YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY Gift of
Rev. E. C. Chorley

//J ' £ 7 /Z

/^e

a i

MEMOIRS

Protestant Episcopal Church

Eije Hnttcrj jjstates of America
CONTAINING
/. A NARRATIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND OF THE
EARLY MEASURES OF THE CHURCH
II. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND REMARKS
III. AN APPENDIX OF ORIGINAL PAPERS

RIGHT REV. WILLIAM WHITE, D.D.

Edited with Notes and a Sketch of the Origin and Progress of the
Colonial Church
BY THE REV. B. F. DeCOSTA

NEW YORK
E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY
713 Broadway 1880

Copyright

By E. P. DUTTON & CO.

Pn-u of -^- lowland
J. J. Little &* Co., Stereotype Foundry,
10 Astor Place, N. Y Suffolk Co., N. Y.

PREFACE.

The first edition of the "Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal
Church" was published by S. Potter & Co., Philadelphia, 1820.
The title page of that edition lacks the clause, "from its organiza
tion up to the present day," which occurs on that of the second;
while the author is described as Bishop of "the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," instead of "Bishop
of the Protestant Episcopal Church." The preface and table of
contents of the first edition occupy fifteen pages, and the body
of the work four hundred and seventy-four. It is an octavo volume,
in clear bold type, superior to that of the second edition, which
contains only three hundred and ninety-three pages, the type be;ng
smaller and the measure larger, thus giving much more matter
within a smaller compass.
Prior to 1820, however, Bishop White had given some attention
to the subject. His first treatment of it appears in the American edi
tion of Rees' "New Cyclopaedia," vol. viii., part 2, under "Church."
That article ends with the death of Bishop Parker, found on page
thirty-four of the present edition. It would appear, from the refer
ence to Bishop Parker, that the part of the "Cyclopaedia" contain
ing the article came out prior to 1807. The second edition of the
"Memoirs," evidently was published just before Bishop White's
decease, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, under date of August
ist, 1836, refers to the copy sent to him by the author.
In presenting the third edition of the "Memoirs of the Church,"
care has been taken to avoid overloading the Narrative with notes,
though the work would justify copious annotation. The editor has
restricted himself to a few points, in connection with which it was
conceived that brief notes were required for the convenience of the
reader. The notes thus added are signed "Ed."

iv PREFACE.
It has been considered advisable, however, to furnish a prefatory
sketch of the rise and progress of the Colonial Church in America.
This sketch has been extended into the period of the Revolution,
where the Narrative of Bishop White commences. The student will
thus be the better prepared to proceed with the study of the half
century that follows. This sketch has been made as brief as pos
sible, one leading object of the writer being to give some idea of
the legal status of the Church in the different colonies. Attention
has been paid to the origin of colonization itself, as writers in the
interest of non-Episcopal denominations have sought to keep the
agency of the Church of England in the background and to repre
sent our country as indebted solely to the enterprise of their co-relig
ionists. This is especially the case in connection with New England,
the colonization of which region was the legitimate result of the prior
enterprise of loyal sons ofthe Church, and notably of Sir Ferdinando
Gorges. Though Bishop White's work is composed of three divisions, it
will be found well adapted to the wants of the general reader; while
the teacher of ecclesiastical history may realize special advantages
from this plan, since it thus takes the form of what may be called
a progressive class book, capable of valuable service in competent
hands. The previous editions had no index, but in the present
edition an index is supplied.
The "Memoirs" have been republished at the earnest request
of many of the clergy, representing all shades of ecclesiastical opin
ion; the wisdom, justice and comprehensiveness of the views of
the eminent and venerable Bishop being fully appreciated and ac
knowledged. Of the permanent value and high importance of the
work there is and never has been any question, and it is now sent
forth in the confident expectation that it will continue to be re
garded a treasury of important facts respecting the origin and forma
tion of the American Church.
Ne-.o York, August, 1SS0.

THE ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF THE COLONIAL
CHURCH.

Maritime Enterprise — Albert de Prato — Frobisher — Wolfall — Walker in Norombega
• — Gilbert — Ralegh — Gosnold and Pring — Waymouth — The Popham Colony
— The Plymouth and London Companies — The Pilgrims of Leyden — The
Agency of the Church of England — The Settlement of Massachusetts — The
Church in New Hampshire — The Church in Virginia — The Church in New
York — Maryland — Pennsylvania — North Carolina — New Jersey — Delaware
— Georgia — Rhode Island — Connecticut — Massachusetts — King's Chapel —
William White.
THE Church of England was identified with the prog
ress of the national marine from the earliest times. In
sketching an outline of the rise of that Church in Amer
ica, it is therefore necessary to trace the early history of
English maritime enterprise.
At what period English navigators were first active on
the Atlantic at the north and west, it is now impossible
to say. The Venerable Bede shows that in his time the
British sailors were accustomed to visit Iceland, and the
Anglo-Saxon map of the tenth century shows that island
laid down. It is also certain that the English were in
communication with Iceland at the time Denmark, Nor
way and Iceland were in free communication with Green
land; in which country the Church, with a line of bishops,
was maintained for about three hundred years.* So well
informed were the people of Iceland concerning affairs in
England, that the death of the Archbishop of York was

* See Rafn's " Antiquitates Americana;" and "Gronland's Historiske
Mindesmcerker" ; "Pre-Columbian Discovery of America by the Northmen,"
Albany 1868, and the "Church Review," Oct. 1869.

vi THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
chronicled there in 1407* In 1436 the Icelandic Bishop
of Holum was living in London; while, in 1440, Henry VI.
sent two ships with supplies to Iceland, which included
wine and salt, it being declared that, otherwise, the sac
raments would be discontinued. It is manifestly true, that,
by means of this intercourse with Iceland, the English must
have known of the land at the west. They, however, did
not appreciate the importance of this knowledge, any more
than the Icelanders themselves; and, possibly, no English
vessel sailed to Greenland at that period; especially as
we know that every measure was taken by the King of
Denmark to cripple British commerce.t
The first evidence of the activity of the English on the
Atlantic at the west is found in the year 1491, when a
series of annual voyages was commenced from Bristol, to
search for the Island of Brazil and the Seven Cities. This
fact was recorded by Ayala, the Spanish Ambassador at
the English Court.'! On St. John's Day, June 24th, 1497,
John Cabot, in advance of Columbus, discovered the main
land of America, which he called Prima Vista. Beyond
question he had some chaplain or other minister of religion
with him in his ship, " the Matthew," of Bristol. In 1498
he was authorized to make another voyage to the lands
thus found. Some have maintained, that, during the voy
age, he explored the American coast from 67° N., to Flor
ida, but of this there is not sufficient proof. Others have
also supposed that Cabot undertook a colony. § Of this,
likewise, the proof is wanting. Another voyage was pro
jected for Cabot in 1517, but there is a lack of evidence
respecting its accomplishment. Nevertheless, the voyage
of 1497 was not barren of results. In 1501, Henry VII.

* Islenzkir Aiind/iir, Hafhire, 1847 p. 3S2.
t See Rymer's " Fadcra" on this period.
| See his letter to Ferdinand and Isabella, "Spanish State Papers," vol. i.
177- § Thevet's " Cosmographie Universale" 1575, tome ii. p. 1014.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. vii
.authorized a new expedition,* while Thorjie claims that
his father went to Newfoundland in 1502^ In 1504, an
entry in the King's privy purse shows that two pounds
were paid "to a preste [priest] that goeth to the new
Islande." Before any thing more was accomplished by the Eng
lish, the Spaniards were active and had discovered Florida,
an achievement popularly attributed to Ponce de Leon in
1 5 13, though Martyr's map, in his " Legatio Babylonica,"
published in 1511, shows that Forida was discovered long
before. The Spaniards usually carried priests with them,
but one of the earliest recorded cases of the administration
of the Holy Communion in North America was in con
nection with the death of the Licentiate Ayllon, forty
miles southwest of the " Rio Jordan," in the Carolinas,
October 18th, 15264 Two years earlier, however, relig
ious services had been conducted on board the ship of Ver-
razano in the harbor of Newport, Rhode Island. §
During August, 1527, the English suddenly come into
full view, Henry VIII. having two ships at St. John's, New
foundland; on one of which, the " Mary of Guilford," was
Albert de Prato, a canon of St. Paul's, London. This per
son was a man of learning, and particularly well skilled in
mathematics and navigation. Nothing has"yet been learned
respecting his origin, yet he appears to have been an Ital
ian, and was probably of the family connected with the
curious old City of Prato. He must have been one of those
favored foreigners introduced by Cardinal Wolsey; whom
he addressed in a Latin letter, now lost, from the Harbor

* Eiddle's "Life of Cabot," p. 225, 234.
f Hakluyt's " Divers Voyages," Ed. 1850, p. 51.
% Oviedo's '¦'¦Historia de las Indias," ii. 145, and iii. 628.
§ "Verrazano the Explorer," and Hakluyt, iii. 300. It may be noted here that
on the first voyage, Columbus did not appear to have any priest with him; and, in
deed, he served as a kind of lay preacher. On the fourth voyage, Sunday, August
14th, 1502, he landed at Punta di Castilia, on the coast of Honduras, where the
Mass was said. "Historia del Sig. Don Fernando Colombo," Mik.n, 1614, p. 403.

viii THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
of St. John's.*- De Prato sailed with John Rutt, one of
Henry's sturdy captains, who, in 15 13, had been master of
the " Lord Sturton." This canon of St. Paul's is of especial
interest, for the reason that he is the first known clerical
representative of the Church of England in America. Nev
ertheless he represented the unreformed Church. In the
year 1527, his patron, Cardinal Wolsey, was engaged in
the prosecution of Bilney, who recanted his heresy, and
escaped by carrying a fagot on his shoulder during a ser
mon at Paul's Cross. From St. John the " Mary of Guil
ford " sailed towards Cape Breton, a port in the south side
of which island was called " Arembec," afterwards he re
turned to England. t There is no mention of any religious
service, though without doubt the offices of religion were
performed. From the year 1527 the English were more or less active
in connection with the fisheries of the New World, but few
records of the period have come down to us. It is not
until 1567 that another Englishman appears, a wander
ing sailor from the Gulf of Mexico, one David Ingram,
the first Englishman now known to have entered New
England, though his visit was destitute of ecclesiastical
interest.^ Frobisher appears next among the voyagers, and with him,
on the voyage of 1578, came the first known representa
tive of the Reformed Church of England, " Maister Wol
fall," "Minister and Preacher," who was charged "to serve
God twice a day, with the ordinary service usual in the
Church of England." In the Countess of Warwick's Sound
they landed, and Wolfall "preached a godly sermon" and
* Pun lias iii. S09; Hakluyt iii. 129.
t "The Northmen in Maine," p. 43. "Arembec" was a port in Cape Bre
ton not to be confused with Norombega. An attempt has been made to show that
the " Mary of Guilford " visited many of the ports of Maine, but of this there is no
proof. See Maine Coll. 2d. series, vol. i. p. 3S1.
\ See Ilakhiyt's volume of 1589, p. 557; and the Tanner MSS. 79, fol. 172,
preserved in the Bodleian Library.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. ix
"celebrated also a Communion" the first English Commun
ion recorded in connection with the New World*
In 1580 an experimental voyage was made to Maine by
one John Walker, who, it would seem, afterwards became
a clergyman ;t and 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert made a
voyage and proclaimed a regular order of government in
Newfoundland, including the Church.
Afterwards he proceeded towards a place in New Eng
land called "Norombega"; but, losing a ship near Sable
Island, he was forced to sail for England, though the lit
tle vessel he was in went down on the way, the last words
of the brave knight being, " It is as near to heaven by sea
as by land." % The miscarriage of this enterprise was a
serious event. But for the loss of his great ship, the " De
light," a Church of England colony might have been es
tablished on the Penobscot, and, possibly, fixed the re
ligious history of the region for all time. During the April
preceding the voyage, Christopher Carlisle laid out a
plan for a colony which he proposed to fix near latitude
400 N., and which would have especial attractions for the
"godly minded," inasmuch as they would have no " idol-

* See Hakluyt Ed. 1600, iii. pp. 84, 91; and "Domestic State Papers,"
1547-1580, vol. ex. 2; cxi. 48, 49; cxvi. 25; cxviii. 36, 39, 41, 42, 43; cxix. 8, 9,
10, 12, 14, 15; exxii. 3; exxiii. 5. Here let us add the deserved tribute to Wolfall,
of whom it is said,
"This Maister Wolfall being well seated and setled at home in his owne Coun-
trey, with a good and large living, having a good honest woman to wife and very
towardly children, being of good reputation among the best, refused not to take
in hand this painfull voyage, for the onley care he had to save soules, and to
refbrme the Infidels if it were possible to Christianitie: and also partly for the
great desire he had that this notable voyage so well begunne, might be brought
to perfection: and therefore he was contented to stay there the whole yeare if
occasion had served, being in every necessary action as the resolutest men of all.
Wherefore in this behalfe may rightly be called a true Pastor and minister of
God's word, which for the profite of his flocke spared not to venture his owne
life." f The authority for this is in MS.
X Hakluyt iii. 243; and "The Lost City of New England," with Beauvois'
" La Norambegue," Paris, 1880.

X THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
atrous religion " forced upon them, as in Roman Catholic
Countries* In 1584, while Gilbert was sleeping in his ocean grave,
Sir Walter Ralegh undertook the colonization of Virginia.
This enterprise was pursued until 1590, when the colony,
whose sad history is so well known, became extinct. The
pilot of the first expedition was Simon Ferdinando, who,
by accident, grounded one of the ships, though some have
supposed that it was done by design. t The clergyman
connected with White's company of 1587 baptized Manteo,
an Indian Chief as " Lord of Roanoake, and Dasamon-
peake," and, about the same time, Virginia Dare, called
the "first Christian born in Virginia," was also baptized.^
Another glimpse of English enterprise is had in the voy
age of Gosnold in 1602. This person, styled the "Dis
coverer " of Cape Cod, passed some weeks upon an island
not far from Martha's Vineyard, now known as Cuttyhunk.
The narrative teaches that the voyage, which contem
plated a colony, was sanctioned by Sir Walter Ralegh;
and Congregationalists in New England for many years
extolled the undertaking, teaching that the enterprise lay
at the foundation of New England Colonization, thus seek
ing to antedate the Popham Colony of i6o7.§ It was,
however, the fortune of the writer to show from original
documents that the theory embodied serious errors, inas
much as the enterprise had no sanction, while those con-

* Hakluyt iii. 143; "Dom. Eliz. Calendar," vol. xcv. no 63, p. 475.
f Dr. Hawks calls this person a "contemptible mariner," and a "treacherous
villain." — " Hist, of N. Carolina," i. 196. This was an error, as Lane (" Archeo-
logia Americana " iv. 1 1), gives the very best proof of his capacity and worth.
X This has many times been referred to as the first baptism in Virginia; yet the
Spaniards were there before the English, and in 1574 had established a mission and
performed baptism. See article in the "Churchman," November 9, 1S72, based on
MSS. and Hakluyt iii. 2S4.
§ "Proceedings ofthe American Antiquarian Society," April 26th, 1865, p. 42.
For the narratives of the voyage, see Mass. Coll., 3d series, vol. viii. and
"Purchas His Pilgrimes," iv. p. 1651. See also Hatfield MSS. vol. xciv., 160,
and Edward's " Life of Ralegh," ii. 251.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xi
cerned were prosecuted for trespass upon their return * by
Sir Walter. The ecclesiastical interest connected with the
voyage is found in the fact that the supercargo, William
Salterne, soon afterwards took Orders in the Church; which
induces the belief that any religious services held by the
people while in the country were according to the Book
of Common Prayer.
The next year, 1603, another expedition, this time by
authority, came out under Martin Pring, William Salterne
again being in the company. The expedition harbored
at Plymouth during a stay of several weeks; and the rea
sonable conclusion may be that the services of the Church
consecrated that region seventeen years before the arrival
of the "May Flower." In the year 1605, a voyage of very
great importance was made to New England by James
Waymouth. In 1602 he had undertaken a fruitless expe
dition to the northwest with Cartwright for chaplain; but,
respecting the original destination of the voyage of 1605,
we are left to conjecture, though it is certain that he sailed
from England on Easter Sunday, and reached Booth's
Bay, Maine, on Whitsunday, calling the harbor " Pente
cost." From this harbor he discovered and explored the
Kennebec, the ancient "Sagadahoc." He also seized five
of the natives, whom he carried to England. Sir Fer-
dinando Gorges, that stout, loyal old churchman, says,
" This accident was the means under God of putting on
foot and giving life to all our plantations." These na
tives were taught English and trained for service in the
colony. It is not known that Waymouth had a chaplain with
him, yet it is certain that the services of the Church were
regularly performed on board the ship, and that the natives
were often in attendance, being deeply impressed. Crosses
were set up, in token both of their faith and of their in
tended occupation of the country, while Rosier distinctly
* "New England Historical Genealogical Register," 1878, p. 76.

xii THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
declares, "a public good and true zeal of promulgating
God's holy Church, by planting Christianity, to be the sole
intent of the honorable setters forth of this discovery." *
From 1605 onward, the agency of churchmen in colon
ization is evident. April 10th, 1606, Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
in connection with Sir John Popham, obtained by royal
charter a tract of country extending from Nova Scotia to
the Carolinas. The same year a ship was sent out under
Pring to complete the survey of Waymouth; while, June
ist, 1607, the "Mary and John" and "The Gift of God"
sailed for Maine with upwards of a hundred colonists.
The ships were separated during the voyage, but met
in August at the Island of Monhegan near the Kennebec.
Historians have dwelt upon the religiousness ofthe Ply
mouth Pilgrims who spent their first Sunday on Clark's
Island, faithfully observing the day; but the men of the
"Mary and John" and "The Gift of God" were not less
duteous than those of the " May Flower." Landing upon
this romantic and well-wooded isle, then clothed in pri
meval forests fragrant with the perfume of the pine and
hemlock mingled with the odor of the wild rose, they set
up their simple altar under the shadow of a tall cross that
had been planted previously and which was seen by the
voyager afar. There they celebrated the service of the
Church in simplicity and faith. We copy the memoran
dum, verbatim:
" Sondaye beinge the 9th of August in the morninge the
most part of our holl company of both our shipes landed
on this Illand the weh we call St. George's Illand whear
the crosse standeth and thear we heard a sermon delyvred
unto us by our preacher gguinge God thanks for our hap
py metinge and saffe aryvall into the contry & so retorned
abord aggain."
The preacher was the Rev. Richard Seymour, a minister

* See "Journal" in Mass. Coll., 3d series, vol. viii. p. 125; and Purchas iv.
p. 1659; also the original "True Relation," London, 1605.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xiii
of the Church of England, to whom belongs the honor of
having preached the first sermon known to have been de
livered in New England. On the 19th of August, a site
was selected for the colony at the mouth of the Kennebec,
and the work of building a fort was commenced. This oc
casion was also solemnized by a sermon, showing that the
undertaking was conceived in the spirit of the Psalmist,
"Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain
that build it." The fort was finished, together with a
chapel and dwelling houses; and here the services of the
Church of England were celebrated. This was a regularly
officered community, established upon a moral and legal
basis. Under the charter, two companies had been formed,
the Plymouth Company and the London Company; the for
mer selecting New England and the latter Virginia, as the
scene of colonization. The charter gave the men of Sagada
hoc the power of life and death, authorizing them to collect
taxes and imposts and coin money. When the spring came,
however, owing to the death of Captain Popham, their
leader, and other causes, they were so much discouraged
that they abandoned the settlement and returned home.*
In 1609 Henry Hudson, with a mixed crew of English
and Dutch, made his voyage up the river which bears his
name, his voyage having originally been projected under
French influence, though he was advised to search for a
strait to India in the region of the Hudson by Captain
John Smith. Henry Hudson was an Englishman and a
communicant of the Church, though the Dutch reaped
the fruit of his voyage of 1609/r
* A manuscript containing a narrative of events connected with this colony was
first brought to the notice of the public by the author, who found it in the Lambeth
Palace Library. Mr. Palfrey considered it as "lost." It appears, with a full ac
count ofthe entire transaction, in the "Proceedings ofthe Massachusetts Historical
Society for May, 1880," and is printed separately. See also, the "Popham Me
morial," edited by the Rev. Edward Ballard, D.D.
t The Hudson was discovered in 1525, and named Rio de St. Antonio. On
Hudson's voyage, see the letters of Jeanin and Henry IV., in Pettitot's "Me-
moires," xv. 141, 232, 421; also "The Sailing Directions of Henry Hudson."

xiv THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
From 1608 the English fishermen were active on the
coast of Maine, and held the ground against the French,'
whose Jesuit settlement at Mount Desert was captured and
broken up in 1612, by Argall from Virginia.! Yet, down
to the year 1620, there does not appear to have been any
permanent English settlement along the coast. Neverthe
less the influence of the Popham Colony was not lost, as it
paved the way for fresh operations. In this connection,
too, it must be noticed that the work in New England and
in Virginia was one, both colonies being under the general
Council of Thirteen. Reserving, therefore, the Virginia Col
ony for separate notice, let us point out the fact that New
England was settled under the authority of the same com
pany of churchmen who prosecuted the work at the South.
It may be said that when the Plymouth Pilgrims landed
in 1620 no English settlement was known upon the coast,
but this is not a technical question. At the time they
landed one branch of the work was established in Virginia,
while the necessary steps had already been taken to carry
on the work in New England. Experiments had been
made, and the company was now ready for permanent
work. The seed was sown, even though no green blade
had appeared above the soil in token of the coming harvest.
This leads to the consideration of the fact, that the men
who had labored for the Popham Colony and for the twelve
years following maintained ships in New England defend
ing their interests and repelling intruders, had secured
a new patent, signed by the King in November, 1620, put
ting them in absolute possession of the territory from 400 N.
to 480 N. They were entitled to the patent for various rea
sons, and especially in consideration of what they had done
to protect the coast against the French. But for this fact
the settlement at Plymouth might have been an impossi-

* See Carayon's '¦'Premiere Mission," p. 62.
f On his treatment of the Dutch at New York, See No. 622 "Amer. and W.
India Papers, " 1661-8.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xv
bility. It was under this new patent that throngs of emi
grants poured into New England. From the patentees,
who were known as the "Plymouth Company," the Leyden
Pilgrims received authority to settle* Sailing for the
region of the Hudson, a storm drove them to Cape Cod,
whence they went to the place which in 1616 had received
the name of "Plymouth" from no less a churchman than
Prince Charles.f At Plymouth, however, they were in
truders; but the company at home, which was composed
of loyal churchmen, recognizing the merits of the men
thus providentially cast within their jurisdiction, con
sented to have them remain; and, September 9th, 162 1,
gave them a charter to the lands which they occupied.
The charter was signed, among others, by Sir Ferdinando
Gorges, who took a lively interest in the establishment
of the Plymouth settlement, notwithstanding he disap
proved of the principles entertained by leading spirits at
that place. The people at Plymouth experienced little
else but kindness and courtesy from the churchmen who
controlled affairs in connection with New England. This
kindness was generally reciprocated by the Plymouth peo
ple, who were of a gentler disposition than the men of Mas
sachusetts Bay. The majority of the men of the "May
Flower," in fact, were more or less in sympathy with the
Church at home4 They never denied their indebtedness
to the Plymouth Company, and it has remained for some
of their descendants to undervalue the work of those
churchmen who warmed the Pilgrim Colony into life.
Sir Ferdinando was a churchman, but he acted as a
citizen of a great country; and at a time when he might

* Not a few have supposed that by the " Plymouth Company," the Plymouth
or Leyden Pilgrims were meant.
f Before going to Plymouth they discussed the propriety of selecting Ipswich,
described by Smith, whose map they had in their hands. They decided, however,
upon Plymouth, where Coppin their pilot had been in times past. See Young's
"Chronicles," pp. 147-8.
X Bradford says that the most part of the people desired to keep Christmas.

xvi THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
have given the entire subject a sectarian tinge, he confessed
that it was Waymouth's voyage of 1605, in connection with
the Indians captured, that, under God, " put life into all
the plantations." Indeed it was a Pemaquid chief who had
lived on friendly terms with his representatives in Maine,
that met the Pilgrims, saying, "Welcome, Englishmen!"
The year before they arrived, Captain Dermer, one of the
agents of the company, had arranged a peace with the
Indians around Plymouth.*
A class of writers on this general subject have assumed,
with great assurance, that New England colonization re
sulted solely from persecution, and Hutchinson approves
the following: " The son of one of the first ministers, in a
preface to a sermon preached soon after the Revolution re
marks, that if the bishops in the reign of King Charles I.
had been of the same spirit with those in the reign of King
William, there would have been no New England." 1
When such things are said with a large degree of con
fidence they are liable to be accepted by certain classes of
readers. Poetry also lends a power to misrepresentations
of this kind. An illustration is found in that winning com
position by Andrew Marvell, " the Emigrant." He sings,
'Where the remote Bermudas ride
In Ocean's bosom unespied,
From a small boat that rowed along
The listening waves received this song: —
' ' ' What should we do but sing His praise
That led us through the watery maze
Unto an Isle so long unknown,
And yet far kinder than our own! ' "
Then, the poet goes on to sa}-, among other things:
"lie lands us on a grassy stage
Safe from the storms, and prelates' rage."
* Purchas, iv. p. 1778; and "N. Y. Hist. Society's Collections," 2d series,
vol. i. p. 343. An attempt was made to cheapen the value of Dermer's act, but it
remains an important link in the series of events.
t "History of Massachusetts Bay," i. p. 368, Ed. 1795.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xvii
These lines have led multitudes astray, and it is very
difficult to make some comprehend the fact that the colo
nization of the Bermudas »was originally undertaken by
prelates, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bish
ops of Lincoln, Bath and Wells and Worcester, supported
by thirty peers and peeresses of the Church of England.
Those two Church of England worthies, Hakluyt and
Purchas, were conspicuous in the advocacy of colonization;
both of these men writing and preaching to advance their
views, and expending considerable money either directly or
indirectly to carry on the work. In 1585 Hakluyt drew up
what he called "Inducements to the liking of the voyage
intended towards Virginia in 40 and 42 degrees of latitude."
These were printed with Gosnold's Relation in 1602 and
scattered broadcast. The " Inducements " were originally
drawn up with reference to the voyage of Humphrey Gil
bert, but beyond question they were in the hands of the
Pilgrims of Leyden, who were sailing for the latitude 400 N.,
when they found a harbor at Cape Cod. "This land that
we propose to direct our course to," he says, lies "in part
in the 40 degree," a climate supposed very favorable to the
vine, which was to be propagated by cuttings obtained
of the Bishop's gardener at Fulham. His directions for the
colony cover every conceivable point.* The prime object
of colonization, Hakluyt declares, being "to plant Chris
tian religion." The idea of founding a refuge against "per
secution" never seems to have occurred to his mind; while,
on the other hand, he often referred to the over-crowded
population, the multitudes of young men growing up in
enforced idleness, and the necessity of finding new markets
for British manufactures.
In 1622, so thoroughly had the idea of colonization taken
possession of the best men in the Church of England, that

* These Inducements are to be found in the Mass. Coll. 3d series, vol. viii. p.
104, and more at large in the Maine Coll. 2d series, vol. ii. edited by Charles
Deane, LL.D.

xviii THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
the Archbishop of Canterbury ordered a collection to be
made "in all the several parishes within the Kingdome of
England," in aid of the colonisation of Newfoundland; and
a copy of Whitbourne's book on the subject was printed
and sent to every parish. It is therefore idle to fancy that
colonization resulted from the wrong-headed treatment of
a kind of wrong-headedness. The time for the conquest
of the wilderness had come.
In the vicinity of Massachusetts Bay, churchmen were
the first colonists. As early as 1622, Thomas Morton,
established himself at Merry Mount; and in 1622 and 1623
colonies were attempted at Weymouth. Indeed Sir Fer
dinando evidently intended to secure the ground to the
Church. In the company of 1623 came the Rev. William
Morrell, who had been appointed an ecclesiastical com
missioner. While in the country he composed a Latin
poem on New England, translating it into English. This
poem abounds with missionary aspirations.* Again, long
before Winthrop and his company came to settle at Bos
ton, the three peninsulas of the harbor had been taken pos
session of by churchmen. At Charlestown dwelt Thomas
Walford,t afterwards banished, and who became the first
church warden in New Hampshire. At East Boston,
Samuel Maverick lived in his fort; while at Boston the
Rev. William Blackstone, alone in a little cottage, led a
quiet, contemplative life. Blackstone had been on the
ground a number of years, and apparently came out
with authority from the New England Company. The
intentions of Sir Ferdinando respecting the ecclesiastical
character of the colony that he expected to establish have
been recognized. \ Some indeed have made these inten
tions a ground of complaint, showing that his policy was
insisted upon, after it became impracticable. From this it

* A copy which wants the title page is in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.
f See Frothingham's "History of Charlestown."
X "Proceedings ofthe Mass. Hist. Society, July, 1878," p. 196.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xix
appears that he and his brother churchmen were earnestly
engaged in promoting the colonization of New England.
It was also contemplated that the colonists going thither
would remain in the Church of England, however they
might modify certain usages. When Endicott came over
to Salem with his company in 1628 there was no apparent
design of separation; and the Rev. Ralph Smith, being
suspected of a tendency that way, that is, of having a
"difference of judgement in some things from other min
isters," was refused a passage by the Company, until he
had given satisfactory assurance respecting his conduct
while within the Company's jurisdiction. Their language,
on leaving home was, " Farewell the Church of God in
England, and all Christian friends there ! We do not go
to New England as separatists from the Church of Eng
land," etc.
Winthrop's Company of 1630, on leaving England, like
wise disavowed all designs of separation; and in writing to
remove "suspicions and misconstructions of their inten
tions," declare that they "esteem it an honour to call the
Church of England from whence wee rise our'deare mother."
Again, the settlement made at Boston, in 1630, was
largely the immediate result of efforts put forth by Thomas
Lake, Bishop of Bath and Wells,* and the Rev. John
White, Rector of Dorchester, t both of whom, while sym-

* Bishop Lake, brother of Sir Thomas Lake, was born at Southampton. He
was appointed to the See of Bath and Wells in 1616, dying in 1626, and being suc
ceeded by Laud. A volume of his sermons was published in 1629.
f The Rev. John White, A. M., was born at Stanton, in Oxfordshire, 1576,
being rector of Trinity Church, Dorchester, from 1606 to 1648, and dying in the
latter year on July 21st, at the age of seventy-two. He preached against Popish
ceremonies and was persecuted by Laud, besides having his house plundered by
Prince Rupert. His ashes rest under the porch of St. Peter's, Dorchester. Fuller
says, that "by his wisdom and ministerial labors Dorchester was much enriched
with knowledge, piety and industry." — Brooks' "Lives," iii. 89-90; and Thorn
ton's "Landing at Cape Ann," p. 39. He was a practical man, and, with Bishop
Lake, deserves recognition as one of the founders of the colony of Massachusetts
Bay.

xx THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
pathizing with the Puritans, steadfastly opposed separa
tion, viewing the Plymouth colonists with aversion. For
several years both of these excellent men had done every
thing in their power to encourage the attempt to colonize
at Cape Ann. The Bishop said that he would go to New
England and engage in the work personally, but for his
advanced age.*
Such then was the origin of this movement and the re
ligious opinions of the colonists. It was, therefore, sup
posed in England, that upon their arrival in this country
they would abide by their principles. This was the belief
of no less a person than the Rev. John Cotton, who did not
come over until 1633.! Yet a radical change took place
in their views, and when Mr. Cotton heard of it he was
shocked. News came to him from Salem, that Skelton
had pronounced for separation, and had gone so far as to
refuse the sacrament to Winthrop and others, including
Coddington; and had also refused to baptize the latter's
child, because he adhered to the Church of England, as did
Winthrop. Cotton condemns all this, and in writing says,
that it added wonder to his grief that Skelton had not only
refused this baptism, but, on the other hand, had welcomed
to the Communion one who had been a member of a Sep
aratist congregation in London, and baptized his child.
Cotton says reproachfully, "you went hence of another
judgement."! Yet this man erelong came to Boston and
adopted the same course himself. Was it, then, hypocrisy
on the part of these men in professing loyalty to the Church
and aversion to Separatism ? It is not necessary to con-

* Hugh Peters' "Legacy to Ms Daughter," Boston, 1817, and Anderson's
"Colonial Church," vol. ii. p. 366, Ed. 1848.
f An attempt has been made to show that the Congregationalists, unlike the
Presbyterians, were in favor of religious liberty, from the fact that John Cotton
taught that some of the members of the Boston congregations believed in bishops
as church officers. See Dextei's "Congregationalism," p. 462.
\ Felt's "Ecclesiastical Annals of New England," ii. 138-141-143; and the
"Magnalia," iii. 83.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xxi
elude so, since a change of scene and associations is ever
liable to be attended by sudden changes of opinion. The
passage from an old country to a new one is always at
tended with hazard. The authorities ofthe Roman Church
compute the number of defections resulting from emigra
tion out of Europe at several millions. The change is ac
complished by means of a violent wrench, which prepares
the mind for the acceptance of novel views. The colonists
of Boston and Salem also received encouragement from the
people at Plymouth, who, at the end of ten years in the
new world, had intensified the separatism with which they
originally set out, though they, also, at the beginning,
professed love for the Church of England. There were
indeed those who endeavored to stem the tide. The Brown
Brothers at Salem sought to be true to the Church, and
inaugurated worship at Salem, according to the Book of
Common Prayer, which they supposed would obtain in the
Colony. As is well known, they were banished for their
zeal; while the Rev. Mr. Bright, who at Charlestown, with
the aid of Blackstone, began to put the church system in
working order, was obliged to leave the country.* Black
stone himself finally went to Rhode Island, while Wal-
ford was banished, and Maverick found it inexpedient to
contend with the people, who abandoned all claim to the
title of "Puritan," and became Brownists in principle.
Attention is called to these points for the purpose of
indicating the fact that New England owes her origin to
the Church. The company holding the patent ofthe coun
try was composed of men devoted to the Church of Eng
land, and the colonists of 1629 and 1630 would not have
been allowed to sail, if it had been supposed that they
would have proved disloyal to their own principles; yet the
defection came. Winthrop himself joined the standard of
the men who revolted against him, and refused the ordi-

* Hubbard's " New England, " p. 113; and Coit's "Puritanism," p. 183, an
invaluable book in all these connections.

xxii THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
nances of religion until he engaged heartily in the rebellion.
This case is one of the most curious in ecclesiastical annals.
When the community finally settled down on the basis
of a modified Brownism, toleration was not thought of;
.and, May 3d, 163 1, Walford, the Mishawum Blacksmith,
was put in the same category with Alexander the Copper
smith, fancying that he did much harm. They fined him
forty shillings, nominally for " contempt of authority," and
ordered him and his wife out of the jurisdiction* Black
stone left Boston in 1635 for Rhode Island, of which state
he was the first white inhabitant. t Maverick, at East Bos
ton, struggled long with the authorities and was fined for
petitioning the General Court for religious liberty. The
court denounced his action as contemptuous. At last he
found it desirable to leave, though one of the most valuable
and substantial members of the community.]: In due time,
_ Morton, of Merry Mount, by his indiscretions, provoked
the authorities to send him out of the country.§
Thus churchmen enjoyed no favor. Intolerance reigned
within the limits of the Massachusetts government until
1662, when the royal proclamation secured some liberty
of worship.
In the New Hampshire Patent, under Mason, a church
man, religious liberty was early enjoyed; and when Wal
ford went thither, in 163 1, the services of the Church were
inaugurated; Richard Gibson being the minister in 1638.
In 1640 the parish was organized, being the first regular
organization of the Church known to have been effected
in New England. New Hampshire takes the precedence,
while Thomas Walford, the despised blacksmith, appears
as the first New England church warden, holding the place
* Mass. Records, i. pp. 86, 107, 243.
f Drake says that Boston will yet build Blackstone's monument.
| See Drake's "History of Boston," p. 296, n.
§ See "New English Canaan," and Bradford's "History." It still remains
for Massachusetts to do justice to Morton, who had his faults, though he was not
the man his enemies, and notably Bradford, declared him to be.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xxiii
of Senior* St. John's, Portsmouth, now represents the
ancient Church of " Strawberry Bank." When, however,
New Hampshire was annexed to Massachusetts the people
were oppressed. The Royal Commissioners came to the
relief of those who had been denied the use of Common
Prayer, the sacraments, "decent burial of the dead," and
the rights of " freemen." t
Boston enjoys the second place, King's Chapel having
been organized in 1682; which Mr. Greenwood fancied the
first Episcopal organization in New England. %
We must, however, leave New England for the time to
consider the case of Virginia. In 1607 the work of colon
ization was resumed, an expedition sailing from the Downs
on New Year's Day. May 13th the colonists landed at
Jamestown, where the settlement was commenced and a
rude church built. The latter consisted simply of an old
sail suspended from four trees; but in time a building was
set up on " crachets, covered with rafts, sedge, and earth,"
a sorry defence indeed against wind and weather. Here,
nevertheless, daily service was held, with two sermons on
Sunday, and the Holy Communion once in three months,
until Mr. Hunt died. This worthy man was the main-stay
ofthe colony. He was sent out at the instance of Hakluyt.
Smith describes him as an " honest, religious, and coura-

* There is a tablet in St. Peter's Church, Salem, Massachusetts, claiming that
parish as "the first Episcopal Society gathered in New England," which, under
God, was established "in the year cf our Lord 1629." This notion grew out of
Nathaniel Morton's statement concerning the Browns, who, in 1629, "gathered a
company together in a distinct place from the public Assembly and there sundry
times the Book of Common Prayer was read to such as resorted thither." All this
and more was done at Sagadahoc in 1607-8, at Weymouth in 1623, and elsewhere;
but no organization is mentioned at any place, and much less at Salem, as the
Browns were sent back to England and the movement suppressed.
t See under July, 1665, "Calendar of State Papers for America and the
West Indies," 1661-8, No. 1016, p. 308; also the "History of St. John's,
Portsmouth." X See the title page of his "History of King's Chapel." Also page 1 79, where
the people themselves were in error.

xxiv THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
geous divine, during whose life our factions were oft qualified,
our wants and extremities so comforted that they seemed
easy in comparison of what we endured after his memor
able death."*
After the death of Mr. Hunt, a lay reader officiated;
but, in 1610, Chaplain Buck came from the Bermudas
where, with Gates and Somers, he had been wrecked in the
Sea Adventure. At Bermuda the people had maintained
daily service, all being obliged to attend, Buck having
for his clerk one Stephen Hopkins, who appears to have
left Virginia soon after his arrival and returned to Eng
land. He came out to Plymouth in the "May Flower" in
1620, and was one of the signers of the Compact. t Dur
ing Buck's administration Glover was alternate preacher.
Lord Delaware had the church put in order, with a walnut
communion table and cedar pews. A font was hewed out
of a solid log, and two bells placed at the west end of the
church. The governor also caused the church "to be kept
passing sweet, and trimmed up with divers flowers." The
governor was attended at church by a guard of fifty halber
diers, and Secretary Strachey adorned the events of the
period with his scholarly and fluent pen.
The Rev. Alexander Whittaker, of Henrico, described
as the "Apostle of Virginia" and as "bearing the name of
God to the Gentiles," was one of the early clergy. It is
a very curious fact that, after his death, the Deputy Gov
ernor, Argall, requested Sir Dudley Digges to obtain from
the Archbishop a permit for a layman, a Mr. Wickham, to
administer the " sacrament," as there was no other person
to officiate. A little later he requests "ordination for Mr.
Wickham," though it has been supposed that Mr. Wick
ham, who officiated until he became blind, never had any

* Smith's "Advertisements," etc., 1631. See also Purchas and Anderson's
"Colonial Church."
t See the writer's article on Hopkins in the "New-England Historic Genealog
ical Register," July, 1S7S.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. XXV
ordination* Mr. Whittaker baptized the Indian girl, Poco-
hontas, whose name is connected with so much that is
apocryphal. The Church in Virginia at this period, though estab
lished, was in bondage, being governed chiefly by the head
ofthe colony, in accordance with a body of "Lawes Divine,
Morall and Martiall." These laws are said to have been
sent to Virginia by Sir Thomas Smythe on his own author
ity. They were approved by Gates and West in 1610, and
by Dale in 161 i.f Daily service was enjoined, according
to the Book of Common Prayer, and the clergy were held
strictly accountable for the performance of their duties.
Profanity and blasphemy were to be punished by having
"a bodkin thrust through his tongue" in the second in
stance, death being the punishment of the third, as in New
England, in 16464 Disrespect to the preacher insured to
the offender three public whippings. Games private and
public were prohibited on the " Sabboth," and all were to
prepare by " private prayer," for the " publique." Services
were held twice on Sunday, and every "man and woman"
was not only enjoined to hear the morning sermon, but
also in the afternoon must attend " divine service and
catechising upon pain for the first fault, to lose their pro
vision, and allowance for the whole week following, for the
second to lose the said allowance, and also to be whipped,
and for the third to suffer death." §
At this time the people formed a co-operative company,
and such was the character of many that severe laws were
required. Still, while the laws contained much that was

* See MS. quoted in Neill's "English Colonization of America," London, 1871,
p. 62. In 1623 Wyatt said that there were ministers in the colony " not in orders."
"Calendar of State Papers."
f They were edited, and evidently compiled, by William Strachey, Secretary
ofthe Colony, and were printed at London and Oxford in 1612. The work is re
printed in Forces' "Collections."
X Mass. Colonial Records, vol. ii. p. 176.
§ Force, vol. iii.

xxvi THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
needed, no one can defend them. They were the product
of a severe age, when human life was not valued, and when
a man was liable to be hung for stealing a shilling* Dep
uty Governor Argall, in 1617, also decreed, that every per
son should attend church on Sundays and Holy-days, "or
lye neck and heels that night, and be a slave to the colony
the following week," and for the third offence he must serve
the colony a year. But it must be remembered, however,
that these laws did not represent the people, as was the case
with the laws in New England. Besides, the colony was
supposed to be homogeneous. These laws were made by
churchmen for churchmen. At this period, Mr. Whittaker
is supposed to have written as follows: " But I much more
muse that so few of our English ministers that were so hot
against Surplis and Subscription come hither where neither
are spoken of."t This implies that some of the class re
ferred to came over, while Bancroft says that Virginia
was "a place of refuge even for Puritans," though he does
not state his authority. It is clear enough, however, as
taught by Whittaker, that even these Draconian laws did
not strike at Puritans, but were aimed at a vicious class
who wanted no religion at all. Captain Edward Brewster,
son of William of Plymouth, was in the colony, being
known as a Puritan. He conformed in 16194
* As late as 1767, in accordance with the laws of New York, a servant girl was
hung in the City of New York for stealing 'sundry articles,' "New York Coll.,"
1870, p. 193.
f "Purchas I lis Pilgrimes," iv. 1770. Neill in his "Colonization," etc., p. 80,
calls attention to the fact that Whittaker's Letter, in Hamor's Narrative, does not
give the above quotation. He, however, says in his Terra Maria (p. 75), that the
"first ships'' brought "Puritan families." Dr. Hawks is not to be followed,
where he says that there were no Puritans. It is absolutely certain that John Want,
who came in 1610, though in "his owne prayers much devout and frequent," was
"hardly drawne to the publique"; and that he was suspected even as a Brownist
when on the way over. He had sympathizers, and Stephen Hopkins, evidently a
Puritan, was in league with him. Hopkins even conspired against Gates at Ber
muda, and -was condemned to be hung, though afterwards pardoned. It would
appear, therefore, that Puritans were included in the colony.
X Neill's "Colonization," etc., p. 101.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xxvii
At this period there appear to have been five so-called
clergymen in Virginia, the Rev. Messrs. Whittaker, Stock-
ham, Mease, Bargras and Wickham, though there may be
doubt about the ordination of the latter .* For their main
tenance certain lands, money, and portions of tobacco and
corn were appropriated. The Bishop of London undertook
to furnish- clergymen, and at this period his jurisdiction
took its rise.
In 162 1, under Sir George Yeardley, a memorable ap
proach to constitutional government was made by the
colonial assembly. Such was the success of the colony,
that Bacon compared its growth to that of a mustard
seed; while the Spanish Ambassador in England feared
that, if the work continued to succeed, it would endanger
the Spanish possessions in the West Indies and Mexico.
At this period, however, the people of Plymouth were in
danger of starvation. Fortunately at the time they reached
the place of their abode, the colonization of the whole coun
try had been resolved up, and they obtained the benefit
of the general determination.
In 1629, under the administration of Sir John Hervey,
the assembly ordained strict conformity, under pains and
penalties. t One man was excommunicated forty days "for
using scornful speeches and putting on his hat in church." %
While Archbishop Laud was in power, statutes were
framed to prevent Nonconformists from coming to Vir
ginia^ This severity only served to excite opposition
where there was none, and, in 1642, application was made
to the people of Boston, who sent three ministers to Vir
ginia. These men were quickly silenced, though Winthrop
says that certain people resorted to them in private houses. ||
In 1648 there were one hundred and eighteen Dissenters
in Virginia. Many of them were " clapt up in prison."*

* Shth's "History of Virginia," p. 173. \ Hening, i. 149.
X Hening, i. 223. § Beverly's " History, " p. 57.
|| Savage's " Winthrop," ii. 96. IT Hammond's "Leah and Rachael.'

xxvm THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
Under Cromwell, churchmen in turn were humiliated,
though their services were tolerated, and Virginia became
a refuge for persecuted royalists. In 1662, under Charles
II., the Church was re-established by law, and religious
liberty declared for all, except Quakers, there being at
this time about fifty parishes. Under the second James,
there was great uneasiness respecting popery; but, with
the accession of William and Mary, confidence was re
stored. The Rev. Mr. Temple served as the representa
tive of the Bishop of London prior to 1689, and was suc
ceeded by Dr. Blair, who was appointed the commissary,
being empowered to visit the parishes, deliver charges, and
in some cases to administer discipline. He was eminently
useful, and founded the college of William and Mary. In
the year 1700, Virginia revealed a kindly spirit, receiving
the French Protestant refugees and exempting them from
taxation. In 1722, the inhabitants were almost exclusively
members of the Church of England. In 1731, Presbyteri-
anism was introduced, and in 1740, Whitfield appeared as
a clergyman of the Church. About 1765, the Baptists
came. In 1771, the commissary, the Rev. Mr. Camm,
called several meetings of the clergy to address the King
in behalf of an American Episcopate. The more than
one hundred churches of the colony were thinly repre
sented; but finally the clergy agreed to address the Bishop
of London, instead ofthe King. There was opposition also
to the immediate establishment of Episcopacy, and, though
the legislature favored the movement, it failed. In 1772,
the Methodists began to preach in Virginia; and in 1776, the
Church was disestablished by the legislature; though the
Methodists stood by the Church, opposing disestablish
ment. Then followed the period of depression, which pre
vailed at the time when the case of Virginia is taken up
in the narrative of Bishop White* May 18th, 1785, the

* On this entire period, see Hawks' "Virginia," pp. 1-179.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xxix
first Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church assem
bled, thirty-six of the clergy and seventy-one laymen meet
ing at Richmond. There is much in the colonial history of
Virginia to mortify churchmen, and the short-comings of
their own brethren at that period should serve to moderate
the severity of their judgment of non-conformists.
Before returning to the subject of the Church in New
England, it will be necessary to trace the origin and
growth of the Church in the Middle and Southern States.
With respect to New York, it appears that the first per
manent agricultural colony was undertaken by the Dutch
in 1623,* who maintained the ascendency until 1664. Dur
ing the Dutch rule, religious freedom prevailed, and Father
Jogues the Jesuit was hospitably received when in distress.
Dutch toleration, in theory, nevertheless was designed for
" Calvinists."t In the year 1700, a law was passed against
Jesuits and all Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics, and against
those who harbored them. J Still Romanists were entitled
to the private enjoyment of their opinions, their public ser
vices not being rendered legal until the period of the
Revolution. In 1664, the Dutch surrendered to the English, and there
after the British army chaplains were accustomed to hold
services in the fort at the battery, occupying the chapel
in common with the Dutch. The latter, by the terms of
surrender, were guaranteed "Liberty of their consciences
in divine worship and church discipline"; but Protestants
alone were allowed to hold services. "Indian powawo vy
ing and devil worship," were nevertheless forbidden. Gov
ernor Nicolls in 1665, and Lovelace in 1670, levied taxes
for the support of a minister in each town, who was to be
selected by a majority of the people, who, of course, were
Dutch. In 1683-4, the Duke of York, a Roman Catholic,

* Brodhead's "History of New York," i. p. 150.
f Brodhead's "New York," i. p. 374.
X See Bradford's edition of the Laws of New York, 1710, p. 37.

xxx THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
made ample provision "for liberty of conscience to all
Christians, and provided also for the maintenance of the
ministry of all Christian Churches." In this the Duke was
strictly impartial, and under his successor, Dongan, the
same policy was continued. The Lutheran, Dutch and
French religious societies were equally free from taxation.
In 1683, the Assembly had reaffirmed the Duke's policy;
and in 1691, an act was proposed for "settling the min
istry." This work, however, was not completed until 1693,
during the administration of Governor Fletcher. Under this
act, freeholders were to elect two church wardens and ten
vestrymen, who were to levy taxes for the maintenance
of the ministry and the poor of their respective places,
though these officers were not wardens and vestrymen
in the Episcopal sense* Nevertheless the Church party
considered it a partial victory; though it is argued, that as
the Assembly contained but a single churchman, the act was
not intended for the sole benefit of an Episcopal establish
ment. Accordingly, in New York, Feb. 12th, 1694, the
majority of the wardens and vestry voted that the minis
ter should be a Dissenting minister, while three days after,
the Rev. John Miller, though licensed by the Bishop of
London was refused the benefit of the act by the council.
Nothing was done until January 19th, 1695, when the war
dens and vestry elected " Mr. William Vesey," who appears
to have been elected by Dissenters. The Governor declared
that the establishment of Dissenters was a contravention
of the act, though the Assembly had maintained the con
trary. Two years, therefore, passed before the matter was
adjusted. March 19th, 1696, ten members of the Church
of England, several of whom were "vestrymen" of New
York, were granted leave to purchase a piece of land
for a church, and July 23d, they were authorized to col
lect funds and commence building. These men appear to
have acted for the " Managers of the Affairs of the Church
* Jones's "History of New York, " ii. 395.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xxxi
of England in the City of New York," a body in existence
in 1693. Next, November 2d, 1696, "Mr. William Veazy"
appeared before the wardens and vestry, accepted an elec
tion, and agreed to go to England to obtain orders and
return at the first opportunity. Mr. Veasey now appears to
have changed his views, some said with unworthy motives,
and passed from the Presbyterian to the Episcopal ranks.
Money was raised for his travelling expenses, and he went
to England and was ordained. In 1697, the Church war
dens continued in the interests of Episcopacy; a'nd in the
same year an act was passed by the Assembly, assigning
to the rector of Trinity Parish, New York, and his suc
cessors all the benefit that was intended by the act of 1793.
In this manner was the Church of England established in
New York, if it was established.* Missionaries soon began
to come over.
In 1701 the Propagation Society commenced its work,
when an address forwarded to the managers showed that
neither in the province of New York nor on Long Island,
was there any "Church of England." t Nevertheless the
French Church received some help from Mr. Veasey % and
the Ministry Act was interpreted in their favor. It has been
mournfully said, "that the period of religious freedom"
closed with the previous century. The Church had indeed
been put in power, but things were not so bad as some
have represented. Dissenters were not treated with more
rudeness than were churchmen themselves under Lord Corn-
bury, who, however, behaved badly towards the Presbyte-

* On this subject, see the very carefully prepared articles in the " Historical
Magazine," June and July, 1867, by George H. Moore, LL.D., who maintains that
the Act of 1793 was intended to apply to all denominations alike, and that it was
"arbitrarily and illegally wrested from its true bearings and made to answer the
purpose ofthe English Church party." See also Dr. Baird's article on the " Status
of the Presbyterians," etc., "Mag. of Amer. Hist.," 1878, vol. hi., p. 597, which
gives a distinctly Presbyterian view.
f Coll. Prot. Epis. Hist. Society, p. xiii.
X Doc. Hist. N. York, ii., p. 68, on the " State of Religion," 1657-1712.

xxxii THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
rian minister at Jamaica, where the people were divided
about the title to the church building.*
In 1704 an act was passed to raise one hundred pounds
annually for the rector of Trinity Church, while the Min
istry Act was continued down to 1784, when it was abol
ished, and Episcopacy lost the peculiar privileges formerly
possessed. During the continuance of the act, under Lord
Combury, several Presbyterians were annoyed. In 1707
Makemie and Hampton were arrested as strolling preach
ers; but churchmen, like Moore and Brooks, were also pro
ceeded against as having no proper authority for the exer
cise of their vocation. The people, however, universally
disapproved of Cornbury's arbitrary proceedings. Church
men were in the minority, though the law was on their
side; and when the Presbyterians organized they proved a
pushing people, incessantly laboring to circumvent the
Episcopalians, who, upon the whole, could show a toler
ably fair bill of grievances.!
The Church grew slowly in the colony of New York,
and when the Revolution dawned became more or less dis
organized. When, in 1776, the British evacuated New York
City, Inglis, of Trinity Church, remained, continuing in a
firm, if not defiant manner, to pray for the King. This was
finally put an end to by the soldiers. In 1783 the property
of Trinity was committed to the care of a board of nine
responsible trustees. % In 17S4 the Rev. Messrs. Bloomer,
Moore, and others were on the ground to join in the re
organization of the Church at large.
Maryland was colonized by Calvert, known as Lord
Baltimore, who arrived March 25th, 1634, the majority

* Smith's "New York," i. 14S.
t Jones's "History of New York," i. 2-S, and ii. p. 3S9. The partisan his
tory of Jones would make it appear that the Revolution was precipitated by the
Presbyterians. There are statements on record which show that distinguished prel
ates at home did not consider the Church in New York as established, and various
opinions prevail concerning the exact status of the Church.
% New York. Coll., 1870, p. 320.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xxxiii
of the people being Protestants, while the leaders were
Roman Catholics. Religious liberty was proclaimed, and
the Church of England was protected. Father White, a
Jesuit, stood at the head of his co-religionists, but he en
joyed no special favor. The Puritans were invited by Lord
Baltimore to become a part of this happy family. In 1648,
the lieutenant governor was obliged to take oath not to
trouble or molest any believer in Jesus Christ on account
of his religion.* Under Cromwell, Maryland was seized
by the Protestants, and Roman Catholics were disenabled
from voting. In 1691 Maryland was made a royal colony,
when the Assembly established the Church of England;
imposing a tax of forty pounds of tobacco on each person
to create a fund for building and repairing churches. t At
that time, according to some, there were sixteen, and ac
cording to others, three clergymen in the colony.| In
1695 Dr. Bray was made commissary. In 1714 the Church
was in a very depressed condition. § In 1716 Wilkins and
Henderson were appointed commissaries, and in 1720 the
Bishop of London did something towards reviving the
Church. At his suggestion, Mr. Colebatch was nominated
by the clergy as Suffragan Bishop, upon which an act was
passed by the legislature, then more or less hostile, to pre
vent the candidate from leaving the colony. Thus the
scheme failed. The legislature still continuing inimical,
Bishop Gibson, the Bishop of London, became inactive,!
and Henderson ceased acting as commissary. The Roman
Catholics now revived, and the Baptists were active. In
1763, the legislature, weary of the irregularities that char
acterized many of the clergy, reduced their salaries; and,
in 1769, Governor Eden ordered that the clergy should no
longer meet together to act on matters connected with the
Church, declaring that they were beyond the control of any

* Bancroft, i. 193. t Anderson, ii. 620.
X See Griffiths and Hawks. § Anderson, iii. 284.
|| Anderson, iii. 303.

xxxiv THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
bishop* When the Revolution approached, the Church in
Maryland experienced the same evils that overtook co-re
ligionists in other colonies. The Rev. Jonathan Boucher
and a third of the clergy sided with the Crown. Ulti
mately, quite all the churches were closed, and the clergy,
for the most part, left the country. After the Revolution
the legislature secured to the church the properties pre
viously held.f
The Church of Sweden was first upon the ground in
Pennsylvania, and about 1646 the Rev. Mr. Printz built a
church at Tinicum. In 1657, Borell was made Provost. In
1677 the Block House was built on the site now occupied
by the Gloria Dei Church.^: It was used for public wor
ship. In 168 1 Penn obtained his charter, which stipulated
that «any of the inhabitants desiring the services of the
Church of England should be entitled to a minister or
ministers approved by the Bishop of London. In 1695
Christ Church, Philadelphia, was built, and the Rev. Mr.
Clayton was appointed minister. In the year 1700 Mr.
Evans was sent out; and, in 1702, Keith and Talbot ar
rived. In 1707 Mr. Rudman, ofthe Swedish Church, sewed
Christ Church, the regular minister being absent. In 1711,
while Christ Church was being enlarged, the congregation
worshipped in Gloria Dei Church, and Swedish hymns were
sung in the service. Later, the Propagation Society made
an appropriation for the Swedish ministers who served va
cant English Churches. In 1712, it is said, the "Surplice"
was first mentioned at Christ Church. In 1716 Rev. Mr.
Evans was made minister at Oxford and Radnor, in addi
tion to his duties at Christ Church, of which he was rector
seventeen years. In 1724 the congregation invited Dr.
Richard Welton, of Burlington, to take charge of Christ

* Anderson, iii. 310.
t See Hawks' "Maryland."
X On the Welsh Episcopalians who entered Pennsylvania, see Day's "Penn.
Hist. Coll.," p. 484.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xxxv
Church. It has been stated that this person was conse
crated a bishop by the Nonjurors, but the case appears
dubious. In 1750 Christopher Gist went through Western
Pennsylvania as an explorer and did something to call at
tention to church services. In 173 1 there appear to have
been about seven clergymen in the colony, of whom five
were missionaries of the Propagation Society. In 1760 a
Convention of the Clergy was held in Philadelphia, and
missionary reports were read. Dr. Jenney, Dr. William
Smith and seven other Pennsylvania clergy were present.
In 1763 Whitfield preached in Christ Church. In 1770, the
last Swedish missionary, the Rev. Nicholas Collin, of Upsal,
came over to Gloria Dei Church; and, eventually, the
Swedes became a part of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
In 1772 the Rev. William White commenced his labors in
Philadelphia as deacon at Christ Church and St. Peter's.
December 3d, 1775, Mr. White was elected chaplain to the
Continental Congress, and the members of the Church in
Philadelphia entered heartily upon the work of achieving
American Independence. July 4th, 1776, it was resolved,
at the house of Mr. Duche, to omit the prayer for the King.
April 15th, 1779, Mr. White was elected rector of Christ
Church and St. Peter's. The Church struggled on through
the Revolution; and, November, 1783, with Drs. Mar-g-a»
and Blackwell, he took measures which led to the Primary
Convention of May 24th, 1784* This convention was at
tended by about twenty-five delegates from sixteen par
ishes. Six principles were drawn up and recommended. t
In North Carolina religious liberty prevailed from the
outset, and the first movement to plant the Church was
that of Dr. Bray, Commissary of Maryland, who, in 1692,
brought the subject to the notice of the Bishop of London.
* On Pennsylvania, see the "Churchman's Calendar," 1866, p. 129. The
' ' Pennsylvania Papers, ' ' passim .
t These may be found on page 92 of the Memoirs. They were printed on a
broadside with a preamble, the names of the delegates being appended. The editor
at present knows of only one copy of this broadside.

xxxvi THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
In 1701, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel sent
out the Rev. Daniel Brett, though within a year he disap
peared under scandalous circumstances. The first church
appears to have been built in 1702,* and the Church of
England was established by law, though not without oppo
sition. In 1703-4 Mr. Blair went out as missionary, but,
after a severe struggle, the opposition induced him to re
turn. Messrs. Adams and Gordon followed in 1708. In
1710 Mr. Adams died, and Gordon went back to England,
being unable to endure the opposition excited, chiefly by
Quakers, though North Carolina had always proved more
or less irreligious. The Rev. John Urmston came over in
171 1. He was unaimable, quarrelsome and covetous. He
administered the Communion but twice in five years, and
was punished by the court for drunkenness and profanity.
Like scores of similar men in the colonies, he was a dis
grace to Christianity. f The Rev. Mr. Rainsford was of
good character, but had no zeal. One of his successors,
Taylor, was murdered for his money. In 1722 Mr. New
man came out, but the colony was unpopular with the
clergy. In 1725 Blacknall appeared, and on one occasion
informed against himself, with respect to an illegal mar
riage, to get one half of the fifty pounds due to an informer.
Others followed who shed almost equal credit upon the
Church, yet, notwithstanding such scandals, her strength
gradually increased.
In New Jersey the proprietary government was kindly
to all denominations of Christians. About 1695 some of
the East Jersey proprietors addressed Compton, Bishop of
London, requesting the services of the Church; and the
Rev. Edward Terthuck was sent over near the close of
1698. He commenced services at Perth Amboy, though
he did not remain permanently. Oueen Anne's instruc-
JUeVv  ~
* Hawks' "North Carolina," ii. 341.
t Dorr's " History of Christ Church, Philadelphia," p. 51. Urmston served in
Philadelphia for a while, but was dismissed in disgrace.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xxxvii
tions to Lord Cornbury, in 1702, enjoined the maintenance
of worship and the sacraments according to the Book of
Common Prayer, ordered the building of churches and a
provision for the maintenance of the clergy. He was to
prefer none who could not produce the certificate of the
Bishop of London. Accordingly he proceeded against va
rious clergymen who officiated contrary to law; and the
Assembly of New Jersey, Oct. 24, 1707, reproached him
in their address, because one minister of the Church of
England was "dragged by a sheriff from Burlington to Am-
boy" and afterwards confined like a malefactor in "another
government." *
In 1732 the Rev. George Keith came out, and the Rev.
John Talbot was associated with him. Through their ef
forts a church was gathered at Burlington, the present St.
Mary's. In 1704 Mr. Brook was missionary at Elizabeth-
town, and Vaughn in 1709, with Halliday, in 171 1. Perth
Amboy lost some of its importance when the governor
moved to Trenton. The history of the Church at Amboy
gives a fair idea of the progress made elsewhere. t St.
Mary's, Burlington, also serves a similar purpose, exhibit
ing the career of Talbot, :£ though there appears to be no
* Smith's "New Jersey," 333.
t See Whitehead's "Early History of Perth Amboy," p. 208.
\ "History of the Church in Burlington," by the Rev. George M. Hills,
D.D., 1876. The theory of Talbot's "Episcopal Consecration" is there set forth
(p. 168); and again by Dr. Hills in the "Pennsylvania Magazine," vol. iii. p. 32.
See the "Living Church," Chicago, April 19th, 1879, p. 439. The charge that
Talbot demanded Episcopal obedience seems to rest chiefly upon the authority of
the profligate Urmston. "Pennsylvania Papers," p. 143. Dr. Hawks ("Mary
land," p. 183) thinks that there is "no doubt" about the consecration of Welton
and Talbot, but how far he had examined the subject we can not say. See also
Anderson's "Colonial Church," iii. p. 351. See Bishop White's "Story" in this
connection in Hawks' "Maryland," p. 185. The consecration of Welton and
Talbot was the subject of rumor, but the authority offered in its support is Per
ceval, in his "Apology for Apostolical Succession" (second ed., p. 247), who
drew his information, partly from some curious printed documents, and partly from
information furnished by two clergymen not adherents of the nonjurors. But what
were the pamphlets and who were the men ? If the information was reliable, why
did he withhold essential points ?

xxxviii THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
evidence that the Church can accept of the Episcopal
character claimed for him. He never performed any Epis
copal act, and he denied that he ever attempted to exer
cise any supervision of his brethren.
In Delaware, as in Pennsylvania, the Swedish Church
appeared first, colonizing the west side of the Delaware
in 1636-7. In 1703 Keith visited Delaware, and in 1704
the Rev. Thomas Crawford was sent over as a missionary
by the Propagation Society. In 1726 there were four
churches. In 1792 the Swedes were merged in the Prot
estant Episcopal Church.*
Georgia was colonized by Oglethorpe in 1733, the Arch
bishop of Canterbury and many of the clergy of England
making contributions in aid of the work. The Rev. Dr.
Herbert came as missionary, and brought a quantity of
religious books contributed by friends. The Rev. Samuel
Wesley gave a chalice and patine. Herbert was succeeded
by Cbannoy, and the latter by the Rev. John Wesley,
who reached Georgia in February, 1736, accompanied by
his brother Charles, who was secretary and chaplain to
Oglethorpe. John Wesley was at this time a very rigid
churchman, and his views of duty finally brought him
into collision with some of the people. This led to his
flight from the colony, where he and his brother had been
treated in the most outrageous manner. George Whit
field came out in 1737, and founded an Orphan House,
Norris being a co-worker with Whitfield. The Church
grew, and, in 175S, was established by law.
When the Revolution dawned, Georgia had but few
settled clergymen. Some of these took sides with the
Crown and left the country. One of the first acts of the
legislature, however, after the war, was to recommend
measures to maintain public worship. t

* See Diocese of Delaware, in " Churchman's Calendar," 1865, p. 1 18, and the
Delaware " Church Papers," passim.
f See Bishop Stevens' " History of Georgia, " Philadelphia, 1859.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xxxix
Returning to New England, we commence with the
case of Rhode Island. The first white man who estab
lished a permanent home in Rhode Island, was the Rev.
William Blackstone, who, as we have already seen, left
Boston in the spring of 1635, and took his way into the
wilderness, eventually selecting for his abode a place called
"Study Hill," on the banks of the Blackstone River, and
now included within the boundary of Attleborough, Mas
sachusetts. Anticipating Roger Williams as a colonist in
Rhode Island, he excelled that stern man in gentleness
of manners and sobriety of speech. Williams, who is held
up as a pattern respecting religious toleration, denounced
the hearing of the Church of England clergy as sinful; but
Blackstone was kindly to all, and may even be regarded
as the founder of Rhode Island. At "Study Hill" he was
something of a recluse, but it is known that he exercised
his vocation, and occasionally preached in Providence,
where he was the first representative of the Church of
England* Prior to 1700 some families attached to the
Church settled in Narragansett County. They worshipped
in private houses until 1706, when the Rev. Christopher
Bridge became their minister. McSparran says that he
officiated in a little church at Newport in 1707. In 1717
the Rev. Mr. G*ey, of the Propagation Society, officiated
in Narragansett. The first church record commences April
14th, 1718. In 1730 the Attorney General, Updike, was
baptized in the Petaquamscut River, by immersion, Mr.
McSparran officiating. This clergyman served the Church
in Rhode Island until 1757. The advent of Dean Berkley,
however, constituted a great feature in the Colonial His
tory of the Church in Rhode Island. He reached Newport
in 1729, and left in 1731, but his visit produced marked
results. His donations of books to the libraries of Yale
* The " History of the Episcopal Church in Narragansett," compiled by order
of the Diocesan Convention, does not even contain the name of Blackstone, a mem
orable oversight. See Bliss' " History of Rehoboth," pp. 2-14, and Newman's
"Address," Pawtucket, 1855.

xl THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
and Harvard proved very important, and the weight of his
character was felt for a long period.* Mr. Fayerweather,
the successor of McSparran, labored with good results;
though, having his scruples, he sided with the King when
the Revolution dawned, and his church was closed. The
last record made by him was dated November 6th, 1774.
He died in 178 1. Toleration prevailed in Rhode Island,
yet in 1722-3, in Bristol, twelve churchmen were impris
oned by the Connecticut authorities for refusing to pay
dues for the support of the non-episcopal minister, Mr.
Nathaniel Cotton. In 1775, the Propagation Society main
tained three or four clergymen and a schoolmaster in Rhode
Island, and they struggled on through the Revolution, but
at its close the Church was very feeble. t
The Connecticut Congregationalists formed a com
pact body in church and state; but, in 1665, the Royal
Commissioners were assured that the local authorities
would not interfere with those who might desire to
maintain public services, according to the Book of Com
mon Prayer. It was not, however, until 1708 that the
"Act of Toleration " was passed. Nevertheless at Strat
ford, in 1690, there were a few churchmen. When Keith
and Talbot came over as missionaries, curiously enough,
they were entertained by the Congregational minister at
New London, who spoke kindly of the Church, and treated
them with much civility. In 1705 Mr. Muirson settled at
Rye, then in Connecticut, and in 1706, he went with Col
onel Heathcote to Stratford on a missionary tour, where a
local officer stood in the highway and threatened them
with a "fine of five pounds." Mr. Muirson, died in 1708.
From this time the work went on with great success, and,
in 1722, President Cutler of Yale College, and six others,
assembled in the College Library, declared for Episco-

* Anderson's "Colonial Church," iii. 371.
t See "Narragansett Church," passim, and the " Torrey Papers of the Prince
Library," in the Boston Public Library.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xii
pacy, having been led to this course by the study of books
which they found upon the shelves. The community was
astounded, but the Congregationalists could not undo the
work. The axe had been laid at the root of the tree.
Cutler, Johnson and Brown embarked for England, and
received Orders. With the growth of the Church a cor
responding increase of hostility was developed. In 1742
there were "fourteen churches built or building and seven
clergymen," the Rev. Roger Price, as commissary for New
England, supervising the work. At this period Whitfield
introduced an element of discord, but in 1747, the undue
excitement was followed by corresponding depression.
About the year 1763, Mayhew and others of Boston
commenced the discussion of Episcopacy, and were re
plied to by Archbishop Seeker, who showed clearly that
the system was not aimed, as the Congregationalists
taught, at the subversion of popular rights. As early as
1766, twelve of the clergy, assembled at Stratford, and
addressed the Bishop of London in favor of the Episco
pate. They did so again in 1771. In 1774, the report of
Goodrich "makes the Episcopalians about one in thirteen
of the whole number of the inhabitants." With the ap
proach of the Revolution, Connecticut experienced the
same troubles that overtook other colonies, and such
churchmen as Seabury and Samuel Peters were roughly
used. Seabury of Westchester, on account of certain writ
ings was arrested, and held a prisoner for some time, being
finally released.* Peters, of Hebron, did not find the peo-
* Seabury was the author of pamphlets, by "A. W. Farmer," signifying, "A
Westchester Farmer," replied to by Alexander Hamilton (Shea's "Hamilton," p.
292). Their authorship has been attributed to Seabury and Wilkins jointly, and by
Mr. Pintard to Wilkins alone. A manuscript Memorial in Bishop Seabury's hand
writing, drawn up while in England in search of consecration, and supported by the
certificates of Drs. Chandler and Cooper, proves his authorship beyond question.
The MSS. are in the possession of his grandson, Prof. Wm. J. Seabury. The pam
phlets show decided literary ability. There appears to be no room, in this connec
tion, to enter upon any estimate of the part performed by Bishop Seabury in laying
the foundations of the Church, though he is entitled to a very high place in the esti
mation of our people. See his petition, "Ch. Review," vol. ix.

xlii THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
pie so lenient, and finally fled the country, while others
of the clergy fell under popular displeasure, owing to their
devotion to the Crown. As the work progressed, churches
were closed, desecrated, or burnt, notably at Fairfield and
Norwalk. Mr. Learning, one of the most prominent of
the clergy, fled to New York, and Beach and Kneeland
died; Seabury taking duty as a chaplain in the British
service. At the close of the war, however, something re
mained. When the smoke rolled away, on the last week
of March, ten out of the fourteen parochial clergy who held
their places, assembled at Woodbury to reorganize; and
in due time Dr. Samuel Seabury was sent to England with
a view to Episcopal consecration,* which he received from
the Nonjurors, November 24th, 1784.
The sketch of Episcopacy in Massachusetts has already
been brought down to the year 1662. At this period Crom
well had fallen, and Charles II. had ascended the throne.
June 28th, 1662, the King addressed a letter to the Massa
chusetts authorities, which was of the nature of a procla
mation, enjoining freedom for churchmen to "use the
Book of Common Prayer, and perform their devotions in
that manner." The Rev. Joshua Moody of Portsmouth
thought this " a very tremendous thing to us," and for a
long time the Congregational party sought the means of
eluding the command. In 1664, four commissioners were
sent over by the King to inquire into the general adminis
tration. One of these commissioners was Samuel Maverick,
who had been obliged to leave Boston and go to England,
on account of his churchmanship. Maverick and his asso
ciates, finding that the letter of the King had been disre
garded, demanded, among other things, that his co-relig
ionists "should no longer be fined for not attending the
religious meetings, as they had hitherto been," and that

* For the narrative of this period of Connecticut history, see Beardsley's "His
tory of Ihe Church in Connecticut," two volumes 8vo., also his Lives of the two
Johnsons, and his Life of Bishop Seabury.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xliii
they should "let the Quakers alone."* They also de
manded that the restoration of the royal family should be
celebrated by an annual thanksgiving as at home, which
was agreed to. In New England, at this period, thanks
giving days were irregular and sporadic, the festival which
was finally established being the outgrowth of customs
observed in the Church of England.! With respect to tol
eration, however, the Massachusetts authorities were amus
ingly evasive and well nigh impertinent. Their answer
was, "as to ecclesiastical privileges they had commended
to the ministry and the people here the Word of the Lord
for their rule." J Thus unfavorable was their reply, though
when visited by the Royal Commissioners, their co-religion
ists of Connecticut, in theory, accepted toleration. It was
clear that Massachusetts must soon yield. Drake says,
" It was not until 1664, that the Church service was per
formed in Boston without molestation. "§ In 1665, the
commissioners had a chaplain with them, but there was no
place of worship in Boston for churchmen. || In 1677, how
ever, the general court being unable to stand the pressure,
it was ordered, that no person should be hindered from
performing the Church of England service; T yet, such was
the local hostility, that, as late as 1682, it was necessary
for Randolph to assure the Archbishop of Canterbury that
clergymen ofthe Church would not be interfered with.
Early in 1685, a great change took place in the colony.
Its charter was then taken away by James II. , who set up
a royal government, appointing Joseph Dudley President.
May 15th, 1686, he arrived in the Rose Frigate. With

* Drake's "Boston," p. 371.
t See article "Genesis of Thanksgiving," the "Churchman," Nov. 22, 1879,
and Dexter's "Congregationalism," p. 457.
X Hutchinson's "History," i. 243.
§ Drake's "Boston," p. 467. On the period see Mass. Coll., 2d series, vol.
viii., p. 52.
|| "History of King's Chapel," p. 16.
11 Hutchinson's "History," i. 355.

xliv THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
him came the Rev. Robert Ratcliffe, a clergyman of the
Church of England, and the first parochial minister of
Boston. The same day the organization of a parish was
effected, when Dr. Benjamin Bullivant and Mr. Richard
Bankefc were elected wardens. It was voted to take up a
collection "every Sabbath day after evening sermon,"
while the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of
London were requested to favor " our Church." The first
collection, made Sunday, June 20th, when services were
commenced, amounted to ^3 us. od. A room was taken
in the Town House, and a movable pulpit and twelve
benches were ordered. Mr. Ratcliffe was voted a salary
of ^40 per annum; while a "sober and fitt person," as
" clarke," was to receive "for his paynes 20s. a weeke."*
Thus humble was the beginning, though at the time there
appear to have been several hundred persons in the colony
favorable to the Church. Dunton, the bookseller, de
scribes Ratcliffe as a preacher. The next place of meet
ing was the Exchange, where, at the Wednesday and
Friday meetings, Mr. Ratcliffe could overhear the citizens
outside referring to " Baal's priest," while from the Congre
gational pulpits the Church prayers were called, " Leeks,
garlic and trash." t Randolph in his letter to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury gives a vivid picture of the condition
of things, and coolly proposes that the " three meeting
houses of Boston," should pay " twenty shillings a week,
apiece," to support the Episcopal services.
December 19th, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros superseded
Dudley, and on the 23d of March, 1687, he demanded the
keys ofthe "Old South Meeting-house," that the Church
service might be celebrated. Judge Sewall, with the com
mittee, waited upon the governor and refused, but on the

* "Hist. King's Chapel," p. 22.
t Hutch. "Col. Papers," p. 549, and John Dunton's "Journal." Also Se-
wall's "Diary," vol. i. p. 141. In "St. Chrysostom's Magazine," vol. ii. nos. II
and 12, are letters purporting to have been written by Ratcliffe.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. x]v
25th, Good Friday, Andros ordered the sexton to open
the doors and ring the bell* This, of course, was a plain
case of usurpation. On February 10th, the funeral of Lady
Andros took place at the "Old South," the ceremonies
exciting great attention. About this time Mr. Ratcliffe
was interrupted at the funeral of Lilly by a deacon of the
"Old South." t April 18th, 1689, Andros was deposed by
the people, and Randolph, Warden Bullivant, and others,
were thrown into the fort. Upon the accession of William
and Mary they were sent to England with Andros for trial.
Ratcliffe and Clarke also disappeared, but in the mean time
a wooden church had been built. In 1694 it was still
without pews. The Rev. Samuel Myles was on the ground
July ist, 1689. He went to England in 1692; and a Mr.
Smith and a Mr. Hatton officiated until his return, July
24th, 1696.
In 1702 Dudley reappeared in Boston, now as Governor
of Massachusetts, and while a vestryman of the Church
attended the Congregational Communion at Roxbury. In
1710 "Queen's Chapel" was enlarged, and the people ad
dressed the Queen with respect to the appointment of
bishops, saying that about eight hundred persons were
attached to the congregation. In 1723 Christ Church was
established under the Rev. Mr. Cutler, formerly president
of Yale College; and in 1729 Mr. Price succeeded Mr.
Myles at what had become " King's Chapel." Services
were commenced at Newbury, % Marblehead,§ and other
places. We do not wish, however, to pursue these matters
in detail, but simply to indicate the general course of

* Sewall's "Diary," i. p. 171.
f Greenwood's "King's Chapel," p. 42.
X See "Mass. Papers," p. 109.
§ Roads' " History of Marblehead." In 1768, the Boston " Chronicle," of Sept.
26th, says, "Wednesday last a convention of the Episcopal clergy was held in this
town, when the Rev. Mr. Arthur Browne, of Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
preached a sermon on the occasion at King's Chapel." As early as 1742 mission
work was in progress at St. George's River. See on Maine the " Mass. Papers/'

xlvi THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
events. Price was appointed commissary, and was suc
ceeded by Dr. Caner, who served until the church was
closed at the commencement of the Revolution; though
it should be noted that the church was rebuilt of stone in
1749. Trinity Church had also been established, the pulpit
being supplied by the clergy of the Chapel and Christ
Church until 1740, when Mr. Davenport became minister;
who, in turn, was succeeded by Messrs. Hooper, Walter,
and Parker, the latter being connected with the church
from 1774 until his death in 1804.
At Christ Church, Cutler, who died in 1765, had for his
successors Messrs." Greaton, Byles, Lewis, and Montague.*
Dr. Cutler had four hundred regular attendants at the ser
vices. This ancient church contains the first chime of bells
cast for America, and the first monument erected to Wash
ington. From the tower was hung out the signal lantern,
on the eve ofthe battle of Concord and Lexington, t
During the Revolution services were maintained at Christ
Church and Trinity, but at "King's Chapel" they were
suspended March 10th, 1776. Caner, who was a royalist,
left the city upon its evacuation by the British troops; tak
ing with him the records, the vestments, and the plate, the
latter amounting to two thousand eight hundred ounces of
silver, the gift of three crowned heads. The records were
returned in 1805, but the vestments and plate were not
found. This brings us to an event that should be touched
upon, the loss of this building to the Protestant Episcopal
Church which was rebuilt of stone.
It appears that the Chapel remained closed until 1777,
when the proprietors granted the use of it to the con
gregation of the Old South Church, so unjustly treated
by dovernor Andros. This congregation held possession
gratuitously for about five years, at the end of which
time, their own house, which had been taken as a train-

* Drake's "Boston," p. 567.
t Proceedings of "Mass. Hist. So.," 1876, p. 179, and "Mass. Papers," 142-3.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xlvii
ing school for Burgoyne's cavalry, was repaired* They left
the Chapel in February, 1783; but during the previous
summer a number of the old proprietors concluded to re
establish services. September 8th, 1782, they invited Mr.
James Freeman, of Walpole, to officiate as lay reader for
six months. The invitation was sent through the wardens,
Dr. Thomas Bulfinch and James Ivers. Mr. Freeman en
tered upon his duties October 18th, 1782; and the Episcopal
and Congregational Societies appear to have held joint oc
cupancy until the latter removed the following February.
April 2 1 st Mr. Freeman was elected minister on a salary
of two hundred pounds. At this time the wardens say,
"the proprietors consent to such alterations in the* service
as are made by the Rev. Dr. Parker; and leave the Atha-
nasian Creed at your discretion." t These alterations were
simply such as the changed political condition of the coun
try demanded. The congregation appears as an Episco
pal organization, Mr. Freeman, for whom Episcopal or
dination was contemplated, carefully abstaining from the
assumption of priestly functions. It has been claimed, that
in the summer of 1784 " King's Chapel" and its lay reader
were supposed to be in harmony with the Church. It has
also been claimed that at that time the parish received a
notice from Bishop White of the action of the Church in
Pennsylvania, of May 25th, 1784. At least a copy of the
Broadside already referred to came into the possession of
Mr. Freeman. $ This document states that the Pennsyl
vania convention empowered its committee "to correspond
and confer with representatives from the Episcopal Church

* Wisner's "History of the Old South," p. 34, January 14th, 1776, Dr. Caner
says, " The wealthier part of my parish have provided for themselves by removing
to England and elsewhere," and speaks of " the poverty of the few remaining par
ishioners," "Mass. Papers," p. 584.
f On Dr. Parker's "Troubles and the menaces he endured," see "Mass. Pa
pers," p. 696. These papers should be consulted on the entire period.
X The Broadside is now in the possession of the Rev. James Freeman Clarke, a
grandson of Mr. Freeman.

xlviii THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
in the other states, or any of them, and assist in forming
an ecclesiastical government." It may perhaps be con
ceded that this communication, signed in autograph by
Bishop White, was addressed officially to the parish of
" King's Chapel," but of this there is no proof. If, how
ever, they were thus invited to share in the deliberations,
it was with the distinct understanding that the Doctrine
and Orders of the Church of England were to be adhered
to without question, as the principles of the Broadside
state. Under the circumstances, therefore, such an invi
tation would have been proper. The Church welcomed all
who came in accordance with the principles recognized;
which, in substance, were endorsed by the convention in
Massachusetts, September 8th, 1784. New England, how
ever, was not represented at the primary General Conven
tion, held at Philadelphia, September 27th, 1785.
In the mean while, Mr. Freeman's change of theological
views became known, and, in accordance with his wishes,
leading members of the congregation resolved to make
additional alterations in the Liturgy. Before doing this,
Mr. Greenwood frankly admits, the}- saw the necessity of
getting possession of the Church property, a measure car
ried January 10th, 1785, by a majority, such as it was, of
twenty-four to seventeen. On the nineteenth of the same
month, without waiting for the action of the Philadelphia
Convention, the changes in the Liturgy were accomplished,
being chiefly in accordance with the Liturgy of Dr. Samuel
Clarke. They still considered themselves an "Episcopal"
parish, and, in November, 1785, when their revised Liturgy
was printed, a copy was sent to Bishop White for exam
ination. At the convention, the previous September, the
"Proposed Book'' had been framed, yet every thing was
provisional; and Bishop White evidently did not consider
the action of King's Chapel as final. In fact he did not
consider that, by dropping certain phrases, they had de
liberately abandoned the faith of the Church; though in
his letter of December ist, addressed to Mr. Miller, who

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. xlix
had sent the Chapel Liturgy, he says, " You can not long
continue to profess yourselves Episcopalians, unless in a
sense in which the word is not customarily used.* A lit
tle further on he speaks of his apprehension that the parish
might become "either Arian or Socinian, or Congrega
tional in government or both," which indicates that, in his
opinion, they had then not definitely reached that point.
Here the communication between Bishop White and King's
Chapel appears to have ended. f
In time the real sentiments of the majority at the Chapel
became fully apparent, and no disposition was shown to
recede from the action taken in revising the Liturgy. Nev
ertheless, as late as July 29th, 1787, the proprietors of
King's Chapel applied to Bishop Provoost for the ordina
tion of Mr. Freeman, the committee declaring in their let
ter, that they have no intention of returning to the Book
of Common Prayer, though expressing their regret that
they had been so long deprived of the benefit of the sacra
ments. They also say: " By the terms of the ordination
which Mr. Montague, $ minister of Christ Church in this
town, has received from the Right Rev. Bishop White, we
find he has only subscribed a declaration of faith in the
Holy Scriptures, and a solemn engagement to conform to
the doctrines and worship of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the State of Massachusetts; in this state no
doctrines or form of worship are yet established. Has not
our Church therefore as good a claim to style itself the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Massachusetts
as any other ? "§ The Bishop of New York, after consulta-

* Wilson's "Memoirs," p. 326.
f It will be seen by reference to page 1 16 of this work that a delegate from Vir
ginia, in General Convention, proposed to omit the first four petitions of the Litany,
but not because he doubted the divinity of our Lord. Some no doubt supposed
that in revising the Liturgy the committee of King's Chapel were moved by such
reasons as controlled the action of the person alluded to.
X The Rev. WiUiam Montague, ordained June 24th, 17S7.
§ Greenwood's "King's Chapel," p. 182.

I THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
tion with some of the laity, referred the committee to the
coming convention of the Church, and made the answer
that he did not feel at liberty to act on the question at the
time.* This, it would appear, decided their course, and
they resolved upon Congregational ordination for Mr.
Freeman, which was accomplished, November 18th, 1787.
Then, says Mr. Greenwood, " the first Episcopal Church
in New England became the first Unitarian Church in
America." We, however, have already seen (ante p. xxiii.)
that King's Chapel was not the first Episcopal Church in
New England, while it yet remains to be demonstrated that
the twenty-four who created the change were ever church
men in any true sense of the term. All that they them
selves claimed was the character of legal " proprietors."
At that period confirmation was not to be had, and men
attached themselves to congregations in a loose way.
Governor Dudley, for instance, while a vestryman of
King's Chapel attended the Congregational service at
Roxbury and received the Communion. The Earl of
Bellomont also while in Boston affected the "Thursday
lecture." Then as now there was a class of men who
have no deep convictions, but simply seek respectable con
nections, persons who join in movements without changing
their opinions, because they have no opinions to change.
The following confession of a recent writer shows the
true state ofthe case. " Candor," he says, "requires me to
add that the conservative element in the society had, no
doubt, left the country; and that the proprietors who re
mained were of a robust cast of mind not reluctant to

* To say that no doctrines or forms of worship were established in Massachusetts
is not altogether consistent with the fact that, as shown on page 89 of this work,
Massachusetts, Sept. Sth, 17S4, distinctly declared for the doctrine and orders and
worship of the Church of England. On the other hand, the course of Bishop Pro-
voost was not what might have been expected, as their rebellion was patent to the
whole country, entitling them to nothing more than a plain denial. Bishop White,
however, exonerates Bishop Provoost from the charge of doctrinal sympathy with
King's Chapel. See page 117, note.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. Ii
change."* It is sufficiently clear that many of those who
represented the conservative element had left Boston, and
that a majority of those left behind were of the "robust,"
or opinionless class, ready to acquiesce in a change when
asked for by one to whom they were attached. The
change at King's Chapel was in reality a Congregational
victory. The Congregationalists were elated, while, on the
other hand, churchmen were highly indignant. In the pub
lic press, Parker, Bass, Montague and Ogden, of Portsmouth,
on behalf of the clergy, denounced the act as illegal. The
majority of twenty-four practically acknowledged the weak
ness of their position, by offering to pay for twenty-nine
pews, which they had declared forfeited to the corporation
in order to control the property. Technically, the rights
of the proprietors may have been extinguished, but, if so,
it was in accordance with results accomplished by the war,
which drove many parishioners from their homes; an
event not anticipated and therefore not to be taken ad
vantage of. In fact, no such advantage would have been
sought, but for the desperate strait of the Unitarians, who
were determined to obtain possession of the property; and
who, after depriving the proprietors of their sacred rights,
added to the indignity by offering money. Still more, the
usurpers told the remonstrants, that they were out of their
senses; for "no man in his senses will assert that they [the
Unitarians] had not a just right so to do." Bishop White,
nevertheless had anticipated the difficulty in 1785, when,
in writing on the subject of their revised Liturgy, he framed
a paragraph from which we have already quoted. He says:
" But give me leave briefly to suggest, that should my
apprehensions be well founded, of your society becoming
either Arian or Socinian, or Congregational in government,
or both, I might rest my argument on moral obligation, in
respect to the keeping of possession of the house heretofore
known by the name of King's Chapel. Our churches, and
* James Freeman Clarke, in the "Independent," New York, Feb. 5th, 1880.

Hi THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
other property belonging to them, were evidently bought
and given as to component parts of a church, the great
outlines of whose doctrine and government are well known.
But for a majority of a congregation to destroy these, and
so, of course, to compel the minority to give up their in
terest in said property, in order to seek what they conceive
to be the pure Word of God, and a more Christian wor
ship elsewhere, is, I humbly apprehend, to deprive them of
their just rights; whereas no injury is offered, in expecting
a majority to relinquish an interest, if they can no longer
comply with the terms on which it is given." The far-see
ing bishop here disposed of the whole question, showing
that the action of the twenty-four was without proper
foundations.* Reference has already been made to the glee with which
this action was greeted by Congregationalists. But their
rejoicing soon came to an end. Unconsciously they had
applauded a Congregational Samson, and when this single
pillar of the faith was pulled away, the house ecclesiastical
fell and crushed them.f The first fruit was in 1792, when,
as Dr. Dexter confesses, at Taunton, the entire Congrega
tional society, " with the exception of three males and one
female seceded from the town parish, organized an eccle-
siatical society .... which continues to the present time."
Buddington, however, shows the worst of it where he says,
speaking of the general defection to Unitarianism, all the
ancient churches of Boston were ranged among the advo
cates of the New Opinion, with the exception of the Old
South. Then all the superiors in age, " the church of Rob
inson of Plymouth, of Higginson of Salem, of Cotton in
Boston," renounced, "the system of faith in which they
were baptized, and for which they were nurtured by their
pious founders.":):

* Wilson's " Memoir," p. 326. Letter Dec. ist, 1785.
t See the "Churchman," Jan. 10th, 1880, on "King's Chapel."
X Buddington's "History ofthe First Parish of Charlestown."

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. liii
In the mean while the Protestant Episcopal Church,
under the leadership of the sagacious White, stood firm.
It is remarkable, upon the whole, that the losses were not
greater. Indeed, if King's Chapel had been furnished with
a regularly educated clergyman, it is probable that the
Church would never have been endangered. All the losses
of the Church elsewhere were such as resulted from the war.
These werewery severe in Virginia, where many churches
were destroyed and where the clergy were reduced from
ninety-one to twenty-eight. One good result nevertheless
followed the war. It removed the popular hostility to
bishops, as it was at once perceived, that, under a republic,
they could have no advantages over the laity in any mat
ters connected with the state. It therefore became pos
sible to organize the Church. This leads us, in bringing
this sketch to a close, to notice the career of him, whom
the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1836, styles "in more
senses than one," the Father of the American Church*
William White, son of Colonel Thomas White and
Esther Hewlings, was born in Philadelphia, March 24th,
1747 (O. S.). Pursuing his preparatory studies in the city
of his birth, he graduated from the College of Philadelphia
at the age of seventeen. At this time he had fully decided
to adopt the sacred profession. After pursuing his theo
logical studies under the guidance of the local clergy,
being especially indebted to Dr. Peters and Mr. Duche,
he sailed for England, where, December 23d, 1770, in
the Royal Chapel, London, he was ordained deacon by
Dr. Young, Bishop of Norwich. Remaining in London
about a year and half, he saw considerable society, meeting
Goldsmith and Dr. Johnson. June, 1772, he was advanced
to the priesthood by Dr. Terrick, Bishop of London. He
at once sailed for Philadelphia, where he arrived September
13th, soon being elected assistant minister of Christ Church
and St. Peter's. * Wilson's "Memoir," p. 264.

liv THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
When the Revolution dawned he took sides with the
colonies without wavering. Upon the Declaration of In
dependence, he ceased praying for the King, and was the
second person to take the oath of allegiance to the Com
monwealth of Pennsylvania. September, 1777, he became
chaplain to the Continental Congress. April, 1779, he was
elected rector of Christ Church and St. Peter's, Phil
adelphia, devoting himself with much zeal jto the dis
charge of his duties, and winning the approval of the
entire community.
When the time drew near to take measures for the or
ganization of the Church, believing that it would be imprac
ticable to obtain the Episcopal succession from England,
at least for a time, he prepared a pamphlet, entitled "The
Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Con
sidered," in which he proposed a provisional organization,
that was to be superseded as soon as the succession could
be obtained. Happily, however, the accomplishment of
political independence was attended by its recognition on
the part of the British Government, leaving no difficulty
in the way of organization in accordance with the system
of the Church of England. Nevertheless the author of
the pamphlet was misunderstood in some quarters, while,
at a later period, his production was used for purposes en
tirely foreign to the author's intentions. The criticism ex
cited was met by Bishop White and disarmed of force, so
that no permanent harm resulted from his proposition*
The churchmanship of Bishop White was thoroughly
sound, he being conservative and opposed to all doctrinal
and ecclesiastical innovations.
When peace was declared, he was at once looked to as
the proper person to lead in the organization of the Amer
ican Church, and accordingly he was elected Bishop of

* On this Pamphlet, see the present volume, p. 99. For a list of Bishop
White's writings, see Wilson's "Memoir," page 305, and Sprague's "American
Pulpit." v. 283.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. Iv
Pennsylvania. His own narrative gives the story of his
election and consecration, which took place in Lambeth
Chapel, London, February 4th, 1787. He arrived in New
York, on Easter Sunday of the same year. Easter Day,
1787, will, therefore, possess a peculiar significance to the
end of time. It marks the Renaissance of the American
Church; of which he stood the acknowledged head until
his decease. That event took place July 17th, 1836. He
is now known to the world as the Father of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It
is, therefore, needless for the writer to enter here upon
any fresh estimate of his character and work. These have
been weighed judiciously, by various writers, and notably
by the late Alonzo Potter, Bishop of Pennsylvania, who
attributes to Bishop White commanding intellectual and
moral qualities; saying, "If his rhetorical powers had
equalled his erudition and his capacity for thought, and
had we been ready to honor as we ought the writers of
our own country, the name of White had now stood side
by side with those of Seeker, Porteus, Horsley and Home."
The time, however, is coming, he says, "when Bishop White
will be recognized as the Founder and wise Master-builder
of a system of Ecclesiastical Polity, which, though not
faultless, is as perfect as the condition of things then ad
mitted, and of which the essential excellence is likely to
be demonstrated by the progress of events."*
Yet the opinion of the large-hearted and able prelate,
whose words we quote, goes farther. Bishop White is
regarded by him as a providential character, and as ac
complishing for the Church what Washington did for the
Nation. Therefore, after speaking of Washington's singu-

* The Address of Bishop Alonzo Potter, delivered on the occasion of laying the
corner-stone of Calvary Monumental Church, Philadelphia, April, 1 851. See
Sprague's "Annals ofthe American Pulpit," also the "Memoir of Bishop White,"
by his friend and admirer Dr. Bird Wilson, and the very valuable work entitled,
' ' Account of the Meeting of the Descendants of Colonel Thomas White of Mary
land," Philadelphia, 1879.

lvi THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
lar adaptation to his mission, and ofthe impossibility of ac
counting for it on any human principle, Bishop Potter says,
referring to Bishop White, "It was the same with him
who was called, like another Moses, to lead our Church
out of her long captivity, and through a wilderness of
suffering and humiliation, — he was sent of God." This
is a generous estimate, but it is evidently just; there
being, however, no desire to overlook the claims of those
who early shared with him the onerous duties of the
Episcopal office, nor any wish to ignore the services of
presbyters and faithful laymen who from the beginning
stayed up his hands. Bishop White was fortunate in. his
associates, of whose reputation he was never envious; and
the care which he took to secure to them their true posi
tion in the public estimation will render his own fame safe
to the end of time.

MEMOIRS
OF THE
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

DEDICATION.

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 Church 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.
AH of you have been ordained to the Episcopacy by
my hands. Submission of opinion on this account, is
what I have never had the arrogancy to claim : but if
any degree of personal respect should be supposed a
natural consequence, I 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
office, of a bishop; and when it was doubtful whether any

2 DEDICA TION.
person in that character would be tolerated in the com
munity;! now contemplate nine of our number, conduct
ing the duties of their office without interruption; and
in regard not to them only, but to ten of us who have
gone to their rest, I trust the appeal may be made to
the world, for their not being chargeable with causes
of offence to our fellow Christians and our fellow citi
zens generally, or with the assuming of any powers
within our communion, not confessedly recognized by
our ecclesiastical institutions.
Being your senior by many years, I enjoy satisfaction
in the expectation of the good which you may be ex
pected 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 endeavors to
this effect, I subscribe myself,
Your affectionate brother,
THE AUTHOR.

PEEFAOE TO
THE FIRST EDITION.

Many years ago, the author of the following work began to com
mit 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 which the detail of very recent events was likely to interest
curiosity. Accordingly, what was thus prepared lay unnoticed, until
an application was made, about twelve years ago, by the editor of the
American edition of Dr. Rees's Cyclopedia, requesting attention to
certain parts of that work, with a view to other 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 been trans
acted 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 labor would not be unacceptable, within the
communion for which it had been designed. In the present publi
cation, the narrative has been continued to the present time. With
it, there are given the matters kept back from the publication in the
Cyclopedia; and a continuation of similar statements and remarks.
It has been occasionally suggested, from a knowledge of the mate
rials in the hands of the author, and in consideration of the oppor
tunities which he has possessed of personal observation of characters

4 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
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 advantage; 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 mate
rials to accomplish. Of materials concerning the aggregate Church,
the author possesses all that are necessary, and more than will be here
given; the view being confined to the more important: but his collec
tions 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 informed 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 incon
sistent 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 importance to the future concerns of the Church, as to in
duce a wish to perpetuate the remembrance of them; and thereby the
personal irritation by which they were accompanied.
Besides these reasons, there is one arising from the desire of avoid
ing such a development of the characters of agents, as might induce
the relating and the unintentional mis-stating of what may have passed
in unguarded conversation. It is' an unfair advantage taken of a de
ceased character, for an author to represent him as his own prejudices
or his passions dictate; when, perhaps, the other party would have
had the precaution to make his own story known, had he foreseen
such a result ofthe freedom of social intercourse.
Another license which has grown out of the adopted plan, is the
anticipating of some circumstances which took place in England, dur
ing the intercourse with his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury; when
such anticipation might illustrate any matter previously under review.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 5
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 mat
ters related were fresh on the mind of the narrator, is the more likely
to be a faithful exhibition of them. To have enlarged the letters
would have been incorrect; and yet, in what passed in the intercourse,
there was such connection 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 perseverence, not with
out prayer to the Father of Lights for His holy guidance; there seems
to him nothing unreasonable in the wish, to give the weight of long
observation, to what are truth and order in his esteem. He has not
the presumption to aspire to, nor the vanity to expect to share in the
direction of the concerns of the Church, after the very few years in
which there will be a possibility of his being present in her 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 them of himself.
In the way of apology, let it be remarked — 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 cir
cumstances in which he was placed; to a cause for which he can not

6 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
be sufficiently thankful, the continuance of his health and strength;
and to his having attended every General Convention, from the be
ginning to the present time. Under the weight of these considera
tions, he commits himself to the candor 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 influ
ence on the concerns of the Church, he has thought it due to the ob
ject 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.

PKEFAOE TO
THE SECOND EDITION.

The Memoirs of the Episcopal Church edited some years ago by
the present author, being out of print; and there being none on
hand so far as is known to him, except a few copies in his posses
sion; he lays 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 can not expect, at his time of life, that he will
much longer live to be present at the councils of the Church; or
that, if living, his mind will be competent to the continuation of
the present work. Accordingly, in these considerations, he per
ceives a call on him, to say, in accordance with a sentiment of the
Mantuan poet — " Claudite jam 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 enjoy
ment of health, and a considerable measure of worldly comforts; or
such visitations, as he has witnessed in the persons of many, whose
merits and usefulness, had they been the rule of divine procedure, in
this life of uncertainty of change, as they are not, are far beyond what
can be supposed his own; it will be his endeavor and his prayer, that
he may live in daily dependence on the gracious Providence which

8 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
has conducted him to an advance in years beyond that of the usual
lot of man; and under the assurance, that if there should be for
him, in reserve, any portion of bodily suffering or of sorrow, it will
be sent in mercy, and will be no more than is necessary for the cor
rection of his frailties.
Whether prosperity or adversity be his appointed lot, he is sure,
that if his reason should be continued to him, his life will not end,
without prayer for the Church, in the concerns of which he has
been so long engaged; and especially for the divine blessing on
her ministry and her institutions; to be manifested in the conver
sion of sinners, in the edification of the godly, and in the end of
both — the glory of God, and the enlargement of the kingdom of His
Son, the adorable Redeemer.
April, 1836.

CONTENTS.

I. NARRATIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND OF THE EARLY
MEASURES OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
Page
State of the Church before the Revolutionary War, and at the conclusion
of it  13
Intercourse with Denmark  17
A Meeting in New Brunswick, New Jersey  19
A Meeting in New York  19
Convention of 1785  20
1786  24
Consecration of Bishops White and Provoost  25
Convention of 1 789  27
1792  3°
1795  30
1799  31 .
1801  31
1804  33
1808  34
1811  35
1814  37
1817  41
1820  4°
1821  51
1823  S3
1826  56
1829  60
1832  65
1835  7o
II. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND REMARKS.
Of the Question of American Episcopacy, as agitated in the Colonies . . 73
Of the Question of using the Liturgy, exclusively of the Prayers for the
King and the Royal Family  82
Of the Meeting in New Brunswick, in May, 1784  83
Of the Meeting in New York, in October, 1784  86
Of Proceedings in sundry States, previous to the Meetings in 1784, at New
Brunswick and at New York  89

10 CONTENTS.
Page
Of the General Convention, in Philadelphia, in September and October,
I78S  I°7
Of the Convention in Philadelphia and Wilmington, in 1786 . . . 130
Of Personal Intercourse with the Archbishop of Canterbury . . . 142
Of the Convention in 1789  161
1792  I«7
1795  200
1799  207
1801  210
1804  221
1808  226
181 1  247
1814  256
1817  266
Postscript  274
Of the Convention of 1820  281
1821  290
1823  295
1826  299
1829  309
1832  3'3
183S  3'9
Conclusion  324
III. AN APPENDIX OF ORIGINAL PAPERS.
Communication with the Court of Denmark  327
Communication of the Clergy of Connecticut, to the Archbishop of York . 330
A Letter from the Rev. Abraham Jarvis, in the Name of the Clergy of
Connecticut  336
A Letter from the Right Rev. Bishop Seabury, to the Rev. Dr. Smith . 340
Address ofthe Convention of 1785, to the English Prelates .... 348
Letter of the English Prelates  353
A Memorial from the Convention in 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 Philadelphia in June next  355
Second Address to the English Prelates  358
Communications from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York . . . 360
Communication from the Archbishop of Canterbury ..... 367
Address to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York  369
A Letter from Granville Sharp, Esq., to Dr. Benjamin Franklin, with
Extracts of Letters . .  370
An Act of the General Convention of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the States of New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and South Carolina, held at Wilmington, in
the State of Delaware, on Wednesday, the nth of October, 1786 . . 378

CONTENTS. 1 1
Page
Instrument of Consecration  381
Note of the Archbishop of Canterbury  386
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 Certificates from the Executive of Pennsylvania and Vir
ginia  386
Letter from Richard Peters, Esq.  392
An Act of the Clergy of Massachusetts and New Hampshire . . . 395
An Address to the Most Reverend the Archbishops of Canterbury and
York  398
A General Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States of America ........... 402
A Letter from the Rev. Dr. Coke, and the Answer ..... 408
Testimonial of the Rev. Charles Pettigrew ....... 414
Circular of a Committee in South Carolina . ...... 415
A Letter from Bishop Provoost, and the Determination of the Bishops . 418
Forms of Subscription .......... 419
Decision of the Bishops on the Case of Ammi Rogers ..... 420
Of the Homilies . . . . . . . . . . 42 1
Concerning Posture during Psalmody ........ 422
Of a Proposal of new Anthems, and of Sanction requested in favor of a
proposed Book ........... 422
Concerning the Identity of this Church with the former Church of England
in America ............ 424
Concerning certain Amusements ......... 425
Acts of the Convention of 1 785  420
Of the Office of Confirmation  449
Concerning the last Rubric in the Communion Service .... 450
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 . . . . . . . .457
Constitution of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Prot
estant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as established
in 1820, and amended in 1823, 1829, 1832, and 1835 .... 461
Concerning the Division of Dioceses  464

I.
A NARRATIVE

ORGANIZATION AND OF THE EARLY MEASURES OF
THE CHURCH.

ALTHOUGH it happened, as might be expected, that a
proportion of the settlers of English America were of the
profession established in England; yet the number was not
so considerable as might be supposed from the existing
relation; owing probably to the circumstance, that several
of the colonies arose in a great measure from dissatisfaction
with the establishment at home, and partly to an influx of
subsequent settlers, not only from other countries, subject
to the same crown, but also from countries on the continent
of Europe; principally some of the states of Germany. In
the northern and eastern states, the comparatively small
number of the Church of England may be seen in the fact,
that when the revolutionary war began, there were not
more than about eighty parochial clergymen of that Church
to the northward and to the eastward of Maryland; and
that those clergymen derived the greater part of their
subsistence from the society instituted in 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-

H MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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
known among them in the early period of their histories.
In the more southern colonies, the Episcopalians were
fewer in proportion than in the two last mentioned; but
more than in the northern.
It may be supposed, that however comparatively few
the original emigrants of the Church of England in the
northern and the middle colonies, yet they must have
derived aid from the executive of the parent state, through
the medium of its representatives, the governors. This
was, indeed, the case in a degree; but the aid was incon
siderable, and confined to two or three of the earliest seats
of population. Besides, it may well be doubted, whether,
under 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 a tendency
to render the denomination unpopular among a great propor
tion of their fellow-citizens; especially under the apprehen
sion that it might, at some future day, be an engine aiding
in the introduction of a new system of colonial government. t
But even if the Episcopal Church found any source of in
crease in the connection, this was more than counterbal
anced by the peculiar circumstances under which it existed;
which prevented, and probably, under the old regimen,
would have continued to prevent its organization. Sep-
•
* The clergy in the province of Pennsylvania, exclusive of those in the City of
Philadelphia, were never more than six in number; all of whom were missiona
ries, receiving salaries from England. The parochial clergy of the city were four.
t Perhaps the only considerable endowment by the English government was
of lands to Trinity Church, New York. Its being considerable, is owing to its
having become of great value by the increase of that city.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 15
arated by the Atlantic ocean from the Episcopacy, under
which it had been planted, it had no resource for a minis
try, but in emigration from the mother country, and by
sending its candidates for the ministry to that country for
Orders. The first could not be the channel of a 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
Bishop of London was considered as the diocesan of the
Episcopal churches in America, it is evident, that his au
thority could not be effectually exerted, at such a distance,
for the removing of unworthy clergymen; besides which,
there were civil institutions supposed to be in opposition
to it, in the provinces where establishments had been pro
vided. In Maryland, in particular, all interference of the
Bishop of London, except in the single matter of ordina
tion, was held by the proprietary government to be an en
croachment on its authorities.*
For these reasons, and on the ground of the evident
propriety of being supplied with all the orders of the minis
try, recognized by their ecclesiastical system, application
had been made to England, at different times, by the
clergy, especially those in the northern colonies, for the
obtaining of an Episcopate. These applications had pro
duced much contention in pamphlets and in newspapers;
* The author, before his being in the ministry, knew a gentleman (the Rev.
Mr. Edminston) who, being in London for Orders, had brought with him such
recommendations to Lord Baltimore, proprietary of Maryland, as induced the
promise of an order to his governor, for any future parish that might be vacant.
It was necessary after ordination, to show the testimonial of the transaction to the
proprietary: who, perceiving with the instrument a license to preach in the
province of Maryland, was much dissatisfied with the Bishop of London on that
account. The bishop usually gave such a license, according to the province for
which the party was ordained: a practice similar to what obtains in England.
From this, and from other circumstances, the conviction is felt, that his lordship
would not have endured in his province any Episcopal authority distinct from
his designation of the person. It is mentioned, as one of the difficulties attendant
on the subject of an American Episcopacy.

1 6 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the writers on the Episcopal side pleading the reasonable
ness of being indulged in the full enjoyment of their relig
ion; and their opponents objecting, that bishops, sent from
England to America, would of course bring with them, or,
if not, might be clothed by the paramount authority of
Britain, with the powers of English bishops, to the great
prejudice of people of other communions, and in contra
riety to the principles on which the settlement of the colo
nies had taken place. What would have been the event,
in this respect, had the Episcopal clergy succeeded in their
desires, is a problem, which it will be forever impossible to
solve. In regard to the motives of the parties in the dis
pute, there are circumstances which charity may apply
to the most favorable interpretation. As the Episcopal
clergy disclaimed the designs 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 great and good Archbishop
Seeker, they ought to be supposed to have had in view an
Episcopacy purely religious. On the other hand, as their
opponents laid aside their resistance of the religious part
of it, as soon as American independence had done away all
political danger, if it before existed, it ought to be be
lieved, that in their former professed apprehensions they
were sinecre. a*
If such was the difficulty of being supplied with a min
istry during the acknowledged supremacy of the British
crown, much greater, as may be supposed, was the same
difficulty during the struggle which ended in the elevat
ing of the colonies to the rank of independent states.
During that term, there was no resource for the supply of
vacancies; which were continually multiplying, not only
from death, but by the retreat of very many of the Episco
pal clergy to the mother country, and to the colonies still
dependent on her. To add to the evil, many able and
* These letters refer to corresponding letters in Part II., Additional Statements.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS.

17

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 omit
ting the appointed prayers for him, ceased to officiate.
Owing to these circumstances, the doors of the far greater
number of the Episcopal churches were closed for several
years. In the State in which this work is edited, there was
a part of that time in which there was, through its whole
extent, but one resident minister of the church in question,
he who records the fact. b.
No sooner was it known in America, that Great Britain
had acknowledged her independence, than a few young
gentlemen to the southward, who had been educated for
the ministry, but kept back from it by the times, embarked
for England, and applied to the then Bishop of London, Dr.
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 matter
was depending, and the success of the candidates was
doubtful, there was an incident, which it may be proper to
record, in justice to the intended good offices of a foreign
sister church.
Mr. Adams, then the minister of the United States at
the court of St. James, being in company with M. de St.
Saphorin, the minister of the crown of Denmark, mentioned
to him the case here stated, of the candidates for Orders,
with a view to his opinion, whether they could be gratified
in the kingdom which he represented. Some time after,
the Danish minister made 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 ordain
candidates from America, on the condition of their signing
of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, with

1 8 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the exception of the political parts of them; the service to
be performed in Latin, in accommodation to the candi
dates, who might be supposed unacquainted with the lan
guage of the country. This conduct is here the more
cheerfally mentioned to the honor of the Danish Church,
as it is reasonable to presume, that there would have been
an equal readiness to the consecrating of bishops, had
necessity required a recourse for it to any other source
than the English Episcopacy, under which the American
churches had been planted. The proceeding in Denmark
was made known to the American government by Mr.
Adams; a copy of whose letter to the president of con
gress, was sent to the author by the then supreme execu
tive council of Pennsylvania. Mr. Adams stated, that the
transaction arose from his having been applied to by an
American gentleman, in behalf of the candidates for ordi
nation referred to. Mr. Adams mentioned the matter to
M. de St. Saphorin, the Danish minister; who accordingly
wrote to the Count de Rosencrone, privy counsellor and
secretary of state to the king of Denmark. The result was
as above given.
In truth, there was no idea of having recourse, in the
first instance, to any other quarter than that of the 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
another; excepting the bond of union which had subsisted
through the medium of the Bishop of London. That me
dium of connection had been confessedly destroyed by the
revolution; and therefore it was evident, that without the
creating of some new tie, the churches in the different

* This mode of expression is peculiar to Bishop White and frequently occurs. Ed.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 19
states, and even those in the same state, might adopt such
varying measures as would forever prevent their being com
bined 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 New Jersey, on the 13th and 14th of May, 1784* These
clergymen, in consequence of prior correspondence, 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 con
fer 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.

* This should read nth. See Bishop Perry's " Reprint of Journals of General
Convention," III., pp. 8-12, (printed at Claremont, 1874). Dr. Beach appears to
have been very active in this movement. See Note C. for this page, and " Reprint
of Journals," III., 8. See also on "Convention Journals," in, 13, and 21. Ed.

20 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 re
strained 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 gen
tleman of their choice was then standing. This gentleman
was the Rev. Samuel Seabury, D.D., formerly missionary
on Staten Island, 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 agree
ably to appointment, in Philadelphia, a convention of cler
ical and lay deputies, from seven of the thirteen United
States, viz., from New York to Virginia, inclusive, with the
addition of South Carolina. They applied themselves to
the making of such 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, but not
establishing, of such other alterations in that book and in
the articles, as the}' 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 known 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, not meeting
assurance of success with the bishops of the former coun
try, had applied to the latter quarter for the succession,
which had been there carefully maintained; notwithstand
ing their severance from the state in the revolution of 1688.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 21
Bishop Seabury had returned to America, and had entered
on the exercise of his new function, in the beginning of
the preceding summer, and two or three gentlemen of the
southern states had received ordination from his hands.
Nevertheless, the 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 Episcopacy,
thought it the most proper to direct their views in the first
instance towards England. In this they were encouraged
by information which they thought authentic, assigning for
Dr. Seabury's failure these two reasons: that the adminis
tration 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 re
spective flocks. For the meeting of the former difficulty, it
was thought easy to obtain, and there were afterwards ob
tained, from the executive authorities ofthe 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 sufficiently 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 ofthe parent Church in England; acknowl
edging the favors formerly received from the bishops of
London in particular, and from the archbishops and bish
ops in general, through the medium of the Society for the
Propagation ofthe Gospel; declaring their desire to perpet
uate among them the principles of the Church of England,
in doctrine, discipline, and worship; and praying, that their
lordships would consecrate to the Episcopacy those per
sons who should be sent, with that view, from the churches
in any of the states respectively.

2 2 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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
clergymen, 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 respec
tively belong; and that the engagement previous to ordi
nation should be a declaration of belief in the holy Script
ures, 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 request, 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 evi
dences, agreeably to instructions of the convention, were
applied for by the members of that body from the said
states respectively. Mr. Adams willingly performed the
service solicited of him, and in a conversation which he
held with the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the subject of
the address, gave such information, and expressed such
sentiments, as were calculated to promote the object of
it. /.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 23
In the spring of the year 1786 the committee received
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 measures
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 alterations 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 [the committee], that they had received the
edited Book of Common Prayer, in regard to which they
declared, that besides their seeing of no occasion for some
smaller alterations, which they do not specify, they are
dissatisfied with the omission of the Nicene and the Atha-
nasian Creeds, and of the Descent into Hell in the Apos
tles' 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 pres
byters and the laymen, in the respective states. This, how
ever, does not seem to have been the meaning of the ar
ticle 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 prel
ates 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 regard to the matters stated. The
same communication laid down what would be required, in
regard to the characters individually, who should be sent

24 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
for consecration. As to faith, they were to make the sub
scription 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 moral char
acter of each person to be sent, the archbishops required,
that it should be testified by the convention choosing him;
and, in addition, that there should be a certificate from the
General Convention, to the effect that they knew no reason
why the person should not be consecrated to the Episcopal
office. These 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 Canterbury 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 affectionate 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,

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS.

25

on the ioth 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 offensive 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 ex
press 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, accordingly, it
was now, without debate or difficulty, restored to the Book
of Common Prayer, to stand after the Apostles' Creed, with
permission of the use of either. The clause in the latter
creed, of the Descent into Hell, occasioned considerable
debate, 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 ofthe 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 conven
tion in Pennsylvania; and that the Rev. David Griffith,
D.D., rector of Fairfax Parish, Virginia, had been chosen

26 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
by the convention there. Testimonials in their favor 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 favor of
each of the bishops-elect, a testimonial, according to the
form prescribed to them by the same authority* g.
The two former of the above-named clergymen, having
embarked together early in the next month, arrived at
Falmouth, after a passage of eighteen days. On their
reaching of London, they were introduced to his Grace the
Archbishop of Canterbury, by his Excellency Mr. Adams,
who, in this particular, and in every instance in which his
personal attentions could be either of use or an evidence of
his respect and kindness, continued to manifest his concern
for the interests of a church, of which he was not a member.
Before the accomplishing of the object of the voyage,
there occurred the delay of a few weeks; owing to the
archbishop's desire of previously laying before the bishops
the grounds of his proceeding to the accomplishment ofthe
business, in the early stages of which they had been con
sulted. The greater number of them were at their dio
ceses, but were expected to be in town at the ensuing
* Dr. William Smith was elected Bishop of Maryland in 17S3, but the election
was never confirmed. From the statement of Bishop White, that the testimonials
of Drs. White, Provoost, and Griffiths were "immediately signed," it might appear
as though no direct issue was made with Dr. Smith by the convention, but else
where such an issue is indicated. (See "Journals of Convention," HI., pp. 34,
216, 245, 26S, 32S: and "Wilson's Memoirs," pp. 19, 20.) Dr. Smith, it is
affirmed, entertained the idea of obtaining consecration; and, Nov. 27th, 1786,
Mrs. White wrote to Dr. White, then in England, that Mr. Styles had told her
that Dr. Smith had told him that he was soon to go to Scotland for consecration,
and that he had a recommendation signed by more than thirty persons. ("De
scendants of Col. Thomas White," p. 165.) Upon what ground the opposition to
Dr. Smith was based does not officially appear. Bishop White opposed his con
firmation, but the objections of the Bishop, whatever form they may have taken,
did not interfere with the cordial relations that always existed between them. It
should not be forgotten that the act of parliament contemplated the consecration
of only three bishops. (See "Churchman's Magazine," 1807, p. 236. Also
Bishop White's Letters of Dec. 6th, 1786 and June 20th, 1787, in the second
division of the present work.) Ed.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 27
opening of parliament, appointed for about the middle of
January. Very soon afterwards, the 4th of February, was
appointed for the consecration.
On that day, and in the chapel ofthe archiepiscopal pal
ace of Lambeth, Dr. White and Dr. Provoost were ordained
and consecrated bishops, by the Most Rev. John Moore,
Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev. William Mark-
ham, Archbishop of York, presented. And the bishops
who joined with the two archbishops in the imposition of
hands, were the Right Rev. Charles Moss, Bishop of Bath
and Wells, and the Right Rev. John Hinchliff, Bishop of
Peterborough. Before the end of the same month, the
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 dioceses. //.
On the 28th 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 recognized. At this
convention, there naturally occurred the importance of
taking measures for the perpetuating of the succession: a
matter which some circumstances had subjected to con
siderable 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. In 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 dur
ing the session. The subject of perpetuating the succes
sion 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 elect-

28 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
ed the Rev. Edward Bass, rector of St. Paul's Church in
Newburyport, their bishop; and had addressed a letter to
the bishops in Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania,
praying them to unite in consecrating him. The last of
these bishops, being the only one of them now present in
convention, laid the letter addressed to him before the
body, intimating his sincere wish to join in such measures
as they might adopt, for the forming of a permanent union
with the churches in the eastern states, but at the same
time expressing his doubt of its being consistent with the
faith impliedly pledged to the English prelates, to proceed
to any consecration, without first obtaining from them the
number held in their Church to be canonically necessary to
such an act. This sentiment, which he also supposed to be
entertained by the gentleman who had been consecrated
with him, was duly respected by the body, while they
manifested an earnest desire of the union alluded to; and,
with a view to it, voted their opinion in favor of the va
lidity of Bishop Seabury's consecration, in which their pres
ident concurred.
In order to carry the sentiments of the convention into
effect, they signified their request to the two bishops con
secrated in England, that they would unite with Bishop
Seabury in the consecration of Mr. Bass; and they framed
an address to the archbishops and bishops of England, re
questing their approbation of the measure, for the removing
of any difficulty or delicacy which might remain on the
minds of the bishops whom they had already consecrated.
And here it may be proper to record, that the difficulty
was not long after removed in another way by the conven
tion of Virginia, in their electing ofthe Rev. James Madi
son, D.D., president of William and Mary College, Wil
liamsburg, 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 newly mod
elled. The principal feature now given to it, was a distri-

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS.

29

bution into two houses, one consisting of the bishops, and
the other of the clerical and lay deputies, who must vote,
when required by the clerical or by the lay representation
from any state, as under the former constitution, by orders.
The stated meetings were to be on the second Tuesday in
September 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
invitation was given by them to Bishop Seabury, and
to their brethren generally in the eastern states, to be
present at the proposed session, with a view to a perma
nent union.
On that day the convention reassembled, when it ap
peared that Bishop Seabury, with sundry of the clergy from
Massachusetts and Connecticut, had accepted the invitation
given them. There was laid before the convention, and
by them ordered to be 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 com
mittee of the convention and the clergy from the eastern
states; the result of which was, that, after one alteration
of the constitution at their desire, they declared their ac
quiescence in it, and gave it their signatures accordingly.
It had been provided in the constitution, that the
arrangement of two houses should take place, as soon
as three bishops should belong to the body. This cir
cumstance 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 ses-

30 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
sion; 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
conventions, i.
The next Triennial Convention was held in the City of
New York, in the autumn of 1792, at which were present
the four bishops already mentioned to have been conse
crated 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 Trin
ity Church, ofthe 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 church, nr
chapel. It is substantially the samp with a service mm-
posed by Bishop Andrews, in the reign of James the First;
and since commonly used bv 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

* Dr. Claggett was consecrated by Bishop Provoost, who presided at this con
vention, assisted by Bishops Seabury, White, and Madison.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 31
St. Philip's, in Charleston, South Carolina; who had been
elected by the convention in that state their bishop* /.
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
Connecticut.^ 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 nth of June, 1799. On this occasion,
the review of the articles was moved in the House of Cler
ical 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 consid
eration 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 in number,
the question of the admissibility of a resignation of the
Episcopal charge. A letter from Bishop Provoost had been

* The consecration of Dr. Smith was by the presiding bishop, assisted by
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
Clagget. X The consecration of Dr. Jarvis was by Bishop White, assisted by Bishops
Provoost and Bass.

32

MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.

addressed to one of the bishops present, and by him laid
before the house, stating, that, induced by ill health and
some circumstances of a domestic nature, he wished to
retire from all public employment; and had therefore re
signed, at a late meeting of the convention in New York,
his jurisdiction of bishop in that state. In consequence of
this resignation, the Rev. Benjamin Moore, D.D., who, on
account of Bishop Provoost's resignation of the rectory of
Trinity Church, in the City of New York, had been chosen
to that place, was also elected to succeed to the Episco
pacy. The House of Bishops having taken this subject
under their serious consideration, and doubting of the pro
priety of sanctioning Episcopal resignation, declined any
act to that effect. But being sensible of the exigency ex
isting in the State of New York, they consented to the
consecration of an assistant bishop; it being understood,
that he should be competent in point of character to all
the Episcopal duties; and, that the extent in which the
same were to be 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 ChurGh, Trenton; and took
his seat in the House of Bishops.
In this convention, the important business of the Arti
cles was again taken up; and now, for the first time, au
thoritatively acted on. After repeated discussions and
propositions, 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

* Article XXI. was omitted, being partly lccal and civil, while it is also pro
vided for in other Articles. Ed.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 33
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 adapt
ing the article concerning the creeds, to the former exclu
sion ofthe Athanasian.
It is further 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 form
had so far acquired the approbation of the English prelates,
as to be thought sufficient on the part of those who came
to them for consecration from America, n.
Throughout this Narrative, it must have appeared, that
the object kept in view, in all the consultations held, and
the determinations formed, was the perpetuating of the
Episcopal Church, on the ground of the general principles
which she had inherited from the Church of England; and
of not departing from them, except so far as either local
circumstances required, or some very important cause ren
dered proper. To those acquainted with the system of
the Church of England, it must be evident, that the ob
ject here stated was accomplished on the ratification of
the articles.
The next Triennial Convention was in the City of New
York, September nth, 1804. Canons were passed, extend
ing to a greater variety of objects than had been provided
for before. An office was framed and ordered to be used,
at the induction of ministers to the rectorship of churches.
A course of ecclesiastical studies of candidates for Orders,
was prescribed by the bishops. And the constitution was
altered, agreeably to a proposition made in the preceding
convention, and notified to the conventions in the states,
so as that the future Triennial Conventions shall be in the
month of May, instead of September. During the session,

34

MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.

the Rev. Samuel Parker, D.D., rector of Trinity Church, in
Boston, was consecrated bishop in Trinity Church, New
York, in the room of Bishop Bass, who had departed this
life. There had also died, since the last convention, Bish
op Smith, of South Carolina. And it was understood, that
the Rev. Edward Jenkins, D.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, 1 808, to the 26th 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
accomplish a measure, without the concurrence of the House
of Bishops. There was also proposed another amendment of the
constitution, for the preventing of alterations in the liturgy,
unless the same should have been proposed at a previous
convention.
, The whole body of the canons was reviewed, and under
went considerable alterations.
A committee was appointed, to address the Church in
the different states. The objects in view, were to procure
a more full attendance on future conventions, and to ex
tend the Episcopacy 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 had created diversity of opinion and of practice—
Whether a minister ought to officiate at the funeral of any
person killed in a duel; and — Whether a minister should

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 35
unite in marriage any person who has been divorced; un
less it be on account of the other party's having been
guilty of adultery. Both these questions were decided in
the negative.
There was also introduced into the House of Clerical
and Lay Deputies, on recommendation of the Church in
Maryland, the subject of marriage, as connected with the
degrees of consanguinity and affinity. But on communica
tion of the matter to the House of Bishops, it was, on their
recommendation, referred to a future convention.
Thirty hymns were added to the Book of Psalms and
Hymns. As ordained by a canon of the last convention, a pas
toral letter from the House of Bishops to the members of
this Church was drawn up by them, communicated to the
House of Clerical and Lay 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. /.
Agreeably to the aforesaid appointment, the next Gen
eral Convention was held in the City of New Haven, on
Tuesday, the 21st of May, 181 1. It continued in session
until Friday, the 24th. Only Bishops White and Jarvis, of
the House of Bishops, were present. The Church in nine
states was represented.
They ratified the amendment to the constitution pro
posed at the last convention, restraining from alterations
of the liturgy, except such as may be proposed at one con
vention and determined on at another.
On the subject of the canons, nothing was done, except
the repealing of the last, or forty-sixth of the canons, as
passed at the last convention, entitled, "Providing for mak
ing known the Constitution and Canons of the Church."
The rule prohibiting the officiating at the funerals of
persons killed in duels, was so far moderated, as to allow of

36 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the same, if, on any occasion, the party in question had
manifested repentance.
There 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. Fur
ther attention to the subject was committed to the bishops
of this Church in Pennsylvania and Virginia.
The attendance of so few of the bishops; three of the
four absent bishops being prevented by bodily indisposition,
and the remaining bishop being absent by indispensable
engagements; it was agreed not to take up, at present, the
important subject of marriages, within certain degrees of
consanguinity and affinity.
A pastoral address was sent by the bishops to the other
house to be printed with the journal, agreeably to a requi
sition of the forty-fifth canon.
It had been expected, that on the occasion of this con
vention, there would have been a consecration of two bish
ops: of the Rev. Dr. John Henry Hobart, chosen assistant
bishop for the State of New York; and the Rev. Alexander
Viets Griswold, chosen bishop for the four states of Massa
chusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island.
The expectation was disappointed, by the want of the ca
nonical number on the spot. But the testimonials of the
bishops-elect were signed; and the two bishops present re
paired with them to the City of New York; where, with the
assistance of the Right Rev. Bishop Provoost, whose indis
position, although, with difficulty, permitted his attend
ance in the place 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
letter, in behalf of this convention, to the venerable Soci
ety in England for the Propagation ofthe Gospel in Foreign
Parts, informing them that the Church in the State of Ver
mont is duly organized, and in union with the Protestant

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS.

37

Episcopal Church in the United States, being placed under
the jurisdiction of the Bishop of New Hampshire, Massa
chusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; that a board of
trustees of donations to the Church has been incorporated
in the State of Massachusetts; and that, in the opinion of
this convention, the society may safely confide the care of
their lands in Vermont to such attorney or attorneys as
may be recommended by the said board of trustees, and
approved of by the ecclesiastical 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, Bishop White, of the Church in Pennsylvania;
Bishop Hobart, the assistant bishop of the Church in New
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.
In the last mentioned state, the Church had been for
many years, more and more under a decline. On the de
cease 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 gentleman mentioned above, who had acquired con
siderable popularity in the City of New York; wherein there
was a large congregation under his ministry. The defect
of Episcopal maintenance was expected to be surmounted,
by connecting the office of bishop with that of the rectory
of a church recently erected in the City of Richmond, on
the site of a theatre, destroyed a few years before by a fire,
wherein a considerable proportion of the inhabitants had

* Bishop Dehon had been consecrated, October 15th, 1812, in Christ Church,
in the City of Philadelphia, by the presiding bishop, assisted by Bishops Jarvis and
Hobart.

3 8 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
been consumed. The requisite testimonials having been
furnished, Dr. Moore was consecrated in St. James' Church,
Philadelphia, by the presiding bishop, assisted by Bishops
Hobart, Griswold, and Dehon. The sermon preached at
the opening of the convention, serving for the consecration
also, was by Bishop Hobart, of New York. He supplied
the place of Bishop Claggett, of Maryland, who was kept
away by indisposition.
There were three canons passed at this convention.
One of them was concerning the alms 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 limit
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
priation 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 fur
ther, against the extending of the Office of Institution
to gatherings of persons not bound together by a common
interest in a place of worship.
The remaining canon was a repeal of so much of the
forty-fifth, as requires the reading, in the General Conven
tion, ofthe 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.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 39
The explanation goes to the point, that such provisions are
merely a guard 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
qualifications, 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 apti
tude to teach, and a large share of prudence. The fortieth
canon having referred to persons who join a congrega
tion of this Church from some other religious society, the
bishops rested the evidence of the membership of such a
congregation on the two circumstances, of their being bap
tized persons, and of their possessing an interest in its con
cerns, 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 dec
laration, that the Protestant Episcopal Church 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 this 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.
This 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.

40 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
In consideration of the scarcity of the Homilies of the
Church of England, and of their being recognized 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 hav
ing 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 the
Propagation of the Gospel, a legal title to lands in Ver
mont, originally appropriated for the Episcopal Church in
those states, but vested in that society in trust. All pro
ceeding in this business was suspended, at first by the cir
cumstance that the necessary documents were not in prep
aration; and since, by the occurrence ofthe war.
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 work 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 Dep
uties, a declaration to the same effect. The House of
Clerical and Lay Deputies signified their concurrence in
the proposals, with their thanks, for what they called "the
judicious course adopted in reference to these subjects."

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 41
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 Convention.
The subject was referred to a future meeting of the body;
and, in the mean time, measures were to be taken to ascer
tain the general wish on the subject in each ofthe states.
A proposal was also made, to grant an exclusive copy
right of the Book of Common Prayer, for a valuable 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 ofthe 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
North Carolina, in which a convention had been held, the
said Church was considered as having acceded to the ec
clesiastical constitution. From the time of the revolu
tionary war, there had been but temporary supplies of the
ministry in a few places; but some clergymen, recently
settled in the state, in connection with some influential lay
gentlemen, had taken active measures for the revival of our
communion.

* During the recess of the convention, Dr. Kemp had 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 Bishops Hobart and Moore. And
Dr. Croes had been consecrated on the 19th day of November, 1815, in St.
Peter's Church, in the City of Philadelphia, by the presiding bishop, assisted by
Bishops Hobart and Kemp.

42 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
The presiding bishop made report of sundry matters
committed to him by the last convention. They were the
certifying to the venerable Society (in England) for the
Propagation of the Gospel, of certain facts in favor of the
Church in Vermont, relatively to lands of which the titles
were vested in the society — the taking of measures rela
tively to the organizing ofthe Church beyond the Alleghany
Mountains, and the republishing of the journals of this
Church from the beginning. The first and the last had
been carried into effect, and the other had been attended
to, as far as circumstances would permit. The thanks of
the house were voted to the presiding bishop.
Relatively to the last mentioned subjects, 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
have received, with much satisfaction, information of the
measures which have been already adopted in the State of
Ohio, for the organization ofthe 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 can not be authorized
by this convention consistently with the general constitu
tion of the Church, which recognizes only a convention of
the 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 subjected to
the direction of the ecclesiastical authority of the state or
states in which they may officiate.
"Resolved, That the presiding bishop be requested to

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 43
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 dioceses, on the subject of a theo
logical school. There was diversity of opinion, but the gen
eral sense, in both houses, was in favor of a general school;
which, on the proposal of the House of Bishops, and with
the consent ofthe House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, was
determined to be instituted in New York. For the carrying
ofthe design into effect, there was chosen a committee, con
sisting of members of both houses. On the part ofthe 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 ofthe clergy in relation to the
twenty-second canon, which enjoins on them diligence in
catechetical instruction and lectures. The bishops con
sider these as among the most important duties of clergy
men, 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 Episco
pal Church, with their minister, who had lately received
Episcopal ordination, which congregation consisted origi
nally 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

44 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
translation is correct, and to confirm the use theteof, 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 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 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 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 ten
dency, as from the strong temptations to vice which they
afford, ought not to be frequented. And the bishops can
not refrain from expressing their deep regret at the infor
mation, that in some of our large cities, so little respect is
paid to the feelings of the members of the Church, that
theatrical representations are fixed for the evenings of her
most solemn festivals."*
On the question referred by the last convention, to be
reported on in this, relatively to the copyright 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.

* See on this subject these Memoirs, page 177. Ed.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 45
The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies proposed to
the House of Bishops, the designating of a standard copy
of the Old and New Testaments. It was too late to enter
on the business, and "the House of Bishops deeming the
fulfilment of the request of the House of Clerical and Lay
Deputies, on the subject of an authentic edition ofthe Holy
Bible, a matter requiring very serious attention and deliber
ation, resolve, that its members will give such attention and
deliberation to the subject, previously to the next meeting
ofthe 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
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 that 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 ofthe 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 ser
vice; if the expelled party make no complaint, there shall
be no inquiry instituted. The bishop, on receiving com
plaint, is to institute an inquiry, and the notice given by
the minister is a sufficient presentation.

46 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
A pastoral letter was again drawn up by the House
of Bishops, and read in the House of Clerical and Lay
Deputies. When the convention adjourned, Philadelphia was ap
pointed to be the place ofthe next meeting, s.
[The narrative of the first edition here concluded^]
Agreeably to appointment, the General Convention as
sembled in St. James' 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 Rev. William Augustus Muhlenberg was
secretary of the former house, and the Rev. Ashbel Bald
win, with the Rev. John C. Rudd, were secretary and as
sistant 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.
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 unnec
essary spending of time, was repealed by the first canon
of this convention.
The first canon of 18 16 having been accommodated to
the existing circumstances of the Church in the State of
Ohio, and the object of it having been accomplished, it was
repealed by the second canon of those now passed.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 47
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 citi
zen of the United States, and having officiated as a minis
ter 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 Conven
tion, 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 renunci
ation 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 examination, prescribed by the tenth canon of 1808,
shall be ascertained before his admission as a candidate;
and further,* that the said acquirements shall not be dis
pensed with, unless there be a testimonial from at least two
presbyters, "stating, that, in their opinion, he possesses
extraordinary strength of natural understanding, a peculiar
aptitude to teach, and a large share of prudence."
On an application for the sanctioning of a selection of

48 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 conven
tion of 1 8 14, 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 impor
tance, 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 distinc
tion between the said book, and other books and documents
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 181 3 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 impor
tant documents, connected with the history of the Church
in the United States, and to deposit the same, subject to
the disposal 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

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 49
houses, to take such measures in the recess of the conven
tion, as they might find suitable "for the establishment of
a standard, 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 con
vention 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 consequence 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 English 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 individ
uals, who avoided the law by a few notes in the lower
margin, which may be cut from the text, but favors 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 avoiding typographical errors.
Further, they were aware, that their report did not go
to the desirable extent; and it was this consideration which
led to the appointment ofthe joint committee.
There came before the two houses, the proposal of the
last General Convention for the changing of the time of the
meeting from May to October. The House of Bishops

50 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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
authority in the presiding bishop, in the case of the occur
rence 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.
The principal subject of discussion related to the Theo
logical Seminary, the location of which became transferred
by this convention from New York to New Haven, in Con
necticut, adopting sundry measures for the furtherance of
the design. When the bishops concurred in the proposal,
they unanimously declared, that they did not "mean by
this concurrence to interfere with any plan now contem
plated, or that may hereafter be contemplated, in any dio
cese or dioceses, for the establishment of theological insti
tutions or professorships; and further, they esteem it their
duty to express the opinion, that the various sums sub
scribed, having been thus subscribed under an act of the
convention establishing the seminary in New York, the
subscribers who have not paid are not now bound, except
they think proper, to pay their subscriptions; the institu
tion 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.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS.

5'

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
1 82 1, 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, presiding
bishop; Bishop Hobart, of New York; Bishop Griswold, of
the Eastern Diocese; Bishop Kemp, of Maryland; Bishop
Croes, of New Jersey; and Bishop Brownell, of Connecti
cut. In the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, the Rev.
Dr. William Wilmer presided, the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin
was secretary, and the Rev. John C. Rudd was assistant
secretary. The Rev. William Augustus Muhlenberg was
secretary of the House of Bishops.
This convention assembled on the call of the presiding
bishop, induced 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 Ja
cob Sherred, of the City of New York, to a seminary which
should be instituted within the state, either by the General
Convention or by that of the diocese in which the testator
lived and died. It became a question, which of two semi
naries was entitled to the legacy. On the one hand, the
general seminary being the first named, was thought enti
tled to it, on the condition of removal to New York: and
several eminent gentlemen of the law had given their opin
ions in the affirmative. On the other hand, legal gentle
men of equal eminence were of opinion, that as the dioce
san seminary 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.

52 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 discuss
ing various projects for the combining of the seminaries
now existing in New Haven and New York, all, in the
spirit of conciliation and mutual 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 opposi
tion; which was almost confined to the clerical and lay gen
tlemen from Virginia; with whom it is a favorite idea, to
establish a theological professorship in the college of Wil
liam 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 are 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
thousand dollars shall have been contributed in any state, ten
thousand dollars shall be required for every additional trus
teeship. 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 found themselves
incompetent to the purpose of the appointment. There
was now a new scheme proposed by the bishops, more com-

NARRATIVE 01 EVENTS.

53

plete, and in every respect more reasonable than the for
mer. The scheme had the concurrence of the House of
Clerical and Lay Deputies, x.
The House of Bishops, sent to the other house, an opin
ion explanatory of the last rubric in the communion ser
vice, which had been interpreted by some as dispensing
with the reading of the ante-communion service, if a ser
mon were to follow. This was not to 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
convention. 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 report was sent the other house, and required nothing
on their part, except concurrence in appointing a joint com
mittee, 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, of Pennsylvania; Bishop Gris
wold, of the Eastern Diocese; Bishop Moore, of Virginia;
Bishop Kemp, of Maryland ; Bishop Croes, of New Jer
sey; Bishop Bowen, of South Carolina; Bishop Chase, of
Ohio; Bishop Brownell, of Connecticut; and (after his con
secration) Bishop Ravenscroft, of North Carolina. Of the
two absent, Bishop Hobart was detained by sickness.

54

MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.

The Rev. Dr. William Wilmer, of Virginia, was chosen
president ofthe House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The
Rev. Ashbel Baldwin was chosen their secretary,* and the
Rev. John C. Rudd, 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 presid
ing bishop to answer them. aa.
At the convention of 1820, a committee had been ap
pointed, consisting of the presiding bishop, 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. Muhl
enberg, the Rev. Jackson Kemper, the Rev. Samuel Tur
ner, D.D., the Rev. Richard S. Mason, the Hon. Kensey
Johns, the Hon. Robert H. Goldsborough, John Read, Esq.,
* He at once resigned the office. Ed.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 55
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 edi
tion of the Holy Bible. The report was accepted; and
a mode \vas appointed of publishing authorized editions.
The approved edition was by Eyre and Strahan (London)
in 1806 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 ofthe 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, concern
ing the American Colonization Society. The bishops, con
sidering 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 Clerical and Lay Deputies, and was there read and re
turned. Nothing further was done in the business, ee.
A joint committee was appointed to report on the cir
cumstances of different colleges in the United States, in
reference to religious instruction given in them respect
ively, and on the practicability of establishing a seminary
or seminaries for the education of youth, under the influ
ence 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. Wilkins. ff.
The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies drew up a re
port on the state of the Church in the several dioceses,
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 The
ological Seminary, and a recommendation of further efforts
for the increase of its funds.

56 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 Mis
sionary 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
Philadelphia, 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
15th of November, in the year 1826. 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 Lay 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 ofthe House of Bishops.
The convention was opened by divine service, by a ser
mon from Bishop Bowen, of South Carolina, and by the
administration ofthe holy communion.
There was submitted to the two houses the organiza
tion 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

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS.

57

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 espe
cially 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
least fifteen verses. License was also given, in reference
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 even
ing service, is proof, that where this does not obtain, but
there is service on Wednesdays and Fridays, it is condu
cive 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 them 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 offence taken in
various places, at the following words in it liable to be
misunderstood — "and hast given them forgiveness of all

58 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 re
quiring the recital of the ante-communion service, more
explicitly than before. There was an endeavor to divide
the two subjects; but this was impossible, as fhey consti
tuted but one proposal from the bishops. In consequence
of the adoption of the whole instrument, the sense of the
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies is now declared in
favor of what the bishops have all along declared, and that
unanimously, to be the meaning of the rubric, pronounced
by so many to be dubious. //.
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 re
ferred to the conventions of the different states, and to be
acted on at the next General Convention, mm.
The business which may be thought the next in impor
tance, 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 be
ing enlarged to two hundred and thirteen. There had
been many meetings of the committee on that work, and
great pains had been bestowed on it. Considerable ex
pense having been incurred by various impressions from the
press of what was to be brought under consideration, there
was permission given to a committee, with a view to retri
bution, to dispose of a copyright of these Hymns for one
year. nn.
There was but one canon passed. It altered the for
mer canon, requiring one year for the admission of a can
didate to holy Orders, extending the term to three years,

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 59
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; but they
were referred to a committee on the canons, who were to
be in existence during the recess, in order to make an ar
rangement of the whole body of the canons, with such im
provements 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 ac
countability." 00.
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 ob
ject 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 operation
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 extended 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 accordingly
rejected: but of these there was a proportion, 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.
There was also a report, considered as satisfactory, of

60 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
«
the proceedings of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary
Society. There was the continuation of a committee, with a view
to the future establishment 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
ofthe 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 foot
ing with the liturgy, in respect to any alterations which
may be proposed.
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 Dep
uties, 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 Thurs
day, the 20th day of the same month. The bishops pres
ent at the opening of the session, were Bishop White, of
Pennsylvania; Bishop Hobart, of New York; Bishop Gris
wold, of the Eastern Diocese; Bishop Moore, of Virginia;
Bishop Croes, of New Jersey; Bishop Brownell, of Connect
icut; Bishop Ravenscroft, of North Carolina; and Bishop

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 6 1
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 ofthe 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
Lay Deputies. 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 effect by the next, after intermediate
submission to the churches in the several states; in like
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 the
major number of the diocesan conventions, rr.
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 Epis
copacy. The evils resulting from such an economy were
so manifest, that there was unanimity of opinion in oppo
sition to it in both houses: even the deputies from the
diocese in question not defending it; and expressing their

62 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
confident persuasion that the ground would be changed at
the next meeting ofthe convention.
The only difference of opinion in the House of Clerical
and Lay Deputies, during a discussion of several days, 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
be a reasonable dictate of moderation, to carry the pro
posed measure into effect. During some days, the defeat
of it seemed almost certain; but towards the close of the
controversy, the matter took a different turn; and the
measure of presentation was carried, but not without 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 Dr. 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 ofthe 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
* See also note to p. 17 of Bishop White's sermon preached at the consecration
of Bishop Meade, printed in New York, 1829. Ed.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 63
ofthe present difficulty: which canon was sent to the other
house, and passed by them. ss.
On the next day, being Wednesday, October 19th, the
Rev. William Meade, D.D., was consecrated in St. James'
Church, by the presiding bishop; six other bishops, to wit,
Bishops Hobart, Griswold, Croes, Moore, Brownell, and
Onderdonk, joining in the imposition of hands. The ser
mon was preached by the presiding bishop, from Revela
tion ii. 10.
At this convention, seven canons were passed.
The first was principally designed to provide for the
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
the 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 ofthe 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 dec
laration that he will no longer officiate as a clergyman of
the Episcopal Church, it shall be certified, if the fact be so,
that his severance is not for any cause affecting his moral
standing. The fourth respects a minister's change of residence
from one diocese to another. It so far enlarges the sense
ofthe thirty-first canon of 1808, as to provide, that in the
case of his 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.

64 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
The sixth abrogated the necessity, in the case of a
foreigner, intending to officiate 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 minister's offi
ciating within the parochial boundaries of any city, bor
ough, village, town, or township, of which he is not a
resident. The presiding bishop presented to the convention cer
tain 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 the King of Denmark; containing considerable
information not generally possessed. 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. Mun-
ter, the present Bishop of Copenhagen.
There was submitted to the convention the report ofthe
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society; of whose pro
ceedings there was expressed very strong approbation,
with an earnest recommendation of a more extensive pat
ronage. Sundry alterations of the constitution, proposed
by the society, were sanctioned by the convention.
The proceedings ofthe trustees ofthe Theological Sem
inary were submitted; and there was made a nomination
ofthe requisite number ofthe trustees of the institution.
The committee on the 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-

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 65
dress, they would notice the deficiency of the number of
clergy, in comparison of the extent of the field of labor;
and that, with a view to a remedy of the evil, they would
recommend the instituting of scholarships. This desire
was complied with.
The committee on the Psalms in metre was continued.
For the meeting of the next General Convention, the
two houses agreed on the third Wednesday in October,
1832 — to be in New York.
The business of the session was concluded with prayer
by the presiding bishop, and by singing a part of a psalm.
The next meeting ofthe General Convention was in the
year 1832, in the City of New York. It began on Wednes
day, the 17th of October, and ended its session on Wednes
day, the 31st of the same month. The bishops present,
were Bishop White, of Pennsylvania; Bishop Griswold, of
the Eastern Diocese; Bishop Bowen, of South Carolina;
Bishop Brownell, of Connecticut; Bishop H. U. Onder
donk, assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania; Bishop Meade,
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 their secretary, the Rev.
Bird Wilson, D.D., of Pennsylvania.
The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, beginning with
a full deputation, chose the Rev. William E. Wyatt, D.D.,
their president, and the Rev. Henry Anthon, 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: —
In forming the constitution of Kenyon College, lo.cated
at Gambier, in that state, it was provided, that the presi
dency should be necessarily connected with the Episcopacy
ofthe diocese. In the collegiate department, the principal
authority was vested in a board of trustees, to which that

66 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
of the president, and of every professor, was subordinate
and accountable. The incongruity of this is obvious. In
the event ofthe charge of insufficiency or of misconduct in
t e 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 from the latter also.
The 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
appealed to the trustees, whose power was alike acknowl
edged by them. The trustees decided in favor 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 endeavor, 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 ofthe 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 dio
cesan convention of Ohio, the choice of Dr. M'llvaine was
renewed, which brought up the matter before the General
Convention, combined with the case of Bishop Chase above
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
revertheless vacated by the bishop's abandonment of his

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 67
charge, and by his retirement beyond the limits of our ec
clesiastical union, which can not 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 un
der 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 was prepared, and sent to the other house. There it
excited a warm opposition, but was at last carried. It is
the thirty-second of the code now in force. The bishops
held it to be an indispensable preliminary, to the supply of
the exigency in Ohio, which, they thought, might else be
hereafter 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

68 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the bishops only, they declared themselves incompetent to
exercise the power of visitors as a body, leaving to each
bishop the privilege of acting in the premises according to
his discretion.
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 no
tice. 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
authority, which, by the seventh section of the constitution
of the Theological Seminary in the diocese of Ohio, is con
ferred on this convention, uu.
In this convention, the canons of the Church came un
der a careful consideration; time and experience having
rendered some alterations expedient, and there having
been appointed, at the last convention, a committee for the
remodelling of the code; whose report was made and acted
on at the present session, win.
The Church of Alabama was admitted to the federal
union, as was also that in the territory of Michigan.
There was read a report from the trustees of the Gen
eral Theological Seminary, and a call was made on every
parochial clergyman of this Church, for an annual collec
tion in aid of the institution, xx.
The prayer which has been always used in the General
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

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS. 69
diversity of positions, in persons equally desirous of ru
brical conformity, bearing a very unseemly appearance.
There being something wanting, to perfect the permis
sion given at the last convention, of the use of the Book of
Common Prayer, translated into the French language, the
defect was now supplied.
The churches in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana,
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 Conven
tion shall hold its session; the body of deputies to appoint
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 typographi
cal, and may be perceived to be such, by a comparison of
the form with that of the Church of England: no altera
tion 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 conven
tional meetings, as above stated.
The bishops ordained a rule of seniority and of presi
dency, to be observed in their body; also a rule of seniority
in relation 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
the table." This is certainly the most agreeable to the
spirit of the rubric, and the most consistent, where a
church does not stand east and west, with the table at the
former, as were all the churches of England when the lit
urgy was framed, ss.

7o

MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.

In addition to the election to the Episcopacy ofthe Rev.
Dr. M'llvaine, for Ohio, there came before the House of
Clerical and Lay Deputies, that of the Rev. John H. Hop
kins, for the diocese of Vermont; that ofthe Rev. Benjamin
B. Smith, for the diocese of Kentucky; and that ofthe 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 Au
gust, 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 ist 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 ofthe same.
In the House of Bishops there was prepared an admis
sion into the ecclesiastical union, of the diocese of Illinois,

* Prior to this time, candidates were consecrated in the order of their Doctorate.
In this case, the rule of priority in Election was instituted. This brought Dr. Smith
into the second place. In the vestry-room, after the consecration, Bishop White
referred to the change and justified it; when Dr. Smith, the only one affected by
it, expressed himself entirely satisfied. Ed.

NARRATIVE OF EVENTS.

71

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.
The House of Bishops agreed to the proposal of the last
General Convention, altering the rubric before the com
munion service, by substituting the word "right" for the
word " north." This also was agreed to by the House of
Clerical and Lay Deputies, ddd.
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
ceses; when, in their opinion respectively, from increase
of the Episcopal population, such a measure shall become
necessary to the giving of due effect 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 the
territories of Florida and Arkansas; and the other for Mis-
* Both boards are now in New York. [The plan was changed again in 1877.] Ed.

72 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 commission 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.
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 minister
and ofthe 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. ///.
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. mm.
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 exigen
cies 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.

II.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

A. Page 1 6. Of the Question of American Episcopacy, 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, Massachusetts, 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 revolution
ary war, when the Rev. Dr. Chandler, of Elizabethtown,
New Jersey, made an appeal to the public, in favor 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 per
formance 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 respectable number of lay-

74 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
men 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 Epis
copacy to Presbytery; and of a form of prayer, to that
which is extemporary ? It is believed to have been owing
to an existing jealousy, that American Episcopacy would
have been made an instrument of enforcing the new plan
of civil government, which had been adopted in Great
Britain; in contrariety to original compact and future se
curity for freedom : a regard to which was as prevalent
among Episcopalians, as among any description of their
fellow-citizens. Perhaps these sentiments may be supposed to be contra
dicted 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 inconsist
ent with the sentiments expressed. On the subject of par
liamentary taxation, it would probably have been impossi
ble to have found in any city, town, or vicinity of the
colonies, such a number of persons not vehemently opposed
to it, as would have been sufficient to form a congregation.
Out of the sphere of governmental influence, 'there was
scarcely a man of that description. When the controversy
became ripened into war, some fell off from the cause, from
danger to their persons and their properties; others, from
the sentiment that the public evil hazarded might prove
worse than that intended to be avoided; and others per
haps, although very few, from scruples of conscience. They
who were influenced by these, had stopped short at the tak
ing 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. All the aforesaid circumstances operated with
increased vigor, when the question of independence was

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 75
forced on the reluctant public. Had the British arms suc
ceeded, and thus the right of parliamentary taxation been
established — for there was no offer of relinquishment of it,
until after the alliance with France — a membership of the
Episcopal Church would have been little more than a po
litical mark, to distinguish those who should advocate
claims hostile to American interests.
To persons who may give their attention to the colonial
history, the question may occur — Why did not the British
government so far consult its own interests, as to author
ize the consecrating of bishops for America? This question
shall be considered, on the ground of views taken of past
incidents. Any ministry, who should have ventured on the
measure, would have raised up against themselves the whole
ofthe dissenting interest in England, and the weight of that
interest was more important to them in their estimation
than the making of a party for the mother country in the
colonies. The matter is resolvable into the ignorance of
government of the real state of the people, whom they ex
pected to govern so easily, at so great a distance. Again,
this ignorance is resolvable into their depending on infor
mation received from persons whose judgments, or whose
honesty, they ought, the most of all, to have distrusted:
an error, which hung heavily on all their proceedings, until
the period when it ceased to be of consequence.
Lest it should be thought, that the dissenting interest
in England has been magnified, it ought to be known, that
the forces of the different 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 opposi
tion. They had great influence in elections to parliament.
As to the laity's uniting in an application for the Episco-

76 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
pacy, it is natural to suppose that this, if to be 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. How far they were from
favoring the endeavor, may be learned from the following
statement. In the year 177 1, 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, be
cause 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 resulting from the newly intro
duced system of colonial government. This is warranted
by the absurdity of the reasons on which the protest of the
four clergymen was bottomed; among which, perhaps the
most absurd, was professed respect for the diocesan author
ity of the bishops of London; it being notorious, that the
then bishop and his immediate predecessors had mani
fested zeal for the appointment now opposed. In conse
quence of the proceeding of the House of Burgesses, a con
vention ofthe clergy of New York and New Jersey published
an address to the Episcopalians in Virginia, drawn up by
Dr. Chandler. It must be evident on reading the address,
that the reasoning of it was unanswerable; and that, as the
address expresses, there were, on the other side "only un
reasonable jealousies and groundless suspicions"; unreason
able and groundless, so far as they were declared, and
referring to titles to civil offices, and the like; while there
was a sentiment silently operating, to the effect above

ADDITIONAL STA TEMENTS.

11

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 president of Congress, did not
hesitate to furnish to the two bishops who went for conse
cration, a certificate, that the business on which they went
was consistent with the civil institutions of the American
republic* Certain it is, that no endeavors 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 the 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 expedient.
Had bishops been consecrated for America on the plan
proposed by Archbishop Seeker, the civil government no
further interfering than in the grant of the royal permis
sion, it is difficult to perceive, how hindrance could have
been attempted by any description of persons, without an
avowal of intolerance; and without a disposition to un
provoked insurrection, beyond what can be supposed from

* For the correctness of the opinion expressed of the utter inability of the
British administrations for the government of the colonies, there may be here a
reference to Bissett's History of the Reign of George III. This author wrote in
opposition to Belsham, and may, therefore, be supposed, on the whole, favorable
to government. But he points out, with candor, the contrariety between the'
views of ministers and the consequences of their acts — evidently bottomed on
false information, and their relying on the persons whom they ought the most to
have distrusted.

78 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
any thing that passed of a political description. That good
prelate's scheme is unfolded in his letter to Mr. Walpole,
printed among the prelate's works. From the circumstance,
that, since the revolution, an act of parliament was held
necessary to permit the giving of a beginning to the Amer
ican 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 happened, however threatened by
some who were indeed very violent on the subject.
But he is not backward to acknowledge, that he thought
he foresaw difficulties to the Episcopal Church from the
other source here hinted. It was not unlikely, that the
British government, had they sanctioned an Episcopacy in
the colonies, would have endeavored 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 people; the great mass of whom, including the best
informed, and those who had the property ofthe 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 connection with the opinion, than with its
opposite. Thus, in England, Arminianism was conceived
of as allied to absolute monarchy, and Calvinism to popular

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 79
privilege; at the same time that, in the United Netherlands,
the latter supported the monarchical, and the former the re
publican branch of the constitution. The grievances which
produced the American war, were the result of claims of
one people over another; and not of the question, as to
what would be the wisest distribution ofthe internal powers
of either. Besides, it may be remarked, that Episcopacy,
as now settled in America, must be confessed at least as
analogous as Presbytery — the author thinks much more so
¦ — to the plan of civil government, which mature delibera
tion 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 subser
vient 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 favor
of their right to an Episcopate. Far from this, he honors
their memories, and considers the arguments on which they
rested their claim as unanswerable. What has been said,
is merely an argument from certain causes existing in the
character and the circumstances of the American people,
to what would have been the effects in a supposed case,
which did not occur.
It may be thought, that there should be allowed a large
deduction from the weight of the observations made, on
account of the proportion of the American people, whose
conduct or whose wishes were in contrariety to the gen
eral 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

80 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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
have had its effect on the minds ofthe temporary advocates
of Great Britain, had the war terminated in her favor.
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 na
tional domination, under whatever circumstances, will be
'tyranny. An individual may be a tyrant, or otherwise, ac
cording 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 deliv
ered, on account of the establishments existing in Mary
land and Virginia; which would not have been overset by
the British government. The subsequently prostrate con-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 8 1
dition of the Church in these states, may be urged as a
proof of the advantages which would have attended a con
tinuance of the establishment. But this reasoning is inad
missible, if, as before supposed, 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 old parts, numbers were
leaving the Church, to attend the ministrations of preach
ers, who had recently availed themselves of the very little
regard entertained for their clergy, to produce a popular
desertion of the Church itself. Under such circumstances,
it was hardly to be expected, that the establishment would
have redounded to the reputation and the increase of the
Church generally. It was becoming more and more unpop
ular; with some, because it was not considered as promoting
piety; and with these and others, because they thought the
provision for it a useless burden on the community.*

* On the question of burden, as detached from all other considerations, there is
a fallacy not generally perceived. Under the present system, if the gospel should
be supported in the states concerned, as may now be confidently expected, the
weight of the expense will fall disproportibnably on people of moderate means.
During the establishment it fell on the rich in tolerable proportion to their wealth.
There is another fallacy in this business, in the reproach brought on the Church,
when it ought to have fallen on the want of wisdom in the making of ministerial
endownents, without some provision for ministerial fidelity. Hence, however, a
great proportion of the unpopularity, which led to the seizure and the sale of
churches and glebes by the legislature of Virginia. It ought to be remembered, to
the honor of Patrick Henry, that he resisted the said act, and that it could never
be obtained until after his decease. This eminent man has been accused, of hav
ing always set his sail to the popular gale. There are several facts against the
charge, and this is one of them: for he had to resist, through many years, the
united efforts of men hostile to revealed religion in every form, and of other men
who were professors of religion, but cherished rancorous hatred against the Church
of England in particular. The author is the more free in speaking of the act of
the legislature of Virginia, as it will go down to posterity loaded with the reproach
of unconstitutionality, by the Supreme Court of the United States: although their
judgment will have no effect beyond the district of Columbia. See Cranch's Re
ports, vol. ix.

82 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
There is a remarkable fact in Virginia, countenancing the
sentiments delivered. After the fall of the establishment,
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, ex
cept, perhaps, that of marriage. They knew that their
public ministrations would not have been attended.

B. Page 17. Of the Question of using the Liturgy, exclusively
of the Prayers for the R~i7ig 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 connections 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 enter
tained scruples in regard to the oath of allegiance to the
states, without the taking of which, they were prohibited
from officiating by laws alike impolitic and severe. But it
must be seen, that scruples of this sort were of another na
ture 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.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 83
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, priests, 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 ofthe sacraments, and no other."
This promise ought to be taken in connection 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 ofthe 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 by name,
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 ofthe indulgence,
with the exception ofthe political prayers; the use of which
would have been highly penal.

C. Page 19. Of the Meeting in Nczo Brunswick, in May,
1784.
The first communications, between the clergy of different
states, were at this meeting. It took its rise from a pre-

84 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 Moore, and Thomas Moore; from New
Jersey, the Rev. Messrs. Beach, Fraser, and Ogden; and
from Pennsylvania, the Rev. Dr. White, Dr. Magaw, and
Mr. Blackwell. There happened to be in the town, on civil
business, some lay gentlemen, who, being represented by
the clergy from New York and New Jersey as taking an
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. Hoyt.* 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 pe
culiarly circumstanced, in consequence of their having
joined the clergy of Connecticut in their application for
the consecration of a bishop. This brought to the knowl
edge 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 evacua
tion 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
* Should read Hoyt, Colonel Hoyt. Former editions read " Hiet." Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 85
pending of their application, they could not consistently
join in any proceedings which might be construed to inter
fere with it. Accordingly, the conversation of that day —
on which the meeting ended — was principally confined to
the business of the revival of the corporation for the relief
of the widows and the children of the clergy; which had
been held out as an additional object of the interview.*
But before the clergy parted, it was agreed to procure as
general 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 gentle
men 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, notwith
standing the good humor which prevailed at it, the more
northern 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 in
formed persons should overlook the propriety of accom
modating 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.

* This corporation, by mutual consent, and with a fair partition of the funds,
has since resolved itself into three corporations, under charters from the three
states.

86 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
D. Page 19. 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,
Marinus 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
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.
Griffith. 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 printed account of the pro
ceedings of this meeting was in very few hands at the
time, and is probably at this time generally destroyed or
lost.* The present meeting, like that in May, is here spoken
of as a voluntary one, and not an authorized convention,
because there were no authorities 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 pro
pose. Accordingly, the acts of the body were in the form
of recommendation and proposal.

* Several copies of the original Broadside containing the record still remain, and
a fac simile was issued in 1S63, the edition being limited to twenty -five copies.
See also, Reprint of Journals, III. 3. 4. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 87
The principles of ecclesiastical union, recommended at
the meeting, September, 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 dep
uties 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
constitutions ofthe 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.
6th. That the clergy and laity, assembled in conven
tion, shall deliberate in one body, but shall vote sepa
rately; 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. Michael
next; to which it is hoped, and earnestly desired, that the
Episcopal churches in the several states will send their
clerical and lay deputies, duly instructed and authorized to
proceed on the necessary business herein proposed for their
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 Church in Con
necticut, it is not to be thought, that there was an obli-

* Additional illustrations of the subject are preserved in the archives of the
General Convention. See Journals, III. 62-66. Ed.

88 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
gation 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 the
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 mat
ter 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 ac
commodation to local circumstances, as might be expected
to secure the concurrence of the great body of her mem
bers; 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 ques
tion, when the crisis presented a subject of deliberation en
tirely 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 legislation. Besides these things, the con
fessed necessity of accommodating the service to the newly
established civil constitution of the country, naturally
awakened apprehensions of unlimited license. Hence the
restriction to the English liturgy, except in accommoda
tion to the revolution, which restriction was not acqui
esced in, as will be seen.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 89
E. Page 20. 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 the excep
tion of what was done by the clergy, individually, in
Connecticut. In Massachusetts there was held a meeting ofthe 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
agreed on in Philadelphia will appear lower down.
Those of Boston are,
ist, 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 so
cieties, 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 uniformity

* See Documents in journals of Convention, Philadelphia, 1861, I., 432. Ed.

90 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
of worship be continued, as near as may be, to the liturgy
of the said Church.
4thly, That the succession of the ministry be agreeable
to the usage which requireth the three orders, of bishops,
priests, and deacons; that the rights and powers of the
same be respectively ascertained; and that they be exer
cised according to reasonable laws, to be duly made.
Sthly, That the power of making canons and laws be
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. 6thly, That no power be delegated to a general ecclesi
astical government, except such as can not 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 Philadelphia, are,
that in the former they provide for an application to a
foreign quarter; which 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
Philadelphia in September, 1785, held a meeting of their
own, about the same time, in Boston, in which they made
considerable alterations in the liturgy. Although they
doubtless acted agreeably to what seemed best to them
at the different times; yet this fluctuation of counsels is
recorded, lest the latter measure, contemplated singly,
should seem to do away the weight of the principles ante
cedently established.
In Connecticut there was a meeting of the clergy, in

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 91
March, 1783, the principal measure of which, was the rec
ommending of Dr. Samuel Seabury to the English bishops
for consecration. This was an act of the clergy generally
in that state, and of a few in New York; and is rather to
be considered as done by them in their individual capaci
ties, 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 conse
quence 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 contro
versies concerning American Episcopacy; yet it is so evi
dently contrary to the system as gathered from Scripture
and primitive antiquity, that he does not suppose it will be
maintained in deliberate argument. His recording of this
circumstance is not designed, either in disparagement of
the personal character of Bishop Seabury, or as doubting
of the approbation of the measure by the whole Church in
which he has since presided. In regard to the former, the
author entertained for that bishop much affection and re
spect, the result of what was afterwards perceived in per
son, 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 inclination 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 subsequent 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 ecclesi-

92 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
astical 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 previous agreement with the Rev. Dr. Magaw,
the rector of St. Paul's Church, ard the Rev. Mr. Blackwell,
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
ofthe convention.
The result of their deliberations was the establishing of
the following principles, as a foundation for the future form
ing of an ecclesiastical body for the Church at large.
ist, 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 uniformity
of worship continued, as near as may be, to the liturgy of
the said Church.
4thly, That the succession of the ministry be agreeable
to the usage which requireth the three orders, of bishops,
priests, and deacons; that the rights and powers of the
same, respectively, be ascertained, and that they be exer
cised according to reasonable laws, to be duly made.
Sthly, That to make canons or laws, there be no other
authority than that of a representative body of the clergy
and laity conjointly.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

93

6thly, That no powers be delegated to a general eccle
siastical government, except such as can not conveniently
be exercised by the clergy and laity, in their respective
congregations.* * The steps preparatory to the resolves were as follows: — they were the first
advances towards a general organization, and are copied from the original journal
in possession. Philadelphia, March 2c,th, 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 followeth: —
" The rector mentioned to the vestry, that he lately had a conversation with the
Rev. Dr. Magaw, on the subject of appointing committees from the vestries of
their respective 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
Church, 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 foUows the above
minute). The above minute being taken into consideration, and this vestry con
curring in opinion thereon, unanimously appointed Lambert Wilmer and Plunket
Fleeson, Esquires, on the part of this church, to carry into execution the good
intentions of the said minute.''
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 such importance
ought to be taken up, tf possible, with the concurrence of the Episcopalians of the
United States in general. They, therefore, resolved to ask a conference with
such members of the Episcopal 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 at
Christ Church, on Wednesday evening at seven o'clock. Christ Church, March T,\st.
The 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

94 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
As this was the first ecclesiastical assembly in any ofthe
states, consisting partly of lay members, and as the author
was considered at the time to be the proposer of the meas
ure, 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 favor.
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
several gentlemen who had designed to attend, were detained by the unexpected
sitting of the honorable House of Assembly, they being members of that house.
The Hon. James Read, Esq., attended, according to desire. After some conver
sation on the business of this meeting, it was resolved, that a circular letter be
addressed to the wardens and vestrymen of the 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 committee appointed by the
vestry of St. Paul's Church, in the same city, for the purpose of proposing a plan
of ecclesiastical government, being now assembled, are of opinion, that a subject
of such importance ought to be taken up, if possible, with the concurrence of the
Episcopalians of the Lbiited States in general. They have therefore resolved, as
preparatory to a general consultation, to request the church-wardens and vestry
men of each Episcopal congregation in the state, to delegat* 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 state. The above resolve, gentlemen, the first step in
their proceedings, they now respectfully and affectionately 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, 1784. The minutes of the meeting are in
the printed journals of the Church in Pennsylvania. The principal result was
communicated, a few days after, to the meeting in New Brunswick.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

95

been a constituent part ofthe 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 ofthe 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
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
Totter, 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 interpolation, 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 pre
fers, and Griesbach rejects it. The passage, even with the
corrections, amounts to what is pleaded for — the obtaining
ofthe consent ofthe laity; which must have accompanied
the decree of Jerusalem; nothing less being included in the
term "multitude,'' who are said to have "kept silent," and
in that of " the whole church," of whom, as well as of the
apostles and elders, it is said, that "it pleased " them to
institute the recorded mission. On no other principle than
that here affirmed, can there be 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

9 6 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 doc
trine, 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 rea
son of the thing, and the principles of the British constitu
tion.* On this very ground, the courts of law of that coun
try have always refused to recognize the canons of 1603, as
binding over the laity. So far as they are a declaration of
the ancient canon law of the realm, they are held to be
binding, like the common law,, on the ground of imme
morial custom: but such matters as rest only on the de
terminations of the convocation, have been continually
declared, by solemn judgments of the courts, to be not
binding on the laity, for the express reason, that they were
not represented in the convocation. — 2dly, 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 de
nominations, that not spiritual powers only, but civil also,
were intended, rendered it very uncertain whether we could
accomplish 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
* " Till it be proved that some special law of Christ hath forever annexed unto
the clergy alone the power to make ecclesiastical laws, we are to hold it a thing
most consonant with equity and reason, that no ecclesiastical law be made jn a
Christian commonwealth, without consent as well as of the laity as of the clergy."
Polity, B. VIII., C. vi. 8. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 97
or to religious rights was in contemplation. — 3dly, Without
the order of laity permanently making a part of our assem
blies, it were much to be apprehended, that the laymen
would never be brought to submit to any of our ecclesias
tical 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 important — admission to the communion, and
exclusion from it. And they would have the principles
and the practice of England to plead in their favor, 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's
"Alliance of Church and State," p. 197 — -"There was no
absurdity in that custom, which continued during the Sax
on 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, what
ever 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 ac
counts of the historian Fuller. Speaking of the convoca
tion 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 relig
ion, was a just jealousie which he had of the ill affection of
the major part thereof; who, under the fair rinde of Protes-

* Dr. Hawks says that Bishop White repeatedly told him ' ' that such was the
feeling on the subject of introducing the laity, that had they been excluded, no
union or constitution would ever have been formed." — Journals IIL, 60. Ed.

98 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
tant profession had the rotten core of Romish superstition.
It was therefore conceived safer for the king, to relie on
the ability and fidelity of some select confidents, cordiall
to the cause of religion, than to adventure the same to be
discussed and decided by a suspitious convocation. How
ever, this convocation is entitled the parent of those ar
ticles of religion (42 in number,) which are printed with
this preface 'Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi An
no 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 (I 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 may be said to have done it them
selves by their delegates, to whom they had deputed their
authority. A case not so clear, but that it occasioned a
cavill at the next convocation, in the first of Queen Mary,
when the papists, therein assembled, renounced the legal
ity 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 Protes
tants, concerning the sanction to the principle of persecu
tion 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 99
weight of the clergy in ecclesiastical proceedings, but when
the matter is carried so far, as that without their permis
sion, there shall not be the rejection of corruptions in con
trariety to the records on which their commission rests, the
claim is extravagant, and tends to the counteracting evil,
of a denial of the real rights of their order.
The connection 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
cils, induces the taking of this opportunity of declaring,
that, after the years which have passed, there does not ap
pear to his mind any cause to retract the leading senti
ments of that performance. The necessity urged in it
ceased to exist, within a short time after the publication,
and therefore, all thoughts of the measure intended to
have been founded on it, were laid aside. But had Great
Britain dropped the war, yet continued her claims, as many
judicious persons expected would be the case, and as had
happened formerly, between Spain and the United Nether
lands, it is difficult to perceive how any thing materially
different from what is recommended in that pamphlet,

* The pamphlet in question was entitled " The Case of the Episcopal Churches
in the United States considered " (Philadelphia, printed by David C. Claypole,
1783). It was reprinted in 1827 by William Staveley, Philadelphia; and in 1829
it was republished from 1224 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, with the title, "Bishop
White on Episcopacy" (See "Opinions of Bishop White," Philadelphia, 1868,
p. 30). It was also reproduced in the Journals, Vol. III., p. 419. The motto on
the title page was from Hooker: "To make new articles of faith and doctrine, no
man thinketh it lawful ; new laws of government, what commonwealth or church is
there which maketh not at one time or another ? " Yet Bishop White, no more than
Hooker, dreamed of any departure from the primitive and apostolic Church, while
the nature of his proposition is explained in the present work. It may be added,
however, that the blank leaves of a copy of a Charge printed in 1832 bear some
additional explanations in his own hand. These leaves have been reproduced in
fax simile by his grandson, Thomas H. Montgomery, Esq. The Bishop says that
his pamphlet was put forth at a time when it was thought, that, in case American
Independence was virtually achieved, it would not be acknowledged by England,
and, consequently, that the succession could not be obtained. Ed.

100 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
could have continued us, as a religious society, in exist
ence.* Soon after the publication of the pamphlet, the
author found himself in danger of being involved in a dis
pute with the clergy of Connecticut, in the name of whom,
assembled in convention, their secretary, the Rev. Abra
ham Jarvis, addressed a letter, complaining of the perform
ance, 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 ad
dress 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 animosity became the result of
this misapprehension; and other events have manifested
consent in all matters essential to ecclesiastical discipline.
Before the author's subsequent 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 re
cently 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 prelate, 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 archbishops
and bishops of England, and was by him delivered to the
Archbishop of Canterbury.!

* It is not to be supposed that under such circumstances, the non-juring bishops
of Scotland, laboring under penal laws, not executed indeed, but to which they were
obnoxious, and studying to live in quiet submission to an authority which they did not
acknowledge, would have provoked it by the measure in question. It is equally
improbable, that any kingdom, the establishment of which was Protestant and Epis
copalian, would have provoked Great Britain by an intercourse with those whom
she would have considered as her subjects in rebellion.
f The pamphlet, written at a time when there were few Episcopalian pulpits in

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 01
On the communication from Connecticut, it will not be
offensive 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 in
timation in the letter, that the author of the pamphlet re
garded Episcopacy no further than for the satisfying of the
people, and thus the prospect was held out of obtaining it
at a future time, would have been wounding to his feelings,
had his brethren of Connecticut possessed a knowledge of
him. They were, at that time, strangers to one another.
The intimated suspicion was then resolved, and is now 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 preten
sions, 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

the United States from which the sound of the gospel was heard, was to the follow
ing 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 ecclesiastical 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 imme
diate 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 similar to those of the existing case, although less imperious. It was
also alleged, that as much as what was now proposed might be seen to be implied,
in the ground on which Episcopacy rests in the institutions of the Church of Eng
land, 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 Church of Christ, the three orders, of bishops, priests, and deacons";
nothing was said in proof of the fact, because it was not questioned in this Church,
and because argument to the effect would have been indiscreet, as to be stated
above.

102 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
had acted, and which they still professed. To have in
volved the merits of those principles with the object in
view, would have given a plausible pretense for the inter
ference of those who might be disposed to defeat the meas
ure in contemplation.
It is difficult, in avoiding one extreme, not to fall under
the appearance of its opposite. Many years after the pub
lication of the pamphlet, a clergyman of standing in an
anti-episcopalian society,,, alleged some passages of the
performance as sustaining ordination not episcopal. But
he had the candor 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 collec
tive body, that during the war of the Revolution, the legis
lature of Maryland, although consisting of men of various
denominations, took up the subject of organizing the
Church, and particularly of appointing ordainers to the
ministry. A clergyman of weight of character — the Rev.
Samuel Keene — actuated by laudable ardor, repaired to
Annapolis, was heard before the house, and was considered
as principally influential in producing an abandonment of
the design. Perhaps the hasty enterprise was over-ruled
to good; for almost as soon as there became known the
happy event of peace, there were held two conventions in
Maryland; the first, on the 13th of August, 1783, and the
other, on the 22d of June, 17S4. The proceedings of" these
conventions, with measures taken at other times and in
other matters by the clergy of that state, were chiefly orig
inated and conducted 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 ofthe convention in August, 1783,
was the making of "A declaration of certain fundamental

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

103

rights and liberties of the, Protestant Episcopal Church of
Maryland," consisting of the following articles : —
ist. 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 independent of every
foreign or other jurisdiction, so far as may be consistent
with the civil rights of society.
2d. That ever since the reformation, it hath been the
received doctrine of the Church of which we are members
(and which, by the constitution of this state, is entitled to a
perpetual enjoyment of certain 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
consider 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 forever, 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 forever,

104 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 of
prayer, and public worship, in order to adapt the same to
the late revolution, and other local circumstances of Amer
ica; 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 dep
uties from the different parishes, the aforesaid declaration
was again approved, and certain fundamental principles
of ecclesiastical government were established, of which
the following is recorded on the printed journal as the
substance: —
1. That none ofthe orders of the clergy, whether bishops,
priests, or deacons, who may be under the necessity of
obtaining ordination in any foreign state, with a view to
officiate or settle in this state, shall at the time of their
ordination, or at any time afterward, take or subscribe
any obligation of obedience, civil or canonical, to any for
eign power or authority whatsoever, nor be admissible into
the ministry of this Church, if such obligations have been
taken for a settlement in any foreign country, without re
nouncing 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 shall accordingly be so ex
ercised in the Church, the duty and office of priests and
deacons remaining as heretofore. And if any further dis-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 05
tinctions and regulations, in the different orders of the
ministry, should be found necessary for the good govern
ment of the Church, the same shall be made and estab
lished by the joint voice and authority of a representative
body ofthe clergy and laity, at future ecclesiastical synods
or conventions.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 ofthe 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 conven
tion for altering the time of meeting, or for meeting oftener
than once a year, or not so often, or with a larger or small
er representation of the Church, as may be judged neces
sary. But fundamental rules, once duly made, shall not be
altered, unless two thirds of such majority, as aforesaid,
duly assembled, shall agree therein.
The following heads of additional articles were set down
for the consideration of the next convention.
1. That the power and authority necessary for reclaiming
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.

106 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
2. That the power of suspending or dismissing clergy
men 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 and
taught in the Church, shall also be by the like authority.
The proceedings of these conventions, besides the cir
cumstance of their showing an accommodation to the civil
system, by the introduction of the laity, gave great offence
to some of the clergy, by the definition of the authority of
a bishop, in the second of the articles established. It is,
evidently, the much controverted position of St. Jerome.
The author does not think it accurate: and although his
principles on the subject of Episcopacy allow of an accom
modation 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 over
strained authorities ofthe 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
government. 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 107
chosen, had the effect intended. Some gentlemen, it is
said, declared in conversation, that they had contemplated
an opposition, but were prevented by this caution.
Besides the conventions which 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 Gen
eral Convention, it is not necessary to notice them any
further, than is dictated by this circumstance.

F. Page 22. Of the General Convention in Philadelphia,
in September and October, 1785.
The president of this convention was Dr. White, and the
secretary was the Rev. Dr. Griffith.
There being journals of this convention, and of the 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 ofthe 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, had been recommended to the churches
represented, and proposed to those not represented. As
all the articles except the fourth, which recognized the
English liturgy, with the 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,

108 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
framed at the period now before us, it stood on recom
mendation only, and was of no use, except in helping to
convince those who were attached to that mode of trans
acting business, that it was very idle to bring gentlemen
together from different states for the purpose of such in
conclusive proceedings.
The fifth and the eighth articles of this proposed con
stitution deserve particular notice, because they have been
subjects of considerable conversation and censure.
The former of these articles provided, that every bishop
should be a member of the convention "ex officio!' Ac
cordingly, the article was loudly objected to by the clergy
to the eastward, because of its not providing for Episcopal
presidency. The constitution was drafted by the author, in a sub
committee, a part 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, without much con
sideration of the subject, and contrary to what his good
sense, with such an advantage, would have dictated, ob
jected to the clause; and insisted, that he had read, although
he could not recollect in what book, that this had not been
a prerogative of bishops in ancient ecclesiastical assemblies.
The objection was overruled, by all the other members of
the sub-committee. But when the instrument, after passing
in the general committee, was brought into the convention,
the same gentleman, not expecting to succeed, and merely,
as he afterwards said, to be consistent, made a motion to
strike out the clause. Contrary to expectation, he was
supported by another lay gentleman, who took an active
part in all the measures, and who, in the sub-committee,
nad 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 109
this appeared to them to be wrong; because it contained
nothing contrary to the principle of Episcopal presidency;
and the general object was such as ought to have been
provided for. 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 bish
ops; as appears in the letter of the archbishops of Canter
bury and York; who there complain, that it is "a degra
dation of the clerical, and much more of the Episcopal
pharacter. " The foundation of this complaint, like that of
the other, was rather in omission, than in any thing pos
itively declared. 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 bylaws of their enacting, himself being a part ofthe
body: and it did not follow, that he might be deposed or
censured, either by laymen or by presbyters. This, how
ever, 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 preju
dice 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 a
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,

no MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the different Episcopalian congregations knew of no union
before the revolution; except what was the result of the
connection 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 a union were effected, 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 short,
very many churches, instead of one extending over the
United States; and that, without any ground for the charge
of schism, or of the invasion of one another's rights. The
course taken has embraced all the different congregations.
It is far from being certain, that the same event would have
been produced by any other plan that might have been 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
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 neighborhoods, 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 connection 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.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. Ill
Section II. Of the Measures taken to obtain the Episcopacy.
The expression should be noticed, on account of the
pretence 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 independ
ently on one another, as was the condition of all Christen
dom for a long time after the preaching of the apostles, on
the decease of every bishop, his church became extinct. A
hew name does not characterize the church as new, but
may arise from civil changes, in various ways to be con
ceived of. What was called formerly "the Church of Eng
land in America," did not cease to exist on the removal of
the Episcopacy of the Bishop of London, by the Provi
dence of God, but assumed a new name, as the dictate of
propriety. It maybe matter of surprise, that, after the clamor made
but a few years before this period, on the proposal of an
American Episcopacy, and considering the fashion of ob
jecting to it prevailing even among a considerable propor
tion of our own communion, there should now be a unani
mous application for it, from a fair representation of the
Church in seven states of the Union; the lay part consist
ing principally of gentlemen who had been active in the
late revolution, and made under circumstances which re
quired 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.
A few months before the present period, Bishop Seabury
had arrived in Connecticut, with consecration from the
non-juring bishops of Scotland. The clergy in that state,

* In evidence of the unanimity, there is in possession of the author, the original
instrument, signed by all the clerical and all the lay members who gave attend
ance on the business of the convention.

112 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 Sea
bury on his arrival, apologized for the not coming, by the
expectation of the convention in September, and invited
the clergy of Connecticut to attend the latter.
When the time of the convention in Philadelphia drew
near, Bishop Seabury wrote to Dr. Smith, then living in
Maryland, a letter, which he enclosed, under cover, to Dr.
Chandler, of Elizabethtown, 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 sun
dry 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 gen
eral councils, and this is very indefinite, yet it would seem
from the connection, that 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 warmly
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

* According to Learning, the first Convocation in Connecticut was to meet at
Micldletown, Aug. 3d, 17S5. The body was adjourned to meet in New Haven,
Sept. nth ofthe same year. See Journals III., 69, and Appendix, No. 4. Bishop
White was informed of both meetings. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 113
a gentleman who had long lived in habits of acquaintance
with the writer. And as for its being designed for the
hearing of the body then assembled, it should have been
remembered, that the clergy of Connecticut had been in
vited to the meeting, by those at whose desire they had
appeared themselves. On this ground, they were answered
by some of the clergy — particularly by Dr. Andrews.
For the letter, see Appendix, No. 4.
It. naturally happened in regard to any apprehensions
entertained of an excessive hierarchy, that they influenced
to the very application to England, which had formerly,
from the very same cause, been contemplated with jeal
ousy. 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 particu
lars, which had been thought too republican by many.
That the clergy unanimously, and that a very great body
of the laity, would adhere to Episcopacy, was well known;
and therefore, how natural the recourse to a quarter in
which it was thought there would be less stiffness, on the
points objected to by Bishop Seabury ! it may be added — in
which the political principles obtaining, although monarch
ical, were not such as favored arbitrary power. It ought
to be understood, that this is the supposed strain of rea
soning of a few only. The majority of the convention cer
tainly thought it a matter of choice, and even required by
decency, to apply, in the first instance, to the Church of
which the American had been till now a part. No doubt,
the sentiment was strengthened by the general disappro
bation 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 Sea-
bury'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

114 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 doc
tor was supposed to have conversed with leading charac
ters 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 the exception of a few verbal
alterations. Thus a foundation was laid for the procuring
of the present Episcopacy. It was a prudent provision of
the convention, to instruct the deputies from the respective
states, to apply to the civil authorities existing in them
respectively, for their sanction of the measure, in order to
avoid one of the impediments which had stood in the way
of Bishop Seabury. The address above alluded to, which
was the first step in the correspondence with the English
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 suffer by a comparison with any other
mode which might have been pursued. To have aban
doned the Episcopal succession, would have been in oppo
sition 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 en
tertained against th 1 political principles of the non-jurors
of that country, would not have been proper, without pre
vious 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 115
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 tem
porals, 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 to
gether, 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 recom
mendation 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 different offices. But it was thought,
at New York, in the preceding year, that such an en
terprise could not be undertaken, until the Church should
be consolidated and organized. Perhaps it would have
been better, if the same opinion had been continued and
acted on.
But it happened otherwise. Some of the members hesi
tated at making the book so permanent as it would have
been by the fourth article of the recommendatory instru
ment. Arguments were held in favor of a review, from
change of language, and from the notorious fact, that there
were some matters universally held exceptionable, inde
pendently on doctrine. A moderate review, fell in with

116 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 be
longed. When brought into the committee, they were not
reconsidered; because the ground would have to be gone
over again in the convention. Accordingly, he can not
give an account of any arguments arising in the prepara
tory 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 invok
ing of our blessed Saviour, whose divinity the prayer ac
knowledged, and Whom he considered as invoked through
the whole of the Liturgy which, he thought, might be de
fended by Scripture. The objection lay to the word " Trin
ity," 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 peti
tions liable to the charge of acknowledging three Gods;
and therefore he moved to strike out the whole. The Rev.
Dr. West, of Baltimore, answered Mr. Page, in a speech in
which the doctor appeared to be in great 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 at very
hazardous and essential alterations. Perhaps much more

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 17
would have been said, but during Dr. West's speech, it was
whispered about, that there was really no use in going into
such a controversy; that Mr. Page had made the motion,
merely to preserve consistency of conduct; that he had at
tempted the same thing in the sub-committee, and well
knew, from what had passed, that there was no prospect of
success, but that he could not dispense with the bringing of
the question before the body. Accordingly, as soon as Dr.
West had finished, it was put and lost without a division.*
The next material question, to the best of the recollec
tion 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? Especially, when there was in contem
plation the moderating of religious tests, was it consistent
to introduce a political one? It was said, that the revolu
tion being now accomplished, all the clergy ought, as good
citizens, to conform to it; and to uphold, as far as their in
fluence extended, the civil system which had been estab
lished. 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 re
maining clergy, however disaffected they might have been,

* In a controversy since moved in Boston, Bishop Provoost has been named,
as having endeavored to accomplish the omission of the acknowledgment of the
Trinity. It is not true; and the error may be supposed to have arisen from what
has been related ofthe effort of Mr. Page. There have been various misrepresen
tations of the matter, which have made it the more necessary to state the fact.
See on this note by Bishop White Journals IIL, 300, and Wilson's "Memoir
of Bishop White, ' ' p. 323 . Ed.

n8 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
throughout the war. But the argument did not apply to a
retrospective approbation of the origin of the civil consti
tutions, or rather, to a profession of such approbation, con
trary to known fact.
This was one of the few occasions on which the author
used the privilege, reserved by him on his acceptance ofthe
presidency, to deliver his opinion. To his great surprise,
there was but one gentleman — and he a professed friend to
American independence — who spoke on the same side of
the question; and there were very few, if any, who voted
with the two speakers against the measure. Bodies of men
are more apt than individuals to calculate on an implicit
submission to their determinations. The present was a
striking instance of the remark. The members of the
convention seem to have thought 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 acknowledg
ment 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 Inde
pendence, and was unfavorably looked on by the sup
porters of it, during the whole revolutionary war. His
conduct, in the present particular, was different from what
might have been expected 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 property of the ap
pointment. The greater stress is laid on this matter, be
cause ofthe notorious fact, that the majority of the clergy
could not have used the service, without subjecting them
selves to ridicule and censure. For the author's part, hav
ing no hindrance of this sort, he contented himself with

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

119

having opposed the measure, and kept the day from re
spect 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 inci
dents 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 govern
ing 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 what is held
generally by divines of the Church of England. As to the
substitute proposed, the objection made to it, was its being
liable to a construction contrary to the great evangelical
truth, that salvation is of grace. It would have been a
forced construction, but not to be disregarded. Some
wished to get rid of the new article introduced concern
ing predestination, without stating any thing in its place.
This, it is probable, would have been better than the pro
posed article, which professes to say something on the
subject, yet in reality says nothing. But many gentlemen
were of opinion, that the subject was not to be passed over
in silence altogether; and therefore consented to the article
on predestination, as it stands on the Proposed Book. The
opinion of the author was, that the article should be ac
commodated, not to individual condition, and to everlast
ing reward and punishment, but to national designation,
and to a state of covenant with God in the present life.
Although this is a view of the subject still entertained by
him, yet he has been since convinced, that the introducing
of it as an article would have endangered needless contro
versy on the meanings of the terms predestination and

120 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
election, as used in the New Testament. If we can not do
away the ground of controversy heretofore laid, it at least
becomes us to avoid the furnishing of new matter for the
excitement of it. As to the article in the Proposed Book,
although no one professed scruples against what is there
affirmed, 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 of original sin, an incident occurred,
strongly marking the propensity already noticed, unwarily
to make private opinion the standard of public faith. The
sub-committee had introduced into this article the much
controverted passage in the seventh chapter of the Epistle
to the Romans, beginning at the ninth verse; and they had
applied it as descriptive of the Christian state. The con
struction is exacted by a theory, than which nothing was
further from that of the gentleman (Dr. Smith) who would
have bound this sense of the passage on the Church. The
interpretation generally given by divines of the Church of
England, makes the words descriptive of man's unregener-
ate 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
proposal of the author, that the article was altered in this
particular, although the gentleman who had drafted it not
only earnestly contended for his construction of the text,
but could not be made sensible of the danger which would
have resulted from the establishing of that construction, as
a test to every candidate for Orders.
Less prominent debates on the subject of the articles are
not here noticed. Whatever is novel in them, was taken
from a book in the possession of the Rev. Dr. Smith. The
book was anonymous, and was one of the publications
which have abounded in England, projecting changes in
the established articles.
On this business of the review of the Book of Common

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 12 1
Prayer and of the articles, the convention seem to have
fallen into two capital errors, independently on the merits
of the alterations themselves. The first error was the or
dering of the printing of a large edition of the book, which
did not well consist with the principle of mere proposal.
Perhaps much of the opposition to it arose from this very
thing, which seemed a stretch of power, designed to effect
the introduction of the book to actual use, in order to pre
vent 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
difficulty; for they continued the use of the liturgy, agree
ably to the alterations, on assurances given by many gentle
men, that they would begin it in their respective churches
immediately on their return. This the greater number of
them never did, and there are known instances in each of
which the stipulation was shrunk back from, because some
influential member of a congregation was dissatisfied with
some one of the alterations. This is a fact 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 Events, connected
with the Acts of the Convention of 1785.
The first particular claiming attention under this head,
is the publication ofthe Book of Common Prayer; that is,
of the edition which has received the name of the Proposed
Book.

* The Proposed Book was doomed from the outset, and the volume is now very
scarce. It was reprinted in London in 1789; and afterwards at Bath in Hall's
"Reliquise Liturgicse," Vol. V.; while an incomplete issue appeared in New York
in 1873. See also "Quarterly Church Review," Vol. XL, p. 302. On the opposi
tion to Proposed Book see Journals III., p. 297. Ed.

122 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Dr. Smith, Dr. Wharton, and the author, who were ap
pointed to this service, gave their application to it without
delay. But here, unexpected difficulties occurred, which
are taken notice of, principally with the view of guarding
against the like in future ecclesiastical proceedings.
The committee had been authorized to make verbal al
terations, but were restrained from departing, either in
form or in substance, from what had been agreed on. Set
ting aside the questions arising on this distinction, the im
perfections evidently remaining on some points by reason
of haste, and which would have been remedied had they
been attended 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 allowed 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 psalms, selecting such as fall in
with the general subjects of divine worship, and leaving
the officiating minister to his choice, among those which
should be selected. But the other members of the com
mittee were of opinion, that as much should be retained as
could not well be objected to, on the score of being unsuit
able parts of Christian prayer and praise. The consequence
of this, was a charge of having treated Scripture irrever
ently, 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 Scripture that can be introduced into the exercise of
devotion, yet there would apparently have been less color
for the censure, on the other plan of the selection of entire
psalms. The author has been since convinced, that instead
of a selection of psalms in any shape, a better way would
have been to print the Psalter entire, and to leave every

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

123

officiating minister to his choice, from time 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 gratified every individ
ual under the proposed alternative, yet there might have
been taken which ever side of it was the most likely to be
satisfactory. It has been painful to the author, that he has found him
self opposed in opinion to that of some of his brethren,
whose views of the subject have the appearance of being
opened to them by the sentiment of devotion. Yet, he can
not 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, ex
pressive of the lowest depths of sorrow. He is aware of
what is argued in favor of this, from the sentiment of Chris
tian 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 can not bring it within the sphere of his own
ideas of the precept, to "pray with the understanding."
He has heard of another argument for the practice. It is
the use of impressing the whole of those excellent compo
sitions on the memories of all the members of the Church.
But on this plan it would seem, that Scripture would be
honored 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 ofthe great use of these compositions in the early ages
of the Church, and its not being recorded of any particular

124 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 primi
tive Church, as in the Church of England, the book was
gone through in a routine of successive portions. Al
though these are his opinions, yet he laments the extent
of the innovation, made at the period referred to, because
he believes that the aiming at so much, prevented what
might have been done more effectually, and brought into
universal use, by allowance of the discretion which has
been pleaded for.
Under the foregoing head, there has been noticed what
is here thought a great error in the convention — the 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 endeavoring to raise a
profit from the book, although for a charitable purpose. It
had two bad consequences; that of exciting the supposition
that the books were made the dearer — although, in reality,
this was not the fact, and that of inducing the committee
to send them to the clergy, in the different parts of the
continent, confiding in their exertions for the benevolent
purpose declared. Several of the clergy again intrusted
them to persons from whom they got no returns. Hence
it happened, that when the expenses of the edition were
paid, there was not so much left for the charity, as to be
an adequate consideration 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 publication was, that the
English prelates were not furnished with an account of the
alterations so soon as they should have been, considering
the application that had come before them. For the com
mittee, having had good reason to believe that the impres
sion would go on rapidly, had not furnished a copy of the

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 125
instrument containing the alterations. Their waiting first
for paper from the mills, and then, for one interfering ob
ject and another 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 dis
tantly intimated to those who received consecration in
England. Hence arose the caution with which the con
vention were answered by the right reverend bench: a
caution evidently to be discerned, in their letter of the
24th of February, 1786. For some of the clergy in the
eastern states, from what is here supposed to have been
mistaken zeal, had been very early, in conveying to their
clerical acquaintance in England, an unfavorable represen
tation of the spirit of the proceedings; a fact which is
glanced at in the same letter. Although the impression
thus produced was so far done away on the arrival of the
book, as that there remained no radical impediment to the
gratification of the Church, in granting her request made,
which must be evident to every one who reads their subse
quent 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 alterations.
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 Hell, in the
Apostles' Creed, was the thing principally faulted. It was
the objection made by Dr. Moss, Bishop of Bath and Wells,
that swayed in this matter. A gentleman who had been a
member of the convention — Richard Peters, Esq. — 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

126 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
alteration. It was learned afterward in England, from Dr.
Watson, Bishop of Landaff, that the objection came princi
pally from the quarter here noticed. Indeed he expressed
himself in such a manner, as led to the conclusion that
the Bishop of Bath and Wells only was the objector. No
doubt the bishops generally must have approved of the ob
jection, 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 ofthe article, unless it were
the passage in St. Peter (meaning I. iii. 19, 20). And this
he said must be acknowledged a passage considerably in
volved in obscurity. To the two bishops who went for con
secration 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 ground 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, and their inability,
in a corporate capacity, to act at all.

* The heresy of Apollinaris (Bishop of Laodicea, 362-3S2) who maintained
that the Logos held in Christ the place of a rational soul, and that God was united
in Him with the human body and the sensitive soul. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 27
Section V. Of Proceedings of Conventions in the States
subsequent to those of the General Conveutioji.
For a while there was felt the evil of the mistake made
in the beginning, of not forwarding copies of the alterations:
a mistake, less to be imputed to the committee than to
the convention, who had given no order on the subject;
but who, perhaps, presumed on the editing of the book,
before the other conventions could be held. They were
held in the months of May and June, 1786; very soon after
the arrival ofthe 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
pressing at the same time their approbation of the other
proceedings of the convention, except of the constitution.
In Pennsylvania some amendments were proposed. The
same was done in Maryland. No convention met in Dela
ware. In Virginia it was adopted, with the exception of
one ofthe 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 influ
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 power 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 labors of the convention
had not reached their object. It did not appear that the
constitution was objected to in any state, except in that of
New Jersey. The propriety of the application to the Eng
lish bishops was not contradicted anywhere, except in
South Carolina: and even in this state there was carried an

128 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
acquiescence in it. Under the circumstances stated, the
convention to be held in June, 1786, was looked forward
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 different states, prior to the
meeting in New Brunswick, in May, 1784. At that period
no convention had assembled in Virginia. But in May,
1785, there was one in the City of Richmond; of the pro
ceedings of which there shall be 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 been 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
a.ct, there was no vestige of the former establishment: on
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 en
mity of numerous professors of religion, not a little aided
by opinions inimical equally to the Church and to the soci
eties dissenting from her, that in the year 1786, the law
was repealed, with a proviso saving to all religious soci
eties the estates belonging to them respectively. In the
year 1798, this statute also was repealed, as inconsistent
with religious freedom.*

* A law, substantially the same as that of 17S4, so far as it incorporated the
Church throughout the state, was passed by the legislature of Maryland in the
year 1802, in favor of the Roman Catholics : which does not appear to have given
offence, or to have been productive of bad effects; although the like favor has been
refused to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the same state.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 29
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
objected to it as a fundamental article of the constitution;
but acquiesced in it as regarded the ensuing convention, re
serving a right to approve or disapprove of its proceedings.
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 Protes
tant Episcopal Church, we commend to your observance
the following sentiments concerning doctrine and worship.
We refer you, at the same time, for these and other objects
of your mission, to our resolutions on the proceedings of
the late convention in New York.
"Uniformity in doctrine and worship will unquestion
ably contribute to the prosperity of the Protestant Epis
copal Church. But 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
surmountable, therefore, by those who, breathing the spirit
of Christianity, earnestly labor 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 anx
ious 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
* The original edition reads free, but it is marked as an error. Ed.

1 30 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
be to the essential characteristics of our persuasion. We
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, their deputies were instructed to lay the same before
the General Convention.
This convention of Virginia issued an address to the
members of the Episcopal Church throughout the state, in
order to excite a zeal for the reviving of the communion.
They passed rules, forty-three in number, for the gov
ernment of the Church in Virginia, extending to a great
variety of particulars. In these rules they made direct pro
vision 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 held in Richmond.

G. Page 26. Of the Convention in Philadelphia 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 this convention. Francis
Hopkinson, Esq., was the secretary. The convention was
opened with a sermon by the president of the preceding
convention.*

* This sermon by Bishop White, from Ps. xiv. 14, was published by Hall and
Sellers, in 1786, and reprinted in 1880. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STA TEMENTS.

131

The convention assembled under 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,
aflded 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 falling to pieces, in the opinion of some, who were
dissatisfied with the course that had been taken for the
organizing of the Church. How those difficulties were
surmounted will be seen.
In regard to the interfering instructions, they were all
silenced by the motion that stands on the journal, for refer
ring 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 re
ceived, and those of the churches which had rejected, the
Proposed Book, or else been silent on the subject, the ex
pedient was adopted of letting matters remain for a time
in the present state with both.
The question of the Scottish Episcopacy gave occasion
* See Conn. Church Documents by Hawkas and Perry, II., pp. 29S, 9. Ed.

132 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
to some warmth. That matter was struck at by certain
motions which appear on the journals, and which particu
larly affected two gentlemen of the body; one of whom —
the Rev. Mr. Pilmore — had been ordained by Bishop Sea
bury; and the other, the Rev. William Smith — the younger
gentleman of the convention of that name — had been or
dained by a bishop of the Church, in which Bishop Sea
bury 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 suppressed — 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 argument, the proposal of rejecting
settlements under such subjection 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 hav
ing been any ground for it, other than in the apprehen
sion which had been expressed* This temperate guarding
against the evil, if it should exist, seemed the best way of
obviating measures, which might have led to disputes with
the northern clergy. The line of conduct taken drew off
from the meditated rejection some lay gentlemen who
would otherwise have warmly pressed the objections 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
* Conn. Church Documents, II., p. 300. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

133

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 reassure them of attachment to the system
ofthe Church of England. This was accordingly done, in
a letter drafted by the Rev. Dr. Smith, but considerably
altered on a motion of the Hon. John Jay, Esq., who thought
the draft too submissive. It was in substance an expression
of gratitude for the fatherly sentiments contained in the
letter ofthe 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 the
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 precip
itate, 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 let
ter 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 criti
cism 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

134 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 favored a compliance, the majority were deter
mined otherwise, among whom were two members pres
ent who had been chosen to the Episcopacy, and who
voted against the restoration, as appears on the journal.
It was however thought, that the words did not import
absolute requisition. The author will here record his opin
ion, afterward formed in England. It is, that the inclina
tion 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 them and of their
Church. His reason is, that in one of the conversations of
Bishop Provoost and himself with the Archbishop of Can
terbury, he brought this matter forwards; evidently in
tending 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 had retained the
Athanasian Creed: but I can not say that I am uneasy on
the subject; for you have retained the doctrine of it in your
Liturgy; and as to the Creed itself, I suppose you thought
it not suited to the use of a congregation." Then, without
waiting to hear whether this were the reason or not, he
passed to another subject; and never introduced that ofthe
Athanasian Creed again.
It was a matter of wonder, that there was not laid in

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

135

the letter, more stress on the Nicene Creed, than on the
Athanasian. To the latter, there are other objections
than its protest against Arianism and Socinianism: objec
tions which have weight with many who are not either
Socinians or Arians. It had been expected, that the Ni
cene, 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. Probably 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 neces
sity of the use ofthe Nicene Creed in the Liturgy, but there
is pleaded for the making of it a part of the declared faith
of the Church; which may be done, without a congrega
tional repetition of it. Even to this there is no objection
made. The distinction is grounded on the circumstance
that what was sufficient 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 impossible 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
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
ofthe English prelates. They who were thought the least

136 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
devoted to the Episcopal regimen, acknowledged the great
forbearance in there 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, consist
ently with the known principles of their own Church, yet
it had been reckoned on as a source of difficulty.
Some gentlemen, who thought that the convention had
gone too far as to some points of evangelical doctrine, were
highly 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 thinki-ng the
clergy of the Church of England not sufficiently evangelical,
he accepted of an invitation to walk in, and hear the con-
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 toward 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 ofthe 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
lars. The memorial, as was conjectured at the time, and
as the author afterward learned with certainty, was drawn

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

137

up by the Rev. Dr. Chandler, of Elizabethtown. This
learned and respectable gentleman, after having been in
England during the war, had returned to his family and
former residence; laboring under a cancerous or scorbutic
complaint, which had consumed a considerable proportion
of his face. He had been designed for the contemplated
bishopric of Nova Scotia, as the author was afterwards
informed by the Archbishop 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 Appen
dix, No. 7.
The present state of things induced the convention,
before their adjournment, to appoint a committee, with
power 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 consecrations.
See the Appendix, No. 10.
On the receipt of the letters, the committee exercised
the power committed to them, of summoning the conven
tion to meet at Wilmington on the 10th day of October.
On the said day, the convention re-assembled; and, Dr.
Griffith 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-

138 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 an
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—Whether 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. ;
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

A DDITIONAL S TA TEM E NTS.

139

the rejecting ofthe Athanasian Creed. But a warm debate
arose on the subject ofthe Descent into Hell, in the Apostles'
Creed. Although this was at last carried, agreeably to the
proposal ofthe 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 an essential; which would not have been warranted
by the feeble recommendation of their letter, not to say by
the impossibility of justifying to the world the withholding
of Episcopal succession, for no other reason than this, from
a Church 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
convention, to be forwarded by the two bishops-elect pres
ent 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 from scruples on the subject, which were communi
cated by Granville Sharp, Esq., the author of many learned

140 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
publications, himself being of a religious and amiable char
acter, and zealous for the system ofthe 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 grandfather, 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 a line, 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 of the adjournment, there had been
sent to the author by Dr. Franklin, then president of the
state, a letter to him from Mr. Sharp, manifesting Christian
concern in the business pending, uneasiness at some reports
which had reached England, of our declining towards So-
cinianism, and satisfaction from some discoveries which
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 Christian zeal of that
worthy person, his communications are given in the Appen
dix, No. 12.
Afterward, when Bishop Provoost and the author 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 much
solicitude on the subject of our business, which he sup-
* See Journals, III., 272. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 141
posed, from its not having been accomplished immediately,
to have met with some interruption. He 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 benev
olent 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. Pro
voost, 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 constitution, and not yet adopted by the Church in
which Dr. Provoost was to preside.
To meet this difficulty, the convention adopted the ex
pedient 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 ofthe latter book, when so ratified. A
promise to this effect was signed by Dr. Provoost, and the
document is in possession of the author. It is part of an act
of the present convention, predicated on the requisitions
of the Archbishops. See for it, the Appendix, No. 13.
The provision thus made by the convention did not
altogether relieve Dr. Provoost from the difficulty. Sub
scription was to be repeated in England, agreeably to the

142 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
requisition of the Archbishops, 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 Eng
land any changes should be made in the ecclesiastical insti
tutions, by competent authority, and in themselves not con
trary to Christian doctrine, the subscription of the clergy
would not — it was supposed— be hindered by the ordina
tion vows by which they were now bound. On a look of
appeal to the Archbishop for the correctness of this senti
ment, 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 dismissed. It had rested on the mind of
the Doctor, who, on a question of truth and honor, would
not have erred on the side of laxity, in regard to promise
to be pledged.

H. Page 27. Of Personal Intercourse with 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.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 143
Westminster, December 6, 1780.
Gentlemen:
I think it my duty, and it is my inclination, to embrace
the earliest 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 ac
count of my prosperous voyage, I am happy in the con
viction that I am writing to those who, as well from pri
vate 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 me
tropolis 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
Lambeth. 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
request 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 rec.eption, 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 pas
sage, we presented our papers: on which we were asked —

144 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 pres
ent 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.
Dr. Provoost then mentioned that there was a peculiar
ity 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 satisfactory, 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
visitor. He added, that when this was done, he would see
us again. In the course of the conversation, the Arch
bishop asked me, whether I had received the letter signed
by himself alone, in which he had mentioned that three
was a sufficient number 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 understood, 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 exi
gency required, and to leave all subsequent 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-
* See ante, p. 26. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 14 5
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
labored under grievous 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 con
cerning the affairs of our Church, stated to us his Lord
ship's situation, mentioning, among other things, his debil
ity 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 in
disposition was so considerable, that a morning might be
appointed, and yet, when the time should come, his Lord
ship might be incapable of receiving us. These things he
thought it necessary to mention, but doubted not that
there would be named an early day for our introduction.
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 Arch
bishop 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 com
mitted to me; and I remain, in the mean time, with my
prayers for your health and happiness,
Your affectionate brother,
and very humble servant,
WM. WHITE.
The Committee of the Protestant Episcopal Church
n the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

146 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 I, 1787.
Gentlemen, I 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, con
sulted the Bench of Bishops on this business, he was de
sirous of taking their opinion, as to the manner of accom
plishing it — That he had 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 we thought due from us, to the successor of the for
mer diocesans of America. We accordingly attended on

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 47
the day appointed by himself, and were courteously re
ceived by this celebrated prelate, who expressed himself
gratified by our waiting on him, and asked for our address,
as intending to see us again; which however can hardly
happen, 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
purpose, for which you desired me to come. Although
disappointed in this, I can express to you my full persua
sion, that the delay does not arise from any cause, which
can defeat our object.
With my constant prayers for yourselves and our whole
Church, I am, gentlemen, Your affectionate brother,
WM. WHITE.
The Committee of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in Pennsylvania.
P. S. January 2. This morning, the Lord Bishop of
Landaff did us the honor, 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 al
ready expressed; because his Lordship, not only showed
the utmost good will as to our business, but seemed sur
prised that it was not already finished, until we mentioned
the reason of the Archbishop, whom his Lordship had not
seen.

* We probably saw this eminent man on the last day on which our visit could
have been received. His appearance was that of health, and he followed us to
the head of his stairs, without any appearance of debility. We understood that
he had a violent return of his disease (the stone) the next day; and he died very
soon after our departure from England. In the conversation of about an hour
which we held with him, he made various inquiries concerning America, and 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 emphasis
— That is a very good measure.

148 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Westminster, January 20, 1787.
Gentlemen,
I now address you, with the pleasing 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 ofthe narrative of the proceedings of my
honored 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, we received from the Archbishop,
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 birthday, 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

149

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 good
ness, and declaring our full conviction that he had used all
possible expedition, we said, that the day after the last
mentioned Sunday was the intended time of our departure,
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 then 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; pre
ferred the mode of doing business used in all the bodies
with which he was acquainted; 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 members. Whether his Grace had here a view
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 conven
tion had taken a wrong method in the above particular, it
proceeded from their wish to show themselves open and can
did; and that the Church in one ofthe states, had instruct
ed their deputies to move for the so specifying of the votes.
His Grace then said, that in the beginning ofthe business,
there had been many reports and apprehensions; that this
required of the bishops to be circumspect; and that even
when our proceedings 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 degradation of bishops seems allowed
to be done. It was remarked to his Grace, that the offen-

150 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
sive 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 pro
priety in altering the connection, in the manner in which
we had done it. He did not mean to undervalue the abili
ties of those employed in it, but thought it was a work of
more time and difficulty than they seem to have conceived.
From a desire of taking his Grace's meaning precisely on
this subject, it was here mentioned to him, that if we un
derstood him, he did not object to the omission of some
portions of the Psalms, from the worship of the Church.
The reply was — He had not fully considered that subject;
and only meant at present to remark on the connecting of
portions together, in such a manner as might break the
connection, 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.
In 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 fluc
tuating 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. ' 151
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
pointment of persons to the Episcopal character 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 full
evidence of the unsuitableness, not to have troubled the
bishops with the affair, but to have taken the brunt of a
refusal on myself. The answer was to this effect — That if
there had been any danger of such a measure, the requi
sitions of the two Archbishops must have operated as a
prevention: that we trusted, however, there was not a
sufficient number of our brethren, in any state, capable
of wilfully imposing an improper character on his Grace;
and that, therefore, if any such character had been rec
ommended, 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 ofthe act of parliament: in respect to which, we took
notice ofthe clause, requiring the consent ofthe 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 proposed by the bishops. We ventured to say, however,
that the principle ofthe restriction was well understood in
America, so as to occasion no offence there. The Arch-.
bishop answered, that it was not in the act, as proposed by
the bishops, but that he thought it a very proper clause,
and that it was particularly acceptable to himself; since

1 52 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
otherwise 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,
when Bishop of Bangor, he had presented the Bishop-elect
of the Isle of Man to the Archbishop of York for consecra
tion; and that none were concerned in the consecration
besides the Archbishop and himself: 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 gen
tleman to come from America. In the conversation that
ensued on this head, it was thrown out on our side, that if
the ancient canonical number should be dispensed with,
perhaps doubts might subsist in the minds of some, in re
gard to the validity; and that such an apprehension might
be productive of some irregularity and inconvenience. To
this the Archbishop replied, that the latitude, if left, would
be intended merely for our accommodation, but was by no
means to prevent the coming 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 the reasons influencing him in
the measures which he had adopted. We took the liberty
of expressing our hearty approbation ofthe proposal; and
as his Grace did not seem to have come to a determination,
we hoped that he would find no objection to it, on further
consideration. After discussing the above mentioned subjects more fully
than I 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
* See ante, p. 144. The Romish hierarchy in America was founded by a
s'ngle bishop, and Carroll, in turn, consecrated Cheverus. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

"53

mention, that as the King was to open the parliament in a
few days, it would be a gratification to us to gain admit
tance to the House of Lords, on that occasion, through the
good offices of his Grace. The Archbishop took this free
dom 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 prevent our unnecessary waiting.*
I 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 proper 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 intro
duced to the King, it ought to be on the ground of thank
ing him for his leave given for the ensuing consecration,
under his sign manual; and that whether this would be lia
ble to any objection or not, we must judge. We made no
scruple 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 origi
nated with Mr. Adams, yet we believed he wished to leave
it to his Grace to determine on the manner. To this he re
plied, 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 lead 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 fulfilled.

154 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
favor of the whole bench, although especially of his Grace,
to the Episcopal Church in America. He answered, that
he thought it proper, and that it would be very kindly taken.
As the gentlemen to whom I am writing are members of
the corporation for the widow's fund, it may be proper for
me to inform them, that I stated to his Grace the appoint
ment of Dr. Smith, Mr. 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
furnished with a former abstract of the proceedings of our
corporation, noticing the grants, he desired me to send it to
him. I have 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 com
munion, not only of the present, but also of every future
generation. That God may bless the event, which, under his 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 Pennsylvania.

Materials for another letter to the committee, if an op
portunity should offer, before my reaching of Philadelphia.
Monday, January 29th. We received a verbal message
from 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 to

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

J55

us in our letters of consecration. We staid with him nearly
two hours, and had much conversation with him, concern
ing the affairs of our Church; which confirmed us in our
high opinion 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 bishops
who were in town, agreeably to the proposal before made to
the Archbishop. A few of them — the Archbishop of York,
and the Bishops of Oxford, Landaff, Rochester, and Bangor,
had previously visited us; and we had seen the Bishops of
Worcester and Exeter, a few days before, at the Archbish
op's, at dinner; an occasion which I have not particularly
noticed, because nothing passed on it, interesting to our
mission.* Those of the bishops whom we found at home,
seemed to take the compliment in good part, expressed
great good-will to our Church, and wished that our longer
stay, after their coming to town, had permitted their show
ing of us attentions. t
* On the said occasion, we witnessed a singular ceremony, which we supposed
to be a remnant of the state of former times. Soon in the morning, we had re
ceived a note from the Archbishop, intimating, that the then day of the week was
his public day, during the session of parliament; and that he should be glad to see
us on any weekly day so mentioned — on that day in particular, if disengaged.
We waited on him, and supposed from 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 of them, no doubt, besides ourselves, understanding the transaction. After
passing through a suite of rooms, we found ourselves in the chapel, in which
were the two chaplains in their surplices. One of them read the Litany; after
which, we returned to the room wherein we had been received. Soon afterward
we were called to dinner. It is probable, that such * visit on some Wednesday
— it was the weekly day — during the session of parliament, is expected of every
member of either house, who lives in habits of acquaintance with the primate.
The reading of the Litany, including the prayers attached to it in the English
Book of Common Prayer, and none other, seems a remnant of former practice; it
having been originally a distinct service. It is on this account that the incident
has been related.
t The prelates whom we found, were the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of
Rochester, the very aged Bishop of Carlisle, in whom we saw the wreck of one

156 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
On this day we waited on the Archbishop, in conse
quence of his own appointment at our former interview, in
order to accompany him to Court. Thither we went to
gether in his coach. On being introduced to the King, I
made this preconceived address — That "we were happy in
the opportunity of thanking his Majesty, for his license
granted to his Grace the Archbishop, to convey the Epis
copal succession to the Church in America." The King
made this answer, which I set down to show the kindness
of the Archbishop* — "His Grace has given me such an
account of the gentlemen who have come over, that I am
glad of the present opportunity of serving the interests of
religion." His Majesty then asked Dr. Provoost, whether
the Episcopal communion were not numerous in New York,
and was answered by the Doctor in the affirmative, with
further thanks for the license granted. The King then
passed to the next in the circle, and after a little while we
withdrew, with the Archbishop. t
We had contemplated this measure of waiting on the
King as of peculiar delicacy. In the character of citizens
of the United States of America, we should have thought it
inconsistent in us to have made any application to the civil
authority of Great Britain. The act of parliament had
of the first scholars of the age, and the Bishops of Salisbury, Bristol, and Ely.
The first mentioned of these three, since Bishop of Durham, commended the mod
eration manifested in our service for the Fourth of July. This was gratifying; as
it had been pronounced by some on our side of the Atlantic, that the said service
would of itself be sufficient to induce a rejection of the application of the American
Church. »
* It may be presumed, however, that such civility is the usual courtesy of the
place. f While we were waiting in our places, until the King should come to us in his
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, you will only bow; adding, with a smile — when an Eng
lish bishop is presented, he does something more. This alluded to the ancient
form of doing homage for his barony on his knees. We were aware of the differ
ent circumstances in which we stood; but it was considerate, to guard against the
danger of mistake.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

J57

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 4th. We attended at the palace of
Lambeth for consecration. The assistants of the Arch
bishop 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 Arch
bishops in the imposition of hands. It was particularly
agreeable to us, to see among them the Bishop of Bath
and Wells, because we had all along understood, that in
the beginning, this aged and venerable prelate had enter
tained scruples on the subject of the application .of our
Church: and it was principally owing to his Lordship, thai
such a point was made of the Descent into Hell, in the
Apostles' Creed. We presumed that his difficulties were
now removed. Dr. Drake, one of the Archbishop's chap
lains, preached; and Dr. Randolph, the other chaplain,
read the prayers. The sermon was a sensible discussion
ofthe long litigated subject ofthe 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 court, 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 sent him information of a do
mestic 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
eld friend, the Rev. Mr. Duche. I had asked the Arch-
lishop's leave to introduce him; and it was a great satis-

158 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
faction 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 im
pressions left by the harmony which had subsisted between
us in the discharge of our joint pastoral duty in Philadel
phia, being no improper accompaniments to the feelings
suited to the present very interesting transaction of my
life. I hope, that I felt the weight of the occasion. May
God bless the meditations and the recollections by which
I had endeavored to prepare myself for it; and give them
their due effect on my temper and conduct, in the new
character in which I am to appear !
The solemnity being over, we dined with the Arch
bishop 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 Amer
ican 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 intro
duced by the Bishop of Peterborough. We had been accustomed to think it a sort
of adjunct to the claim of churchmanship to consider the "Eixoov BatSiXiun "
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 his
brethren assented to the position, that the contrary was now clearly proved, by a

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 59
Monday, February $th. As an evidence of his Grace's
delicacy, I deposit the account of fees, brought to us this
morning by his secretary; and give the following narrative
of the manner in which that business was conducted.
On the morning of our visit to court, I mentioned to the
Archbishop, agreeably to preconcert with Dr. Provoost,
that there must necessarily have been some charges for the
expenses of office, in carrying the business of our Church
through the civil department; and requested to know the
amount, that we might discharge it. The Archbishop an
swered, that if he should inform us on that point, it must
be on the principle, that in an affair of no great magnitude,
it might seem disrespectful to us, to withhold the satis
faction demanded. He added, that on the occasion of the
consecration of an English bishop, there were very con
siderable expenses to different persons of the Archbishop's
court and of his household; which expenses he thought im
proper on the present occasion, and should therefore pro
hibit 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 gentleman's answering, that he
would wait on us with them, the Archbishop replied — No;
you are to bring them to my secretary, who will wait on
them: evidently with the design, that the pecuniary part
of the transaction should pass under his own control. The
fees paid by us jointly amounted to £14 2s- I(^- being alto
gether in the line of public offices, and which the Arch
bishop must have paid, but for the request made on our
part'.
late publication of some papers of Lord Clarendon. These papers, it was said,
show the work to have been written by Bishop Gauden. The simplicity of the
style of the work, and the contrary property said to be discernible in the writings
of that Bishop, are the circumstances which inclined Mr. Hume to give the credit
of the composition to the King.

160 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
For the instrument of consecration, recorded in the
archiepiscopal registry, see Appendix, No. 14.
On the morning of the day of our leaving of the city, I
received a note from the Archbishop. Although it begins
with a message of civility to a respectable divine in New
Jersey, not long before in England, I take the prominent
object to have been the conveying of information, guarding
against an impression which might have been made by
what had passed concerning consecration in the province
of York. The note shall be given, because of its bearing
on the question concerning the number required for conse
cration in the English Church. See the Appendix, No. 15.
There being in possession some documents in the civil
line, sustaining facts mentioned in the statements, the
present opportunity is improved to the perpetuating of
them. They are,
(1) A letter from his Excellency Richard Henry Lee,
Esq., president of Congress, to his Excellency John Adams,
Esq., minister plenipotentiary to the court of Great Britain.
(2) A letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Lee, in answer.
(3) A letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Mr.
Adams, after an interview between them.
(4) A certificate of the supreme 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 Arch-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 161
bishop of Canterbury on the business concerning-which the
English 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.*
We left London on the evening of the 5th of February,
reached Falmouth on the 10th, were detained there by
contrary 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
ofthe 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.

/. 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 present
presided, and the secretary was Francis Hopkinson, Esq.

* There being nothing more in the letters to the committee concerning the
claim of the corporation of the Widows' Fund, the silence seems to require a
reason. The abstract was sent to the 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, 1776,
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 Britain, would have been in
consistent with American citizenship. Accordingly, nothing more passed on the
subject. It should be noticed, that to the former period there was very little due.

162 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH,
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
important, not only in themselves, but because of the influ
ence which each of them had on the other. It may be
proper to say something of these, before an entry on the
narrative of what passed concerning them in the convention.
There is an implication — at least the author had always
so understood it — in the address to the English prelates,
that the American Episcopal Church was to obtain from
them the beginning of the succession in the number of
bishops competent, according to the English rule and
practice, to perpetuate it. Doubtless this sentiment was
much strengthened by the consideration of the antiquity
and the expediency of the rule, which required the pres
ence and the consent of three bishops in every conse
cration. 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 prom
ise seemed to have been voluntarily pledged, so that the
English prelates might, in the event of non-compliance,
have laid the charge of imposition. It is true the Arch
bishop of Canterbury seems not to have been 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 evident from
the note written by him to the author, 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 respon
sibility on him, and the blame would have lain on those
who had dispensed with the ancient number in America.
* See ante, p. 144. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 63
There may be acknowledged another reason for being par
ticular on this point; it is the guarding against the mis
chievous consequences of a disposition to irregularity in
any future American bishop, who might have less con
cern for the peace and the order of the Church, than for
the sustaining of his consequence with a party.*
In regard to the Church in Connecticut, it had been all
along an object with the author, which he never endeavored
to conceal, to bring its Episcopacy within the union. But
as the Scotch succession could not be officially recognized
by the English Bishops, he wished to complete the succes
sion from England, before such a comprehension should
take place. He knew, indeed, that Bishop Provoost, al
though he did not appear to be possessed of personal ill-will
to Bishop Seabury, was opposed to having any thing to do
with the Scotch succession, which he did not hesitate to
pronounce irregular. Yet he was very little supported in
this sentiment; and least of all, by the clergy of his own
diocese. It was therefore natural to infer, that he would
see the expediency of what was the general wish, or at
least waive his objection for the sake of peace; as indeed
happened.! Although these subjects would of course have engaged
the attention of the convention, yet an application which
came from the Church in Massachusetts, addressed to each
* The case in Cumminrs' movement. Ed.
t In the last preceding convention of the Church in New York, they had de
clared their desire, as well in favor of the succession in the English line, as for a
union of the Church throughout the United States, with an evident allusion to the
Scotch Episcopacy. What is now referred to, are the two following resolves,
passed unanimously on the 5th of November, 1788.
"Resolved, 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 great 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
Church, and the continuance ofthe Episcopal succession in the English line."

1 64 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
of the three bishops, and received by the author a few days
before the assembling of the convention, brought the matter
forward in a very strong point of view. The object of the
address, was the procuring of the consecration of the Rev.
Edward Bass of the said state, as the concurrent act of the
three bishops.
For the application from Massachusetts, and for the tes
timonial 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
nand, that this hint was the origin, and that the promoting
of the measure mentioned was the motive, of the applica
tion for the consecration of Mr. Bass. Dr. Parker, even
after the favorable close of the subsequent session, which
he had attended, intimated, that the object of the applica
tion 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 presi
dent 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 implied, that the result
of the deliberation must involve the acquiescence of the
two bishops 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 165
taken by a preceding 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 implication involved in the first address
to the English bishops, they said it was intended at the
time, but prevented by unexpected occurrences in the case
of Dr. Griffith. On the opposite side, no such necessity
was perceived; and as to the resignation of Dr. Griffith,
another might be chosen. He had been himself chosen
after the date of the 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, No. 19.
The author, on being consulted in regard to this expe
dient, saw an objection to it in the call which it made on
the said prelates, to declare an opinion on the subject of
the Scotch Episcopacy. Perhaps they might not agree.
Even if their opinion should be favorable, it must be in
opposition 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 meas
ure in contemplation was the being relieved at the present
time, from the pain of standing opposed to the wishes of
the convention.
The measure was adopted; and this seems the proper
place of mentioning the result of it. When Bishop 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

1 66 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 sub
ject. 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*
That so little business was transacted in this session of
the convention, may be seen from the journal to have been
owing to the adjournment, made for the express purpose of
inviting the clergy of Connecticut to meet the convention
in September; an object which it was expected would be
promoted by the conviction generally prevailing in the
convention, that the formerly proposed constitution was
inadequate to the situation of this Church, and by the new
constitution entered on the journal of this session. On this
business, the president of the convention met the commit
tee but once, and interested himself very little; being de
sirous, that whatever additional powers it might be thought
necessary to assign to the bishops, such powers should not
lie under the reproach of having been pressed for by one
of the number, but be the result of due deliberation, and

* In an interview with the Archbishop, 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 spoke with great delicacy of Dr. Seabury; but thought it most
advisable, that the line of bishops should be handed down from those who had re
ceived their commission from the same source."
It was afterwards supposed, that the sense of the Archbishop was fully accom
plished by the presence and the assistance of the canonical number of the English
line; and the matter was so understood by Bishop Madison. Besides, the ques
tion had changed its ground, by the repeal ofthe laws against the Scottish bishops;
and by their reception, 111 their proper character, in England. This happened after
Bishop Madison's visit to that country.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 67
the free choice of all orders of persons within the Church,
and given with a view to her good government*
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. All things now appeared
to tend to a 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

* During the session there took place in the house of the author, the decease
of the Rev. Dr. Griffith, of Virginia. The respect entertained for him by the con
vention appears in the arrangements made for attendance on his funeral as re
corded on the journal. He had been much indisposed from the day of his arrival.
His death, however, was in one sense sudden, and certainly unexpected to the
very able physician who attended him, and with whom he had been in long habits
of acquaintance. His disorder was the inflammatory rheumatism, which passed
to his head during sleep. The following statement is thought due to the memory
of a respectable divine, who had manifested great zeal for the organizing of the
Church. It has been reported, and had weight on some minds in a more recent election
to the Episcopacy, that he had been under the necessity of resigning, on account
of his 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 May,
1786. Some private concerns, and the not being supplied with money, prevented
his crossing the Atlantic with the two who crossed it in November of that year.
In May, 1 787, about a year after his election, and about a month after the return
of the bishops consecrated in England, there was held a convention in Virginia,
from the printed journal of which the following is an extract : —
" Resolved, That the standing committee, without delay, request of the Right
Rev. Dr. White, bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, and the Right Rev. Dr. Provoost, bishop of the said Church in
the State of New York, that they, or either of them, admit to consecration the
Rev. Dr. Griffith, nominated by the last convention bishop of the Church in this
state." The standing committee were the Rev. Dr. Madison, the Rev. Mr. Bracken,
the Rev. Mr. Shield, the Hon. John Blair, Mr. Page, of Rosewell, and Mr. An
drews. The prominent applicant to the American bishops was Dr. Madison, who
was afterwards bishop. The principle on which the bishops declined compliance,
has been set forth in its proper place; being their opinion, that they were Dledged
to their first obtaining of three bishops from England.

1 68 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 him 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 diffi
culty. His opinion — it is hoped the right one — was, that
an ecclesiastical body needed not to be over righteous, or
more so than civil bodies, on such a point — that he knew
of no law of the land, which the circumstance relative to a
former chaplaincy contradicted — that indeed there was an
article in the confederation, then the bond of union of the
states, providing that no citizen of theirs should receive
any title of nobility from a foreign power; a provision not
extending to the receipt of money; which seemed impliedly
allowed, indeed, in the guard provided against the other —
that Bishop Seabury's half-pay was a compensation for for
mer services, and not for any now expected of him — that
it did not prevent his being a citizen, with all the rights at
tached 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 pre
judices of the gentleman who addressed him on the sub
ject, but because of those of another, 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 169
as to the negative of the bishops, leads to the remark,
that from the sentiments expressed in the debate, there is
reason to believe that the full negative would have been
allowed, had not Mr. Andrews, from Virginia, very seri
ously, and doubtless very sincerely, expressed his appre
hension, 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 the
greater force to his apprehensions: the consequence of
which was, the referring of the subject of the full negative
to some subsequent General Convention, to be 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 im
probability of this would — it is thought — have been con
fessed 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 specula
tively possible.*
For the constitution as proposed by the session of July

* The case of Mr. Andrews, of Virginia, is a strong proof of the laxity in regard
to due order and discipline, under which it was necessary to begin the organization
of the Church. He was n first cousin of the Rev. Dr. Andrews, with whom and
with the author he had been a student in the college of Philadelphia. At the time
in question, he was •¦ professor in the college of Williamsburg, in Virginia. Al
though in priest's orders, he had discontinued his ministry, and acted in some civil
employments of responsibility, with reputation. He was « very sensible and a
very amiable man, in his temper and deportment. He had, doubtless, in some
way reconciled his departure from the clerical character with a sincere desire of
settling the concerns of the Church, and of contributing his best endeavors to that
effect. Certain it is, that they were directed, not to the pulling down, but to the
building up of the Church, the ministry of which he had forsaken. Probably he
was the easier reconciled to this measure, by the almost total prostration of the
Church in Virginia during the war of the revolution.

170 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 ofthe deliberations of both
houses was, in many points, owing to this incident, occa
sion is taken to relate it, on recollection, after having been
a hearer in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies at the
time. In the appointment of committees on the different de
partments ofthe Book of Common Prayer, Dr. Parker pro
posed that the English book should be the ground of the
proceedings held, without any reference to that set out and
proposed in 1785. This was objected to by some, who con
tended, that a liturgy ought to be formed, without reference
to any existing book, although with liberty to take from
any, whatever the convention should think fit. The issue
of the debate, was the wording of the resolves as they stand
on the journal, in which the different committees are ap
pointed, to prepare a morning and evening prayer — to pre
pare a litany — to prepare a communion service — and the
same, in regard to the other departments, instead of its be
ing said — to alter the said services; which had been the
language 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.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 71
It was particularly wondered at in Dr. Parker, by those
who knew that he had used the book in his own church at
Boston. But as the Doctor, during the preceding part of
the session, had been looked to for the opening of the 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 agree
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 page.
Certain it is, that the extreme proposed 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 assembled.
Every one must perceive, that this abridged the species of
negative, lodged with the House of Bishops. For if, in any
branch ofthe liturgy, they should be disposed to be tena
cious in any point, which should be a deviation from the
English book, the consequence must be, not that the prayer,
or whatever else it were, remained as before, but that no
such matter were to be inserted. This, in some instances,
would have operated to the extent of excluding a whole
office ofthe Church, if the negative ofthe bishops had been
insisted on. They did not carry their right so far, but they
reasoned and expostulated on the point, with several ofthe
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

172 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 absent,
being considered as making up the constitutional number-
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
-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 by
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 fhe journal. To this

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

1/3

day, there are recollected with satisfaction, the hours which
were spent with Bishop Seabury on the important subjects
which came before them; and especially the Christian tem
per 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 de
clared ±0 be rjn 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 with
out 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 ofthe Nicene
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 Constantinople.
He says (p. 196) after mention of the Apostles' Creed and
the Nicene — "as to that of St. Athanasius, they are wholly
strangers to it." However, the creed was inserted by way
of amendment; to be used or omitted at discretion. But
the amendment was negatived by the other house: and
when the subject afterward came up in conference they

174 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
would not allow of the creed in any shape; which was
thought intolerant by the gentlemen from New England,
who, with Bishop Seabury, gave it up with great reluctance.
The other subject — the Descent of Christ into Hell —
was left in a situation, which afterwards not a little embar
rassed the committee who had the charge of printing the
book. The amendments of the bishops, whether verbal or
otherwsie, to the services sent to the other house, had all
been numbered. The president of that house, as afterward
appeared on unquestionable 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 bish
ops: it being the only one on which they had laid much
stress, in stating the terms on which they were willing to
consecrate for our Church; and we having complied with
their wishes, in that respect. This would seem very un
suitably followed by a repetition of the offensive pleasure,
or something very like it, in the first convention held after
the consecration had been obtained. Thus, the matter
passed without further notice. But Bishop Seabury, before
he left the city, conceived a suspicion that there had been
a misunderstanding. For, on the evening before his de
parture, he took the author aside from company, and men
tioned his apprehension; which was treated as groundless,
on the full belief that it was so. It was a point which
Bishop Seabury had much at heart, from an opinion, that

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 175
the article was put into the creed, in opposition to the
Apollinarian heresy, and that, therefore, the withdrawing
of it was an indirect encouragement of the same. The
author saw no such inference; but wished to retain the
article, on the ground, that the doing so would tend to
peace; that it would be acting consistently towards the
English Church; and that a latitude would be left by the
proposed rubric for the understanding of the article as
referring to the state of departed spirits generally. It is
curious to remark, by the way, that when the book came
out, Bishop Provoost disliked the form in which this part
of it appeared, more than either the article as it stood
originally, or the omitting of it altogether: on the princi
ple that it exacted a belief of the existence of departed
spirits, between death and the resurrection. So easy is it,
in extending 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 their surprise and that of the
author, to find that the two houses had 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 ap
pearing to have been presented, the service must stand as
proposed by them, with the words "he descended into
hell," printed in italics and between hooks; and with the
rubric permissory of the use of the words — "he went into
the place of departed spirits." On the contrary, it 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 ofthe Descent into
Hell, in the manner in which it appears in the book pub
lished at the time.

176 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 ofthe Creed to be printed in all
future editions, with the article not in italics and between
hooks as before, but with the rubric leaving it to discretion
to use or to omit it; or to use, instead of it, the words 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
ofthe English prelates, and the litigation which it has con
sequently undergone in our conventions, induce the being
particular in regard to it. Therefore, as the delivery of
opinion on the subject will fall within the design of these
sheets, it is proposed to recur to it again, before the finish
ing of remarks on the transactions of this convention.
As connected with the morning and evening prayers, the
reading Psalms come under notice in this place, and the
following information is to be given concerning them.
The House of Bishops did not approve of the expedient
ofthe other house, in relation to the selections as they now
stand, to be used at the discretion of the minister, instead
of the Psalms for the day. But Bishop Seabury interested
himself in the subject the less, as knowing, that neither
himself nor any of his clergy would make use of the alter
native, but that they would 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 an
other 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 offici
ating minister the liberty to select Psalms at his discretion.
This would be attended — he thought — with the advantage
of breaking the practice 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

177

might be construed by some into a disrespectful treatment
of Holy Writ, and thus prevent all improvement in this
branch of the service. Another consequence would be,
that, the number and the length of the Psalms depending
on the choice of the minister, there would be great encour
agement to the introduction of the practice of singing this
part of the service, instead of repeating the verses by the
minister 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
having added to the length of the morning and evening
prayer, instead of shortening them; an object confessedly
proper to be kept in view. They were indeed made with
too little deliberation; of which 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
of having the printed selections, since there were to be
such, to contain as many of the Psalms as were suited to
the ordinary devotions of a congregation. The selections
which the bishops made contained whole Psalms, on the
principle already stated. The other house accepted them
as sent; only that they excluded one verse from the eighty-
fourth Psalm. But this subject 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 established on the principles of rational piety and good
taste. But there are great difficulties in the way. On the
one hand there are very many who remain attached to
* Ante, p. 122. Ed.

178 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the old practice of reading all the Psalms, according to the
daily arrangement. Against this, besides the objection so
often made, that some of them have more of the severity
of the legal than of the mercy of 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 which can be supposed descriptive of any
body of people, convened on a common occasion of devo
tion. Accordingly, the parts referred to seem to be not
suited to such an occasion, however admirably they may
be so for the private prayer and thanksgiving of particular
persons. As to the plea of antiquity, little stress is to be
laid on it, unless it could be proved, that the Psalms were
so used in the earliest ages of the Church, the contrary to
which is here taken to be the fact.
But although these objections lie, as is conceived,
against the past practice, there is such a propensity man
ifested 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 Christian
devotion. In the service for the 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 the Holy Spirit, left out in King
Edward's reign, must at least have produced an opposition.
But no such thing happened to any considerable extent,

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

179

or at least, the author did not hear of any in the other
house, further than a disposition to the effect in a few
gentlemen, which was counteracted by some pertinent
remarks of the president. In that of the bishops, it lay
very near to the heart of Bishop Seabury. As for the
other bishop, without conceiving with some, that the ser
vice as it stood was essentially defective, he always thought
there was a beauty in those ancient forms, and can dis
cover no superstition in them. If indeed they could have
been reasonably thought to imply, that a Christian minis
ter is a priest, in the sense of an offerer 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 unevangelical sentiments —
as he conceives them to be. The English reformers care
fully 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 Church has been since objected to by some few
among us. To show that a superstitious sense must have
been intended, they have laid great stress on the printing
of the words "which we now offer unto thee," in a different
character from the 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
some respects, referred to it, to save the trouble of copying.
But the reference was not intended to establish any partic
ular manner of printing; 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, may

180 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
be learned from the following incident. On the morning
of the Sunday which occurred during the session of the
convention, the author wished him to consecrate the ele
ments. This he declined. On the offer being again made
at the time when the service was to begin, he still declined,
and, smiling, added — To confess the truth, I hardly con
sider the form to be used, as strictly amounting to a
consecration. The form was of course that used hereto
fore; the changes not having taken effect. These senti
ments he had adopted, in his visit to the bishops from
whom he received his Episcopacy.
In the occasional services, there was so little 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 them. They passed in the other house almost the
same as they were drawn up and sent to them by the
bishops. When it was intimated, that there should again be a
recurrence to the article in the Apostles' Creed, this was
with the view of delivering sentiments entertained on the
subject, as expressed in the following letter to Bishop Sea
bury, written at the crisis of the difficulty, which arose on
the appearance of the misunderstanding. Philadelphia, December, 1789.
Right reverend and dear Sir,
I received your friendly letter of October nth, 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 can not recede from the
proposal ofthe 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
friendly communication with you, and of leaving a record
of the principles on which I act, if I exhibit, as briefly as

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 181
possible, and without citing authorities, a general view of
my sentiments on the point: I shall arrange them under
these heads — the history of the article — its merits as a
Scripture question — 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 can not find,
although I formerly took some pains for the purpose, any
avowed reference of this sort. Nevertheless, as Christ's De
scent into Hell, before the insertion of the article, was un
questionably 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 De
scent in the beginning of the fifth century, notwithstanding
the whims with which it became connected, is of no small
support 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 ofthe Hebrew word h\iW and the Greek word aS??s.
The former signifies, sometimes, merely the grave, and
sometimes, most evidently to my mind, a place of unhappi-
ness. ASrji generally conveys the last mentioned idea. Al
though 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 mean
ing 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 understood in the strict sense, and so continued
to the time of the reformation, was then adopted by our
Church in the same sense; although afterward, by dropping
* See ante, pp. 126, 175. Ed.

1 82 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the reference to the place in St. Peter, she left more lati
tude as to the precise manner of explaining the article.
This brings me to my second particular — the merits of
the article as a Scripture question. Here, truth and can
dor require me to acknowledge, that they who hold the
doctrine in the strict sense of the words, have much to say.
It takes off most of the obscurity of the place in St. Peter,
above alluded to, which, otherwise, seems incoherent and
unintelligible. There is another passage in the next chap
ter, (iv. 6.) which, on this construction, is natural and of
obvious meaning, but of which I never met with any other
tolerable interpretation. The passage from the Epistle to
the Ephesians, which we read in the ordination service, has
been otherwise ingeniously interpreted, but with a very
forced and unnatural interpretation of the words — " the
lower parts of the earth," and with the entire loss of con
nection 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
cerning our Saviour, may mean His resurrection only; for
the word "soul" is often put for person, and sometimes for
the mere body in the Old Testament. As to the repetition,
it is agreeable to a well known characteristic of eastern
poetry. But if — which seems the most reasonable — we take
the prophecy to relate immediately to David, although 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 resur
rection. 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 pas
sages are few, that they are obscure, and that 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 83
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 aSr/i 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 contra
dict any principle to which regard should be had among us.
If omitted, it will be liable to many inconveniences, to be
pointed out under the third branch of the subject, to which
I now pass — the present state of the article in our Church.
It appears most unquestionable to my understanding,
that if a person of good sense, but a stranger to what has
passed on the subject, and entirely indifferent to the ques
tion, were to make out a copy for the printer from the
papers prepared 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
might truly declare, that they never meant it. And it
would appear in full proof, that the amendment was never
read to them.
If the above should make the whole transaction null,

1 84 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 con
ventions, and those of all the state conventions in my
possession, that its being the opinion of a majority of the
members of the late General Convention, will never justify
me to my own conscience, in making it a ground of con
duct. On the contrary, I hold it to be my duty to God
and the Church to presume the opposite as the present
known profession of our communion.
What then is the sense ofthe 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 insti
tutions 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 Bur
net, are for the sense comprehended by the proposed mar
ginal 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
rigor of requiring the belief of it in that high sense. For
although' I should fear to insert any thing in opposition to
it — lest haply we be found to "fight against God" — yet, on
the other hand, it is involved in so much difficulty as to
make me equally fear the being, by the requisition of it,
"wise above what is written." The latter may perhaps
be objected to the English creed, without some explana
tory extension; for notwithstanding all that was said con
cerning "hell" being synonymous with "a place of de
parted spirits," without a special application to a state of
unhappiness, I take the fact to be generally otherwise.
But now, if this reasoning should be wrong, and the
matter should be supposed to rest, agreeably to the sense

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 185
ofthe committee, who contend, that by rejecting our rubric
they retain their own, and that the body of the Creed
should be altered accordingly, I proceed to state the bad
consequences of their plan.
1st. As the article is acceptable to many, on the princi
ple of its combating of a glaring error, I would not even
seem to countenance that error, when the difficulty com
plained of might have been removed without any absurdity,
or the contradicting of the principles of any members of
our Church.
2dly. That 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 sep
arately, threatens in either case much dangerous litigation.
3dly. Without entering into the question, how far 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 my
ideas of good faith; although in saying this, I only look at
the effect of it on my own situation.
4thly. At a time when our Church is not in 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 pre
vent different ways in the same church, in the case of a
stranger's officiating; whose departure from the usage of
that particular church would tend to distract the minds
ofthe 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

1 86 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
general acceptation of this article ofthe Creed; it being re
tained by the Roman Catholics, by the Lutheran Churches,
and by the Presbyterians of all descriptions, besides others.
And now, after all these difficulties, the question is—
What is to be done ? I know not. But if the committee
are so confident of the goodness of their construction, as to
make it the foundation of their printing of the book, at the
same time admitting — as they have done — a declaration
from me annexed to the record, that my signing of the
Morning Prayer is not to be construed as involving an ac
knowledgment of the consent of the House of Bishops to
that matter, I am very willing to promise, on the condi
tion of being thus not answerable for the consequences, to
throw no impediment in the way of the book on that ac
count, but, on the contrary, to give it all the support in my
power, making use, however, in common with others, of
the latitude allowed in this instance by the book itself.
I must, however, my dear sir, with the freedom which I
hope will subsist between us, confess to you, that I feel
most sensibly a difficulty to which in this and in a very few
other particulars, I am subjected by the late fixture of the
constitution. So far as the making of the bishops a sepa
rate house tended to conciliate our eastern brethren, I 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. I think
further, that, on this plan, matters are 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
judgments favorable 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 87
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
responsibility. And if the operation be a hard one, in re
lation 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 I know of no ex
pedient besides that suggested.
You will rejoice to find, that I have nothing to add on a
subject on which I must have been at this time very te
dious to you and therefore I conclude myself,
Your affectionate brother,
WM. WHITE.
Right Rev. Bishop Seabury.

K. Page 30. Of the Convention in 1792.
The bishops present at this convention, were Bishops
Seabury, White, Provoost, Madison, and, after consecra
tion, Claggett.
Bishop Provoost presided in the House of Bishops, and
Dr. William Smith, of' Pennsylvania, in the House of Cler
ical and Lay Deputies. The secretaries of the two houses
were, of the former first the Rev. Samuel Keene, and after
wards the Rev. Leonard Cutting; and of the latter, the
Rev. John Bisset.
The occasion was opened, by a sermon from Bishop Sea
bury, agreeably 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, exchanged visits. Although
the author knows of no personal 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,

1 88 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
that Bishop Provoost had denied the validity of Bishop Sea-
bury'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 without due delibera
tion, and producing inconsistencies of conduct. For in the
convention of June, 1786, on the question of denying the
validity of Bishop Seabury's ordinations, the vote of New
York is "Aye," although it was well known, that two ofthe
three clergymen from that state had paid attentions to Dr.
Seabury, as a bishop; and that he stood high in their es
teem. But they acted under instructions from the Church
in their state when the convention of it was of a complex
ion corresponding with that vote. Afterward, in the Gen
eral Convention of 1789, the convention of New York hav
ing been, at its preceding meeting, composed principally
of gentlemen of an opposite sentiment on this subject, the
deputies from that state were among the foremost in pro
ducing the resolution then come into, of recognizing Bishop
Seabury's Episcopal character.
But to return to the narrative. The prejudices in the
minds of the two bishops were such as threatened a dis
tance between them; which would give an unfavorable ap
pearance to themselves, and to the whole body, and might
perhaps have an evil influence on their deliberations. But
it happened otherwise. On a proposal being made to them
by common friends, and through the medium of the pres
ent author, on the suggestion of Dr. Smith, they consented
without the least hesitation, Bishop Seabury to pay, and
Bishop Provoost to receive the visit, which etiquette en
joined on the former to the latter; and was as readily ac
cepted by the one, as it had been proffered by the other.
The author was present when it took place. Bishop Pro
voost 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 89
either of them, which seemed to show, that the former dis
tance 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 hap
pily as the preceding.
When the bishops met in the vestry-room of Trinity
Church, on Wednesday, the 12th of September, it appeared,
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 done. 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 other two 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. The author expressed his persuasion, that no such de
sign was entertained, either by Bishop Provoost or by
Bishop Madison; and his determination, that if it were, it
should not have his concurrence. He believed they wished,
as he also did, to have three bishops present under the

190 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
English consecration, whenever such an occasion as that
now expected, should occur. The being united in the act
with a bishop who should consecrate through another line,
would not weaken the English chain. In regard to the
question of presidency, on which Bishop Seabury had in
timated 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 Seabury think it proper in this 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 Sea
bury's assistance 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 tes
timony of mutual consent in this design. He absented
himself that morning, and the rule was altered, in the man
ner 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 a 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 forbear
ance 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

ADD I TION A L STA TEMENTS.

I9I

correcting of any thing amiss touching this matter, there
could be no ground of difference, except in the article of
the Descent into Hell, which had been settled as already
related, and the subject of the exclusive copyright 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 con
sistent with one another: and further to secure the faithful
printing of the book. The measure, however, was gener
ally censured and was reversed.
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 aforesaid expressions — the author here speaks his
own sense only, not answering for that of any other bishop
— were as follow: —
As to the first — " Receive ye the Holy Ghost," it is sup
posed to express the conveyance of the ministerial char
acter, which St. Paul recognizes as the gift of the Spirit.
1 Tim. iv. 14, and 2 Tim. i. 6, and Eph. iv. 8, 11. And as
to the expressions^" whose sins," etc., 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 sin
cerity of the receiver. But although each of the expres
sions will thus admit of a good interpretation, which should
be given by the clergy as occasion may call for it, yet the
words are not necessarily to be used in preference to every
other form, in the very act of conveying the ministerial

192 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
commission. If they are not necessary, they can not 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 proposed absolute negative of the
bishops, but without any interference on their part. The
debates ended in what appears on the journal of the House
of 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 begin
ning 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 which would, he thought, only leave with every pas
tor of a congregation the right of judging of orthodoxy,
according to his discretion or his prejudices, while the Arti
cles determine that matter by a rule, issuing from the pub
lic 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
answered, that he thought them better than any other,
likely to be obtained under present circumstances. Con
ventional business is too much hurried, and the members of
the conventions are not sufficiently retired from other avo
cations, for the entering on determinations of this magni
tude. Even if the greater number of the body should be
conceded to be sufficiently learned for the work, ecclesias
tical legislation has not been of sufficiently long standing
in this Church to have established the characters of those

ADDITIONAL STA TEMENTS.

193

who exercise it, as to 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 conven
tion. Besides, many persons among the laity, and some
even among the clergy, had declared their determination
to abide by the Articles at all events: which made it much
to be feared that a schism would take place whenever any
material change should be determined on. In this case,
they who should adhere to the Articles, would claim their
relation to the Church of England, while it would be ques
tionable 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 political 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
to the tenor of the thirty-sixth canon of that Church. He
preferred the resting of the obligation of them on the prom
ise 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. A,s the author approves ofthe gen
eral tenor of the Thirty-nine Articles, he trusted, that
however he might have supposed, in his private judgment,
the possibility of omitting some of them and of altering
others to advantage, yet not perceiving a probability, either
that such a change, if made, would have been for the bet
ter, or, that if so, it would have found such general accept
ance as to prove a sufficient bond of union, he thought he
acted consistently, in endeavoring to obtain them on the
terms stated.
Bishop Seabury was free to declare his dissatisfaction

194 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
with some of the Articles, and during the former conven
tion in Philadelphia, had expressed a doubt, in conversa
tion 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 supposed 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 previously 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 probably the cause of his giving of his mere vote
in the conference of the houses. His sense was decidedly
in favor of Articles, as appeared also in his usual conversa
tion on the subject.
There was no formal discussion of the subject, in the
House of Bishops, but they negatived the question of refer
ence to a future convention, when it became the subject of
conference between the two houses. The negative hap
pened by Bishop Seabury's, Bishop Claggett's, and the au
thor's votes, against Bishop Madison's in the affirmative;
so that the president was not called on to vote. The au
thor takes notice that this transaction is not recorded on

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

195

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 confer
ence, determined to dismiss it. for the present.
It may be proper to mention a proposition made by the
bishops, but not entered on the journals.
Bishop Madison had communicated to the author, on
their journey from Philadelphia to New York, a design
which he had much at heart — that of effecting a reunion
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 hope
less all endeavors for such a junction must prove. Never
theless, he persisted in his well-meant design. The result
of this was his introducing into the House of Bishops of a
proposition, which his brethren, after some modifications,
approving of the motive, but expecting little as the result
of it, consented to send to the other house. The proposi
tion 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 divi
sions 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

* This was the name that was then borne by those who presided in the Metho
dist communion.

196 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
by any other considerations than those of duty as Chris
tians, and an earnest desire for the prosperity of pure
Christianity, and the furtherance of our holy religion, they
are ready and willing to unite and form one body with any
religious society which shall be influenced by the same
Catholic spirit. And in order that this Christian end may
be the more easily effected, they further declare, that all
things in which the great essentials of Christianity or the
characteristic 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, are subject to human altera
tion. And it is hereby recommended 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
Deputies, 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 indul
gence, 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 cor
respondence between Dr. Coke and the author, who would
have been gratified by an accommodation with the Metho
dists, and who thought that the paper sent was a step in
measures to be taken to that effect, spoke in favor of the
proposition. But it was not to be endured, and the bish
ops 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 97
he considered as a union of the Methodistical Society with
the Episcopal Church. The plan was, in substance, that
all the Methodist ministers, at the time in connection,
were to receive Episcopal ordination, as also those who
should come forwards in future within the connection; such
ministers to remain under the government of the then sup
erintendents and their successors. Dr. Coke's motive to
the proposed union, as stated in his letter, was an appre
hension entertained by him, that he had gone further in
the separation than had been designed by Mr. Wesley,
from whom he had received his commission. Mr. Wesley
himself, he was sure, had gone further than he would have
gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. The
Doctor was certain, that the same gentleman was sorry for
the separation, and would use his influence to the utmost,
for the accomplishment of a reunion. Dr. Coke's letter
was answered by the author, with the reserve which seemed
incumbent on one who was incompetent to decide with
effect on the proposal made.
It happened that Dr. Coke, before he received the 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 take his passage
for England. On reaching this city and calling on Dr.
Magaw, he was much disappointed on hearing of the early
answer, lest it should fall into the hands of his colleague — ¦
Mr. Asbury. He visited the author, in company of Dr.
Magaw, and in speaking of the above 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
reunion, 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

198 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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,
on the arrival of their 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 sub
ject. 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 1 99
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 misunderstand
ing, 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, are questions on which there is no judgment here
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 pro
posed. For a copy of the letter of Dr. Coke, and the answer to
it, see the Appendix, No. 21.
Perhaps it may not be foreign to the present 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 withdrawing 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
more, which the author left at the house of Mr. Wesley,
when he was from home; but no notice was taken of it.
Before the author's departure, intending to go on a certain
day into the city, he sent to that gentleman a letter by the
penny-post, expressing, that he would on the same day
stop at his house, if convenient to him. An answer was
received, and is still in possession, the purport of which is,
that Mr. 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

200 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
were entertained ofthe 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
posed by some. And he remarked, that the whole of the
pamphlet might be considered as a censure on what had
been done recently in America.

L. Page 31. Of the Convention in IJ9$.
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
place an incident, threatening to produce permanent dis
satisfaction between Bishops Seabury and Provoost, which,
however, was happily prevented. Although Bishop Sea
bury had been chosen bishop of the Church in Rhode
Island, the congregation of Narraganset, in that state, had
associated with the Church in Massachusetts, which had
unwarily admitted the junction. In consequence, a clergy
man had been ordained for the congregation by Bishop
Provoost. The author, during the sitting of the conven
tion, received a letter from Bishop Seabury, respectfully

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 201
and affectionately complaining of the matter. Bishop Pro
voost, on the letter's being read to him, said, that on re
ceiving the letter from the clergy of Massachusetts, he had
doubted of the propriety of the proposal in it; but that on
consulting the clergy of New York, and especially those in
the most intimacy with Bishop Seabury, he was advised by
them to compliance; but that he perceived objections to
such conduct in individual congregations, and would much
approve of a canon to prevent it. Such a canon was ac
cordingly prepared and passed. It is believed that no dis
satisfaction remained.
The author was enabled to lay before this convention an
application from a convention in North Carolina, for the
consecration of the Rev. Charles Pettigrew 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 jour
ney in consequence of an epidemic fever in Norfolk, which
made him despair of arriving in time, there being some
interruptions 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
pened 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 resolvable into the want of some clergymen of
sufficient zeal and influence to take the lead in such
business. There had been, previously, an exertion to the same
good effect. The Rev. James L. Wilson, ordained by the
author in 1789, embarked as a deputy to the General Con
vention of 1792; but after an unusually long passage, ar
rived too late. At his special request, his arrival after
the adjournment was noticed by the secretary, as it now

202 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
stands, below the journal. Mr. Wilson returned to North
Carolina, and soon after died.
With the recommendation of Mr. Pettigrew, there came
a letter to the author, expressive of solicitude because of
what he considered, and his electors appear in the instru
ment to have considered a departure in his certificate from
the appointed form. The letter was answered, and the an
swer 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 preced
ing convention, providing for such a case as that now ex
isting, in which some of the electors, because of the want
of personal 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 representa
tion of seven churches, and proposed the choosing of a bish
op; but gave such reasons for the measure, as indicated a
design of separating from the union. The author conceived
it to be his duty, to lay this paper before the bishops,
who, in consequence, after the testimonials of Dr. Robert
Smith had been presented to them with a view to his con
secration, desired an interview with him. In that inter
view, the author, as president, being so instructed by the
bishops, asked him, whether the convention, which had
been held in consequence of the said printed paper, had
adopted the sentiments of it. Dr. Smith then asked —
Whether his consecration was to depend on his answer
to that question ? The president replied, that he was not
instructed on the point. The Doctor then immediately
said, that the convention had not adopted the principles
of the paper. So all difficulty on that score was done away.
There existed no evidence to the contrary, nor has there

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 203
been any subsequently received to that effect. It has never
been learned, who was the penman of that wretched pro
duction. Probably, the offensive sentiments contained in
it were a temporizing expedient, designed to obviate pre
judices which were known to exist in South Carolina
against the having of a bishop for that state.* The ten
dency of the paper to a severance of the Church in South
Carolina from the union was unequivocal.
Although the principles of the paper were not adopted
by the convention of South Carolina, as appears from the
testimony of Bishop Smith, yet, as it was issued with a
view to important consequences, and as the propriety of
the conduct of the House of Bishops is implicated in its
contents, it is given without the signatures, in the Appen
dix, No. 23.
There appear on the journals some entries requiring ex
planation, concerning the Rev. Dr. Samuel Peters. t This
gentleman had been a clergyman of Connecticut before the
revolution. He had gone to England during the war, and
some time before the period now referred to had endeav
ored 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 not his 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, ap
plied to the American bishops. There was but one clergy
man 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

* See ante, p. 30. Ed. f\
f He is called both Samuel and Samuel &. Peters. Ed.

204 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
object now treated of. The conduct of the bishops, in de
clining any agency in the business, is rested on the circum
stance, that the Church in Vermont had not acceded to
the constitution. There were besides some personal cir
cumstances, which prevented the paying of much respect
to the solicitation. It was this transaction which produced
an addition to one of the canons; requiring, that to entitle
the Church in any state to a resident bishop, there shall be
at least six presbyters residing and officiating therein.*
There are on the journals of this convention some en
tries, in which it was thought expedient to leave a trans
action unexplained, and so it might have continued, had
not the very exceptionable conduct of an individual mem
ber, after the recess, rendered it questionable, whether
they had not erred in not having expelled him from the
body; the only punishment in their power, since there
could have been no ecclesiastical trial, except before the

* Of those concerned in the election of Dr. Peters, one may judge from the
statements of Dr. Peters himself. He says, "After the war was ended, and the
independence of America was secured, the Episcopalians who had settled the State
of Verdmont, with the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Puritans, unanimously
elected him their bishop." — "History of the Rev. Hugh Peters," New York,
1807, p. 95. He accepted the office, and sent forward a pastoral address to the
people from England, where he was residing. Peters says that he applied to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would have consecrated him "readily," had
not "the act of parliament of January, 1786, limited the power of the king and
restricted the number of bishops to three" (p. 96); but the Archbishop himself,
under date of July, 1795, when replying to Colonel Graham, who as the agent
of Peters had made himself an annoyance, says, after referring to the legal im
pediments, that "Mr. Peters could not receive consecration from us," since the
requisite testimonials had not been furnished by Vermont, "where for the last
twenty years he has never resided," "nor could the want of that testimony be
supplied in England, where he has lived all that time, without the exercise of
any ecclesiastical function within the cognizance or jurisdiction of any of our
Bishops." — "Churchman's Magazine," 1807, p. 237. See also Bishop Chase on
the subject, Thompson's "History of Vermont, " 1842, part ii., p. 194. After
wards Dr. Peters intended to proceed upon the congregational theory and accept
the call of the people as consecration; but he says that illness prevented "liis
joining the united churches of Verdmont" (p. 107). Nevertheless he continued
to flourish for more than a quarter of a century, dying in New York State. Ed

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 205
authority of his proper diocese, where he would have been
still liable to it. There also arose the question, whether
the bishops had acted correctly, in rescuing him from
expulsion. It appears on the journal of the House of Clerical and
Lay Deputies, that on Friday, the nth of September, "the
attention of the house was called by the Rev. Dr. Andrews
to the consideration of a pamphlet lately published, enti
tled — "Strictures on the Love of Power in the Prelacy, By
a Member ofthe 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
against the 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 Bishops
— "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 committee of
this house is Bishop White and Bishop Provoost. The
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies agreed to the request
of this house, and the joint committee met in the bishops'
chamber." Further, the journal of the House of Clerical
and Lay Deputies for the same day states as follows — "The
committee" (meaning that of the whole house) "rose, and
their chairman reported, that they had considered the pa
per referred to them yesterday, which was from the author
ofthe pamphlet entitled — "Strictures on the Love of Power
in the Prelacy," in which he professes sorrow for the pub
lication, 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 remarkably conciliatory charac
ter, pressed for permission to enter their protest. It was
not granted: and as this has been the only instance, in

206 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
which the question of a right to protest has undergone dis
cussion, the recording of a denial of the right, falls 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 author of
the pamphlet,* seeing expulsion full before him, thought fit
to look to the House of Bishops for a shelter. After 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
penitence was insincere, although it had been accompanied
by a profusion of tears, when he discussed the subject with
the author, in the presence of the Rev. Dr. Smith, of Penn
sylvania. This was an issue which could not have been
foreseen, and which it would have been uncharitable to
have thought probable. The House of Bishops committed
the apology to the keeping of the author (where it now
remains), not to be made use of, unless in the case of future
misconduct. When this happened, Bishops Provoost and
Madison, who alone were present when the deposit was
made, were written to for their permission to send a copy
ofthe apology to the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese
to which the offender belonged. Leave was given, aud the
document was sent.f

* This person was the Rev. Henry C. Purcell, D.D. See Journals III,
307. Ed.
f The personal abuse in the licentious pamphlet, was principally levelled at
Bishop Seabury; and the ground of it, was his supposed authorship of a printed
defence of the Episcopal 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 the Prelacy." Coming from such a pen, it could
be no cause of self-gratulation; but it was encouragement to assist in the exposure
which took place, and which is to be attributed principally to Dr. Andrews.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 207
M. 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. John
Henry Hobart, of the former, and the Rev. James Aber-
crombie, ofthe 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, he was consecrated
in Christ Church, in the City of Philadelphia, by the pre
siding bishop, assisted by Bishops Provoost and Claggett.
It is evident on an inspection of the journal, that the
bishops had no opportunity of expressing their sense on the
question of publishing the draft of Articles which it con
tains. 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 ofthe convention. Indeed it was so misunderstood:
whereas it was the sense of a committee only, not an in
dividual besides having delivered in his place any opinion
on any article. But this was not the worst. It tended to
excite religious acrimony, without any possible good ef
fect at the present; and with the probable bad effect of
the greater acrimony on an opportunity of settlement in
future. In order to show the importance of the exercise of
great care and much deliberation in any measure which
may affect 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 intro
duction of a single word. It was " priesthood," as applied
in the Ninth Article, to denote all the orders of the Chris
tian ministry; and not confined to the order of presbyters,
as in the established Ordinal, of the former of which there
is no example in the institutions of the Church of England.
It is well known, that the English reformers took care

208 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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
IIpeiSfivTEpos (or "presbyter") with an English termination,
and in the Roman Catholic Church had stood alike for that
Greek word and for lepcvs; 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 clergy
man who drafted the Articles, but the rest ofthe 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 any other fault on the
Articles proposed. They are, in substance, what is con
tained in the Thirty-nine Articles, without any superad-
dition, except in the particular stated. But the remarks
may serve to show, that in the work of clearing that code
of what may be thought unnecessary positions, there is the
danger of admitting some novelty, more fruitful of contro
versy than what may be done away. In the present in-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

209

stance, the novelty introduced is susceptible of the con
struction of obtruding on the Church the notions of "sac
rifice," 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 nec
essary to illustrate ecclesiastical effects, and when some
thing 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 fact, 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 ex
pressing 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
ofthe last convention and the present, it may be proper, in
* The Rev. Uzal Ogden, D.D. Journals 1, 224. Ed.

210 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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.
This may otherwise be thought to have influenced the
determination in the first instance, and to have 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 at
tached to the ecclesiastical system ofthe 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 consecration was
declined — the want ofthe requisite number of bishops to be
consecrated in England, t When Bishop Bass was subse
quently admitted to the Episcopacy, the bishops who con
secrated 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 Bald
win, of the latter. The occasion was opened with a ser
mon by the presiding bishop.

* For the operation of the Peters movement in Vermont in connection with
Bishop Bass's election in that state, see Thompson's Vermont, part i., p.
195. Ed.
t See ante, p. 26, n. and p. 144. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 21 1
No sooner were the convention organized, than there
came from the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies a call
for a letter which they understood to have been sent to the
author by Bishop Provoost, on the subject of his resigning
of the Episcopal jurisdiction. This measure raised a very
serious question, made the more important by its being
unexpected. The whole of the merits of it, so far as it
was discussed at the time, is in the entry of the House of
Bishops on their journal, which is therefore given in the
Appendix, No. 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 altera
tions of 1785; no sooner were they known in the different
states, than the sentiment became general, that they were
not to be received without alterations; while yet there was
nothing like unanimity, in regard to what the alterations
should be. The same may be said in regard to the Thirty-
nine Articles. Some changes, independently on what was
of a local and political nature, seemed desired by all; but
of any considerable agreement in particulars, there was
little prospect.
Accordingly, the Church 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 excep
tion of the political parts, the obligation of which had been
abrogated by Divine Providence through the instrumen
tality 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
exhibiting them, which no individual had a right to regu
late. 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

212 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
could have none, until they should be framed by a con
vention, and established by its authority. In support of
this sentiment, they 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 affect
ing an office already known and of obligation* It was
answered, that this was an assumption of but one of the
houses of a single convention; that the other house had
even then adopted a contrary course; that the same had
been done in all the preceding conventions, and that in the
only subsequent convention in which there had been any
alteration of a former standard — meaning of the Ordinal,
altered in 1792 — it had been so acted on, as to acknowledge
the obligation of the old forms, with the exception of the
political parts, until altered. This seems conclusive rea
soning, and yet the opposite doctrine was held by many,
which threatened unhappy consequences.
During the convention of 1789, although nothing was
done relatively to the Articles, there was much serious
conversation on the subject: when the author was surprised
to find, that Bishop Seabury, the only bishop at the con
vention besides himself, doubted of the need of Articles;
and was rather inclined to believe, that the object of them
might be accomplished through the medium of the Liturgy.
This was so wide of what might have been expected from

* The Lower House in 1 789 appeared to have acted somewhat differently from
the same house in 1785 (Journals 1, 22), in that action was taken to secure a
Prayer Book without reference to the English Book (Journals I, p. 103.) Other
wise, the house commenced de novo ; while Article VIII. seems to make the hook
thus independently drawn up the ultimate authority on doctrine and worship.
Bishop White refers to the fact, that the other house in 1789 acted on the prin
ciple that the English Book should be taken as the basis of the new book; yet at
that time the House of Bishops was composed simply of himself and Bishop Sea
bury.— See ante, p. 29. See "Amer. Church Review," 1880, p. 226. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

213

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 be nearer to the height of Calvinism, than they
are found to be on due consideration of their history, and
of contemporary controversies. But it has since appeared,
that there had never been the Thirty-nine Articles or any
such standard in the non-juring Church of Scotland, in
which Bishop Seabury was consecrated, and to the ways of
which he was very much attached. But the said Church,
very soon after the time here referred to, and when her
clergy took the oaths to the government, manifested their
consent with the Church of England, by adopting her
Thirty-nine Articles. Indeed, there was never supposed to
have existed a disagreement in regard to doctrine: but it was
the result of the independency of each Church on the other*
In the convention of 1792, 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 Bishop Claggett and
the author were in favor 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 acknowl
edged 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.
* In Mr. Belsham's Life of Mr. Theophilus Lindsey, Bishop Seabury is rep
resented as a Calvinist. Nothing can be further from the truth. 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 authority. It was equally unworthy of the biographer to speak with
contempt of the Scottish consecrators of the bishop, not only because their charac
ters repel the charge of ignorance thrown on them, but, because their having been
so long under the lash of the law, for adherence to the dictates of their consciences,
ought to have produced a fellow-feeling in a man similarly situated.

214 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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
deputies from that state, and in consequence of instructions
to them, the business was then entered on; although prob
ably with the presumption on the minds of the proposers,
that it would be finished during the session. It however
happened otherwise, the matter then ending with a proposed
body of Articles wholly new in form, edited, with the journal.
The opinion has been already 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,
as 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 print
ed 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 ses-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 215
sion 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 principle, urging each of them that there might be an
exemption in regard to some one point, the most desired
by him to be corrected. To all applications 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 various particulars in which he
thought they might be improved; that all those particulars
he should think himself bound in conscience to bring for
wards; that no doubt many other members would do the
like; and that then — What probability was there, of there
being edited any Articles ?
The author having had so much occasion, in the relation
of the proceedings of this business, to refer to his own con
duct, he thinks that there will be propriety in his present
ing of the grounds of it.
On the general question — Whether it be expedient to
have a body of Articles, it has always appeared, as already
hinted, that to establish them, is merely to accomplish by
a general regulation, what will otherwise be done by indi
vidual 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 can not 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 ofthe power.
When the author was in England, being one day in
company with a Unitarian minister — a gentleman of con
siderable note in the literary world — liberty was taken to

216 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
inquire, in 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
answered 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 minister, an interest would be created in favor of a pastor,
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 designed ?
There was not omitted a remark to the effect in the con
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, that the trustees of the building have ordered
the Book of Common Prayer, as corrected by Mr. Lind
sey, to be deposited in the chest with the title deeds,
to be the rule of worship in future, and no alterations to
be permitted, without the consent of the major number of
the trustees.
It ought not to be thought an indecorum towards a
mode of profession with which the author has no concern,
to notice the above particular as an historic fact, and to
apply it to the illustration of the 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 institu
tion to adults, and others allow of no baptism, but that of
the Spirit ? The remark applies to the celebrating of the

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 217
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 sufferance, and accordingly draw the book out of
the chest ? The compiler of it was so sensible of this, that
in his last review, he omitted the Apostles' Creed; and one
of 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 be
lief, 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 chapel, are the proprietors 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
compelled 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 ex
tended much too far. All contended for is, that this spe
cies of discipline must be exercised in one shape or in
another. It is called discipline: for as to the truth of syn-
odical determinations, further than as they agree with
Scripture, no sound Protestant will affirm 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-

2l8 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
wise than on the ground of their being in substance a body
of divine truth; which they maybe, 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. In the Sixth Article, the books of Holy
Scripture are affirmed 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 any doubt in the Church;" it is apparently con
tradictory to what ecclesiastical history informs us, in re
gard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of
St. Peter, the Epistle of St. James, the second and third
Epistles of St. John, and the Apocalypse: concerning all of
which there were doubts, although cleared up on full 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 sub
scription in the Church of England.
But it will be said, that supposing the Articles to contain
the whole substance of revealed truth, it is the fault of
them that they contain much more, embracing the tenets
of the Calvinistic system. In contrariety to this assertion,
the persuasion is entertained, that they will be found, on a
diligent attention to the subject, to have been framed with
a studied latitude on the questions, which were 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
system of the Church of England stands opposed; the doc
trine 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 2 19
proved, that in the reign of Edward VI., when the Articles
were framed, there was a diversity of sentiments on those
points, and yet, that neither side complained of their being
excluded. Far from it, when, in the reign of 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 first were, on the
topics on which the others are very particular and express.
Let these remarks suffice on a subject, on which it ought
not to be expected to be in this place more minute.
For the form of subscription in this Church, and for
that required in the Church of England, see the Appen
dix, 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 forever, with known and acknowledged im
perfection ? And if this be not contended for, what are the
circumstances which will render the altering of them an
expedient measure ? To these questions it is answered,
not without the answerer's distrust of his own judgment,
first, that in a few instances, the doctrines of the Gospel
may be expressed more satisfactorily to his mind; that
therefore, in the next place, he does not arrogate to them
perpetuity; but that further, before any altering of them be
attempted, these two circumstances should concur — first, a
better establishment in the estimation of the Church gen
erally, of the ecclesiastical authority in her, as yet a mod
ern institution; 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,

2 20 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 circumstance, as declared under a former head, is a
general conviction of the necessity of committing a matter
of this sort to be prepared by a few, with the advantages
of due time and deliberation: what is so prepared to be laid
before the body, to be by them adopted or rejected, without
discussion. These sentiments are given, under a sense of responsi
bility to the great Head of the Church and under the con
viction, that until the two stated circumstances shall com
bine a new code of Articles will have the effect of splitting
the Church into no one knows how many different com
munions, very much to the hindrance of true -piety, and of
those characteristics of our communion, in which we sup
pose 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 descrip
tion. Until this took place, the few gentlemen referred to
had adopted so zealously the cause of the rejected clergy
man, that they contemplated an application to the Episco-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 221
pal 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 favor in regard to the
Episcopacy.*

0. Page 34. 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.
There needs some explanation of what appears on the
journal, concerning the Rev. Ammi Rogers.
He was a native of Connecticut, and educated at Yale
College. During the Episcopacy of Bishop Seabury, in
terest was making among the clergy to procure the ordi
nation of Rogers. But the bishop perceiving it, and in
consequence of an unfavorable 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 useful
ness, laid the foundation of an application for holy Orders,
to Bishop Provoost. While the case was under considera
tion, the Rev. Dr. Beach, having heard that Rogers had
been rejected in Connecticut, made objection. On this,
he repaired 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 person in ques-
* The Rev. Uzal Ogden, D.D. Journals, 1, 264. Ed.

2 22 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
tion. Such a certificate might have been given with great
truth, because no formal application had been made. But
Philo Perry being from home, Ammi Rogers fabricated a
certificate 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. Beach relying on the integrity of it,
withdrew his opposition, and Ammi Rogers was ordained.
In a few years after his ordination, he returned to his
native state, and made himself popular at Stamford. The
bishop and the clergy refused to know him as belonging to
the diocese: and it was this which brought before 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, espe
cially the affidavit of Dr. Beach; but the clerical deputies
from Connecticut, while they treated the man with the ut
most decorum, produced ample evidence of a factious 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 223
his great unworthiness and his flagitious conduct, consented
to the proposal. This was ill judged, for these two reasons:
first, it would give room, in the event of a condemnation,
to object, that the opinion of the bishops, extra-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
latitude as to the degree of punishment to be inflicted.
The pointing to what this should be occasioned the other
reason referred to, by contributing to what is here thought
to be the error into which the bishop and the clergy of
Connecticut subsequently fell, of supposing that Ammi
Rogers 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 solicitations
which will probably be occasionally made, for the obtaining
of determinations on points personally and locally interest
ing; but which may be left, without the endangering of
any principle, to the judicial authority of the Church in
each state. That this is the most agreeable to the ecclesi
astical constitution, will not be denied. If the said instru
ment be not wisely contrived in this particular, still it
should govern, until altered by competent authority. The
constitution, however, is here conceived to be not liable to
objection, on this account: and it is supposed, that a con
trary provision would be found impracticable, because of
the long intervals between the meetings of the General
Conventions, the difficulty of keeping them together, and
other circumstances which might be mentioned.
After the rising ofthe convention, this business of Ammi
Rogers threatened serious consequences to the Church in
Connecticut, owing to what has been already hinted — its

224 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
having been there conceived, that he had been tried, and
that nothing remained, except to declare him degraded.
When the author found, that what the bishops had re
corded on their minutes was so materially misunderstood, he
wrote to Bishop Moore, to know his sense of the matter; and
found, from a letter of that bishop still in possession, that
there was a perfect 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 important,
it may be proper to record the origin of it, and the general
view entertained of its tendency by the author.

* The author and Bishop Moore afterward received a letter from the com
mittee of the clergy in Connecticut, requesting advice on the question 'of again
taking up the business 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 them to have withheld their advice, until they should have known that it would
have effect.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 225
The clergyman in contemplation was possessed of appar
ent zeal, and was unexceptionable in his moral conduct. It
is difficult to ascertain how far these circumstances should
extend lenity to what can not in itself be defended. But
certain it is, that he had manifested a leaning to practices
very different from those of his Church. In addition to
this, there were complaints of his overbearing of the vestry,
and of his taking of all authority to himself, in the manage
ment ofthe temporal concerns of the congregation. That
from dissatisfaction with him they had. become very much
lessened, was affirmed and believed. The former of the
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 result of a trial for alleged misconduct; which is the
most agreeable to the idea of exalting law above will.
Besides, there is evident danger, that when a clergyman
should be degraded, his congregation will avail themselves
of this canon, from a false tenderness, and thus, while they
rid themselves ofthe 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 congregations,
the bishops consented to the canon. It deserves the name
of a necessary, but — it is hoped — only temporary evil.
The apprehension ofthe 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

226 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
prescribed the course of ecclesiastical study, still subsist
ing, for students in theology. This was doing something
towards 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 conven
tions. 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
having been there moved by Bishop Jarvis, the business of
the convention was concluded by prayer, performed by the
presiding bishop, in the presence of both houses. It had
been the rule during every convention, to have morning
prayer 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 held on the third Tuesday in May,
1808.

P. Page 35. Ofthe Convention of 1808.
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. Dr. James
Whitehead, of the former, and the Rev. John H. Hobart,
of the latter.
Bishop Parker, who, at the request of the last conven
tion, was to have opened the present with a sermon, be
ing deceased, that office 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 227
represented 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
House of Bishops, there were two only — Bishop Claggett
and the author. When the latter repaired to the place of
meeting, it was under an apprehension, having learned by
letter from the other his being exceedingly indisposed, that
the question would be raised — Whether a single bishop
can constitute a house. On this, he was prepared to sus
tain 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 considerable degree of indisposition, under which he
labored during the whole session. Bishop Jarvis was said
to be indisposed with the asthma, and Bishop Moore was
confined by an inflammation in his eyes. Why Bishop Mad
ison was absent, was not known; unless he were prevented
by a loss sustained of a son, not long before.
In revising and arranging the canons, there occurred
nothing material, besides the two following particulars.
One of them respected Candidates for holy Orders.
The proposed canon prescribed different examinations to
be held, during the time in which a case should be under
consideration: and among the matters to be inquired into,
was the party's being possessed of " a practical knowledge
of religion." When this came before the bishops, they
could form no idea of practical knowledge. They knew,
that in the other house it had been consented to by the
majority, in order to get rid of an expression pressed by
some — that of "an experimental knowledge": an 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 perceive how the

228 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
candidate could satisfy his examiners as to this point, on
any other evidence than that of his own declarations; the
requiring of which was thought liable to much abuse. Ac
cordingly, they proposed to leave out the clause concern
ing "practical knowledge"; and that after the other re
quisitions, there should be inserted an admonition to the
candidate, of there being required in him those inward
graces, which can not be brought to any outward standard,
and are named in Scripture "the fruits of the Spirit" — by
which alone his sacred influence can be " known."
In addition to this, the bishops sent to the other house
a paper, of which the following is a copy, to be read to
them, but not entered on their journal, in the printing of
which it accordingly does not appear, and is therefore in
serted in this place.
" Having proposed the omission of an expression which
seems designed to require inward piety, we wish to be
clearly understood in this matter.
" Far be it from us to suppose, that any 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 fellowmen. If it should be thought,
that they may ascertain his experience by an inquiry into
the movements of his mind, we remark, that the issue must
be precarious, independently on some manifest abuses in
cident to it.
"The Church of England has always contented herself
with a visible profession, a suitable life, and the solemn
declarations at the altar. That in these there may be
imposition and insincerty, is unquestionable. But how
they would have been prevented by further requisition, we
do not discern. We recollect within that Church many
wise and holy men, who have been satisfied with her disci
pline in this particular. But we doubt of there having

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 229
been any dissentients, whose opinions we would wish to
see influential in this Church. We call to mind a certain
period in the history of England, when one effect of the
entire prostration of her Church was the triumph of the
principle here objected to. But we have learned too much
ofthe consequent hypocrisy and tyranny to be reconciled
to any thing which bids fair to lead to the same result.
" In America, a question raised on the same ground,
divided for some time a numerous and 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 question; but that St. Paul, in his first Epistle to
Timothy, 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 ofthe proposed canon by the bish
ops 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 God, 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 off 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.

230 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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
amendment of the bishops was accepted, but much to the
dissatisfaction of the dissentients, who even talked of en
tering a protest. After the business of the day, two re
spectable clergymen, who had argued and voted in the
majority, privately recommended to the consideration of
the two bishops — whether it would not be best for them
to propose the change of "known" for "manifested"; this
word not being opposed to their belief, although not so
precisely suited to the sentiment intended to be conveyed.
Their motive was the expectation until now entertained,
that the convention would close the next day, with a con
ciliatory spirit on all sides; which expectation would be
disappointed, if the recommended measure should be re
jected. The bishops, influenced by the same motive, com
plied with the proposal. But when the alteration came
into the other house, there again arose a warm debate, a
considerable proportion arguing against the acceptance of
the revision. However, the more moderate counsel pre
vailed; but whether to any good purpose, can be known
only by future events. The transaction is recorded under
the mortifying reflection, that there has been an interfer
ence in the counsels of this Church of the wild and per
nicious 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,
acid 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,

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 23 1
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 Office 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
office; but the requiring of induction as essential 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
ofthe ministry, yet it would have been better to have left
the correction of it to time and attendant inconveniences,
than to have brought the full force of it into operation by
the measure now in question. Certainly it would have been
best to have rested the service on a 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 dioceses in which it in
terfered with charters or usages. In this shape, the matter
was brought before the bishops, who were reluctant to the
saying of any thing, liable to be construed into an approba
tion of charters of 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 decla
ration, that it should not be construed as giving a sanction
to the charters and the usages in contemplation, concern
ing which they also expressed the hope, that they will in

232 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
time be altered. This amendment was accepted, and the
canon passed.
A new arrangement ofthe 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 dioceses, 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, print
ing the titles in italics. A repeal will be the result of the
considerable improvement of a former canon. But it was
obligatory in its old form, while it remained in force, and
may still require to be referred to, on some question con
nected with discipline. The title will direct to the journal,
which will show how the canon stood at the time to which
it is desirable to apply it.
The journal shows that there was accomplished at this
convention what has been from the beginning ardently
desired by many, both of the clergy and of the laity — the
giving of a full negative to the House of Bishops. It is to
be hoped, that the recollection of the course of this busi
ness, as found on the various journals, will show the pro
priety 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 present instance, and must have
been perceived to be such, even by those who conceive the
highest of Episcopal claims. In the year 1785, even the
necessity of the presidency of a bishop, when such a char-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 233
acter should be obtained by consecration, and should be
present in the convention, was rejected. Still, nothing was
decreed to the contrary, and in the next year, the absurd
prejudice against the proposal was overruled. When an
other constitution was formed, in 1789, if a provision for
the Episcopal negative had been insisted on, it would have
been destructive ofthe whole system. Nevertheless, in the
many years intervening, no measure has passed, under the
refusal of the Episcopal sanction. Indeed, it may be a
question, whether, had things remained on the old footing
of the three fifths, made necessary to carry any resolution
contrary to the opinion of the House of Bishops, the weight
of their negative would not have had more effect than un
der the present change. This would have happened in the
following manner. There would always be in the other
house a proportion who would doubt of the validity of a
measure adopted without the Episcopal sanction. Some of
these would occasionally differ from the bishops on a sub
ject under consideration. But when the dissent of the bish
ops should have been declared, those of the description
referred to would have thrown themselves into the scale,
against the putting of the matter to the test of the three
fifths. This supposition has been verified, in a transaction
which took place between the two houses of the conven
tion of 1804. It is evident to the author's mind, that ow
ing to the causes stated, while it would be scarcely possible
ever to carry a measure against the bishops, there would
be a discouragement of even that free 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 the journal, re
specting the votes of the lay gentlemen from Pennsylvania.
It is there said, that they were in favor of the resolution,
but voted in the negative, because uninstructed by their
constituents.* The declaration of the gentlemen is, that
* See Journals of General Convention (Reprint 1861), Vol. 1, p. 341. Ed.

234 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
they declined voting for a measure of which they approved,
because it did not appear from the journals of their state
conventions, that the projected change had been laid be
fore them, as the constitution has prescribed. Neither had
the gentlemen any recollection that this was done. The
author is persuaded that the matter was notified to the
state convention; but how it happened that an entry was
omitted, he knows not.*
The reason of the bishops for postponing the considera
tion of the degrees of consanguinity and affinity prohibiting
marriage, was simply as stated on the journal — the weight
of the subject, and the partial attendance at this ccjnven-
tion. They did not compare their sentiments, on the many
important 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 Book.t The reason of the re
jection of the proposal by the bishops, was its tending to
make the book bulky. Many good treatises, may be use-

* It would have been well, had the subject recurred so as to be brought before
the convention of 1811, to cause notice to have been given on the journal of that
year. But the fact is as here related : and the gentlemen concerned were a little
pained, by the misstatement on the preceding journal; although doubtless occa
sioned by misapprehension or by inadvertence.
f Many editions of the English Prayer Book had bound up with them "A
Companion to the Altar." It does not appear when this policy was inaugurated,
but it was continued, probably by the publishers, on their own account, down to
1812, if not later. No copy that we have seen gives any clew to the authorship,
and one copy has been shown us separate. This, clearly, must have been the
"Companion" referred to by Bishop White. Bishop Hobart's " Companion for
the Altar," was published in 1S04, yet it could not have obtained the approval of
Bishop White, or the convention, as it was not well suited for the intended pur
pose; while the English work, being wholly devotional, and expressing the aver
age sentiment of the time, would meet with no criticism on the ground of utility
in snch a connection. Bishop Hobart's work also formed a I2mo. of 275 pages,
while the "Companion" proposed comprised only 72 in i8mo. It is not proba
ble that any one would propose its incorporation. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 235
fully bound up with the Prayer Book: but to make them
essential parts of it, would be manifestly productive of much
inconvenience. Any printer may, at his discretion, do
what was solicited on this subject, although he may not
notice the Companion to the Altar in the table of contents
ofthe Book of Common Prayer.
It appears from the journal, that the convention has en
deavored — and with propriety as is here conceived — to give
a check to the growing practice of instituting associated
rectorships. They destroy responsibility, and give occasion
to rivalships between pastors of the same parochial church
or churches. It is argued in favor of Episcopacy, that in
dependently 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 connection, 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.,
chap. 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. But the oversight, if
they were correct in supposing one, was not theirs, nor was

236 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
it in their power to correct it. Nothing could have been
easier, than the convicting of him of faults, which deserved
degradation. But it did not become the bishops to advise
the recalling of the act, and the giving of him a trial.
There was the less call on the author to do so, because he
had already advised this very measure, as did also Bishop
Moore, on an application made for their opinions on the
subject, by the standing committee of the Church in 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 confer
ence with Rogers, nor would they have noticed his busi
ness, had he not employed a gentleman of reputation in
the law, to whom something was due on the score of
politeness and respect. They spent a whole morning in
discussing the matter with this gentleman, but persisted in
declining to hear his pleadings, because not competent to
decide. The grounds of the treatment of Rogers by the
House of Bishops, at the last convention and at the pres
ent, were accurately recorded on the journals. The other
house properly refused to intermeddle, and the only reason
of the papers being sent to them by the bishops, was their
being addressed to both.
On the subject of the Hymns sanctioned by this con
vention, much was said, as well out of doors as in the
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. Some members of
that body had contemplated the matter previously to the
meeting, and had pressed it with great earnestness. The
author of these remarks acknowledges, that it was with
pain he saw the subject brought forward. This was not
because he doubted either of the lawfulness of celebrating
the praises of God in other strains than those of David, or
of the expediency of having a few well selected hymns for
the especial subjects of the evangelical economy, which can
no otherwise be celebrated in the Psalms, than in an ac
commodated sense. Nevertheless, there is so little of good
poetry except the Scriptural, on sacred subjects, and there

ADDITIONAL STA TEMENTS.

237

was so great danger of having a selection accommodated to
the degree of animal sensibility, affected by those who
were the most zealous in the measure, that the discre
tion of adopting it seemed questionable. It was, however,
yielded to by the bishops, under the hope, that the selec
tion of a few and those unexceptionable, although some of
them, perhaps, are not to be extolled for the excellence
either of the sentiments or of the poetry, might prevent the
unauthorized use of compositions which no rational Chris
tian can approve of. The matter, however, was executed
with too much haste. The bishops had merely time to give
a cursory reading to the hymns proposed, the result of which
was the acceptance of them, with the exception of one
hymn, containing a verse that seemed a little enthusiastic.
In lieu of this they proposed another hymn, which was ad
mitted. Those who were the most zealous for the meas
ure had pressed for the admission of about two hundred.
On the subject of hymns, there is ground for considera
ble apprehension. 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 Mould 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 taste; not foreseeing, that on the same principle,
there will be, in the next convention, new proposers of new
hymns, and that this will happen without end. There are
some religious societies, who think it ungodly to introduce
into the worship of the sanctuary any other singing than
that ofthe Psalms of David. This is unreasonable, but are
we not running into the opposite extreme ?
The principles which prevail in the estimation of the
author, and which he proposes under subjection to the say
ing — " valeant quantum possunt valere"— that is, let them
pass for what they are worth — are these.
In regard to the general subjects of psalmody, as the

238 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
attributes 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 can not 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 favor of the heavenly origin of the
Old Testament, that strains of devotion, so far excelling
whatever the world knows of prayer practised by the wis
est men among the heathen, should adorn the worship of a
people far below some other nations in the cultivation of
the human intellect. It should be added, that there is no
small proportion of the Psalms, so evidently pointing to
the Messiah and His spiritual kingdom, as only to require
acquaintance with the contents of the New Testament, in
order to their being accommodated to the celebration of
the mercies of redemption.
Nevertheless, as it is by the Gospel 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, em
bodied 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 ad
mitted, when besides sound doctrine and weighty sense,
the composition be such, as a poet of acknowledged genius
would not be ashamed to own.
As to the loading of our book with the same truths in a
diversity of language and of metre, or, in any other way,
the seeking of variety for its own sake, there is pleasure in

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

239

recording the opinion, that it will never tend to the sus
taining either of truth or of devotion. When devout feel
ings have often accompanied certain words, the one bring
the other along with them by the law of association. This
should be no hindrance to as much variety as is suited to
the diversity of subject, yet it discountenances variety,
admitted for the gratification of restless fancy. As to that
species of hymns, which affects 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 prob
able effect 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 offence
against any existing regulation, since they are no parts of
the said book, but make a book by themselves. Accord
ingly, selections from it may be made by any parochial
minister, at his discretion; and either be bound with the
Book of Common Prayer, or kept in a separate manual for
the use of his congregation, and of others to whom it may
be eligible. Something like the latter the author has seen
in sundry churches in England; in which all the metrical
compositions in use are on a large sheet of pasteboard, and
kept hanging in the pews.
It may be proper, to guard the above from being so mis
construed, as to be a sanction for the publishing of the
Book of Common Prayer with the omission of any portion
of it, properly coming under any head of the table of con
tents. 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 conven
tion of 1801, produced the canon now numbered as the
Forty-third, "Prescribing the Mode of publishing author
ized Editions of the Book of Common Prayer," etc. But

240 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
"The Articles of Religion," and "The Ordinal," are each
of them a distinct book, although resting on the same au
thority; so that "The Book of Common Prayer," with or
without them, may be complete.
The subject of hymns has so evidently a bearing on that
of the Psalms, that it will not be irrelevant, and will be jus
tified by the liberty which the author stipulated for in the
preface, to give the outlines of his theory concerning the
latter. It has produced some variety of opinion, although
not in any such extent as to endanger the peace of our
churches. In the primitive Church, says the learned Bingham, "the
joining of all the worshippers in the psalmody was the
most ancient and general practice, till the way of alternate
psalmody was brought into the Church." May every at
tempt to supersede the former, by an exclusive method,
prove abortive.
Is there, then, to be interdicted a 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 so framed the ear as to be delighted
by 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 instruments. 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
flames. It is stated by Bishop Lowth, in his dissertation prefixed

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 241
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 affirms, 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."
The pronunciation of the Hebrew language had become
lost, long before the age of the Gospel, principally in con
sequence of its want of vowels, so that the subsequent in
vention of vowels by the Masorets, has never recovered the
pronunciation with certainty. Hence, the original metre
is unknown, and even in the age ofthe Gospel, the worship
ofthe temple was with the psalms in the prosaic form.
The chanting of them in this form, will forever 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 ofthe 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 under 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

242 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 can not be unlawful in its
principle, provided the sense be faithfully preserved. The
same license is often taken in choral music, it being com
mon to make transpositions and other alterations of the
words of anthems, although not for the purpose of tying
them to metre. But the license pleaded for is denounced
as a gratifying of sense, and there is an opprobrium at hand,
in the expression of a tickling of the ear. What is the "se
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 psalm
ody has been instrumental to schism, having been always
the most esteemed by the Dissenters from the established
Church. It is difficult to perceive either the relation of
the subject, or the evidence of the position. In regard to
the latter, it is notorious, that metrical singing made its
way not only to the parish churches, but to the cathedrals,
without the sanction of command, or even of especial per
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 a higher
grade of singing, it should be remembered, that at their
origin, there was an ideal association of this with other
matters; that it has been hereditary, and that we know
not how far this may have been the result of another 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 practiced, although any parochial clergyman might

ADDITIONAL . STA TEMENTS.

243

banish it, without offence against any institution of his
Church. The gratifying of popular taste by the use of metre has
been urged to its disgrace. Now to sacrifice truth to the
opinion of the high or of the low, must 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 improvement of a talent for elocution, with
the hope of rendering it instrumental to popular edification.
After all, it must be acknowledged of our metre, requir
ing as it does lines answering to one another in the num
bers of their syllables, that it is very unequal to the force
of what must have been accomplished by Hebrew verse, as
described by Bishop Lowth, according to which, each line
contained a complete sense. He calls the lines parallel
isms, and he distinguishes them into — the synonymous, the
antithetic, and the synthetic or consecutive. These names
are descriptive of the diversity, and the examples given by
him are proof, how exceedingly all our translations in me
tre fall short of those poems in their original forms.*

* In order to illustrate the sense of the Bishop concerning parallelisms, the
following examples are given from among those exhibited by him: —
The Synonymous.
"Bow thy heavens, O Jehovah, and descend;
Touch the mountains, and they shall smoke :
Dart forth lightning, and scatter them ;
Shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them." Psalm cxliv. 5, 6.
The Antithetic.
"They are bowed down, and fallen,
But we are risen, and maintain ourselves firm." Psalm, xx. 8.
" For His wrath is but for a moment, His favor for life ;
Sorrow may lodge for the evening, 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.

244 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
As to what is commonly called rhyme, in which the
lines answer to one another, not only in the number of
syllables, but in sound or jingle, if, as is alleged, there is
something in the genius of the English language, render
ing such an artificial construction peculiarly agreeable, it is
difficult to devise any principle on which it should be inter
dicted. And yet, the opinion here entertained is, that the
most to be claimed for it is endurance, until there shall be
exhibited a translation stripped of it, and in other respects
worthy of adoption. Certainly, there are psalms which
have never been put into this chain, nor perhaps into
that of syllabic measure, without material deterioration.
In regard both to metre and to 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 a
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 ne
cessary to take in so much of what has been suggested by
The Synthetic, or Consecutive.
" Whatsoever Jehovah pleaseth,
That doeth He in the heavens and in the earth ;
In the sea and in all the deeps :
Causing the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth ;
Making the lightnings with the rain ;
Bringing forth the wind out of His treasures." Psalm cxxxv. 6, 7.
* The difference may be illustrated, by the following lines from the Fourth
Psalm. In the first line, the sense is suspended for the second: and in the third,
the same is done, in a dependence on the fourth, a disadvantage sometimes aggra
vated by an absurd flourish on 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 God's peculiar choice,
And when to Him I make my prayer.
He always hears my voice.
"4. Then stand in awe of His commands,
Flee every thing that's ill :
Commune in private with your hearts,
And bend them to His will."

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 245
the brain of the modern poet, as that the sentiment of in
spiration is diluted in the exuberance of language, and sus
tains a material diminution of its strength.*
There arises the question — What is the line of conduct
to be pursued in this Church, in consideration of the prem
ises ? The answer is, first, in regard to chants, if there be
any who have a disrelish for them, let such persons be
aware of the high sanction under which they have come
down to us; and on that account, let them not dare to
make an effort for the excluding of them.t Secondly, in
* 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 comparisons to be made are not intended in disparagement of the version
of Tate and Brady: for whether on account of its merits, or from the influence of
the recollection of sensibilities, extending as far back as any recollections extend,
there is a preference of it to every other of the kind. The imperfections charged
on it are common to all the metrical translations.
Bible Translation. Psalm cxiv. 1, 2.
" When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange
language; Judah was His sanctuary, and Israel His dominion."
Book in Metre.
" When Israel, by the Almighty led,
Enrich'd with their oppressor's spoil.
From Egypt march'd, and Jacob's seed
From bondage in a foreign soil :
Jehovah, for His residence,
Chose out imperial Judah's tent,
His mansion royal, and from thence.
Through Israel's camp His orders sent."
Bible Translation. Psalm cxxxvii. 1.
" By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we re-
membered Zion."
Book in Metre.
When we our weary limbs to rest,
Sat down by proud Euphrates' stream,
We wept, with doleful thoughts opprest,
And Sion 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 worthy of notice : it is the
exclusion of light airs, which, tacked to the plain words of Scripture, would be
offensive, not to say to every pious, but to every decent person. There are some

246 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
regard to psalms in metre, rendered by habit dear to many
devout minds, and there being in the use of them, a readi
ness to the desirable object of a general joining of the peo
ple, 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 un-
distinguishingly rejected by those who have no fancy for it.
Rather let it be encouraged with moderation, under the
condition rigorously required, not only of there being noth
ing of levity, but of there being a tendency to the excite
ment of devout affections. And let the advocates of it be
aware of the disgust which will and ought to be excited
by a violation of this condition, and of the dissatisfaction
which will be the reasonable result even of a defect of skill
in the performance.
It is probable that the chants, the metre psalms, and
the choral anthems, might all be profitably laid aside, in
the event of an approach in the English language, to He
brew 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." But the Bishop 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,.
in 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

religious people — it is surprising — who would introduce into metre psalmody, the
fashionable tunes of festivity and sport. The reason offered is — why should the
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.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 247
this Church has inherited from the Church of England.
The spirit here complained of was rather moderated than
raised higher during the session. But it being liable to be
combined with schemes of personal consequence, there is
no foreseeing to what lengths it may extend in future. On
the part of those inimical" to the contemplated evil, the
proper preservative — and may God grant that it may be
applied— is the cultivating of an enlightened zeal in favor
of the doctrines of our holy religion, as revealed in Script
ure, and hitherto maintained in their integrity by this
Church*

Q. Page 37. Of the Convention in 181 1.
Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops, and the
Rev. Dr. Wilkins in the House of Clerical and Lay Dep
uties. The Secretaries of the two houses, were the Rev.
Philo Shelton, ofthe former, and the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin,
of the latter. Bishop Claggett, who was to have opened
this convention with 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 subjected again 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,

* Lest what is said concerning schemes of personal consequence should bear
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 the time of the General Convention, as a distinct body, and for
the greater increase of piety. The tendency of such a scheme must be obvious.
Almost all of the invited clergymen saw the matter in a proper point of view, and
declined the invitation. The consequence was, that the project came to nothing.

248 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
unless in his chamber, which was contemplated as the last
resort. Bishop Claggett, after severe indisposition, was
so far recovered as to be encouraged to attempt the jour
ney; but after proceeding a few miles, found himself under
the necessity of returning. Bishop Madison thought him
self 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 dut)-, 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
ginning to recover from the jaundice. He found himself
utterly incompetent to the taking of a journey, but prom
ised, 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 Pro
voost had suffered a relapse during our absence. But
finally, he found himself strong enough to give his at
tendance; and thus, the business was happily accomplished.
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 him 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 re
gions. The line of direction given to this business by the
convention renders it premature to say much concerning

* It appears from a letter of Bishop Madison to the author, that these duties
had been made the more imperative by the solemnity of an oath.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 249
it at present. The hindrances to the carrying of the de
sign of the preceding General Convention into effect, 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, se
lected and paid on this side ofthe 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 endeavors of the
Episcopalians in Connecticut, for the establishment of an
Episcopal Academy with corporate powers. This design
originated in the exclusive constitution of the college in
that state, which is entirely in the hands of Congregation
alists, and is so patronized by the government, and so sup
plied 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 dis
satisfaction between 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 Prop
agation 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 gentle
men, within the state to which they belonged. The pres-

250 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
ent application, for a similar grant ofthe lands in Vermont,
was with the view of making them productive, for the ac
complishing of the original object of the grants.
It appears further on the journal, that two Rev. gentle
men, Benjamin Benham, and Virgil H. Barber, made to
the convention an application, the purport of which is not
recorded, but became an object of attention in conver
sation, during and after the session, besides its occasioning
of a debate at the time, in the House of Clerical and Lay
Deputies. 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 ad
mitting as members of their congregations, persons who
had received no other.* This of course precluded acces
sions, 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 performed by laymen. Although the clergy
men referred to were singular in carrying the matter so far,
yet there has been an increasing tendency in some of the
clergy, to administer Episcopal baptism to such as desire
it, on alleged doubts of the validity of former baptism.
Even this is contrary to the rubrics, as is proved by many
judicious divines ofthe Church of England.! It happened,
that a distinguished 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

* One of the two clergymen (Mr. 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 midwives to baptize. It is a well known property of
extremes, that they are often seen making the connecting points of a circle.
f Three of Mr. Barber's daughters became Ursulines, and a fourth, with her
mother, entered the community of Visitation Nuns at Georgetown, D. C— See "In
Memoriam, Sister Sainte Claire," 1876, p. 19. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 25 1
precisely to the point. It was occasioned by a suit brought
by a Dissenter against a parish minister for refusing to bury
a child that had been baptized by a minister dissenting
from the establishment. 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 concerns 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 subject many years ago, conviction
is entertained, that the 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 ma
noeuvre, played off against the family on whom the succes
sion to the crown had been settled by act of parliament.*
If the prejudice should prevail, it is very unfortunate
that two of our bishops (Dr. Provoost t 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
difficulty, 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

* James the First, when he ascended the throne of England, and probably his
son Charles the First, who succeeded him, had been baptized in Scotland by non-
episcopalian ministers. And at the restoration of Charles the Second, when the
great mass of persons who had grown up during the troubles, had been non-epis-
copally baptized, it does not appear, that any motion was made to rebaptize them.
This confirms the sentiment, that when the doctrine was broached in the reign of
Queen Anne, it was in hostility 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 Church. Bishop Jarvis
had been born and educated among the Congregationalists.

252

MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.

sense of Mr. Lawrence, 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
main question, and harmonized with him in it, disagreed
with him on the subordinate point of a man's being a
bishop, without being a Christian. Dr. Hickes is high in
the esteem of all the gentlemen who incline to the opinion
of the invalidity of lay baptism. Therefore, who can tell
to what extent his sentiment may prevail, and what incon
veniences it may occasion ? There would be no certainty
ofthe existence of a bishop in Christendom.
In England, the scruple arose in the latter end of the
reign of Queen 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 unbaptized Luther
ans: as is noticed in Tindal's continuation of Rapin — (p.
725, of vol. iii. ofthe continuation the first.)
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 Lamt
beth 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 exist
ing state of politics. The assembled prelates determined
unanimously in contrariety to the scruple which the arti
fice 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.*
* "In that year (1712) the dispute about the invalidity of lay baptism running
pretty high, the two archbishops, with all the bishops of their provinces that were
in town, came unanimously to this resolution — that lay baptism should be_discour-
aged as much as possible ; but, if the essentials had been preserved in a baptism

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 253
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 request ta enjoin the use of the chants and tunes
exclusively of all others, was thought unreasonable. The
expectation of the applicant 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
that it has an alliance with schism. But he meant no fur
ther, than as regarded chanting and the singing of anthems.
Yet to have gratified him, would have been a high exer
cise of power. To set ecclesiastical authority at work on a
subject, 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.
by a lay hand, it was 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 deliberation, to leave the question as much undecided by any public dec
laration, 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 might be taken by Dissent
ers, or seem to be given them, in favor of their baptisms; though they do not prop
erly come within the question of lay baptisms in cases of extremity."
Dr. 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 Ser
vice of the Church, ' ' 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 in the
admission of a child privately baptized — "I certify that all is well done, etc.," not
because of the insufficiency of the administrator, but on account of the irregu
larity 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.

254 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
This is not said, without 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 sufficient 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 would 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 La}- 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, the business was concluded
with prayer by the presiding bishop, in presence of both
houses. POSTSCRIPT.
The consecration which took place in Trinity Church, in
the City of New York, May 29, 181 1, 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, ma)- 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-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 255
elect, omitted the words—" In the name of the Father, and
ofthe Son, and ofthe Holy Ghost." The officiating bishop
was unconscious of the omission, and the first intimation
of it to him was by Bishop Jarvis in the way from church.
Although the author regretted what had happened, yet
he had no expectation that any conclusion would be 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 the late election in
New York.
Not long after the consecration, it was published to the
world, that the supposed act of consecration was essen
tially defective, because of the want of those solemn
words. Lamentations were made concerning the conse
quences which may ensue to affect the Episcopal suc
cession through future ages, altogether owing to its in
validating 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 gentle
men who had noticed the omission testified that it applied
to both the cases.
The clamor thus raised was of course met with the de
nial, 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 Ordi
nal; 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 Church;
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 consecra
tion to be conducted agreeably to the form in that book.

* See Bishop Sparrow's collection, and De Courayer's " Defence of the English
Ordinations."

256 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
According to this, the accidental omission of a word or two,
contained iii the book, must 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 dur
ing the imposition of hands, is not essential on the mere
ground of the importance of the doctrine; to yield further,
that necessity is not created by 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 gentlemen of
talents, who had interested themselves on the occasion,
without having 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 41. Of the Convention in 1814.
Bishop White presided in the House of 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 dispenses with certain literary
qualifications in some cases, had been misunderstood, and
abused to the sustaining of the notion, that the qualifica-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 257
tion serving for a substitute, is mere fluency of speech, evi
dently 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 occa
sioned 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 provided 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 Connect
icut; the old law, of excluding non-parochial 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
including 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 be deprived of the counsel of some
ofthe ablest of her ministers, who are prevented from the
acceptance of parishes by allowable causes; for example,
the filling of professorships in literary institutions. Besides,
there may be aged clergymen, unfit for active service, and
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 subject him
to religious discipline, under a constitution not acknowledg
ing him as having an interest in it.

258 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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
difficulty was 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 effect 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 fair 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 can
ons, 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
different states.
Perhaps some reason may be required for the delay still
occurring in regard to the 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 Hobart. But it is involved in more
difficult}- than would easily be supposed by any person
who has not attended to it particularly. That, besides
verbal alterations, some others are called for, is universally
agreed. But to make the latter, without departing from
the principle of avoiding the charge, and even of giving
plausible ground to any to pretend, that we have deviated,

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 259
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;
without its being understood that assent to the article im
plies 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 homily 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 abso
lutely necessary that they should have the means of pe
rusing them, and even of well weighing their contents.
This is not always easily to be accomplished. Accordingly,
it was judged expedient to encourage a publication of them;
with a caution against its being understood, that this
Church is concerned in what relates to the civil policy of
Great Britain. Under these views of the subject, they have
since been printed.
For the sense of the House of Bishops, delivered by them
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 ofthe psalms and ofthe 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
rubrics of the Church of England, and yet it was provided
in the very beginning of the reformation, by the act of uni
formity then passed, that psalms or prayers, taken out of
the Bible, might be used in divine service, provided it were

260 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
not done to the omitting of any part thereof. This was 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 that provision. These
facts have been stated, in a preceding part of the present
work* They are again referred to, in order to make them
a ground ofthe supposition, that the posture of sitting grew
out of the laxity of manner, in which this part of the pub
lic 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 remember to have seen it, during his short visit to that
country, 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 Lon
don — Dr. Porteus, and this is very probable. The cus
tom had travelled to some congregations in this country,
wherein, until lately, it is not probable that there was a
single congregation that stood during this part of the ser
vice. In order to put an end to the diversity, and under
the conviction that standing is the more fit and decent
posture, the bishops proposed, and the other house ap
proved of the measure which has been adopted. For thi^
document, see Appendix, No. 28.
It appears on the journal, that on a proposal of a pres
byter of this Church, to add to the anthems serving on
certain festivals, instead of the " Venite," certain forms
from the psalms, etc., prepared by himself with musical
accompaniments, the House of Bishops proposed, and were
concurred with by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies,
a determination not to enter on a review of the Book of
Common Prayer during the present session; which may
* See ante, p. 241. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 26 1
seem too general for the occasion. Certainly the two
houses, had it so pleased them, might have proposed to the
next convention 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 expected from the musical sufficiency of
the proposer. There was another matter of a different
nature, comprehended under the determination of the two
houses. A reverend member of the convention had brought
to it a manuscript work of his own, on an important subject
of religion, which he wished to be sanctioned by the body.
It is not easy to calculate the time they might have been
kept together, for a due examination of a work of this sort,
nor how many similar applications in future would have
grown out of compliance in the present instance. The
reasons of the conventional 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 determi
nation, 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 assist
ant 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 pro
posals, for the instituting of a seminary under the imme
diate superintendence of himself and his successors. It

262 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
was to have been seated in New Jersey, and the bishop 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
perceiving that existing circumstances would prevent a
determination during the present session, avoided the open
ing of his mind as to the merits of the question.
The proposal respecting a copyright of the Book of
Common Prayer had been suggested as a mean of obtain
ing a handsome fund for beneficial purposes. Besides the
difficulties in the way, suggested in the instrument relative
to the obtaining of information on the subject, there is the
insuperable objection which it seemed the most prudent
not to notice, that although the Church does not now
contemplate alterations in her Liturgy, yet she ought not
to commit herself in a measure, which would put it be
yond 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 ex
cited 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
all, ofthe 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 ofthe 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 office, who grounded what he alleged
on the Book of Common Prayer, edited in 1785. The title
of this book declares it to be a proposal. It was never rat-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 263
ified, as will appear on a reference to the journals. Had a
subsequent convention ratified it, the inference would have
been untenable in regard to a Church, the principles of
which, as of the Church from which it became separated
by a dispensation of Providence, declares its competency to
every act of self government. The identity of the body
remained, although accompanied by a newly acquired in
dependence. 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 occa
sioned the present explanation.
There was a consideration which rendered the declar
ation 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 churches 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
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 the civil constitution ofthe country.*
ist. From the beginning of the organizing of this Church,
the principle has prevailed. It impelled the applying to

* Since the penning of these remarks, the author has seen, in print, a serious en
deavor to date the origin of the Episcopal Church, from the period of the conse
cration of her bishops. The position is rested on grounds which do not here seem
to call for a professed refutation : but it may be remarked, that the sentiments
expressed by the House of Bishops, and advocated in this place, apply to the
notion now referred to, as well as to that of which they were professedly intended.

264 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 doctrine, 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, notwithstanding
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 infor
mation received from a respectable source. It is, that on
the arrival of Bishop Seabury in Connecticut, he consulted
his friend, Dr. William Samuel Johnson, of Stratford, whose
leaning to him and his cause, with a strong attachment to
the Episcopal Church, can not 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 England in
America. Dr. Johnson is said to have been of opinion, that
Bishop Seabury could not claim it.
4thly, and principally; 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
afterwards, are here put out of view.
The principle contended for can not be understood, with
out remarking the distinction between a sameness of two
Churches 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 II. , there were
consecrated in England bishops for the Church of Scotland,

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 265
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 ascendency of the English hier
archy 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 Arch
bishops 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 Eng
land, that they may be regulated according to the circum
stances of different times and places. And under the head
of the constitution of the Christian Church and the disci
pline 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, which would not
be objected to by the more moderate of the non-episco
palians, provided there ceased objections of another kind,
especially the greatest hindrance of all, in the irritation
kept alive by the intemperate 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 Arti
cles, 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 connection, 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 Bish
op Provoost on the latter subject. The author persevered

266 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
with him, in the plan of obtaining the canonical number
from England; but thought there would be no inconsistency,
after the succession had become complete, and even during
the measures leading to it, in yielding personal priority to
Bishop Seabury.
Accordingly, the author will conclude with the expres
sion of a feeling, which from his very early years, has been
attendant on his views of religion; and which he can not
clothe in more appropriate words than those of Father Paul,
of Venice — "Esto perpetua" : that is, may the Church so
constituted and continued, last forever.
Because ofthe importance of the declaration ofthe con
vention on the preceding subject, it is given in the Ap
pendix, No. 30.

S. Page 46. Of the Convention of 1 8 17.
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 Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk,
and of the latter, the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin*
After divine service, and the sermon by Bishop Gris
wold, and in compliance with a resolve of the last con
vention, there was an administration of the Holy Com
munion. There having appeared at this convention two bishops,
in addition to those formerly mentioned, it falls within the
design of this work to record, that the first of them, the
Rev. Dr. James Kemp, of Maryland, was consecrated on
the first of September, 18 14, in Christ Church, in the City
of New Brunswick, New Jersey, by the presiding bishop,
assisted by Bishops Hobart and Moore; and that the other,
• The assistant was the Rev. Mr. Rudd, who usually did the work. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 267
the Rev. Dr. John Croes, of New Jersey, was consecrated on
the 19th day of November; 181 5, in St. Peter's Church, 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 tire signers ofthe 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
the Church, and to the consistency of the consecrating
bishops. The first objection was, that the office of a suffragan
bishop was unknown in the constitution of the Church of
Maryland. On this point it was considered, that although
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
Christian 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
unconstitutionality; that as the bishop of the diocese now
in question, in the year 181 1, had proposed the electing of
a bishop to aid him, he must have presumed the legality of
the measure, and it has not since appeared that he al
tered his mind, or that the sentiment had been until now
contradicted by any person; that in 1812, the convention
had balloted on the 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-

268 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
fested the contrary; there appearing to have been in his
favor 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
next after that which had negatived the measure. There
may have been some reason for this, which the consecrat
ing bishops had no means of obtaining. The prospect of
the returning health ofthe diocesan bishop, may have been
the reason. The bishops however perceived, from inspec
tion of the journal, that of nineteen clergymen and thirty-
two laymen present in the convention of 181 3, not a third
of either order had been induced to sign the protest. Al
though 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 precisely those of 18 12; when no fault appears to have
been alleged against the balloting for a suffragan, because
of the paucity of electors. It was further considered under
this head, that the requisition of two thirds for the electing
of a bishop, as provided by the constitution of the Church
of Maryland, and which was satisfied by the issue of the
election in the present instance, was probably for the pur
pose of guarding against an advantage which might be
taken of a thin convention. On any other principle, it
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 was apparent on the
journal. They are not a ground on which an election maybe
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.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 269
On the whole subject of the objections, the bishops were
of opinion, 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 called on to consecrate, that the in
strument, which was put into print for the ease of multi
plying copies, had been communicated individually to those
who were so materially interested in its contents. These
remarks were designed to have an especial bearing on the
position of the protest, that the succession of _the bishop-
elect to the diocesan Episcopacy was carried by accla
mation. The bishops were possessed of evidence, that
the question was put, and the vote taken, in the usual
form of conventional business. They were the more in
duced to rely on the testimony to this effect by the circum
stance, that among the affirmants of the contrary, there
were some who were not present at the disgraceful trans
action, 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
ofthe 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 reno
vation of the affections manifested in the fruits of holiness,
the bishops would have rejected the application before
them, from the respectable diocese of Maryland. But, the
writers of 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 coun
sel. Setting aside the insufficiency of the applicants, the
novelty of the proposal, and all question of the propriety
of such a precedent to be set by any three bishops who

270 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
might be assembled, it could not but occur to those now
present, that the other party in the case would be the con
vention of Maryland, who had no opportunity of being
heard by counsel. Had Dr. Kemp been considered as the
other party, there would have been evident impropriety in
subjecting him to a hearing, under a charge brought against
him unexpectedly, 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 clergy
man who had been greatly respected in the diocese dur
ing 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 for
ward at this time, must have thought differently from those
who joined with them in the protest. For it would be in
jurious to the religious profession, and to the understand
ings of the latter, to suppose that they had withheld those
charges, while they were urging objections of far less mag
nitude* These were the reasons on which the bishops rested
their procedure, and they were detailed by them, in a let
ter to Bishop Claggett.
Soon after the consecration of Dr. Kemp, the object of
the opposition 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 neces
sary to prove, that the bishops so applied to were men of
* It was with ii 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 work
(page 167), was handed about; probably fabricated by some, but certainly be
lieved without intentional error by others.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 271
too much truth and honor, to have considered for a mo
ment of so unprincipled a proposal. But the matter should
be remembered as pregnant with admonition. A bishop
of this Church, during the service of consecration, after ut
tering 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 ad
mission to the Episcopacy were to be disregarded.
That small number of clergymen exhibited themselves
as competent to an act, to which they had recently af
firmed an incompetency, in two thirds of the clergy and
representatives 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 was as follows: —
" ist. That there be a recommendation to the Church in
the several states, to raise a fund, the income of which may
be applied, 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 con
venient times, they may be requested to bestow their en
deavors gratuitously, for the accomplishing of the present
object; and,
" 3dly. That the income of the contemplated funds be
applied to such local endeavors, 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 educa
ting of young men for the ministry, until a general plan be
adopted, if that should be considered hereafter as more
eligible." The reasons which weighed to the preference of this
plan, were — the time intervening between one convention

272 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 either ofthe schemes,
but would be much more frequent under that proposed
than under the other. There was, however, such a lati
tude left by the suggestion from Pennsylvania, as that
there might hereafter be a general seminary grafted on it,
either to the superseding of the local schools, or for the
finishing of the education of the scholars, as might be ex
pedient. It is to be hoped, that the other plan, after hav
ing been generally adopted, will be universally, and with
effect, supported.
On the subject of improper amusements, there 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. This course as recorded on the jour
nal, and including some sentiments in the Pastoral Letter,
addressed 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, those
in the latter house who had pressed for a stronger measure,
which had not been carried. There having been misrepre
sentations 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, there may be
use in presenting it at large; accordingly, it is given in the
Appendix, No. 31.
* The House of Bishops in 1817 was composed of eight bishops, and the lower
house of representatives from twenty-one jurisdictions. Bishop White says that
in the lower house there was a controversy of "some warmth " on the subject of
" improper amusements." The Journals (m, 458) show that, May 22d, Francis
S. Key, Esq., submitted the following resolution which was laid on the table:
"Resolved, — that the clergy of this Church be, and they are hereby enjoined to
recommend sobriety of life and conversation to the professing members of their
respective congregations, and that they be authorized to require and to state it. as
the opinion of the convention, that conforming to the vain amusements of the

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 273
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 perverting it to a sanction of congregational ordination.
Instead of "whom we may appoint over this business,"
which is the exact translation of the original, the edition
has it "whomj/f may appoint over this business." While
the matter was before the House of Clerical and Lay Dep
uties, a lay member, standing in a pew, and observing a
Bible, took it to turn to the place in question, when he per
ceived it to be a copy of the edition in which the corrup
tion 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 trien
nial 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 ofthe General Con
vention of 1817; there being no subsequent transactions
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. Brownell, D.D., LL.D., for

world, frequent horse races, theatres, and public balls, playing cards, or being
engaged in any other kind of gaming, are inconsistent with Christian sobriety,
dangerous to the morals of the members of the Church, and peculiarly unbecom
ing the character of communicants." The next day the resolution was called up,
and the following substitute was offered by Dr. How and adopted : " Resolved, —
that inasmuch as ample provision is already made for the purposes of Christian
discipline in the cases specified in the foregoing resolution, by the Constitution,
Canons, Rubricks, Homilies, and Liturgy of the Church, it is unnecessary at this
time to pass any resolution on the subject of the discipline of the Church." Thus
in the house the matter ended. The bishops, however, as seen [ante p. 44, and
Appendix, 31) brought the subject forward in a Pastoral Letter. In 1823 Bishop
Philander Chase brought the subject to the attention of the bishops again, when
he was referred to the action of 1817. Ed.

274 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the State of Connecticut: the former, on the nth day of
February, 1819, in St. James's Church, Philadelphia, by the
presiding bishop, assisted by Bishops Hobart, Kemp, and
Croes; and the latter, on the 27th day of October, 1819, in
Trinity Church, New Haven, by the presiding bishop, as
sisted by Bishops Jiobart and Griswold.
As the act of the convention of 1785 was authenticated
by the signatures of all the members of the body, as it laid
the 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 in
the act, delicacy having dictated the allowance of rea
sonable time for the delivery of it.
Neither of the instruments entitled " Alterations," etc.,
has been published before; 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.
POSTSCRIPT.
In the foregoing statements and remarks, the more im
mediate 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 be
thought their due. The work being brought to a conclu-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 275
sion, and the reader being qualified to judge of the merits of
another motive to be disclosed, it is now declared to be the
conviction, that instruction may be gathered from the detail.
ist. 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; ofthe novelty
of the business arising out of the existing crisis; of the
despair of many, as to the perpetuating of the communion,
otherwise than in connection with an establishment, from
which it was forever severed; of an unwillingness to rec
ognize such a severance, although brought about by the
Providence of God, 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 ofthe United States, between which there had been
hitherto no religious intercourse; ofthe existence of known
differences, on some points; and, with all these things, of
danger from selfish passions, so apt to intrude under im
posing appearances, defeating the best intended endeavors
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 change
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-

276 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 engaged 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
the detecting of it. He confidently believes of the mem
bers of the conventions generally, that they have been ac
tuated by upright motives. Of his brethren in the Episco
pacy he bears testimony, that he has not seen any occasion
on which any one of them 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 their 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
sensions 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 future 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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 277
will be found on trial better than had been expected, or,
that ;t will be corrected after more mature consideration.
Ofthe latter especially, many instances have occurred, on
questions which, without such forbearance, 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 minds of
men. It would indeed be surprising, that any should run
into the opposite error, did we not know, how unbending
some are in favor 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 rea
sonable to make sacrifices to one another.
4th. It will be a most important use of the review, to
notice the undeviating intention ofthe 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
to protect the Church, not only against threatened innova
tions from without, but also against others which have
occasionally showed their heads in the Church of England,
and may show their heads in 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 rec
onciling 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 individuals harbored the design, which is not
here known to have been the case, they saw no opening for
the accomplishing of it, and accordingly, permitted it to

278 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
die within their bosoms. There is this further use in the
reference to* the reformation, that it frowns disapprobation
on endeavors tending to debase our forms of worship, by
the intermixture of devotional exercises of a contrary cast
of character. How far this abuse calls for the exercise of
ecclesiastical authority, and how far it may be borne with,
under the expectation that it carries in itself the seeds
of its dissolution, is a question partly of conscience, and
partly also of religious 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 sus
tained by those who are now his fellow-laborers, 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 endeavors 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 un
necessary exercise of authority; and may sustain the opin
ion, that there being retained, in profession, the essentials
of Christian verity, and, in practice, the degree of sub
mission to public will necessary to social worship; much
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 army, combination of force

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 279
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 would have imag
ined 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, ecclesi
astical 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 inten
tions, and without being aware of the inconsistency. In a
Church having the secular arm for its support, what has
been mentioned 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
organization 'as it were of yesterday, and therefore not
having the support of habitual submission to its decisions.
In these circumstances, independently on other considera
tions, there is a call to the acquiring of a weight of religious
character, not only in the Episcopacy, but in the other
clergy, and in the lay gentlemen, to whom may be com
mitted the important work of making changes in ecclesias
tical 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, and while they were engaged in the review
of the Book of Common Prayer, a lady of excellent understanding, being often
in the way of hearing the subject discussed by some members of the body, ad
dressed them to the following effect— "When I hear these things, I look back to
the origin of the Prayer Book : and I represent to my mind the venerable com
pilers of it, 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-

280 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
6th. The last contemplated improvement, is the sug
gesting of the hope, that the time which has been spent,
and the cares and the labors which have been bestowed,
by some who have gone to their rest from their labors, 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 the destruction of it, which have
been overruled to events in contrariety to the licentious
principles taught, and to the disorders which they were
intended to perpetuate. Doubtless we are 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 Amer
ica, which lays open immense countries to future popula
tion and culture, the. incitement applies with extraordinary
stress of argument; and while it should prompt all the
members of this Church to put forth their best endeavors,
each man in his sphere, and according to his ability, it ad
monishes him, to be himself in the consistent profession, in
the practice of the duties, and in possession ofthe consola
tions 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 Additional Statements of the first edition here concluded.]

ing in respectability, but very little furnished with theological knowledge.)
"The consequence is, gentlemen, that I am not sanguine in my expectations of
respect to be paid 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 of many a heart
in the religious world, on the introduction of any novelty of which the propriety
may be doubtful ?

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 28 1
T. Page 51. Of the Convention in 1 820.
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, request
ing a copy for publication. The House of Bishops concurred
in the vote, with the addition of their thanks, which had
been omitted by the other house. The reason was the
preacher's having made baptismal regeneration one of the
points of his discourse. Some of the gentlemen, and espe
cially 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 in
expedient hereafter to pass votes of thanks for sermons de
livered before General Conventions, and to request copies
for publication. The author believes, that with the ma
jority of the house, this resolve was owing not to their
dissatisfaction with the doctrine of Bishop Moore, but to
their general view of the subject of voting thanks; which
may have suggested the apprehension, that dissatisfaction
with any point in a conventional sermon, be it even in the
minds of a few 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 is 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 dur
ing the ages of the martyrs; and the belief of which was
universal in the Church, until it was perceived to be incon
sistent with a religious theory, the beginning and the prog-

282 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
ress of which can be as distinctly traced, as those of any
error of popery. This is not a place for a discussion of the
subject, but the author has spoken fully to it in some of his
publications. The recorded rejection of an application concerning
psalms and hymns, is another proof of the utility ofthe 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 ofthe 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
will at least have the effect of unnecessarily exciting con
troversy. No objection was made to the selection pre
sented; and it is certain, that any parochial minister is at
liberty to make or to adopt such a selection from the metre
book of psalms and hymns, as may be agreeable to his judg
ment 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 reflec
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 educa
tion. From the time that the contrary sentiment was
adopted, he has done what lay in his power for the carry
ing of the general wish into effect.. It is probable that

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 283
time will decide between the two schemes, on the question
of preference; but as it is a subject of increasing importance,
and of increasing frequency of discussion, he will state his
reasons for the preference given by him to the plan which
he unsuccessfully proposed.
ist. 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 ofthe
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 jeal
ousies. The complexion of the theology taught, in refer
ence to subjects on which there may be considerable diver
sity of opinion among ourselves, the choice of professors,
with accommodation to such difference; the sufficiency of
the professors, in their respective branches; and other
points which might be mentioned, may be sources of ani
mosity pervading our communion. Even the branch of it
from which a vacant professorship should be filled, may
sometimes occasion embarrassment. In the civil concerns
of our country, the president of the United 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
district is to be gratified at the time. To suppose that the
same circumstance would have no bearing on our religious
policy, is more than is warranted by our knowledge of
human nature.
2dly. There will be required what would else be unnec
essary 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

284 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
hesitate to assume the responsibility of acting. It is a
great injury to the essential duties of the ministry, to be
unnecessarily calling the ministers from their respective
spheres of action — setting aside the expense incurred. We
esteem it an advantage in our Church, that judicial con
cerns, conducted 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 ? Per
haps in time, and after an extension of territory within
our connection, it may be thought sufficient to assemble
statedly once in every five years, instead of triennially,
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 proportion to our respective
population. When our Church was organized, it would
have been hopeless to have proposed any other scheme;
and whether it can hereafter be made conformable to exist
ing weight of numbers, as in the civil line by the federal
constitution of 1788, must be left to time to determine.
The difficulty now contemplated is of a different nature, is
* 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 than in that of religion. What added to the evil was,
that the emperors defrayed the expenses of the travelling of the members. At
last, the burden of the expense and of the waste of time became too great ; and
then, controversies were referred to the bishops of the four principal sees ; and
finally, it became still more convenient to bring all within the vortex of the Papacy.
This, or endless division, was necessarily the alternative. The former will not
happen in our improved state of society, and with experience of the past. But the
latter, if there should be very frequent conventions, extending their jurisdiction over
concerns which may be left to local determination, will probably proceed indefi
nitely and without end.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 285
an immense aggravation 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 can not be
shown; and it is an unerring maxim of Scripture, that
"where no law is, there is no transgression." Besides,
can it be supposed that the General Convention, possess
ing an authority as it were of yesterday, and under the ne
cessity of considering its proceedings with the utmost cau
tion, and with tenderness to the habits and the prejudices
of a people not long accustomed to look up to them for
rules of conduct, would have wished to assume an authority,
not yet exercised by any large communion over its whole
range of country ? The Church of England, conceives 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 im
mediate creation, but although much longer exercised 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 re
marked the effect of this on our concerns, an effect dispro-
portioned 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

286 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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
tion. How great then will be the disparity, from the two
causes in combination !
4thly. It has been not uncommon, that a young man
within our communion, directing his views to the ministry,
has been supported under the 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.
5thly. There may be perceived a difficulty, in the mass
of property 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 se
cure, as to insure the support of a collegiate body of pro
fessors. In England, no provision for literary purposes is
thought stable, unless vested in real property, let out from
time to time on leases for years. The circumstances of this
country are so different, 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 strict
ness of personal oversight, not to be expected of a corpo
ration. To pecuniary capital, there are two objections — •
the ease with which any portion of it may be called in, be
cause of some pressing exigency, or some favorite object,
and— the being liable to be reduced or annihilated by any
of the national events, which are thought to justify the is
suing of an abundance of paper currency, occasioning its
depreciation. Perhaps it may seem, that these possible evils are 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 pro
posed for the latter.
Although no diocese would be debarred from instituting

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 287
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 talents. In each of the two universities of England
there are only two professors of divinity, and each of the
professors has his distinct pupils. It is here understood,
that the principal labor of the professor would be the daily
examination 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
attention. In or near any of our cities, extraneous provi
sion may 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 which it would be seated, and probably of any
neighboring dioceses having no prospects of seminaries of
their own. A fund for its support would the more easily
be created, and the more vigilantly 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 attended 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 more passion
and provocation.
It may be pleaded in favor 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 the claims of his department
too far to be consistent with the necessary limits of a theo
logical course. Doubtless, as well in a theological as in a

2S8 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
philosophical lectureship, the principles of the professed
branch should be fully taught, 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 gendered 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 profess
orships, there will be an outcry against the favorers of the
dominant opinion, and it will be well, if there be not some
color of the charge of persecution. In seminaries of other
religious societies, the differences subsisting among them
have intruded into their theological seminaries, although, on
the litigated points, the professors have been of one mind.
There may be apprehended the rise of a local seminary
in which the instruction shall be such as we may suppose
not the best calculated to make the most of the natural
talents of the students. May there not be the same disad
vantage to them, under the guidance of clergymen not ap
pointed to the 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 such,
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.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 289
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 over
sights, was not so wonderful, as that the most palpable
should be made by gentlemen, with whom the subject had
been contemplated for some months before, and who have
unfortunately brought the whole scheme under what the
author thinks a mistaken suspicion, of its being an intended
engine against the institutions of our Church. There were
these two supposed grounds of the suspicion. Although
the constitution provided that the trustees should be cho
sen 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 ofthe 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 enterprise; looking to the next convention
for the sanctioning of their doings, and for the supply of
the manifest defects. This 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.

290 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
U. Page 51. Of the Convention in 182 1.
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. No
objection to the sermon was offered; but it was recollected,
that at the last General Convention there had been a re
solve 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 52.
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 apprehension of an undue
ascendency of the diocese of New York. But it was prop
erly argued on the other side, that this was guarded
against by the provisions made, relative to the future in
crease of the number of trustees. At present, the diocese
of New York will have nearly half the number; 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 pur
sued in consequence. The proper preventive of the undue
ascendency of New York, if it be supposed to be fraught
with danger to the Church, will be the bestowing of plen
tiful contribution in the other states: and to this there

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 291
is great encouragement in the consideration, that in fu
ture, while, in the said state, it will require $10,000 to
entitle to an additional trustee, $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 there 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 53.
There was but one particular in the scheme, which cre
ated diversity of opinion between the two houses; and the
diversity was owing to the not perceiving ofthe 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 reconsideration with
in the time prescribed. In the other house it was referred
to a committee, who proposed quarterly meetings, and a
correspondent amendment was sent in to the bishops.
They persisted in their proposal, and the amendment 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
terly 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

292 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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. Y. Page 53.
The history of the rubric is this. In the English 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
communion, there seemed wanting a direction to justify
the minister 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 precisely noted. If there be neither, the
minister, if disposed to do nothing without rubrical di
rection, might be put to a stand; and to prevent this, was
the design.
But the notion has been taken up lately, 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 their 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
illustrated 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 in
tended service. On this a second command issues, that
"if" any such circumstance should occur, the officer shall
proceed to the end of*his destination, and to the act to be

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

293

there done. How irrelevant would it be, on the non-con
currence of the apprehended 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 1789, and no cler
gyman then present is known to have taken occasion to
drop 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 almost superfluous
the whole body of the Epistles and the Gospels, espe
cially those for the holidays, when they happen to fall on
Sundays. It may be questioned, whether this judicious selection
had not the effect, 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 por
tions of it must have had some effect, although in Latin.
At the Reformation, they were retained by the most re
spectable 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.

294 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
It is also a weighty recommendation of the ante-com
munion service, that the weekly reciting of the Ten Com
mandments has been always supposed to have a happy
effect on morals*

Z. Page 53.
The former table, for thirty-eight years, was calculated
by the author of these remarks, in 1785. He has had the
mortification to find, that, in four instances, his computa
tions were inaccurate; but it has been some relief to him to
learn, from Whcatley on the Common Prayer, that there
is precisely the same number of errors in what are called
the sealed books, and are the standard of the Church of
England. The other changes are as follows:
The Table ofthe Rules for finding Easter has been regu
lated by the change from the eighteenth to the nineteenth
century. On examining the Table of Fasts, there was discovered
an oversight of the committee, under whom was printed
the book of 1 790, after the review of 1789; the error being
continued in H. Gaine's standard book of 1793; in contra
riety as well to the Proposed Book, as to the English table.
The error made fast days of the Sundays in Lent, deviating
from the rule of the Church in all ages, and from 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 as 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 ofthe book of 1790 from an old
* See Journal, General Convention, 1S21, p. 651. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

295

English book edited before the change of style in 175 1, for
in none of these editions is the note found.
The report presented a list of typographical errors in
H. Gaine's book, made out with the assistance of Mr. Wil
liam Hall, who had edited the Proposed Book in 1786.

A A. Page 54. Of the Convention in 1823.
The writer ofthe 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 au
thorized to read, to pray, and to catechize on Sundays.
To this the answer was, that if such power should be de
pendent on engagements to be made from time to time,
there is already authority to the purpose, and often car
ried into act. But if a permanent character should be con
stituted, it would look like an addition to the number of
the Orders of the ministry. 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 contrary. This has been too often a conse
quence of-the appointment of lay readers, without the des
ignation of permanent 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 ob
jector has thought it a matter worthy of consideration,
whether it would not be wise to ordain some deacons, with
an understanding to 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 character

296 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
of our ministry, it being presumable that there would be
exacted a less measure of literary attainments in deacons
admitted under the conditions stated. Whether the good
would not predominate, 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.
The next point introduced was that of theatrical enter
tainments, in respect to which, the answerer took occasion
to develop 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 can not affirm that there
is sin in the introducing of fictitious characters, for a fa
vorable display of sentiments strictly moral and instruc
tive: for which 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 pulpit; because of some discourses from it very dan
gerous to the consciences ofthe 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 ofthe bishops, recorded on the journal of 1817.
A remaining point, was the pressing of a requisition,
that the la}- 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

* See ante, pp. 44 and 272 for other declarations on this subject. Also the
Pastoral Letter, p. 425. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 297
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
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 dio
cese again undertake the matter, they would seem to be
competent. These were the answers made to Bishop
Chase: and the responsibility in which it involved the pen
man of them induces to the present record.
BB. Page 54.
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 London, 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 Propagation 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
having 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-

298 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
j'ect to governmental views; and doubtless comprehending
(what there has been given reason to believe in the Me
moirs) apprehended danger of offence taken by the Dis
senters; and the consequent decline of their support in
elections to seats in parliament. C C. Page 54.
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.
DD. Page 55.
The report of the society shows too clearly that the
executive committee have not been ^o supported, as an
establishment by the general authority of the Church gave
reason to expect. It is true, that there have been since in
stituted several diocesan societies, which, of course, ad
vantageously 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, can not be complied with.
EE. Page 55.
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 the 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 elsewhere, a variety of opin-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 299
ion on the subject; many contending that the object is not
the lessening of the evil of slavery, but the getting rid of a
free colored population. The writer of this believes, that
the motive of the men prominent in the design are pre
cisely what they profess. Of this, it is to be hoped, there
will be gradually a general conviction; but in the mean
time, it would be unwise to take a part in a controversy on
a subject not within the sphere of ecclesiastical legislation.
FF. Page 55.
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
authority over them. But, in a country where every de
nomination 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 effectual ? 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 who
are aware of this, and who therefore conduct religious edu
cation conformably with their respective plans of doctrine,
of discipline, and of worship.

GG. Page 57. Of the Convention in 1826.
The 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 particular. Of the morning service, the bishops were
aware that it consisted of three services; and this has

300 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
occasioned repetitions, which otherwise would not have
been admitted by our reformers. Further, the bishops
knew of complaints of the length of the morning service,
coming from various portions of their respective dioceses;
and they had witnessed, with sorrow, a wayward disposi
tion in many of the clergy, to make such omissions as the
fancies of themselves or of some influential laymen 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 consid
eration, that there is a higher antiquity than that pleaded.
It 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 compiling ofthe 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
Litany. The Communion Service was without the Com
mandments; which ought not to be remarked, without an
acknowledgment of the edifying effect of the introduction
of them; and when 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 precedent
use of the morning service. This requisition was intro
duced at the aforesaid period, and has added greatly to the
time occupied on the occasions referred to.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 30 1
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 solemnities 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 difficulty, if there were introduced the use of
the two distinct services for morning prayer and for the
communion, at different hours 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 demarca
tion 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 mention the scattered population in the coun
try, 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 ofthe 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 present, the form of the Prayer Book
may be such, as to permit 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 ? 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 edification, to forego
the moral use of a weekly recital of the commandments,
and the reading of selections of Scripture adapted to the

302 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
times to which they are assigned, and of such early use 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.
HH. Page 57-
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 here en
tertained; and it was placed between that service and the
office 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
worship 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 princi
pally addressed 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 Lit
urgy; although there are some, who think that the Father
is addressed through the greater part of it, beginning at —
"We sinners do beseech thee," etc. 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 ap
peared an opposition of interpretation on the point.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.

303

II. Page 57.
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 diffi
cult to perceive, with what consistency the mere permis
sion of them was argued against, by speakers who advo
cated indulgence to the much larger extent ofthe omission
ofthe ante-communion service; not because they considered
it to be a true interpretation of the rubric — for this they une
quivocally denied; but on a principle warranting any other
omissions, which the agents are ready to declare to be rec
oncilable to their consciences.
In 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 ofthe service. KK. Page 58.
To the insertion of this prayer, there have been made
two objections: not on the floor of the house, but in con
versation. The first is, that it would add to the sanction
given to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, confess
edly contained in the original prayer. But O ! what a pur
gation 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 ofthe Redeemer. But
it is the same in this respect, with the present prayer.
There can not 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 rec
ognition of this truth constitutes a necessary circumstance

304 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 recognized 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 question from a Father of the fourth cen
tury. If there be weight in the objection, it ought to be
applied to the dispensing with both ofthe prayers. We put
up the Lord's Prayer without this adjunct; although, doubt
less, with the implication 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 recognized as a
worker of miracles. As to that in chapter i. 24, 25, it is
addressed to the Saviour Himself.
LL. Page 58.
Concerning the subject in the Narrative, it has appeared
to 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 ordina
tion; but, that the interpretation, if acted on consistently,
would 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
case, existing in his own person. For many years he has
been in the habit, besides a sermon on Good Friday, to de
liver 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 dis-

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 305
course," 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. Here
after, some clergyman 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 conspicuously commit a palpable violation of the ru
bric. Of those who are in the disuse of the ante-commun
ion service, it is not probable, that there are many who
hold worship on the days which have been referred to, ex
cept, 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 58.
It will be pertinent, in this place, to relate an incident,
relative to a matter which was passed unanimously by the
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 favor of the
construction given by the bishops to what some were
pleased to call the dubious rubric, in addition to the rea
sons 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
accompanied, not as before, by the two sets of reasons, but
by a canon, explanatory of what the bishops conceived to

306 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 ob
ject for which the reasons had been drawn up. But, as
they are important towards an understanding of the trans
action, they are committed to the Appendix, No. 34.
NN. Page 58.
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 after,
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 un
bounded license has taken place in this respect: and even
an Archbishop of York has given his sanction to a collec
tion 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 writer
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 favor of the opinion, for the in
troducing of some hymns, expressly recognizing events
and truths peculiar to the New Testament. Still, whether
it be the effect 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

ADDITIONAL STA TEMENTS.

307

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 the correctness of his theory.
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, which, 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 conven
tion should have only to stamp on it their yea or their nay.
Had they gone into the consideration of the sense of every
hymn, and of the criticisms which would h^ave 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, there
fore, the dissatisfied members of the House of Clerical and
Lay Deputies proposed a continuance of the subject to the
next 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 59.
The two canons not acted on, were directed against
very great evils, calling for immediate remedy. What was
proposed, would certainly have been, in substance, accept
able to the members generally of the House of Clerical and

308 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Lay Deputies. But some of the members having proposed
certain amendments to the first of the two canons, impa
tience to put an end to the session, caused a reference to
the committee on the canons, previously appointed and to
sit in the recess. The second of the canons would have
had a beneficial effect on the present state of the Church
in this diocese. There would have been no need of the
delay, but because of the time wasted on the business
which is to follow. PP. Page 59.
There has never been before manifested so much pa
tience under tedious repetition of the same sentiments, in
reference to a point concerning which a considerable ma
jority were of opinion from the beginning, that it was
foreign to the purposes for which they were assembled. In
three previous conventions, there had come forward appli
cants, with their respective schemes relative to books; and
they had been 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 trans
action is recorded on the journal of 18 14; and the principle
has been acted on ever since, until the present occasion.
It is to be 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, there were, among
those who were averse to the reception of it, some who
thought it good in itself, and worthy of the endeavors 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 addi
tion to the calls, of which there are already too many 01
the clergy, to leave their respective dioceses and parishes*
for the management of the general business of the Church,

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 309
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 of the measures to be taken.
The writer, in consequence of much experience in pecu
niary institutions, connected with religion and with litera
ture, has witnessed serious losses incurred; sometimes from
neglect, accompanied by the purest intentions with the
most unsullied integrity; and at other times, by the appli
cation of public stock to private and unsuccessful specula
tions. He is therefore reluctant to the encouragement of
a plan, which would commit to such hazards the large
stock contemplated: when the disappointment of expecta
tion may bring indelible disgrace on the Church.
QQ. Page 61. Of the Convention in 1829.
In the canons of the Church in Tennessee, it was pro
vided, that, after a trial by the constituted ecclesiastical au
thority, there should be an appeal to the diocesan conven
tion. This was judged by the bishops to be inconsistent
with Episcopal government. The opinion was concurred
in by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, without a
dissentient voice, so far as appears.
RR. Page 61.
The author of the present work, would have been grati
fied by the alterations in the Liturgy proposed by the last
convention, being convinced of the expediency of shorten
ing the Sunday service for the morning, consisting, as it
does, of services originally intended to be distinct, and of
unintended repetitions. He was not, however, so much
dissatisfied 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

310 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
were dissatisfied with the several proposed alterations. The
former were reluctant to the decisive measure of an author
itative suppression of the licentiousness of generally omit
ting 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 shortening of the service in such a way, as not to leave
any excuse for omissions as individual discretion may sug
gest. These opposite opinions may be considered as com
bining in the point, of there being at last no established
uniformity in the use of the services of the Church. It is
to be hoped, that the providence of God will interpose, for
the prevention of such a result. To the author of these re
marks, the only expedient seems to be, as was suggested
in a former part of this work, the appointment of a joint
committee of bishops, and other divines, for a deliberate
review of the Book of Common Prayer; their work, when
finished, to be laid before the two houses of convention,
and to be by them adopted or rejected without debate.
This is a course, the nearest that circumstances admit,
to the compilation of the Book of Common Prayer by
the reformers of the Church of England, in the reign of
Edward VI.
Perhaps it will be thought by some, that, on supposition
of the correctness of the apprehensions which have been
expressed, 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 inducing to abbreviations, countenanced by
departure from original design. Such clergymen will rec
oncile deviations to their consciences, by the consideration,
that it is unnoticed 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 happened with some clergymen, who have
declared their hostility to any alterations of the rubrics.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 31 1
SS. Page 63.
The objections to the non-succession of an assistant
bishop, may be comprehended under the following heads: —
ist. It was the general course relative to a coadjutor 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 in the person of Greg
ory 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.
3d. 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 patronize this restric
tion, with the view of keeping the temporary bishop in sub
jection to their control.
There may be proposed the question — why did not these
considerations weigh with the bishops, so as to induce their
refusal to consecrate ?
The answer is,
ist. The convention of Virginia, although deviating
from the original and reasonable practice, had to plead
the countenance of some precedents.
2d. From the assurances which 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
deputies to move in the General Convention, for a regula
tion to govern on the subject in future.

312

MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.

It was known at the time, that Bishop Brownell had
determined on a visit to the western states, and to those
south of Georgia, under a mission from the Domestic and
Foreign Missionary Society. It is probable, that this
prompted the proposal contained in the Narrative. There
can be no doubt, that the contemplated visit will contrib
ute materially to the object proposed by the General Con
vention. The hope of this result is considerably strength
ened by what Bishop Ravenscroft has accomplished, in
his way from his diocese to the General Convention. He
made a circuit through the States of Tennessee and Ken
tucky, which not only excited the zeal of the scattered
Episcopalians in those states, but contributed to the or
ganizing ofthe Church in each of them.
There was a singular coincidence of the assistant bishop-
elect of the Church in Virginia, and that of the assistant
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 Gen
eral 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 liti
gated in Pennsylvania, was kept out of view, and the
name of the assistant bishop was not mentioned. This is
evidence of what little account was the opposition made to
his consecration, 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,
and fruitful of litigation. Such is the diversity, not only of
judgment, but of taste, that be the selection what it may,
there will be complaints of the omission of some passages,
and of what will be thought the injudicious preference of
others.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 313
Still, there will be urged the small proportion of the
psalms 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. Different selec
tions will be made for different congregations, without just
cause of offense. The selections will be submitted to such
choice as may be prompted by judgment or by caprice,
to be bound in the same covers with the Book of Common
Prayer; and they who do not like any of them, may attach
to the book the whole body of the psalms in metre.

TT. Page 6j. Of the Convention in 1832.
On the reading ofthe journal, without the knowledge of
an exterior cause having a bearing on the deliberations of
the body, it can not but seem, that much time was unneces
sarily spent in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies;
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 resolvable on different
grounds. It was not from the being insensible 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 opposite opinions held rela
tively to an event of thirty-three years' standing. There
has been recorded in the " Memoirs," that in 'September,
1800, the three bishops, then composing a house, denied
the right of Bishop Provoost to resign; and consecrated
Bishop Benjamin Moore, only as his assistant and succes-

314 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
sor.* It has also been noticed, that some years after, on
the occurrence of an unhappy controversy in the diocese of
New York, this matter came under the consideration ofthe
diocesan convention; which refused to acknowledge any
other diocesan Episcopacy than that of Bishop Moore.
Although the question, as regards the circumstances which
originated it, has ceased to be interesting; yet the occur
rence of another professed resignation, brought again into
view the diversity of 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-second Canon, which was the fruit
of it, should be efficient in guarding against resignations,
not 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. The
threatened danger is not only that of giving occasion to
faction excited and conducted by clerical ambition, and
that of coveting the Episcopal grade, with the design of
being speedily disengaged from its labors; 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 favor the position that all jurisdiction is from
them. This was the shield opposed to what a great pro
portion, probably a majority ofthe body, anxiously desired,
but could not accomplish — a determination in favor of the
divine institution of Episcopacy.
On the case of Bishop Chase, it ought to be noticed,
that there was given in to both houses, a protest against
the considering of him as severed from the diocese; signed
* See ante p. 31. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 315
by some members ofthe Church in Ohio, including one of
the clergy. It did not appear that the sentiment was of
such extent as to claim an influence on the proceedings
ofthe body. UU. Page 68.
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 be reasonably entertained. There has
been already an appeal to them, on the constitutionality
ofthe sale of a body of land, of the'propriety of which they
knew nothing. The appeal was made to them individually.
But, had they given their determinations in that form,
without discussion, and without a comparing of their opin
ions, it would surely not have been a wise expedient. As
to the other proposal, of noticing the concerns of the body
applying, it was perhaps from some oversight, that a copy
ofthe proceedings was not sent. It ought not to be sup
posed, that the General Convention was expected to sanc
tion 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 the presi
dency of the college with the Episcopacy of the diocese.
When Bishop Chase was collecting in England, certain
contributions 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
institution may well remain, because appendant to the
Episcopacy, on such terms as not to be liable to be exer
cised to the displacing of the occupant of the latter. After
the return of Bishop Chase, there was instituted Kenyon
College, enlarging the sphere of instruction. This pro-

316 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
t
duces the incongruity complained of. It may be remedied
by a legislative act; which would not interfere with the
faith pledged to the English donors.
WW. Page 68.
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 different judgments, but on the
variety of taste, that it would have been better to have left
the whole book untouched. In this case every parish min
ister would have been at liberty, either to cause to be
bound the whole of the said book with the Book of Com
mon Prayer, or such parts ofthe former as he might judge
the most edifying to his own congregation, and to any
other persons who might prefer the acceptance of the vol
ume in that form. It is well known, that in this Church,
as in the Church of England, the use of the metre psalms
rests entirely on the ground of permission. The entertain
ing of these sentiments did not prevent the author, as a
member of the committee, from giving his aid to the per
fecting ofthe selection. Further it is not intended to deny,
that there may profitably be a review of the whole version
of Tate and Brady. But it is a work which would require,
besides other qualifications, a very exact knowledge of the
original Hebrew.
XX. Page 68.
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, has
led too many to imagine that the institution is sufficiently
provided for. It will be to the dishonor of our Church, if
the trustees should be under the necessity of anticipating
this fund. At present, the expenses of the institution con
siderably exceed its income. Although the deficiency will

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 317
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 labor of instruc
tion, the compensation is far less than what is due to their
talents and their assiduity. YY. Page 69.
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 them severally. ZZ. Page 69.
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,
ecclesiastical 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 knowl
edge of the heavens and of the earth.
Still, the change now made, although agreeable to the
spirit of the rubric, is, in a slight 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 present measure interpretative; affirming
that when the spirit and the letter of an instrument are in
opposition, the former should govern.

318 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
AAA. Page yo.
What a wonderful change has the author lived to wit
ness, in reference to American Episcopacy ! He remem
bers the ante-revolutionary times, when the presses pro
fusely 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 com
munion 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 opposite interests, and so specious were the preten
sions of the anti-episcopalian opposition to the measure,
that it would have been impossible to have obtained a
respectably signed lay petition for it, to our superiors in
England, although to relieve us from the hardship of send
ing candidates for the ministry to that country, to be
ordained. When, after the revolution, it was hoped that
the door would be open for the accomplishing 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 ex
isted among us for nearly the half of a century; and not a
single complaint has been heard, either of usurpation to the
injury of any other denomination, or of arbitrary govern
ment 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.
In 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."

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 319
BBB. Page 71. Of the Convention iu 1835.
Bishop 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 para
mount anthority of the institution was in a board of trustees.
On a disagreement between them and the bishop in the
management of the concerns, the latter resigned his colle
giate station; which drew along with it the resignation of
the diocesan Episcopacy. This fact ought not to be re
corded, without notice of the impropriety of a provision,
subjecting the bishop to any other tenure of his ecclesias
tical station, than that provided by the canons. In a col
lege, without any charge against the bishop in his Episco
pal character, there may be dissatisfaction in the minds of
the trustees, resulting 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 pres
byters and laymen. There is reason to expect, that this
anomaly will be corrected. CCC. Page 71.
The writer of this was of opinion, that there would have
been advantages beyond those of the present provision, if
the choice of the psalms to be read had been left to the
officiating: minister.

'&.

DDD. Page 71.
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

320 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the principle, that the spirit ofthe rubric, being undeniable,
should be preferred to the letter. But it was expedient,
that the latter should be corrected.
EEE. Page 71.
In the management of the concerns of missions, there
was no other embarrassment, than what arose between the
domestic department and the foreign. The former has the
advantage of its 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,
on these accounts, would have confined to it the exertions
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 foreign missions what
should be donations so designated. On the other hand,
there was such an ardor for foreign missions in some minds,
as seemed to make them more prominent than the domes
tic, although it was not denied, that these also should be
sustained. Under the executive committee, every contrib
utor was left to his or her choice, and it is now the same
under the Board of Missions. Unfortunately, with the dis
cussion of the subject, there was mixed the question of the
place or the places of location. In the result, the domes
tic was located in New York, and the foreign in Philadel
phia, but with the hope of many, that both of them will be
settled finally in the former city. The Board of Missions
are competent to this; and it is thought, that considerable
advantage will accrue from a concurrence of effort.*
The said board being clothed with considerable author
ity, and their doings being, in a degree, the agency of the
Church during the times intervening between the General
Conventions, it is thought proper to insert their constitu
tion in the Appendix, No. 36.
* Both boards are now in New York. Ed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 32 1
FFF. Page 71.
This measure was dictated by the great increase of pop
ulation, in the lately settled counties of the State of New
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 being 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 expediency, 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 it. His views were committed to the press, in the
" Protestant Episcopalian," and he judges it to be agreeable
to the present design, to insert that document in the Ap
pendix, No. 37. GGG. Page 72.
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 irregu
lar, the doctor declined compliance. During the session,
there were present from that quarter, several gentlemen
who had regretted 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 72.
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.

322 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
III. Page 72.
The proposals referred to are of great importance, and
were introduced in the House of Bishops by Bishop Hop
kins. *When our Church was organized it would have
been impossible to have carried the point of jurisdiction
further than as it now stands. But there is the imperfec
tion attending it, that in ecclesiastical trials, opposite de
cisions may be passed in different dioceses; which is mani
festly a great evil. KKK. Page 72.
The providing of a German liturgy, arose from the
statement, that in some districts, there are German fami
lies, desirous of attending on the services of our Church,
and whose acquaintance with the English language being
imperfect, as expressive of devotional sentiment and feel
ing, they would be aided by the possession of German
Prayer Books, and by comparing of them with the English.
LLL. Page 72.
The people's repeating of the confession simultaneously
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 des
ignated by the convention, but in many 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 recent editions in England. It is to be hoped, that the

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 323
convention 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 meaning of the word "after," which has been con
strued as inapplicable to concurrence. In opposition to
the doubt, the following considerations had weight with
the convention.
ist. The exhortation calls on the congregation, to "ac
company" the minister in the ensuing act, which can not
be but by a concurrence.
2d. There 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" can not have so restricted a mean
ing as the doubt supposes. It often stands for "accord
ing to " or "imitation of." See Johnson's Dictionary. See
also many places in Scripture, among which are, Psalm
xxviii. 6; Psalm xi. 3; Matthew vi. 9; and I Peter iii. 5.
The Prayer Book is not without instances to the effect, as
in the Twenty-eighth Article, "after an heavenly and spir
itual manner; " and in the Litany as in the English book —
" neither reward us after our iniquities."
MMM. Page 72.
In regard to the Bible, there having been occasionally
typographical 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 favor 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

324 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 72.
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's
Church, in this city. It is to be hoped, that they will be
placed under a proper supervision.
000. Page 72.
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 pursue,
a proper medium. For the enacted canons, it may suffice
to refer to the journal.

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
under their respective notices. It has been formerly a
matter too little attended to. Incidents, not exciting
much interest at present, may help in future transactions,
by unfolding the grounds on which those preceding them
had been adopted, and by which they should in some
measure be explained.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. 325
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 endeavors, however feeble,
and however in effect 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.

III.
APPENDIX

No. I. Page 85.
Communication with the Court of Denmark.
Copy of a Letter from fohn Adams, Esq., to the President of Congress,
dated the Hague, April 22, 1784.
Sir, I 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, etc.
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 conversa
tion 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 honor to be, etc.
(Signed,) J. ADAMS.

328 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Translation of a Communication of Mr. de St. Saphorin, to Mr. fohn
Adams, dated the Hague, April 21, 1784.
Mr. de St. Saphorin has the honor to communicate to
Mr. Adams the answer he has received from his excellency
the Count de Rosencrone, privy counsellor and secretary
of state for foreign affairs of his Danish majesty, relative
to what Mr. Adams desired to know. He shall be happy
if this answer should be agreeable to him, as well as to his
superiors, and useful to his fellow-citizens. He has the
honor to assure him of his respect.
(Signed, etc.)

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 lo 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 bishop of the Danish Church ? 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 conform
able to the Articles of the English Church, omitting the
oath called test, which prevents their being ordained by
the English bishops.

Secretary's Office, 6th Ar-Rit, 1785.
Sir, Copies of the enclosed letters from Mr. John Adams and
Mr. de St. Saphorin, upon the subject of conferring holy

APPENDIX.

329

Orders agreeably to the principles of the Church of Eng
land, 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,
Humble servant,
(Signed,) J. ARMSTRONG, Jur.

Rev. Dr. Wm. White.

Answer.
Sir, I request you to present to the honorable council, my
grateful sentiments of their polite attention to the interests
of the Episcopal Church, in your communication 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 brotherly
proceeding of the Danish government and clergy. And
the 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 honorable board, that I
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 de
pend on an adherence to the above mentioned principle, I
take the liberty to submit to the honorable council two
printed accounts of proceedings held in this city and in
New York.

330 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
With my most dutiful thanks to the honorable board,
and with all due submission, I am, sir,
Their and your very humble servant,
WM. WHITE.
April, 6th, 1785.
J. Armstrong, Esq.

No. 2. Page 85.
Communication of the Clergy of Connecticut, to the Arch
bishop of York. New York, April 21, 1783.
My Lord,
The clergy of Connecticut, deeply impressed with anx
ious 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.
This part of America is at length dismembered from the
British empire; but, notwithstanding the dissolution of our
civil connection with the parent state, we still hope to re
tain the religious polity; the primitive and evangelical doc
trine 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,
has 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 ob
structed by considerations of a political nature, which we
conceive were founded in groundless jealousies and misap
prehensions that can no longer be supposed to exist: and
therefore, whatever may be the effect 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

APPENDIX. 331
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
ofthe Episcopal Churches in America, and the necessity of
adopting some speedy remedy for the want of a regular
Episcopate, are offered, in the publication here alluded to,
as reasons fully sufficient to justify the scheme. Whatever
influence this project may have on the minds of the igno
rant or unprincipled part of the laity, or however it may,
possibly, be countenanced by some of the clergy in other
parts of the country, we think it our duty to reject such a
spurious substitute for Episcopacy, and, as far as may be in
our power, to prevent its taking effect.
To lay the foundation, therefore, for a valid and regular
Episcopate in America, we earnestly entreat your Grace,
that, in your archi-episcopal 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 Connecticut. 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
personally known to us — and we believe him to be every
way qualified for the Episcopal office, and for the discharge
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 acknowledged importance 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

332 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 blessing
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 Churck in Middletown,
and Secretary to tlie Convention.

Testimonial.
Whereas our well beloved in Christ, Samuel Seabury,
Doctor of Divinity, and missionary of Staten Island, 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 ofthe 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 in
this measure, and promote its success, as well as to declare
the high opinion we justly entertain of Doctor Seabury's
learning, abilities, prudence, and zeal for religion, do here
by certify, that we have been personally and intimately ac-

APPENDIX. 333
quainted with the said Doctor Seabury for many years
past — that we believe 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 honor,
dignity, and fidelity, and consequently with advantage to
the Church of God.
And we can not forbear to express our most earnest
wish, that 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 Nczv York, this tzventy-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 Trinity Church, New York.
BENJAMIN MOORE, D.D.
Assistant Minister of Trinity Church.
New York, and others.

Letter to the Archbishop of York.
New York, May 24, 1783.
My Lord,
The Reverend Doctor Samuel Seabury will have the
honor of presenting this letter to your Grace. He goes
to England at the request of the Episcopal clergy of Con
necticut, 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 in
spection, 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.

334 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
The measure proposed, on this occasion, by our brethren
of Connecticut, could not fail to have our hearty concur
rence. For we are decidedly of opinion, that no other
means can be devised to preserve the existence of the
Episcopal Church in this country. We have therefore
joined with Mr. Jarvis in giving Doctor Seabury a testi
monial, in which we have briefly, but sincerely, expressed
our sense of his merit, and our earnest wishes for the suc
cess of his undertaking.
Should he succeed and be consecrated, he means (with
the approbation of the society), to return in the character,
and perform the 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
permitted to exercise the spiritual powers of his Episcopal
office there; in which, 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 American Episcopate, now that the
independence of this country, acknowledged by Great
Britain, has removed their apprehensions of the bishops
being invested with a share of temporal power by the
British government. We flatter ourselves that any imped
iments to the consecration 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 can
not 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 appropriated to the mainten
ance of Doctor Seabury, in case he is consecrated, and
settles in America. We conceive that the separation of

APPENDIX.

335

this country from the parent state can be no reasonable
bar to such appropriation, nor invalidate the title of Amer
ican bishops, who derive their consecration from the Church
of England, to the benefit of those legacies. And perhaps
this charitable 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 the
province of Nova Scotia, on which he has expressed to us
his entire approbation, and has written to administration,
warmly recommending the measure. We took the liberty,
at the same time, of mentioning our worthy brother, the
Rev. Dr. Thomas B. Chandler, to his Excellency, as a per
son every way qualified to discharge the duties of the Epis
copal office in that province, with dignity and honor. And
we hope for your Grace's approbation of what we have done
in that matter, and for the concurrence of your influence 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 affording the best
and most proper conveyance.
If Doctor Chandler and Doctor Seabury 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 honor 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
New York, and others.
His Grace the Archbishop of York,

336 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 3. Page 102.
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 vol
untary convention, beg leave to acquaint you, that a small
pamphlet, printed in Philadelphia, has been transmitted to
us, of which you are said to be the author. This pamphlet
proposes a new form of government in the Episcopal
Church, and points at the method of erecting it. As the
thirteen states have now risen to independent sovereignty,
we agree with you, sir, that the chain which connected this
with the mother Church is broken; that the American
Church is now left to stand in its own strength — and that
some change in its regulations must in due time take place.
But we think it premature and of dangerous consequence,
to enter upon so capital a business, till we have resident
bishops (if they can be obtained) to assist in the perform
ance 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 to such things in the pamphlet, as we es
teem of dangerous consequence. You say the conduct you
mean to recommend, is to include in the proposed frame
of government a general approbation of Episcopacy, and1,
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 succes
sion. But why do you include a general approbation of
Episcopacy, in your proposed new frame of government ?
Not because you think bishops a constituent part of an
Episcopal Church, unless you conceive they derive their
office and existence from the King's authority; for though

See ante, p. 99. Ed.

APPENDIX. 337
you acknowledge we can not at present have bishops here,
and propose to set up without them, yet you say no consti
tutional principle of our Church is changed by the revolu
tion, but what was founded on the authority of the King.
Your motives for the above general approbation, seem
indeed to be purely political. One is, that the general
opinion of Episcopalians is in favor of bishops, and there
fore (if we understand your reasoning) it would be im
politic not to flatter them with the hopes of it. Another
reason is, that too wide a deviation from the British Church
might induce future emigrants from thence to set up in
dependent churches here. But could you have proposed
to set up the ministry, without waiting for the succession,
had you believed the Episcopal superiority to be an ordi
nance of Christ, with the exclusive authority of ordination
and government, and that it has ever been so esteemed in
the purest ages of the Church ? and yet we conceive this to
be the sense of Episcopalians in general, and warranted by
the constant practice of the Christian Church. Really, sir,
we think an Episcopal Church without Episcopacy, if it be
not a contradiction in terms, would, however, be a new
thing under the sun; and yet the Episcopal Church, by the
pamphlet proposed to be erected, must be in this predica
ment till the succession be obtained. You plead necessity,
however, and argue that the best writers in the Church,
admit of Presbyterian ordination, where Episcopal can not
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
make. But the very words you 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

338 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
earth, not all the angels in heaven, without an immediate
commission from Christ, can restore it — but you say, he
does not, however, hold this succession to be necessary,
only where it can be had. Neither does he or the Chris
tian Church hold the sacraments to be necessary, where
they can not be had agreeable to the appointment ofthe
Great Head of the Church. Why should particular 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 appointed officers to administer
them, and has expressly forbid any to do it but those who
are authorized by His appointment, or called of God as was
Aaron. And yet these gentlemen (without any inconsis
tency with their declared sentiments) have, and all good
men will express their charitable hopes, that God, in com
passion to a well meant zeal, will add the same blessings
to those who, through unavoidable mistake, act beside His
commission as if they really had it. As far as we can find,
it has been the constant 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 candi
dates three thousand miles for holy Orders, is more than a
presumptive proof that the Church here are, and ever have
been, of this opinion. The sectaries, soon after the refor
mation, declared that the book of consecration, etc., was
superstitious and contrary to God's Word, and the modera
tion you mention in the articles and canons, consists in
affirming that this declaration was entirely false; and would
you wish to be more severe? The instances you adduce,
wherein Presbyterian ordination has been tolerated in the
Church, have, by its best writers, been set in such a point
of view as to give no countenance to your scheme, and the
authorities you quote have been answered again and again.
If you will not allow this superiority to have an higher ori-

APPENDIX.

339

gin than the apostles; yet since they were divinely inspired,
we see not why their practice is not equal to a divine war
rant; and as they have given no liberty to deviate from
their practice in any exigence of the Church, we know not
what authority we have to take such liberties in any case.
However, we think nothing can be more clear, than that
our Church has ever believed bishops to have the sole right
of ordination and government, and that this regimen was
appointed of Christ Himself, and it is now, to use your own
words, humbly submitted to consideration, whether such
Episcopalians as consent even to a temporary departure,
and set aside this ordinance of Christ for conveniency, can
scarcely deserve the name of Christians. But would neces
sity 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 favorable
opportunity for the introduction of bishops, than this coun
try has before seen. However dangerous bishops 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 with other
clergymen; no danger, then, can now be feared from bish
ops, 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 upon the continent (should
their assistance be needed) will unite their influence 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

340 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
to refuse to ordain bishops to preside over us, when a
proper application shall be made to them for it? If this
can not be, why is not the present a favorable opportunity
for such an application ? Nothing is further from the design
of this letter than to begin a dispute with you; but in a
frank and brotherly way to express our opinion of the
mistaken and dangerous tendency of the pamphlet. We
fear, should the scheme of it be carried into execution in
the southern states, it will create divisions in the Church at
a time when its whole strength depends upon its unity:
for we know it is totally abhorrent from the principles of
the Church in the northern states, and are fully convinced
they will never submit to it. And indeed should we con
sent 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 favorable opportunity, to
procure 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. White.
Woodbury, March 25, 1783.

No. 4. Page 113.
A Letter of the Right Rev. Bishop Seabury, to the Rev.
Dr. Smith. August 15, 1785.
Rev. and dear Sir,
It has not been in my power till this day, to pay that at
tention to your letter of July 19, which the importance of
its several subjects demanded. The grand difficulty that
defeated my application for consecration in England, ap
peared to me to be the want of an application from the

APPENDIX. 34 1
State of Connecticut. Other objections are made, viz., that
there was no precise diocese marked out by the civil author
ity, nor a stated revenue appointed for the bishop's sup
port; but these were removed. The other remained, for
the civil authority in Connecticut is Presbyterian, and
therefore could not be supposed would petition for a bish
op; and had this been removed, I am not sure that another
would not have started up: for this happened several times.
I waited and procured a copy of an. act ofthe legislature of
Connecticut, which puts all denominations of Christians on
a footing of equality, except the Roman Catholics, and to
them it gives a free toleration, certified by the Secretary of
the state; for to Connecticut all my negotiations were con
fined. The Archbishop of Canterbury wished it had been
fuller, but thought it afforded ground on which to proceed;
yet he afterwards said it would not do; and that the 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 bishops. 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 law
yers, were of opinion he might safely do it. I turned my
attention to the remains ofthe old Scots Episcopal Church,
whose consecration I 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.*
I can see no good ground of apprehension concerning
the titles of estates, or emoluments belonging to the
Church in your state; your Church is still the Church of
* While in England, and before he had obtained consecration, Seabury wrote
to a gentleman in New York, saying, " I have been amused, I think deceived."—
Journals, m, 216. Ed.

342 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 subjection to Holland. The plea of the
Methodists is something 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 ofthe 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 con
fident the clergy of Maryland and the other states, will be
very particular with regard to the qualifications and titles of
persons to be admitted into their own order. Should they
think proper to send any candidates hither, I would wish
that it might be at the stated times of ordination; because
the clergy here being so scattered, it is not easy, on every
emergency, to get three of them together; and never with
out some expense, which they can not well afford. I can
not omit to mention again the particular satisfaction Mr.
Ferguson gave, not only to me, but to all our clergy. I
hope he will prove a worthy and useful clergyman. I flat
ter myself he got home without any disagreeable accident.
I thank you for your communication respecting Wash
ington College, and the various conventions you have had
in your state and neighborhood. 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 ex
pected that sentiments will differ. All men do not always
see the same object in the same light; and persons at a

APPENDIX. 343
distance are not always masters of the precise reasons and
circumstances, which have occasioned particular modes of
acting. Of some things therefore in your proceedings I
can not 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 conversa
tion 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, I must claim the same privilege of judg
ing 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 con
sideration. And by having the power of altering funda
mental laws diffused through so large a body, it appears to
me next to impossible to have them altered, even in some
reasonable cases; because cases really reasonable may not
appear so to two thirds of so large an assembly. It should
also be remembered, that while human nature is as it is,
something of party passion or partiality will ever be apt,
in some degree, to influence the views and debates of a
numerous and mixed assembly.
2. I think you have too much circumscribed the power
of your bishops. That the duty and office of a bishop differs
in nothing from that of other priests, except in the power of
ordination and confirmation, {Pamphlet, p. 16,) is a position
that carries Jerome's opinion to the highest pitch. Quid
facit Episcopus quod presbyter non faciat, excepta ordina-
tione ? But it does not appear that Jerome had the sup
port ofthe Church in this opinion, but rather the contrary.
Government as essentially pertains to bishops as ordina
tion; nay, ordination is but the particular exercise of gov
ernment. Whatever share of government presbyters have

344 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
in the Church, they have from the bishop, and must ex
ercise it in conjunction with or in subordination to him.
And though a congregation may have a right, and I am
willing to allow it, to choose their minister, as they are to
support him and live under his ministry, yet the bishop's
concurrence or license is necessary, because they 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 bishop.
The choice of the bishop is in the presbyters; but the
neighboring bishops, 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 partic
ular indulgence.
The people, being the patrons of the churches in this
country, and having the means of the bishop's and minis
ter'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 ofthe offending clergyman. If a bishop behaves
amiss, the neighboring 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 ofthe 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 hope
and trust that we shall, by God's grace, exhibit to the
world, in our government, discipline, and order, a pure and
perfect model of primitive simplicity.

APPENDIX.

34 5

Presbyters can not be too careful in choosing their bish
op; nor the 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 im
proper 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 hjs party is formed, all the power of your convention
will not be able to displace him. In short, if you get a bad
man, your laws and 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 party enters, animosity and discord soon follow.
From what has been said, you will suppose I shall object.
3. To the admission of lay members into synods, etc.
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 ex
pect. But I can not 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 can not take away a character which they
can not confer. It is incongruous to every idea of Episco
pal 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

346 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 this was the practice of the primitive Church. In
short, the rights of the Christian Church arise, not from
nature or compact, but from the institution of Christ; and
we ought not to alter them, but to receive and maintain
them as the holy apostles left them. The government,
sacraments, faith, and doctrine of the Church, are fixed
and settled. We have a right to examine what 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.
I do therefore beseech the clergy and laity, who shall
meet at Philadelphia, to reconsider the matter, before a
final step be taken: and to endeavor to bring their Church
government as near to the primitive pattern as may be.
They will find it the simplest and most easy to carry into
effect; and if it be adhered to, will be in no danger of
sinking or failing.
I do not* think it necessary that the Church, in every
state, should be just as the Church in Connecticut is;
though I think that the best model. Particular circum
stances, I 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 power of ordination and confirmation.
Let me therefore again entreat, that such material al
terations, 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.

APPENDIX. 347
Whatever I can do consistently to assist in procuring bish
ops in America, I shall do cheerfully, but beyond that I
can not go; and I am sure neither you, nor any of the
friends ofthe Church, would wish I should.
If any expression in this letter should seem too warm, I
will be ready to correct the mode, but the sentiments I
must retain till I find them wrong, and then I will freely
give them up. In this matter 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 united in government, doctrine, and disci
pline — that there may be no division among us — no oppo
sition of interests — 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 be large and very
much to be respected. Its determination will influence
many of the American States, and posterity will be ma
terially 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 consequences. Pa
tience and prudence must be exercised. And should there
be some circumstances that press hard for a remedy, hasty
decisions will not mend them. In doubtful cases they will
probably have a bad effect.
May the Spirit of God be with you at Philadelphia, and as
I persuade myself the sole good of His Church is the sole
aim of you all, I hope for the best effects from your meeting.
I send you the alterations which it has been here thought
proper to make in the Liturgy, to accommodate it to the
civil constitution of this state. You will observe, that
there is no Collect for the Congress. We have no back
wardness in that respect, but thought it our duty to know
whether the civil authority in this state has any directions

348 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
to give in that matter; and that can not be known till their
next meeting in October.
Some other alterations were proposed, of which Mr.
Ferguson took a copy; and I would send you a copy had I
time to transcribe it.
The matter will be resumed at New Haven the nth 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.
I 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 presume, there can be no objection.

No. 5. Page 114.
Address of the Conventio7i of 1785, to the English Prelates.
To the Most Reverend and Right Reverend the Archbishops of Canter
bury and York, and the Bishops of the Church of England.
We, the Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in sundry ofthe United States of Amer
ica, think it our duty to address your Lordships on a sub
ject 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

APPENDIX. 349
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 ofthe apostles; and
endeared to them, by the remembrance of the holy bishops
of the primitive Church, of the blessed martyrs who re
formed the doctrine and worship ofthe Church of England,
and of the many great and pious prelates who have adorned
that Church in every succeeding age. But however gener
al the desire of completing the orders of our ministry, so
diffused and unconnected were the members of our com
munion over this extensive country, that much time and
negotiation were necessary for the forming of a representa
tive body of the greater number of the Episcopalians in
these states; and owing to the same causes, it was not
until this convention, that sufficient powers could be pro
cured for the addressing of your Lordships on this subject.
The petition which we offer to your venerable body is — ¦
that from a tender regard to the religious interests of thou
sands in this rising empire, professing the same religious
principles 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 sufficiency
of the persons recommended, and of its being the intention
of the general body of the Episcopalians in the said states
respectively, to receive them in the quality of bishops.

350 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Whether this, our request, will meet with insurmount
able impediments, from the political regulations of the king
dom 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 their prosperity, and religiously
regarding the allegiance which we owe them, it is to an ec
clesiastical source only we can apply in the present exigency.
It maybe of consequence to observe, that in these states
there is a separation between the concerns of policy, and
those of religion; that accordingly, our civil rulers can not
officially join in the present application; that, however, we
are far from apprehending the opposition or even displeas
ure of any of those honorable personages; and, finally, that
in this business we are justified by the constitutions of the
states, which are the foundations and control of all our laws.
On this point we beg leave to refer to the enclosed extracts
from the constitutions of the respective states of which we
are citizens, and we flatter ourselves that they must be
satisfactory. Thus, we have stated to your Lordships the nature and
the grounds of our application; which we have thought it
most respectful and most suitable to the magnitude of the
object, to address to your Lordships for your deliberation,
before any person is sent over to carry them into effect.
Whatever may be the event, no time will efface the re
membrance of the past services of your Lordships and your
predecessors. The Archbishops 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
tary submission of our congregations, will remain a per
petual proof of their mild and paternal government. All
the bishops of England, with other distinguished characters,
as well ecclesiastical as civil, have concurred in forming and
carrying on the benevolent views ofthe Society for the Prop-

APPENDIX.

351

agation of 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 per
mitted to make, through your Lordships, this just acknowl
edgment to that venerable society; a tribute of gratitude
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 favors by a benevolent declaration, that it is far
from their thoughts to alienate their affection from their
brethren now under another government; with the pious
wish, that their former exertions may still continue to bring
forth the fruits they aimed at, of pure religion and virtue.
Our hearts are penetrated with the most lively gratitude
by these general 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 have so tenderly watched over her infancy.
For your Lordships in particular, we most sincerely wish
and pray, that you may long continue the ornaments ofthe
Church of England, and at last receive the reward of the
righteous, from the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls.
We are, with all the respect which is due to your exalt
ed and venerable characters and stations,
Your Lordships Most obedient, and
Most humble servants*
In Convention,
Christ Church, Philadelphia, October 5th, 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
* Signed by all the members.

352 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
bishops ofthe Church of England, requesting them to con
fer the Episcopal character on such persons as shall be
chosen and recommended to them for that purpose, from
the conventions of this Church in the respective states.
Secondly, That it be recommended to the said conven
tions, that they elect persons for this purpose.
Thirdly, That it be further recommended to the different
conventions, at their next respective sessions, to appoint
committees, with powers, to correspond with the English
bishops for the carrying of these resolutions into effect; and
that, until such committees shall be appointed, they be re
quested to direct any communications which they may be
pleased to make on this subject to the committee, consist
ing of the Rev. Dr. White, president, the Rev. Dr. Smith,
¦the Rev. Mr. Provoost, the Honorable James Duane, Esq.,
and Samuel Powell and Richard Peters, 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 be
sent to them for consecration, are desired in the character
of bishops, as well by the laity as by the clergy of this
Church, in the said states respectively; and that they will
be received by them in that character on their return.
Fifthly, And in order to assure their Lordships of the
legality ofthe present proposed 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 ofthe same.
Sixthly, And, whereas, the bishops of this Church will
not be entitled to any of such temporal honors as are due
to the archbishops and bishops of the parent Church, in
quality of lords of parliament; and whereas the reputation
and usefulness of our bishops will considerably depend on
their taking no higher titles or style than will be due to
their spiritual employment; that it be recommended to this
Church in the states here represented, to provide, that their

APPENDIX. 353
respective 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.

No. 6. Page 125.
Letter of the English Prelates.
London, February 24, 1786.
To the Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in
sundry of the United States of America.
The Archbishop of Canterbury hath received an address,
dated in convention, Christ Church, Philadelphia, Octo
ber 5, 1785, from the Clerical and Lay Deputies ofthe Prot
estant Episcopal Church in sundry of the United States of
America, directed to the archbishops and bishops of Eng
land, and requesting them to confer the Episcopal character
on such persons as shall be recommended by the Episcopal
Church in the several states by them represented.
This brotherly and Christian address was communicated
to the Archbishop of York, and to the bishops, with as much
despatch as their separate and distant situations would per
mit, 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 welfare,
to be instrumental in procuring for you the complete exer
cise of our holy religion, and the enjoyment of that ecclesi
astical constitution, which we believe to be truly apostolical
and for which you express so unreserved a veneration.
We are therefore happy to be informed, that this pious
design is not likely to receive any discountenance from the
civil powers under which you live; and we desire you to be

354 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
persuaded, that we, on our parts, will use our best endeav
ors, which we have good reason to hope will be successful,
to acquire a legal capacity of complying with the prayer of
your address.
With these sentiments we are disposed to make every
allowance which candor can suggest for the difficulties of
your situation; but, at the same time, we can not help being
afraid, that, in the proceedings of your convention, some
alterations may have been adopted or intended, which those
difficulties 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
reached us through private and less certain channels, we
hope you will think it just, both to you and to ourselves, if
we wait for an 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 can not but be extremely cautious, lest we
should be the instruments of establishing an ecclesiastical
system which will be called a branch ofthe Church of Eng
land, but afterwards may possibly appear to have departed
from it essentially, either in doctrine or in discipline.
In the mean time, we heartily commend you to God's
holy protection, and are, your affectionate brethren,
J. ROCHESTER, T. CANTUAR,
R. WORCESTER, W. EBOR,
I. OXFORD, R. LONDON,
I. EXETER, W. CHICHESTER,
THO. LINCOLN, C. BATH & WELLS,
JOHN BANGOR, S. ST. ASAPH,
I. LICHFIELD & COVENTRY,
S. GLOUCESTER, S. SARUM,
E. ST. DAVID'S, J. PETERBOROUGH,
CHR. BRISTOL, JAMES ELY.
To the Reverend and Honorable the Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopil
Church in sundry of the United States of America, Philadelphia.

APPENDIX. 355
No. 7. Page 137.
A Memorial from the Convention in New Jersey, to the Gen
eral Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the
United States of America, to be held iu the City of Phila
delphia in June next.
The Memorial of the Convention of the said Church in New fersey, now
held in ihe City of Perth Amboy,
Respectfully showeth,
That your Memorialists have unanimously approved of
the alterations in the Liturgy as they appear in the new
Prayer Book, to render it consistent with the American
revolution and the constitutions of the respective states, as
made and concluded on by the late General Convention of
said Church, held at Philadelphia in September and Octo
ber last; they being satisfactory and agreeable to their
wish. 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
address to the archbishops and bishops of the Church of
England; which your Memorialists are of opinion, was prop
erly calculated to obtain the end proposed.
But it is with the greatest concern they are constrained
to remark, that the other proceedings of the said conven
tion, in their opinion, have an undoubted tendency to pro
long, 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 favored during their
sitting at this place; for which reason, among others, they
did not ratify, but disapproved of the other parts of the
proceedings ofthe said late General Convention.

356 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 altera
tions not warranted by immediate necessity; especially
such as not only go to the mode of its worship, but also to
its doctrines. Wherefore your Memorialists can not for
bear remarking, that in their opinion, all unnecessary al
terations must be unseasonable and impolitic, and will
prove highly detrimental to the Church in general.
Your Memorialists can not approve ofthe said late Gen
eral 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 com
mittee without their revision and express approbation; but
since they have done so, and if it was proper to have been
considered, your Memorialists have to regret, that the
same was not sooner published, that they might have been
enabled to have declared the sentiments of their constit
uents as well as their own. The prejudices and prepos
sessions of mankind in favor of old customs, especially in
religious matters, are generally so strong as to require
great delicacy and caution in the introduction of any alter
ations or innovations, although manifestly for the better;
which was also one reason why they could not at this time
ratify the alterations, so unnecessarily made; and they are
very apprehensive, that until alterations can be made con
sistent with the customs of the primitive Church, and with
the rules of the Church of England, from which it is our
boast to have descended, a ratification of them would cre
ate great uneasiness in the minds of many members of the
Church, and in great probability cause dissensions and
schisms. Although the}- may not disapprove of all the
alterations made in the said new book, yet they have to
regret the unseasonableness and irregularity of them.

APPENDIX.

357

Your Memorialists, having an anxious desire of cement
ing, perpetuating, and extending the union so happily be
gun in the Church, with all deference and submission, hum
bly 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 re
move every cause that may have excited 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 Eng
land; 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 ad
here to the Liturgy of the said Church as far as shall be
consistent with the American revolution, and the constitu
tion of the respective states; thereby removing every ob
stacle in the way of obtaining the consecration of such and
so many persons to the Episcopal character as shall render
our ecclesiastical government complete, and secure to the
Episcopalians in America, and to their descendants, a suc
cession of that necessary order: And that they will use all
means in their power to promote and perpetuate harmony
and unanimity among ourselves, and with the said Church
of England as a mother or sister Church, and with every
Protestant Church in the universe.
By order ofthe convention,
ABRAHAM BEACH, President.
Perth Amboy, May 19, 1786.

358 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 8. Page 137.
Second Address to the English Prelates.
To the Most Reverend and Right Reverend Fathers in God, the Arch
bishops and Bishops of ihe Church of England.
Most Worthy and Venerable Prelates,
We, the Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the States of New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South
Carolina, have received the friendly and affectionate letter
which your Lordships did us the honor to write on the 24th
day 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 from doubts respecting the extent of
the alterations we have made and proposed; and we are hap
py to learn, that as no political impediments oppose us here,
those which at present exist in England may be removed.
While doubts remain of our continuing to hold the same
essential articles of faith and 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 propose to depart
from the doctrines of your Church. We 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 Book 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

APPENDIX.

359

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 can
result from stability and union.
We 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
vors 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 endeavor to remove your pres
ent hesitation, by sending you our proposed ecclesiastical
Constitution and Book of Common Prayer.
These documents, we trust, will afford a full answer to
every question that can arise on the subject. We consider
your Lordships' letter as very candid and kind ; we repose full
confidence in the assurances it gives; and that confidence,
together with the 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
Lordships' opinion, if that should be the case, pruned rather
more closely than its separation made absolutely necessary.
We have only to add, that as our Church in sundry of
these states has 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 favored 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 humble servants,*
In Convention,
Christ Church, Philadelphia, June 26, 1786.
* Signed by all the members.

36c MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 9. Page 137.
Communications from the Archbishops of Canterbury and
York.
To the Committee of the General Convention at Philadelphia, the Rev.
Dr. White, President, the Rev. Dr. Smith, the Rev. Mr. Provoost,
the Honorable fames 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 you to be persuaded, that if we
have not yet been able to comply with your request, the
delay 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 com
munications with regard to your Liturgy, Articles, and ec
clesiastical 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
ofthe remaining 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 ex
cellence, and your declared attachment to it, had led us to
expect. Not to mention a variety of verbal alterations, of
the necessity or propriety of which we are by no means sat
isfied, we saw with grief, that two of the confessions of our

APPENDIX. 361
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 partic
ular heresy, in a very early age of the Church, and has ever
since had the venerable sanction of universal reception.
Nevertheless, as a proof of the sincere desire which we feel
to continue in spiritual communion with the members of
your Church in America, and to complete the orders of your
ministry, and trusting that the communications which we
shall make to you on the subject of these and some other
alterations, will have their desired effect, we have, even un
der these circumstances, prepared a bill for conveying to us
the powers necessary for this purpose. It will in a few days
be presented to parliament, and we have the best reasons
to hope that it will receive the assent of the legislature.
This bill will enable the archbishops and bishops to give
Episcopal consecration to the persons who shall be recom
mended, without requiring from them any oaths or sub
scriptions inconsistent with the situation in which the late
revolution has placed them; upon condition that the full
satisfaction of the sufficiency of the persons recommended,
which you offer to us in your address, be given to the arch
bishops 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 on this occasion, that we have
taken this earliest opportunity of conveying to you this
intelligence, and that we proceed (as supposing ourselves
invested with that power which for your sakes we have re
quested) to state to you particularly the several heads upon
which that satisfaction which you offer will be accepted,
and the mode in which it may be given. The anxiety which
is shown by the Church of England to prevent the intru
sion of unqualified persons into even the inferior offices of
our ministry, confirms our own sentiments, and points it
out to be our duty, very earnestly to require the most de
cisive proofs of the qualifications of those who may be

362 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
offered for admission to that order, to which the superin
tendence of those offices is committed. At our several or
dinations of a deacon and a priest, the candidate submits
himself to the examination of the bishop as to his profi
ciency in learning; he gives the proper security of his sound
ness in the faith by the subscriptions which are made pre
viously necessary; he is required to bring testimonials of
his virtuous conversation during the three preceding years;
and that no mode of inquiry may be omitted, public 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 upon to declare, if they know any impedi
ment 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
deed repeated at the consecration of an English bishop, be
cause the person to be consecrated has added to the secu
rities given at his former ordinations, that sanction which
arises from his having constantly lived and exercised his
ministry under the eyes and observation of his country.
But the objects of our present consideration are very differ
ently circumstanced; their sufficiency 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 archbishop 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 honor of God, and
the edifying of His Church, and to be wholesome examples
and patterns to the flock of Christ."
With regard to the first qualification, sufficiency in good
learning, we apprehend that the subjecting a person who
is to be admitted to the office of a bishop in the Church, to
that examination which is required previous to the ordina
tion of priests and deacons, might lessen that reverend
estimation which ought never to be separated from the

APPENDIX. ^St,
>
Episcopal character: we therefore do not require any far
ther 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 respect must lessen the weight
and authority of the bishop, and affect the credit of the
Episcopal Church.
Under the second head, that of subscription, our desire
is to require that subscription only to be repeated, which
you 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 subscrip
tion, you restore to its integrity the Apostles' Creed, in
which you have omitted an article merely, as it seems, from
misapprehension of the sense in which it is understood by
our Church; nor can we help adding, that we hope you will
think it but a decent proof of the attachment which you
profess to the services of your Liturgy, to give to the other
two creeds a place in your Book of Common Prayer, even
though the use of them should be left discretional. We
should be inexcusable, too, if at the time when you are
requesting the establishment of bishops in your Church, we
did not strongly represent to you that the Eighth Article
of your ecclesiastical constitution appears to us to be a deg
radation of the clerical, and still more of the Episcopal char
acter. We persuade ourselves, that in your ensuing con
vention, some alteration will be thought necessary in this
article, before this reaches you; or, if not, that due atten
tion will be given to it in consequence of our representation.

364 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
On the third and last head, which respects purity of
manners, the reputation of the Church, both in England
and America, and the interest of our common Christianity,
is so deeply concerned in it, that we feel it our indispens
able duty to provide, on this subject, the most effectual
securities. It is presumed, that the same previous public
notice of the intention of the person to be consecrated will
be given in the Church where he resides in America, for
the same reasons, and therefore nearly in the same form,
with that used in England before our ordinations. The
call upon the persons present at the time of consecration,
must be deemed of little use before a congregation com
posed of those to whom the person to be consecrated is
unknown. The testimonials, signed by persons living in
England, admit of reference and examination, and the char
acters of those who give, them are subject to scrutiny, and,
in cases of criminal deceit, to punishment. In proportion
as these circumstances are less applicable to testimonials
from America, those testimonials must be more explicit,
and supported by a greater number of signatures. We
therefore think it necessary that the several persons, can
didates for Episcopal consecration, should bring to us both
a testimonial from the General Convention of the Epis
copal Church, with as many signatures as can be obtained,
and a more particular one from the respective conventions
in those states which recommend them. It will appear
from the tenor of the letters testimonial used in England,
a form of which is annexed, that the ministers who sign
them bear testimony to the qualifications of the candidates
on their own personal knowledge. Such a testimony is not
to be expected from the members of the General Conven
tion of the Episcopal Church in America, on this occasion.
We think it sufficient, therefore, that they declare they
know no impediment, but believe the person to be conse
crated, 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

APPENDIX. 365
members of the convention in each state from which the
persons offered for consecration are respectively recom
mended. Their personal knowledge of them there can be
no doubt of. We trust, therefore, they will have no ob
jection to the adoption of the form of a testimonial which
is annexed, and drawn up on the same principles, and
containing the same attestations of personal knowledge
with that above mentioned, as required previously to our
ordinations. We trust we shall receive these testimonials
signed by such a majority in each convention that recom
mend, as to leave no doubt of the fitness of the candidates
upon the minds of those whose consciences 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, we pray God to direct your counsels in this very
weighty matter, and are, Mr. President, and Gentlemen,
your affectionate brethren,
J. CANTUAR.
W. EBOR.

Form of a Testimonial for Priest'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 behavior of A. B.,
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 discipline 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  .

366 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Testimony from the General Convention.
We, whose names are underwritten, fully sensible how
important it is that the sacred office of a bishop should not
be unworthily conferred, and firmly 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
which he ought not to be consecrated to that holy office,
but that he hath led his life, for the three years last past,
piously, soberly, and honestly.

Testimony from the Members of the Convention in the State from whence
the Person is recommended for Consecration.
We, whose names are underwritten, fully sensible how
important it is that the sacred office of a bishop should not
be unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our
duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without
partiality or affection, do, in the presence of Almighty
God, testify, that A. B. is not, so far as we are informed,
justly liable to evil report either for error in religion or for
viciousness of life; and that we do not know or believe
there is any impediment or notable crime for which he
ought not to be consecrated to that holy office. We do,
moreover, jointly and severally declare, that having 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 honor of
God and the edifying of his Church, and to be an whole
some example to the flock of Christ.

APPENDIX. 367
No. 10. Page 137.
Communication from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Canterbury, July 4, 1786.
To the Committee of the General Convention, etc. , etc.
Gentlemen,
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 the packet of last month. It is the opin
ion here, that no more than three bishops should be con
secrated for the United States of America; who may con
secrate 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. I am, your humble servant,
J. CANTUAR.

An Act to empower the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Archbishop of
York, for the Time being, to Consecrate to the Office of a Bishop,
Persons being Subjects or Citizens of Countries out of his Majesty's
Dominions. Whereas, by the laws of this realm no person can be
consecrated to the office of a bishop, without the King's
license for his election to that office, and the royal mandate
under the great seal for his confirmation and consecration:
And, whereas every person who shall be consecrated to the
said office, is required to take the oaths of allegiance and
supremacy, and also the oath of due obedience to the
archbishop: And, whereas there are divers persons subjects
or citizens of countries out of his Majesty's dominions, in
habiting and residing within the said countries, who profess
the public worship of Almighty God according to the prin-

368 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
ciples of the Church of England, and who, in order to pro
vide 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 spiritual and tem
poral, and commons in this present parliament assembled,
and by the authority of the same, that from and after the
passing of this act, it shall and may be lawful to and for
the 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 shall
be consecrated bishops in the manner herein provided, un
til the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Archbishop of
York, for the time being, 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 ofthe persons so to be consecrated; nor until the
said archbishop has been fully ascertained of their suffi
ciency in good learning, ofthe 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 per
son 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 consecrated, or by the successor or successors of
any bishop or bishops so consecrated, shall be thereby en-

APPENDIX. 369
abled to exercise 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 ofthe person so con
secrated, 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. •

No. 11. Page 139.
Address to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
Most Worthy and Venerable Prelates,
In pursuance of your Graces' communications to the
Standing Committee of our Church, received by the June
packet, and the letter of his Grace the Archbishop 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 coun
tries out of his Majesty's dominions," a General Convention,
now sitting, have the honor of offering their unanimous and
hearty thanks for the continuance of your Christian atten
tion to this Church; and particularly for your having so
speedily acquired a legal capacity, of complying 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 communications, and whatever could
be done towards a compliance with your fatherly wishes
and advice, consistently with our local circumstances, and
the peace and unity of our Church, hath been agreed to;

370 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
as, we trust, will appear from the enclosed act of our con
vention, which we have the honor to transmit to you, to
gether 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't.
In General Convention,
At Wilmington, in the State of Delaware,
October nth, 1786.

No. 12. Page 140.
A Letter from Granville Sliarp, Esq., to Dr. Benjamin
Franklin, with Extracts of Letters.
Extract of a Letter from Granville Sharp to the Archbishop of Can
terbury, dated 13th September, 1785.
"All these circumstances prove that the present time is
very important and critical for the promotion of the inter
ests and future extension of the Episcopal Church in Amer
ica, and that no time should be lost in obtaining authority
for the archbishops and bishops of England to dispense with
the oaths of allegiance in the consecration of bishops for for
eign Churches, that they may be restored to their unques
tionable right as Christian bishops to extend the Episcopal
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. Seabury,
and the uonjuring bishops of Scotland (to which, however,
I hope my letters will have given a timely check), but also
to guard against the presumption of Mr. Wesley and other
Methodists; who, it seems, have sent over some persons un
der the name of superintendents, with an assumed author
ity to ordain priests, as if they were really invested with
Episcopal authority."

APPENDIX. ' 371
" Some accounts of this were read to the Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel in May 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 increasing inclination towards Episcopal government, of
which they want to take an undue advantage; and conse
quently they prove, also, that the exertions of every sincere
friend to the Church of England are peculiarly necessary at
this time to counteract them, and to facilitate the commu
nication of a pure and irreprehensible Episcopacy to Amer
ica, by removing the obstacles which at present restrain
the archbishops and bishops of England, from extending
the Church of England beyond the bounds of English
government!' " I should also inform your Grace, that America is not
the only part wherein Protestant Episcopacy is likely to be
extended, when the rights of election are better understood:
for had I been prepared, in the year 1767, on this point, as
I am at present, I have reason to believe that a Protestant
Episcopal Church would have been promoted in Holland,
and in several parts of Germany and Switzerland, long be
fore this time."
" How I happened to be concerned in so important an
affair (if your Grace should have leisure and curiosity to be
informed), I am ready to communicate on receiving your
commands," etc.

Extract of a Letter from Granville Sharp to the Archbishop of Can
terbury, dated l-jtk of February, 1786.
"Since I had the honor of speaking to your Grace on
this subject, I have perused Dr. Smith's sermon, which was
preached before the convention at Philadelphia; and though

372 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
I have still great fears about the propriety of the alterations
they have made in the Liturgy, yet there seems to be some
ground to hope that they will be able to assign a reason
able excuse for the changes, without giving occasion to
suspect any want of belief in the several articles which
they have omitted; for Dr. Smith plainly insinuates, that
they proceeded on the model of the alterations that were
proposed to the English convocation in 1689; for which,
several circumstances have induced me to entertain a fa
vorable opinion. In looking over the MS. account of Arch
bishop 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 some alterations might be made
with advantage. He was also the person who first pro
posed, in convocation, that Dr. Tillotson should be ap
pointed prolocutor, in order to favor the intended altera
tions. Dr. Nichols has given a short general account of
that business in his ' Apparatus ad Defensionem Ecclesice
Anglicano?;' but I never heard that the transactions at
length were ever printed; and therefore am surprised to
find that the convention at Philadelphia had a full account
of that important 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 be
tween the motives which might induce the convention at
Philadelphia to make such large substractions from our Lit
urgy, and the real propriety or impropriety of those sub
stractions, at least so far that the latter need not be held
forth as a ground of objection against the candidates for
consecration, if in other respects the candidates themselves
should be found unexceptionable, and should readily profess
a sound and unequivocal belief in the fundamental articles
of our faith; for this will surely justify their consecration
before God and man; and more especially if they will
previously engage and promise, that when they have re-

APPENDIX.

373

ceived authority, they will not lay hands on any man except
on the like Christian conditions, independent of all national
forms and rituals of mere human authority, which can not
annul the necessity of maintaining an 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 humbly to submit to your Grace,
that if any notice is to be taken of the late rejection oj
creeds from the Liturgy in your Grace's intended answer to
the American requisition, whether, instead of stating that
measure as a just cause of refusal, it may not be more ad
visable to mention it rather as a just cause for your exhort
ing and giving them timely warning NOT to send over any
candidates for consecration, but such as are known to profess
a sound belief in tlie 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 Socinians.
than by a sect professing principles diametrically opposite
to them, I mean the modern Mysticks, who assert that
Christ is the only God; though the effect of these very
opposite tenets is precisely the same, viz., that both sects
are led to deny the personality of tlie Holy Spirit; and
therefore, by what spirit they are so led, we may fairly
judge by the fruits. Some Americans have lately adopted
these strange notions, which is the reason of my mention
ing them," etc.

Letter to Dr. Franklin.
Old Jewry, London, August 19, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Nothing could have been more truly acceptable to me
than your Excellency's obliging present of the new Amer-

374 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
ican Prayer Book; and the more especially as I had the
happiness of finding that the convention have retained, in
the Litany and other prayers, as well as in the Articles of
Religion, an ample testimony to the most essential doc
trines of the Church of England, and that they have really
proceeded upon the plan laid down by the King's commis
sioners in 1689, of whom my own grandfather (afterwards
Archbishop Sharp) was one, who took a very active part
in that business, though he is not mentioned in the preface
of the new Prayer Book. This I discovered by a MS. ac
count of my grandfather's life, much about the time that
many vague reports were current here, of immoderate and
unjustifiable changes made in the Liturgy by the American
Convention; for the Socinians flattered themselves (through
a mere mistake of Dr. Price, in a note which he had added
to Dr. Rush's letter of October 25, 1785, as published in
the newspapers) that the proceedings of the convention
had been "¦similar" to those of one Episcopal congregation
at Boston, which adopted a liturgy — "formed after the man
ner of Dr. Clarke and Mr. Lindsey!' These reports would
have given me much more uneasiness, if the perusal of Dr.
Smith's sermon (preached before the convention) had not
induced me to hope that the plan of the year 1689 would
really be adopted by the convention as a model of proceed
ing; and I was well satisfied that the said plan was suffi
ciently orthodox, because I was confident, that if it had
been otherwise, my grandfather would not have endeavored
to promote it. Nevertheless, the reports of Socinianism
gave great offence 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 for
mer letters; but on hearing of the confident reports of the
Socinians, they seemed to give up all hopes of being able
to hold any communication with the convention. In this
state of the business, I thought it my duty to explain in
writing to our worth}- primate, the Archbishop of Canter
bury, my reasons for hoping that the convention would be

APPENDIX.

375

able to assign such a reasonable excuse for the changes they
were reported to have made, as might be sufficient to re
move that ground of objection against the candidates for con
secration, if, in other respects, the candidates themselves
were found unexceptionable. An extract from that letter I
have enclosed for your Excellency's perusal, dated Febru
ary 17, last; and I earnestly entreated that the bishops here
might, at least, be prepared with authority to dispense \vith
the oaths in giving consecration, a point which I had also
previously solicited in a letter dated September 13, 1785.
As the convention transmitted no account of their transac
tions, when they wrote to the two archbishops, there was
no sufficient evidence for a direct confutation ofthe reports
respecting Socinianism; 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 uncertainty respecting Christian doctrine !
The Archbishop of Canterbury, with his usual conde
scension and politeness, was pleased to communicate to
me, very lately, the contents of that letter, as also the pro
posed forms of testimonials which it enclosed: and howso
ever these may be received by the convention, I am bound
to acknowledge my hearty approbation of them, being thor
oughly convinced that they were dictated by the most un
affected sincerity of heart, and (I may even say) apostolical
concern for the promotion of the true Catholic Church in
America. Nevertheless, 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 the 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 apprehensions and
suspicions occasioned by the late reports about Socinianism,
against which the Liturgy itself bears ample testimony. I

376 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
had hoped, however, that nothing would have been omitted
therein but the too frequent repetitions of our Liturgy: and
that if more creeds than one had been considered as falling
under the same head of correction, that, at least the Nicene
Creed might have been appointed to be used instead of the
common creed, on some particular festivals, as Christmas-
day, or Trinity Sunday, with a discretionary power in the
minister to use occasionally the Athanasian Creed, as all
these creeds may equally be proved by unquestionable 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 the unequiv
ocal declarations still retained in the new Liturgy, of the
indispensable faith and worship due to the three 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 baptismal profession
and vows being made expressly in the names of all the
three), must undoubtedly give sincere satisfaction to all
true Christians, notwithstanding the omission of several
other tilings which they would wish to have been also
retained. And, therefore, from my confidence of the un
exceptionable religious character of the English bishops in
general (without waiting to hear their sentiments declared
by themselves,) I may venture to repeat what I asserted in
my former letters, that the bishops of England will be still
sincerely inclined to promote the welfare of the Episcopal
Churches in America, and to maintain an affectionate com
munication with them as sister Churches, provided that the
gentlemen elected to be sent for consecration are really in
themselves unexceptionable: and I have the satisfaction to
inform your Excellency, that the 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 the former difficulty about the
oaths, a copy of which is enclosed. The late accounts
in the public papers, that the Episcopal Churches of Vir-

APPENDIX. 377
ginia and New York had elected candidates for the Epis
copal office in their respective provinces, gave me very
particular satisfaction, because I had understood from for
mer accounts, that the General Convention had nominated
the candidates ; which would have been a dangerous pre
cedent of infringement on the ancient rights of the clergy
and people in each province respectively, to elect their own
bishops; and I should have had still much more sincere
satisfaction, if these two provinces had adopted the apos
tolical mode of electing two unexceptionable candidates for
each see, whose acceptance should be determined by lot, as
revived by the Spanish bishops in the council of Barcelona
(see my tract on Congregational Courts, p. 89, 90), but
perhaps, upon the whole, it may be more prudent to defer
the decision of the lot, until three or four bishops are
actually resident in America; who can then more effect
ually examine (as their apostolical duty requires) the qual
ifications and characters of the elected candidates, by
calling upon the people, publicly, for information whether
any just exceptions are known, before the lot is cast, be
cause even a legal exception would seem to be made too
late, if discovered after the solemn appeal to divine Provi
dence by lot and previous prayer; for in such a case there
seems to be no alternative: nothing but an humble submis
sion and reliance on the same Providence, for all the future
consequences ofthe decision, whatever they may be; unless
some subsequent misconduct should render the interference
ofthe other bishops necessary.
I send herewith a duplicate of my letter respecting a
paper currency not liable to depreciation, which was sent by
the Mediator, Captain Kennydy; and I remain with true
respect and esteem, dear sir,
Your Excellency's most obliged,
Humble servant,
GRANVILLE SHARP.
His Excellency Benja?nin Franklin, Esq.,
President of the State of Pennsylvania.

378 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 13. Page 141.
An act of the General Convention of Clerical and Lay De
puties of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the States
of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delazvare, and
South Carolina, held at Wilmington, in the State of Dela
ware, 011 Wednesday, the nth of October, 1786.
Whereas, at a General Convention of Clerical and Lay
Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in sundry of
the United States of America, viz., New York, New Jersey
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South
Carolina, holden at the City of Philadelphia, on the Tues
day before 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 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
Constitutions of the respective States: " And it was further
agreed and declared, that the Book of Common Prayer, and
Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and
Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the
Church of England, as altered by an instrument of writing,
passed under the authority of 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 Amer
ica, should be used in this Church, when the same should
have been ratified by the conventions which had respectively

APPENDIX. 370
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 said
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 some parts of the
alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, and Rites and
Ceremonies of this Church, last mentioned: In pursuance
whereof, this present General Convention hath been called,
and is now assembled; and being sincerely disposed to give
every satisfaction to their Lordships, which will be consistent
with the union and general content of the Church they rep
resent; 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 Apostles'
Creed, these words — " He descended into hell," shall be
and continue a part of that creed.
Secondly, That the Nicene Creed shall also be inserted
in the said Book of Common Prayer, immediately after the
Apostles' Creed, prefaced with the rubric [or this].
And whereas, In consequence ofthe objections expressed
by their Lordships to the alterations in the Book of Com
mon Prayer, last mentioned, the conventions in some ofthe
states, represented in this General Convention, have sus-

380 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
pended the ratification and use of the said Book of Com
mon 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,
Thirdly, 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 Common Prayer, shall be in the words following —
" And I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine and
worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church, according to
the use ofthe 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 States of
America, in order to render the same conformable to the
American Revolution, and the Constitutions 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 I am (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 ofthe Protestant
Episcopal Church, as settled and determined in the last
mentioned Book of Common Prayer, and Administration
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 Apostles' Creed, one clause is omitted, as being
of uncertain meaning; and" — together with the note re-

APPENDIX.

331

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 ofthe Nicene Creed, as follows, " ofthe
creeds. The two creeds, namely, that commonly called the
Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, ought to be re
ceived and believed, because they," etc., etc.
Done in General Convention, at Wilmington, in the State of
Delaware, the day and year first aforesaid.

No. 14. Page 160.
To all Persons to whom these Presents shall come, or whom
the same shall or may in any wise or at any time concern,
we, John, by Divine Providence, Lord Archbishop cf Can
terbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, send
greeting : —
Whereas, by an act of parliament, passed at Westmin
ster, 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 .Office of a Bishop, Persons being Sub
jects or Citizens of Countries out of his Majesty's Domin
ions," 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

382 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 beings 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 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 conse
crated, with the addition as well of the country whereof he
is a subject or citizen, as of the Church in which he is ap
pointed 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 war
rant under his royal signet and sign manual, did, in pur
suance 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

APPENDIX.

3§3

Christ Church and St. Peter's, in the City of Philadelphia, in
the said state, of whose sufficiency in good learning, sound
ness in the faith, and purity of manners, we were fully as
certained, into the office of a bishop ofthe Protestant Epis
copal 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 Wil
liam White, did then and there rightly and canonically con
secrate a bishop, according to the manner and form pre
scribed and used by the Church of England, his taking the
oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and canonical obedience
only excepted, he being exempted 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 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 archiepiscopal seal to be affixed to these
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.
(Copy.) W. DICKES,
Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

384 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
On Sunday the fourth day of February, in the year of
our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven,
and in the fourth year of the translation of the most rever
end father in God, John, by divine Providence, Lord Arch
bishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and metro
politan, 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 the 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, con
secrated 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
North America, and the reverend Samuel Provoost, doctor
in divinity, rector of Trinity Church, in the City of New
York, a subject or citizen also of the United States of
North America, to the office of a bishop, respectively, the
rites, circumstances, and ceremonies anciently used in the
Church of England being observed and applied, according
to the tenor of an act passed in the twenty-sixth year of
the reign of his said Majesty, 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 pres
ent, the reverend and worshipful William Backhouse, doc
tor in divinity, Archdeacon of Canterbury, the Rev. 
Lort, doctor in divinity, the Rev.  Drake, doctor in

APPENDIX. 385
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 I attest. (Copy.) RT. JENNER,
Notary Public, actuary assumed.
And we, the underwritten notaries public, by royal au
thority duly admitted and sworn, residing in Doctor's Com
mons, London, do hereby certify and attest to all whom it
may concern, that Robert Jenner, whose name is sub
scribed to the aforegoing act, was and is a notary public,
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 handwriting 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 one
thousand seven hundred and eighty -seven. Which we
attest.
EDWARD COOPER,
Notary Public.
(Copy.) WILLIAM ABBOT,
Notary Public.

386 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 15. Page 160.
Note of the Archbishop.
The Archbishop desires to have the proper direction for
a letter to Bishop White at Falmouth; where, if he can
find 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 consecration in the
province of York. They have always been- attended by
two bishops with the archbishop*

No. 16. Page 160.
I. From his Excellency Richard Henry Lee, Esq., President
of Congress, to the Hon. John Adams, Esq., Minister Plen
ipotentiary to the Court of Great Britain.^
New York, October 24, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Having yesterday written a long letter to you, I have
now only to request your attention to the following busi
ness, which is of very great importance to those whom it
concerns; and who form a considerable portion of the citi-

* See ante, p. 152. Ed.
f 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
known to Mr. Adams. Therefore, the letter was written while Mr. Lee was
president, and must have been designed to carry with it the weight of his official
character.

APPENDIX. 387
zens of these states. The representatives of those profess
ing 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 Con
vention, for the purpose, among other things, of preserving
and maintaining a succession of divines in their Church, in
a manner which they judge consonant to the gospel, and
no way interfering with the religious or civil rights of
others, have sent an address to the archbishops and bish
ops of England, proposing a plan for the consecration of
American bishops. — It is imagined that before any thing
is done in this business by the bishops of England, they
will consult the King and ministry; who, it is apprehended,
may now, as heretofore, suppose that any step of the kind
being taken in England, might be considered here as an
officious intermeddling with our affairs, that would give
offence on this side the water. Should this be the case,
the Church of England members of Congress have the
greatest reliance on your liberal regard for the religious
rights of all men, that you will remove mistaken scruples
from the mind of administration, by representing how 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 fa
cilitate the business of ordination for our Church, and the
assembly of Virginia hath incorporated this society, under
which act of incorporation the assembly was held in that
state that sent both lay and clerical deputies to the General
Convention lately held in Philadelphia.

388 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
I have the honor 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 Amer
ica to the Court of London, at his House in Grosvenor Square, London.

2. From Mr. Adams to Mr. Lee, in answer*
Grosvenor Square, January 4, 1786.
Dear Sir,
A day or two after the receipt of your letter of Novem
ber 1, and that of Mr. Jay's which came with it, I wrote to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, by Col. Smith, for an hour
when I might have the honor to pay my respects to his
Grace, and was answ-ered very politely, that he would be
glad to have the honor of seeing me next day, between
eleven and twelve. Accordingly I went yesterday, and was
very agreeably received, by a venerable and a candid prel
ate, with whom I had before only exchanged visits of cere
mony. I told his Grace, that at the desire of two very
respectable characters in America, the late President of Con
gress and the present Secretary of State for the department
of foreign affairs, I had the honor to be the bearer to his
Grace of a letter from a convention of delegates from the
Episcopal Churches in most of the southern states, which
had been transmitted to me open, that I might be ac
quainted with its contents. That in this business, how
ever, I acted in no official character, having no instructions
from Congress, nor indeed from the Convention; but I
thought it most respectful to them, as well as to his Grace,
to present the letter in person. The Archbishop answered,

* There is in possession a copy of a letter to John Jay, Esq., containing the same
in substance; it being in answer to a letter of that gentleman, then Secretary of
State for foreign affairs.

APPENDIX. 389
that all that he could say at present was, that he was him
self very well disposed to give the satisfaction desired — for
that he was by no means one of those who wished that con
tention should be kept up between the two countries, or be
tween one party and another in America — but, on the con
trary, was desirous of doing every thing in his power to
promote harmony and good humor. 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 them
selves in it — for that the Episcopalians in the United States
could not have the full and complete enjoyment of their re
ligious liberties without it — and he subjoined, that it was
also a great satisfaction to him, to have received this visit
from me upon this occasion — and he would take the liberty
to ask me, if it were not an improper question, whether the
interposition of the English bishops would not give uneasi
ness and dissatisfaction in America ? I replied, that my
answer could be only that of a private citizen, and in that
capacity I had no scruple to say that the people of the
United States in general, were for a liberal and generous
toleration. I might indeed employ a stronger word, and
call it a right, and the first right of mankind, to worship
God according to their consciences, and therefore that I
could not see any reasonable ground for 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 Amer
ica, able men, of characters altogether irreproachable — and
that such and such only, I presumed, would be recom-

390 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
mended. 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, cer
tainly, 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 Canterbury 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 favor 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
ships, we hope may give a better chance of the early arrival
of one of them. I have the honor to be,
Sir, your most obedient,
Humble servant,
J. CANTUAR.

4. Certificate of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsyl
vania.
Pennsylvania, ss.
The supreme executive council ofthe Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and make known to all
whom it may concern, that agreeably to the frame of gov-

APPENDIX. 3QI
eminent and laws of this Commonwealth — the clergy and
others, members of the Church of England in Pennsylva
nia, are at liberty 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 honorable Charles
Biddle, Esquire, Vice President, and the seal of the
State, at Philadelphia, this twenty-fourth day of No
vember, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and eighty-five, and in the tenth year of the
Cotnmonwealth .
(Attest) CHARLES BIDDLE, V. P
JOHN ARMSTRONG, Jur., Sec.

5. A Certificate of his Excellency Patrick Henry, Esq., Gov
ernor of Virginia*
By his Excellency Patrick Henry, Esq. , Governor of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
It is certified and made known to all whom it may con
cern — That the Protestant Episcopal Church is incorpo
rated by an act of the legislature of this Commonwealth,
for that purpose, made and provided: that there is no law
existing in this Commonwealth, which in any manner for
bids the admission of bishops, 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 duty 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
* This copy of the certificate of the governor of Virginia, was sent to the author
by the Rev. Dr. Griffith, bishop-elect of that state, to be laid before the convention
of October, 1786.

392 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 hand, and
caused the seal of the Commonwealth to be affixed, at
Richmond, this first day of June, in the year of our
Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six, and
tenth of the Commonwealth.
P. HENRY.

No. 17. Page 161.
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 reports, which the committee had not put it in
their power to clear up, by sending them all the proceed
ings of the convention, they thought it their duty to act cau
tiously, and restrained their desire to meet our wishes, till
they had more full information on the subject. He said
it was unnecessary to enter into the various reports of al
terations said to be made, or intended by our Churches, for
he did not give credit to common reports, which are often
circulated without foundation. Some alterations, however,
it appeared, had been made, and what the rest were, could

APPENDIX.

393

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
which he considered it as a branch, and the bishops were
obliged to examine what Church ours was, before, from
their source, they established an Episcopacy over a people,
who might perhaps hold tenets opposite to theirs. He did
not know or believe this was the case with respect to us,
but it became them to inquire. He feared some of our
business had been done hastily. He showed me the an
swer to the address, which he said had been sincerely_/"<?/^
by every bishop who had signed it. He seemed very de
sirous of removing any doubts about their firm intentions
to comply with our wishes: showed me the original draft
of the answer in his handwriting. I observed there were
no alterations made in it, and among nineteen bishops,
who were all that were in town at the meeting of par
liament, there was not a dissenting voice. He hoped so
unanimous an opinion, must evidence, beyond a doubt, the
great desire all had to grant our request. They all, from
the bottom of their hearts, wished our 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 embarrassments, with
respect to the civil powers of the United States, were re
moved by the certificates and papers transmitted. He had
spoken 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 administration would pro
mote the law, when it was recommended by the bishops as
proper. They therefore, being in a responsible 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 of that kind in

394 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the bishops, or members of the government. He hoped
our convention, at the next meeting, would consider the
embarrassments too many alterations would throw in the
way of their application here, and if any of them sub
stantially deviated from the doctrines or worship of this
Church, it would frustrate the views of our Churches, by
putting it out of the power of those here, who have every
good disposition to serve us, to forward our application.
He wished great care might be taken of the character of
those sent for consecration, as much depended on this.
They should, 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 de
sired by Dr. White to put to him, respecting the validity
of Scotch consecrations, having first asked me whether the
question came from the convention ? I told him 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 altera
tions, they will be carped at by those who will make the
bishops uneasy; and to keep peace at home, they will re
fuse to meddle abroad, notwithstanding their strong desire
to do what we wish. I am gentlemen,
With much esteem,
Your very obedient servant,
RICHARD PETERS.
Rev. Dr. White. Rev. Dr. Smith, Rev. Mr. Provoost,
Hon. James Duane, Samuel Powell, Esq.

* Notwithstanding the prudent reserve of the Archbishop at this time, he is said
to have given his influence in favor of the nonjuring bishops about three years after
wards; when, on the decease of the last Pretender, they began to pray for the King
on the throne, and some of them came up to London, to solicit the repeal of the
penal laws made against them.

APPENDIX. 395
P. S. Mr. Adams has been very attentive to the business
of an address, with which he waited on the Archbishop.
who in return waited on him with the answer transmitted.
I think the committee should return him their thanks, for
the part he (Mr. Adams) has taken.
Do not publish the bishops' answer, as it will get over
here, and be a subject of newspaper discussion.

No. 1 8. Page 164.
An Act of the Clergy of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
The good Providence of Almighty God, the fountain of
all goodness, having lately blessed the Protestant Episco
pal 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 labors, advice, and
government ofthe successors ofthe apostles;
We, presbyters of said Church in the States of Massa
chusetts and New Hampshire, deeply impressed 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 all the means that Christ,
the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, has instituted for
leading His followers into the ways of truth and holiness,
and preserving His Church in the unity of the Spirit, and
the bond of peace; to the end that the people committed
to our respective charges may enjoy the benefit and advan
tage of those offices, the administration of which belongs to
the highest order of the ministry, and to encourage and
promote, as far as in us lies, a union of the whole Episco
pal Church 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
bishop; and we do promise and engage to receive him as

396 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
such, when canonically consecrated, and invested with the
apostolic office and powers, by the right reverend the bishops
hereafter named, and to render him all that canonical obe
dience and submission, which, by the laws of Christ and the
constitution of our Church, is due to so important an office.
And we now address the right reverend the bishops in
the States of Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania,
praying their united assistance in consecrating our said
brother, and canonically investing him with the apostolic
office and powers. This request we are induced to make,
from a long acquaintance with him, and from a perfect
knowledge of his being possessed of that love to God and
benevolence to men, that piety, learning, and good morals,
that prudence and discretion, requisite to so exalted a sta
tion, as well as that personal respect and attachment ofthe
communion at large in these states, which will make him
a valuable acquisition to the order, and, we trust, a rich
blessing to the Church.
Done at a meeting of the Presbyters, whose names are under
written, held at Salem, in the County of Essex, and Com
monwealth of Massachusetts, the fourth day of June, Anno
Salutis, 1789.
SAMUEL PARKER,
Rector of Trinity Church, Boston.
T. FITCH OLIVER,
Rector of St. Michael's Church, Marbkhead.
JOHN COUSENS OGDEN,
Rector of Queen's Chaj>el, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
WILLIAM MONTAGUE,
Minister of Christ Church, Boston.
TILLOTSON BRUNSON,
Assistant Minister of Christ Church, Boston.
Resolves on the foregoing.
ist. 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., Bishop

APPENDIX.

397

of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Penn
sylvania; the Right Rev. Samuel Provoost, D.D., Bishop of
the said Church in the State of New York; and the Right
Rev. Samuel Seabury, D.D., Bishop ofthe 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 Episcopal office
and character in these United States, as well in respect to
the consecration of other bishops, 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 the Church in
that case.
3d. Resolved, That in Christian charity, as well as of
duty, necessity, and expediency, the Churches represented
in this convention ought to contribute, in every manner in
their power, towards supplying the wants, and granting
every just and reasonable request of their sister Churches
in these states; and, therefore,
4th. Resolved, That the Right Rev. Dr. White, and the
Right Rev. Dr. Provoost, be, and they hereby are, requested
to join with the Right Rev. Dr. Seabury, in complying with
the prayer ofthe clergy ofthe States of Massachusetts and
New Hampshire, for the consecration of the Rev. Edward
Bass, bishop-elect of the Churches in the said states; but
that, before the said bishops comply with the request afore
said, it be proposed to the Churches in the New England
states, to meet the Churches of these states, with the said
three bishops, in an adjourned convention, to settle certain
articles of union and discipline among all the Churches,
previous to such consecration.
5th. Resolved, That if any difficulty or delicacy in re
spect 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 difficulty.

398 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 19. Page 165.
An Address to the Most Reverend the Archbishops of Can~
terbury and York.
Most Venerable and Illustrious Fathers
and Prelates,
We, the bishops, clergy and laity of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the States of New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South
Carolina, impressed with every sentiment of love and vene
ration, beg leave to embrace this earliest occasion, in Gen
eral 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
preside, for the manifold instances of your former conde
scension 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 organized, with the happy prospect before us of a fu
ture full and undisturbed exercise of our holy religion, and
its extension to the utmost bounds of this continent, under
an ecclesiastical constitution, and a form of worship, which
we believe to be truly apostolical.
The growing prospect of this happy diffusion of Christian
ity, and the assurance we can give you that our Churches
are spreading and flourishing throughout these United
States, we know, will yield you more solid joy, and be con
sidered as a more ample reward of your goodness to us,
than all the praises and expressions of gratitude which the
tongues of men can bestow.
It gives us pleasure to assure you, that, during the pres
ent sitting of our convention, the utmost harmony has
prevailed through all our deliberations, that we continue,

APPENDIX.

399

as heretofore, most sincerely attached to the faith and doc
trine of the Church of England: and that not a wish ap
pears to prevail, either among our clergy or laity, of ever
departing from that Church in any essential article.
The business of most material consequence which hath
come before us, at our present meeting, hath been an ap
plication from our sister Churches in the eastern states,
expressing their earnest desire of a general union of the
whole Episcopal Church in the United States, both in doc
trine and discipline; and, as a primary means of such union,
praying the assistance of our bishops in the consecration of
a bishop-elect for the States of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire. We therefore judge it necessary to accompany
this address with the papers which have come before us on
that very interesting subject, and of the proceedings we
have had thereupon, by which you will be enabled to judge
concerning the particular delicacy of our situation, and,
probably, to relieve us from any difficulties which 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 application 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 Con
necticut, 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 measures that may tend to promote a union of the
Episcopal Church throughout the United States of Amer
ica, or that may prove advantageous to the interest of the
said Church.
EDWARD BASS, Chairman.
A true copy.
(Attest) SAMUEL PARKER.

400 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
This was accompanied with a letter from the Rev. Sam
uel 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 Philadelphia would take.
When 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, no prospect of attending in person at your General Con
vention, next month, I am requested to transmit you an at
tested copy of an act of the clergy of this and the State of
New Hampshire, 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
honor 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 a
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 a united or divided Church. Some
little difference in government may exist in different states,
without affecting the essential points of union and com
munion." In the like spirit, the Right Rev. Dr. Seabury, Bishop of
the Church of Connecticut, in his letter to the Rev. Dr.
Smith, dated July 23d, writes on the subject of union, etc.,
as followeth: — " The wish of my heart, and the wish of the
clergy and of the Church people of this state, would 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 a union of all the

APPENDIX.

401

Churches, and the disadvantages of our present disunion,
we feel and lament equally with you; and I agree with you,
that there may be a strong and efficacious union between
Churches, where the usages are different. I see not why it
may not be so in the present case, as soon as you have re
moved those obstructions, which, while they remain, must
prevent all possibility of uniting. The Church of Connect
icut consists, at present, of nineteen clergymen in full
orders, and more than twenty thousand people, they sup
pose, as respectable as the Church in any state of the
union." After the most serious deliberation upon this important
business, and cordially joining with our brethren of the
eastern or New England Churches in the desire of union,
the following resolves were unanimously adopted in conven
tion, viz. —
[Here follow the resolves, as given in the preceding
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 bishops of
England, for the seven states comprehended within our pres
ent union. But that intention being frustrated through
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 favor and
blessing, and that, as soon as the urgency of other weighty
concerns of the Church will allow, we may be favored with
that fatherly advice and direction which to you may ap
pear most for the glory of God and the prosperity of our
Churches, upon the consideration of the foregoing docu
ments and papers.

402 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Done in Convention, this 8th day of August, 1789, and di
rected to be signed by all the members, as the act of their
body, and by the president officially*

No. 20. Page 170.
A General Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States of A merica.
Art. 1. There shall be a General Convention of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Amer
ica, on the first Tuesday of August, in the year of our Lord
1792, and on the first Tuesday of August in every third
year afterwards, in such place as shall be determined by the
convention; and special meetings may be called at other
times, in the manner hereafter to be provided for; and this
Church, in a majority of the states which shall have adopted
this constitution, shall be represented, before they shall pro
ceed to business, except that the representation from two
states shall be sufficient to adjourn; and in all business of
the convention, freedom of debate shall be allowed.
Art. 2. The Church in each state shall be entitled to a
representation of both the clergy and the laity; which rep
resentation 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 should neglect or decline to appoint clerical deputies,
or if they should neglect or decline to appoint lay deputies,
* Signed by the president and all the members.

APPENDIX.

403

or if any of those of either order appointed should neglect
to attend, or be prevented by sickness or any other acci
dent, such state shall nevertheless be considered as duly
represented by such deputy or deputies as may attend,
whether lay or clerical. And if, through the neglect of the
convention of any of the Churches which shall have adopt
ed, or may hereafter adopt this Constitution, no deputies,
either lay or clerical, should attend at any General Con
vention, 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
held, form a house of revision, and when any proposed act
shall have passed in the General Convention, the same
shall be transmitted to the house of revision, for their con
currence. And if the same shall be sent back to the con
vention, with the negative or non-concurrence of the house
of revision, it shall be again considered in the General Con
vention, 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
convention shall be authenticated by both houses. And in
all cases, the House of Bishops shall signify to the conven
tion their approbation or disapprobation, the latter with
their reasons in writing, within two days after the proposed
act shall have been reported to them for concurrence, and
in failure thereof it shall have the operation of a law. But
until there shall be three or more bishops, as aforesaid, any
bishop attending a General Convention, shall be a mem
ber ex-officio, and shall vote with the clerical deputies of
the state to which he belongs. And a bishop shall then
preside. Art. 4. The bishop or bishops in every state shall be
chosen agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by the con
vention of that state. And every bishop of this Church
shall confine the exercise of his Episcopal office to his

404 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
proper diocese or district, unless 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
hereafter, 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 ofthe
Episcopal order present; and none but a bishop shall pro
nounce sentence of deposition or degradation from the min
istry on any clergyman, whether bishop, 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, until he
shall have subscribed the following declaration: "I do be
lieve 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." No person ordained by a foreign
bishop shall be permitted to officiate as a minister of this
Church, until he shall have complied with the canon or
canons in that case provided, and have also subscribed the
aforesaid declaration.
Art. 8. 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
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, unless
in General Convention by the Church in a majority ofthe

APPENDIX. 405
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 deputies of the said
Churches, who, 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 nega
tive such acts proposed by the other house as they may
disapprove. " 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
is now possessed by the clergy or laity; and being sincerely
impressed with the importance of a 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 ofthe 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 be
come 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

406 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Third Article ofthe Constitution, so as to declare explicitly
" the right of the bishops, when sitting in a separate house,
to originate and propose acts for the concurrence of the
other house of convention; and to negative such acts pro
posed by the other house, as they may disapprove; pro
vided they are 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 Third 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 clergy 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 nega
tive thereupon, unless 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
concurrence : and in failure thereof, it shall have the opera
tion of a law. But tintil there shall be three or more bishops
as aforesaid, any bishop attending a General Convention shall
be a member, ex-offtcio, and shall vote with the clerical depu
ties of the state to which he belongs; and a bishop shall then
preside.

APPENDIX. 407
Acceptance by Bishop Seabury, and the Presbyters from New England.
October 2, 17S9,
We do hereby agree to the Constitution of the Church,
as modified this day in convention.
SAMUEL SEABURY, D.D.,
Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut.
ABRAHAM JARVIS, A.M.,
Rector of Christ Church, Middletown, Connecticut.
BELA HUBBARD, A.M.,
Rector of Trinity Church, New Haven, Connecticut '.
SAMUEL PARKER, D.D.,
Rector of Trinity Church, Boston, and Clerical Deputy for
Massachusetts and New Hampshire*

Letters of Consecration of Bishop Seabury.
IN DEI NOMINE. Amen.
Omnibus ubique Catholicis per Presentes pateat,
Nos, Robertum Kilgour, miseratione divina, Episcopum
Aberdonien — Arthurum Petrie, Episcopum Rossen et Mo-
ravien — et Joannem Skinner, Episcopum Coadjutorem;
Mysteria, Sacra Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Oratorio
supradicti Joannis Skinner apud Aberdoniam celebrantes,
Divini Numinis Praesidio fretos (presentibus tam e Clero,
quam e Populo testibus idoneis) Samuelem Seabury, Doc-
torem Divinitatis, sacro Presbyteratus ordine jam decora-
turn, ac nobis prae Vitae integritate, Morum probitate et
Orthodoxia, commendatum, et ad docendum et regendum
aptum et idoneum, ad sacrum et sublimem Episcopatus
Ordinem promovisse, et rite ac canonice, secundum Morem
et Ritus Ecclesise Scoticanse, consecrasse, Die Novembris

* The original, as is often the case with these documents, has abbrevia.
tions. Ed.

408 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
decimo quarto, Anno ^Erae Christianse Millesimo Septin-
gentesimo Octagesimo Quarto. —
In cujus Rei Testimonium, Instrumento huic {chirographis
nostris prius, munito) Sigilla nostra apponi mandavimus .
Robertus Kilgour, Episcopus, et Primus. (L. S.)
Arihurus Petrie. Episcopus. (L. S.)
yoannes Skinner, Episcopus. [L. S.)

No. 21. Page 199.
A Letter from the Rev. Dr. Coke, and the Answer*
Right Rev. Sir,
Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a sub
ject 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 favor 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
I went further in the separation of our Church in America,
than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commission,
did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he
had a right so to do, with Episcopal authority, but did not
intend, I think, that an entire separation should take place.
He, being pressed by our friends on this side of the water
for ministers to administer the sacraments to them (there
being very few ofthe clergy ofthe Church of England then
in the states), went further, I am sure, than he would have
gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. And
this I am certain of — that he is now sorry for the separation.
But what can be done for a reunion, which I much wish
* The original is in the Archives of the General Convention. Ed.

APPENDIX. 409
for, and to accomplish which, Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt,
would use his influence to the utmost ? The affection of a
very considerable number of the preachers and most of the
people, is very strong towards him, notwithstanding the 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 desir
able object; if a readiness were shown by the bishops of
the Protestant Episcopal Church to reunite.
It is even to your Church an object 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 local
preachers, very far exceeding the number of travelling
preachers; and some of those local preachers are men of
very considerable abilities. But if we number the Metho
dists as most people number the members of their Church,
viz., by the families which constantly attend the divine or
dinances 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 mankind are un-adult (if I may use the expression), at
any given period, it will follow that all the families, the
adults of which form our congregations in these states,
amount 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 breadth from the Atlantic to Lake
Champlain, Vermont, Albany, Redstone, Holstein, Ken
tucky .^Cumberland, etc.
But there are many hindrances in the way. Can they
be removed ?
I. Our ordained ministers will not, ought not, to give up
their right of administering the sacraments. I do not think

410 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
that the generality of them, perhaps none of them, would
refuse to submit to a re-ordination, if other hindrances
were removed out of the way. I 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 useful 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 lan
guages, yet their successors might not.
My desire of a reunion is so sincere and earnest, that
these difficulties almost make me tremble; 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 Europe
is, I doubt not, increasing, yet Mr. Asbury, whose influence
is very capital, will not easily comply; nay, I know he will
be exceedingly averse to it.
In Europe, where some steps had been taken, tending to
a separation, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined
enemy of it, and I have lately borne an open and success
ful testimony against it.
Shall I be favored with a private interview with you in
Philadelphia ? I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday,
the 17th of May. If this be agreeable, I will beg of you
just to signify it in a note, directed to me, at Mr. Jacob
Baker's, merchant, Market-street, Philadelphia; or, if you
please, by a few lines sent me by the return of the post, at
Philip Rogers's, Esq., in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr.
Magaw, and I will wait upon you with my friend Dr.
Magaw. We can then enlarge on these subjects.
I am conscious of it, that secrecy is of great importance

APPENDIX. 4 1 1
in the present state of the business, till the minds of you,
your brother bishops, and Mr. Wesley, be circumstantially
known. I must therefore beg that these things be confined
to yourself and Dr. Magaw, till I have the honor of seeing
you. Thus, you see, I have made a bold venture on your hon
or and candor, and have opened my whole heart to you
on the subject, as far as the extent of a small letter will
allow me. If you put equal confidence in me, you will find
me candid and faithful.
I have, notwithstanding, been guilty of inadvertencies.
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 I must write another to the Rev. Mr. Petti
grew. When I was last in 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 Mr. Asbury, without any correction,
entreating that no part of them might be printed which
would be improper or offensive. But through great inad
vertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections on the
characters ofthe two above-mentioned gentlemen to be in
serted in the magazine, for which I am very sorry: and
probably shall not rest till I have made my acknowledg
ment more public; though Mr. Jarratt does 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, ofthe use of your churches, about six years ago, on
my first visit to Philadelphia, without informing you of our
plan of separation from the Church of England. If I did
offend (as I doubt I did especially from what you said on
the subject to Mr. Richard Dellam, of Abington), I sin
cerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I will endeavor
to amend. But, alas ! I am a frail, weak creature.
I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I

412 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
will claim from your candor — that if you have no thoughts
of improving this proposal, you will burn this letter, and
take no more notice of it (for it would be a pity to have us
entirely alienated from each other, if we can not unite in
the manner my ardent wishes desire). But if you will fur
ther 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
scribe myself, Right Rev. Sir,
Your very humble servant in Christ,
THOMAS COKE.
Richmond, April 24, 1791.
The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop White.
You must excuse interlineations, etc., as I am just going
into the country, and have no time to transcribe.

Answer.
Rev. Sir,
My friend, Dr. Magaw, has this day put into my hands
your letter of the 24th of April, which, I trust, I received
with a sense of the importance of the subject, and of the
answer I am to give to God, for the improvement of every
opportunity of building up His Church. Accordingly, I
can not but make choice of the earliest of the two ways you
point out, to inform you that I shall be very happy in the
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. But I can say of the one and of
the other, that I do not think them insuperable, provided
there be a conciliatory disposition on both sides. So far as
I am concerned, I think that such a disposition exists.
It has not been my temper, Sir, to despond in regard to

APPENDIX. 413
the extension of Christianity in this new world: And in ad
dition to the promises of the Great Head of the Church, I
have always imagined that I perceived the train of second
causes so laid by the good providence of God, as to be 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, who pretend to confess the
divine authority of our holy religion, while they endeavor
to strip it of its characteristic doctrines. In this situation,
it is rather to be expected, that distinct Churches, agreeing
in fundamentals, should make mutual sacrifices for a union,
than that any Church should divide into two bodies, with
out a difference being even alleged to exist, in any leading
point. For the preventing of this, the measures which you
may propose can not fail of success, unless there be on one
side or on both, a most lamentable deficiency of Christian
temper. I remember the conversation you allude to with Mr. Del-
lam: I hope I did not express myself uncharitably, or even
indelicately. As to personal offence towards me, it is out
of the question: for I had not at that time any connection
with St. Paul's Church. But this, as well as the other parts
of your letter, may be discoursed of at the proposed inter
view. Therefore, with assurance of the desired secrecy,
and with requesting you to accept a like promise of candor
to that which I credit from you, I conclude myself at
present, Your brother in Christ,
And very humble servant,
W. W*

* The writer of the above answer kept silence on the subject of it, except in
the permitted communication to the bishops, until the summer of 1804; when he
received, in one day, two letters from the eastern shore of Maryland. One of
them was from the Rev. Simon Wilmer, of the Episcopal Church, and the other
was from the Rev. Mr. M'Klaskey, of the Methodist communion. In a conver
sation between these two gentlemen, the former had affirmed the fact of Dr.

414 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 22. Page 202.
Testimonial of the Rev. Charles Pettigrew.
We, the subscribers, having met in convention, at Tar-
borough, in North Carolina, on the 28th day of May, 1794,
for the purpose of considering the declining situation of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in this state, and having
chosen the Rev. Charles Pettigrew as a person fit to be our
bishop, and 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 personal acquaint
ance with one another to subscribe a testimonial in the
words prescribed by the General Convention of the Prot
estant Episcopal Church, have thought it necessary and
proper to make some deviation therefrom, which we pre
sume to hope will be no obstacle to our laudable pursuit.
We therefore do hereby recommend to be consecrated to
the office of a bishop, the said Rev. Charles Pettigrew,
whom, from his morality, religious principles, piety of life,
from his general reputation in a clerical character, from the
personal knowledge we have of him, and from his suffi
ciency in good learning, and soundness in the faith, we are
induced to believe worthy of being consecrated to that im
portant office. We hereby promise and engage to receive
him as such when canonically consecrated and invested
therewith, and to render that canonical obedience which
we believe to be necessary 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 conse-
Coke's application, which was disbelieved by the other. This produced their re
spective letters, which were answered by a statement of the fact. The matter-
being afterwards variously reported, a copy of the letter was, after some lapse of
time, delivered io the Rev. Dr. Kemp, of Maryland, and at last became published
in a controversy raised in the diocese.

APPENDIX. 415
crating this our said brother, and canonically investing him
with the apostolic office and powers. In testimony where
of, we hereunto subscribe our names, the day and year
above written.
N. BLOUNT,
J. L. WILSON,
J. GURLEY,
S. HALLING,
R. J. MILLER,
J. LEIGH, M.D.,
J. GUION, M.D,
R. WHYTE, ) T
B. WOODS, } Lawyers-
W. CLEMENTS,
L. DESSEAUX,
W. GRIMES,
R. GODLY,

-Of the clergy.

-Of the laity.

No. 23. Page 203.
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 requires consideration.
From the proceedings of the two last General Conventions,
held at Philadelphia and New York, it has, with regret,
been found by the representatives of this state, that the
intention of all the eastern states was to form two separate
* In the document 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 faithful
representation of the instrument : the framers of which were careful to give this
explanation of their design ; however beneath them an attention to the laws of
grammar.

416 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
houses of discussion on the forms and propagation of re
ligion. 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 two thirds of the
other, must be obtained, to effectually carry any proposi
tion into effect. But in these two last meetings as above,
many proposed, that the House of Bishops should have "an
absolute negative" over the clergy and laity. To this Vir
ginia and South Carolina were firmly opposed; the eastern
states as firmly supported. The next General Convention
will be held at Philadelphia, where we wish to be repre
sented, but upon the same determination, if approved by the
vestries of our associated churches in this state, of opposi
tion to the absolute negative; which, more than probably,
will cause a secession of this state and Virginia from the
general association. Considering the situation we shall
then be left in, we are desirous, by the blessing of Al
mighty 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, confirma
tion. 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 divinity, and by selecting some worthy and good man,
resident in a parish, and desirous of taking the office of the
ministry upon him, and having him ordained, we shall be
better enabled to have our churches provided than we are
at present by the clergy which we have of late experienced
from Europe, or from our 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 arguments of desertion from
their parishes, will in some measure, if not totally, lose
their effect: and as, in that case, the minister may have

APPENDIX.

417

some property of his own, the subscription of parishes
where small, will in this manner be rendered sufficiently
ample; as well as the doctrines propagated consistent with
the situation the Almighty has been pleased to allot us.
We beg leave further to mention, not with an intention to
bias your opinion, but as a reason for our present applica
tion, that Virginia has pursued the steps marked out, and
with the blessing of heaven upon their endeavors, and
under the direction and guardianship of Bishop Madison*
have obtained sixty good and reputable divines, men, if but
of moderate learning, of sound and good morals, who 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 dis
tressed 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 what they are pleased to send, or
humbly entreat their favors to ordain for us, which might
be refused after our secession, we have presumed to address
you, hoping when these important concerns shall come
before you, you will not refuse to lend us your aid, both in
consulting in the most public manner the sentiments of our
brethren at large, and informing us of them, by a repre
sentative 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 ap
pointed this day in particular (anxiously desirous of being
fully represented), as it is the day previous to the anniver
sary meeting of the Revolution society, to commemorate
the birthday of General Washington, and conceiving many
gentlemen may be in town upon so pleasing an occasion.
And we are, gentlemen, with all respect and esteem,
Your humble servants.
* Who showed himself very indignant at the intended compliment.
27

41 8 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 24. Page 211.
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,
that, induced by ill health, and some melancholy occur
rences in my family, and an ardent wish to retire from all
public employment, I resigned, at the last meeting of our
Church convention, my jurisdiction as bishop of the Prot
estant Episcopal Church in the State of New York.
" I am, with great regard,
" Dear and Right Rev. Sir,
" Your affectionate brother,
" SAMUEL PROVOOST.
"Right Rev. Bishop White''
The House of Bishops having considered the subject
brought 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
believe, that the contemplated resignation is consistent
with ecclesiastical order, or with the practice of Episcopal
Churches in any ages, or with the tenor of the office of
consecration. 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
recognize 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
* See ante, pp. 31, 314. Ed.

APPENDIX.

419

of the duties of the Episcopacy, the bishops of this house
are ready to consecrate to the office of bishop, any person
who may be presented to them with the requisite testimo
nials 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 shall
be discharged by him, to be dependent on such regulations
as expediency may dictate to the Church in New York,
grounded on the indisposition of Bishop Provoost, and with
his concurrence.

No. 25. Page 219. ,.
Forms of Subscription.
Form in this Church — "I do believe the Holy Scriptures
ofthe 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 wor
ship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United
States." Form in the Church of England — The Thirty-sixth Can
on 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 sig
nify 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."

420 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 26. Page 224.
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 evi
dence that could be procured, it appears to this house, that
the said Ammi Rogers had produced to the Standing Com
mittee of New York (upon the strength of which he ob
tained 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 ofthe said Ammi Rogers in the State
of Connecticut, during his 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
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 ? 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 Connecti
cut, it is to the authority of that diocese he is exclusively
amenable. But as the imposition practised with a view to
the ministry was in New York, we recommend to the bishop

APPENDIX. 42I
and Standing Committee of that state, to send to the bishop
in Connecticut such documents, duly attested, ofthe meas
ure 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 an
other copy to the Rev. Ammi Rogers. And we further
direct, that either of the aforesaid parties be permitted
to have any documents respectively delivered in by them,
a copy of it being first taken; except the petition and affi
davit 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 259.
Of the Homilies.
The House of Bishops, taking into consideration, that
the two books of Homilies are referred to in the Thirty-fifth
Article of this Church, as containing a body of sound Chris
tian doctrine; and knowing, by their respective experience,
the scarcity of the volume, rendering it difficult for some
candidates in the ministry to possess opportunities of study
ing 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 bishop, to be furnished (as soon as may be) with a copy
or copies of said work, and to require it to be studied by all
candidates for the ministry within their respective bounds;
under the expectation, that when offering for ordination, the
knowledge of its contents will be indispensably required.
This was concurred in by the House of Clerical and Lay
Deputies.

422 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No 28. Page 260.
Concerning Posture during Psalmody.
Whereas a diversity of custom has of late years prevailed
in the posture of ministers and of the people, during the
act of singing the psalms and the hymns in metre; the for
mer practice of sitting during this part of the service grad
ually giving way to the more comely posture of standing;
it is hereby recommended by this convention, that it be
considered as the duty of the ministers of this Church, to
encourage the use of th,e latter posture, and to induce the
members of their congregations, as circumstances may per
mit, to do the same; allowance to be made for cases, in
which it may be 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.
The 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 explain
ing satisfactorily the grounds ofthe measure.

No. 29. Page 261.
Of a Proposal of ' nezu Anthems, and of Sanction requested in
favor of a proposed Book.
The following proposition was submitted and agreed
to, and communicated to the House of Clerical and Lay
Deputies.

APPENDIX.

423

The House of Bishops communicated to the House of
Clerical and Lay Deputies, the following resolve, and the
following rule of the House of Bishops, to be entered on
their journal after being returned by the House of Clerical
and Lay Deputies.
There was laid before the house, an address from the
Rev. Dr. William Smith, of Connecticut, together with sun
dry 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 anthems
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.

424 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 30. Page 266.
Concerning the Identity of this Church with the former Church
of England in A merica.
The following declaration was proposed and agreed to:
It having been credibly stated to the House of Bishops,
that on questions in reference to property devised before
the revolution, to congregations belonging to "the Church
»f England," and to uses connected with that name, some
doubts have been entertained in regard to the identity of
the body to which the two names have been 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
posing the independence of Christian Churches, under the
different sovereignties, to which, respectively, their allegi
ance in civil concerns belongs. But that when the sever
ance alluded to took place, and ever since, this Church con
ceives 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
exercised 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 La}- Deputies, they returned for an
swer, that they concurred therein.

APPENDIX. 425
No. 31. Page 272.
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 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 ten
dency, as from the strong temptations to vice which they
afford, ought not to be frequented. And the bishops can
not refrain from expressing their deep regret at the infor
mation, that in some of our large cities, so little respect
is paid to the feelings of the members of the Church, that
theatrical representations are fixed for the evenings of her
most solemn festivals.

From 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 from acknowledged sin. There
are practices so nearly allied, and so easily abused to it,
that we conceive of a professor of religion in duty bound
either not to countenance them in the least degree; or, as
is allowable in regard to some ofthe matters contemplated,
to avoid the so employing of time, and the so lavishing of
affection, as puts into a state of sin, although not necessa-

426 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
rily belonging to the subject. We would be far from an en
deavor after an abridgment of Christian liberty. But we
can not forget, that in a list of the classes of evil livers,
there is introduced the description of persons who are
"lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God"; nor, in
respect to the female professors of religion in particular,
the admonition, that " she who liveth in pleasure is dead
while she liveth." We are aware of the difficulty of draw
ing the line between the use of the world and the abuse of
it: that being conceived of by different persons equally
pious and virtuous, according to the diversity of natural
temperament, and of the states of society in which they
have been placed by education or by habit: but we know,
that where the conscience can reconcile itself to the draw
ing as near to the territory of sin, as it can persuade itself
to be consistent with the still standing on secure ground,
deadness to spiritual good at the best, but more commonly
subjection to its opposite is the result.
In speaking of subjects of the above description, we
would not be understood to class among them any practice
which is either immoral in itself, or so customarily accom
panied by immorality, that the one is necessarily counte
nanced with the other. Of the former description, is gam
ing in all the variety of its exercise: and the like may be
said of whatever involves cruelty to the lower animals of
the creation. If the same can not be affirmed of works of
fiction, and of putting speeches into the mouths of feigned
characters, for the purpose of instruction or of entertain
ment; yet, as the question is applicable 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 cor
ruption. We lay little stress on the plea, that it is a mat
ter practicable in social institutions, to purge the subject
from the abuses, which have been attached to it. When
this shall have been accomplished, it will be time to take
another ground. But, in truth, we are not persuaded of

APPENDIX. 427
the possibility of the thing, when we consider that the
prominent and most numerous patrons of the stage are
always likely to be the least disposed to the seriousness
which should enter into whatever is designed to discrim
inate 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 charac
ters are to be adjusted to the taste of so great a proportion
ofthe 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 con
fessed 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, that such a
recurrence must be unwelcome to him from some enjoy
ment not congenial with holy exercise, ought to be de
clined 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 dis
charge ofthe duties ofthe ministry.

428 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
No. 32. Page 274.
Acts ofthe Convention of 1785.
A General Ecclesiastical Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States of America.
Whereas, in the course of Divine Providence, the Prot
estant 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 Church, 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
constitution of ecclesiastical government, agreeably to cer
tain fundamental principles, expressed in the said recom
mendation and proposal: —
And whereas, in consequence of the said recommenda
tion and proposal, Clerical and Lay Deputies have been
duly appointed from the said Church, in the States of New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Vir
ginia, 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 Amer
ica, which shall be held in the City of Philadelphia, on the

APPENDIX.

429

third Tuesday in June, in the year of our Lord 1786, and
forever after, once in three years, on the third Tuesday
of June, in such place as shall be determined by the con
vention; and special meetings may be held at such other
times, and in such place, as shall be hereafter provided for;
and this Church, in a majority of the states aforesaid, shall
be represented before they shall proceed to business; ex
cept that the representation of this Church from two states,
shall be sufficient to adjourn; and in all business of the
convention, freedom of debate shall be allowed.
2. There shall be a representation of both clergy and
laity ofthe 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 suffrages shall be conclusive.
3. In the said Church, in every state represented in this
convention, there shall be a convention consisting of the
clergy and lay deputies of the congregations.
4. "The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration
ofthe 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 con
formable to the American Revolution and the Constitutions
ofthe respective States."
5. In every state where there shall be a bishop duly
consecrated 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 fixed by the respective
conventions; and every bishop of this Church shall confine
the exercises of his Episcopal office to his proper jurisdic-

430 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
tion, unless requested to ordain or confirm by any Church
destitute of a bishop.
7. A Protestant Episcopal Church in any ofthe United
States, not now represented, may, at any time hereafter, be
admitted, on acceding to the articles of this union.
8. Every clergyman, whether bishop, 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 in
stitute 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 maybe further alterations ofthe Liturgy,
than such as are made necessary by the American revolu
tion; therefore, the " Book of Common Prayer, and Adminis
tration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies
ofthe 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
Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies ofthe Church,
according to the use ofthe Church 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 Convention.
IO. No person shall be ordained or permitted to officiate
as a minister in this Church, until he shall have subscribed
the following declaration: "I do 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 deter
mined 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 rati-

APPENDIX.

431

fied by the Church in the different states, shall be consid
ered as fundamental; and shall be unalterable by the con
vention ofthe Church in any state.

Alterations agreed on and confirmed in Convention, for ren
dering the Liturgy conformable to the Principles of the
A tnerican Revolution, and the Constitutions of the several
States. ist. That in the suffrages, after the Creed, instead of 0
Lord, save the king, be said, 0 Lord, bless and preserve these
United States.
2d. That the prayer for the royal family, in the Morn
ing and Evening Service, be omitted.
3d. That in the Litany the fifteenth, sixteenth, seven
teenth, and eighteenth petitions be omitted; and that in
stead of the twentieth and twenty-first petitions be sub
stituted the following — that it may please thee to endue the
Congress of these United States, and all others in authority,
legislative, executive, and judicial, zvith grace, wisdom, and
understanding, to execute justice and maintain truth.
4th. That when the Litany is not said, the prayer for the
high court of parliament may be thus altered — "Most gra
cious God, we humbly beseech thee, as for these United States
in general, so especially for their delegates in Congress, that
thou wouldest be pleased to direct and prosper all their con
sultations to ihe advancement of thy glory, the good of thy
Church, the safety, honor and welfare of thy people; that all
things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavors, upon
¦the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness,
truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established
among us for all generations]' etc., to the end: and the
prayer for the king's majesty, as follows, viz. — 0 Lord, our
heavenly Father, the high and mighty Ruler of the universe,
who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth;
we most heartily beseech thee, with thy favor, to behold all in
authority, legislative, executive, and judicial in these United

432 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
States; and so replenish them with the grace of thy Holy
Spirit, that they may alway incline to thy zvill, and walk in
thy way. Endue them plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant
them in health and wealth long to live, and that after this
life, they may attain everlasting joy and felicity, through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
5th. That the first collect for the King in the Commun
ion Service be omitted; and that the second be altered as
follows — instead of " the hearts of kings are in thy rules and
governance" — be said, "the hearts of all rulers are in thy
governance;" and instead of the words — "heart of George,
thy servant," insert — " so to direct the rulers of these states"
etc., changing the singular pronouns to the plural.
7th. That in the answer in the Catechism to the ques
tion — "What is thy duty towards thy neighbor?" for "to
honor and obey the king" be substituted — "to honor and
obey my civil rulers, to submit myself" etc.
8th. That instead of the observations of the 5th of No
vember, the 30th of January, the 29th of May, and the 25th
of October, the following service be used on the 4th of July,
being the anniversary of independence.
9th. That in the forms of prayer to be used at sea, in
the prayer " 0 eternal God" etc., instead of those words — -
' ' unto our most gracious sovereign Lord King George and
his kingdoms" be inserted the words — "the United States
of America; " and that instead of the word "island" be in
serted the word "country" ; and that in the collect, "0
Almighty God, the Sovereign Commander," etc., be omitted
the words — " the honor of our sovereign," and the words
" the honor of our country " inserted.

Service for the Fourth of July.
Willi the Sentences before Morning and Evening Prayer.
The Lord hath been mindful of us, and he shall bless us,
he shall bless them that fear the Lord, both small and

APPENDIX. 433
great. O that men would therefore praise the Lord for his
goodness, and declare the wonders that he doeth for the
children of men.

Hymn instead of the Venite.
My song shall be alway of the loving-kindness of the
Lord: with my mouth will I ever be showing his truth from
one generation to another. Psalm Ixxxix. i.
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 always be chiding; neither keepeth he
his anger forever. 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,
like as silver is tried. Psalm lxvi. 9.
Thou didst remember us in our low estate, and redeem
us from our enemies ; for thy mercy endureth forever.
Psalm cxxxvi. 23, 24.
Proper Psalms 118, except ver. 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23,
to conclude with ver. 24.
ist Lesson, Deut. viii. 2d Lesson, Thess. v. i2-23d,
both inclusive.

434 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Collect for the Day.
Almighty God, who hast in all ages showed forth thy
power and mercy in the wonderful preservation of thy
Church, and in the protection of every nation and people
professing thy holy and eternal truth, and putting their
sure trust in thee; we yield thee our unfeigned thanks and
praise for all thy public mercies, and more especially for
that signal and wonderful manifestation of thy providence
which we commemorate this day; wherefore not unto us,
O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name be ascribed all
honor and glory, in all Churches of the saints, from genera
tion 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 thankfulness 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 soli
tary place be glad through us, and the desert rejoice and
blossom as the rose. This we beg through the merits of
Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen*

* The Epistle and the Gospel were added by the Committee, agreeably to an
authority which they conceived to be vested in them.

APPENDIX. 435
Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, and Administra
tion of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of
the Church, according to the use ofthe Church of England,
proposed and recommended to the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States of A mcrica.
The order for morning and evening service daily,
throughout the year.
ist. The following sentences of Scripture are ordered to
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 ofthe sun even unto the going down of
the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles;
and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name,
and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the
Heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. Mal. i. 11.
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 be made by the minister alone,
standing, concerning the forgiveness of sins."
3d. That in the Lord's Prayer, the word "who" be sub
stituted in the room of "which," and that " those who tres
pass " stand instead of " them that trespass!'
4th. That the " Gloria Patri" be omitted after the " O
come let us sing," etc., and in every other place, where, by
the present rubric it is ordered to be inserted, to "the end.
ofthe " reading psalms; when shall be said or sung " Gloria
Patri" etc., or, " Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace,
good will tozvards men," etc., at the discretion of the min
ister. 5th. That in the " Te Deum" instead of " honorable" it
be " adorable, true, and only Son;" and instead of " didst not
abhor the Virgins womb," "didst humble thyself to be born
of a Virgin"

436 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
6th. That until a proper selection of psalms be made,
each minister be allowed to use such as he may choose.
7th. That the same liberty be allowed respecting the
lessons. Sth. That the article in "the Apostles' Creed," " he de
scended into hell," be omitted.
9th. That the Athanasian and the Nicene Creeds be en
tirely omitted.
10th. That after the response, " and with thy Spirit," all
be omitted to the words " 0 Lord, show thy mercy upon us;"
which the minister shall pronounce, still kneeling.
nth. That in the suffrage, "make thy chosen people joy
ful" the word "chosen" be omitted; and also the following
suffrages, to " 0 God, make clean our hearts within us."
12th. That the rubric after these words, "and take not
thy Holy Spirit from us," be omitted. Then the two collects
to be said: in the collect for grace, the words " be ordered"
to be omitted; and the word "be" inserted, instead of "to
do alway that is."
13th. In the collect "for the clergy and people," read — -
"Almighty aud everlasting God, send dozen upon all bishops
and other pastors, and the congregations committed to their
charge" etc., to the end.
14th. [Here is an erasure from the manuscript: the ar
ticle being found a repetition of part of the thirteenth.*]
15th. That the Lord's Prayer after the Litany, and the
subsequent rubric, be omitted.
16th. That the short Litany be read as follows — "Son of
God, zve beseech thee to hear us. Son of God, zee beseech thee
to hear us. 0 Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the
zvorld, grant us thy peace. 0 Christ, hear us. 0 Christ,
hear us. Lord, have mercy upon us, and deal not with us ac
cording to our sins, neither reward us according to our iniqui
ties!' After which, omit the words — " Let us pray!'
17th. That the Gloria Patri, after 0 Lord, arise, etc., be
* Should read fourth. Ed.

APPENDIX. 437
omitted; as also "Let us pray!' after " zve put our trust iu
thee!' 18th. That in the following prayer, instead of "right
eously have deserved" it be "justly have deserved!'
19th. That in the first warning for the communion, the
word "damnation," following the words "increase your," be
read "condemnation"; and the two paragraphs after these
words — "or else come not to that holy table," be omitted,
and the following one be read, "and if there be any of you
who, by these means, can not quiet their conscience," etc. The
words "learned aiid 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, etc., to drink his blood, so
is the danger great, if zve receive the same unworthily.
Judge therefore yourselves," etc.
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" etc.
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" etc., say —
"release him from sin;" and in the second prayer, instead of
"remission of his sins" read — remission of sin."
24th. That in the questions addressed to the sponsors,
and the answers, instead of the present form, it be as follows
— "the sinful desires of the flesh."
25th. "Dost thou believe the articles ofthe Christian faith,
as contained in the Apostles' Creed, and wilt thou endeavor to
have this child instructed accordingly?" Answer: " I do
believe them, and by God's help will endeavor so to do!'
" Wilt thou endeavor to have him brought up in the fear of
God, and to obey God's holy will and commandments ? " An
swer: "/ will, by God's assistance!'
26th. That the sign of the cross may be omitted, if par
ticularly desired by the sponsors or parents, and the prayer

438 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 lie may never be ashamed" etc., to the
end. 27th. That the address — "seeing now, dearly beloved"
etc., be omitted.
28th. That the prayer after the Lord's Prayer be thus
changed — "we yield thee our hearty thanks" etc., to " receive
this infant as thine own child by baptism, and to incorpor
ate him" etc.
29th. That in the following exhortation, the words "to
renounce the devil and all his zvorks" and in the charge to
the sponsors, the words "vulgar tongue," be omitted.
30th. That the forms of private baptism and confirma
tion be made conformable to these alterations.
31st. That in the exhortation before matrimony, all be
tween these words, "holy matrimony, and therefore if any
man," etc., 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
worship; " 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 "unbap-
tised" to be omitted.
In the declaration and forms of interment, beginning —
" forasmuch as," etc., insert the following — "Forasmuch as
it hath pleased Almighty God, in his zvise providence, to take
out of this zvorld the soul of our deceased brother [sister], zve
therefore commit his [her] body to the ground — earth to earth,
ashes to ashes, dust to dust; looking for the general resurrec
tion in the last day, and the life of the zvorld to come, through
our Lord Jesus Christ; at zvhose second coming, in glorjous
majesty, to judge the zvorld, the earth and the sea shall give
up their dead; and the corruptible bodies of those zvho sleep
in him, shall be changed, and made like unto his glorious body,

APPENDIX. 439
according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue
all things unto himself.
In the sentence "/ heard a voice," etc., insert " zvho" 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 ofthe 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, may be used.
In the psalm, omit the third, sixth, eighth, ninth, and
eleventh verses. In the commendatory prayer, for " miser
able and naughty" say "vain and miserable!' Strike out
the word "purged!'
In the " prayer for persons troubled in mind," omit all
that stands between the words " afflicted servant" and "his
soul is full" etc., and instead thereof say "afflicted servant,
whose soul is full of trouble" and strike out the particle
" but," and proceed, " 0 merciful God" etc.
36th. A form of prayer and visitation of prisoners for
notorious crimes, and especially persons 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 171 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 " 0 Saviour of the
world" etc., to be left out; and for the word "frailness" say
"frailty!' 37th. In the Catechism, besides the alteration respect-

440 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
ing civil rulers, alter as follows, viz., " What is your name?
N. M. When did you receive this name ? I received it in
baptism, zvhcreby I became a member of the Christian Church.
What zvas promised for you in baptism ? 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 .
"Dost thou think thou art bound to believe all the articles
of the Christian faith, as contained in the Creed, and to
obey God's holy will, and keep his commandments ? Yes,
verily" etc.
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."
38th. Instead of a particular service for the churching of
women, and psalms, the following special prayer is to be
introduced, after the general thanksgiving, viz. This to
be said when any woman desires to return thanks. " 0
Almighty God, we give thee most humble and hearty thanks,
for that thou hast been graciously pleased to preserve this
zuoman thy servant, through the great pains and perils of
child-birth. Lncline her, zve 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 honor and glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen!' 39th. The commination office for Ash Wednesday to be
discontinued, and therefore the three collects, the first be
ginning — " 0 Lord, zve beseech thee!' — 2d. " 0 most mighty
God," — 3d. " Turn us, 0 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.

APPENDIX. 441
Articles of Religion.
I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
There is but one living, true, and eternal God, the Fa
ther 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, where
of 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 rose again from death, ascended into
heaven, and there sitteth until he shall return to judge the
world at the last day: and one Holy Spirit, the Lord and
Giver of life, of the same divine nature with the Father and
the Son. 2. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva
tion: 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 we 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, Ruth, 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

442 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Second Book of Chronicles, The First Book of Esdras,
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 Hierome 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 Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The
Second 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
Old Testament and the New; for in both, everlasting life
is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator
between God and man: and although the law given by
Moses, as to ceremonies and the civil precepts of it, doth
not bind Christians; yet all such are obliged to observe the
moral 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,

APPENDIX. 443
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 endeav
ors to keep the whole law of God, so far as we possibly
can. 6. Of Free-Will.
The condition of man, after the fall of Adam, is such,
that he can not turn and prepare himself, by his own nat
ural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon
God: wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleas
ing 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 fustification 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, can not put away our sins, and
endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleas
ing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out
necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by
them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree
discerned by the fruit.

444 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 world:
and sin was not in him. But all mankind besides, although
baptized and born again in Christ, do offend in many things.
For if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us. 10. Of Sin after Baptism.
They who fall into sin after Baptism may be 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 re
pentance and the amendment of our lives, be restored
again to his favor. 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. 1 1 . 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.

APPENDIX. 445

12. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They are to be accounted presumptuous, who say, that
every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he pro-
fesseth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to
that law, and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth
set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men
must be saved.

13. Of the Church and Us Authority.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful
men, wherein the true Word of God is preached, and the
sacraments are duly administered, according to Christ's or
dinance 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 gov
ernment thereof; so that all things be done to edifying.
But it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing con
trary to God's Word, nor so to expound the Scripture, as
to make one part seem repugnant to another; nor to de
cree or enforce any thing to be believed as necessary to
salvation, that is not contained in the Scriptures. General
Councils and Churches are liable to err, and have erred,
even in matters of faith and doctrine, as well as in their
ceremonies. 14. Of Ministering in the Congregation.
It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office
of public 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.

446 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
15. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained by Christ 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
doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and 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 ofthe
Lord. 1 6. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not merely a sign of profession, and mark of
difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from
others that are not christened; but it is also a sign of
regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument,
they who receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the
Church; the promises of the 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.
1 7. 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 ofthe blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of
bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, can not be
proved by Holy Writ: but is repugnant to the plain words

APPENDIX. 447
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.
1 8. 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.
19. 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 revolution, is to be adopted,
as containing all things necessary to such consecration and
ordering. 20. Of a Christian Mans 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. 351.]

* The Articles will be found verbatim in the Handbook, pp. 34~39i and in a
note, p. 40, it is said, "The comparison of the Articles as they are printed above,
with those that appear in the ' Proposed Book ' and in Bp. White's Memoirs, will
of itself alone prove the liberties taken by Drs. Smith and White by virtue of their
appointment ' to make verbal and grammatical corrections.' " See the general re
mark on this subject. Ed.

448 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 respec
tive states: as was also the address to the English prelates,
published in the journal of 1786.]

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 forever, as a day of thanksgiving
to Almighty God, for the inestimable blessings of religious
and civil liberty vouchsafed to the United States of America.
On motion, Resolved, That the first Thursday in Novem
ber in every year forever, shall be observed by this Church
as a day of general thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the
fruits of the earth, and for all the other blessings of his
merciful providence. *
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to publish the
Book of Common Prayer, with the alterations, as well as
those now ratified, in order to render the Liturgy consistent
with the American revolution, and the constitutions of the
respective states, as the 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 that the committee
have the liberty to make verbal and grammatical correc
tions; but in such manner 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.
* The preparing of a suitable service was left to the committee.

APPENDIX. 449

Ordered, That 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 t' e net 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 Book of Common Prayer, such of the
reading 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.*
[The Appendix of the first edition here concluded.]

No. 33. Page 58.
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, unanimously propose the following resolution: —
Resolved, That after the present preface in the Office of
Confirmation, the following be inserted, to be used instead
ofthe former, at the discretion of the bishop: — "It appears
from Holy Scripture, that the apostles laid their hands on
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;
and is very convenient, and proper to be observed, to the
end that persons being sufficiently instucted in what they
promised, or what was promised for them in their Baptism,
and being, in other respects, duly qualified, may them
selves, with their own mouth and consent, openly before
* See ante, p. 000, where Bishop White says, "The labors of the Convention
had not reached their object." Ed.

450 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
the Church, ratify and confirm the same, and also promise,
that by the grace of God, they will evermore endeavor
themselves faithfully to observe such things as they, by
their own confession, 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 unanimously propose the follow
ing resolution: —
Resolved, That after the first collect in the Office of
Confirmation, the following be inserted, to be used at the
discretion of the bishop, instead of the first collect, "Al
mighty and everliving God, who hast vouchsafed, in Bap
tism, 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 dost graciously confirm unto them, ratify
ing the 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 power 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 forever. Amen."

No. 34. Page 306.
In the convention of 1821, the House of Bishops com
municated to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, their
disapprobation of what they conceived to be a mistaken
construction of the last rubric in the service for the admin
istration 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: —

APPENDIX. 45I
Concerning the last Rubric in the Communion Service.
The House of Bishops being informed of what they con
sider 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 the parenthesis are — " if there be no commun
ion." In the review of 1789, it was put — "if there be no
sermon or communion " — 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: —
ist. 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 there 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 whole service on
a communion day; whereas it should be dispensed with, on
the same principle on which it is supposed 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 when 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.

452 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
3d. There is a rubric prescribing the place in the service,
at which notice shall be given of holy days, etc. Can it be
supposed, that a provision of this sort was intended to be
done away, not professedly, but indirectly? and that even
there should be no provision for notifying the communion ?
4th. 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.
Probably, at the time of the Reformation, the practice was
generally conformable to the provision; and it is said to pre
vail at present in some places in England. Now, although
there is probably no Church in the United States of which
the same can be affirmed, yet, why raise a bar against so
reasonable and so godly a practice ? 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 dispenses with the recital of the con
summation of our Saviour's sufferings, and not only on Good

APPENDIX. 453
Friday, but on every day of Passion Week, if there be ser
mons. Could this have been intended ?
6th. 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 consequences, and such as could not have
escaped the notice of the least attentive, were the dispens
ing with the reading ofthe 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 pas
sages 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
stood, in some measure, its systematic hostility to a general
knowledge ofthe Scriptures; and, probably, have prevented
a greater enormity of unevangelical error, than what we
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 present
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 sermon
is expected to be 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-communion service continued to be used
as before, by the clergy who were present in the conven
tion, in which it is now imagined to have been dispensed

454

MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.

with. It is confidently believed, that there was not an ex
ception of an individual; although, on the other side, the
major 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 of for a long course of years.
The question may occur — Why did the convention in
troduce 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
minister's proceeding to the Blessing. The parenthesis
means, that although there be no 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 Ser
vice, 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.
Having reviewed the above instrument, 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, although 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, can not but refuse to officiate, with
the omission of the ante-communion, however sanctioned
by the custom of a particular place: and although the

APPENDIX. 455
stated minister should condescend to tolerate a practice
different from his own, yet the diversity can not but have a
disparaging tendency in the estimation of a congregation.
Secondly. The conscience of every bishop is occasion
ally implicated in the subject. A deacon offers for the
priesthood, 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 con
formity 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 supposed cases, the party may
have conducted himself conscientiously, and agreeably to
his own interpretation of the rubric. Let this be supposed
the case; but let it also be granted, that the bishop, in tak
ing his line of conduct, has also a conscience to be satis
fied, and a right of interpretation to be sustained. At the
same time let it be remembered, that of those who reject
the 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 other, may press on the conscience of a bishop, 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 prepared for him; with the under
standing in the minds of his consecrators, that he 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 ofthe
whole legislative authority of the Church; leading, in its
consequences, to the setting aside of a very great propor
tion of the Book of Common Prayer. In our former com
munication we admitted, and now admit, that the favorers
of the innovation are in the habit of using the ante-com-

456 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
munion service on all occasions ofthe administration ofthe
communion. We remarked, that their doing so was in
contrariety to their construction; and that if others, under
the shelter of it, should dismiss the ante-communion ser
vice whenever a sermon is to follow, and with it, the col
lects, 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 communication;
and is now repeated, for the purpose of exhibiting the mat
ter in the light of the exercise of the whole legislative au
thority 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 and other holy days (if there be no sermon or com
munion) shall be said all that is appointed at the com
munion, 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 connection with that immediately
before the sentences. The latter says — " then shall follow
the sermon;" after which, according to the same rubric, 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 ex
ception, in regard to what is to follow, saying — -"if there
be no sermon or communion," etc.

APPENDIX. 457
In consideration of the premises, the House of Bishops
respectfully propose to the House of Clerical and Lay De
puties the following canon: —
A Canon explanatory of the first Part of the Rubric at the end of the
Communion Service.
" Whereas, in the first part of the last rubric in ' The
Order for the Administration of the Communion,' the allow
ing of the officiating minister, there being no sermon or
communion, to proceed to the Blessing; was owing to the
circumstance, that without such a proviso, his doing so
would not have been agreeable to the rubric: it shall be
the duty of every minister of this Church, in the celebration
of divine service on Sundays and other holy days, to recite
that part ofthe service which commonly has the name of
the ante-communion service."

No. 35. Page 307.
Thoughts on the Proposal of Alterations in the Book of
Psalms in Metre, and in the Hymns, now before a Com
mittee of the General Convention: By a Member of the
Committee.
The subject shall be considered as it respects — 1st. The
Book of Psalms in metre — 2dly. The Hymns already adopt
ed; and — 3dly. The adoption of others.
Let the Book of Psalms in metre, as translated by Tate
and Brady, be continued entire, until another entire trans
lation shall be presented,' and thought preferable after de
liberate 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 readi
ness; and, as to altering ofthe book in particular passages,
it is a course which, once begun on, is likely to be continued,

458 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
by a succession of changes without end. Probably the book
will never be the same, longer than from one General Con
vention 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
been retained; and of the retaining of others, which, it will
also be said, might have been well spared. This was suffi
ciently experienced in the reception of what was called the
Proposed Book. Where fastidiousness of criticism may
grow" out of mere difference of taste, why not leave every
man to his own ?
But, say they, it is an unnecessary swelling of the vol
ume. For this, there is an easy remedy. The metre
psalms are no part ofthe Book of Common Prayer; and no
law of the Church will be violated, if there should be edi
tions with such selections as the favorers of the works
may approve of; who would have none to please but them
selves. The 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 find 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
present books. In giving numbers to the new hymns, there
should be a continuation of those of the old.
In favor of new hymns it is pleaded, that there are
some occasions not specially provided for. Be it so: and
let a few hymns be chosen for those occasions. The neces-
* These remarks were not designed to discountenance a measure subsequently
adopted by the assembled members of the committee — the appointing of a sub-com
mittee to report to an adjourned meeting — any deviations which there may be from
the most correct copies, and any mis-translations of the original.

APPENDIX. 459
sity for any more may be doubted of; considering that for
the usual subjects of praise and thanksgiving, and for the
expression of penitence, and for the impressing of a great
variety of salutary instruction, we have an abundant supply
in the Book of Psalms. Yet, if there should be proposed
additional hymns, not too many, and not only correct in
sentiment, but excelling in poetic merit, no objection is
here made.
Most decidedly is there objected to the taste of some,
disposing them to wish for hymns, in which the same sub
jects are again and again repeated in varied phraseology.
It is denied that this contributes to devotion; and the de
nial is grounded on the well known property of the human
character, that when religious sensibilities have been often
excited by certain words, the repetition of them is more
likely to produce the like excitement than other words
comprehending 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 feeling be religion or patriotism,
makes nothing as to the question of effect. Let it be sup
posed that some poet should compose a song, expressing
the sentiments in "Rule Britannia," etc., and equal to that
song in versification. Can it be supposed, that the new
song, on any occasion interesting the public mind, would
have an equal effect with the accustomed words ? It is not
to be imagined. Much less would this be likely to happen,
if the new song should have a new tune tacked to it.
Divine wisdom has accommodated to this property of
human nature: of which there is an interesting instance in
Deuteronomy xxvi. 5 — "A Syrian was my father," etc.,
This was a form to be repeated without variation from year
to year; no regard being had 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

460 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
them that hate thee, flee before thee:" and when it rested,
it was with — " Return, 0 Lord, unto the many thousands of
Israel." In each case, the same words were repeated al
ways: 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 sensi
bility in any other department. The former kind of grati
fication requires variety; but as producing the latter, same
ness is more effective.
It is no objection, that in the Book of Psalms, we find
the same sentiments in a variety of diction. Those com
positions were such, as present state of mind, and present
circumstances of life, suggested to the mind of the sacred
poet. The fact has no bearing on periodical returns of de
votion, whether public or private.
There seems no reason for difference in this respect,
between psalmody and prosaic prayer. 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 apostles in the synagogues. Our Church has adopted
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 al
liance with exercises of this sort, than with the excitement
of devotion. Accordingly, the design of this communication is to ex
press disinclination to variety, any further than it is called
for by variety of subject and of state of mind.

APPENDIX. 461
No. 36. Page 320.
Constitution of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society
of the Protestant 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 be denominated "the
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant
Episcopal Church 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 "Board of Missions of the Prot
estant Episcopal Church in the United States of Amer
ica." 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. IV. To the Board of Missions shall be intrusted
the supervision of the general missionary operations of the
Church, with power to establish missionary stations, ap
point missionaries, make appropriations of money, regulate
the conducting of missions, fill any vacancies in their num
ber 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

462 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
bishop present shall preside; in the absence of all the
bishops, the board shall elect a president pro tempore.
ART. VI. The board of missions shall hold its first
meeting on the call of the presiding bishop, and shall meet
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 Conven
tion, 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 Convention.
At all meetings of the board, ten members shall form a
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
be 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 bishop of the diocese in which the com
mittee is located, shall be a Committee for Foreign Mis
sions; all of whom shall be cx-officio members of the Board
of Missions. Any bishop or bishops present at the place of meeting,
shall have a right cx-officio to attend the meetings of the
committee, as members ofthe 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

APPENDIX.

463

regulations of the board. Each committee shall make a
report of their proceedings to the Board of Missions at
every meeting ofthe board.
Art. IX. The board of Missions shall appoint for each
committee a secretary and general agent, with a suitable
salary, who shall be the executive officer of the committee,
to collect information, to conduct its correspondence, to
devise and recommend plans of operation, and, in general,
to execute all the purposes of the board, in his proper
sphere, submitting all his measures, before "their adoption,
to the committee for whom he is appointed, for their
approval. Each committee shall also appoint a treasurer. And the
board shall designate which of the treasurers so appointed
shall be authorized to receive all moneys not specifically
appropriated, which moneys shall be at the disposal of the
board. The secretaries and treasurers shall be ex-officio mem
bers of their respective committees, and ofthe board.
Local and subordinate agents and officers may, when
necessary, be appointed by each committee.
Art. 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.
Domestic missions are those which are established within,
and foreign missions are those which are established with
out, the territory of the United States.
Art. XI. No clergyman shall be appointed a mission
ary by the board or by either of the committees, without
the recommendation of the ecclesiastical authority to whose
1 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.

464 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
Art. XIII. 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 favor, and further
us with his continual help, we can not reasonably hope to
procure suitable persons to act as missionaries, or expect
that their endeavors will be successful.

No. 37. Page 321.
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: —
I am in favor of the division of a diocese, whenever it is
rendered expedient by extent of territory, and by Episco
palian population in point of number.
Where these circumstances combine, and the measure is
consequently determined on, there is suggested the inquiry,
shall the additional bishop be an assistant, or a suffragan,
or the diocesan of a new diocese ?
If the demand be occasioned by the old age, or by the
infirmities of the present bishop, the new one may be the
most properly his assistant. Or, if the former should choose
to continue his labors over the whole, although with the
aid furnished, there is no principle in opposition. But much
may depend on circumstances of expediency.
A suffragan bishop 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 arrange
ment may suit local preferences prevailing in Europe, but
would be contrary to the habits of thinking generally pre
vailing in America. Among other resulting evils, it would
probably happen, that the suffragan's taking of his place
would be offensive to the district left, or to that to which

APPENDIX. 465
he is to be transferred. If, to avoid this, he should be con
tinued in the place of his former residence, there may be
chosen to the diocesan Episcopacy a clergyman considera
bly junior to him, but made his superior by that measure.
This would probably be painful to his feelings, and to those
of a population who had been under his ministry through a
long tract of time. There would be, in their estimation, a
sort of patriotism in resisting the degradation ofthe district
in which they would be citizens.
The result of my speculations is the opinion, that in the
case of a call for more than one bishop, in an extent of
country now constituting a diocese, the most useful plan
would be a division of it, the two portions to be as inde
pendent on one another as are now the Churches of any
two states.
The question occurs, What would be the effect of this
measure on our general organization ? In answer, it may
be stated, that both ofthe bishops ofthe two contemplated
dioceses would have votes in the General Convention; but
that there would be required of it a legislative act, to en
able each of these bodies to send their clerical and their
lay deputies.
Some may object to this, as giving to the Church in a
single state, an increase of power beyond what is provided
by the constitution, on other points. The objection would
have weight, if the provisions of the constitution were ac
commodated to the numbers of the Episcopalian popula
tion in the several parts of the union. When the constitu
tion was framed, the public mind had not yet raised itself
above that excessive attachment to the peculiarities of the
different states, which is in the way of consistent adherence
in practice, to the principle contended for in theory, the
founding of law on public will.
If there should ever happen a dissolution of the unity of
our American Church, the deplorable event will probably
be occasioned by the said inequality. There may occur
questions having important bearings on our doctrine, or on

466 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
our discipline, or on our worship. Measures may be adopt
ed by a majority, according to the constitution, but dissented
from by an acknowledged majority of our Episcopal popula
tion. It can hardly be supposed, and is contrary to our ob
servation of human nature, that the measures would be sub
mitted to.
Whether the separation would be prevented by the fairer
representation in the House of Bishops, can not be fore
seen. But here is a good reason not to object to the in
crease 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 favor of suffragan Episcopacy, that it would lessen
the disadvantage likely to result from having an inconven
ient number of members of the House of Bishops; which,
it is said, may be prevented, in a degree at least, by ex
cluding suffragans from that house, with the permission
of their being chosen as clerical representatives for the
other. First. It would make but little difference, as we may
suppose that the larger dioceses only will be divided.
Secondly. The permitting of suffragans in the House
of Clerical and Lay Deputies, seems to militate with the
principle, that legislation should be exclusively the act of
all the orders of men whom it concerns.
Thirdly. Where large dioceses become divided, each
department having a larger Episcopal population than sev
eral of the entire dioceses, it is unfair that the bishops of
the latter should be of a higher grade than that of the for
mer, especially when the incongruity would be aggravated
by great disparity of years.
Fourthly. The time will probably come, but is not
likely to be soon, when a representation to each house will

APPENDIX. 467
be constituted by deputation from sundry districts, into
which the very extensive country occupied by us will be
come ecclesiastically divided. This may dictate another
profitable arrangement — that of an ecclesiastical assembly
in each district, in each of the two years intervening be
tween every two General Conventions. The assemblies
now proposed need not be limited to the choice of repre
sentatives, and may profitably receive appeals from dio
cesan determinations, in matters of discipline. With legis
lation they should have no concern. It may be suggested,
that there might be provided an appeal from the diocesan
Episcopacy to the House of Bishops: but this would cause
inconvenient delay. Another expedient might be, the ap
plication of the convention concerned, or of its standing
committee, to three conveniently 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 re
gard to bishops strictly missionary, and without relation to
particular dioceses.
2. A bishop will generally have a family, to whom a
reasonable 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 affecting to influence ecclesiastical measures, after
the time, which can not be distant, of his retirement from
this earthly scene. But if on any subject there may seem
possible use in sentiments entertained by him, he does not
perceive any reason for the withholding of them; although
there is much reason for the delivery of them with diffi-

468 MEMOIRS OF THE CHURCH.
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 effect when circumstances may permit.
Let there be in a diocese, and in some city or town as
central as may be, a church of which the bishop is to be
the parochial pastor, and in which he is to preach habitu
ally, when not engaged in visitations. In such a church,
the diocesan convention will occupy the standing, and will
perform the duties of an ordinary vestry. This will be as
near to primitive practice, and to that of the Church of
England, as is consistent with the circumstances of our
Church. Such a pastor should have an assistant minister,
to be provided for out of the pew money. The mainte
nance ofthe bishop should be from an Episcopal fund.

INDEX

Abbot, William, 3S5.
Abbreviation of service, 453.
Abercrombie, Rev. James, 207.
Academy, Episcopal, 249.
Adams, John, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 143,
153, 160, 326, 328; Letter to, 386;
Adams to Lee, 388, 390, 395 .
Address, of Convention to the Prelates,
348; second address, 358; Provoost
to the Prelates, 369.
Affinity, degrees of, 35.
Alsop, J., 86.
Amusements, 44, 272, 296, 425.
Andrews, Bishop, 30.
Andrews, Dr., 113; his pamphlet, 203.
Andrews, Rev. Mr., 169.
Andros, Governor, xliv., xlvi.
Anne, Queen, xxxvi., 251, 252, 322.
Anthon, Rev. Henry, D.D., 65.
Antonio, Rio de St., xiii.
Apollinaris, 126, 134, 175.
Apostles' Creed, 173, 379, 380.
Apthorp, Rev. East, 73.
Archbishops, of England, 186.
Arembec, viii.
Argall, xiv., xxvi.
Arminianism, 78, 218.
Armstrong, J., 329, 391.
Articles, the Thirty-nine, 17, 32, 60,
61, 119, 193, 208, 211, 212, 217, 219,
24°, 303. 363, 441-
Asbury, Rev. Francis, 197, 198, 411.
Athanasian Creed, 26, 134, 135, 149,
37°-
Ayala, the ambassador, vi.
Ayllon, the licentiate, vii.
Baal's priest, xliv.
Baker, Mr. Jacob, 410.
Baldwin, Rev. Ashbel, 51, 55.
Baird, Rev. Dr., xxxi.
Ballads, Swiss, 459.
Baltimore, Lord, xxxii., 15.
Bancroft, xxvi.
Banker, Richard, xliv.
Baptism, lay, 252.
Baptism, first English, x. ; first Spanish, x.
Baptism, first in Virginia, x.
Barber, Rev. Mr., 250, n.

Barrow, Dr., 184.
Bass, Rev. Edward, li. ; elected bishop,
28, 29; consecrated, 31, 164, 210,
395- 397, 398, 400.
Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 384.
Beach, Rev. Abraham, 84.
Bede, the Venerable, iv.
Bellomont, the Earl of, 1.
Bells, first chime of, xlvi. •
Belsham, Mr., 77.
Belsham, Thomas, 213, 216.
Berkley, Dean, xxxix.
Bermudas, the, xvii., xxiv.
Bible, bad editions, 49 ; standard edition,
55. 273-
Biddle, Charles, 39.
Bingham, on the Church, 240.
Bishops' churches, 468.
Bishops, House of, 263.
Bishop of London, xxviii., xxxiii., xxxv.,
xii; 15, 17, 18, 75, no.
Bisset, Rev. John, 77.
Blackstone, Rev. William, xviii., xx.,
xxi., xxxix.
Blackwell, Mr., 84.
Blair, Commissary, xxxvi.
Bloomer, Rev. Mr., 84.
Bowen, Bishop, 46, 56.
Bray, Dr., xxxv.
Brazil, Island of, vi.
Bright, Rev. Mr., xxi.
Broadside, of records, 86, ».
Brownell, Bishop, 51.
Brownists, xxi.
Brown, the Brothers, xxi.
Buck, Chaplain, xxiv.
Bulfinch, Dr., xlvii.
Bullivant, Dr., xliv.
Burlington, xxxvii.
Cabot, Johx, discovers America, vi.
Candidates, for Orders, 39, 365.
Caner, Rev. Dr., xlvi.
Canons, 40, 63.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, xvii., xviii.,
xliii., xliv., liii; 22, 24, 26, 27, 30,
142, 148, 151, 152, 155, 162, 186,
333. 34', 367, 368, 386.
Cape Cod, xv., xvii.

47°

INDEX.

Carlisle, Christopher, ix.
Carlton, Sir Guy, 335.
Carroll, Bishop, 152.
Case of the Episcopal Churches, hv., 99.
Chaloner, John, 93, n.
Chandler, Dr., 73, 76, 335, 386; Bishop,
137-
Chants and tunes, proposed, 253.
Charles I., xvi, 251, 322.
Charles II., 264.
Chase, Bishop Philander, D.D., 53, 67;
consecrated, 273; on theatres, 296,
314, 31°, 319-
Chetwood, John, 86.
Chew, Mr., 154.
Christian Knowledge Society, 59.
Churches, burnt, xlii.
Church, Christ Church, Boston, xiv.,
xlvi.
Church, Danish, 18, 64, 328.
Church of England, iv., viii. ; in the Col
onies, 14, 15; requirements of, 228.
Church of Holland, 342.
Church of Sweden, xxxiv.
Church, the American, formation of, 19,
20, 91, 92, 93.
Church, Trinity, Boston, xliv., xlvi.
Claggett, Rev. Thomas John, D.D.,
elected bishop, 30, 34.
Clarke, Dr., 374.
Clarke, Dr. Samuel, xlviii.
Clarke, Rev. James Freeman, li.
Clarkson, Matthew, S6, 93.
Coddington, xx.
Coke, Rev. Dr., 195, 199, 408.
Colebatch, Rev. Mr., xxxii.
College of Philadelphia, 101.
Colonization, 58, 298.
Columbus, vi., vii.
Commissioners, Royal, xxiii., xlii.
Common Prayer, 172; copyright on,
262; anecdote on, 279, 294; altera
tions, 355, 378, 380.
Common Prayer, Book of, established,
29, 40; copyright on, 44; editions
of, 48; typographical errors in, 48,
53, 551 m French, 69; German, 72,
84, 322; Proposed Book of, xlviii,
121; reception of Proposed Book,
127, 170, 172; copyright on, 262;
anecdote on, 279; mentioned, 294,
483; alterations, 355, 378, 380, 431,
435; anthems of, 423; sale of, 449.
Communion, celebrated by Wolfall, ix.
Communion, received by Ayllon, vii.
Communion, the first, vii.; first Eng
lish, ix.
Companion to the Altar, 234.

Confirmation, Office of, 57, 449.
Congregationalists, xl., Iii.
Connecticut, Church in, xl; Clergy in, xl.
Constitution of the Church, 402, 405,
428.
Convention, Special (General), 51.
Conventions, Triennial, xlviii, 27, 30,
33, 35, 37. 41, 53. 55, 6°. °5> 23°,
281.
Cooper, Edward, 385.
Coppin, the Pilot, xv., n.
Cornbury, Lord, xxxvii.
Cornwallis, Dr., IOO.
Cotton, Rev. John, xx., Hi.
Council of Thirteen, xiv.
Cranmer, Archbishop, 301.
Creed, 23, 25.
Croes, Bishop, 41, 43; consecrated, 267.
Cromwell, xiii., 83.
Cummings, movement of, 163.
Cutler, Rev. Samuel, xl., xlvi.
Cutting, Mr., 86.
Dare, Virginia, x.
Dehon, Bishop, 37.
De Hart, John, 86.
De Lancy, Rev. William H., 56.
Delaware, Church m, xxxviii.
Dellam, Mr., 413.
Denmark, Court of, 85, 130.
Denmark, King of, 18, 64, 328.
Dennis, Richard, 84.
Dermer, Capt., xvi.
Descent into Hell, 126, 133, 139, 174,
181, 191.
Dickes, W., 383.
Digges, Sir Dudley, xxiv.
Disunion of Church, 465.
Doddridge, Rev. Joseph, 248.
Drake, 384.
Duane, Hon. James, 86, 138.
Duchd, Dr., xxxv., liii.
Dudley, Joseph, President, xliii., Gov
ernor, 1.
Duels, persons killed at, 34, 45 .
Duke of York, xxix.
Dutch, the, xiv., xxix.
Easter, finding of, 48, 294.
Eaton, Rev. Mr., 145.
Edminston, Rev. Mr., 15.
Education, 51, 52.
Edward, VI., 97, 264.
Election, 230.
Episcopacy, xxviii., 15, 19; controversy
on, 72, 73, 76, 79, 80, 88, 91, 96, 106,
no, m, 113; Non-succession, 311,
391-

INDEX.

471

Episcopal Succession, 144, 162, 163.
Episcopate, non-succession in, 61.
Episcopate, the, Letter on by Connecti
cut Clergy, 330.
Establishments, 14.
Falmouth, 27.
Farmer, A. W., Letters of, xii.
Fayerweather, Rev. Mr., xl.
Fenton, Charles, 43.
Ferdinando, Simon, x.
Fiddes, Dr., 184.
Five Points of Calvinism, 218.
Fourth of July, Service for, 117, 433, 448.
Franklin, Dr. Benjamin, 140, 370, 373.
Fraser, Rev. Mr., 84.
Freeman, Rev. James, xlvii.
French, in New York, 43.
French, the, xiv.
Fuller, the historian, 97, 98.
Gaine, Hugh, 48, 53.
Georgia, Church in, xxxviii. ; Clergy m,
xxxviii.
Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, ix., x.
Gibson, Rev. Richard, xxii.
Golden Numbers, 294.
Goldsborough, Hon. Robert IL, 54.
Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, iv., xii., xv.,
xviii.
Gosnold, x.
Greenland, iv., v.
Greenwood, Rev. Mr., xxih.
Griffith, Rev. David, D.D., elected bish
op, 25; death of, 27, 130, decease of,
167.
Griswold, Rev. Alexander Viets, D.D.,
consecrated, 36.
Hakluyt, xvii.
Harris, Dr., 43.
Hawks, Francis, L., D.D., x.; elected
bishop, xxxviii., 72, 97, »., 321, 324.
Heathcote, Col., xl.
Henry, Patrick, 81, 160, 391, 392.
Henry VIII., vi., 301.
Hewlings, Esther, 53.
Hinchliff, Right Rev. John, 27.
Hobart, John Henry, D.D., consecrated
bishop, 36.
Homilies, 421.
Homilies, the, 258.
Hooker, Rev. Richard, 96, 337.
Hopkinson, Francis, 130.
Hopkins, Stephen, xxiv.
How, Dr., 43.
Hoyt, Colonel, 84.
Hubbard, Rev. Mr., 167.

Hudson, Henry, xiii.
Hudson, the River, xiii., xv.
Hunt, Rev. Mr., xxiii.
Hutchinson, xvi.
Hutchins, Rev. Mr., 86.
Hymns, 35, 236, 458.
Iceland, iv. ; Bishop of, v.; supplies
for, v.
Independence, American, liv.
Induction, Office of, 34, 231.
Inglis, Dr. Charles, xxxii., 333.
Ingram, David, viii.
Irish Church, 439.
Isle of Man, 162.
Ivers, Mr., xlvii.
Ives, Bishop, 65.
James I., 251.
James II., xliii.
Jarratt, 411.
Jarvis, Rev. Abraham, D.D., consecra
ted bishop, 31, 330, 335.
Jay, Hon. John, 133, 388.
Jenkins, Rev. Edward, D.D., 34.
Jenner, Dr. Robert, 159, 384, 385.
Jerome quoted, 343.
Johns, Hon. Kensey, 55.
Johnson, Dr., 293.
Johnson, Dr. William Samuel, 264.
Jones, Rev. Cave, 221.
Josephus quoted, 241.
Keith, Rev. Mr., xxxiv., xxxvii., xxxix.
Keen, Peter, 85.
Keene, Rev. J., 187.
Keene, Samuel, 100.
Kemp, Bishop, 41, 414.
Kemper, Rev. Jackson, 54.
Kennydy, Captain, 377.
Kenyon College, 65, 67.
Key, Francis S., 55, 273.
Kilgour, Bishop, 29.
King, Hon. Rufus, 43, 250.
King, Lord, 94.
King's Chapel, Boston, xxiii., xliv., xiv.,
xlvi., xlviii., 374.
Kohne, Frederick, 316.
Lake, Bishop, xix.
Lambeth Chapel, lv.
Lambeth Palace Library, the Popham
MS. at, xiii.; mentioned, 27, 143.
Landaff, Bishop of, 147.
Lateran Council, 98.
Laud, Archbishop, xxvii.
Lawes, xxv.
Lawrence, on Lay Baptism, 251.

472

INDEX.

Lay Baptism, 251.
Learning, Jeremiah, xlii., 112, 333.
Lee, Richard Henry, 77, 160, 386.
Lessons, Table of, 449.
Lindsey, Theophilus, 213, 216, 374.
Litany, the, xlix., 57.
Lorillard, George, 317.
Lowth, Bishop, 17; on the Psalms, 243,
246.
Madison, Rev. James, D.D., elected
bishop, 28; death of, 37, 166.
Magazine, the Churchman's, 26.
Manning, Dr., 140.
Maine, District of, 46.
Marblehead, xiv.
Markham, Most Rev. William, 27.
Marshall, Rev. Mr., 86.
Martyr, Peter, vii.
Marvell, Andrew, his poem, xvi.
Maryland, Church in, xxxii. ; Roman
Catholics in, xxxhi.; toleration in,
xxxiii.
Maryland, declaration of, 103.
Mason, of New Hampshire, xxii.
Mason, Rev. Richard S., 54.
Masorets, 241.
Mass said, vii.
Massachusetts, Bishop of, 1 25 ; conven
tion of, 1., 89; six principles of,
§9-.
Maverick, Samuel, xviii., xxii., xlii,
May Flower, the ship, xi., xii.
Mayhew, Dr., xii., 73, 84.
Mcllvaine, Right Rev. C. P., 66.
McSparran, xxxix.
Meade, William, D.D., Bishop, 61.
Memorial, of New Jersey to General
Convention, 355-
Meredith, William, 43.
Methodists, the, xxviii., 195; proposi
tions for union, 196, 197.
Missionary Society, domestic and foreign,
56, 64, 71, 461.
Missions, their management, 320.
Miller, Mr., xlviii.
Miller, Rev. John, xxx.
Milnor, James, 256.
Ministry Act, the, xxx.
Monhegan, the landing at, xii.; sermon
at, xii.
Montague, Rev. Wm., xlix.
Montgomery, Thomas F., 99.
Moody, Rev. Joshua, xlii.
Moore, Archbishop, 27, 100.
Moore, G. IL, xxxi.
Moore, Rev. Benjamin, D.D., elected
bishop, 32, S4.

Moore, Rev. Richard C. Moore, conse
crated bishop, 38.
Moore, T., 86.
Morrell, Rev. William, xviii.
Morton, of Merry Mount, xviii. xxii.
Moses, lvi.
Moss, Right Rev. Charles, 27.
Mount Desert, xiv.
Muhlenberg, Rev. William A., D.D., 46,
51, 54-
Murray, Dr. Alexander, 114, 297.
Narragansett, Church at, 200.
Newbury, xiv.
New Brunswick, Convention at, 19, 128.
New England, Churches of, 401.
New England, first sermon in, xiii. ; first
colony in, xiii. ; colonization of, xvi.
New England, lost city of, ix.
Newfoundland, xviii.
New Jersey, Clergy in, xxxvi.
New Hampshire, 399.
New Hampshire, Liberty in, xxii.
New Haven, school at, 52.
New York, the Colonial Church of, xxix. ;
Jesuits in, xxix. ; Lutheran and Dutch
in, xxx.; religion in, xxx.
Nicene Creed, 379, 381.
Nichols, Sir John, 25 1 .
Nicolls, Governor, xxix.
Non-Conformists in Virginia, xxvi., xxviii.
Norombega, viii., ix.
North Carolina, Church in, xxxv. ; Clergy
in, xxxvi.
Norwich, the Bishop of, liii.
Nova Scotia, Bishops of, 78, 400.
Ogdex, Rev. Uzal, 84, 138; left the
Church, 221.
Ohio, Church in, 46.
Onderdonk, Rev. Benjamin T., 56, 61;
Bishop, 65.
Onderdonk, Right Rev. H. U., D.D., 65.
Ordinal, change in, 191.
Oxford, Bishop of, 146.
Page, Hon. Mr., 116.
Palmer, S., 235.
Parker, Rev. Samuel, D.D., xlvii., Ii.,
34, 86, in, 163, 167, 170, 399.
Parliament, British, 329.
Passion Week, 304.
Pastoral Address, 36, 46, 60, 425 .
Pederson, Peter, 64.
Pennsylvania, Church in, xxxiv.; Clergy
of, 14; Council's Certificate, 390.
Perry, Bishop, 19.
Perry, Rev. Philo, 221.

INDEX.

473

Perth Amboy, Church at, xxxvi.
Perthuck, Rev. Ed., xxxvi.
Peterborough, Bishop of, 384.
Peters, Hugh, xx.
Peters, Rev. Samuel, xii.
Peters, Richard, 86, 125, 160, 392.
Petne, Bishop, 29.
Pettigrew, Rev. Charles, 211, 411, 414.
Pilgrims, xiv., xx.
Pilmore, Rev. Mr., 132.
Plymouth, xiv.. xv., xvi.
Pochahontas, xxv.
Poinet, 93.
Ponce de Leon, vii.
Popham Colony, xiii., xiv.
Position of Churches, 319.
Porteus, Dr., Iv., 260
Potter, Archbishop, 95.
Potter, Bishop Alonzo, lv.
Powell, Samuel, 86, 352.
Prato, Albert de, vii.
Prayers for the King, 82.
Prelates, the English, 353, 354, 360.
Presbyters, power of, 343.
Presidency, of House of Bishops, 189.
Priest's Orders, 207, 365.
Principles of Union, 87, 89, 92.
Pring, Martin, xi.
Propagation Society, xxxi., xxxix.
Provoost, Samuel, D.D., elected bishop,
25; consecrated, 27; mentioned, 30;
xlix., 31, 36, 117, 132, 211, 397.
Psalms and Hymns, 48, 54, 58, 122, 176,
236, 241, 243, 244, 245, 260, 306,
402, 457.
Psalter, the, 150.
Purcell, Rev. Dr. Henry, 206.
Purchas, xvii.
Puritans, xxi., xvi., xxvi.
Quakers, xxviii., xxxv., xliii., 75.
Rafx, iv.
Ralegh, Sir Walter, x.
Randolph, xliv.
Ratcliffe, Rev. Robert, xliv., xiv.
Ravenscroft, Bishop, 53, 54.
Read, Hon. James, 94.
Read, John, 54.
Rees' Cyclopaedia, 3, III.
Reformation, the, 293.
Richmond, fire at, 37.
Rosencrone, the Count de, 18, 328.
Rosier, xi.
Rubric in Communion Service, 451.
Rudd, Dr. J. C, 46. 51, 54-
Rush, Dr., 374.
Rutt, John, viii.

Sagadahoc, xiii.
Sainte Claire, Sister, 250.
Salterne, William, xi.
Samson, Hi.
Saphorin, M. de St., 17, 18, 328.
Schism, 242,
Science College, 60.
Scotch Episcopacy, 27, 131, 139, 179.
.Scriptures, the, 404.
Seabury, Samuel, D.D., xii, 20-21; Va
lidity of his consecration, 28 ; referred
10,29,30,84,91, no, 111, 163; Chap
lain, 168; declared the Bishop of
Rhode Island Churches, 200; rec
ommended by Connecticut, 330; his
letter to Dr. Smith, 340; on the
Methodists, 342; opposed to the ad
mission of the laity, 345; referred
to, 397, 400, 407.
Seeker, Archbishop, xii.
Seniority of Bishops, 69.
Separation, xix., xx.
Sermon, the first English in North Amei -
ica, viii. ; the first in New England,
xiii.
Sermons, rubric concerning, 292.
Settlements, in New England, xiv.
Sewall, Judge, xliv.
Seymour, Rev. Richard, xii.
Sharpe, Granville, 139, 140, 141, 370,
371-
Shelton, Rev. Philo, 247.
Skinner, Bishop, 29.
Smith, Captain John, xiii., xiv.
Smith, Dr. William, xxxv., 26, 102,
112, 120, 121, 187, 206, 371, 423,
448.
Smith, Robert, D.D., consecrated bish
op, 30, 202.
Smith, Rev. Ralph, xix., xxii.
Smith, Rev. Dr. William, of Connecti
cut, 423.
Society for Propagating the Gospel, 13,
36, 42.
Socinus, 374.
South Meeting House, Boston, xliv.,
xiv.
Spragg, Mr. Samuel, 86.
St. Austin, 218.
Stephens, John, 84.
Stephens, Richard, 84.
St. Esprit, Church of, 43.
Stevens, Bishop, xxxviii.
Stiles, Ed. J., 55.
St. John's, Portsmouth, xxiii.
Stone, Bishop, 65.
St. Peter's, Salem, xxiii.
Strachey, William, xxvi.

474

INDEX.

Stratford, xii.
Suffragan Bishops, 464, 466.
Sunday, observance of, 217.
Superintendents, 195.
Synods, 284; of Dort, 219.
Table, the right side of, 69.
Talbot, Rev. Mr., xxxiv., xxxv., xxxvii.,
xxxix .
Tate and Brady, 241, 457.
Tench, Tilghman, 55.
Terrick, Bishop, liii.
Thanksgiving, Service for, xliii., 300,
43°-
Theatre, See Amusements.
Theological Seminary, General, 50, 51,
52, 59, 68, .285, 290.
Thorne, Sydenham, 138.
Tindal, 252.
Toleration, xl.
Trinity Church, of New York, xxxi. ; its
endowment, ix.
Trinity, the, 116, 117, 376.
Turner, Rev. Samuel, D.D., 54.
Unitarians, 1., Ii., 216.
Updike, xxxix.
Urmston, Rev. John, xxxvi.
Ursulines, 250.
Veasey, Rev. William, xxx., xxxi.
Vermont, Church organized, 36.
Verrazano, vii. nmm
Virginia, Colonization of, xxiii.; laws
in, xxv.; Nonconformists in, xxvi.;
Clergy in, xxvii. ; legislation in, xxvi.
Waddell, Rev. Henry, 138, 211.
Walford, Thomas, xviii.
Walker, John, ix.
Walpole, Mr., 78.
Warburton, Bishop, 97.
Washington College, 342.
Washington, George, xlvi., Iv.
Watson, Bishop, 126.
Waymouth, James, xi., xii., xv.
Weller, Rev. George, 56.
Welsh, the, xxxiv.
Welton, Rev. Richard, xxxiv.
Wentworth, Gov., 249.
Wesley, Rev. Charles, xxxviii., 200.
Wesley, Rev. John, xxxviii., 199, 342.
Wesley, Rev. Samuel, xxxviii.
West, Rev. Dr., 116.
Westminster Confession, 219.
Wharton, Dr., 43, 55, 448.
Wheatley, 302.

Whifboume, xviii.
White, Col. Thomas, liii., Iv., 26.
White, Mrs., 26.
White, Rev. John, xix.
White, William, D.D., his Memoirs, iii.;
mentioned, xxviii.; at Christ Church,
xxxv.; Chaplain to Congress, xxxv.;
his connection with Kmg's Chapel
affairs, xlvii.; correspondence .with,
xlix., Ii.; sketch of his life, liii.;
Bishop Alonzo Potter's estimate of,
lv.; his death, lv.; views on the com
position of the Memoirs, 4; elected
bishop, 25, 26; consecrated, 27; men
tioned, 30, 34, 37, 53, 60, 65, 84, 94;
his pamphlet, 99; reply to, 107; on
the Trinity, 117; sermon before Con
vention, 130 ; communication with
the Archbishop of Canterbury, 142;
sails for England, 143; presented to
the king, 156; account of consecra
tion, 157; sails for America, 161; ar
rives at New York, 161; on the De
scent into Hell, 184; views on psalm
ody, 243 ; on lay baptism, 25 1 ; omits
clause in the Ordinal, 255 ; on amuse
ments, 272, 296; his retrospect ofthe
Church, 275 ; the use of his Memoirs,
278; views on seminaries, 285, 290;
remarks on Episcopacy, 318; men
tioned, 394, 396, 400; his letter to
Coke, 412, 448; views on the divi
sion of dioceses, 464.
Whitehead, Dr. James, 226.
Whittaker, Rev. Alexander, xxiv., xxv.
xxvi.
Wickham, Mr., xxiv.
Widows and Orphans, 19, 449.
Wilkins, Mr., 55.
Willet, Marinus, 86.
William and Mary, xiv.
William and Mary College, 2S, 52.
Williams, Roger, xxxix.
Willing, Richard, 86.
Wilmer, Dr. William, 46, 54.
Wilson, Bird, lv.
Wilson, Dr. Bird, 65.
Wilton, Rev. James T., 201.
Winthrop, xix.
Wolfall, viii., ix.
Wolsey, Cardinal, viii., ix.
Wyatt, Rev. William E., D.D., 61, 65.
Yale College, xl.
Yeardley, Sir George, xxxvii.
York, Archbishop of, 27, 85, 100, 360,
368.