, and divers subsequent days, it was agreed and de- 
 clared, that " the Book of Common Prayer, and Adminis- 
 tration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies 
 of the Church, according to the use of the Church of Eng- 
 land," should be continued to be used by this Church, as 
 the same was altered by the said convention, in a certaiH 
 instrument of writing, passed by their authority, entitled, 
 -'* Alterations of the Liturgy of the Protectant Episcojnv! 
 
Appendix — No. ]:j. ,319 
 
 f'lHirclj in tlie United States of America, in order to render 
 the isanie conformable to ilie American llevohition and the 
 ('onslitiilions of the respective States:" And it was further 
 agreed and declared, that the Book of Comnjon Prayer, and 
 Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and 
 Ceremonies of t!ie Church, according to the use of tlie 
 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 recommended to the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Ame- 
 rica, should he used in this Church, when the same should 
 have been ratified by the conventions which had resjiectively 
 sent deputies to the said General Convention:" — And 
 thereupon the said convention, anxious to complete their 
 Episcopal system by means of the Church of England, did 
 transcribe 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 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 affectionate letters in 
 answer to the said address, from the said archbishops and 
 bishops, opening a fair prospect of the success of their saki 
 applications ; but, at the same time, earnestly exhorting this 
 convention to use their utmost exertions for the removal of 
 certain objections by them made, against son)e parts of the 
 alterations in the Book of Cominon Prayer, and Rites and 
 Ceremonies of this Church, last mentioned: In pursuance 
 whereof, this present General Convention hath been called, 
 and is now assenibled ; and being sincerely disposed to give 
 every satisfaction to their lordships, which will be consist- 
 ent with the union and general content of the Church they 
 represent; and declaring their steadfast resolution to main- 
 tain the same essential articles of faith and discipline with 
 the Church of England: 
 
 Now therefore, the said deputies do hereby determine and 
 declare, 
 
 First, That in the creed commonly called the Apostlcis' 
 Creed, these words — " He descended into hell," shall \>e. 
 and continue a part of that creed. 
 
32Cr Appendix— No. 13> 
 
 Secondly, Tliat ilic iNiceiie Creed shall also be inserted 
 in the said JJook ol" Common Prayer, immediately after the 
 Apostle's Creed, prefaced with the rubric [or this.'] 
 
 And whereas, In consequence of the objections expressed 
 by their lordb-hips to the alterations in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, last mentioned, the conventions in some of the 
 states, represented in this General Convention, have sus- 
 pended the ratification and use of the said Book of Com- 
 Mion Prayer, by reason whereof it will be improper that 
 persons to be consecrated or ordained as bishops, priests, 
 or deacons, respectively, should subscribe the declaration 
 contained in the tenth article of the general ecclesiastical 
 constitution, without some modification. 
 
 Therefore, it is hereby determined and declared, 
 Tliirdly, That the second clause so to be subscribed 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 Connnon Prayer, shall be in the words following — 
 " And 1 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, Alterations of the Liturgy 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United Slates of 
 America, in order to render the same conformable to the 
 American Revolution, and the Consiitutions of the respective 
 States, until the new Book of Common Prayer, recom- 
 mended by the General Convention, shall be ratified or used 
 in the state in which lam (bishop, priest, or deacon, as the 
 case may be), by the authority of the convention thereof. 
 And I do further solemnly engage, that when the said new- 
 Book of Common 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 Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church, as settled and determined in 
 the last mentioned Book of Common Prayer, and Admi- 
 nistration of the Sacraments, set forth by the General 
 Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States." 
 
 And it is hereby further determined and declared, 
 
 That these words in the preface to the new proposed 
 
 Book of Common Prayer, viz. " In the creed commonly 
 
 called the Apostle's Creed, one clause is omitted, as being 
 
 of uncertain meaning ; and"— together with the note re- 
 
Appendix — No. 14. Z^ir 
 
 ferred 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 render it conforma- 
 ble to the adoption of the Nicene Creed, as follows, " of the 
 creeds. The two creeds, namely, that commonly called 
 the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, ought to be re- 
 ceived and believed, because they." »fec. Sec. 
 
 Done in General Convention, at Wilmingtony in the State of 
 Delaware, the day and year first aforesaid. 
 
 No. 14. Page 138. 
 
 To all Persons to trhom these Presents shall come, or tchoni 
 the same shall or may in any icise or at any time concern, 
 we, John, by Divine Providence, Lord Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, Primate of alt England, and Metropolitan, send 
 greeting : — 
 
 Whereas, by an act of parliament, passed at Westmin- 
 Bter, in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of our sovereign 
 Lord George the third, king of Great-Britain, France, and 
 Ireland, entitled, " An Act to empower the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, or the Archbishop of York, for the time being, 
 to Consecrate to the Oflice of a Bishop, Persons being 
 Subjects or Citizens of Countries out of his Majesty's Do- 
 minions," 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 allegiance and 
 supremacy, and the oath of due obedience to the archbishop 
 for the time being. Provided always, that no persons shalt 
 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 ob'tained 
 his majesty's license, by warrant under his royal signet and 
 sign manual, authorizing and empowering him to perform 
 such consecration, and expressing the name or names of 
 
 41 
 
322 Appendix— No. 14. 
 
 the persons so to be consecrated ; nor until tlio said arch- 
 bishop has been fully ascertained of their sutiiciency 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 j)erson 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 persons admitted to the 
 order of deacon or priest by any bishop or bishops so con- 
 secrated, or by the successor or successors of any bishop 
 or bishops so consecrated, shall be thereby enabled to exer- 
 cise his or their respective office or offices within his 
 majesty's dominions. Provided always, and be it further 
 enacted, 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 country 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. — Now, know all men by these presents, 
 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 parliament, on Sunday, 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 county 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 Philadelphia, in the 
 said state, of whose sufficiency in good learning, soundness 
 in the faith, and purity of manners, we were fully ascer- 
 tained, 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 testimony 
 thereof by him produced ; and him, the said William White, 
 did then and there rightly and canonically consecrate a 
 bishop, accordini;- to the manner and form prescribed and 
 used by the Church of England, his taking the oaths of 
 allegiance, supremacy, and canonical obedience only ex- 
 cepted, he being exenipted from the obligation of taking 
 the said oaths by virtue of the above recited act. Provided, 
 that neither he, the said bishop, nor any person or persons 
 
Appendix — No. 14. 823 
 
 deriving their consecration from or under him, nor any 
 person or persons admitted to the order 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 dominions. In testimony whereof, we have caused 
 our archi-episcopal seal to be affixed to thfese presents. 
 Given at Lambeth House, the day and year above written, 
 and in the fourth year of our translation. 
 
 J. (L. S.) CANTUAR. 
 
 We, William, lord archbishop of York, Charles, lord 
 bishop of Bath and Wells, and John, lord bishop of Peter- 
 borough, were present and assisting at the consecration 
 within mentioned. 
 
 W. EBOR, 
 
 C. BATH & WELLS, 
 
 J. PETERBOROUGH. 
 
 The signatures of the archbishops of Canterbury and 
 York, and of the bishops of Bath and Wells, and Peter- 
 borough, were made in my presence, February 4th, 1787. 
 
 W. DICKES, 
 (Copy.) Secretary to ths Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 On Sunday, the fourth day of February, in the year of 
 our Ijord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, 
 and in the fourth year of the translation of the most rever- 
 end father in God, John, by divine Providence, lord arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and metro- 
 jiolitan, in the chapel at the palace at Lambeth, in the 
 county of Surry, the said most reverend father in God, by 
 virtue and authority of a certain license or warrant from 
 his most gracious majesty, and our sovereign Lord George 
 the third, by tlie grace of God, of Great-Britain, France, 
 and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, and so forth, to 
 him, in this behalf, directed, the most .reverend father in 
 God, William, by the same Providence, lord archbishop of 
 York, primate of England, and metropolitan, and the right 
 reverend fathers in God, Charles, by divine permission, 
 lord bishop of Bath and Wells, and John, by divine per- 
 mission, lord bishop of Peterborough, assisting him, conse- 
 crated the reverend William White, doctor in divinity, 
 rector of Christ Church and St. Peter's, in the city of 
 Philadelphia, a subject or citizen of the United States of 
 iVorth-Amcrica, and the reverend Samuel Provoost, doctor 
 
324 Appendix — No. 14. 
 
 in divinity, rector of Trinity Church, in the city of INcW' 
 York, a subject or citizen also of the United States o( 
 North-America, to the office of a bishop, respectively, tiie 
 rites, circumstances, and ceremonies anciently used in the 
 Church of England being observed and applied, according 
 to the tenour of an act passed in the twenty-sixth year of 
 the reign of his said majesty, entitled, " An Act to em- 
 power 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 Canterbury, being then and there pre- 
 sent, the reverend and worshipful William Backhouse, 
 
 doctor in divinity, archdeacon of Canterbury, the Rev. 
 
 Lort, doctor in divinity, the Rev. Drake, doctor in 
 
 divinity, William Dickes, Esquire, notary-public, secretary 
 to his grace the said lord archbishop of Canterbury, with 
 many others in great numbers then and there assembled. 
 Which 1 attest. 
 
 RT. JENNER, 
 (Copy.) Notary-Public, actuary assumed. 
 
 And we, the underwritten notaries public, by royal au- 
 thority duly admitted and sworn, residing in Doctor's 
 Commons, London, do hereby certify and attest, to all 
 whom it may concern, that Rober Jenner, whose name is 
 subscribed to the aforegoing art, was and is a notaryrpublic, 
 and one of the deputy registers of the province of Canter- 
 bury, and that the letters, name, and words, " Rt. Jenner, 
 notary-public," 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 February, in the year of our Lord ono 
 thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven. Which we 
 
 EDWARD COOrER, Notary- Public, 
 (Copy.) W1LLL\M ABBOT, Notary-Public, 
 
Appendix — No. 15. 325 
 
 No. 15. Page 139. 
 Note of the Archhislwp. 
 
 The archbishop desires to have the proper direction for 
 a letter to Bishop White at Falmouth ; where, if he can 
 iind time, he means to send a letter to Dr. Chandler. If 
 he should not be able to write to Dr. Chandler, he begs the 
 bishop to assure him of his affectionate esteem and regard, 
 and his hearty prayers for his better health. He wishes 
 also for such a direction, 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 consecrations in the 
 province of York. They have always been attended by 
 two bishops with the archbishop. 
 
 No. 16. Page 139. 
 
 1. From his Excellency Richard Henry Lee, Esq. President 
 of Congress, to the Hon. John Adams, Esq. Minister Ple- 
 nipotentiary to the Court of Great-Britain.* 
 
 New-York, October 24, 1785. 
 JDear Sir, 
 
 Having yesterday written a long letter to you, I have now 
 only to request your attention to the following business, 
 which is of very great importance to those whom it concerns ; 
 and who form a considerable portion of the citizens of these 
 states. The representatives of those professing the Church 
 of England system of religion, having been lately assembled 
 at Philadelphia, where lay and clerical deputies from seven 
 states were convened in General Convention, for the purpose, 
 among other things, of preserving and maintaining a suc- 
 cession of divines in their Church, in a manner which they 
 
 * In the answer of Mr. Adams, he calls Mr. Lee " late president of Congress." 
 The presidency of the latter ended two days after his writing of the letter, as ap- 
 pears from the printed journals of the body, and the circumstance must have been 
 iljnown 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 official 
 tharacter. 
 
32Q Appendix — No. IG. 
 
 judge consonant to the Gospel, and no way interfering with 
 the rcHgious or civil rights of otliers, have sent an address 
 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 consider- 
 ed here as an ofiicious intermeddling with our affairs, that 
 would give offence on this side the water. Should this be 
 the case, the Church of England members of congress have 
 the greatest reliance on your liberal regard for the religious 
 lights of all men, that you will remove mistaken scruples 
 from the mind of administration, by representing how per- 
 fectly consonant it is with our revolution principles, pro- 
 fessed throughout all these states, that every denomination 
 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 evidencing a friendly disposition 
 to accommodate the people here who are members of the 
 Church in question. 
 
 In proof of this, congress did lately show their attention 
 to the accommodation of this class of Christians, by com- 
 municating to the different executives your information 
 from the Danish minister, of that king's willingness to facili- 
 tate the business of ordination for our Church, and the as- 
 sembly 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 obedient and very 
 humble servant, 
 
 RICHARD HENRY LEE. 
 His Excellency John Adams, Esq. Minister Plenipotentiary 
 
 from the United States of America to the Court of London, 
 
 at his House in Grosvenor-Square, London. 
 
Appendix — No. \Q. 3*27 
 
 •J. From Mr. Adavis to Mr. Lee, in answer.^ 
 
 Grosvciior-Squarc, January 4, 1786, 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 A (lay or two after the receipt of your letter of November 
 1, and that of J^Ir. Jay's whicii came with it, I wrote to the 
 nrchbishoj3 of Canterbury, by Col. Smith, for an hour when 
 I might have the honour to pay my respects to his grace, 
 and was answered yavy politely, that he would be glad to 
 * have the honour of seeing nie next day, between eleven 
 and twelve. Accordingly 1 went yesterday, and was very 
 agreeably received, by a venerable and a candid prelate, 
 with whom J had before only exchanged visits of ceremony. 
 I told his grace, that at the desire of two very respectable 
 characters in America, the late jjresident of congress and 
 the present secretary of state for the department of foreign 
 affairs, I 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 tlie southern states, which had been 
 transmitted to me open, that 1 might be acquainted with 
 its contents. That in this business, however, 1 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 v/ell disposed 
 to give the satisfaction desired — 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 reputation interested themselves in it — for that the 
 Episcopalians in the United States could not have the full 
 
 • There is in possession a copy of a letter to John Jay, Esq. containing the same 
 m substance ; it being in answer to a letter of that gentleman, tiien secretary of 
 atate for foreign affairs. 
 
328 Appendix-— No. IC. 
 
 and complete enjoyment of their religious liberties withau* 
 it — and lie subjoined, that it was also a great satisfaction to 
 liim, to have received this visit from me upon this occasion 
 — and he would take the liberty to ask me, if it were not an 
 improper question, whether the interposition of the English 
 bishops would not give uneasiness and dissatisfaction in 
 America ? I replied, that my answer could be only that of a 
 private citizen, and in that ca|)acity 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 dissatisfaction, 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 government. He hoped the 
 characters which should be recommended, would be good 
 ones. I replied, that there were in the Churches in America, 
 able men, of characters altogether irreproachable — 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 commission, and remain, as usual, your sincere friend 
 and most obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN ADAMS. 
 (A true copy.) 
 Richard Henry Lee. 
 
 3. Letter of the Archbishop of Canterhury to Mr. Adams. 
 
 Lambeth House, February 27, 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 Epis- 
 copal Church, in convention, in Philadelphia, I concur with 
 them in requesting the favour of you, to forward our answer 
 to the committee appointed to receive it. Duplicates of 
 the answer accompany this letter ; which, if sent by different 
 
Appendix— No. 16. 3^0? 
 
 sMpe, 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 Exceiiiive Caundl of Penn- 
 sylvania. 
 
 Fcnnsijlcama, ss. 
 
 The sujireme executive council of the commonwealth of 
 Pentisylvania, tlo hereby certify and make known to all 
 whom it may concern, that agreeably to the frame of 
 government and laws of this commonvvealtli — the clergy 
 and others, members of the Church of England in Penn- 
 sylvania, are at lit)erty to take such means as they may 
 think proper, for keeping up a succession of religious 
 teachers — Provided only, that the means they adopt for 
 this purpose do not induce a subjection to any foreign 
 jurisdiction, civil or ecclesiastical. 
 
 Given in council under the hand of the honourable Charles 
 Biddle, Usquire, Vice-President, and the seal of the 
 State, at Philadelphia, this t went i/-f our th day of Novem- 
 ber, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred 
 and eighty-JivCf and in the tenth year of the Common- 
 irealth. 
 
 (Attest) CHARLES BIDDLE, V. P. 
 
 JOHN ARMSTRONG, Jur. Sec. 
 
 5. A Certificate of his Excellency Patrick Henry, Esq. 
 Governor of Virginia.* 
 
 By his Excellency Patrick Henry, Esq. Governor of the Com-" 
 monwealth of Virginia. 
 
 It is certified and made known to aU whom it may con- 
 cern — That the Protestant Episcopal Church is incorpo- 
 
 • This copy of the certificate of the governor of Virginia, was sent to the author 
 bv the Rev. Dr. Griffith, bishop elect of that state, to be laid before the conventioi* 
 of October, 17?6. 
 
 42 
 
330 Appendix— No. 17. 
 
 rated by an act of the le^i.slnturc of this commonwealth, far 
 that piir[)Ose, tiiade and provided: tliat there is no law ex- 
 isting in this commonwealth, which in any manner forbids 
 the admission of bishoi)s, or the exercise of their office: on 
 the contrary, by the sixteenth article of the declaration of 
 rights, it is 'provided in the words following, viz. — " That 
 religion, or the dnty which we owe to our Creator, and the 
 manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason 
 and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all 
 men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, 
 according to the dictates of conscience ; 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 handy and 
 caused the seal of the Commonwealth to he aflixed, 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. HE^Ry. 
 
 No. 17. Page 139. 
 
 From Richard Peters, Esq. 
 
 London, March 4, 1786^ 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I yesterday waited on the archbishop of Canterbury, who 
 received me with great politeness. I delivered the parcels 
 you sent by me, but he had previously received the origi- 
 nals. He opened the conversation by saying, that on receipt 
 of the address from the convention, which was conceived in 
 terms that gave great satisfaction, the bishops had deter- 
 mined at once to comply with it, if the government would 
 enable them, by passing a law for the purpose. But hearing 
 a number of rc;vjrts, which the committee had not put it in 
 their power to clear up, by sending them all the proceedings 
 of the convention, they thought it their duty to act cautiously, 
 and restrained their desire to meet our wishes, till they had 
 more full information on the subject. He said it was un- 
 necessary to enter into the various reports of alterations 
 said to be made, or intended by our Churches, for he did 
 
Appendix — No. 17. 331 
 
 '-noi give credit to common reports, which are often circulated 
 without foundation. Some alterations, however, it a[)- 
 peared, 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 proper, he allowed; but 
 he hoped there would be found none which rendered our 
 Church substantially different from theirs, of v/hich he con- 
 sidered it as a branch, and the bishops were obliged to ex- 
 amine 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 sincerely /e// 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 parliament, there was not a dissent- 
 ing voice. He hoped so unanimous an opinion, must evi- 
 dence, beyond a doubt, the great desire ail had to grant our 
 request. They all, from the bottom of their hearts, wished 
 our prosperity, 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 embar- 
 rassments, with respect to the civil powers of the United 
 States, were removed by the certificates and papers trans- 
 mitted. He had spoke to the king, on the receipt of the 
 address, who expressed great satisfaction in it, and was 
 ready to do what was required of him. That administra- 
 tion would promote the law, when it was recommended by 
 the bishoj)s as proper. They therefore, being in a respon- 
 sible situation, must proceed with caution. He desired 
 nothing he had said, should be thought calculated to throw 
 difficulties in the way; for there really was no disposition 
 ot that kind in the bishops, or members of the government. 
 He hoped our convention, at the next meeting, woidd con- 
 sider the embarrassments too many alterations would throw 
 in the way of their application here, and if any of them sub- 
 stantially deviated from the doctrines or worship of this 
 €hurch, it would frustrate the views of our Churches, by 
 
B32 Appendix — Xo. 17. 
 
 f)Uttiiig it out of the power of those here, who liavc 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 iui;ch dcpen{k^d on this. 
 They shouUl, however, commit themselves to our discretion 
 in this respect, and hoped they should have no reason to 
 repent it. He declined answering the question I was do- 
 sired by Dr. White to put to him, respecting the validity of 
 Scotch consecrations, having lirst asked me whether the 
 question came from the convention ? 1 told hiai it was to^ 
 satisfy private inquiries, which were made with no view of 
 seeking consecration 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 substantial 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, notwithstanding their strong desire to do what we 
 wish. 
 
 I am, gentlemen, 
 With much esteem, 
 
 Your very obedient servant, 
 PaCHARD PETERS. 
 Rev. Dr. White, Rev. Dr. Smith, Rev. Mr. Frovuust, 
 Hon. James Duane, Samuel Powell, Esq. 
 
 V. S. Mr. Adams has been very attentive to the business 
 of an address, with which he wailed on the archbisho|i, who 
 in return waited on him with the answer transmitted. I 
 think the committee shonld return him their thanks, for the 
 part lie (Mr. Adams) has taken. 
 
 Do not publish the bishops' answer, as it will get over 
 here, and be a subject of news-paper discussion. 
 
 * Nolwithstfindinp tlie prudent reserve of (lie archbishop at tliislime. lie is said 
 to have giTen his iutlueiice in favour of the noiijuriiif,' hi.>-hops about three yearn 
 afterwards; when, on the decease of the last Pretender, diey began to pray for 
 ,the king on the throne, and some of them came up to London,, to solicit tli« icjieaj 
 ,9f the penal laws made against tlnJii). 
 
Appendix — No. 17. 333 
 
 No. IS. Pa-c 142. 
 jin Act of the Clergy of JSlassucliusclts and iS'cic-HanrpsJiirc. 
 
 The good Providence of Alniiiihty God, ihc 'onntaiii t)f 
 all goodness, having lately blessed ihe Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America, by supplying it 
 with a complete and entire ministry, 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 Massa- 
 rchusetts and New-IIampshire, deeply inijiressed with the 
 most lively gratitude to the Supreme Governor of the uni- 
 verse, for his goodness in this respect, and with the most 
 ardent love to his Church, and concern for the interest of 
 her sons, that they may enjoy ail the means that Christ, 
 the great Shepiicrd 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 j)eace ; to the end that the j)eople committed 
 ^o our respective charges may enjoy the benefit and advant- 
 age of those olhces, the administration of wiiich belotigs to 
 the highest order of the ministry, and to encourage and 
 j)romote, as far as in us lies, a union of the whole Episcojjal 
 Cliurch in these states, and to perfect and compact this 
 mystical body 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 bisliop; 
 and we do promise and engage to receive him as such, 
 when canonically consecrated, and invested with the apos- 
 tolic office and powers, by the right reverend the bishops 
 hereafter named, and to render him all that canonical obedi- 
 xjnce and submission, which, by the laws of Christ and the 
 constitution of our Church, is Ana to so important an otTice. 
 
 An(\ we now address t!ie right reverend the bishops in 
 Jthe states of Connecticut, New- York, and Pennsylvania, 
 ])raying their united assistance in consecrating our said 
 brother, and canonically investing him with the apostolic 
 otiice and powers. This request we are induced to make, 
 from a long ac<piaintance with him, and from a perfect 
 knowledge of his being possessed of that love to God and 
 benevolence to men, tlmt jiiety, learning, and good morals, 
 ihat prudence and discretion, retptisife to so exaUed a 
 station, as well as th;<.t personal rcspc<;t and attachment of 
 
334 Appendix — No. 18. 
 
 the communion at large in these states, whicli will mak« 
 him a valuable acquisition to the order, and, we trust, a 
 rich blessing: to the Church. 
 
 Done at a meeting of the Prcshytcrs, 7cho.sc names are 
 undencrilten, held at Salem, in the County of Essex, 
 and Commonicealth of Massachusetts, the fourth day of 
 June, Anno Salutis, 1789. 
 
 SAMUEL PARKER, 
 
 Rector of Triniti/ Church, Boston. 
 
 T. FITCH OLIVER, 
 
 Rector of St. MichacVs Church, 3JarbIehead. 
 JOHN COUSErsS OGDEN, 
 Rector of Q.uccii's Chapel, Portsmouth, New- Hampshire . 
 WILLIAM MONTAGUE, 
 
 Minister of Christ Church, lioston. 
 
 TILLOTSON 15RUNSON, 
 
 Assistant Minister of Christ Church, Boston. 
 
 Resolves on the foregoing. 
 
 1st. Resolved, That a complete order of bishops, derived 
 as well under the English as the Scots line of Episcopacy, 
 doth now subsist within the United States of America, in 
 the persons of the Right Rev. William White, D. D. i)ishop 
 of the Protestant Episco|)al Church in the state of Penn- 
 sylvania ; the Right Rev. Samuel Provoost, D. D. bishop of 
 the said Church in the state of New-Vork; 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 com- 
 petent to every proper act and duty of the Ej)iscopal office 
 and character in these United States, as well in respect to 
 the consecration of other bisho|)s, and the ordering of priests 
 and deacons, as for the government of the Church, accord- 
 ing to such rules, canons, and institutions, as now are, or 
 hereafter may be duly made and ordained by tlic Church in 
 that case. 
 
 3d. Resolved, That in Christian charity, as well as of 
 duty, necessity, and expediency, the Churches rcj>resented 
 in this convention ought to contrib'ite, in every maimer in 
 their power, towards supplying the wants, and granting 
 every just and reasonable request of their sister Churches 
 iu these states; and, therefore, 
 
 4th. Resolved, That the Right Rev. Dr. White, and I he 
 i{ight Rev. Dr. Provoost, be, and they hereby arc, recpiested 
 to join with the Right Rev. Dr. Seabury, in complying with 
 
Appendix— No. 19. 335 
 
 i\\e prayer of tho clergy of the states of rilassacliiisetts and 
 Ne\v-llaiiii)shir<;, 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 afore- 
 said, it be proposed to the Churches in the New-England 
 states, to meet the Churches of these states, with the i^riid 
 three bishops, in an adjourned convention, to settle certain 
 articles of union and disciiiiine ainon^ all the Churches, 
 previous to such consecration. 
 
 5rh. llssolvi'd, That if any difficidty 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 compliance with the above request, 
 this convention will address the archbishops and bishops,, 
 and hope thereby to remove the difiicuky. 
 
 No. 19. Page 143. 
 
 An Address to the Most Reverend the Archbishops of Can- 
 terbury and York. 
 
 Most Venerable and Illustrious Fathers 
 AND Prela'ies, 
 
 We, the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the states of New-York, New-Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Soutli- 
 Carolina, impressed with every sentiment of love and vene- 
 ration, beg leave to embrace this earliest occasion, in 
 General Convention, to offer our warmest, most sincere, and 
 grateful acknowledgments to you, and (by your means) to 
 all the venerable bishops of the Church over which you pre- 
 side, for the manifold instances of your former condescen- 
 sion to us, and solicitude for our spiritual welfare. But we 
 are more especially called to express our thankfulness, for 
 that particular act of your fatherly goodness, whereby we 
 derive, under you, a pure Episcopacy and succession of the 
 ancient order of bishops, and are now assembled, through 
 the blessing -of God, as a Church duly constituted and or- 
 ganized, with the happy prospect before us of a future fidl 
 and undisturbed exercise of our holy religion, and its exten- 
 sion to the utmost bounds of this continent, under an eccle- 
 siastical constitution, and a form of worship, which vvc 
 believe to be truly apostolical. 
 
33t> Appendix — Xu. 19. 
 
 Tlie growlii;;; prospect of tliis liappy clill'iision of Ciiri.sti^" 
 nnity, and the assurance we can give you that our Cliurches 
 are spreadini: and flouri.sliin:^ tlir()U<^liout llie.se United 
 States, wo know, will yield yon more solid joy, and be con- 
 sid(;ied as a more an){)le rewar(] (»t" your ^^oodness to us, 
 timn all the praises and expressions ot" <jratilude which the 
 ton^rues of men can bestow. 
 
 It <iives US pleasure to assure you, that, durin<!; the pre- 
 sent sitting of our convention, the utmost harmony has pre- 
 vailed tiiro!ii;'h all our deliberations, that we continue, as 
 heretofore, most sincerely attached to the laith and doctrine 
 of the Church of England: and that not a wish appears to 
 prevail, either among our clergy or laity, of ever dej)arting 
 from tiiat Church in any essential article. 
 
 The business of most niaterial conse<pience which hath, 
 come before us, at our present meeting, hath been an ap- 
 plication from our sister Churches in the eastern states, 
 expressing their earnest desire of a general union of the 
 whole Ej)iscop»il Church in the United States, both in doc- 
 trine and discipline ; and, as a prinmry means of such niiiorv, 
 praying the assistance of our bishops in the consecration of 
 a bishop elect for the states of j\iassachusetts and New- 
 Hampshire. We therefore judge it necessary to acconijjany 
 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 con- 
 cerning the particular delicacy of our situation, and, proba- 
 bly, to relieve us from any dilhculties v.hich may be found' 
 therein. 
 
 The application from the Church in the states of Massa- 
 chusetts and New-Hampshire is in the following words. 
 
 [Here follows the apphcation as in the preceding number.] 
 
 At the meeting aforesaid, 
 
 Voted, That the Rev. Samuel Parker be authorized and 
 empowered to transmit copies of the foregoing act, to be by 
 him attested, to the right reverend the bishops in Connec- 
 ticut, New- York, and Pennsylvania; and that he be ap- 
 pointed our agent, to appear at any convocation to be holden 
 at Pennsylvania or New- York, and to treat upon any mea- 
 sures 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 Ciuirch. 
 
 EDWARD BASS, Chairman. 
 A true copv. 
 (Attest) SAMUEL PARKER. 
 
Appendix — No. 19. 337 
 
 This was acconipanied 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 extract : — " 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 situa- 
 tion of my family and parish will not admit of my being 
 absent so long as a journey to Phiiadelpliia would take. 
 Wljen I gave you encouragement that I should attend, I 
 was in expectation of having my parish supplied by some 
 gentlemen from Nova-Scotia ; but I am now informed, they 
 will not be here till some time in August. Having, there- 
 fore, uo prospect of attending in peisoti at your General 
 Convention, next month, I am requested to transmit you an 
 attested copy of an act of the clergy of this and the state of 
 New-ilampshire, electing the Rev. Edward Bass our bishop, 
 and requesting the united assistance of the right reverend 
 bishops of Pennsylvania, New- York, and Connecticut, 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 Convention 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 commu- 
 nion." 
 
 In the like spirit, the Right Rev. Dr. Seabr.ry, bishop of 
 the Church of Connecticut, in his letter to the Rev. Dr. 
 Smith, dated July 23d, writes en the subject of union, &Co 
 as foUoweth : — " The wish of my heart, and the wish of the 
 clergy and of the Church people of this state, v/ould cer- 
 tainly 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 betv/een 
 Churches, where the 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 Connec- 
 ticut consists, at present, of nineteen clergvmen in fuU- 
 
 43 
 
3-33 Appendix— No. 20. . 
 
 orders, an«l morn tiian twenty thousand people, they suppose, 
 as respcctahle as the Church in any state of the union." 
 
 After the most serious deliberation upon this important 
 business, and cordially joiniui^ with our brethren of thi; 
 eastern or New-lMi^land Churclujs in the desire of union, 
 the following resolves were unanimously adopted in conven- 
 tion, viz. — 
 
 [Ifcre follow the resolves, as given in the preccdins; 
 number.] 
 
 We have now, most venerable fathers, submitted to your 
 consideration whatever relates to this important business of 
 union among all our Churches in these United States. It 
 was our original and sincere intention to have obtained 
 three bishops at least, immediately consecrated by the l)i- 
 shops of England, for the seven states comprehended within 
 our present union. But that intention being frustrated 
 throuo-h unforeseen circumstances, we could not wish to 
 deny any present assistance, which may be found in our 
 power 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 favour 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 direction, 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 
 papers. 
 
 Bone in Convention, this 8th day of August, 1789, and 
 directed to he signed by all the members, as the act of 
 their body, and by the presidmt officially.* 
 
 No. 20. Page 146. 
 
 A General Constitution of the Frotestant Episcopal Church 
 in the United States of America. 
 
 Art. 1. There shall be a General Convention of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Ame- 
 rica, on the fust Tuesday of August, in the year of our 
 Lord 1792, and on the first Tuesday of August in every 
 
 Signed by the president and all the raerabere. 
 
Appendix — No. 20. 339 
 
 tliird year afterwards, in such place as shall be determined 
 by the convention; and special meeting^s may be called at 
 other times, in the manner hereafter to be provided for ; 
 and this Church, in a majority of the states which sliall have 
 adopted this constitution, shall be represented, before they 
 shall proceed to business, except that tiie representation 
 irom 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 entitled to a 
 aeju-csentation of both the clergy and the laity; which re- 
 presentation shall consist of one or more deputies, not ex- 
 ceeding four of each order, chosen by the convention of the 
 state; and in all questions, when required by the clerical 
 or lay representation 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 compre- 
 hend a majority of the states represented in that order. 
 The concurrence of both orders shall be necessary to con- 
 stitute a vote of the convention. If the convention of any 
 state shoidd 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 repre- 
 sented by such deputy or deputies as may attend, whether 
 lay or clerical. And if, through the neglect of the conven- 
 tion of any of the Churches which shall have adopted, or 
 may hereafter adopt this Constitution, no deputies, either 
 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 shall 
 be three or more, shall, whenever General Conventions are 
 iield, form a house of revision, and when any proposed act 
 sliall have passed in the General Convention, the same shall 
 he transmitted to the house of revision, for their concurrence. 
 And if the same sliail be sent back to the convention, with 
 the negative or non-concurrence of the house of revision, it 
 shall be again considered in the General Convention, and if 
 the convention shall adhere to the said act, by a majority of 
 three-fifths of their body, it shall become a law to all intents 
 and purposes, notwithstanding the non-concurrence of the 
 house of revision; and all acts. of the convcntioii shall be 
 authenticated by both houses. And in all cases, the House 
 
340 ApfCKlix — No. 20. 
 
 of Bishops 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 re- 
 ported to them for concurrence, and in friilure thereof it 
 shall have the operation 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 be- 
 longs. 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 con- 
 vention of that state. And every bishop of this Church shall 
 confine the exercise of his Episcopal ofiice to his proper 
 diocese or district, uidcss requested 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 here- 
 after, be admitted, on acceding to this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 6. In every state, the mode of trying clergymen 
 shall be instituted by the convention of the Church therein. 
 At every trial of a bishop, there shall be one or more of the 
 Episcopal order present; and none but a bishop shall pro- 
 nounce sentence of deposition or degradation from the mi- 
 nistry on any clergyman, whether bisiiop, or presbyter, or 
 deacon. 
 
 Art. 7. No person shall be admitted to holy orders, 
 until he shall have been examined by the bishop, 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 person be ordained, nnlil he shall 
 have subscribed th(; following declaration: " 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 salva- 
 tion : And 1 do solenndy engage to conform to the doctrines 
 and worship of the Protestant l']piscopal Church in these 
 United States." No person ordiiined by a foreign bishop 
 shall be pernjjtted to ofliciatc as a minister of this Church, 
 until he shall have complied with the canon or canons in 
 that case |)rovided, and have also subscribed the aforesaid 
 declaration. 
 
 Art. 6. A book of common prayer, administration of 
 the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the 
 Church, articles of religion, and a form and manner of 
 making, ordaining, and consecrating bishops, priests, and 
 
Appendix — No. 20. 341 
 
 deacons, when established by this or a future General Con- 
 vention, shall be used in the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in these states, which shall have adopted this Constitution. 
 Art. 9. This Constitution shall be unalterable, uuless 
 in General Convention by the Church in a majority of the 
 states which may have adopted the same ; and all altera- 
 tions shall be first proposed in one General Convention, and 
 made known to the several state conventions, before they 
 shall be finally agreed to, or ratified in the ensuing General 
 Convention. 
 
 Alterations in the Subsequent Session. 
 
 " The committee reported, that they have had a full, free, 
 and friendly conference with the dcptities of the said 
 Churches, vvho, on behalf of the Church in their several 
 states, and by virtue of sufficient authority 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 of the bishops, when sitting in a 
 separate house, to originate and propose acts for the con- 
 currence of the other house of convention ; and to negative 
 such acts proposed by the other house as they may disap- 
 prove. 
 
 " Your committee, conceiving this alteration to be desir- 
 able in itself, as having a tendency to give greater stability 
 to the Constitution, without diminishing any security that i§ 
 now possessed by the clergy or laity; and being sincerely 
 impressed with the importance 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 altered 
 accordingly. Upon such alteration being made, it is de- 
 clared by the deputies from the Churches in the eastern 
 states, that they will subscribe the Constitution, and become 
 members of this General Convention." 
 
 Upon special motion, the above report was read a second 
 time; whereupon the following resolution was proposed, 
 viz. — 
 
 Resolved, That this convention do adopt that 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 
 
34'2 Appendix— No. 20. 
 
 house of convention ; and to negative .such acts projwscd hj 
 the other house, as they may disapprove ; provided they aru 
 not adhered to by four-fifths of the other house." 
 
 After some debate, the resolution, with the proviso an- 
 nexed, was agreed upon, and the tiiiid article was accord- 
 ingly modified in the manner following, viz. — 
 
 Art. 3d. The bishops of this Church, when there shall be 
 three or more, shall, whenever General Conventions are held, 
 form a separate house, with a right to originate and propose 
 acts for the concurrence of the House of Deputies, composed of 
 cleriy and laity; and when any proposed act shall have passed 
 the House of Deputies, the same shall be transmitted to the 
 House of Bishops, who shall have a negative thereupon, nnhss 
 adhered to by four-fifths of the other house; 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, with their reasons in 
 writing, within three days after the proposed act shall have 
 been reported to them for concur rence: and in failure thereof, 
 it shall have the operation of a latv. But until there shall be 
 three or more bishops as aforesaid, any bishop attending a 
 General Convention shall be a mcmher, ex officio, and shall 
 vote u'itli the clerical deputies of the state to which he belongs; 
 and a bishop shall then preside. 
 
 Acceptance by BisJwp Seabury, and the Prcslyters from Keic- 
 
 England. 
 
 October 2, 1780. 
 
 We do hereby agree to the Constitution of the Church, as 
 modified this day in convention. 
 
 SAMUEL SEABIIIY, D. D. 
 
 Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut. 
 
 ABRAHAM JARVIS, A. M. 
 
 Rector of Christ Church, Middletoicn, Connecticut. 
 
 BELA HUBBARD, A. 31. 
 
 Rector of Trinity Church, New-Haven, Connecticut. 
 SAMUEL PARKE]^, 1). D. 
 
 Rector of Trinity Church, Boston, and Clerical Deputy fax 
 Massachusetts and New- Hampshire. 
 
Appendix — No. 21. 343 
 
 Letters of Consecration of Bishop Seahury. 
 
 IN DEI NOMINE. Amen. 
 
 Omnibus vbique Catliolicis per Presentes pafeat, 
 
 Nos, Ilobertnm Kilgour, miseratione divina, Episcopum 
 Aberdonien — Arthurum Petrie, Episcopum Kosspu et Mo- 
 ravien — et Joannem Skinner, Episcopum Coadjutorem; 
 Hysteria, Sacra Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Oratorio 
 supradicti Joannis Skinner apud Aberdoniam celebrantes, 
 Divini Numinis Fra^sidio fretos (presentibus tarn e Clero, 
 quam o Popuio teslibus idoneis) Samuelem Seabury, Doc- 
 torem Divinitatis, sacro Presbyteratus ordine jam decora- 
 turn, ae nobis pra? Vitae intcgritate, Morum probitate et 
 Orthodoxia, commendatum, et ad docendum et regendum 
 aptum et idoneum, ad sacrum et subiimem Episcopatus 
 Ordinem promovissc, et rite ac canonice, secundum Morem 
 et Ritus Ecclesire Scoticana>, consecrasse, Die Novembris 
 decimo quarto, Anno Mv^e Christiante Millesimo Septin- 
 gentesimo Octagesimo Q,uarto. — 
 
 In atjus Rei Testimonium, Instrumento huic ( chirographis 
 nostris prius, munito) SigiUa nostra apponi mandavimus. 
 
 ROBERTUS KILGOUR, Episcopus, et Primus. (L. S.) 
 ARTHIIRUS PETRIE, Episcopus. (L S) 
 
 JOANNES SKINNER, Episcopus. (L S ) 
 
 No. 21. Page 170. 
 A Letter from the Rev. Dr. Colce, and the Answer. 
 Right Rev. Sir, 
 
 Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a subject 
 of great importance. 
 
 You, I believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the 
 Church of England, and have been ordained 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 exceedingly biassed on'the other side 
 of the question. In consequence of this, I am not sure but 
 
344 , Appendix — No. 21. 
 
 I wont further in tlio separation of our Ciiurcli in America, 
 tlian 3Ir. Wesley, from whom I had rc(;eived my commission, 
 did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he 
 had a ri^^lit so to do, with Episcopal authority, but did not 
 intend, 1 think, that an entire separation should take place. 
 He, being presse.l by our friends on this side of the water for 
 ministers to administer the sacraments to them, (there being 
 very few of the clergy of the Church of England then in the 
 states,) went further, I am sure, than he would have gone, 
 if lie had foreseen some events which followed. And this I 
 am certain of — that he is now sorry for the separation. 
 
 IJut what can be done for a re-union, which I much wish 
 for; and to accomplish which, Mr, Wesley, 1 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 ex- 
 cessive 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 abject of great importance. 
 We have now above sixty thousand adults in our society in 
 these states, and about two hundred and fifty travelling 
 ministers and preachers; besides a great number of locai' 
 preachers, very far exceeding the number of travelling 
 preachers ; and some of those local preachers are men of 
 very considerable abilities. Dut if wc number the Methodists 
 as most people number the membersof their Church, viz. by 
 the families which constantly attend the divine ordinances 
 in their places of worship, 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 stated 
 congregations; which will then amount to three hundred 
 thousand. And if the calculation which, I think, some 
 eminent writers have made, be just, that three-fifths of man- 
 kind are un-adult, (if 1 may use the expression) at any given 
 period, it will follow that ail the families, the adults of which 
 form our congregations in these states, ainount to seven 
 hundred and fifty thousand. About one fifth of these are 
 blacks. 
 
 The work now extends in length from Boston to the south 
 of Georgia; and in breath from the Atlantic to Lake 
 Champlain, Vermont, Albany, Redstone, Holstein, Ken- 
 tucky, Cumberland, &c. 
 
Appendi.c—No. 2L 34i 
 
 But there are many hinclerancos in the way. Can tliey bo 
 removed? 
 
 1. Our ordained ministers will not, ou<Tht not, to give up 
 their right of a'lministeriug the sacraments. 1 do not think 
 that the generality of them, perhaps none of them, would 
 refuse to sidimit to a re-ordination, if other hinderances were 
 removed out of the way. 1 must here observe, that between 
 sixty and seventy only out of the two hundred and fifty have 
 been ordained presbyters, and about sixty deacons (only). 
 The presbyters are the choicest of the whole. 
 
 2. The other preachers would hardly submit to a re-union, 
 if the possibility of their rising up to ordination depended on 
 the present bishops in America. Because, though they are 
 all, I think I may say, zealous, pious, and very usefid men, 
 yet they are not acquainted with the learned languages. 
 Besides, they would argue, — If the present bishops would 
 waive the article of the learned languages, yet their succes- 
 sors might not. 
 
 My desire of a re-union is so sincere and earnest, that 
 these difficulties almost make me tremi)le ; and yet some- 
 thing must be done before the death of Mr. Wesley, other- 
 wise I shall despair of success: for though my influence 
 among the Methodists in these states as well as in Europip 
 is, I doubt not, increasing, yet Mr. Asbury, whose influenco 
 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. Wesley is a determined 
 enemy of it, and I have lately borne an open and success- 
 ful testimony against it. 
 
 Shall I be favoured with a private interview with yon in 
 Philadelphia? I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday, 
 the ITth of 3Iay. If this be agreeable, I will beg of you 
 just to signify it in a note, directed to me, at Mr. Jacob 
 Baker's, merchant. Market-street, Pliiladelphia ; or, if yon 
 please, by a few lines sent me by the return of the post, at 
 Philip Rogers's, Esq. in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. 
 Magaw, and I will wait upoti you with my friend l>r. 
 Magaw. We can then enlarge on these subjects. 
 
 I am conscious of it, that secrecy is of great importance in 
 the present state of the business, till the minds of ymi, your 
 brother bishops, and Mr. Wesley, be circumstantially known. 
 I must therefore beg that these things be confined to yourself 
 and Dr. Magaw, till 1 have the honour of seeing you. 
 
 Thus, vrtu see, I have made a bold venture on your jio- 
 
 44 
 
346 Appendix — No. 21. 
 
 nour anil candour, and have opened my whole heart to yoi? 
 on the suhjoct, as far as the extent of a small letter will 
 allow mo. If you put eipial confidence in me, you will find 
 me candid and faithful. 
 
 I have, notwitlistandino:, heon guilty of inadvcrtenciei. 
 Very lately i found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my 
 conscience) to write a penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. 
 Jarratt, which gave him great satisfaction : and for the 
 same reason 1 must write another to the Rev. 3Ir. Petti- 
 grew. When I was last iti America, I prepared and cor- 
 rected 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 3Ir. Asbury, without any correction, 
 entreating that no part of them might be printed which 
 ■would be improper or ofiensive. But through great inad- 
 vertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections on the 
 characters of tl:€ two above-mentioned gentlemen to be in- 
 serted in the magazine, for which 1 am very sorry : and 
 probably shall not rest till I have made my acknowledgment- 
 more i)ublic; though Mr. Jarratt docs not desire it. 
 
 I am not sure whether I have not also offended you, Sir, 
 by accepting of one of the offers made me by you and Dr. 
 Magaw, 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 
 oftend, (as I doubt I did, especially frotn what you said on 
 the subject to 3Ir. Richard Dellam, of Abington,) 1 sincerely 
 beg your's and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I will endeavour to 
 amend. But, alas ! I am a frail, weak creature. 
 
 I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I 
 will claim from your candour — 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 have us 
 entirely alienated from each other, if we cannot unite in the 
 manner my ardent wishes 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 sub- 
 •cribc myself, 
 
 Right Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your very humble servant in Christ, 
 
 THOMAS COKE. 
 Richmond, April 24, 1791. 
 The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop White. 
 
Appendix — Xo. 21. 34.7 
 
 You must excuse interlineations, 6lc. as i am just going 
 S.U10 the country, and have no time to trun:icribe. 
 
 Answer. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 My frienil, Dr. Magaw, has this day put into my hand* 
 your letter of the 24th of April, which, 1 trust, T received 
 with a sense of the importance of the subject, and of the 
 answer I 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 inform you, that 1 shall be very happy in tha 
 opportunity of conversing with 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, 15ut 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. 8ofar as 
 1 am concerned, 1 think that such a disposition exists. 
 
 It has not been my temper. Sir, to desj»ond in regard to 
 (he extension of Christianity in this new world : And in ad- 
 dition to the proitiises of the Great Head of the Church, 1 
 have always imagined that I j)erceived the train of second 
 causes so laid by the gowl providence of God, as to be pro- 
 moting what we believe to be his will in this respect. On 
 the other hand, I feel the weight of most powerful discour- 
 agements, in the increasing number of the avowed patrons 
 of infidelity, and of others, wiio pretend to confess the divine 
 authority of our holy religion, while they endeavour to strip 
 it of its characteristic doctrines. In this situation, it is 
 rather to be expected, tiiat distinct Churches, agreeing iu 
 fundamentals, should nuike mutual sacrifices for a union, 
 than that any Church should divide into two bodies, without 
 a dirtVjrence being even alleged to exist, in any leading point. 
 For the preventing of this, the measures which you may 
 propose cannot fail of success, unless there be on one side, 
 or on both, a most lamentable deficiency of Christian 
 temper. 
 
 1 remember the conversation you allude to with Mr. Dei- 
 lam : i hope I<lid not express myself uncharitably, or even 
 indelicately. As to personal ofi'ence towards me, it is out 
 of the ouestion : for I had not at that time anv connectioo 
 
313 AppniJix—yu. '^2. 
 
 with St. ruul's Church. But this, as well as the other parts 
 of your letter, may be discoursed of at the proposed inter- 
 view. Therefore, with assurance of the desired bocrecy, 
 and witli requesting you to accept a like ])romise of candour 
 to that which 1 credit from you, 1 conclude myself at 
 present, 
 
 Your brolher in Christ, 
 
 And very liumble servant, 
 
 w. \v.* 
 
 No. 22. Page 173. 
 
 Testimonial uf the Rev. Charles Pettigrew. 
 
 We, the subscribers, having met in convention, at Tar^ 
 borough, in North-Caroliua, on the 28lh day of 3Iay, 1794, 
 for the purpose of considering the declining situation of tho 
 Protestant Episcopal Church iu this state, and having 
 chosen the Rev. Charles Pettigrew as a person tit to be our 
 bishop, and worthy to be recommended 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 persoruil acquaintanco 
 with one another to subscribe a testimonial in the words 
 prescribed by the General Convention of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, have thought it necessary and proper to 
 make some deviation therefrom, which we presume to hopa 
 will be no obstacle to our laudable pursuit. We therefore 
 do hereby recommend to bo consecrated to the office of a 
 bishop, the said Itev. Charles Pettigrew, whom, from his 
 morality, religious principles, piety of life, from his general 
 reputation in a clerical character, from the personal know- 
 ledge we have of him, and from his sufficiency in good learn- 
 
 * The writer of the above answer kept silence on the suhjoct of it, except in 
 the permitted coniniunicatioa to the bishops, until the sununer of 1pH)4 ; when he 
 received, in one day. two letters from tlie e.istern shore of Maryland. One of 
 them was from the Rev. Simon Wilmer. of the Episcopal Church, and the other 
 was from the Rev. Mr. M'Klaskey, of the Mothodist coinmuiiion. In a conver- 
 sation between these two gentlemen, the formt-r li.id ali'inned the fact of Dr. 
 Cokc'.s application, which was dit-believed by the other. This produced their 
 respective letters, which were ?inswered by a statement of the fact. The matter 
 being afterwards variously reported, a copy of the letter^was, after son)e lap.s»of 
 time, delivered to the Rev. Dr. Kemp.of Maiylind. and at lart bccaiuo published 
 .n a contiovcrey rai?cd in tlie diocese. 
 
 ^ )V, w. 
 
Appendix— No, 2d. 349 
 
 in^, and soundness in the faitli, we arc induced to believe 
 worthy of being consecrated to that important oflice. Wc 
 hereby promise and engage to receive him as such when 
 canonically consecrated and invested therewith, and to ren- 
 der that canonical obedience which we believe to be neces- 
 sary to the due and proper discharge of so important a trust 
 in the 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 apostolic office and 
 powers. In testimony w hereof, wc hereunto subscribe our 
 pames, the day and year above written. 
 
 N. BLOUNT, 1 
 
 J. L. WILSON, I 
 
 J. GIJRLEY, ). Of the clergy. 
 
 S. HALLING, I 
 
 R. J. MILLER, J 
 
 J. LEIGH, M. D. 
 
 J. Gil ION, M. D. 
 
 R. WHYTE, I , 
 
 B. WOODS, 5 sawyers. 
 
 W. CLEMENTS, ^Ofthela.ty. 
 
 L. DESSEAUX, 
 
 W. GRIMES, 
 
 R. GODLY, 
 
 No. 23. Page 171. 
 Circular of a Committee in South- Carolina. 
 
 Gentlemen,* 
 
 Impressed with a fervent desire of being beneficial to the 
 state in general, and of supporting religion among us, we, 
 the subscribers, being a select committee from several of 
 the united Episcopal Churches in this state, who met on 
 the 16th of last October, are directed to address you. The 
 subject is an important one, and reqiiires consideration. 
 
 ♦ In the dociunent some of the words are in larger characters than the rest. 
 The same words are here given in italics, with the view of making a faithfu] 
 representation of the instrument : the franiers of which were careful to give thin 
 ^•xpJanation of their design ; however beneath them an attention to the law« of 
 granunar. 
 
350 Appendix — No. 23. 
 
 From the proceedings of the two hist General Conventions, 
 hekl at Phihulel[)hia and JXew-Yorli, it has, with regret, 
 been tbund 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 propagation of re- 
 lio-ion. To this all consented, not foreseeing 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 ticu-thin/s of the 
 other, must be obtained, to effectually carry any j)roposition 
 into effect. But in these two last meetings as above, many 
 proposed, that the [louse of Bishops should have " an ab- 
 solute negative'' over the clergy and laity. To this Virginia 
 and South-Carolina were tirmly opposed ; the eastern states 
 as firmly supported. The next General Convention will 
 be held at Philadelphia, where we wish to be represented, 
 but upon the same determination, if approved by the vestries 
 of our associated churches in this state, of opposition to the 
 absolute negative; which, more than probably, will cause a 
 secession 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 clergy of this state, 
 to be sent forward immediately to the northward, and to 
 obtain authority solely to ordain ministers for this state, as 
 well as to renew that ordinance which has too long laid 
 dormant in our country, c9nfirmation. We have thought 
 proper, therefore, to request your opinion on the subject, 
 as we conceive, from many of our rising young men having 
 devoted themselves to the study of diviniti/, and by selecting 
 some worthy and good man, resident in a jiarish, antl de- 
 sirous of taking the office of the ministry upon liim, 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 northern 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 
 ar"-uments of desertion from their parishes, will in some 
 measure, if not totally, lose their effect : and as, in that 
 case, the minister may have some !)roperty of his own, the 
 subscription of parishes where small, will in this manner be 
 rendered sufficiently ample; as well as the doctrines pro- 
 pagated consistent with the situation the Almighty has 
 been pleased to allot us. We beg leave further to mention, 
 
Appendix — No. 24. 351 
 
 i?Gt 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 blessing of heaven upon 
 their endeavours, and under the direction and guardianship 
 of Y^ishop Madisun,* Imve obtained sixty ii;ood and rtpu fable 
 divines, men, if but of moderate learning, of sound and 
 good morals, who have undertaken the ministry, not from 
 a desire of gain, but from a desire of doing good, and 
 spreading 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 provided with one 
 to confirm and ordain, for then we must either take wdiat 
 they are pleased to send, or humbly entreat their favours to 
 ordain for us, which might be refused after our secession, 
 we have presumed to address you, lioping when these im- 
 portant 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 in- 
 forming us of tliem, by a representative or representatives, 
 at our next state convention, to be held at St. Michael's 
 Church, on the tenth 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 
 (anxiously desirous of being fully represented,) as it is the 
 day previous to the anniversary meeting of the Revolution 
 society, to commemorate the birth day of General Washing- 
 ton, 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. 
 
 No. 24. Page 179. 
 
 A Letter from Bishop Provoost. 
 
 «' New-York, Sept. 7, 1801, 
 
 *■' Right Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 " I think it my duty to request, that, as president of the 
 House of Bishops, you will inform that venerable body, 
 
 " Who showed himself very indignant at the intended nompHtnent. 
 
352 Appendix — No. 24. 
 
 that, induced l)y ill lirnltii, and some nielnnclioly occni- 
 rcnces in my family, and an ardent wish to retire from all 
 public employment, I resi<i^ned, at the last meeting of ojir 
 l.'Imrch convention, my jurisdiction as bishop of the Pro- 
 lestant Episcopal Chnrcli in the state of New- York. 
 " 1 am, w ith great regard, 
 
 '* Dear and Right Hev. Sir, 
 
 " Your affectionate brother, 
 
 " yA3IUEL PKOVOOST. 
 *• Right Rev. Bishop AVhite." 
 
 The House of Bishops having considered the snbject 
 bronglit before them by the letter of Bishop Provoost, and 
 by the message from the House of Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties, touching the same, can see no grounds on which to 
 i)elieve, that the contemplated resignation is consistent 
 with ecclesiastical order, or with the practice of Episcopal 
 Churches in any ages, or with the tenour of the office of 
 consecration. Accordingly, 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 
 recognise the bishop's act as an effectual resignation of his 
 Episcopal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, being sensible of the 
 present exigencies of the Church of New- York, and ap- 
 proving of their making provision for the actual discharge 
 of the duties of the Episcopacy, the bishops of this house 
 are ready to consecrate to the office of bishop, any perso?t 
 who may be presented to them with the requisite testimonials 
 from the General and State Conventions; and of whose 
 religious, moral, and literary character, due satisfaction 
 may be given. But this house must be understood to be 
 explicit in their declaration, that they shall consider such a 
 person as assistant or co-adjutor bishop, during Bishop 
 Provoost's life, although competent in point of character to 
 all the Episcopal duties ; the extent in which the same shal^ 
 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. 
 
Appendix — Ifo. 25. 353 
 
 No. 25. Page 186. 
 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 salvation. 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 thirty-sixth canon 
 requires the candidates, after reference, first, to the royal 
 supremacy ; second, to the Book of Common Prayer, with 
 the ordinal; and third, to the thirty-nine Articles, to signify 
 his assent as follows : — " I, N. N. do willingly and ex animo 
 subscribe to those three articles above mentioned, and to 
 all things that are contained in them," 
 
 No. 28. Page 190. 
 
 The house resumed the consideration of the matters 
 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 certificate, 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 bis residence in that state, since he 
 left New-York, has been insulting, refractory, and schis- 
 matical in the highest degree ; and, were it tolerated, would 
 prove subversive of all order and discipline in the Church; 
 and that the statement 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 proceedings of 
 the Church in Connecticut, in reproving the said Ammi 
 Rogers, and prohibiting him from the performance of any 
 ministerial duties within that diocese; and, moreover, are 
 
 45 
 
354 Appendix — No. 27. 
 
 of opinion, that he deserves a severer ecclesiastical censure^ 
 that of degradation from the ministry. 
 
 In regard to the question, To what authority is Mr. 
 Rogers amenable t this house are sensible, that there not 
 having been previously to the present convention, any 
 sufficient provision for a case of a clergyman removing 
 from one diocese 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 diocese he is exclusively 
 amenalde. But as the imposition practised with a view to 
 the ministry was in Nevv-York, we recommend to the bishop 
 and standing committee of that state, to send to the bishop 
 in Connecticut such documents, duly attested, of the mea- 
 sure 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 Connecticut, and another 
 copy to the Rev. Ammi Rogers. And we further direct, 
 that either of the aforesaid jiarties be permitted to have 
 any documents respectively 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 
 desired, as may either of the parties have of any document 
 delivered by the other party. 
 
 No. 27. Page 218. 
 
 Of the Homilies. 
 
 The House of Bishops, taking into consideration, that 
 the two books of Homilies arc referred to in the thirty-fifth 
 article of this Church, as containing a body of sound 
 Christian doctrine; and knowing, by their respective ex- 
 perience, the scarcity of the volume, rendering it difficult 
 for some candidates in the ministry to possess opportunities 
 of studying its contents, propose 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 bishoj), to be furnished (as soon as may 
 be) with a copy or coi)ics of said work, and to require it to 
 1)6 studied by all candidates for the ministry within their 
 respective bounds; under the expectation, that when offer- 
 
Appendix — No. 28. 335 
 
 ing for ordination, the knowledge of its contents will be 
 indispensably required. 
 
 This was concurred in by the House of Clerical and I^ay 
 Deputies. 
 
 No. 28. Page 219. 
 Concerning Posture during PsalmoJy. 
 
 Whereas a diversity of custom has of late years prevailed 
 in the posture of ministers and of the people, during theaci. 
 of singing the psalms and the hymns in metre; the former 
 practice of sitting during 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 con- 
 sidered as tiie duty of the ministers of this Church, to 
 encourage 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 bo considered inconvenient by age, or by in- 
 firmity. Practice, under this recommendation, 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 recom- 
 mendation to his congregation, at such time as in his dis- 
 cretion may be the most proper. 
 
 Tiie carrying into effect of the contemplated change, 
 may be delayed by the bishop of any diocese, or, where 
 there is no bishop, by the ecclesiastical authority therein, 
 until there shall have been time and opportunity of ex- 
 plaining satisfactorily the grounds of the measure. 
 
 No. 29. Page 220. 
 
 Of a Proposal of new Anthems, and of Sanction requested in 
 favour of a proposed Book. 
 
 The following proposition was submitted and agreed to, 
 and communicated to the House of Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties. 
 
 The House of Bishops communicate to the House of 
 
350 Ajfpendke — No. 30. 
 
 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 tho 
 Rev. Dr. William Smith, of Cotmecticut, together 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 establishment of the said an- 
 thems as parts of the liturgy. 
 
 Whereupon, Resolved, That it is not expedient, during 
 this convention, to go into a review, either in whole or in 
 part, of the Book of Common Prayer. It could not, how- 
 ever, but give satisfaction to the bishops to recollect, that 
 anthems taken from scripture, and judiciously arranged, 
 may, according to the known allowance of this Church, be 
 sung in congregations, 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, that 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 regu- 
 larly 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 subjects. 
 
 No. 30. Page 224. 
 
 Concerning the Identify/ of this Church uilh the former Church 
 of Englaiul in America. 
 
 The following declaration was projioscd 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 belonging to " the Church 
 of England," and to uses connected with that name, some 
 doubts have been entertained in regard to the identity of 
 
Aj/pendix—No. 31. 367 
 
 t:he body to which the two names have been applied, 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 Episcopal Church 
 in the United States of America" is the same body hereto- 
 fore 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, sup- 
 j)osing the independence of Christian Churches, under the 
 different sovereignties, to which, respectively, their allegi- 
 ance 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 con- 
 vention refers for satisfaction in the premises. But it would 
 be contrary to fact, were any one to infer, that the discipline 
 exorcised in this Church, or that any proceedings therein, 
 are at all dependent on the will of the civil or of the eccle- 
 siastical authority of any foreign country. 
 
 The above declaration having been communicated to the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, they returned for 
 answer, that they concurred therein. 
 
 No. 31. Page 229. 
 
 From the Journal. 
 
 The House of Bishops, solicitous for the preservation 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 withdraw the affections 
 from spiritual things. And especially on the subject of 
 gaming, of amusements involving cruelty to the brute crea- 
 tion, and of theatrical representations, to which some pecu- 
 liar circumstances have called their attention, — they do not 
 hesitate to express their unanimous opinion, that these 
 amusements, as well from their licentious tendency, as from 
 the strong temptations to vice which they afford, ought not 
 
358 App&)uli£ — No. 81. 
 
 to be frequented. And the bishops cannot refrain from 
 expressing their deep regret at the information, that in 
 some of our hirge cities, so little respect is paid to the 
 feelings of the members of the Church, that theatrical 
 representations are fixed for the evenings of lier most 
 solemn festivals. 
 
 Fram the Pastoral Letter. 
 
 Both to the clergy and to the laity we desire to say, but 
 most pointedly to the former, that the Christian profession 
 exacts a greater abstraction from the world than that which 
 consists in the abstaining frotn 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 allowable in regard to some of the matters contemplated, 
 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 en- 
 deavour after an abridgment of Christian liberty. But we 
 cannot forget, that in a list of the classes of evil livers, 
 there is introduced the description of persons who aro 
 *' lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God;" nor, in 
 respect to the female professors of religion in particular, 
 the admonition, that " she who livcth in pleasure is dead 
 while she liveth." V/e are aware of the ditticulty of draw- 
 ing the line between the use of the world and the abuse of 
 it: that being conceived of by different persons eipially 
 ■jjious and virtuous, according to the diversity of luitural 
 temperament, and of the states of society in which they 
 have been placed by education or by habit: but we !:now, 
 that where the conscience can reconcile itself to tl>e draw- 
 ing as near to the territory of sin, as it can persuade itself 
 to be consistent uith the still standing on secure ground, 
 deadness to spiritual good at the best, but more commonly 
 subjection to its opposite is the result. 
 
 In speaking of subjects of the above description, wo 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 descrii)tion, is gaming in all the 
 variety of its exercise : and the like may be said of what- 
 ever involves cruelty to the lower animals of the creation. 
 
"Appendix — No. 81. 869 
 
 If the same cannot be affirmed of works of fiction, and of 
 puttin;^ speeches into the mouthy of fei f^ned characters, for 
 the purpose of instruction or of entertainment ; yet, a? the 
 question is apphcahle 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 tliis shall have been accom- 
 plished, 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 
 ])atrons of the stage are always likely to be the least dis- 
 posed 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 b€ adjusted to the taste of 
 so great a proportion of the public, we despair of seeing the 
 stage rescued from the disgusting effusions of profaneness 
 and obscenity; and much less of that mean of corruption, 
 more insinuating than any other' — the exhibiting of what is 
 radically 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, their innocency may depend 
 much on many circumstances, 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. 
 Whatever 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, tliat such a recurrence 
 must be unwelcome to him from some enjoyinent not con- 
 genial 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. 
 
3&) Appendix^No. ^2, 
 
 No. 32. Page 230. 
 
 Acts of the Convention of 11^. 
 
 A General Ecclesiastical Constitution of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the United States of America. 
 
 Whereas, in the course of Divine Providence, the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church in the United States of America 
 is become independent of all foreign authority, civil and 
 ecclesiastical: — 
 
 . And whereas, at a meeting of clerical and lay deputies 
 of the said Ciiurch, in sundry of the said states, viz. in the 
 states of Massachusetts, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New- 
 York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, 
 held in the city of New- York, on the 6th and 7th days of 
 October, in the year of our Lord 1784, it was recommended 
 to this Church in the said states represented as aforesaid, 
 and proposed to this Church in the states not represented, 
 that they should send deputies to a convention to be held in 
 the city of Philadelphia, on the Tuesday before the feast of 
 St. Michael in this present year, in order to unite in a con- 
 stitution of ecclesiastical government, agreeably to certain 
 fundamental principles, expressed in the said recommenda- 
 tion and proposal : — 
 
 And whereas, in consequence of the said recommendation 
 and proposal, clerical and lay deputies have been duly ap- 
 pointed 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 taking into 
 consideration the importance of maintaining 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 Ame- 
 rica, which shall be held in the city of Philadelphia, on the 
 third Tuesday in June, in the year of our Lord 178G, and 
 for ever after, once in three years, on the third Tuesday of 
 June, in such place as shall be determined by the conven- 
 tion; and special meetings maybe 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 business ; except 
 
Appendix— No. 32. 30t 
 
 fliat the representation of this Church from two states, 
 shall be suliicient to adjourn; and in all business of the 
 convention, freedom of debate shall be allowed. 
 
 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 exceeding four of each order; and in 
 all questions, the said Church in each state shall have one 
 vote; and a majority of suftVages shall be conclusive. 
 
 3. In the said Church, in every state represented in this 
 convention, there shull be a convention consisting of the 
 clergy and lay deputies of the congregations. 
 
 4. " The Dook 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," 
 shall be continued to be used by this Church, as the same^ 
 is altered by this convention, in a certain instrument of 
 writing, passed by their authority, entitled, " Alterations 
 of the Liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States of America, in order to render the same 
 conformable to the American Revolution and the Constitu- 
 tions of the respective States." 
 
 5. In every state where there shall be a bishop duly con- 
 secrated and settled, and who shall have acceded 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 iixed by the respective 
 conventions; and every bishop of this Church shall confine 
 the exercise of his Episcopal office to his proper jurisdiction, 
 unless requested to ordain or confirm by any Church des- 
 titute of a bishop. 
 
 7. A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of the Uniteit 
 States, not now represented, may, at any time hereafter, be 
 admitted, on acceding to the articles of this union. 
 
 8. Every clergyman, whether bishop, presbyter, or dea- 
 con, 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 convention, to 
 be the desire of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these 
 states, that there may be further alterations of the Liturgy, 
 than such as are made necessary by the American revolu- 
 tion; therefore, the " Book of Common Prayer, and Adminis- 
 
 46 
 
362 Appendix— No. 32. 
 
 iration of the Sacranient55, and other Rites and Ceremonies 
 of the Church, according to the use of the Church of Eng 
 land," as altered by an instrument of writing, passed under 
 the authority of this convention, entitled, "Alterations in the 
 Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacra- 
 ments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, ac- 
 cording to the use of the Cliurch of England, proposed and 
 recommended 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 Con- 
 vention. 
 
 10. No person shall bo ordained or permitted to ofiiciato 
 as a minister in this Church, until he shall have subscribed 
 the following declaration : " 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 salvation : And I do 
 solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church, as settled and determined 
 in the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the 
 Sacraments, set forth by the General Convention of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States." 
 
 11. 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 
 tiie Church in any state. 
 
 Alterations agreed on and confirmed in Convention, for ren- 
 dering the Liturgy conformable to the Principles of the 
 American Revolution, and the Consiituiions of the several 
 States, 
 
 1st. That in the suffrages, after the Creed, instead of O 
 Lord, save the Jang, be said, O Lord, bless and preserve these 
 United States. 
 
 2d. That the prayer for the royal family, in the Morning 
 and Evening Service, be omitted. 
 
 3d. That in the Litany the fifteenth, sixteenth, seven- 
 teenth, and eighteenth petitions be omitted ; and that instead 
 of the twentieth and twenty-first petitions be substituted 
 the following — that it may please thcc to endue the Congress 
 of these United States, and all others in authority, legislative, 
 executive, and judicial, tvith grace, wisdom, and understand- 
 ingj to execute justice and maintain truth. 
 
Appmdix—No. 32. 36S 
 
 4th. That when the Litany is not said, the prayer for the 
 high court of parhament be thus altered — " Most gracious 
 God, we hu7nbly beseech thee, as for these United States in 
 general, so esjjecialli/ for their delegates in Congress, that thou 
 wouldest be jjleased to direct and prosper all their considlations 
 to the advancejuent of thy glory, the good of thy Church, the 
 safety, honour, and icclfare of t]ty peoTple ; that all things may 
 he so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and 
 surest foundations, thai peace and hapjnness, truth and justice, 
 religion and piety, may be established among ns for all gene- 
 rations,'''' ^r. to the end : and the prayer for the king''s ma- 
 jesty, as follows, viz. — O Lord, our heavenly Father, the high 
 and mighty Bonier of the unicerse, icho dost from thy throne, 
 behold all the dwellers upon earth ; we most heartily beseech thee, 
 with thy favour, to behold all in authority, legislative, executive, 
 and judicial in these United States; and so replenish them 
 with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that they may alway incline 
 to thy will, and walk in thy ivay. Endue thetn plenteously with 
 heavenly gifts; grant them in health and ivealth long to live, 
 and that, ajter this life, they may attain everlasting joy and 
 felicity, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 
 
 5th. That the first collect for the king in theCominiinion 
 Service be omitted ; and that the second be altered as fol- 
 lows — instead of " the hearts of kings are in thy rides and 
 governance''' — be said, " the hearts of all riders are in thy 
 governance ;^' and instead of the words — " heart of George, 
 thy servant,'^ insert — " so to direct the rulers of these states,''^ 
 ^)C. changing the singular pronouns to the plural. 
 
 tth. That in the answer in the Catechism to the question 
 — " What is thy duty towards thy neighbour T^ for " to ho- 
 nour and obey the king,'^ be substituted — " to honour and 
 obey my civil rulers, to submit myself,^'' %x. 
 
 8th. That instead of the observations of the 5th of No- 
 vember, the 30th of January, the 20th of May, and the 25th 
 of October, the foliovving service be used on the 4th of July, 
 being the anniversary of independence. 
 
 9tii. 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 States of 
 America f^ and that instead of the word " island''^ be inserted 
 the word " coimtry f^ and that in the collect, "O Almighty 
 God, the Sovereign Commander,^'' ^c. be omitted the words 
 — '' the honour of our sovereign,^'' and the words " the ho- 
 nour of our country^'' inserted. 
 
364 Appendix— No. 32. 
 
 Service for the fourth of July. 
 
 With the Sentences before Morning and Evening Prayer. 
 
 The Lord hath been mindful of us, and he shall bless us j 
 he shall bless them that fear the Lord, both small and great. 
 O that men would therefore praise the Lord for his good- 
 ness, and declare the v^'onders that he doeth for the chil- 
 dren of men» 
 
 Hymn instead of the Venite. 
 
 My song shall be alvvay of the loving-kindness of the 
 Lord : with my mouth will I ever be showing his truth from 
 one generation to another. Psalm Ixxxix. J. 
 
 The merciful and gracious Lord hath so done his mar- 
 vellous works, that they ought to be had in remembrance. 
 Psalm cxi. 4. 
 
 Who can express the noble acts of the Lord, or show 
 forth all his praise. Psalm cvi. 2. 
 
 The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them 
 that have pleasure therein. Psalm cxi. 2. 
 
 For he will not ahvay be chiding ; neither keepeth he 
 his anger for ever. Psalm ciii. 9. 
 
 He hath not dealt with us after our sins ; nor rewarded 
 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 pitieth his own children ; even so is 
 the Lord merciful unto them that fear him. Verse 13. 
 
 Thou, O God, hast proved us; thou also hast tried us, 
 iike as silver is tried. Psalm Ixvi. 9. 
 
 Thou didst remember us m our low estate, and redeem 
 us from our enemies ; for thy incrcy endureth for ever. 
 Psciliih cxxxvi* 23 ^-l* 
 
 Proper Psalms' US, except ver. 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 
 to conclude with ver. 24. 
 
 1st Lesson, Deut. viii. 2d Lesson, Thcss. v. 12 — 23d, 
 both inclusive. 
 
 Collect for the Day. 
 
 Almighty God, who hast in all ages showed for.th th^ 
 
Appendix— No. 32. S65 
 
 i|jower and mercy in the wonderful preservution 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 pahlic mercies, and more especially for 
 that signal and wo'nderful manifestation of thy providence 
 which we commemorate this day; wherefore not unio us, 
 O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name be ascribed all 
 honour and glory, in all Churches of the saints, from 
 generation to generation, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 Amen. 
 
 Thanksgiving for the Day. 
 
 O God, whose Name is excellent in all the earth, and 
 thy glory above the heavens ; who, as on this day, didst in- 
 spire 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 thankftdness to thee, its only 
 Author, a spirit of peaceable submission to the laws and 
 government of our country^ and a spirit of fervent zeal for 
 our holy religion, which thou hast preserved and secured to 
 us and our posterity. May we improve 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 
 iis the rose. This we beg through the merits of Jesus 
 Christ our Saviour. Amcn.^' 
 
 Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, and Administra- 
 Hon of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of 
 the Church, according to the use of th' Church of England, 
 proposed and recommended to the Frotestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America. 
 
 The order for morning and evening service daily, 
 throughout the year. 
 
 * The Epistle and the Gospel were added by the committee; agreeably to an 
 tuthority which they conceived to be vested in them. 
 
363 uippendix—No. 32. 
 
 1st. The following sentences of scripture are ordered t« 
 be prefixed to the usual sentences, viz. — 
 
 The Lord is in his holy temple ; let all the earth keep 
 silence before him. Hab. 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 oftered unto my name, 
 and a pure oflering ; for my name shall be great among 
 the Heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. Mai. i. IL 
 
 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my 
 heart, be alway acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength 
 and my Redeemer. Psalm xix. 14. 
 
 2d. That the rubric preceding the absolution be altered 
 thus — " A declaration to he made hy the minister alone, 
 standing, concerning the forgiveness of sins. ^^ 
 
 3d. That in the Lord's Prayer, the word " icho'' be sub- 
 stituted in the room of " which,'' and that " those who tres- 
 fass"" stand instead of " than that trespass.'"' 
 
 4th. That the " Gloria PatrV be omitted after the " O 
 come let us sing," ^r. and in every other place, where, by 
 the present rubric it is ordered to be inserted, to " the end 
 of the" reading psalms ; when shall be said or sung " Gloria 
 Patri,'^ S^c. or, " Glory he to God on high, and on earth peace, 
 good will towards men,'' fyc. at the discretion of the mi- 
 nister. 
 
 5th. That in the " Te Deum" instead of " honourable" 
 it be " adorable, true, and only Son;" and instead of '■'■ didst 
 not abhor the Virgin's womb" " didst humble thyself to he 
 horn of a Virgin." 
 
 Gth. That until a proper selection of psalms be made, 
 each minister be aiiov.ed to m&q such as he may choose. 
 
 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 Nicene Creeds be en- 
 tirely omitted. 
 
 10th. That after the response, ''and wiihthj Spirit," all 
 be omitted to the words " O Lord, show thy mercy upon us;" 
 ■which the minister shall pronounce, still kneeling. 
 
 llth. That in the suffrage, " make thy chosen people joy- 
 fid," the word " chosen" be omitted; and also the following 
 suffrages, to " O God, make clean our hearts wiihin vs." 
 
 12th. That the rubric after these words, " and take not 
 thy Holy Spirit from us," be omitted. Then the two collects 
 
Appendix— No, S2. 3GT 
 
 to be said: in the collect for grace, the words ''be ordered,'' 
 to be omitted ; and the word " k" inserted, instead of " to 
 do alway that is.^' 
 
 13th. In the collect ''for ike clergy and people,'' read — 
 " Almighty and everlasting God, send down upon all bishops 
 and other pastors, and the congregations committed to their 
 charge," &fc. to the end. 
 
 14th. [Here is an erasure from the manuscript : the ar- 
 ticle beinf? found a repstition of part of the thirteenth.] 
 
 15th. That the Lord's Prayer after the Litany, and the 
 subsequent rubric, be omitted. 
 
 I6th. That the short Litany be read as follows — " Son of 
 God, we beseech thee to hear us. Son of God, we beseech thee 
 to hear us. O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the 
 world, grant us ihy jjeace. O Christ, hear us. O Christ, 
 hear us. Lord, ham mercy upon us, and deal noticifh its ac- 
 cording to our si7is, neither reward us according to our iniqui- 
 ties:' After which, omit the words — " Let us pray." 
 
 17th. That the Gloria Patri, after O Lord, arise, Sfc. be 
 omitted ; as also " Let us pray," after " we put our trmt in 
 thee." 
 
 18th. That in the following prayer, instead of " righte- 
 ously have deserved" it be " justly have deserved." 
 
 19th. That in the first w^arning for the communion, the 
 word " damnaiion," following the words " increase your," be 
 read " condemnation;" and the two paragraphs after these 
 ^vords — " or else come not to that holy table," be omitted, 
 and the following one be read, " and if there be any of ycm 
 who, by these means, cannot quiet their conscience," 8fC. The 
 words " learned and discreet" epithets given to the minister, 
 to be also omitted. 
 
 20th. In the exhortation to the communion, let it run 
 thus — " for as the benefit is great, ^c. to drink his blood, so is 
 the danger great, if ice receive the same unworthily. Judge 
 therefore yourselves," ^'C. 
 
 21st. That in the rubric preceding the absolution, instead 
 of " pronounce this absolution," it be — " then shall the minis- 
 ter stand up, and turning to the people, say" &fc. 
 
 22d. That in the baptism of infants, parents may be ad- 
 mitted as sponsors. 
 
 23d. That the minister, in speaking to the sponsors, in- 
 stead of these words, " vouchsafe to release him," &i'C. say — ■ 
 '* release him from sin ;" and in the second prayer, instead of 
 " remission of his sins," read — " remission of sin." 
 
 24tlu That in the questions addressed to the sponsors> 
 
303 Appendix — Xo. 32. 
 
 and the answers, Instead of the ])resent form, it be as follows 
 — " the sinful desires of tke Jiesh." 
 
 25th. " Dost tlinii believe the articles of the Christian faith, 
 as contained in the Apostles^ Creed, and ivilt thou endeavour t(y 
 have this child instructed, accordini^lyV Answer: " / do 
 believe them, and, by God's help, u-ill endeavour so to do.''^ 
 
 " Wilt thou endeavour to have him brought up in the fear of 
 God, and to obey God's holy ivill and commandments^^ An- 
 swer: " I will, by God's assistance." 
 
 26th. That the sign of the cross may be omitted, if par- 
 ticularly desired by the sponsors or jiarents, and the prayer 
 to be thus altered (by the direction of a short rubric) " We 
 receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock; and 
 pray that hereafter he may never be ashamed," ^r. to the end. 
 
 27tii. That the address — " seeing now, dearly beloved," ^-c. 
 be omitted. 
 
 28th. That the prayer after the Lord's Prayer be thus 
 changed — " ice yield, thee our hearty tliunks,''' i^-c. to " receive 
 this infant as thine own child by baptism, and to incorporate 
 him," fyc. 
 
 29th. That in the following exhortation, the words " to 
 rerumnce the devil and uU his works," and in the charge to the 
 sponsors, the words " vulgar tongue" be omitted. 
 
 30th. That the forms of private baptisnvand confirmation 
 bemade conformable to these alterations. 
 
 3Jst. That in the exhortation before matrimony, all be- 
 tween these words, " holy niatrimony, and therefore if any 
 man," Sfc. be omitted. 
 
 32d. That the words " I plight thee my troth" be omitted 
 in both places ; and also the words — " with my body I thee 
 ivorship;" and also — " pledged their troth either to other" 
 
 33d. That all after the Blessing be omitted. 
 
 .34th. In the burial service, instead of the two psalms, 
 take the following verses of both, viz. Psalm xxxix. 7,8, 9, 
 12, 13, and Psalm xc. 13. In the rubric, the word " un- 
 bapfized" to be omitted. 
 
 In the declaration and forms of iirterment, beginning--^ 
 ^^ forasmuch, as," ^r. insert the following — '■'■ Forasmiich as 
 it hath pleased Almighty God, in his wise providence, to take 
 out of this world the soul of our deceased brother, [sister'] we 
 therefore commit his [//er] body to the ground — earth to earth, 
 ashes to ashes, dust to dust; looking for the general resurrection 
 in the last day, and the life of the world to come, through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ ; at whose second coming, in glorious ma- 
 jesty, to judge ike world, the earth and the sea shall give up 
 
Appendix-^No. Z2, 36^' 
 
 iheirdead; and. the corruptible bodies of /hose loho sleep in him, 
 shall be changed, and made like unto his glorious body, accord-^ 
 ing to the mighty ivorking, whereby he is able to subdue all 
 things unto himself. 
 
 In the sentence " I heard a voice,"" ^'C. insert " ?f//o" 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 Absolu- 
 tion 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 commination office, 
 and appropriated to Ash- Wednesday, tnay be used. 
 
 In the psalm, omit the third, sixth, eight, ninth, and 
 eleventh verses. In the commendatory prayer, for " miser- 
 able and naughty,'''' say " vain and fniserable.''^ Strike out 
 the word " purged.'^ 
 
 In the '■'■ pi-ayer for persons troubled in miml,''^ omit all that 
 stands between the words " affiicted servant" and " his soul 
 is full," &)'-c. and instead thereof say " affiicted servant, ivhose 
 sold is full of trouble," and strike out the particle " but," and 
 proceed, " O merciful God," ^r. 
 
 36th. A form of prayer and visitation of prisoners for 
 Rotorious crimes, and especially |)ersons under sentence of 
 death, being much wanted, the form entitled " Prayers for 
 Persons under Sentence of Death, agreed on in the synod 
 of the archbishops and bishops, and the rest of the clergy of 
 Ireland, at Dublin, in the year 17 J 1," as it now stands in 
 the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of Ireland, is 
 agreed upon, and ordered to be adopted, with the following 
 alterations, viz. — 
 
 For the Absolution take the same declaration of forgive- 
 ness, or either of the collects above directed for the visita- 
 tion of the sick. The short collect " O Saviour of the 
 world," &,'c. to be left out; and for the word '^frailness," 
 say ^^ frailty." 
 
 37th. In the Catechism, besides the alteration respect- 
 ing civil rulers, alter as follows, viz. " What is your nafne? 
 N. M. When did you receive this name 1 I received it in 
 baptism, whereby I became a member of the Christian Church. 
 What was promised for you in baptisin ? That I should be 
 instructed to believe the Christian faith, as contained in the 
 Apostles'' Creed, and to obey God's holy will, and keep his 
 commandments. 
 
 47 
 
370 Appendix^No. 32. 
 
 Dosi 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 commandments 7 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 churching of 
 women, and psalms, the following special prayer is to be 
 introduced, after the general tlianksgiving, viz. Tiiis to 
 be said when any woman desires to return thanks. " O 
 Almighty God, we give thee most humble and hearty thanks^ 
 for that thou hast been graciously pleased to preserve tliisicojnan^ 
 thy servant, through the great pains and perils of child-birth. 
 Incline her, tee beseech thee, to show forth her thankfulness, for 
 this thy great mercy, not only with her lips, but by a holy 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.''^ 
 
 39th. The commination oflice for Ash-Wednesday to be 
 discontinued, and therefore the three collects, the first be- 
 ginning — " O Lord, we beseech thee,'^ — 2d. " O most mighty 
 God," — 3d. " Turn us, O good Lord," shall be continued 
 among the occasional prayers ; and used after the collect 
 on Ash-Wednesday, and on such other occasions as the 
 minister shall think fit. 
 
 Articles of Religion. 
 
 1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. 
 
 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 Father 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 
 sacrifice 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, 
 
Appendix— No. 32. 371 
 
 ■the Lord and Giver of life, of the same divine nature with 
 ihc Fatiicr and the Son. 
 
 2. Of the Su^ciency uf the Ilolij Scriptures fur Salvation. 
 
 Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva- 
 tien: 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 salvation. In the name of the 
 holy scripture v^^e do understand those canonical books of 
 the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never 
 any doubt in the Church. 
 
 Of the Names and Numbers of the Canonical Books. 
 
 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 
 Joshua, Judges, liuth, The First Book of Samuel, The 
 Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The 
 Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The 
 Second Book of Chronicles, Tlie First Book of Estlras, 
 The Second Book of Esdras, The Book of Hester, The 
 Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or 
 Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the 
 greater. Twelve Prophets the less. 
 
 And the other books (as Ilieromc saith) the Church doth 
 read for example of life, and instruction of manners ; but 
 yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such 
 are these following: — 
 
 The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth 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 Chil- 
 dren, The Story of Susanna, Of Bell and the Dragon, The 
 Prayer of Ma'nasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The 
 t^econd Book of Maccabees. 
 
 All the books of the New Testament, as they are com- 
 monly received, we do receive and account canonical. 
 
 3. Of the Old and New Testament. 
 
 There is a perfect harmony and agreement between the 
 Ohl Testament and the New; for in both, everlasting life 
 is oftered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator 
 iietvvcen God and man: and although the law given by 
 
Sli Appendix— No. 3:^. 
 
 Moses, as to ceremonies and the civil ])rece|)t3 of it, dotli 
 not bind Christians ; yet all such are obliged to observe tht 
 moral commandments 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 Original Sin. 
 
 By the fall of Adam, the nature of man is become 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 possi- 
 bly can. 
 
 6. OfFree-Will. 
 
 The condition of man, after the fall o^ Adam, is such, 
 that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural 
 strength and good works, to faith, and calling ujion God : 
 w^herefore we have no power to do good works, pleasing 
 and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ 
 giving a good will, and working with us when we have 
 that good will. 
 
 7. Of the Jvstificatiun 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 
 
Appetidix^No. 32. 373 
 
 <€ndure the severity of God's judgment ; yet are tliey pleas- 
 ing and acceptable to God in Clirist, 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 propitiation for the sins of the v/orld ; 
 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 renewed by 
 repentance : for although after we have received God's 
 grace, we may depart from it by falling into sin ; yet, through 
 the assistance of his Holy Spirit, 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. Of Predestination. 
 
 Predestination to life, with respect to every man's salva- 
 tion, 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 affections, 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 holi- 
 ness of life no man shall be saved. 
 
374 Appendix — No. 32. 
 
 12. Of ublaining eternal Salvation onlij by the Name uf 
 
 Christ. 
 
 They are to be accounted presumptuous, who say, tiiat 
 every inau shall be savetl by the law or sect whicii he pro- 
 fesseth, so that he be dilii^eiit to frame his life accordini;- to 
 that law, and the light of nature. For holy scripture doth 
 set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men 
 must be saved. 
 
 13. Of the Church ami its Authority. 
 
 The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfid 
 men, wherein the true word of God is preached, and the 
 sacraments are duly administered, according 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 govern- 
 ment thereof; so that all things be done to edifying. But 
 it is not lawful 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 en- 
 force any thing to be believed as necessary to salvation, 
 that is not contained in the scriptures. General Councils 
 and Churches are hable to err, and have erred, even in 
 matters of faith and doctrine, as well as in their cere- 
 monies. 
 
 14. Of Ministering in the Congregation. 
 
 It is not lawfid for any tnan to take upon him the oflice 
 of i)ublic preaching, or ministering the sacraments 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. 
 
 15. Of tlie Sacraments. 
 
 Sacraments ordained by Ciirist are not merely badges or 
 tokens of Christian men's profession ; but rather certain 
 sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good 
 will towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and 
 
Appendix — No. 32. 375 
 
 <loth not only quicken, but also strengthen ami confirm our 
 faith in him. 
 
 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 Baptism. 
 
 15aptisni is not merely a sign of profession, and mark of 
 diflerence, \vheret)y Christian men are discerned from 
 others that are not christened ; but it is also a sign of re- 
 generation, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, 
 they ^'ho receive baptism rightly are grafted into the 
 Church; the promises of the forgiveness 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 Lord's Supper. 
 
 The supper of the Lord is not merely a sign of the love 
 that Christians ought to have among themselves 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. 
 
 Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance 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 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. 
 
 18. Of the one Oblation of Christ upon the Cross. 
 
 The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect re- 
 demption, 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. 
 
37G Appendix— No. 32^, 
 
 10. Of Consecration and Ordination^ 
 
 The book of consecration of bishops and ordering of 
 priests and deacons, except such parts as require any oaths 
 inconsistent with the American revokition, is to be adopted, 
 as containing all things necessary 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 testi- 
 mony of truth : but all vain and rash swearing is forbidden 
 by the holy scriptures. 
 
 Ordered, that the plan for obtaining consecration 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. 295.] 
 
 Done in Philadelphia, Christ Church, in convention of 
 the Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the states under-mentioned, this fifth day of 
 October, 1785. [Signed by the president and all the mem- 
 bers of the convention, ranged according to their respective 
 states : as was also the address to the English prelates, 
 published in the journal of 1T86.] 
 
 Extracts from the Journal. 
 
 Resolved, That the Liturgy shall be used in this Church 
 as accommodated to the revolution, agreeably to the alter- 
 ations now approved of and ratified by this convention. 
 
 On motion. Resolved, That the fourth of July shall be 
 observed by this Church for ever, as a day of thanksgiving 
 to Almighty Cod, for the inestimable blessings of religious 
 and civil liberty vouchsafed to the United States of America. 
 
 On motion. Resolved, That the first Thursday in Novem- 
 ber 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.* 
 
 " The preparing of a suitable service was left to the conimittee. 
 
Appendix— Xo. 33. 3tt 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be apj)ointe(l to publish tlie 
 iJook 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 alterations and new offices recom- 
 mended to this Church ; and that the book be accompanied 
 with a proper preface or address, setting forth the reason 
 and expediency of the alterations; and tliat the committee 
 have the liberty to make verbal and grammatical correc- 
 tions ; but in such raanner as that nothing in form or sub- 
 stance be altered. 
 
 The committee appointed were the Rev. Dr. White, 
 (president) the Rev. Dr. Smith, and the Rev. Dr. Wharton. 
 
 Ordered, Tliat the said committee be authorized to dis- 
 pose of the copies of the Common Prayer when printed ; 
 and that after defraying all expenses incurred therein, they 
 remit the nett profits to the treasurers of the several cor- 
 porations and societies for the Relief of the Widows and 
 Children of deceased Clergymen in the states represented 
 in this convention ; the profits to be equally divided among 
 the said societies and corporations. 
 
 Resolved, That the same committee be authorized to 
 publish, with the Kook of Common Prayer, such of the 
 i*eading and singing psalms, and such a calendar of proper 
 lessons for the different Sundays and holy days throughout 
 the year, as they may think proper. 
 
 |T/fc Appendix of the first edition here concluded. \ 
 
 No. 33. Page 53. 
 
 The bishops, in the use of the office of Confirmation, 
 finding that the preface is frequently not well suited to the 
 age and character of those who are presented for this holy 
 ordinance, imanimouslj/ propose the following resolution : — 
 
 Resolved, That after the present preface in the office of 
 Confirmation, the following be inserted, to be used instead 
 of the former, at the discretion of the bishop : — " It appears 
 from holy scripture, that the apostles laid their hands ou 
 those who were baptized ; and this ordinance, styled by the 
 Apostle Paul, the ' laying on of hands,' and ranked by him 
 among the principles of the doctrine of Christ, has been 
 retained in the Church, under the name of Confirmation ; 
 
 48 
 
378 Appendix — Xo. 34. 
 
 and is very convenient, and proper to be observed, to the 
 oiul that persons lieing- siilliciently instructed in what they 
 promised, or uliat was promised for them in their baptism, 
 and bein;;^, in other respects, duly (puiHfied, may tiiemselves, 
 with their own mouth and consent, openly before the Church, 
 ratify and confirm the same, and also promise, that by the 
 grace of God, they will evermore endeavour themselves 
 faithfully to observe such things as they, by their own con- 
 fession, have assented unto.'^ 
 
 And to correct the injurious misapprehension, as to the 
 meaning of certain terms in the first collect in the Office of 
 Confirmation, the bishops iui(mi7}ious/^ propose the following 
 resolution: — 
 
 Resolved, That after the first collect in the Office of Con- 
 firmation, tlie following be inserted, to be used at the dis- 
 cretion of the bishop, instead of the first collect, " Almighty 
 and everliving God, who hast vouchsafed, in baptism, to 
 regenerate these thy servants, by water and the Holy Ghost ; 
 thus giving them a title to all the blessings of thy covenant 
 of grace and mercy, in thy Son Jesus Christ, and now dos't 
 graciously confirm unto them, ratifying tlie promises then 
 made, all their holy privileges ; grant unto them, we beseech 
 thee, O Lord, the renewing of the Holy Ghost; strengthen 
 them with the pov/er of this divine Comforter; and daily 
 increase in them thy manifold gifts of grace, the spirit of 
 wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and ghostly 
 strength, the spirit of knowledge and true godliness; and 
 fill them, O Lord, with the spirit of thy holy fear, now and 
 for ever. Amen." 
 
 No. 34. Paffc 256. 
 
 to' 
 
 In the convention of 1821, the House of Bishops com- 
 municated to the House of Clerical and Lay Beputies, their 
 disapprobation of what they conceived to be a mistaken 
 construction of the last rubric in the service for the admi- 
 nistration of the communion. The reasons on which their 
 objection to the construction was founded, are recorded in 
 the Appendix to the journal of that year; and it is their 
 intention to cause it to be entered on the journal of their 
 present transactions. It is as follows; — 
 
AppeiuUx — No. 34. 379' 
 
 Concerning^ the last Rubric in the Covnnunion Service. 
 
 The House of Bishops being informed of what they con- 
 {.ider as a great misunderstanding, in various places, of the 
 rubric at the end of the Communion Service, think it their 
 duty to declare their sense of the same, and to communicate 
 it to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 
 In the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England, 
 the words in xhe parenthesis are — " if there be no commu- 
 nion." In the review of 1789, it was put — " if there be no 
 sermon or comniunioa" — and this has been interpreted to 
 mean, that if there be a sermon, what has been called the 
 ante-communion service is to be omitted — against this con- 
 struction the bishops object as follows : — 
 
 1st. The construction rests on inference ; deduced in 
 contrariety to the positive direction — " Then shall follow 
 the sermon." Had an exception been intended, it would 
 doubtless have been expressed positively, as in other ru- 
 brics. Further, the rubric in question prescribes, that 
 *' when tiicre is a communion, the minister shall return to 
 the Lord's table;" which presumes him to have been there 
 before, in the ante-communion service, unless in the per- 
 mitted alternative of some other place. 
 
 2d. The argument on the other side proves too much, 
 and therefore nothing. It is said of those who urge it, that 
 they conceive themselves bound to use the wiiole service on 
 a communion day; whereas it should be dispensed with, on 
 the same principle on which it is supjiosed to be superseded 
 by the sermon. On the other hand, if there being either a 
 sermon, or the communion should be thought to warrant the 
 omission ; can it be, that the convention designed to leave 
 in the book the ante-communion service, with all the collects, 
 the gospels, and the epistles attached to them, to be little 
 more than dead letter; never to be used, except on the few 
 occasions vvhen the said service is unconnected with either 
 of the said provisions? For it is not required to be used 
 either with the morning or with the evening prayer. 
 
 8d. There is a rubric prescribing the place in the service, 
 at which notice shall be given of holy days, &c. Can it be 
 supposed, that a provision of this sort was intended to be 
 done away, hot professedly, but indirectly ? and that even 
 there should be no provision for notifying the communion ? 
 
 4tii. It is understood, that the morning prayer, and the 
 administration of the communion, were designed to be dis- 
 tinct services, to be used at different times of the day.. 
 
380 Appendix — No. 34. 
 
 Probably, at the time of the reformation, the practice wa« 
 generally conformable to the provision ; and it is said to 
 prevail at present in some places in England. Now, al- 
 though there is probably no Church in the United States 
 of which the same can be aftirmed ; yet, why raise a bar 
 against so reasonable and so godly a practice i* an effort 
 for which, would reduce the whole to the sermon ; except 
 when the communion were to be administered; and then 
 there would be the latter part of the service only. 
 
 5th. The construction casts a blemish on the observance 
 of every festival of our Church. To speak in particular of 
 Easter Sunday, Whitsunday, and Christmas day ; can it be 
 supposed, that the convention intended to abrogate the 
 reading of the portions of scripture, the most pertinent of 
 any in the Bible ? or that the members of the body were so 
 careless, as not to perceive the effect of the word introduced 
 by them into the parenthesis? Neither of these was the 
 case; although they had not the sagacity to foresee the use 
 which would be made of their super-addition: a use, which 
 may be applied hereafter to the abandoning of the observ- 
 ance of those festivals. For why should the Church retain 
 them, after dispensing with whatever is attached to them 
 in the respective services. The remark applies equally to 
 the two days of fasting or abstinence — Good Friday and 
 Ash Wednesday. It is here supposed, that on the former, 
 there are the service and sermons in all our churches fur- 
 nished with the ministry. But according to the opposite 
 opinion, the sermon dis()enscs with the recital of the con- 
 summation of our Saviour's sufferings, and not only on 
 Good Friday, but on every day of Passion week, if there be 
 sermons. Could this have been intended? 
 
 Cth. There is the magnitude of the change thus made in 
 the liturgy, without the subjecting of the resulting conse- 
 quences to the consideration of any General Convention : 
 for this is here affirmed, without the apprehension of con- 
 tradiction from any of the surviving members. The most 
 obvious of the consecpienccs, and such as could not have 
 escaped the notice of the least attentive, were the dispens- 
 ing with the reading of the Ten Commandments; the weekly 
 return of which may well be thought to have a beneficial 
 effect on morals ; and the deranging of a selection of pass- 
 ages of scripture, always supposed to have been made with 
 great judgment, and suited to the different seasons of the 
 year. They were of like use in the Church before the 
 prevalence of the corruptions of the Papacy ; have with- 
 
Appendix — No, 34. 381 
 
 stood, in some measure, its systoiiiatic hosLiliry to a general 
 knowledge of the scriptures ; and, probably, have prevented 
 a greater enormity of unevangelical error, than what wo 
 now find: for although the selections were in Latin, they 
 were at least instructive to the many who understood the 
 language, at a time when even among that description of 
 people, the possession of a Bible was rare. To the jiresent 
 day, they are held in a high esteem, not only by our parent 
 Church, but by the Lutheran Churches of Sweden, of Den- 
 mark, of sundry German principalities, and of this country. 
 In some of the European states, the subject of the serraoQ 
 is expected to he taken from the epistle, or from the gospel 
 for the Sunday. There seems no reasonable objection, in 
 any future review of the liturgy, to the making of some 
 abbreviation, suited to the joining of services designed to 
 be distinct: but there may be doubted the expediency of 
 making so great an inroad as that projected on the service 
 now in question. 
 
 7th. The ante-€onimunion service continued to be used 
 as before, by the clergy who were present in the convention, 
 in which it is now imagined to have been dispensed with. 
 It is confidently believed, that there was not an exception 
 of an individual ; although, on the other side, the jnajor 
 number must be supposed to have been desirous of the 
 innovation. In the interpretation of a law, immediate 
 practice under it has been held to be a good expositor ; 
 especially when, as in the present case, a contrary sense 
 had not been heard offer a long course of years. 
 
 The question may occurs — Why did the conventioii intro- 
 duce the words "sermon or," into the parenthesis? It 
 was to reconcile the other rubric referred to, with frequent 
 and allowable practice. The said rubric says — " then shall 
 follow the sermon." Perhaps, when the service was com- 
 piled there was a sermon on every saint's day, as well as 
 on every principal festival. In modern usage it has been 
 otherwise ; which made it convenient to provide for the mi- 
 nister's proceeding to the Blessing. The parenthesis means, 
 that although there be i!o sermon, or although there be no 
 communion, the minister shall act as directed by the rubric. 
 
 The bishops therefore deem it their duty to express the 
 decided opinion, that the rubrics of the Communion Service, 
 as well as other general considerations, enjoin the use of 
 that part which precedes the sermon, on all occasions of 
 sermon or communion, as well as on those festivals and 
 fasts when neither sermon nor communion occurs. 
 
332 Appendix — Xu. 34. 
 
 ITavinf^ rcviowet' the above instrmiient, we are not only 
 confirmed in our opinion therein expressed, but have an 
 increased opinion of the evils, and of the dangers to which 
 the contrary tends. 
 
 Of these, altliough not among the most material, yet 
 worthy of notice, is its occasional standing in the way of a 
 courteous interchange of ministerial services among the 
 clergy. Those of the body, who conceive of themselves to 
 be conscientiously bound by what they know to be the in- 
 tendment of the rubric, cannot but refuse to officiate, with 
 the omission of the ante-communion, however sanctioned 
 by the custom of a particular place: and although the 
 stated minister should condescend to tolerate a practice 
 different from his own, yet the diversity cannot but have a 
 disparaging tendency in the estimation of a congregation. 
 
 Secondly. The conscience of every bishop is occasionally 
 implicated in the subject. A deacon offers for the priest- 
 hood, after administering habitually in violation of what the 
 other believes to be the meaning of the 'rubric; while the 
 one is to require, and the other is to promise conformity to 
 it. On a presbyter's contemplating removal to another 
 diocese, he finds it important to his character and to his 
 prospects, that there should be certified conformity to the 
 institutions of the Church; of the contrary to which the 
 bishop has been credibly informed. It will be said, that in 
 each of the su[)posed cases, the party may have conducted 
 himself conscientiously, and agreeably to hAs own interpreta- 
 tion of the rubric. Let this be supposed the case; but let 
 it also be granted, that the bishop, in taking his line of con- 
 duct, has also a conscience to be satistied, and a riglit of 
 interpretation to be sustained. At the same tin)e let it be 
 remembered, that of tliose who reject tiie constant use of 
 the service in question, none plead conscientious scruples 
 for their conduct. 
 
 If there be any case in which this matter, more than in 
 any otb.er, may press on the conscience of a bisl>o[», it must 
 be, when he is called to the duty of consecrating to the 
 Episcopacy ; and when the bishop elect, before a step is 
 taken in the act of consecration, is to take on his lips the 
 solemn form of words prej)ared for him; with the under- 
 standing in the minds of his consecrators, that ho intends a 
 deviation from the order of the Church, on so extensive a 
 branch of her services as that in question. 
 
 Thirdly. The misinterpretation is an assumption of tht; 
 whole legislative authority of the Church; leading, m it* 
 
Appendix — No, 34. S83 
 
 fonsscqii-onces, to the setting!; aside of a very great, proportion 
 of the Book of Common Prayer. In our fornier conuinini- 
 cntion we admittec!, and now admit, that the favourers of 
 the innovation are in the habit of nsin*^ the ante-communion 
 service on all occasions of the administration of the com- 
 munion. We remarked, that their doing so was in contra- 
 riety to tlioir construction; and that if others, under the 
 shelter of it, should dismiss the ante-communion service 
 whenever a sermon is to follow ; and with it, the collects, 
 the epistles, and the gospels ; no fault, on the ground taken, 
 can be charged. In the case supposed, why should there 
 be retained such useless lumber in the liturgy? This was 
 substantially set forth in our former comnuinication ; and 
 is now repeated, for the purpose of exhibiting the matter 
 in the light of the exercise of the whole legislative authority 
 of the Church ; and that, in the great extent to which it has 
 been referred to. 
 
 To prepare for a further elucidation of the part of the 
 canon in question, we here transcribe it — " Upon the Sun- 
 days ami other holy days (if there be no sermon or commu- 
 nion) shall 1)0 said all that is appointed at the communion, 
 unto the end of the gospel, concluding with the Blessing." 
 
 The question turns on the sense of the words " sermon 
 or," and their dependence on the preceding preposition " if." 
 The dictionaries explain this word, by the synonymous 
 terms — " suppose that" and " allow that," and etymologists 
 deduce it from the word " give;" which must be its sense 
 in the English rubric; since otherwise whenever the com- 
 munion is to be administered, the ante-communion service 
 is to be dispensed with ; an absurdity which none will ad- 
 vocate. 
 
 The sense of this rubric may be perceived the more 
 clearly, by remarking its connexion with that immediately 
 before the sentences. The latter says — " then shall fol- 
 low the sermon;" after which, according to the same ru- 
 bric, the minister is to repair to the Lord's table, and to 
 begin the offertory. • The rubric now in question does not 
 dispense with any thing before enjoined, but supposes cases 
 of exception, in regard to what is to follow, saying — " if 
 there be no sermon or communion," &c. 
 
 In consideration of the premises, the House of Bishops 
 respectfully propose to the House of Clerical and Lay De- 
 puties the following canon : — 
 
384 Appendix — No. 35. 
 
 A Canon explanatory of the first Part of the Rubric at the 
 end of the Contmanion Service. 
 
 " Wlicrca.'^, in the first part of the last rubric in ' The 
 Order for the Administration of the Communion,' tlie allow- 
 ing of the officiating nvinijjter, there being no sermon or 
 eommimion, to proceed to the lllessing ; was owing to the 
 circumstauce, that without such a proviso, his doing so 
 would not have been agreeable to the rubric: it shall be 
 the tiiity of every minister of this Church, in the celebration 
 of divine service on Sundays and other holy days, to recite 
 that part of the service which commoidy has the name of 
 the ante-coinmunion service." 
 
 No. 35. Page 257. 
 
 Thou'^hls on the Proposal of Alterations in the Book of Psalms- 
 in Metre, and in the Hymns, now before a Committee of the 
 General Convention : By a Member of the Committee. 
 
 The subject shall be considered as it respects-^lst. The 
 Book of Psalms in metre — 2dly. The Hymns already adopt- 
 ed ; and — -idly. The adoption of others. 
 
 Let the Book of Psalms in metre, as translated by Tate and 
 Brady, be continued entire, until another entire translation 
 shall be ))resented, and thought preferable after deliberate 
 examination by those the best qualified to judge of the work, 
 as to the integrity of it, and as to its poetic merit. It is not 
 understood that any such translation is in readiness; and, 
 as to altering of the book in particular passages, it is a 
 course which, once begun on, is likely to be continued, by a 
 succession of changes without end. Probably the book will 
 never be the same, longer than from one General Conven- 
 tion to another.* 
 
 Some are for printing only select passages of the book ; 
 and the reason given is, that the greater part of it is never 
 used. It is here predicted, that let the selection be made 
 with ever so much care, there will be complaints of the 
 omission of passages, which, it will be said, ought to have 
 
 * These remarks were not designed to diecountonance a measure subsequently 
 adopted by the assembled members of the conuuittce — the appointing af a sub- 
 committee to report to an adjourned meeting — any deviations which tliere may be 
 from the most coircct copies, aud any mia-trauslatious of tlie orisiua!. 
 
Appendix — No. 35. 385' 
 
 fjcen retained ; anJ of the retainiiii; of others, wliich, it wil' 
 also he said, might have been well .spared. This was suffi- 
 ciently experienced in the reception of what was called the 
 Pro])osed Book. Where fastidiousness of criticism niay 
 ,^ro\v out of mere difference of taste, why not leave every 
 man to his own ? 
 
 But, say they, it is an unnecessary swelling of the volume. 
 For this, there is an easy remedy. The metre psahns are 
 no part of the Book of Common Prayer ; and no law of the 
 Church will bo violated, if there should be editions with 
 such selections as the favourers of the works may approve 
 of; who would have none to please but theniselvcs. Tht) 
 license is allowable in reference to the hymns also. 
 
 Let the hymns already adopted be retained; because 
 there can be no material use in the contrary, and because it 
 would counteract the tendency to perpetual change. Be it, 
 that here and there we iind a line or two not defensible. 
 Let these be altered in future editions. The alterations 
 would be slight, and not materially affect the use of the j)re- 
 sent books. In giving numbers to the new hymns, there 
 should be a continuation of those of the old. 
 
 In favour of new hymns it is |)leadcd, that tiiere are some 
 occasions not specially provided for. Be it so : and let a 
 few hymns be chosen for those occasions. The necessity 
 for any more may be doubted of; considering that for the 
 usual subjects of praise and thanksgiving, and for the ex- 
 ])ression of penitence, and for the impressing of a great 
 variety of salutary instruction, we have an abundant sujiply 
 in the Book of Psalms. Yet, if there should be proposed 
 additional hymns, not too many, and not only correct in sen- 
 timent, but excelling in poetic merit, no objection is here 
 made- 
 Most decidedly is there objected to the taste of some, dis- 
 posing them to wish for hymns, in which the same subjects 
 are again and again repeated in varied phraseology. It is 
 denied that this contributes to devotion ; and the denial is 
 grounded on the well known property of the human cha- 
 racter, that when religious sensibilities have been often ex- 
 cited by certain words, the repetition of them is more likely 
 to produce the like excitement than other words compre- 
 hending the same sentiments. The principle is applicable 
 to other subjects, and accounts for the long duration of the 
 effects of popular ballads — especially the wonder-working 
 one of the Swiss. 
 
 Whether the inviting' feelincj be religion or patriotism, 
 
 49 
 
^8G Appendix — No. •3t>. 
 
 makes nothing as to tlie question of effect. Let it he sup- 
 ])Osed that sonic poet shniiU! compose a song, expressing the 
 sentiments in "Rule Britannia, " «fcc. and eqnai to that song 
 in versification. Can it he supposed, that the new song, on 
 any occasion interesting the puhlic mind, woukl have an 
 equal ellect with the accnstomed words ? ft is not to be 
 imagined. Ttliicli less wouhl this be hkcly to happen, if" the 
 new song should have a new tune tacked to it. 
 
 Divine wisdom has accommodated to this prof)erty of hu- 
 man nature : of which there is an interesting instance in 
 Deuteronomy xxvi. 5 — " A Syrian was my father," &c. 
 This was a form to be repeated without variation from year 
 to year; no regard being liad to the taste of those whose 
 ears have a relish for great variety in words. So, when the 
 ark " set forward," it was always with the invocation — 
 " Rise up. Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let 
 them that hato thee, flee before thee :" and when it rested, 
 it was with — " Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of 
 Israel." \x\ each case, the same words were repeated 
 always: and in after times, when the services of the temple 
 were arranged, they were invariable. 
 
 In order to perceive the ground of this procedure in hu- 
 man nature, we should distinguish between what is gratify- 
 ing to the intellect, or to the imagination, or to the ear, and 
 that which is an excitement of devotion, or of sensibiHty in 
 any other departinent. The former kind of gratification 
 requires variety ; but as producing the latter, sameness is 
 more effective. 
 
 It is no objection, that in the Book of Psalms, we find the 
 same sentiments in a variety of diction. Those composi- 
 tions were such, as present state of mind, and present cir- 
 cumstances of life, suggested to the mind of the sacred poet. 
 The fact has no bearing on periodical returns of devotion, 
 whether public or private. 
 
 There seems no reason for difference in this respect, be- 
 tween psalmody and prosaic j)rayer. Under the latter head, 
 we have the stated form of the Lord's Prayer; and there are 
 extant other forms, attended on by him and by his apostlesr 
 in the synagogues. Our Church has adojjted the principle in 
 this department. We know, that some would make inroads 
 on this arrangement. But what is the consequence.'' It 
 is, that in their extemporaneous prayers, they insensibly 
 assume the character of harangues: on the principle above 
 stated, that variety has a more natural alliance with exer- 
 cises of this sort, than with the excitement of devotion- 
 
Appendix — No. 36. 387 
 
 Accordingly, the design of this coniiiiLuiiciition is to ex- 
 •{)iess disinclination to variety, any further, than it is called 
 lor by variety of subject and of state of itiiiid. 
 
 No. 36. Page 268. 
 
 Comtilution. of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society 
 of the Frolestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America, as established in 1820, and amended in 1823, 
 1829, 1832, and 1835. 
 
 Article I. This institution shall he denominated " the 
 Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Churcli in the United States of America." 
 
 Art. II. The society shall be considered as compre- 
 hending all persons who are members of this Church. 
 
 Art. III. At every triennial meeting of the General 
 Convention, which is the constituted representative body of 
 the whole Protestant Episcopal Church in these United 
 States, there shall be appointed, by a concurrent vote, on 
 nomination by a joint committee of the two houses, a board 
 of thirty members, who, together with the bishops of this 
 Church, and such persons as became patrons of the society 
 before the meeting of the General Convention in the year 
 1829, shall be called the " lioard of Missions of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church in the United States of America." 
 The said committee of nomination shall consist of three 
 bishops, to be elected by ballot in the House of Bishops, 
 and three presbyters and three laymen, to be elected by 
 ballot in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
 
 Art. lY. To the Board of Missions shall be intrusted 
 tiie supervision of the general missionary operations of the 
 Church, with power to establish missionary stations, appoint 
 missionaries, make appropriations of money, regulate the 
 conducting of missions, fii! any vacancies in their number 
 which may occur, and also to enact all by-laws which they 
 may deem necessary for their own government and the 
 government of their committees. 
 
 Art. V. The presiding bishop of the Church shall be 
 the president of the board ; and in his absence, the senior 
 bishop proscut shall preside ; in the absence of all the bi- 
 shops, the board shall elect a president pro tempore. 
 
338 Appendix — Nu. 36. 
 
 Art. VI. The Board of 3Iissions shall hold its fiis^ 
 meeting on the call of the presiding bishop, and shall meejt 
 annually thereafter at such time and place as may have 
 been appointed at the previous annual meeting ; and also 
 on the second day of the meeting of the General Convention, 
 at the place of its meeting. They shall publish an annual 
 report of their proceedings for the information of the society, 
 and present a triennial report to each stated General Con- 
 vention. 
 
 At all meetings of the board, ten members shall form u 
 quorum. 
 
 Special meetings of the board may be called as shall be 
 provided in their own by-laws. 
 
 Art. VII. The board, as soon as may be after it has 
 been constituted, shall proceed to appoint eight persons, 
 four of whom shall be clergymen, and four of whom shall 
 l)e laymen, who, together with the bishop of the diocese in 
 which the committee is located, shall be a Committee for 
 Domestic Missions ; and eight persons, four of whom shall 
 be clergymen, and four of whom shall be laymen, who, 
 together with the bishoj) of the diocese in which the com- 
 mittee is located, shall be a Committee for Foreign Mis- 
 sions ; all of whom shall he ex officio members of the Board 
 of Missions. 
 
 Any bishop or bishops })resent at the place of meeting, 
 shall have a right ex officio to attend the meetings of the 
 committee, as members of the same. 
 
 Vacancies occurring in either of the committees, during 
 the recess of the board, may be filled by the committees 
 respectively, subject to the approval of the board at its 
 next meeting. 
 
 Art. VIII. To the committees of the board thus con- 
 stituted, shall be referred, in their respective departments, 
 during the recess of the board, the whole administration of 
 the general missionary work of the Church, subject to the 
 regulations of the board. Each committee shall make a 
 report of their proceedings to the Board of Missions at every 
 meeting of the board. 
 
 Art. IX. The Board of 3Iissions shall appoint for each 
 committee a secretary and general agent, with a suitable 
 salary, who shall l)e the executive oflicer of the committee, 
 to collect information, to conduct its correspondence, to 
 devise and recommend jdans of operation, and, in general, 
 to execute all the purposes of the board, in his j)roper 
 sphere, submitting ull his measures, bclbre their adoption, 
 
Appendix — No. 3<). 389 
 
 4o the committee for whom he is appointed, for their 
 approval. 
 
 Each committee shall also appoint a treasurer. And tlic 
 board shall designate which of the treasurers so appointed 
 shall be authorized to receive all moneys not specifically ap- 
 propriated, which moneys shall be at the disposal of the 
 board. 
 
 The secretaries and treasurers shall he ex officio members 
 of their respective committees, and of the board. 
 
 Local and subordinate agents and officers may, when 
 necessary, be appointed by each committee. 
 
 Afit. X. For the guidance of the committee it is de- 
 clared, that the missionary field is always to be regarded 
 as one, the world — the terms, domestic and foreign, being 
 understood as terms of locality, adopted for convenience. 
 Jjomestic missions are those which are established irithin, 
 m\A foreign missions are those which are establislied ivithoid, 
 the territory of the United States. 
 
 Art. XI. No clergyman shall be appointed a missionary 
 by the board, or by either of the committees, without the 
 recommendation of the ecclesiastical authority to whose 
 diocese he belongs; nor shall any missionary be sent to 
 officiate in any diocese, without the consent of the ecclesi- 
 astical authority of the same. 
 
 Art. XII. The Board of Missions provided for in the 
 third article of this Constitution, shall in all cases be con- 
 tinued until a new board is elected. 
 
 Art. XIll. It is recommended to every member of this 
 society to pray to Almighty God for his blessing upon its 
 designs, under the full conviction that unless He direct us 
 in all our doings with his most gracious favour, and further 
 us with his continual help, we cannot reasonably hope to 
 procure suitable persons to act as missionaries, or expect 
 that their endeavours will be successful. 
 
 No. 37. Page 269. 
 
 It is expected that there will be brought before the en- 
 suing General Convention, the question agitated in New- 
 York concerning the proposed division of that diocese. My 
 present opinion, as to the principles which should govern 
 in that and in every similar case, is as follows: — 
 
 1 am in favour of the division of a diocese, whenever it is 
 
3&0 Appendix— No. 37. 
 
 rendered expedient hy extent of territory, and by Episco- 
 palian population in point of number. 
 
 Where these circunistanccs combine, and the measure is 
 consequently determined on, there is suggested the inquiry, 
 bliall the additional bishop be an assistant, or a suftVagan, 
 or the diocesan of a new diocese .'' 
 
 If the demand be occasioned by the old age, or by the 
 infirmities of tlie present bisiiop, the new one may be the 
 most properly his assistant. Or, if the former should choose 
 to continue Iiis labours over the whole, although with the 
 aid furnished, there is no principle in opposition. But much 
 may dejiend on circumstances of expediency. 
 
 A sulfragan bisiiop has under his charge a portion of the 
 diocese. He retains it in the event of the decease of the 
 diocesan, whom he does not succeed. Such an arrangement 
 may suit local preferences prevailing in Europe, but would 
 be contrary to the habits of thinking generally prevailing in 
 America. Among other resulting evils, it would jirobably 
 bappen, that the suffragan's taking of his place would be 
 offensive to the district left, or to that to which he is to be 
 transferred. If, to avoid this, he should be continued in 
 the place of his former residence, there may be chosen to 
 the diocesan Episcopacy a clergyman considerably junior 
 to him, but made his superior by that measure. This 
 would probably be painful to his feelings, and to tliose of a 
 poiiulation wlio had been under his n^nistry through a long 
 tiact of time. There would be, in their estimation, a sort 
 of patriotism in resisting the degradation of the district in 
 which they would be citizens. 
 
 The result of my speculations is tlieopiuion,that in the case 
 of a call for more than one bishop, in an extent of country 
 now constituting a diocese, (lie most useful j)lan would be a 
 division of it, the two portions to be as independent on one 
 another as are now the Cliurches of any two states. 
 
 The question occurs, What would be the cfieca of this 
 measure on our general organization? In answer, it may 
 be stated, that botii of the bishops of the two contcmj)lated 
 ilioceses would have votes in the General Convention ; but 
 that there would be required of it a legislative act, to enable 
 each of these bodies to send their clerical and their lay 
 dej)uties. 
 
 Some may object to this, as giving to the Church in ji 
 single state, an increase of power beyond what is provided 
 by the constitution, on other points. The objection would 
 liuvc weight, if the provisions of the constitution were ac- 
 
Appendix— No. 37. 3&I 
 
 commodatetl to the numbers of the Episcopaliun population 
 in the several parts of the union. When the const it iitioit 
 was fra!ne<l, the puhlic mind had not yet raised itseif above 
 that excessive attachment to the pectiHariries of thediiierent 
 states, which is in the way of consistent adherencfi in prac- 
 tice, to the principle contended for in theory, the founding 
 of law on pu[)lic will. 
 
 If there should ever happen a dissolution of the unity of 
 our American Church, the deplorable event wiil probably 
 be occasioned by the said inequality. There may occur 
 questions liaving important bearinos on our doctrine, or on 
 our discipline, or on our worshij). Measures may be adopted 
 by a majority, according' to tiie constitution, but dissented 
 from by an acknowledged majority of our Episcopal popu- 
 lation. It can hardly be supposed, and is contrary to our 
 observation of human nature, that the measures would be 
 submitted to. 
 
 Whether the separation would be prevented by the fairer 
 representation in the House of Bishops, cannot be foreseen. 
 But here is a good reason not to object to the increase of 
 their number, by the division of a diocese, or to an analogous 
 provision for representation in the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies. 
 
 Postscript. 
 
 Since the penning of the opinion, it has been suggested to 
 me, in favour of suffragan Episcopacy, that it would lessen 
 the disadvantage likely to result from having an inconvenient 
 number of members of the House of Bishops; which, it is 
 said, may be prevented, in a degree at least, by excluding 
 Suffragans from that house, with the permission of their 
 being chosen as clerical representatives for the other. 
 
 First. It would make but little diiference, as we may 
 suppose that the larger dioceses only wiil be divided. 
 
 Secondly. The permitting of suffragans in the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Dejiuties, seems to militate with the prin- 
 ciple, that legislation should be exclusively the act of all the 
 orders of men whom it concerns. 
 
 Thirdly. Where large dioceses become divided, each de- 
 partment having a larger Episcopal pojjulation than several 
 of the entire dioceses, it is unfair that the bishops of the 
 latter should be of a higher grade than that of the former, 
 especially when the incongruity would be aggravated by 
 ^reat disparity of years. 
 
^02 Appendix— No. 37. 
 
 Fourthly. The time will probably come, but is not likely 
 to be soon, when a reproscutalion to each house will be con- 
 stituted by deputation from sundry districts, into which the 
 very extensive country occupied by us will become ecclesi- 
 astically divided. This may dictate another profitable ar- 
 rani;emcnt — that of an ecclesiastical assembly in each dis- 
 trict, in each of the two years intervening- between every 
 two General Conventions. The assemblies now proposed 
 need not be limited to the choice of representatives, and 
 may profitably receive appeals from diocesan determinations, 
 in matters of discipline. With legislation they should have 
 no concern. It maybe suggested, that there might be pro- 
 vided an aj)pcal from the diocesan Episcopacy to the House 
 of Bishops : but this would cause inconvenient delay. An- 
 other expedient might be, the application of the convention 
 concerned, or of its standing committee, to three conveni- 
 ently situated bishops for the hearing of the appeal. But a 
 better should be in prospect, in the contemplated division 
 into districts^. 
 
 It is to be regretted, that in the minds of many, there is 
 the supposition, that a bishop should always be engaged in 
 visitations. To this there are several objections. 
 
 1. It is contrary to the usage of all ages, except in regard 
 to bishops strictly missionary, and without relation to par- 
 ticular dioceses. 
 
 2. A bishop will generally have a family, to whom a rea- 
 sonable portion of his time will be as much due, as are any 
 of his services to the Church. 
 
 3. The scheme is inconsistent with the expectation of a 
 learned Episcopacy. 
 
 4. It will be oppressive on a bishop advanced in years, 
 or infirm. 
 
 The author is sensible of what would be an indecorum, 
 in his aft'ecting to influence ecclesiastical measures, after the 
 time, which cannot be distant, of his retirement from this 
 earthly scene. But if on any subject there may seem pos- 
 sible use in sentiments entertained by him, he does not per- 
 ceive any reason for the withholding of them ; although 
 tliere is much reason for the delivery of them with diffi- 
 dence ; and with the being aware, that unexpected motives 
 of conduct may occur. 
 
 On a review of this document, the author judges it not 
 irrelevant, to record some sentiments long entertained by 
 him, as to arrangements which should be kept in prospect, 
 to be carried into eftect when circumstances may permit. 
 
Appendix — No, 37. 311'? 
 
 liCl there l>c iti a Jiocesc, and in some city or town as 
 rcMtta! as may be, a church of which the bishoj) is to be the 
 parochial pastor, and in which he is to preach liabitually, 
 when not en^^a^ed in visitations. In such a church, the 
 diocesan convention will occupy the standiu^^ and uii! per- 
 form the duties of rui ordinary vestry. This u ill be as near 
 to primitive practice, and to that of the Church of Euirland, 
 as is consistent with the circumstances of our Churcfi. »Such 
 a pastor shouhi have an assistant minister, to be provided 
 for out of the pew-money. Tiie maintenance of the bishop 
 should be from an F,()iscopal fund. 
 
 50 
 
STAND A R D WORKS, 
 
 FOR SALE BY 
 
 SWORDS, S T A N F O R D, A N D C O. 
 
 Bishop Ilobarl's edition of Mant and D'Oyly's Bible, in 2, 3, or 
 4 vols, quarto. 
 
 Postluiaious Works of the late Right Rnv. John Henry Ilobart. 
 D. D., 3 vols. 6vo. 
 
 Sermons on the Principal Events and Trnths of Redeiuptiori, by 
 tlie Ri?:ht Rev. John Henry Hobart, D. D., '2 vols. bvo. 
 
 Sermons by the late Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D., of Ni!\v- 
 York, 2 vols. 8vo. 
 
 Sermons by the late Right Rev. John S. Ravetiscrot>, D. D., of 
 North-C/arolina, 'i vols. tevo. 
 
 Sermons by the late Right Rev. Samuel Seabury, D. D., ol' (.Con- 
 necticut and Rhode-Island, 2 vols. Svo. 
 
 Sermons by the late Rigiit Rev. Theodore Dehon, D. D., of Soutli- 
 Carolina, 2 vols. Svo. 
 
 An Essay on the Life and Character of the late Right Rev. Theo- 
 dore Dehon, D. D., by the Rev. C. E. Gadsden, D. D. 
 
 The Reniains of the Rev. Charles Henry Wharton, D. D., \vit!i a 
 Memoir of his Life, by the Right Rev. Bishop Doane, 2 vols. 
 
 Bishop White's Comparative View of the Controversy between the 
 Calvinists and Armenians, 2 vols. Svo. 
 
 Bishop Willie's Lectures on the Catechism of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, Svo. 
 
 Commentaries suited to Occasions <jf Ordination, by the Right Rev. 
 Bishop White. 
 
 A Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy, by the Rev. Isaac Barrow. 
 D. D., Svo. 
 
 Waddington's History of the Church, from the earliest Ages to the 
 Reformation, Svo. 
 
 Works of the Rev. John Newton, with a ^lemoir of his lAlh, 2 
 vols. Svo. 
 
 Discourses and Dissertations on the Doctrines of Atonement and 
 Sacrifice, by Archbishop Magee, 2 vols. Svo. 
 
 Mllner's History of the Church of Christ, a new edition, 2 vols. Svo. 
 
 Sermons by Bishop Horsley,the only complete edition, 3 vols. Svo. 
 
 Macknight's Translation of the Epistles, a new and beautiluledi- 
 tion, SvG. 
 
 Home's Introduction to the Critical Knowledge of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, a new edition, greatly enlarged by the author. 
 
 Cruden's Concofdance, a new edition, revised and corrected. 
 
 Works of the Rev. William Jay, of Bath, 3 vols. Svo. 
 
 Life and Sermons of the late Rev. G. T. Bedell, D. D., 2 vols. Svo, 
 
Sermons by the late Rev. C. K. Duffie, '-3 vols. 6vo. 
 
 Whole Works of Bickorsteth, 8vo. 
 
 Whole Works of Hannah More, 7 vols. 8vo.- 
 
 IVayers adapted to various Occasions of Social Worship, by the 
 Iliqlit llev. Alexander V. Grisv/old, D. D. 
 
 Tlie IJfc and Writings of the Rev. George Herbert. 
 
 Iveblc's Christian Year, edited by Bishof) Doane. 
 
 Morning Exercises for every Day in the Year, by the Rev. Wil- 
 liam Jay. 
 
 Evening Exercises for every Day in tlie Year, by the Rev. Wil- 
 liam Jay. 
 
 The Pastor's Testimony, by the Rev. John A. Clark. Fourth 
 edition, revised and corrected by the author. 
 
 Essays on Happiness, Christian Piety, &;c. by the Rev. John 
 M'Laurin, wiiii aa Introduction, containing some Notice of his 
 Life and Character, by the Rev. Herman Hooker, M. A. 
 
 Goode's Better Covenant, edited by the Rev. H. Hooker, M. A. 
 
 TIio Churchman's IManual, an Exposition of the Doctrines, Mi- 
 nistry, and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Churcli, by 
 the Rev. Benjamin Dorr, A. M. 
 
 ij;irly Years of the late Bishop Hobart, by the Rev. John M'Vickar. 
 
 Professional Years of the late Bishop Hobart, by the Rev. John 
 M'Vickar. 
 
 A Practical View of Christianit}-, by William Wilbcrforce, Esq. 
 
 The Primitive Creed examined and explained, by the Right Rev. 
 John H. Hopkins, D. D. 
 
 Tyerman and 15ennett's Journal of Voyages through the South Sea 
 Islands, Cliina, India, «fcc., H vols. l'2nio. 
 
 Evidences of Christianity, by the Right Rev. C. P. M'llvaine, D. D. 
 
 Evidences of the Prophecies, by the Rev. A. Keith. 
 
 The Signs of the Times, by the Rev. A. Keith, 2 vols. 
 
 Sumner's Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew, Mark, and 
 Luke, 2 vols. 
 
 Christian Ethics; or Moral Philosophy on the Principles of Divine 
 Revelation, by Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. 
 
 Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Dying. 
 
 Sermons upon the Ministry, Worship, and Doctrines of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Ciuirch, by G. T. Chapman, D. D. 
 
 The Difficulties of Romanism, by G. S. Faber, B. D. 
 
 The Difficulties of Infidelity, by G. S. Faber, B. D. 
 
 Selections from the Writings of Fenelon, with a IMemoir of his Life. 
 
 S Prague's Letters to a Daughter. 
 
 Natural History of Enthusiasm. 
 
 Spiritual Despotism, by the Author of " Natural History of En- 
 thusiasm." 
 
 Select Sermons, by Hugh Latimer. 
 
 Wilks's Christian Essays. 
 
 Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of the Rev. Christian 
 Frederick Swartz, by Hugh Pearson, D. D. 
 
 Lectures on the Law and the Gospel, by S. H. Tyng, D. D. 
 
! «• » U MII * -' -'- 
 
 
 THE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EPISCOPAI. CHURCHES I 
 
 IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 CODTSISERSD. 
 
 i'o naake new ftiticles of faith and doctrine, no man thinketh it lawful; new 
 laws of Kovemment, what commonwealth or church is there which maketh net 
 !)t one time or another ? HOOKER. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 PHINTED BT DAVID C. CLAXPOOLX 
 
 1783. 
 
 REPRINTED BY WILLIAM STAVELV 
 
 1827. 
 
 / 
 
 ^/ 
 
mHHnifSimtlVntfm^t**- 
 
 JJJ ,- Ml. ..." ' '' '^"",.'.'.1""" ^ 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 It may be presumed, that the members of 
 the Episcopal Churches, some from conviction, 
 and others from the influence of ancient habits, 
 entertain a preference for their own commu- 
 nion ; and that accordingly they are not a little 
 anxious, to see some speedy and decisive mea- 
 sures adopted for its continuance. The author 
 believes, therefore, that his undertaking needs 
 no apology to the public : and that those for 
 whom it is designed will give him credit for his 
 good intentions. 
 
 Nothing is farther from his wishes, than the 
 reviving of such controversies as have been 
 found destructive of good neighbourhood and 
 the christian temper ; especially as he con- 
 ceives them to be unconnected with the pecu- 
 liar situation of the churches in question. He 
 has, for this reason, avoided the discussion of 
 subjects, on which Episcopalians differ from 
 their fellow christians ; and even of those, con- 
 cerning which a latitude of sentiment has pre- 
 vailed among themselves. 
 
 He thinks his design is subservient to the 
 general cause of religion and virtue ; for a nu- 
 merous society, losing the benefit of the stated 
 ordinances within itself, cannot but severely 
 feel the effect of such a change, on the piety 
 and morals of its members. In this point of view, 
 all good men must lament that cessation of 
 
 /r 
 
iV 
 
 public worship, which has happened to many 
 of the Episcopal churches, and threatens to be- 
 come universal. 
 
 The present work he also believes to be con- 
 nected with the civil happiness of the commu- 
 nity. A prejudice has prevailed with many, that 
 the Episcopal churches cannot otherwise exist 
 than under the dominion of Great Britain. 
 A. church government that would contain the 
 constituent principles of the Church of Eng- 
 land, aid yet be independent of foreign juris- 
 diction or influence, would remove that anxiety 
 which at present hangs heavy on the minds of 
 many sincere persons. 
 
 Such is the natural tendency of this perform- 
 ance. If it should fail of effect on account of 
 the insufficiency of the author, it may never- 
 theless be of advantage, by drawing to the 
 subject the attention of others, better qualified 
 for the undertaking. 
 
I I wur »Miii«i* 
 
 THE, CASE, &C. 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 2^ ff'Z^ipCz^ni^Cari^y^^ 
 
 ■f 
 
 To form an idea of tlie situation of the Episcopal* 
 Churches in the present crisis, we must observe the change 
 their religious system has undergone in the late revolution. 
 On whatever principles the independence of the United 
 States may be supposed to rest ; whether merely on esta- 
 blishments which have very probable appearances of being 
 permanent, or on withdrawing the protection of the former 
 sovereign, or (as the author of these sheets believes) on the 
 inherent right of the community to resist and effectually to 
 exclude unconstitutional and oppressive claims, there re- 
 suit from it the reciprocal duties of protection and alle- 
 giance, enforced by the most powerful sanctions of natural 
 and revealed religion. :{ 
 
 It may reasonably be presumed, that, in general, the \\ 
 
 members of the Episcopal Churches are friendly to the < 
 
 principles, on which the present governments were form- 
 ed ; a fact particularly obvious in the southern states, 
 where the Episcopalians, who area majority of the citi- 
 zens, have engaged and persevered in the war, with as 
 much ardour and constancy as their neighb-urs. Many 
 even of those whose sentiments were at first unfavourable V 
 
 to the revolution, now wish for its final establishment, as a 
 most happy event ; some from an earnest desire of peace, 
 and others from the undistinguished oppressions and ra- 
 vages of the British armies. Such persons accordingly 
 acknowledge allegiance, and pay obedience to the sove- 
 reignty of the states. 
 
 * The general term " Episcopal" is usually applied, among 
 us, t'= the churches professing the religious principles of the 
 ChWTch cf England. It is thought by the author to be suffi- 
 cientry descriptive, because the other Episcopal Churches in 
 'Vmericrj .are known by names peculiar to themselves. 
 
 // 
 
 r 
 
"1 
 
 inconsistent with the duties resulting from this allegi- 
 ance, would be their subjection to any spiritual jurisdiction 
 connected with the temporal authority of a foreign state. 
 Such a dependence is contrary to the fundamental princi- 
 ples of civil society, and therefore cannot be required by 
 the Scriptures ; which, being accommodated to the civil 
 policy of the world at large, neither interfered with the 
 constitution of states as found established at the time of 
 their promulgation, nor handed down to succeeding ages 
 any injunctions of such a tendency. 
 
 To apply these observations to the case of the Episcopal 
 Churches in the United States. They have been hereto- 
 fore subject to the ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of 
 London. This authority was derived under a commission 
 from the crown ; which, though destitute of legal opera- 
 tion, found a general acquiescence on the part of the 
 churches ; being exercised no farther than to the necessary 
 purposes of ordaining and licensing ministers. Hereby a 
 connection was formed, between the spiritual authority in 
 England and the Episcopal Churches in America, the lat- 
 ter constituting a part of the Bishop of London's dio- 
 cese. 
 
 But this connection is dissolved by the revolution. Had 
 it been matter of right, it would have ceased with ihe au- 
 thority of the crown ; being founded *on consent, and the 
 ground changed, it cannot be allowed of in future, consist- 
 ently with the duties resulting from our allegiance.* Even 
 suppose the Bishop of London hereafter exempted, by act 
 of Parliament, from the necessity of exacting the oaths, a 
 dependence on his lordship and his successors in that See, 
 would be liable to the reproach of foreign influence, and 
 render Episcopalians less qualified than those of other 
 communions, to be entrusted by their country ; neither (as 
 may be presumed) will it be claimed after the acknowleg- 
 ment of the civil independence, being contrary to a prin- 
 ciple clearly implied in n)any of the institutions of the 
 
 • Were tlie British colonies independent of their parent 
 kingdom, the Episcopahans hi this countr.v would be a society 
 independent of the nulional church. 
 
 t)r. Chandler's Appeal farther defended. Page 11 ■ 
 
-- I 11^ '"^^ 
 
 Church of England, particularly in the 34th article of ret \\ 
 
 ligion ; which asserts, that " every pfirticular or nationai |' 'I 
 
 church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish cere- '' I 
 
 monies or rites of the church, ordainrd only by man's au- L^ 
 
 thority, so that all things be done to edifying." Though ■' . 
 
 the Episcopal Churches in these states will not be national | 
 
 or legal establishments, the same principle applies, being ■ 
 
 the danger of foreign jurisdiction. , I 
 
 The ecclesiastical power over the greater number of the 
 churches, formerly subsisting in some legislative bodies on 
 
 this continent, is also abrogated by tiie revolution. In the ij 
 
 southern states, where the Episcopal Churches were main- | 
 
 tained by law, the assemblies might well have been sup- \ 
 
 posed empowered, in conjunction with the other branches . 
 
 of legislation, to regulate their external government ; but j 
 
 now, when the establishments are overturned, it would ill 
 become those bodies, composed of men of various deno- 
 minations (however respectable collectively and as indivi- 
 duals) to enact laws for the Episcopal Churches, which 
 will no doubt, in common with others, claim and exercise 
 the privilege of governing themselves. 
 
 All former jurisdiction over the churches being thus 
 withdrawn,and the chain which held them together broken, 
 it would seem, that their future continuance can be pro- 
 vided for only by voluntary associations for union and 
 good government. It is therefore of the utmost consequence 
 to discover and ascertain the principles, on which such as- 
 sociations should be framed. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Whoever should consider the subject before us as 
 merely speculative, and propose the suggestions of his own 
 judgment or fancy, without attention to the sentiments, 
 "habits, and circumstances of the people interested, would 
 probably have little weight, and would unquestionably not 
 be useful. In the present investigation, therefore, it will 
 be proper to keep in view the particular situation of the 
 churches in question. 
 
r 
 
 In most cases where spiritual jurisdiction has been esta- 
 blished or defined, such has been the connection between 
 church and state, that it was scarcely possible to adopt 
 measures, which did not show some traces of accommoda- 
 tion to political views ; but this may be avoided in the 
 present instance, where all denominations of Christians are 
 on a level, and no church is farther known to the public, 
 than as a voluntary association of individuals, for a lawful 
 and useful purpose. The effect of this should be the 
 avoiding of whatever may give the churches the appear- 
 ance of being subservient to party, or tend to unite their 
 members on questions of a civil nature. This is unques- 
 tionably agreeable to the simplicity of the gospel; it is 
 conceived to be also, under the present circumstances, 
 agreeable to good policy ; for whatever church shall aim 
 at such subjects, unless on account of an invasion of their 
 religious privileges, will be suspected by all others, as aim- 
 ing at the exclusive government of the country. 
 
 In tht' parent church, though whatever regards religion 
 may be enacted by the clergy in convocation, it must af- 
 terwards have the sanction «if all other orders of men, 
 comprehended in the parliament. It will be necessary to 
 deviate from the practice (though not fron) the principles) 
 of that church, by convening the clergy and laity in one 
 body. The former will no doubt have an influence pro- 
 portioned to the opinion entertained of their piety and 
 iearnmg ; but will never (it is presumed) wish to usurp an 
 exclusive right of regulation ; a sentiment which cannot 
 more properly be expressed than in the following words 
 of that great defender of the church of England Mr. Hook- 
 er; " The most natural and religious course of making 
 laws, is that the matter of them be taken from the judg- 
 ment of the wisest m those things which they are to con- 
 cern. In matters of God, to set down a form of prayer, a 
 solemn confe-^sion of the articles of the christian faith and 
 ceremonies meet for the exercise of our religion, it were 
 unnatural not to think the pastors and bishops of our souls, 
 a great deal more fit than men tif secular trades and call- 
 ings howbeit, when all that the wisdom of all sorts can 
 
 do is done for the devising of laws in the church, it is the 
 
9tMaiitftlmf'^t-*i^t0»m * m<:< n* 
 
 9 
 
 general consent of all that giveth them the form and vigoui 
 of laws."* And in another place " but were it so that the 
 clergy might give laws to all the rest, forasmuch as every 
 estate doth desire to enlarge the bounds of their own liber- 
 ties, it is easy to see how injurious this would prove to men 
 of other conditions."t 
 
 The power of electing a superior order of ministers 
 ought to be in the clergy and iaity together, they being 
 both interested in the choice. In England, the bishops 
 are appointed by the civil authority ; which was an usur- 
 pation of the crown at the Norman conquest, but since 
 confirmed by acts of parliament. The primitive churches 
 were generally supplied by popular elections; even in the 
 city of Rome, the privilege of electing the bishop continued 
 with the people to the tenth or eleventh century ; and near 
 those times there are resolves of councils, that none should 
 be promoted to ecclesiastical dignities, but by election of 
 the clergy and people. It cannot be denied that this right 
 vested in numerous bodies, occasioned great disorders ; 
 which it is expected will be avoided, when the people shall 
 exercise the right by representation. 
 
 Deprivation of the superior order of clergy should also 
 be in the church at large. In England, it has been some- 
 times done by the civil authority ; particularly in the in- 
 stances of Queen Mary's Roman Catholic bishops by 
 Queen Elizabeth, and of the non-juring bishops at the re- 
 volution ; which last occasioned a separation from the na- 
 tional church, Sancroft and the others being still considered 
 by their advocates as bishops of their respective sees, and 
 Tillotson and his associates reprobated by them as schis- 
 matics. So far is the civil policy of England from permit- 
 ting an entire separation of ecclesiastical authority, that in 
 Queen Ann's reign, when Bishop Watson was deprived 
 for immorality, it was allowed, that as a peer he might 
 have objected to the archbishop's jurisdiction, provided he 
 had pleaded his privilege in time. It is well known, thai 
 the interference of the civil authority in such instances as 
 the preceding has been considered by many as inconsistent 
 
 » Ecclesiastic*! Polity. Page 433. f Ibid. Fag's 43' 
 
 If 
 
H 
 
 10 
 
 with ecclesiastical principles ; an objection which will be 
 avoided, when deprivation can only be under regulations en- 
 acted by a fair representation of the churches, and by an 
 authority entirely ecclesiastical. It is presumed, that none 
 will so far mistake the principles of the church of England, 
 as to talk of the impossibility of depriving a bishop. 
 
 In England, dioceses having been formed before parish- 
 es, a church supposes one common flock, subject to a 
 bishop and sundry collegiate presbyters ; without the idea 
 of its being necessarily divided into smaller communities, 
 connected with their respective parochial clergy ; the lat- 
 ter having been introduced some considerable time after the 
 conversion of the nation to the christian faith. One natu- 
 ral consequence of this distinction, will be to retain in each 
 church every power that need not be delegated for the 
 good of the whole. Another, will be an equality of the 
 churches ; and not, as in England, the subjection of all 
 parish churches to their respective cathedrals. 
 
 The last circumstance to be here mentioned, is the im- 
 possibility that the churches should provide a support for 
 that superior order of clergy, to which their acknowledged 
 principles point ; of consequence, the duty assigned to 
 that order ought not materially to interfere with their em- 
 ployments, in the station of parochial clergy ; the superin- 
 tendence of each will therefore be confined to a small dis- 
 trict; a favorite idea with all moderate Episcopalians. 
 
 It is proposed to offer the outlines of a frame of church 
 government, founded on the preceding sentiments. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The author offers the following sketch of a frame of go- 
 vernment, though he is far from thinking it complete ; to 
 make it so even according to his own ideas, would carry 
 him beyond the compass intended in this essay. 
 
 As the churches in question extend over an immense 
 space of country, it can never be expected, that representa- 
 tives from each church should assemble in one place; it 
 will be more convenieitf for them to associate in small dis- 
 
11 
 
 tficts, from which representatives may be sent to three dif- 
 ferent bodies, the continent being supposed divided into 
 that number of larger districts From these may be elect- 
 ed a body representing the whole. 
 
 In each smaller district, there should be elected a general 
 vestry or convention, consisting of a convenient number 
 (the minister to be one) from the vestry or congregation of 
 each chucch, or of every two or more churches, according 
 to their respective ability of supporting a minister. They 
 should elect a clergyman their permanent president ; who, 
 in conjunction with other clergymen to be also appointed 
 by the body, may exercise such powers as are purely spi- 
 ritual, particularly that of admitting to the ministry ; the 
 presiding clergyman and others to be liable to be deprived 
 for just causes, by a fair process, and under reasonable 
 laws; meetings to be held as often as occasion may require. 
 
 The assemblies in the three larger districts may consist 
 of a convenient number of members, sent from each of the 
 smaller districts severally within their bounds, equally 
 composed of clergy and laity, and voted for by those orders 
 promiscuously ; the presiding clergyman to be always one, 
 and these bodies to meet once in every year. 
 
 The continental representative body may consist of a 
 convenient number from each of the larger districts, formed 
 equally of clergy and laity, and among the clergy, formed 
 equally of presiding ministers and others ; to meet st;ited- 
 ly once in three years. The use of this and the preceding 
 representative bodies is to make such regulations, and re- 
 ceive appeals in such matters only, as shall be judged ne- 
 cessary for their continuing one religious communion. 
 
 These are (what was promised) no more than outlines ; 
 which it will not be proper to dismiss, without a few ob- 
 servations on the degree of power to be exercised, in mat- 
 ters of faith, worship, and government. 
 
 For the doctrinal part, it would perhaps be sufficient to 
 demand of all admitted to the ministry, or engaged in ec- 
 clesiastical legislation, the questions contained in the book 
 of ordination ; which extend no farther than an acknowledg- 
 ment of the scriptures, as a rule of faith and life ; yet some 
 general sanction may be given to the thirty-nine articles of 
 
 '( 
 
 
 r 
 
r 
 
 Illll■^ P<i » I I it^tmttbmimmit^^ 
 
 12 
 
 religion, so as to adopt their leading sense ;* which is here 
 proposed rather as a chain of union, than for exacting en- 
 tire uniformity of sentiment. If the last be considered as 
 a desirable object, the articles have undeniably been found 
 insufficient for the purpose; which is not here said from 
 an opinion that such was the intention of the compilers, 
 but rather with a conviction, that they designedly left room 
 for a considerable latitude of sentiment ; if to the above 
 tiiere be objected the danger of a public opposition be- 
 tween ministers, this obvious answer may be made ; that 
 the strictest tests ever devised cannot be so effectual to pre- 
 vent such conduct, as the regulation contained in the 53d 
 canon ; which considers it as indecent and punishable, 
 independently of the merits of the doctrines litigated. 
 
 As to divine worship, there must no doubt be some- 
 where the power of making necessary and convenient al- 
 terations in the service of the church. But it ought to be 
 used with great moderation ; otherwise the communion 
 will become divided into an infinite number of smaller ones, 
 all differing from one another and from that in England ; 
 from whence we may expect considerable numbers to mi- 
 grate hereafter lo this country ; who, if they find too wide 
 a deviation from the ancient practice, will "probably form 
 an independant communion of their own. Whatever may 
 in other respects be determined on this head, it is presum- 
 ed the Episcopalians are generally attached to that charac- 
 teristic of their communion, which prescribes a settled form 
 of prayer. 
 
 On the subject of goverment, whether civil orecclesias- 
 
 * Suppose for instance, a form RESEMBLrNo that which Dr. 
 Ferdinando Warner, a late ecclesiastical Historian of the Episco- 
 pal church, says (book 16) was proposed >n the reign of Charles 
 11. b> the Lord Keeper Bridgman, Bishop Wilkins and Chief 
 Justice Hale, ««to serve instead of all former subscriptions." 
 1 he torm was this, " 1 do hereby profess and declare, that 1 ap- 
 prove the doctrine, worship and government establishad in 
 the church of England, as containing all things necessary to 
 salvation, and that I will not endeavour by myself or any other, 
 directly on ndiiectly, to bring in any doctrine contrary to that 
 which IS so established ; and I do hereby promise that I will con- 
 tmue in the church of England, and will not do any thing to 
 disturb the peace thereof." 
 
> ' I i i\ ^ t»um^^tamitHi^i»*li^UU*tit' ^f'! ti^ i ' p — t t' ih I 
 
 13 
 
 lical, there is great truth and beauty in the ibllowing ob- 
 servation of the present Bishop of St. Asaph, " the great 
 art of governing consists in not governing too much." Per- 
 haps it would be sufficient, if an immoral life were follow- 
 ed by exclusion from the sacrament and ecclesiastical em- 
 ployment ; deprivation from church benefices following of 
 course. The above is not to be understood as excluding 
 the enforcing such rules, as are necessary to preserve de- 
 cency and order. As to excommunication or an entire sepa- 
 ration from the church, however necessary it was in the 
 primitive ages, when Christianity itself, being not generally 
 known, and misrepresented as a sanction for lewdness, 
 treason and clandestine murders, must have been essen- 
 tially wounded by the immoralities of any of its professors j 
 there is great room to doubt of there being the same use in 
 it at present, when the vices of a professing christian are 
 universally known to be opposite to the precepts of his re- 
 ligion. Such are the tyranny and hypocrisy too frequent- 
 ly arising from the exercise of this power, that it may be 
 thought safest to leave men to those great sanctions of du- 
 ty, the will of God and a future retribution ; attended as 
 they will generally be with a sense of shame, dissuading 
 from actions so notoriously scandalous, as to be a founda- 
 tion for church censures. 
 
 In the preceding pages, the idea of superintending min- 
 isters has been introduced ; but not a w.^rd has been said 
 of the succession supposed necessary to constitute the Epis- 
 copal character; and this has been on purpose postponed, 
 as demanding a more minute discussion. 
 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 On the subject of Episcopacy, the general opinion of the 
 churches in question is of peculiar consequence ; yet it can 
 be collected only from circumstances; to assist in ascer- 
 taining it, the two following facts are stated. 
 
 Wherever these churches have been erected, the eccle- 
 siastical government of the church of England has been 
 adhered *o ; tbey have depended on the English bishops 
 
 <f 
 
■ \0»lm i«>wi«—i.JiM> 
 
 14 
 
 for ordination of their clergy, and on no occasion expresseu 
 a dissatisfaction witfi Episcopacy. This, considering the 
 liberty they enjoyed in common with others, of forming 
 their churches on whatever plan they liked best, is a pre- 
 sumptive jjroof of their preferring the Episcopal govern- 
 ment ; especially as it subjected them under the former 
 connection to many inconveniences, such as sending to the 
 distance of three thousand miles for ordination, the scandal 
 sometimes brought on tiie church by tlip ordination of low 
 and vicious persons, * the difficulty of getting rid of immo- 
 ral ministers, and that several of the clergy formed attach- 
 ments of which this country has been always jealous, and 
 which have at last proved extremely prejudicial to her in- 
 terests. 
 
 On the other hand, there cannot be produced an instance 
 of laymen in America, unless in the very infancy of the 
 settlements, soliciting the introduction of a bishop ;+ it 
 was probably by a great majority of them thought an haz- 
 ardous experiment. How far the prerogative of the king 
 as head of the church might be construed to extend over 
 the colonies, whether a bishop would bring with him that 
 part of the law which respects ecclesiastical matters, and 
 whether the civil powers vested in bishops in England 
 would accompany that order to America, were questions 
 which for aught they knew would include principles and 
 produce consequences, dangerous and destructive to their 
 oivil rights.! 
 
 * Generally by deceptions on the Bishop of London. 
 
 j- If there has been any, it must have been from so few, as 
 rather to corroborate than weaken the sentime t convcjed. 
 
 ^ Whether the above appendages would have accompanied 
 an English bishop to America, the author is no judge. Tliat 
 they were gener.illy feared by the Episcopalian laity, he thinks 
 the only way of acco nling for the cold reception they gave 
 (a fact universally known) lo every proposal tor the introdtic 
 tion of a bi&hop. Those who pleaded for the measure on a plan 
 purely .•.piriUiul, thought he would not be invested, by the laws 
 of England, with such powers ; but in case it had proved other- 
 wise, they proposed the limiting him by act of parliament. 
 What the people would have thought of measures, which must 
 have required an act of that body to render them harmless, no 
 person formerly acquainted with their temper and sentiments 
 
M jMi iW ii H * i*! i iii f i n aJ 
 
 16 
 
 From these two facts it may fairly be inferred, that the 
 Episcopalians on this continent will wish to institute among 
 themselves an Episcopal government, as soon as it shall 
 appear practicable, and that this government will not be 
 attended with the danger of tyranny, either temporal or 
 spiritual. 
 
 But it is generally understood, that the succession can- 
 not at present be obtained. From the parent church 
 most unquestionably it cannot ; whether from any is 
 presumed to be more than we can at present be informed. 
 But the proposal to constitute a frame of government, tine 
 execution of which shall depend on the pleasure of persons 
 unknown, differing from us in language, habits, and per- 
 haps in religious principles, has too ludicrous an appear- 
 anceto deserve consideration ; the peculiar circumstances 
 of the war in which our country is engaged preclude us 
 from procuring the succession in those quarters, to which 
 alone application could consistently be made ; the danger 
 of offending the British government constraining (perhaps) 
 a refusal of what, it would of course be indelicate in us to 
 ask. Now, on the one hand, to depart from Episcopacy, 
 would be giving up a leading characteristic of the com- 
 Riunion ; which, however indifferently considered as to 
 divine appointment, might be productive of all the evils 
 generally attending changes of this sort. On the other 
 hand, by delaying to adopt measures for the continuance 
 of the ministry, the very existence of the churches is haz- 
 arded, and duties of positive and indispensable obligation 
 are neglected. 
 
 The conduct meant to be recommended, as founded on 
 the preceding sentiments, is to include in the proposed 
 Irarae of government a general approbation of Episcopacy, 
 and a declaration of an intention to procure the succession 
 as soon as conveniently may be ; but in the mean time 
 to carify the plan into effect without waiting for the suc- 
 cession. 
 
 The first part of this proposal is conceived to be found- 
 ed on the plain dictates of propriety, prudence, and raode- 
 
 aeed. be told ; and whether they judged right or not, recent 
 "^ vents have abundantly shown. 
 
''iW^WPHHPMMHMM^h 
 
 16 
 
 ration; for if the undertakintr proceed on ackuowledgea 
 
 principles, there will be Car less shock to ancient habits, 
 
 and less cause of intestine divisions, than if new principles 
 
 are to be sought for and established. To illustrate this by 
 
 . . an allusion ; had our old governments been so adjusted to 
 
 ' the genius of the people and their present circumstrmces, 
 
 I as at the revolution to have required no farther change 
 
 than what necessarily arose fron) the extinction of royal 
 
 I authority, it is obvious, that many pernicious controversies 
 
 ' would have been prevented. Such, however, except in a 
 
 ^ /•w instances, was nut the happiness of the colonies. But 
 
 it is precisely the situation of the Episcopal churches in 
 
 , their religious concerns; none of their constituent princi- 
 
 1 pies being thereby changed, but what were founded on the 
 
 authority of the king. ^ 
 
 , In the minds of some, the idea of Episcopacy will be 
 
 \ connected with that of immoderate power; to which it may 
 
 be answered, that power becomes dangerous, not from the 
 
 precedency of one man, but from his being independent. 
 
 Had Rome been governed by a presbytery instead of a 
 
 bishop; and had that presbytery been invested with the 
 
 independent riches and dominion of the papal see ; it is 
 
 easy to conceive, of their acquiring as much powpr over 
 
 the christian world, as was ever known in a Gregory or a 
 
 , Paul. 
 
 It may be further objected, that Episcopacy is anti- 
 republican ; and therefore opposed to those ideas which 
 all good citizens ought to promote, for securing the peace 
 and happiness of the community. But this supposed rela- 
 tion between Episcopacy and monarchy arises from con- 
 founding English Episcopacy with the subject at large. 
 In the early ages of the church, it was customary to debate 
 . ~ and determine in a general concourse of all christians in the 
 
 I same city; among whom the Bishop was no more than 
 
 president. Matters were indeed too often conducted tu- 
 \ multuously, and after a manner which no prudent and 
 
 I peaceable man would wish to see imitated ; but the churches 
 
 I were not the less Episcopal on that account. Very few 
 
 systems of religious discipline on this continent are equally 
 republican with that proposed in the preceding pages. The 
 
M«M««i<p4«9ik4lhMMMi«WM 
 
 17 
 
 adage of Kin^ James I. " No Bishop no King," and " No 
 King no Bisliop," ought only to be understood concerning 
 that degree of Episcopal power, together with its civil ap- 
 pendages, of which he certainly meant it. 
 
 But it will be also said, that the very name of" Bishop" 
 is offensive; if so, change it for another; let the superior 
 clergymen be a president, a superintendent, or in plain 
 English, and, according to the literal translation of the 
 original, an overseer. However, if names are to be repro- 
 bated, because the powers annexed to them have been 
 abused, there are few appropriated to eifheir civil or eccle- 
 siastical distinctions, which would retain theirplaces in out- 
 catalogue. 
 
 The other part of the proposal was an immediate exe* 
 cution of the plan, without waiting for the Episcopal suc- 
 cession. This is founded on the presumption, that the 
 worship of God and the instruction and reformation of the 
 people are the principal objects of ecclesiastical discipline: 
 if so, to relinquish them from a scrupulous adherence to 
 Episcopacy, is sacrificing the substance to the ceremony. 
 
 It will be said, we ought to continue as we are, with the 
 hope of obtaining it hereafter. But are the acknowledged 
 ordinances of Christ's holy religion to be suspended for 
 years, perhaps as long as the present generation shall con- 
 tinue, out of delicacy to a disputed point, and that relating 
 only to externals ? It is submitted, how far such ideas en- 
 courage the suspicion of want of attachment to any parti- 
 cular church, except so far as is subservient to some civi! 
 system. All the obligations of conformity to the divin'j 
 ordinances, all the arguments which prove the connexion 
 between public worship and the morals of a people, com- 
 bine to urge the adopting some speed}' measures, to provide 
 for the public ministry in these rhurclies ; if such as have 
 been above recommended should be adopted, and the Epis- 
 copal succession afterwards obtained, any supposed im- 
 perfections of the intermediate ordinations might, if it were 
 judged proper, be supplied without acknowledging their 
 nullity, by a conditional ordination resembling that of 
 conditional baptism in the liturgy ; the above was an expe- 
 Jient proposed by Archbishop Tillotson, Bishops Patrick, 
 b2 
 
18 
 
 Stillingtleet, and others, at the revolution, and had been 
 actually practised in Ireland by Archbishop Branihall.* 
 
 But it will be said, the dropping the succession even for 
 a time would be a departure from the principles of the 
 Church of England, This prejudice is too common not to 
 deserve particular attention. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 It would be to the greatest degree surprising, if the 
 Church of England, acknowledged by all Protestant 
 churches to lay a sufficient stress on the essential doctrines 
 and duties of the gospel, should be found so immoderately 
 attached to a matter of external order, as must in some 
 cases be ruinous to her communion. But, far from this, it 
 will not be difficult to prove, that a temporary departure 
 from Episcopacy in the present instance would be war- 
 ranted by her doctrines, by her practice, and by the prin- 
 ciples on which Episcopal government is asserted. 
 
 Whatever that church holds must be included in the 
 " thirty-nine articles of religion ;" which were evidently 
 intended for a comprehensive system of necessary doctrine. 
 But what say these articles on the present subject } Sim- 
 ply, that " the book of consecration of archbishops and 
 bishops and the ordering of priests and deacons, doth con- 
 tain all things necessary thereunto; neither hath it any 
 thing that of itself is superstitious and ungodly."! The 
 canr,ns speak the same sense censuring those who shall 
 "affirm that the government of the Church of England by 
 archbishops, bishops, &c. is antichristian, or repugnant to 
 the word of God. "| And those who "shall affirm that 
 the form and manner of making and consecrating bishops, 
 pric.-us, and deacons, containeth any thing in it that is re- 
 pugnant to the word of God, or that they who are thus 
 made bishops, &c. are not lawfully made, &c."Ǥ. 
 
 * Nichrtl's Defence of tl)e Church of England, Introduction. 
 f AT-irle 36. 
 I C vu;:-, 7. 
 'i Canon 8. 
 
19 
 
 How can such moderation of sentiment and expression 
 be justified, if the Episcopal succession be so binding, as to 
 allow no deviation in a case of extreme necessity ? Had 
 the church of England decreed concerning baptism and 
 the Lord's supper, only that they were " not repugnant 
 to the word of God," and that her offices for those sacra- 
 ments were " not superstitious and ungodly," would she 
 not be censured by almost all Christendom, as renouncing 
 the obligation of those sacraments ? Equally improper 
 would be the application of such moderate expressions to 
 Episcopacy, if (as some imagine) she considers it to be as 
 much binding as baptism and the Lord's supper. 
 
 The book of consecration and ordination carries the idea 
 no farther, except that the preface as altered at the resto- 
 ration (for it was not so in the old preface) affirms that 
 " from the apostle's times there have been these orders in 
 Christ's church, bishops, priests and deacons." But there 
 is an evident difference between this and the asserting the 
 unlawfulness of deviating from that practice in an instance, 
 extraordinary and unprovided for. 
 
 Next to the doctrine of the church, let us enquire, 
 whether her practice will furnish us with a precedent to 
 justify the liberty we plead. 
 
 Many of the English protestants, during the persecu- 
 tion by Queen Mary, took refuge in foreign countries, par- 
 ticularly in Germany and Geneva. When protestantism 
 revived at the auspicious accession of Queen Elizabeth, 
 and at the same time a cloud was gathering on the conti- 
 nent in consequence of the emperor's victories over the 
 princes of the Smacaldic league, many of the exiles re- 
 turned to their native land; some of whom, during their 
 absence, had been ordained according to the customs ot 
 the countries where they had resided ; these were admitted 
 without re-ordinatio . to preach and hold benefices; one 
 of them* was promoted to a deanry ; but at the same 
 time, as several of them were endeavouring to make inno- 
 vations in the established church, it was provided in a law 
 (13th Elizabeth 12.) that «' whoever shall pretend to be a 
 
 * WhitUngbam, 
 
)'' 20 
 
 priest or minister of God's holy word, by reason of anj 
 I other form of institution, consecration or ordering, than 
 
 the form set forth by act of parliament, before the feast of 
 . , the nativity of Christ next ensuing, shall in the presence 
 
 of tiie bishop declare his assent and subscribe to all 
 
 I the articles of religion agreed on, &c."* Here existed an 
 
 , extraordinary occasion, not provided for in the institutions 
 
 for common use ; the exigency of the case seems to have 
 I been considered ; and there followed a toleration, if not 
 
 iruplied approbation, of a departure in that instance from 
 Episcopal ordination. There cannot be expected another 
 example, because no similar instance of necessity has hap- 
 pened ; unless that at the restoration be considered as 
 such ; but, it is presumed, no stress will be laid on the 
 omission of the like indulgence at that period ; when the 
 I minds of the ruling Episcopalians, irritated by recent suf- 
 
 I ferings, were less intent on conciliation than on retalia- 
 
 tion. + 
 
 Let us next take a view of the grounds on which the 
 authority of Episcopacy is asserted. 
 
 The advocates for this form maintain, that there having 
 been an Episcopal power originally lodged by Jesus Christ 
 with his apostles, and by them exercised generally in per- 
 son, but sometimes by delegation (as in the instances of 
 
 • Bishop Burnet says (History of his own times, anno 1661) 
 
 that until the act of uniformitv , passed soon after the restorntion, 
 
 •, "those who came to England Irom the foreign churches had not 
 
 been required to be ordained among us." If so, the argument 
 
 founded on practice extends farther than it lias been here urged. 
 
 The act of Elizabeth, however, iiad no operation beyoi.d the 
 
 Christmas next ensuing ; neither indeed did it pronounce that 
 
 I • a good ordination which would have been otherwise defiective ; 
 
 i but its being mean' to comprehend those who were at that 
 
 I ' TIME invested with foreign non-episcopalian ordination, is evi- 
 
 I dent from their being actually allowed to preach and hold bene- 
 
 I ficcs, on the condition of their subscribing the thirty-nine ar- 
 
 i tides. 
 
 ■j- Bishop Burnet assigns a reason still less excusable ; that 
 
 ' many great pri ferments were in the hands of obnoxious persons, 
 
 \ who^ on account of their services towails the restoration, could 
 
 not otherwise be ejected, than by makmg the terms of confer 
 
 tnity difficult. History of his own times, anno 1661. 
 
N igii iri iii >irf I ** i mtfmm0»** m^m t m 
 
 ^1 
 
 rimothy and Titus) the same was conveyed by them be 
 fore their decease to one pastor in each church, which ge- 
 nerally comprehended all the Christians in a city and a 
 convenient surrounding district. Thus were created the 
 apostolic successors, who, on account of their settled resi- 
 dence are called bishops by restraint ; whereas the apos- 
 tles themselves were bishops at large, exercising Episcopal 
 power over all the churches, except in the case of St. 
 James, who from the beginning was bishop of Jerusalem. 
 From this time the word " episcopos," used in ihe New 
 Testament indiscriminately with the word " presbuteros," 
 (particularly in the 20th chapter of the Acts where the same 
 persons are cihed "episcopoi" and " presbuteroi,") be- 
 came appropriated to the superior order of ministers. 
 That the apostles were thus succeeded by an order of mi- 
 nisters superior to pastors in general, Episcopalians think 
 they prove by the testimonies of the ancient fathers, and 
 from the improbability that so great an innovation (as some 
 conceive it) could have found general and peaceable pos- 
 session in the second or third century, when Episcopacy is 
 on both sides acknowledged to have been prevalent.* The 
 argument is here concisely stated, but (as is believed) im- 
 partially ; the manner in which the subjt-'ct is handled by 
 Mr. Hooker and Bishop Hoadly being particularly kept 
 in view. 
 
 Can any reasonable rule of construction make this 
 amount to" more than ancient and apostolic practice ? 
 That the apostles adopted any particular form, affords a 
 presumption of its being the best, all circumstances at that 
 time considered ; but to Biake it unalterably binding, it 
 must be shown enjoined in positive precept. Bishop 
 Hoadly clearly points out this distinction in his answer to 
 Dr. Calamy. The latter having considered it as the sense 
 of the Church, in the preface to the ordinal, that the three 
 orders were of divine appointment, and urged it as a reason 
 for non-conformity ; the bishop, with evident propriety, 
 
 • The original of the order of bishops was from the presby- 
 ters choosing one from among themselves to be a stated presi- 
 dent in their assemblies, in the 2d or 3d century. Smectymnuan 
 divines, as quoted in Neal's history of the Puritans, anno 1640 
 
9 -. aai ui i i -— — »^N»i ' m i < i " wfc ■ ii f ■<! N<»n i, -^^ 
 
 , 22 
 
 remarks that the service pronounces no such thing ; and 
 that therefoie Dr. Calamy created a difficulty, where the 
 church had made none ; there being " some diflorence," 
 (says hp) " between these two sentences — bishops, priests, 
 
 ■\ and deacons, are three distinct orders in the church bif di- 
 
 vine appointment — and — -from the apostWs time there 
 have been in Christ's Church bishops, priests, and dea- 
 cons, "*+ 
 
 Now, if the form of church government rest on no other 
 foundation, than ancient and apostolic practice, it is hum- 
 bly submitted to consideration, whether Episcopalians will 
 not be thought scarcely deserving the name of Christians, 
 should they, rather than consent to a tempoffcry deviation, 
 abandon every ordinance of positive and divine appoint- 
 :nent. 
 
 Any person, reading what some divines of the Church 
 
 I of England have written against dissenters, would in ge- 
 
 neral widely mistake their meaning, should he apply to the- 
 subject before us, the censures he will sometimes meet 
 with, which have in view, not merely the merits of the 
 question, but the duty of conforming to the established 
 church, in all things not contrary to the law of God. Thus 
 Bishop Stillingfleet, who at the restoration had written 
 '.vith great tenderness towards the dissenters, and many 
 years afterwards preached a sermon on a public occasion, 
 
 ' eontaining severe animadversions on their separation 5 on 
 
 being accused of inconsistency, replies (in the preface to his 
 Creatise on the unlawfulness of separation) that the former 
 
 ' Reasonableness of conformity, part I. 
 
 \ The same distinction is accurately drawn and fully proved 
 
 ' by Stillingfleel in " the Irenicum." But as that learned prelate 
 
 was afterwards dissatisfied with his work (the most probably 
 not with that part of it which would have been to our purpose) 
 
 I it might seem uncandid to cite the authority of his opinion. 
 
 I Burnet, his cotemporary and friend, says (History of his own 
 
 times, anno 1661) *< to avoid the imputation that book brought 
 
 1 on him, he went into the humours of an high sort of people be- 
 
 yond what became him, perhaps beyond his own sense of 
 
 t things." The book, however was it seems easier hethacvted 
 
 \ than hefuted ; for though otiensive to many of both parties, it 
 
 was managed (says the same author) with so much learning ant' 
 skill, that none of either side tver undertook to answer it 
 
fctmfil.aiii^tiri 
 
 23 
 
 was '* before the laws were established ;'* meaning princi- 
 pally the act of uniformity. So al^o Bishof) Hoadlysays, 
 the acceptance of re-ordination by the dissenting ministers, 
 would not be a denial of that right, which (as they con- 
 ceived) presbyters had to ordain ; but a confession that 
 their former ordination was " so far null and void, that 
 God did not approve the exercise of that right in opposi- 
 tion to the lawful settled method.''* Dr. Henry Maurice 
 also, who has written with great learning and reputation 
 in defence of Episcopacy, makes the same distinction; ob- 
 serving that the " dissenters do foreign churches great in- 
 justice when they concern them in their quarrel," thf or- 
 dination of the latter being " not only without, but in 
 opposition to bishops, against all the established laws of 
 this church, &c."+ Even where the same distinction is not 
 expressed, it is generally implied. Whether the above 
 censures are well or ill founded, is a question that has no 
 connection with our subject ; they cannot be thought ap- 
 plicable to the liberty here pleaded.^ 
 
 Again, it cannot be denied, that some writers of the 
 Church of England apply very strong expressions to 
 Episcopacy, calling it a divine appointment, the ordinance 
 uf Christ, "and the law of God, and pronounce it to be of 
 divine right. Yet, in reason they ought to be understood 
 only as asserting it to be binding, wherever it can conve- 
 niently be had : not that law and gospel are to cease 
 rather than Episcopacy. Mr. Hooker, who uses such 
 
 ^^ Reply to objections against Episcopal ordination. 
 
 f Maurice against Clarkson, page 453. 
 
 i In England, the members of the established church con- 
 sider the dissenters as blameable in not conforming to it as such, 
 tliere being nothing required contrary to the law of God. These 
 on the other hand blame the members of the establishment, for 
 not yielding to their conscientious scruples, which thus exclude 
 them from public offices, and subject them to considerable 
 burthens. Such were the principal sources of the animosities 
 which have subsisted between the two parties ; and hence arises 
 an argument for charity and mutual forbearance among religious 
 societies in America, with whom the same causes of contention 
 and mutual censure have no place, and with whom of course 
 the same degree of bitterness would be less excusable than in 
 England. 
 
«»*«Ji— fcJhM*»w»«ifi^«»i^t O i I m il I 1 1 ■— IP l ^> I • ** 
 
 2t4 
 
 biroiig expressions, makes nevertheless a clear dist.ncUoii 
 between matters of necessity and those of ecclesiastical 
 polity ; as may be seen at large in his third and fourth 
 books. Even Archbishop Whitgift, said by some* to have 
 been the first in his high station, under whose patronage 
 such pretensions were annexed to Episcopacy, and whose 
 zeal for that form and the other rights of the church, made 
 him verily believe in the famous conference at Hampton 
 court, that <' the king spoke by the spirit of God," is 
 quoted by Bishop Stillingfleet, as asserting that " no kind 
 of government is expressed in the word or can necessarily 
 be concluded from thence."t In short, particular expres- 
 sions which writers use from zeal for that form they endea- 
 vour to establish, are not to be given in proof of their opi- 
 nions, concerning the conduct suited to extraordinary 
 occasions. Many instances to the same purpose might be 
 produced of English divines qualifying such high expres- 
 sions and guarding against seeming consequences ; but 
 this part of the subject shall conclude with the authority of 
 a clergyman of this country, who a few years ago wrote on 
 Episcopal government. He insists on it as of divine right, 
 asserts that " the laws relating to it bind as strongly as the 
 laws which oblige us to receive baptism or the holy eucha- 
 rist,"t and that " if the succesion be once broken, not all 
 ihe'men on earth, not all the angels of heaven, without an 
 immediate commission from Christ, can restore it." § Ne- 
 vertheless, he acknowleges " the necessity of bishops is 
 no more than a general necessity, or in other words, 
 bishops according to the belief of the Church of England, 
 are necessary only where they can be had.'il He then 
 distinguishes between cases where the necessity is real, and 
 those where Episcopacy had been willingly and expressly 
 
 • Dr. Warner says (book 14) that " Archbisliop Bancroft was 
 ;he first man who had preached up the divine right ot Episco- 
 pacy in the church of England." Tlie first occasion of his doing 
 this, is said by others to have been when he v/as \> hitgih s 
 chaplain, 
 
 + Irenicum, chapter 38. 
 
 I Dr. Chandler's appeal, page 7. & Ibitt, pa?e ■ 
 
 1! Chandler'i unpe?.! defended, page 68. 
 
25 
 
 k-ejected, as by the people of Scotland and the English dis- 
 senters. 
 
 Now if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of divine 
 right, conceive the obligation to it to be not binding when 
 that idea would be destructive of public worship, much 
 more must they think so, who indeed venerate and prefer 
 that form as the most ancient and eligible, but without any 
 idea of divine right in the case. This the author believes 
 to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in 
 America ; in which respect they have in their favour un- 
 questionably the sense of the Church of England, and, as 
 he believes, the opinions of her most distinguished prelates 
 for piety, virtue and abilities. 
 
 CHAPTER VL 
 
 It is to be expected, that the far greater number oi wn- 
 jers in defence of Episcopal government, confine their ob- 
 servations to the ordinary state of the church, without 
 giving their opinions on supposed cases of necessity. Yet, 
 if it were required to multiply authorities, and writers were 
 consulted with that view, it is probable that many more 
 than the following might be produced. But, as the law- 
 fulness of deviation, in cases of necessity, is a fair inference 
 from the sentiments of expressly to the purpose (perhaps) 
 all, it will be sufficient if those quoted rank among the 
 most respectable for their authority. 
 
 The first mentioned shall be xhe venerable Hooker. His 
 books on ecclesiastical polity are universally allowed to be 
 a work of masterly judgment, and deep erudition ; they 
 are frequently spoken of as containing the most rational 
 and complete defence of the Church of England ; and were 
 recommended by king Charles I. (whose attachment to 
 Episcopacy will not be doubted) as the best for fixing the 
 principles of his children, on those questions which had 
 distracted the nation. This accomplished writer, after 
 c 
 
 r 
 
avM^aniMAM 
 
 I 
 
 -26 
 
 rissertingwith s;reatzpal the authority of Episcopal govern- 
 ment, mnkes the follinving exception; ••' wlien the exi- 
 gence of necessity iloth constrain to leave the usual ways of 
 the church, which otherwise we would willingly keep ; 
 when the church must needs have some ordained and 
 neither hath nor can have possibly a bishop to ordain ; in 
 case of such necessity the law of God hath oftentimes and 
 may give place; and therefore we are not, simply and 
 without exception, to urge a lineal descent of power from 
 the apostles, by continued succession in every eflfectual or- 
 iination."* 
 
 The same great man, speaking in another place of some 
 .Junrhes not Episcoi)al, says, " this their defect and im- 
 perfection, 1 had rather lament in suci) a case than exag- 
 j;erate; considering that men oftentimes, without any 
 "fault of their own, may be driven to want that kind of poli- 
 ty or regiment, which is best; and to content themselves 
 with that which either the irremediable error of former 
 limes, or the necessity of the present hath cast upon 
 
 them.-'l' 
 
 Had Mr. Hooker been asked to define <' the exigence 
 of necessity;- could he have imagined any more urgent 
 than the case in question? Or had he been enquired ot 
 concerning the ^^necessities of present times;'' could 
 he have mentioned any in the cases to which he alludes 
 (those of Scotland and Geneva,) so strongly pleading for 
 the liberty he allows, as those now existing in America ? 
 
 The name of Bishop Hoadly will probably be as long 
 remembered, as any on the list of British worthies ; and 
 will never be mentioned without veneration of the strength 
 of his abilities, the liberality of his sentiments, and his en- 
 lightened zeal for civil liberty. He has written in defence 
 of Episcopal government, with more argument and better 
 temper than is commonly to be met with in controversial 
 writings. This amiable prelate expresses himselt as fol- 
 lows, " as to the credit of the reformed churches abroad, 
 we think it no presumption, as we censure them not, who 
 in a case of necessity went out of the ordinary method, so 
 
 ' Ecclesiastical Toliu, Book 7, Section U 
 • Ibid, Hook 3, Scclioii 11- 
 
27 
 
 to expect they will not censure us for not approving sued 
 irregularities, where there is no such necessity for them."' 
 In another place he says, " for my own part I can- 
 not argue that Episcopacy is essential to a christian 
 church, because it is of apostolical institution ; and on the 
 other hand, I do argue, that we are obliged to the utmost 
 of our knowledge, to conform ourselves to the apostolical 
 model, unless in such where the imitation is impracticahh 
 or would manifestly do more hurt than good to the church 
 of Christ ; neither of which can possibly be affirmed in the 
 ordinari/ state of the church ''t 
 
 What necessity was there of the '• reformed churches 
 abroad" equal to ours? Is not an immediate imitation 
 of the ancient usage " impracticable ?" VVould not such a 
 plan as has been proposed be conforming (as far as circum- 
 stances allow) to our ideas of " the apostolic model ?" 
 
 The character of Archbishop Usher for extensive learn- 
 ing and fervent piety is generall)* known; and is distin- 
 guished both by his great moderation on the subject of 
 Episcopacy, and by the service it has received from his 
 indefatigable researches. In a letter to Dr. Bernard he 
 writes thus " in places where bishops cannot be had, the 
 ordination of presbyters stands valid.":}; What part of 
 the christian world could the learned primate have named, 
 of which it could have been so properly said as it may be 
 of ours, that "ordination by bishops cannot be had?^^ 
 
 The great reformer and martyr Archbishop Cranmer 
 was one of the first characters of the age in which he lived, 
 for learning, piety, and virtue; and is supposed to have 
 done more than any other towards compiling the liturgy of 
 the Church of England; "His equal (says Dr. Warner) 
 was never yet seen in the see of Canterbury, and I will 
 take upon me to say, that his superior never will." In 
 the reign of Henry VIII. according to Bishop Burnet,|| 
 
 *Reasonableness of conformity, part I. 
 
 f Defence of Episcopal ordination, conclusion. 
 
 i Quoted from Neale's History. 
 
 II History of the reformation, anno 1549. Stillingfleet, with 
 ifiss appearance of authenticity, says it was in the reign of Ed- 
 ward VI. . 
 
>m0mtt^tmtm.im>am»*»' iifci i 
 
 28 
 
 there were proposed by the King, to this great man, in 
 conjunction with other learned divines, certain questions, 
 among which are the two following, with the Archbishop's 
 answers annexed : 
 
 Question. Whether if it fortuned a Prince Christian, to 
 conquer certain dominions of infidels, having none but the 
 temporal learned men with him, it be defended by God's 
 law, that he and they should preach the word of God 
 there or no, and also make and constitute priests there 
 or no ? 
 
 Answer. It is not against God's law ; but contrariwise 
 they ought indeed so to do ; and there be histories that 
 witness, that some christian princes and other laymen have 
 done the same. 
 
 Question. Whether it be defended by God's law, that 
 if it so fortuned that all the bishops and priests of a region 
 were dead ; and that the word of God should remain there 
 unpreached, and the sacrament of baptism and others un- 
 ministered ; that the King of that region should make bi- 
 shops and priests to supply the same or no ? 
 
 Answer. It is not forbidden by God's law. 
 
 The above may be offered as the opinions of not only 
 Cranmer, but also of most of the eminent bishops and other 
 clergy of that period; for whoever will attend to all the 
 questions with the several answers as recorded by Burnet,* 
 will find, that although the Archbishop seems singular in 
 iiis sentiments as to the original institution of bishops and 
 priests, they generally agree with him on the supposed 
 occasions of necessity. On the former subject, the learned 
 historifin believes, that Cranmer soon afterwards changed 
 his opinion : but the reason assigned for that belief, if it be 
 well founded,! does not extend to the purpose for which his 
 authority is here cited. 
 
 * Histoiy of the reformation, appendix to vol. I. 
 
 f The reason is Cranmei's signing the book called " the eru. 
 Jltion of a christian man." This book has led some to believe 
 that the archbishop's principles on church government were un- 
 setiled at the time of its publication. That it contradicts itselt 
 on that subject, is certain ; but this was owing not \o Cranmer s 
 inconsistency, but that of the king. In the answers of the foT-- 
 
29 
 
 Now every circumstance in tlie cases supposed makes 
 the principle apply, with the greater force, to that now 
 under consideration. If a christian King may on an emer- 
 gency constitute a bishop, much more may the whole body 
 of the churches interested; especially when they interfere 
 not thereby with the civil magistrate. If a Prince would 
 be justifiable in taking such a step, rather than have re- 
 course to the spiritual authority of some neighbouring and 
 allied kingdom, much more would we, who labour under 
 peculiar political difficulties. If it were commendable on 
 the mere hope of converting infidels to the christian faith, 
 it would be more so, for the purpose of maintaining the 
 principles of christian knowledge and practice, among 
 those who are already of the number of its professors. If 
 a prince ought to do this from concern for the spiritual 
 welfare of his subjects, much rather ought we, for that of 
 ourselves and our children. 
 
 On the credit of the preceding names, the author rests 
 this the last part of his subject ; and if his sentiments should 
 meet with an unfavourable reception, he will find no small 
 consolation from being in a company so respectable. 
 
 Perhaps, however, there would be little room for differ- 
 ence of sentiment among the well informed, if the matter 
 were generally taken up with seriousness and moderation, 
 and were to rest on religious principles alone. But unhap- 
 pily there are some, in whose ideas the existence of their 
 church is so connected with that of the civil government of 
 Britain, as to preclude their concurrence in any system, 
 formed on a presumed final separation of the two countries. 
 Prejudices of this sort will admit of no conviction but such 
 as may arise from future events ; and are therefore no 
 
 mer as given by Burnet, his sentiments seem fully fixed, and 
 (perhaps) are r'econcileable with the Episcopal plan, according 
 to the distinction taken between the appropriated and larger 
 meanings of the word " Bishop " As to " the erudition," 
 Guthrie says (history of England, vol. 3, page 597.) " the wri- 
 tings were modelled by the King, as he wanted them to appear 
 before the parliament and public ;" and Dr. Warner says (book 
 II) " it is more probably a declaration of the King's religion, 
 than of any other man's in the kingdom." 
 
*d'M*^MnMMM»*inH*rM««aa«^ 
 
 30 
 
 farther considered in this performance, than with a sincere 
 sorrow, that any persons, professing to be of the commu- 
 nion of the church of England, should so far mistake the 
 principles of that church, as to imagine them widely diffe- 
 rent from what form the religion of the scriptures ; which, 
 as Bishop Sherlock observes, "stand cle.ir of all disputes 
 about the rights of princes and subjects ; so that such dis- 
 putes must be left to be decided by principles of natural 
 equity and the constitution of the country."* 
 
 As for those who are convinced that the " United Slates," 
 have risen to an independent rank among the nations, or 
 who even think that such may probably be the event of the 
 war, they are loudly called on to adopt measures for the 
 continuance of their churches, as they regard the public 
 worship of God, the foundation of which is immutable ; as 
 they esteem the benefit of the sacraments, which were in- 
 stituted by the supreme bishop of the church ; and as they 
 are bound to obey the scriptures, which enjoin us " not 
 to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the man- 
 ner of some is." 
 
 More especially is this their duty, if they entertain a pe- 
 culiar preference for the principles and worship of their 
 own communion, from a persuasion of their superior excel- 
 lence. That the church of England is a creature of the 
 state, an engine of civil policy, and no otherwise to be 
 maintained than by human laws, has been said by some, 
 as a reason for their dissenting from her. If the same pre- 
 judice has been with others a reason for conformity , it is to 
 
 * Vol. 4. Discourse 13th. 
 
 The indefeasible right of Kings is pretended to be founded on 
 certain passages of scripture. I'he author takes the liberty of 
 referring to the very sensible sermon above quoted, for an easy 
 and natural explanation of the passages alluded to ; whereby 
 they are vindicated from a sense which makes the Gospel an 
 engine of despotism and oppression, and which, however sin- 
 cerely believed by some, is with others a mere trick of state. 
 Although Bishop Sherlock's reputation in the church of England 
 is generally known, it may be proper to mention, that his ser- 
 mons are among the books formerly sent out by the honourable 
 "Society for propagating the gospel," to be distributed by 
 ' Jieir missionaries. 
 
31 
 
 be hoped they are comparatively few, and that the great 
 majority of Episcopalians, believing that their faith and 
 worship are ratiunal and scriptural, have no doubt of their 
 being supported, independent of state establishments; nay, 
 it is presumed there are many, who, while ihey sincerely 
 love their fellow christians of every denomination, know- 
 ing (as one of their prayers expresses) that the " bodv of 
 Christ" comprehends " the blessed company of all faithful 
 people," are more especially attached to their own mode 
 of worship, perhaps from education, but as they conceive, 
 from its being most agreeable to reason and scripture, and its 
 most near'y resembling the pattern of the purest ages of the 
 church. On the consciences of such, above all others, 
 may be pressed the obligation of adopting speedy and de- 
 cisive measures, to prevent their being scattered " like 
 sheep without a shepherd," and to continue the use of that 
 form of divine service, which they believe to be " worship- 
 ping the Lord in the beauty of holiness." 
 
 THE END. 
 
_ ^ 
 
 tf 
 

 
 s, 
 
 ^ h 
 
 \ik 
 
 ) iu 
 
 ■y^