Ordinations, without subscribing to Articles or Oaths religious or civil. You know my sentiments too well to think that I would sow the seeds of Schism or Sedition, by being allowed a latitude in the first instance.

As to Citizenship in its legal full extent, tho' I conceive I have not forfeited it, yet from prudential considerations I do and must waive it. Meantime it is enough that you do me the honour, as you readily can, to have me chosen a Member of your Episcopal Academy which entitles me or any one else not attainted to honorary Citizenship where it is, that is to Protection in Person and Property at least. This appears necessary to obviate a strange ambiguity in the Act of Parliament, respecting "citizens out of his Majestie's dominions," tho' that particular relation is quite foreign to your intentions and Request, which betray no such narrow spirit, from all that can be collected from your Correspondence and Addresses.

The meaning, tho' mistaken, is however dubious, and to be guarded against. Dr. Seabury was consecrated when he was not only an Alien but an Enemy to the Commonwealth of Connecticut and was peaceably received there notwithstanding.

I have not heard from Dr. Smith since you left this, but I have every reason to believe that he would give me no opposition, but countenance and encouragement, as a Senior brother, and no Rival. It is a pity he had not been more guarded. He would have been so useful and active.

Thus I have taken the earliest opportunity of informing you of my present Situation and Resolutions. If you can avail yourselves of them, it will give me the sincerest pleasure, without expectation of fee or reward. As to honour or dignity, none can be derived from any department in your Church while the 8th Art. of your Constitution remains in force, which is humiliating in the extreme; but that you have good reason for it I doubt

not.

I hazard the whole with you and Bp. Provoost only. Were anything of the kind to transpire. I would be exposed anew by some Grub Street Scribblers whom I would not provoke, tho' I little regard.

Your most obliged

and most obedient Servant

Bishop White.

A. MURRAY.

Right Reverend Sir.

Just as I was finishing Bishop White's letter

I take the liberty for the sake of despatch to address it to you, to forward it after perusal with your opinion on what equally concerns you both. The Southern Conventions have served you ill 'tis true, to leave you so long in the lurch, but you may yet waken them to a sense of mutual obligation. If you can do better than in the way I have presumed to propose, I have my desire, which is neither lucre nor ambition but an hearty concern for an Orphan Infant Church, which has struggled, and has yet it seems to struggle thro' many and great difficulties.

In haste, Right Rev'd Sir,

Bishop Provoost.

Your most obedient

and most obliged Servant

A. MURRAY. (1

(1) From the Bp. White Correspondence.

BISHOP PROVOOST TO BISHOP WHITE.

Right Reverend and D'r Sir

N. York Febuary 16th 1789.

As your early receiving the inclosed may be of some consequence to Dr. Murray I send it by the first post. I am afraid the conversations you were witness to in England may have raised expectations in the Dr. which it will not be in my power to gratify. Soon after my arrival I really mentioned his Situation to some Gentlemen of Influence in the Church of N. Jersey and that it was probable he would have no aversion to become their Bp provided he was duly elected, but not being listened to with the attention I could have wished, I had no encouragement to press or to resume the subject. The same causes which prevented the election of Mr. Beach will I am convinced be a bar for some time to their choosing any other person. 1 have not had time to pay a due consideration to the Doctor's Proposals, but I shall always be ready to unite with you in any reasonable mode that may be pointed out of rendering him every service in my power. I am in great Haste D'r Sir

your most affectionate Brother SAM'L PROVOOST. (1)

In

It was from Massachusetts that the proposition tending to unite the divergent lines of Episcopacy finally came. a letter, the date of which, other than the year, the good Bishop, in the hurry and labor of a wearisome correspondence, forgot to append, the following language is used:

BISHOP WHITE TO MR. PARker.

Rev'd and dear Sir.

Philadelphia, 1788.

Give me leave te take ye opportunity of asking whether our brethren of Massachusetts are.determined still to keep at a distance from us, or whether they will meet us in Convention next July? If there are any matters in which we do not think exactly alike, you may rely on it that there is an accommodating spirit on our part. If ye same should not be found on theirs also; much more, if there should continue a backwardness even to confer with us: it is evident we shall never build up one respectable Church, pervading ye United States; and consequently shall never be so flourishing as some other religious societies who will accomplish that object.

We miss your society in another point of view. Of ye Southern States it is evident that ye Church is not sufficiently numerous, in some of them, to encourage their choosing a Bishop; while, in others, there are very particular circumstances preventing such a measure: so that even should Dr. Griffith repair to England for consecration, ye business would be imperfect, unless there were at least a fourth ready against his return: and we sup

(1) From the Bp. White Correspondence.

pos there, that ye respectability of ye Church in Massachusetts would warrant our looking to them in this business.

I have formerly expressed to you another reason for my wishing you with us; and ye reason still exists: ye effecting of a junction with our brethren of Connecticut.

It must be considered by all as a surprising instance of negligence in our Church; her not availing herself of ye present opportunity of obtaining ye entire and independent possession of that Episcopacy which she had so long complained of ye want of. Our brethren in Virginia are no doubt most to blame. But when their indifference in ye case of Dr. Griffith had shown that there was no dependence from them, it should have been taken up elsewhere. The only excuse is what I have already stated-ye smallness of our communion in some states, and very particular circumstances in others. I can only add further at present, that I remain Your affectionate Brother,

Rev'd S. Parker.

WM. WHITE. (1)

This letter was a great advance toward the union so ardently desired by the Churchmen of the North. It was doubtless communicated to the Bishop of Connecticut, whose criticisms upon it are contained in a letter of his addressed to Mr. Parker. This letter we give below :

BISHOP SEABURY TO THE REV. MR. PARKER.

December 16, 1788.

Rev'd and dear Sir:

I can

I intended to have written to you more particularly concerning a union with the Southern Churches: but I am obliged to go out of town for two or three days, and shall not be back in time for the post. now only observe, that as it appears to me, all the difficulty lies with those Churches, and not with us in Connecticut. I have several times proposed and urged a union. It has been received and treated, I think, coldly. And yet I have received several letters urging such a union on me, as This is not fair. I am though I was the only person who opposed it. ready to treat of and settle the terms of union on any proper notice. But Bishops W. and P. must bear their part in it, actively, as well as myself; and we must come into the union on even terms, and not as underlings.Your affectionate, humble servant, SAMUEL CONNECT. (2)

In the following month Mr. Parker replied to the letter addressed to him by the Bishop of Pennsylvania. This communication, a long and able discussion of the matter,

(1) From the Bishop Parker Correspondence.

(2) From the original letter among the Bishop Parker Correspondence.

and its temperate and conclusive arguments must have carried conviction with them.

THE REV, MR. PARKER TO BISHOP WHITE.

Right Rev. Sir:

Boston, January 20th, 1789.

I was honoured some time last month with your letter, which being without date leaves me uncertain how long it was on its passsge, nor could I find out the bearer. I have been waiting some weeks for an opportunity to send to Philadelphia by a private hand, otherwise should have been more punctual in acknowledging the receipt of yours.

You ask, Sir, "whether your brethren of Massachusetts are determined still to keep at a distance from you?" I am quite at a loss how to answer the question. True it is that the Churches in Massachusetts have at present more the resemblance of Independent congregations than of Episcopal Churches, having one common centre of union and communion. There are but six Episcopal Clergymen in the state: two of these have received Orders since the Revolution; one from yourself, the other from Bishop Seabury; two of the other four are so lax in their principles of Episcopal government, that I rather think them averse to uniting under any common head. The Churches are without funds, and the Clergy supported by voluntary contributions, and most of them so small and poor as to afford their ministers but slender support. This being the case, your supposition that the respectability of the Church of Massachusetts would warrant your looking to them to complete the number of Bishops in the English line, is not, you will readily perceive, well founded. Greater difficulties would arise in this matter than a stranger would imagine; so great, indeed, that I despair of ever seeing it effected here.

If there is anything in the power of the clergy here that could effect a reconciliation between the Church of Connecticut and Philadelphia, it will, I am sure, be embraced with cheerfulness. Something I hope will be attempted in the spring. It appears to me that a union might take place, even if the constitutions of government and the Liturgy varied a little in the different States. An absolute uniformity of government and worship, perhaps, will never take place under a Republican form of civil government, and where there is such a variety of sentiments in religious matters. Still I conceive we may become so far united as to be one Church, agreeing in the general principles of discipline and worship.

The late alteration that has taken place in the political principles of the Nonjurors in Scotland, their being no longer entitled to that name, I should suppose will remove one bar to a reconciliation with Bishop Seabury. If our brethren in Connecticut are so tenacious of the rights of the Clergy, as not to be willing to yield any part of Church government to the Laity, why need that be an impediment to an union with those in offices pertain ing to the Episcopal chair, who think the Laity are entitled to a share of the government? For my own part, I am not of opinion that the Church of England is entirely free from Lay government, and I am still more of the opinion that a Church existing under such constitutions of civil gov ernment as are adopted in the United States, especially where it has no funds of is own to support its officers, can never flourish without yielding to the Laity who hold the purse-strings, a share in the government.

This, however, in my mind, is the greatest obstacle to a union with our

brethren in Connecticut. It is in vain to dispute which form comes nearest to the primitive practice. The question is, which is most expedient under our present circumstances? They are doubtless too rigid in their sentiments, at least for the latitude of America, and must finally be obliged to relax a little. They think, on the other hand, that your Constitution is too democratical for Episcopal government, and especially in permitting the Laity to sit as judges at the trial of a Bishop, and to have a voice in deposing him. Bishop Seabury in a letter to me last month, has these words: "All the difficulty in effecting a union lies with the Southern Churches, and not with us in Connecticut. I have several times proposed and urged a union, it has been received and treated, I think coldly. And yet I have received several letters urging such an union on me, as though I was the only person who opposed it; this is not fair. I am ready to treat of and settle the terms of union, on any proper notice; but Bishops White and Provoost must bear their part in it actively as well as myself, and we must come into the union on even terms." Here certainly appears a disposition to unity; where, then, is the impediment?

I have lately heard that some proposals have been made by the Convocation at New York for a reconciliation. What they are, if any such have been made, I am not yet able to learn. I heartily wish that we were one body, and the Church in every state completely organized. Nothing on my part shall be wanting to effect this desirable end. If my meeting you in Ĉonvention next July would have any tendency to bring this to pass, I would willingly accept your kind invitation; and would endeavour to come properly authorized to accede to any proper terms of accommodation. In the mean time, I could wish to know if any general principles are agreed upon which it is supposed the opposite parties will accede to, and which would be the basis of the union. If some preliminaries of this kind were previously settled, it would much facilitate the business, and afford a more pleasing prospect of success.

Any communications of this kind you can find leisure to make will be most gratefully received by

Your most obedient and very humble Servant,
S. PARKER. (1)

Right Rev. Bishop WHITE.

Meantime further letters from Dr. Griffith continue the story of the efforts of this worthy man to obtain the Episcopate to which he had been elected by the suffrages of the clergy and laity of Virginia.

THE REV. DR. GRIFFITH TO BISHOP WHITE.

Fairfax Glebe. 10th Feb'y 1789.

Dear Sir; I have rec'd yours of the second of Jan'y. Your objections to the proposal in my last satisfy me with respect both to the propriety of applying and the practicability of succeeding in the modes hinted at by me. I was by no means sanguine in my expectations of success in either

(1) From the Bishop White Correspondence.