cumstance, 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 12. Of Proceedings in sundry states, previous to the Meetings in 1784, at New Brunswick, and at New York.

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, wère 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 afterwards settled to mutual satisfaction, in the meeting at New York. It is here taken notice of, because there was afterwards manifested a disposition in Massachusetts, to depart from the principles agreed on; that the clergy of that state, instead of sending a deputation to Philadephia 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 diocess, 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 approbation of the measure by the whole church, in which he has since. presided. In regard to the former, the author entertained for that bishop much affection and respect; the result of what was afterwards perceived in person, of his good sense and christian disposition. As to the latter, it is believed from what has been since learned, that no man could have been more acceptable; independently on the inclination said to have been afterwards manifested, of leaving all ecclesiastical matters to the clergy: which was done for a while; although the laity have been since introduced into the convention, as in the other states. But the

subject is here noticed, as one cause accounting for the failure of the application in England: a sentiment confirmed by subsequent information, as will appear in its proper place.

From letters in possession of the author, he finds, that in Connecticut, the idea of lay representation in ecclesiastical legislation, became associated with that of the trial and the degradation of clergymen by the same authority. That there is no such necessary association, is evident in the English system.

In Pennsylvania, there was a convention of the church, which began on the 24th of May, 1784. The steps leading to this convention were originated by the author, in the vestry of the churches under his parochial care, in consequence of a previous agreement with the Rev. Dr. Magaw, the rector of St. Paul's church, and the Rev. Mr. Blackwell, assistant minister to the author. The said vestry opened a communication on the subject, with the vestry of St. Paul's church: and by agreement of these two bodies, in conjunction with their clergy, notices were given, and suitable measures were taken, for the obtaining of the meeting of the convention.

The result of their deliberations, was the establishing of the following principles, as a foundation for the future forming of an ecclesiastical body, for the church at large.

1st, That the episcopal church in these states is, and ought to be, independent of all foreign authority, ecclesiastical or civil.