Trinity Church be warned to meet the next Sunday morning before the usual Time of Service and these Votes be laid before them for their Concurrence and Assent. At a Meeting of the Proprietors of Trinity Church the 21st Day of July 1766 The foregoing Votes of the Wardens and Vestry of said Church containing the Method proposed for carrying on the Service of the Church in future and the Reasons therein alledged for omitting Part of the Liturgy were read and considered, and it appearing absolutely necessary that some Alterations be made in order that the Proprietors may worship in Safety and without InterruptionVoted unanimously That we concur with the Wardens and Vestry in the proposed Omissions and Alterations, and that Mr. Parker the present Minister be requested to make the necessary Omissions and perform the Service as is therein proposed A True Copy from the Minutes Attest. Where this course was not taken, the churches were shut up and the services interrupted, save in those portions of the country occupied by the British forces. Among those of the Clergy who sympathized with the popular side, a compliance with these variations in the services was general; and as in Pennsylvania and at the southward the number of patriot Clergymen was large, and their concurrence in the popular measures were known, the Church was left in their sections of the country less reduced in number and less an object of suspicion than was the case in New England and New York. In some of the States these matters were a subject of legislative enactment. In Virginia, the day following the Declaration of Independence, the Convention of the State "altered the Book of Common Prayer, to accommodate it to the change in affairs."() This document, (2) still to 1 Hawks's Ecclesiastical Contributions, Vol. I. Virginia, page 238. "Vide the Introduction to "A Treatise on the Law of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States." By Murray Hoffman, Esq. 8vo. New York, 1850, page 31. be found in the Library of the State of New York, in Albany, contains the alterations proposed, which relate almost exclusively to the prayers for rulers. They close with the following injunction: "Let every other sentence of the Litany be retained, without any other alteration, except the above sentences recited." But these changes, slight though they were,, and justified, as Bp. White aptly asserts,(') from the conduct of the most eminent English divines during the usurpation of Cromwell, were unpalatable to many of the Clergy; and, in consequence, "the doors of the far greater number of the Episcopal churches were closed for several years."(2) At the return of peace, and on the consequent acknowledgment of the independence of the United States by Great Britain, there were wide differences in the manner of performing the services of the Church obtaining in different sections of the land. Some Churches had merely adopted the necessary changes in the State prayers, while others had gone much further; and the necessity of consultation among the Clergy of the scattered Churches for the purpose of securing a return to uniformity of worship was apparent. Prior to the Convention of 1785, Bp. White assures us, with respect to those concerned in this gathering, that "very few, or rather, it is believed, none of them entertained thoughts of altering the liturgy, any further than to accommodate it to the revolution."(3) We think the action of the New England Clergy which we have already printed, together with the extracts from unpublished correspondence which we subjoin, will tend to confute this view, and indicate, in advance, the marked changes introduced by the first Convention. The following letters() addressed to the Rev. Mr. 1 Memoirs, p. 77. 3 Ibid. From the originals in the possession of the Editor. 2 Ibid. p. 20. p. 102 Parker, of Boston, by the Rev. Edward Bass, of Newburyport, subsequently chosen first Bishop of Massachusetts, preceded the definite action of the Massachusetts Convention, which we have previously recorded. Independently of their connection with this department of our subject, they are full of interest and information as to the state of the Church at the East: DEAR SIR, NEWBURY PORT, June 21st, 1784. I have received yrs. of 15th Inst. enclosing the Minutes of the Philadelphia Convention and their design appears to me to be very good, not to say very important, viz, the continuance and preservation of uniformity among the Episcopal Churches, at least from their State to the Northern extremity of the United States. I fully agree with them that the Authority to make Canons or laws should be placed in a representative Body of Clergy and Laity conjointly, and hope that in due time a suitable place for their Meeting will be appointed. That the Service and Discipline of our Church are capable of improvement will, I apprehend, be deny'd by few of her intelligent Members; and such improvement or amendment may without doubt be more easily effected now than heretofore when we were connected with Great Britain. But still reformation of almost any kind is a nice and delicate affair and not to be touch'd or attempted by rough hands. I also look upon it to be highly expedient that proper Collects be made for the Government we live under. You propose a Meeting of the Episcopal Clergy of this State,-Jubes renovare dolorem! Alas! to what are we reduced! I know of but four, two in Boston, one in Salem, and yr. humb. serv't. If then we should meet, Salem I should think, would be the proper place and why should not a respectable Layman of each Church meet with us? After all I cannot help thinking it would be proper to wait for the arrival. of our Bishop before we proceed to any ecclesiastical consultations of importance, that we may have his concurring voice in such matters. According to the account I have had from you we might have expected the arrival of such a person before this time. Pray, what is become of him? (Mr. Seabury, I think you told me was the man who went to England last year for Consecration.) What hath been his success? Is any thing like to be done towards the regular continuance of our Succession, for I hope Messrs. White and Brethren have it not in contemplation to constitute their three orders de novo. Have you seen and conversed with Mr. Badger? If so, what is his plan? Where does he mean to fix, &c. I hear he was some time ago at Haverhill, but he did not call upon me. I should be glad of your Answer as soon as may be convenient to you, as also of any thing else you may have to communicate to Yr. affectionate Brothr. and humble Serv't, REV'D SAM'L PARKER. Nearly a year after this characteristic letter, Mr. Bass resumes the subject under consideration in the following communication: REV'D AND DEAR SIR, NEWBURY PT. July 7th, 1785. I was hindered by certain untoward accidents from paying you a short visit in my way to and from Providence, which I intended to do, as for other reasons, so particularly to talk with you upon the approaching Convention. Is it like to be universal? Are we this way like to have any hand in it? If so in what manner? Is a Delegate, or more, to be sent from hence to represent our scatter'd Congregations? Are all the vacant Churches among us to be sent to? Do you learn by any means what is like to be done with the Liturgy either in the way of addition or diminution? I should like your answer to these questions, or any others which you may think I ought to have asked. As to the Liturgy, I have thought we might part with the Athanas'n Creed, one or two Lord's prayers, and leave the use of Sponsors to the option of those who have children to christen; which, in my opinion, would be much better than to let it remain a Law of the Ch'h and at the same time unobserved by the greater part of her Members, as I am told, is, and has been the case in the Southern Colonies and in Connecticutt. Proper prayers must be substituted for the American Governm't in the room of those for the King and Royal Family. We ought to have a code of Ch'h-laws or Canons, plain and simple. Some power should be given to the Bishop or Bishops, but our Dernier resort must be in a general Council which should be supream and have the Power of censuring or depriving Bishops as there may be occasion. Such are some of the thoughts that have occurr'd to me upon this Subject. But tho' we have a happy opportunity of making our Liturgy appear in some points to greater advantage, yet for my part I had much rather remain as we are than break into Parties, or run into a thousand little schisms to the destruction of all harmony and uniformity, as I cannot help fearing, is too likely to be the case if once we begin to alter, or to make innovations. The Communication of your Sentim'ts upon the Subject would be very agreeable to Yr affectionate Bror. and very hum'le Serv't, REV'D MR. PARKER. The dread of innovations so sensibly felt by the worthy missionary at Newburyport was not experienced by his brethren at the South. A little later-under date of August 16th, 1785-the Rev. Charles Henry Wharton, of New Castle, Delaware, to whom reference has already been made, addressed a letter(1) upon the same subject to Mr. Parker, from which we make the following extract : "I think the simplyfying of the Liturgy should be among the first objects of the Convention. Whatever was left with a view of reconciling parties at the period of the Reformation, or retained as suitable to Cathedral Service may safely be omitted by the American Church. Perhaps such an opportunity never occurred since the days of the Apostles of settling a rational, unexceptionable mode of worship. God grant we may improve it with unanimity and wisdom." 1 From the collection of the Editor. |