CHAPTER III.

The author offers the following sketch of a frame of government, though he is far from thinking it complete; to make it so, even according to his own ideas, would carry him beyond the compass intended in this essay.

As the churches in question extend over an immense space of country, it can never be expected that representatives from each church should assemble in one place; it will be more convenient for them to associate in small districts, from which representatives may be sent to three different bodies, the continent being supposed to be divided into that number of larger districts. From these may be elected a body representing the whole. In each smaller district, there should be elected a general Vestry or Convention, consisting of a convenient number (the minister to be one) from the vestry or congregation of each church, or of every two or more churches, according to their respective ability of supporting a minister. They should elect a clergyman their permanent president, who, in conjunction with other clergymen, to be also appointed by the body, may exercise such powers as are purely spiritual, particularly that of admitting to the ministry; the presiding clergyman and others to be liable to be deprived for just causes, by a fair process, and under reasonable laws; meetings to be held as often as occasion may require.

The assemblies in the three larger districts may consist of a convenient number of members, sent from each of the smaller districts severally within their bounds, equally composed of clergy and laity, and voted for by those orders promiscuously; the presiding clergyman to be always one, and these bodies to meet once in every year.

The continental representative body may consist of a convenient number from each of the larger districts, formed equally of clergy and laity, and among the clergy, formed equally of presiding ministers and others; to meet statedly once in three years. The use of this, and the preceding representative bodies, is to make such regulations, and receive appeals in such matters only as shall be judged necessary for their continuing one religious communion.

These are (what was promised) no more than outlines, which it will not be proper to dismiss without a few observations on the degree of power to be exercised in matters of faith, worship, and government.

For the doctrinal part, it would perhaps be sufficient to demand of all admitted to the ministry, or engaged in ecclesiastical legislation, the questions contained in the Book of Ordination, which extend no farther than an acknowledgment of the Scriptures as a rule of faith and life; yet some general sanction may be given to the thirty-nine articles of religion, so as to adopt their leading sense,* which is here proposed rather as a chain of

* Suppose, for instance, a form RESEMBLING that which Dr. Ferdinando Warner, a late ecclesiastical historian of the Episcopal Church, says (Book 16) was proposed in the reign of Charles II., by the Lord-keeper Bridgman, Bishop Wilkins, and Chief Justice Hale, "to serve instead of all former subscriptions." The form was this: "I do hereby profess and declare, that I approve

union, than for exacting entire uniformity of sentiment. If the last be considered as a desirable object, the articles have undeniably been found insufficient for the purpose, which is not here said from an opinion that such was the intention of the compilers, but rather with a conviction that they designedly left room for a considerable latitude of sentiment; if to the above there be objected the danger of a public opposition between ministers, this obvious answer may be made: that the strictest tests ever devised, can not be so effectual to prevent such conduct, as the regulations contained in the 53d Canon, which considers it as indecent and punishable, independently of the merits of the doctrines litigated.

As to divine worship, there must no doubt be somewhere the power of making necessary and convenient alterations in the service of the Church. But it ought to be used with great moderation; otherwise the communion will become divided into an infinite number of smaller ones, all differing from one another, and from that in England, from whence we may expect considerable numbers to migrate hereafter to this country, who, if they find too wide a deviation from the ancient practice, will probably form an independent communion of their own. Whatever may in other respects be determined on this head, it is presumed the Episcopalians are generally attached to that characteristic of their communion, which prescribes a settled form of prayer.

On the subject of government, whether civil or ecclesiastical, there is great truth and beauty in the following observation of the present Bishop of St. Asaph: "The great art of governing consists in not governing too much." Perhaps it would be sufficient, if an immoral life were followed by exclusion from the sacrament and ecclesiastical employment; deprivation from church-benefices following, of course. The above is not to be understood as excluding the enforcing such rules as are necessary to preserve decency and order. As to excommunication, or an entire separation from the Church, however necessary it was in the primitive ages, when Christianity itself being not generally known, and misrepresented as a sanction for lewdness, treason, and clandestine murders, must have been essentially wounded by the immoralities of any of its professors; there is great room to doubt of there being the same use in it at present, when the vices of a professing Christian are universally known to be opposite to the precepts of his religion. Such are the tyranny and hypocrisy too frequently arising from the exercise of this power, that it may be thought safest to leave men to those great sanctions of duty, the will of God, and a future retribution-attended, as they will generally be with a sense of shame, dissuading from actions so notoriously scandalous, as to be a foundation for church censures.

the doctrine, worship, and government established in the Church of England, as containing all things necessary to salvation, and that I will not endeavor by myself or any other, directly or indirectly, to bring in any doctrine contrary to that which is so established; and I do hereby promise, that I will continue in the communion of the Church of England, and will not do any thing to disturb the peace thereof."

In the preceding pages, the idea of superintending ministers, has been introduced; but not a word has been said of the succession supposed necessary to constitute the Episcopal character; and this has been on purpose postponed, as demanding a more minute discussion.

CHAPTER IV.

On the subject of Episcopacy, the general opinion of the churches in question is of peculiar importance, yet it can be collected only from circumstances; to assist in ascertaining it, the two following facts are stated:. Wherever these churches have been erected, the ecclesiastical government of the Church of England has been adhered to; they have depended on the English Bishops for ordination of their Clergy, and on no occasion expressed a dissatisfaction with Episcopacy. This, considering the liberty they enjoyed in common with others, of forming their churches on whatever plan they liked best, is a presumptive proof of their preferring the Episcopal government, especially as it subjected them under the former connection to many inconveniencies, such as sending to the distance of three thousand miles for ordination, the scandal sometimes brought on the Church by the ordination of low and vicious persons,* the difficulty of getting rid of immoral ministers, and that several of the Clergy formed attachments of which this country has been always jealous, and which have at last proved extremely prejudicial to her interests.

On the other hand there can not be produced an instance of laymen in America, unless in the very infancy of the settlements, soliciting the introduction of a Bishop;t it was probably by a great majority of them thought an hazardous experiment. How far the prerogative of the King as head of the Church might be construed to extend over the Colonies, whether a Bishop would bring with him that part of the law which respects ecclesiastical matters, and whether the civil powers vested in the Bishops in England would accompany that order to America, were questions which, for aught they knew, would include principles and produce consequences dangerous and destructive to their civil rights.‡

From these two facts it may fairly be inferred that Episcopalians on this

*Generally by deceptions on the Bishop of London.

+ If there has been any, it must have been from so few as rather to corroborate than weaken the sentiment conveyed.

Whether the above appendages would have accompanied an English Bishop to America, the author is no judge. That they were generally feared by the Episcopalian laity, he thinks the only way of accounting for the cold reception they gave (a fact universally known) to every proposition for the introduction of a Bishop. Those who pleaded for the measure on a plan purely spiritual, thought he would not be invested by the laws of England, with such powers; but in case it had proved otherwise, they proposed the limiting him by act of Parliament. What the people would have thought of measures which must have required an act of that body to render them harmless, no person formerly acquainted with their temper and sentiments need be told; and whether they judged right or not, recent events have abundantly shown.

continent will wish to institute among themselves an Episcopal government as soon as it shall appear practicable, and that this government will not be attended with the danger of tyranny, either temporal or spiritual.

But it is generally understood that the succession can not at present be obtained. From the parent Church most unquestionably it can not; whether from any is presumed to be more than we can at present be informed. But the proposal to constitute a frame of government, the execution of which shall depend upon the pleasure of persons unknown, differing from us in language, habits, and perhaps in religious principles, has too ludicrous an appearance to deserve consideration; the peculiar circumstances of the war in which our country is engaged, preclude us from procuring the succession in those quarters to which alone application could consistently be made; the danger of offending the British government, constraining (perhaps) a refusal of what it would of course be indelicate for us to ask. Now, on the one hand to depart from Episcopacy would be giving up a leading characteristic of the communion, which however indifferently considered as to divine appointment, might be productive of all the evils generally attending changes of this sort. On the other hand, by delaying to adopt measures for the continuance of the ministry, the very existence of the churches is hazarded, the duties of positive and indispensable obligation are neglected.

The conduct meant to be recommended, as founded on the preceding sentiments, is to include in the proposed frame of government, a general approbation of Episcopacy, and a declaration of an intention to procure the succession as soon as conveniently may be; but in the mean time to carry the plan into effect without waiting for the succession.

The first part of this proposal is conceived to be founded on the plain dictates of propriety, prudence, and moderation; for if the undertaking proceed on acknowledged principles, there will be far less shock to ancient habits, and less cause of intestine divisions than if new principles are to be sought for and established. To illustrate this by an allusion: had our old government been so adjusted to the genius of the people and their present circumstances, as at the Revolution to have required no further change than what necessarily arose from the extinction of royal authority, it is obvious that many pernicious controversies would have been prevented. Such, however, except in a few instances, was not the happiness of the colonies. But it is precisely the situation of the Episcopal Churches in their religious concerns, none of their constituent principles being thereby changed, but what were founded on the authority of the King.

In the minds of some, the idea of Episcopacy will be connected with that of immoderate power, to which it may be answered that power becomes dangerous, not from the precedency of one man, but from his being independent. Had Rome been governed by a presbytery instead of a bishop, and had that presbytery been invested with the independent riches and dominion of the Papal See, it is easy to conceive of their acquiring as much power over the Christian world as was ever known in a Gregory or a Paul.

It may be further objected that Episcopacy is anti-Republican, and there

fore opposed to those ideas which all good citizens ought to promote for securing the peace and happiness of the community. But this supposed relation between Episcopacy and monarchy arises from confounding English Episcopacy with the subject at large. In the early ages of the Church it was customary to debate and determine in a general concourse of all Christians in the same city, among whom the bishop was no more than president. Matters were indeed too often conducted tumultuously, and after a manner which no prudent and peaceable man would wish to see imitated; but the churches were not the less episcopal on that accouut. Very few systems of religious discipline on this continent are equally republican with that proposed in the preceding pages. The adage of King James I., “No bishop, no king, and no king, 'no bishop," ought only to be understood concerning that degree of episcopal power together with its civil appendages, of which he certainly meant it.

But it will be also said that the very name of "Bishop" is offensive; if so, change it for another; let the superior clergyman be a president, a superintendent, or in plain English, and according to the literal translation of the original, an overseer. However, if names are to be reprobated because the powers annexed to them have been abused, there are few appropriated to either civil or ecclesiastical distinctions which would retain their places in our catalogue.

The other part of the proposal was an immediate execution of the plan, without waiting for the Episcopal succession. This is founded on the presumption that the worship of God and the instruction and reformation of the people are the principal objects of ecclesiastical discipline; if so, to relinquish them from a scrupulous adherence to Episcopacy is sacrificing the substance to the ceremony.

It will be said, we ought to continue as we are with the hope of obtaining it hereafter. But are the acknowledged ordinances of Christ's holy religion to be suspended for years, perhaps as long as the present generation shall continue, out of delicacy to a disputed point, and that relating only to externals? It is submitted, how far such ideas encourage the suspicion of want of attachment to any particular church except so far as is subservient to some civil system. All the obligations of conformity to the divine ordinances, all the arguments which prove the connection between public worship and the morals of a people, combine to urge the adopting some speedy measures to provide for the public ministry in these churches; if such as have been above recommended should be adopted, and the Episcopal succession afterwards obtained, any supposed imperfections of the intermediate ordinations might, if it were judged proper, be supplied without acknowledging their nullity by a conditional ordination resembling that of conditional baptism in the Liturgy; the above was an expedient proposed by Archbishop Tillotson, Bishops Patrick, Stillingfleet, and others at the Revolution, and had been actually practised in Ireland by Archbishop Bramhall.*

* Nichol's Defence of the Church of England. Introduction.