of Parliament passed in the present sessions which are thought will be continued till towards June next. Committing you to God's guidance I am Yours, A. M. (1) A little later the same month the Rev. Mr. Duché addressed the following letter to his American Correspondent. It is particularly interesting as plainly and forcibly exposing the weakness of the argements by which Dr. White and the Southern Clergy sustained their course in holding back from union with the Bishop of Connecticut. Dear Sir. Asylum, March 25th, 1786. I wrote to you by Capt. Willett; but I find since, that ye Archbishop has returned an Answer to ye Letter of the Convention. This Intelligence I have from Mr. Peters. But neither he nor I know the Purport of the Answer. I have not called on his Grace since I delivered your Letters. And I have avoided all Conversation on the Subject, and shall avoid it, unless I am called upon to give my Sentiments, on the Propriety and Expediency of immediately granting the Request of the Convention. I am sure, if this shall be the Case, which I have not the least Reason in the world to expect, I shall say everything that true Affection for the Episcopal Church in my Native Country can dictate. I am also sure, that our Archbishop and Bishops here are heartily disposed to do everything, that can promote the Interest of a Church, which has been so long cherished, and supported by their Influence, and which under ye good Providence of the Lord, owes its Existence in America to the Benevolence of the Church of England. In ye meanwhile I cannot but lament the Prospect there seems to be of so Early a Schism among you. Here we could not recognize Dr. Seabury's Episcopal Character. But with you there can remain but one Point to be settled, in order to establish future Peace and Harmony, and that is, the Validity of his Consecration, from Proofs adduced of the uninterrupted Succession in ye Church of Scotland. This once settled, I should think you might receive him, or at least enable him, by previously acknowledging his Episcopal Character, to join your General Convention, and assist you, and your future Bishops, (from whatever Channel you may obtain them) in making such further Regulations in Discipline and Worship, as may finally introduce a General Uniformity in the Episcopal Church throughout the States. If something of this Kind is not done I fear, an unpleasant Disunion may take Place, and put a Stop to ye Progress of your Church. Bishop Seabury who was much with me, during his Residence here, appears to be a Man of great Moderation, strong Judgment, good Affection and solid Piety. And I really thought, from one of your Letters to me, that you were all eager to receive him. But enough on this Subject. You will excuse these Hints which are suggested (1) From the Bp. White MSS. from real Affection to you All, and a sincere wish, that unanimity and Brotherly Love may prevail and continue among you. * * * I approve much of what I have seen of your Liturgy. It is very remarkable, that your first Introductory Sentence The Lord is in his Holy Temple, &c.," is ye very Sentence I introduced about a twelve month ago, to be sung at my Chapel by the Orphans, instead of a Voluntary before ye First Lesson, by way of engaging ye attention of ye Congregation to Lessons from Scripture. It is used by you with still more Propriety to introduce the whole Service. The several verbal alterations are of little Consequence, but can be adopted without giving offence. Not so the leaving out one of the Articles of the Apostles' Creed-" The Descent into Hell" which if properly understood, will be found to be quite consistent with ye Analogy of Faith, and therefore not to be omitted. The words Descent and "Hell," do indeed want explanation. And so does every other Article of ye Creed. But surely it ought not to have been rejected for this Reason, otherwise the Scriptures themselves may be rejected. For who can say, that he understands them, till his Understending is opened by the Lord?" And of what use is a Gospel Ministry, but to be Instrumental in ye Lord's Hands for this Purpose; that is to open the understandings of their Hearers? Every Body here is astonished to find, that your Convention of Clergy and Laity should have thought, that "he was buried" and that he decended into Hell, are synonymous Expressions, of the same Meaning and Import. Could you suppose for a Moment, that the Soul of Xt was buried with his Body? Impossible-If not, then it must have been somewhere-and in some state. What State could this be but the State into which all departed Spirits go, at the Death of ye Body, and remain, till a last Judgment sooner or later, gives them who "die in the Lord, as our Burial Service expresses it, "their perfect Consummation in Bliss in Body and Soul," or dooms the wicked to Eternal Punishment?. In this State our Lord's Spirit must have remained betwixt his Death and Resurrection. Nay, till his Ascension into Heaven. For though his final temptations and Combats were compleated on the Cross, yet his Human Body was not completely glorified, and made Divine till his Ascension and Session on the Right Hand of God. If you had looked into Bishop Pearson, and some others of our Church on this Article you would have found, that the Process of Redemption could not have been complete, had not our Lord passed thro' the several states of Man before, at, and after his Death. You would have found the Period at which this Article was introduced, the different Interpretations given to it, by different Persons, in preceding Ages; and the Reason, why we retain this Article in ye Sense in which he has explained it, and in which it is held by every sound Divine of the Church of England. You would not have been offended at the words "Descent into Hell," but when properly understood, would have found them perfectly consistent, as I have already said, with the Analogy of Faith. The necessity of the Case, and your particular Circumstances may justify in some Measure your adopting a Republican Form of Church Discipline. But surely there could have been no necessity for a few Clergymen and Laymen undertaking to leave out a single Article in a Creed, which is received and adopted by every Xtian Communion even by the Socinians, I believe, if they may be called Xtians who, like ye followers of Mahomet, deny the Divinity of the Lord that bought them." Poor Dr. Smith, if we may judge from his Sermon, is sadly fallen off. Never was a more lean and meagre Performance-Had not his name been prefaced, I should never have conceived the Composition to be his. Dr. Wharton's is here thought much superior, though in a moral view, he has rather lowered the Clerical Character. I am sure you will receive and answer these imperfect Hints with your usual Candour. Remember, what I write to you is for you alone, that is for your own Perusal. If you think what little I have said, may be of any weight, you may communicate it in your own Words, without using my Name, which now, perhaps, would give not the least Sanction to Trută itself, with those I mean, who view me in a different Light, from what they once did. I am * * Ever yours affectionately J. DUCHE. (1) The longed-for response of the Archbishops and Bishops to which reference is made by Mr. Duchè was at length received and printed in full in the Journal of the Convention of June, 1786. It also appears in Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church (2). The original with the autograph signatures of the Archbishops and Bishops, which is still preserved, forms one of the most interesting and valuable Manuscripts in the Archives of the American Church. As Bishop White informs us(2) it was "the omission of the article of Christ's descent into hell, in the Apostles' Creed," that was especially distasteful to the English Prelates though this objection was urged with earnestness only by a single Bishop-Dr. Moss of Bath and Wells. At the same time the failure of the Bishops to receive the sheets of the "Proposed Book" which though sent to them from time to time(3) as the work passed through the press, miscarried, occasioned the "caution" which Bishop White noticed as characterizing this important and interesting letter. That there was not unanimity in urging the omission in the creed referred to, will appear from the following letter from one of the wisest and most worthy of the Southern Clergy; while the communications which we subjoin from the Rev. Mr. Parker and the Bishop of Connecticut will give us the impressions of the Convention and its work which obtained in New England and to a large extent in New Jersey and New York. (1) From the Bishop White Mss.) (2) Pages 297 298.) REV. DR. WILLIAM WEST TO REV. DR. WHITE. Baltimore Town, Nov. 3rd. 1785. Dear Sir. If I am not much mistaken Doctor Smith told me, that it was not yet too late to retain, in the Apostles' Creed, the Descent into Hell. If it be not, and you Gentlemen can, with Propriety, introduce it so as to be repeated or not, with the other Articles, at the Discretion of the Minister; I can not but think (as I have written to Dr. Smith) that it would be much better to retain than expunge it. When this Matter came before the Convention, just at the Conclusion of Business I could not but say I wished the article to be retained But rather than Engage in tedious and irksome Debate, I only wished it. And the Reasons for my wish at that Time occasion my troubling you with this now, if the Article may haply be yet retained. The only Reasons I heard for expunging it were that it was not anciently in the creed; and that it implied Tautology; but the former Reason I believe, will militate in some Measure against retaining another Article of the same creed, and Bishop Pearson's observations will show that the Descent into Hell does not necessarily imply Tautology; For our Lord's Body only was buried in the Grave; but his rational Soul (without which he could not be Perfect Man), during his Separate State after Death was in Hell, or that State (whatever it be ) into which the rational Soul of every Man enters and exists from the Time of his Death, to that of the General Resurrection. However as this is not clearly and explicitly delivered in the Sacred writings, the Descent into Hell might, I presume, be omitted without any Injury to the Christian Faith. But I apprehend the Omission of this Article may occasion a Diversity of Sentiments in the P. E. Churches of these United States; all which, especially in the only Creed retained, and at this time particularly, I wish to be avoided. But I mean not to be troublesome either with my wishes or my apprehensions; and shall acquiesce under the matured judgment of others better informed. If therefore what I have observed on this Subject be either out of Time, or impertinent; pray suppose it all obliterated, or never mentioned. My dear sir. Your affectionate Servant. THE BISHOP OF CONNECTICUT TO REV. DR. WHITE. Dear Sir. New London, Jan 18th. 1786. I should have paid the earliest attention to your letter of the 18th. of October, but that I flattered myself I would have been favored with a copy of the Journal of the Convention at Philadelphia, and a letter from Dr. Smith on the subject; but as I have unhappily been disappointed in both expectations, I will no longer delay writing to you, least what has hitherto been only apparent, should become a real neglect. On the business of your Convention I can at present say nothing because I know nothing but from report, and that I hope has exaggerated matters; for I should be much afflicted to find all true that is reported. You mention my disapprobation of your including the Laity in your representative (1) From the Bishop White Correspondence.) body. Your extending the power of the Lay delegate, so far as your funda mental rules have done, I did then, and do now most certainly disapprove of; particularly in the article relating to the Bishop, who, if I rightly understand, is to be subject to a jurisdiction of Presbyters and Laymen. I hope the general desire to harmonize which you mention will produce good effects, I assure you no one will endeavour more to effect the cordial union of the Episcopal Church through the Continent than I shall, provided it be on Episcopal principles. I am, Rev. Sir, Rev. Dr. White. (1) with regard and esteem, your very humble Servant. SAMUEL, Bishop, Episcopal Church, Connect. REV. MR PArker to Rev. Dr. White. Rev'd. & Dear Sir. Boston Jan'ry. 24, 1786. I have to acknowledge & return you my thanks for three Packets received from you with your favours of Oct 24 & Decem'r. & one Packet since with the Sheets of your new prayer book as far as the Collect for all Saints Day, with a Note of Dec'r. 27. With your Letter of Octo'r. 24 I received Drs. Smith's & Wharton's Sermons but not the two half Sheets of the Prayer book which you mention in yours of Decem'r. 1st. Had you recollected the early Date of that Letter, I believe you will find that no part of the Prayer book nor the Journals had then come from the press, & consequently could not have been sent as in your great hurry from your multiplicity of business you imagined I have received ten half Sheets beginning with the Collects before the Communion Service, & shall esteem it an additional favour to have the former Sheets as they contain the Morn'g. & Even'g. Service which are the most material parts. I have also to return you my sincere thanks for your most excellent Letter to Mr. Miller & for your politeness in giving me the perusal of it before the Delivery. It was not a little of a mortification to them that your Letter came thro' my hands, for I have so uniformly opposed their proceedings that I have exposed myself to their resentment, & this afforded me such matter of Triumph as they could hardly brook. I think you have given your Opinion of their Book in a very sensible Judicious manner & shew them their error with great Strength of Arguments I sincerely wish it may have a good effect. But I despair of seeing them retract as long as their present Reader continues with them, & let that Period be longer or shorter he must continue a Reader only, for in my Opinion he can never be episcopally ordained, at least while he retains his present Sentiments, & should he obtain Ordination from the Congregational Clergy with whom alone he has always associated, that will forever exclude all Pretence of their being an Episcopal Church & will open the way for the Minority to recover possession of the house, which by the way is the most elegant building not only in America, but there are few exceed it in neatness & elegance even in London. It cost upwards of £10,000 St'g. I thank you kindly Sir for adverting in your letter to Mr. Miller to the knowledge you had obtained of their proceedings, by which means I be (1) From the Bishop White Correspondence. |