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 by laws of their enacting, himself being a part of the body: and it did not follow, that he might be deposed or censured, either by laymen or by presbyters. This, however, ought to have been guarded against: but to have attempted it, while the convention were in the temper excited by the altercations concerning the fifth article, would have been to no purpose.

In this whole business, there was encountered a prejudice entertained by many of the clergy in other states; who thought, that nothing should have been done towards the organizing of the church, until the obtaining of the episcopacy. This had been much insisted on, in the preceding year, in New York. Let us it was said-first have an head; and then let us proceed to regulate the body. It was answered, on that occasion-let us gather the scattered limbs; and then, let the head be superadded. Certainly, the different episcopalian congregations knew of no union before the revolution; except what was the result of the connexion which they in common had with the bishop of London. The authority of that bishop being withdrawn, what right had the episcopalians in any state, or in any one part of it, to choose a bishop for those in any other? And until an union were effected, what is there in Christianity 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 anothers' rights. The course taken, has embraced all the different congregations. It is far from being certain, that the same event would have been produced, by any other plan that might have been devised. For instance, let it be supposed, that in any district of Connecticut, the clergy and the people, not satisfied with the choice made of Bishop Seabury, or with the contemplated plan of settlement, had acted for themselves, instead of joining with their brethren. It would be impossible to prove the unlawfulness of such a scheme; or, until an organization were made, that the minor part were bound to submit to the will of the majority. There was no likelihood of such an indiscreet proceeding, in Connecticut. But in some other departments which might be named, it would not have been surprizing. Let it be remarked, that in the preceding hypothesis, there is supposed to have been, in the different neighbourhoods, a bond of union not dissolved by the revolution. This 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 clamor 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 representative 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

N

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, 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 their 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, Bp. Seabury, besides objecting to sundry of the measures

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

taken in the southern states, declared himself in very strong terms, against the admission of the laity into ecclesiastical councils; and indeed against that of presbyters also, except into the diocesan. For although his expressions are, that they were not admitted into general councils, and this is very indefinite; yet it would seem from the connexion, 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 laygentlemen, 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 con