1789. For as to the general constitution, framed at the period now before us, it stood on recommendation only; and was of no use, except in helping to convince those who were attached to that mode of transacting business, that it was very idle to bring gentlemen together from different states, for the purpose of such inconclusive proceedings.

The fifth and the eighth articles of this proposed constitution, 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." Accordingly, 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 consideration of the subject, and contrary to what his good sense, with such an advantage, would have dictated, objected 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 over-ruled, 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, had 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 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 consideration of the subject. The latter expectation was justified 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 bishops, as appears in the letter of the archbishops of Canterbury and York; who there complain, that it is "a degradation of the clerical, and much more of the episcopal character." The foundation of this complaint, like that of the other, was rather in omission, than in any thing positively

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