pamphlet proposed to be erected, must be in this predicament till the succession be obtained. You plead necessity, however, and argue that the best writers in the Church, admit of Presbyterian ordination, where Episcopal cannot be had. To prove this, you quote concessions from the venerable Hooker, and Dr. Chandler, which their exuberant charity to the reformed churches abroad, led them to make. But the very words you quote from the last mentioned gentleman prove his opinion to be, that bishops 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, asserts that the laws relating to it bind as strongly as the laws which relate to baptism and the holy eucharist, and that if the succession be once broken, not all the men on earth, not all the angels in heaven, without an immediate 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 Christian Church hold the sacraments to be necessary, where they cannot be had agreeable to the appointment of the Great Head of the Church. Why should particular acts of authority be thought more necessary than the 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 inconsistency with their declared sentiments) have, and all good men will express their charitable hopes, that God, in compassion to a well meant zeal, will add the same blessings to those who, through unavoidable mistake, act beside his commission as if they really had it. As far as we can find, it has been the conxtant opinion of our Church in England and here, that the Episcopal superiority is an ordinance of Christ, and we think that the uniform practice of the whole American Church, for near a century, sending their candidates three thousand miles for holy orders, is more than a presumptive proof that the Church here are, and ever have been, of this opinion. The sectaries, soon after the reformation, declared that the book of consecration, &c. was superstitious and contrary to God's word, and the moderation you mention in the articles and canons, consists in affirming that this decla

ration 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 origin than the apostles; yet, since they were divinely inspired, we see not why their practice is not equal to a divine warrant; and as they have given no liberty to deviate from their practice in any exigence of the Church, we know not what authority we have to take such liberties in any case. However, we think nothing can be more clear, than that our Church has ever believed bishops to have the sole right of ordination and government, and that this regimen 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 necessity warrant a deviation from the law of Christ, and the immemorial practice of the Church, yet what necessity have we to plead? Can we plead necessity with any propriety, till we have tried to obtain an Episcopate, and have been rejected? We conceive the present to be a more favourable opportunity for the introduction of bishops, than this country 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 bishops, 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 considerable a proportion of its inhabitants. And on the other hand, is there any reason to believe, that all the bishops in England, and in all the other reformed Churches in Europe, are so totally lost to a sense of their duty, and to the real wants of their brethren in the Episcopal Church here, as to refuse to ordain bishops to preside over us, when a

proper application shall be made to them for it? If this cannot be, why is not the present a favourable 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 consent to a temporary departure from Episcopacy, there would be very little propriety in asking for it afterwards, and as little reason ever to expect it in America. Let us all then unite as one man to improve this favourable opportunity, to procure an object so desirable and so essential to the Church. We are, dear sir, your affectionate brethren, the clergy of Connecticut.

A Letter of the Right Rev. Bishop Seabury, to the Rev.

Dr. Smith.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,

August 15, 1785.

It has not been in my power till this day, to pay that attention to your letter of July 19, which the importance of its several subjects demanded. The grand difficulty that defeated my application for consecration in England, appeared to me to be the want of an application from the state of Connecticut. Other objections are made, viz. that there was no precise diocese marked out by the civil authority, nor a stated revenue appointed for the bishop's support; 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 bishop; 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 of the 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 confined. The archbishop of Canterbury wished it had been fuller, but thought it afforded ground on which to proceed; yet he afterwards said it would not do; and that the minister, without a 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 understood him right, a majority of the judges and crown lawyers, were of opinion he might safely do it. I turned my attention to the remains of the old Scots Episcopal Church, whose consecration 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 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 of the Church, which they have unreasonably, unnecessarily, and wickedly broken, by their separation and schism.

Your two cautions, respecting recommendations and titles, are certainly just. Till you are so happy as to have a bishop of your own, it will be a pleasure to me to do any thing I can for the supply of your churches. And I am confident the clergy of Maryland and the other states, will be very particular with regard to the qualifications and titles

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 without some expense, which they cannot well afford. I cannot 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 flatter myself he got home without any disagreeable accident.

I thank you for your communication respecting Washington College, and the various conventions you have had in your state and neighbourhood. The clergy and laity have particular merit in making so great exertions, to get our Church into a settled and respectable state. But on subjects of such magnitude and variety, it is to be expected that sentiments will differ. All men do not always see the same object in the same light; and persons at a distance are not always masters of the precise reasons and circumstances, which have occasioned particular modes of acting. Of some things therefore in your proceedings I cannot be a competent judge, without minute information; and I am very sorry that my present circumstances and duty here, will not permit me to make so long a journey at this time; because by personal interview and conversation only, can such information be had.

But, my dear sir, there are some things which, if I do not much misapprehend, are really wrong. In giving my opinion of them, I must claim the same privilege of judging for myself which others claim, and also that right of fair and candid interpretation of my sentiments which is due to all men.

1. I think you have done wrong in establishing so many and so precise fundamental rules. You seem hereby to have precluded yourselves from the benefit of after consideration. And by having the power of altering fundamental laws diffused through so large a body, it appears to me next to impossible to have them altered, even in some reasonable cases; because cases really reasonable may not appear so to two-thirds of so large an assembly. It should also be remembered, that while human nature is as it is, something of party passion or partiality will ever be apt, in some degree, to influence the views and debates of a numerous and mixed assembly.

2. I think you have too much circumscribed the power