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 NewYork, on the 6th of October following. The gentlemen of New-York were to notify the brethren eastward, and those of Philadelphia were to do the same southward.

The author remarked at this meeting, that, notwithstanding the good humour 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-informed persons should overlook the propriety of accommodating that system, in some respects, to the prevailing sentiments and habits of the people of this country, now become an independent and combined commonwealth.

For the communication with the court of Denmark, as contained in the Narrative, see Appendix, No. 1.

For the application of the clergy of Connecticut to the archbishop of York, the English primacy having become vacant, and the successor to it being not yet known in America, see Appendix, No. 2.

D. Page 22. Of the Meeting in New-York, in October, 1784.

There were present from Massachusetts, the Rev. Mr. Parker; from Connecticut, the Rev. Mr. Marshall; from New-York, the Rev. Messrs. Provoost, Beach, B. Moore, Bloomer, Cutting, T. Moore, and the Hon. James Duane, 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

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.

Richard Peters, Esquires; from Delaware, the Rev. Messrs. Thorne and Wharton, and Mr. Robert Clay; from Maryland, 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 journals; and because the short printed account of the proceedings 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 Massachusetts, 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 propose. Accordingly, the acts of the body were in the form of recommendation and proposal.

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 deputies 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 of the respective states.

5th. That in every state where there shall be a bishop duly consecrated and settled, he shall be considered as a member of the convention ex officio.

6th. That the clergy and laity, assembled in convention, shall deliberate in one body, but shall vote separately; and the concurrence of both shall be necessary to give validity to every measure.

7th. That the first meeting of the convention shall be at Philadelphia, the Tuesday before the feast of St. 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 appeared at this meeting, on the part of the Church in Connecticut, it is not to be thought, that there was an obligation on any in that state to support the above principles; because Mr. Marshall read to the assembly a paper, which expressed his being only empowered to announce, that 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 forward, with their bishop, for the doing of what the general interests of the Church might require.

With this exception, the principles laid down appeared to be the sense of the meeting; and it seemed a great matter gained, to lay what promised to be a foundation for the continuing of the Episcopal Church, in the leading points of her doctrine, discipline, and worship; yet with such an accommodation to local circumstances, as might be expected to secure the concurrence of the great body of her members; and without any exterior opposition, to threaten the oversetting of the scheme.

At the present day, it may seem to have been of little consequence, to gain so considerable an assent, to what was determined at this meeting. But at the time in question, when the crisis presented a subject of deliberation entirely new, it was difficult to detach it in the minds of many, from a past habitual train of thinking. Some were startled at the very circumstance, of taking the stand of an independent Church. There was a much more common prejudice against the embracing of the laity in a scheme of ecclesiastical legislation. Besides these things, the confessed necessity of accommodating the service to the newly established civil constitution of the country, naturally awakened apprehensions of unlimited licence. Hence the restriction to the English liturgy, except in accommodation to the revolution; which restriction was not acquiesced in, as will be seen.

E. Page 23. Of Proceedings in sundry States, previous to the Mectings in 1784, at New-Brunswick and at NewYork.

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 exception of what was done by the clergy, individually, in Connecticut. In Massachusetts there was held a meeting of the clergy at Boston, September 8, 1784. In a letter received by the author from the Rev. Mr. Parker, at the time, it appears, that the principal business of this meeting was the passing of the following resolves, which have evidently an allusion to what had been done in Philadelphia in the preceding May, and communicated to Mr. Parker. The articles agreed on in Philadelphia will appear lower down.

Those of Boston are,

1st, That the Episcopal Church in the United States of America is, and ought to be, independent of all foreign authority, ecclesiastical and civil. But it is the opinion of this convention, that this independence be not construed or taken in so rigorous a sense, as to exclude the churches in America, separately or collectively, from applying for and obtaining from some regular Episcopal foreign power, an American Episcopate.

2dly, That the Episcopal Church in these states hath, and ought to have, in common with all other religious societies, full and exclusive powers to regulate the concerns of its own communion.

3dly, That the doctrines of the Gospel be maintained, as now professed by the Church of England; and uniformity of worship be continued, as near as may be, to the liturgy of the said Church.

4thly, That the succession of the ministry be agreeable to the usage which requireth the three orders, of bishops, priests, and deacons; that the rights and powers of the same be respectively ascertained; and that they be exercised according to reasonable laws, to be duly made.

5thly, 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 exceed, or their votes be more in number, than those of the clergy.

6thly, That no power be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government, except such as cannot conveniently be exercised by the clergy and vestries, in their respective congregations.

The only points in which the above differ from those which will be recorded as laid down in Philadelphia, are, that in the former they provide for an application to a foreign quarter; which was agreeable to intentions entertained 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 Massachusetts, 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 antecedently established.

In Connecticut there was a meeting of the clergy, in March, 1783, the principal measure of which, was the recommending 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 capacities, than as a regular ecclesiastical proceeding; because, as yet, there had not been any organized assembly, who could claim the power of acting for the Church in consequence of either the express or the implied consent of the body of Episcopalians. They who consider the bishop of a diocese as related to its clergy alone, may differ from the author in this remark. But although he has heard such an opinion advanced in conversation, and even remembers it to have been sometimes published in the former controversies concerning American Episcopacy; yet it is so evidently 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 appro