the latter supported the monarchical, and the former the republican branch of the constitution. The grievances which produced the American war, were the result of claims of one people over another; and not of the question, as to what would be the wisest distribution of the internal powers of either. Besides, it may be remarked, that Episcopacy, as now settled in America, must be confessed at least as analogous as Presbytery-the author thinks much more so-to the plan of civil government, which mature deliberation has established over the union; and to those plans which, even during the heats of popular commotion, were adopted for the individual states. The sentiment wished to be here impressed, is, that Episcopacy, under the old regimen, would have probably been considered as subservient to an authority, of the decline and final abrogation of which there were causes, which must have produced their effect at last; if the effect had not been hastened much faster than could have been expected, by intemperáte counsels and by injudicious measures.

It would be a misinterpretation of what the author has here written, were it applied as a censure on what some of his brethren, who were before him, have advanced in favour of their right to an Episcopate. Far from this, he honours their memories; and considers the arguments on which they rested their claim, as unanswerable. What has been said, is merely an argument from certain causes existing in the character and the circumstances of the American people, to what would have been the effects in a supposed case, which did not occur.

It may be thought, that there should be allowed a large deduction from the weight of the observations made, on account of the proportion of the American people, whose conduct or whose wishes were in contrariety to the general sentiment of their countrymen. But this is apparent only. There were no persons more hostile to the British claims, than they who withdrew from the resistance of them: this with very few exceptions. When the controversy issued in war, and afterward in independence, at each of the periods there was a large defection from the American cause, produced by the motives which have been detailed.

No doubt, the number of dissentients was increased by unjustifiable measures of the newly erected governments in some of the states. Still, the sentiment was universal, of the sacred nature of the rights invaded, and would again

have had its effect on the minds of the temporary advocates of Great-Britain, had the war terminated in her favour. "

Further, the opinions here expressed may seem indicative of aversion to the British character, in the author's mind. Far from entertaining any such avcrsion, he prefers the laws and the manners of the British nation to those of any other; either from partiality to the country of his ancestors, or, as he believes, in consequence of an impartial comparison. But he reasons on the principle, which he thinks warranted by the experience of all ages, that national domination, under whatever circumstances, will be tyranny. An individual may be a tyrant, or otherwise, according to his personal character: but no people ever stuck at any crimes which advanced their wealth at the expense of those governed by them; especially, if it were at a distance.

In short, however great the inconveniences brought on the Episcopal Church in America by the revolution, the author has all along cherished the hope, that they will not be permanently so injurious to her, as would have been her alliance with a distant power, in hostility to the common interests of the country; accompanied by the jealousies and the odium which would have been attached to that circumstance.

Perhaps it may be thought, that a deduction should be made from any apparent weight in the theory here delivered, on account of the establishments existing in Maryland and Virginia; which would not have been overset by the British government. The subsequently prostrate condition of the Church in these states, may be urged as a proof of the advantages which would have attended a continuance of the establishment. But this reasoning is inadmissible, if, as before supposed, the prostration was owing to the preceding system, of an amendment of which there was no prospect. Besides, it should be remembered, that before the revolution, the parts of those states, now the most populous, were fast settling by persons differing from the establishment. Even in the old parts, numbers were leaving the Church, to attend the ministrations of preachers, who had recently availed themselves of the very little regard entertained for their clergy, to produce a popular desertion of the Church itself. Under such circumstances, it was hardly to be expected, that the establishment would have redounded to the reputation and the increase of the Church generally. It was becoming more and more unpopular; with some, because it was not considered as promoting

piety; and with these and others, because they thought the provision for it a useless burden on the community..

There is a remarkable fact in Virginia, countenancing the sentiments delivered. After the fall of the establishment, a considerable proportion of the clergy continued to enjoy the glebes-the law considering them as freeholds during life without performing a single act of sacred duty, except, perhaps, that of marriage. They knew that their public ministrations would not have been attended.

B. Page 20. Of the Question of using the Liturgy, exclusively of the Prayers for the King and the Royal Family.

As the cessation of the public worship of the Episcopal Church was very much owing to scruples on this point, it may be thought important, in reference to such future political changes, as are rendered possible by the uncertainty of human affairs.

So far as the author knows or believes, the difficulties which arose on this account were not of great extent in the southern states. In Maryland and in Virginia, there were many of the clergy whose connexions with their flocks were rendered, by their personal characters, dependent wholly on the continuance of the establishment, and, of course, fell with it. Again, many worthy ministers entertained scruples in regard to the oath of allegiance to the states,

* On the question of burden, as detached from all other considerations, there is a fallacy not generally perceived. Under the present system, if the gospel should be supported in the states concerned, as may now be confidently expected, the weight of the expense will fall disproportionably on people of moderate means. During the establishment it fell on the rich, in tolerable proportion to their wealth.

There is another fallacy in this business, in the reproach brought on the Church, when it ought to have fallen on the want of wisdom in the making of ministerial endowments, without some provision for ministerial fidelity.

Hence, however, a great proportion of the unpopularity, which led to the seizure and the sale of churches and glebes by the legislature of Virginia. It ought to be remembered, to the honour of Patrick Henry, that he resisted the said act, and that it could never be obtained until after his decease. This eminent man has been accused, of having always set his sail to the popular gale. There are several facts against the charge, and this is one of them: for he had to resist, through many years, the united efforts of men hostile to revealed religion in every form, and of other men who were professors of religion, but cherished rancorous hatred against the Church of England in particular.

The author is the more free in speaking of the act of the legislature of Virginia, as it will go down to posterity loaded with the reproach of unconstitutionality, by the Supreme Court of the United States: although their judgment will have no effect beyond the district of Columbia. See Cranch's Reports, vol. ix.

without the taking of which, they were prohibited from officiating, by laws alike impolitic and severe. But it must be seen, that scruples of this sort were of another nature than the question here stated for consideration.

northern states there were no such laws, but the clergy generally declined officiating, on the ground of their ecclesiastical tie to the liturgy of the Church of England. As they were generally men of respectable characters, the discontinuance of their administrations had an unhappy effect on the Church; and is here mentioned, as one cause contributing to the low state in which we were left by the revolutionary war.

With all possible tenderness to the plea of conscientious scruples, it will not be rash to affirm, that there was no ground for them in the promise-not an oath, as some suppose, although of equal solemnity-made previously to ordination in the Church of England. It is as follows:The candidate declares-"That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God; and that it may lawfully so be used; and that he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed, in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, and no other."

This promise ought to be taken in connexion with the pastoral duty generally; and with the discharge of it as stipulated for in the promises made at ordination; which require of the minister the reading of the prayers, and the administration of the sacraments.

But there occurs a case, in which there is an external necessity of omitting a few petitions, not involved in any Christian duty; so far as civil rulers are identified by name, or other personal description. In such a case, it seems evident, that the promise is the most nearly complied with, by the use of the liturgy to the extent which the external necessity permits.

When the Church of England was oppressed under the usurpations of parliament and of Cromwell, the clergy were molested in the use of the liturgy, because it was made illegal by act of parliament. But wherever the use of it was winked at, of which there are instances on record, they did not hesitate to avail themselves of the indulgence, with the exception of the political prayers; the use of which would have been highly penal.

C. Page 22. Of the Meeting in New-Brunswick, in May,

1784.

The first communications, between the clergy of different states, were at this meeting. It took its rise from a previous agreement between those of the city of New-York and those of Philadelphia, carried on through the medium of the Rev. Abraham Beach, then resident in or near Brunswick. The substance of what passed is as follows:

There met, from the state of New-York, the Rev. Messrs. Bloomer, Benjamin Moore, and Thomas Moore; from NewJersey, the Rev. Messrs. Beach, Fraser, and Ogden; and from Pennsylvania, the Rev. Dr. White, Dr. Magaw, and Mr. Blackwell. There happened to be in the town, on civil business, some lay-gentlemen, who, being represented by the clergy from New-York and New-Jersey as taking an interest in the welfare of the Church, were requested to attend. They were Mr. John Stephens, Mr. Richard Stephens, Mr. Richard Dennis, and Mr. Hiet. The author presided at the meeting, and opened it with a sermon. Mr. B. Moore was secretary..

The first day was chiefly taken up with discussing principles of ecclesiastical union. The clergy from Philadelphia read to the assembly the principles just before adopted, under appointments of their vestries, as will be related hereafter, and strongly recommended their taking of similar measures. The next morning, the author was taken aside, before the meeting, by Mr. Benjamin Moore, who expressed the wish of himself and others, that nothing should be urged further on the subject, as they found themselves peculiarly circumstanced, in consequence of their having joined the elergy of Connecticut in their application for the consecration of a bishop. This brought to the knowledge of the clergy from Philadelphia, what they had not known, that Dr. Samuel Seabury, of the state of New-York, who had sailed for England just before the evacuation of New-York by the British troops, carried with him a petition to the English bishops for his consecration.

In consequence of the measure taken as above stated, the gentlemen concerned in it thought, that during the pending of their application, they could not consistently join in any proceedings which might be construed to interfere with it. Accordingly, the conversation of that day-on which the meeting ended-was principally confined to the