some things therefore in your proceedings I cannot be a competent judge, without minute information; and I am very sorry that my present circumstances, and duty here, will not permit me to make so long a journey at this time; because by personal interview and conversation only can such information be had.

But, my dear Sir, there are some things which, if I do not much misapprehend, are really wrong. In giving my opinion of them, I must claim the same privilege of judging for myself which others claim; and also that right of fair and candid interpretation of my sentiments which is due to all men.

1. I think you have done wrong in establishing so many, and so precise, fundamental rules. You seem thereby to have precluded yourselves from the benefit of after consideration. And by having the power of altering fundamental rules diffused through so large a body, it appears to me next to impossible to have them altered, even in some reasonable cases; because cases really reasonable may not always appear so to two-thirds of a large assembly. It should also be remembered that while human nature is, as it is, something of party, passion, or partiality, will ever be apt, in some degree, to influence the views and debates of a numerous and mixed assembly.

2. I think you have too much circumscribed the power of your Bp. That the Duty and Office of a Bishop, differs in nothing from that of other Priests, except in the power of Ordination and Confirmation, (Pamph. p. 16) and the right of Precedency, &c. is a position that carries Jeroms opinion to the highest pitch.-Quid facit Episcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat, excepta ordinatione? But it does not appear that Jerom had the support of the Ch'ch, in this opinion, but rather the contrary. Government as essentially pertains to Bps as ordination; nay ordination is but the particular exercise of government. Whatever share of government Presbyters have in the Ch'ch, they have from the Bp, and must exercise it in conjunction with, or in subordination to him. And though a Congregation may have a right -and I am willing to allow it-to choose their minister, as they are to support him and live under his ministry, yet the Bps concurrence or license is necessary, because they are part of his charge; he has the care of their souls, and is accountable for them; and therefore the ministers

authority to take charge of that congregation must come through the Bp.

The choice of the Bp. is in the Presbyters, but the neighbouring Bps who are to consecrate him must have the right of judging whether he be a proper person or not. The Presbyters are the Bps council, without whom he ought to do nothing but matters of course. The Presbyters have always a check upon their Bp. because they can, neither Bp nor Presbyters, do any thing beyond the common course of duty without each other. I mean with regard to a particular diocese; for it does not appear that Presbyters had any seat in general councils, but by particular indulgence.

The people being the patrons of the Ch'ches in this country, and having the means of the Bps and ministers support in their hands, have a sufficient restraint upon them. In cases that require it, they can apply to their Bp, who, with the assistance of his Presbyters, will proceed, as the case may require, to censure, suspension or deposition of the offending Clergyman. If a Bp behaves amiss the neighbouring Bps are his judges.-Men that are not to be trusted with these powers are not fit to be Bps or Presbyters at all.

This, I take it, is the constitution of the Christian Ch'ch, in its pure and simple State. And it is a constitution which, if adhered to, will carry itself into full effect. This constitution we have adopted in Connecticut; and we do hope and trust that we shall, by God's grace, exhibit to the world, in our government, discipline and order, a pure and perfect model of primitive simplicity.

Presbyters cannot be too careful in choosing their Bp; nor the People in choosing their Minister. Improper men may, however, sometimes succeed: And so they will, make as exact rules, and circumscribe their power, as you can. And an improper man in the Ch'ch, is an improper man, however he came there, and however his power be limited. The more you circumscribe him, the greater temptation he is under to form a party to support him; and when his party is formed, all the power of your convention will not be able to displace him. In short if you get a bad man, your laws and regulations will not be effectual-if a good man the general laws of the Ch'ch are sufficient.

When civil States have made provision for ministers, it seems reasonable that they should define the qualifications, and regulate the conduct of those who are to enjoy the emolument. But voluntary associations for the exercise of such powers as your Convention is to have, are always apt-such is the infirmity of human nature-to fall into parties; and when party enters, animosity and discord soon follow.-From what has been said you will suppose I shall object

3. To the admission of Lay members into Synods &c. : I must confess I do, especially in the degree your fundamental rules allow. I have as great a regard for the laity as any man can have. It is for their sake that Ministers are appointed in the Ch'ch. I have no idea of aggran dizing the Clergy at the expense of the laity: nor indeed of aggrandizing them at all. Decent means of living is all they have a right to expect. But I cannot conceive that the Laity can with any propriety be admitted to sit in judgment on Bps and Presbyters, especially when deposition may be the event; because they cannot take away a character which they cannot confer. It is incongruous to every idea of Episcopal government. That authority which confers power, can, for proper reasons, take it away: But where there is no authority to confer power, there can be none to disanul it. Wherever, therefore, the power of Ordination is lodged, the power of deprivation is lodged also.

Should it be thought necessary that the laity should have a share in the choice of their Bp-if it can be put on a proper footing, so as to avoid party and confusion,I see not but that it might be admitted. But I do not apprehend that this was the practice of the primitive Ch'ch. In short, the rights of the Christian Ch'ch arise not from nature or compact, but from the institution of Christ; and we ought not to alter them, but to receive and maintain them, as the holy Apostles left them. The government, sacraments, faith and doctrines of the Ch'ch are fixed and settled. We have a right to examine what they are, but we must take them as they are. If we new model the government, why not the sacraments, creeds and doctrines of the Ch'ch; But then it would not be Christs Ch'ch, but our Ch'ch; and would remain so call it by what name we please.

I do therefore beseech the Clergy and Laity, who shall meet at Philadelphia, to reconsider the matter before a final step be taken: and to endeavour to bring their Ch'ch government as near to the primitive pattern as may be. They will find it the simplest, and most easy to carry into effect; and if it be adhered to will be in no danger of sinking or failing.

I do not think it necessary that the Ch'ch in every State should be just as the Ch'ch in Connecticut is; though I think that the best model. Particular circumstances, I know, will call for particular considerations. But in so essential a matter as Ch'ch government is, no alterations should be made that affect its foundation. a man be called a Bp who has not the Episcopal powers of government, he is called by a wrong name, even though he should have the power of Ordination and Confirmation.

If

Let me therefore again entreat that such material alterations, and forgive me if I say, unjustifiable ones, may not be made in the government of the Ch'ch. I have written freely as becomes an honest man; and in a case which I think calls for freedom of sentiment and expression. I wish not to give offence, and I hope none will be taken. Whatever I can do consistently to assist in procuring Bps in America, I shall do cheerfully, but beyond that I cannot go; and I am sure neither you, nor any of the friends of the Ch'ch, would wish I should.

If any expression in the letter should seem too warm, I will be ready to correct the mode, but the sentiments I must retain till I find them wrong, and then I will freely give them up. In this matter I am not interested. My ground is taken, and I wish not to extend my authority beyond its present limits. But I do most earnestly wish to have our Ch'ch in all the States so settled that it may be one Ch'ch, united in government, doctrine, and discipline that there may be no divisions among us-no opposition of interests-no clashing of opinions. And permit me to hope that you will at your approaching Convention so far receed on the points I have mentioned, as to make this practicable. Your Convention will be large and very much to be respected. Its determinations will influence many of the American States, and posterity will be materially affected by them. These considerations are so many arguments for calm and cool deliberation.

Human passions and prejudices, and, if possible, infirmities, should be laid aside. A wrong step will be attended with dreadful consequences. Patience and prudence must be exercised: And should there be some circumstances that press hard for a remedy, hasty decisions will not mend them. In doubtful cases they will probably have a bad effect.

May the Spirit of God be with you at Philadelphia; and as I persuade myself, the sole good of his Ch'ch is the sole aim of you all, I hope for the best effects from your meeting.

I send you the alterations which it has been here thought proper to make in the Liturgy, to accomodate it to the civil constitution of this State. You will observe that there is no collect for the Congress. We have no backwardness in that respect, but thought it our duty to know whether the civil authority in this State has any directions to give in this matter; and that cannot be known till their next meeting in October.

Some other alterations were proposed, of which Mr. Ferguson took a copy; and I would send you a copy had I time to transcribe it. The matter will be resumed at New Haven the 14th of September. Should we come to any determination, the Brethren to the southward shall be informed of it.

With my best regards to the Convention and to you, I remain your affect. hum'l Serv't.

SAMUEL, BP. EP'L CH'CH, CONNECT.

I have taken the liberty to enclose a copy of my letters of Consecration, which you will please to communicate to the Convention. You will also perceive it to be my wish that this letter should be communicated to them; to which, I presume, there can be no objection.

Resuming the same subject a few days later, Bp. Seabury addressed the following letter directly to Dr. White :

()NEW LONDON, Augt. 19, 1785.

REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,

I thank you for your several letters since my arrival in America, and particularly for the Pamphlets you sent

1 From the Bp. White MSS.