submit to the will of the majority. There was no likelihood of such an indiscreet proceeding in Connecticut. But in some other departments which might be named, it would not have been surprising. Let it be remarked, that in the preceding hypothesis there is supposed to have been, in the different neighbourhoods, a bond of union not dissolved by the revolution. This sentiment is congenial with Christianity itself, and with Christian discipline in the beginning; the connexion not existing congregationally, but, in every instance, without dependence on the houses in which the worship of the different portions of the aggregate body may be carried on.

Section II. Of the Measures taken to 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 independently on one another, as was the condition of all Christendom for a long time after the preaching of the apostles, on the decease of every bishop, his church became extinct. A new name does not characterize the church as new, but may arise from civil changes, in various ways to be conceived of. What was called formerly "the Church of England in America," did not cease to exist on the removal of the Episcopacy of the bishop of London, by the providence of God, but assumed a new name, as the dictate of propriety.

It may be matter of surprise, that, after the clamour made but a few years before this period, on the proposal of an American Episcopacy, and considering the fashion of objecting to it prevailing even among a considerable proportion of our own communion, there should now be a unanimous application for it, from a fair representation of the Church in seven states of the Union; the lay part consisting principally of gentlemen who had been active in the late revolution, and made under circumstances which required the consent of the very power we had been at war with. The truth is, that if there existed any inclination to object and there is no certainty of the contrary—it was prevented by what is to be related.

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

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, not liking the complexion of the measures taken for the calling of a General Convention, wrote to several of the southern clergy, inviting them to a convention to be held in the summer at New-Haven. What answer they received from others is not here known: but that of Philadelphia thanked them for the invitation; congratulated Bishop Seabury on his arrival; apologized for the not coming, by the expectation of the convention in September; and invited the clergy of Connecticut to attend the latter.

When the time of the convention in Philadelphia drew near, Bishop Seabury wrote to Dr. Smith, then living in Maryland, a letter, which he enclosed, under cover, to Dr. Chandler, of Elizabeth-Town, who sent it, in like manner, to the author, desiring him to read, and then forward it to Dr. Smith. In this letter, a copy of which the author has now before him, Bishop Seabury, besides objecting to sundry of the measures taken in the southern states, declared himself in very strong terms against the admission of the laity into ecclesiastical councils; and indeed against that of presbyters also, except into the diocesan. For although his expressions are, that they were not admitted into general councils, and this is very indefinite, yet it would seen from the connexion, 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 animadversions. 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 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 invited to the meeting, by those at whose desire they had appeared themselves. On this ground, they were answered by some of the clergy-particularly by Dr. Andrews. For the letter, see Appendix, No. 4.

It naturally happened in regard to any 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 jealousy. It was generally understood, that the door was open to consecration in Scotland; or at least, that if there should be any impediment, it must arise from some particulars, 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 monarchical, were not such as favoured arbitrary power. It ought to be understood, that this is the supposed strain of reasoning of a few only. The majority of the convention certainly thought it a matter of choice, and even required by decency, to apply, in the first instance, to the Church of which the American had been till now a part. No doubt, the sentiment was strengthened by the general disapprobation entertained in America, of the prejudices which, in the year 1688, in Scotland, had deprived the Episcopal Church of her establishment, and had kept her ever since in hostility to the family on the throne. As to Bishop Seabury's failure in England, the causes of it, as stated in his letter, seemed to point out a way of obviating the difficulty in the present case. The same causes had been, with no considerable variety, stated to the author in a letter from the Rev. Dr. Murray, formerly of Reading in this state, who declared his full conviction, that a proper application, from such a body as was in contemplation, that is, the present convention, of whose intended meeting he had been informed, would be followed by success. As the doctor was supposed to have conversed with leading characters on the subject, which was found afterward to have been the case, his letter had great weight in encouraging the measure.

So it was, then, that the projected application found no opposition. The duty of proposing a mode of application was added to the other duties of the general committee which had been appointed. As one of a sub-committee, the author drafted the resolves and the address, as they stand on the journals, with 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

1

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 abandoned the Episcopal succession, would have been in opposition to primitive order and ancient habits; and besides, would at least have divided the Church. To have had recourse to Scotland, independently on the objections entertained against the political principles of the non-jurors of that country, would not have been proper, without previous disappointment on a request made to the mother Church. Another resource remained, in foreign ordination; which had been made the easier by the act of the British parliament, passed in the preceding year, to enable the bishop of London to ordain citizens or subjects of foreign countries without exacting the usual oaths. But, besides that this would have kept the Church under the same hardships which had heretofore existed, and had been so long complained of; dependence on a foreign country in spirituals, when there had taken place independence in temporals, is what no prudent person would have pleaded for.

Section III. Of the Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer.

When the members of the convention first came together, very few, or rather, it is believed, none of them entertained thoughts of altering the liturgy, any further than to accommodate it to the revolution. There being no express authority to the purpose, the contrary was implied in the sending of deputies, on the ground of the recommendation and proposal from New-York, which presumed that the book, with the above exception, should remain entire. The only Church to which this remark does not apply, is that of Virginia; which authorized its deputies to join in a review, liable however to a rejection by their own convention. Every one, so far as is here known, wished for alterations in the different offices. But it was thought, at New-York, in the preceding year, that such an enterprise could not be undertaken, until the Church should be consolidated and

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 hesitated at making the book so permanent, as it would have been by the fourth article of the recommendatory instrument. Arguments were held in favour of a review, from change of language, and from the notorious fact, that there were some matters universally held exceptionable, independently on doctrine. A moderate review, fell in with the sentiments and the wishes of every member. Added to all this, there gained ground a confident persuasion, that the general mind of the communion would be so gratified by it, as that acquiescence might be confidently expected. On these considerations, the matter was undertaken.

The alterations were prepared by another sub-division of the general committee than that to which the author belonged. When brought into the committee, they were not reconsidered; because the ground would have been to go over again in the convention. Accordingly, he cannot give an account of any arguments arising in the preparatory stage of the business. Even in the convention, there were but few points canvassed, with any material difference of principle: and those only shall be noticed.

The first controversy of this description was introduced, on a motion made by the Hon. Mr. Page, of Virginia, since governor of that state, to leave out the first four petitions of the litany, and, instead of them, to introduce a short petition, which he had drawn up, more agreeable to his ideas of the divine persons recognized in those petitions. The mover declared, that he had no objection to the invoking of our blessed Saviour, whose divinity the prayer acknowledged, and whom he considered as invoked through the whole of the liturgy; which, he thought, might be defended by scripture. The objection lay to the word "Trinity," which he remarked to be unauthorized by scripture, and a foundation of much unnecessary disputation. But he said, that the leaving out of the fourth petition only, in which only the word occurred, would leave the other petitions liable to the charge of acknowledging three Gods; and therefore, he moved to strike out the whole. The 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