DEAR SIR, * NEW YORK, Feb’y 14, 1785. * I received a Letter, by the last Packet, from Dr. Inglis, in which he informs me, that after every Application in England had proved ineffectual, Dr. Seabury went to Scotland, and was consecrated by some of the Nonjuring Bishops near Aberdeen, on the 14th Nov'r. last. He was on his Way to England, when Dr. Inglis wrote, and intends to embark for America, by the first convenient Opportunity. There can be no Doubt of the Validity of this Ordination. I am sure you will rejoice at it, and if he is so fortunate as to arrive safe in America, will join Heart and Hand with your Staunch, Orthodox Brethren, in supporting our venerable Church upon true Episcopal Principles. I hope Dr. I. has been very accurate in ascertaining the Succession among the Nonjurors, since the Time of the Revolution. As he is the first American Bishop, it may, in future years, be a Matter of some Consequence to be able to trace the Current up to the Fountain Head. REV'D MR. PARKER. Your Friend and Brother, Soon after the meeting in Philadelphia, Dr. White had enclosed the Act of Association of the Pennsylvania Churches in a letter to Mr. Parker, which, as it illustrates the apprehensions entertained at the North with reference to the proceedings of the coming Convention, we subjoin, together with its reply. To this letter of Dr. White's there is no date appended; but the original, still preserved among the Bp. Parker correspondence,(1) is endorsed as having been received in June, 1785. DEAR SIR, I should have answered your last Favor sooner, but for my Desire of furnishing you at ye same Time with an Acc't of our Proceedings in Consequence of ye In the possession of the Editor. Measures taken in N. York. I am sorry to find that those Measures have been so construed by some of our Friends in England, as if we had refused to ye Ep'l Order ye Right of Precedency in our Conventions. Probably you will recollect, that in ye original Draft it was provided that ye senior Bp: present sh'd preside; and that this was erased, not from ye Idea that any other than a Bp ought to be Presid't, but from an Observation of Dr. S. that to restrain it to ye senior Bp. might be sometimes inconvenient; I wish that ye Clause had stood. We have no information of Bishop Seabury's Arrival at N. London or in any Part of ye U. States; I hope we may expect him at ye Meeting in Sep'r. The Papers mention ye Consecration of a Dr. M. Moffat for RhodeIsland, but they are ye only Channel by which we have even heard ye Name of that Gentleman. I suppose you have had nothing further from ye Blockhead who wrote under ye Signature of "A Presbyterian." In ye present State of Affairs, ye Appearance of such an intolerant Spirit will rather have a Tendency to assist us. The intended Academy of which I informed you has been opened about two months. The Schools contain 125 Boys and are continually increasing. We have elected for Principal Mr. Andrews of Maryl'd, a worthy Clergyman of our Church, whom we daily expect to take ye Charge of it. * * * * Perhaps you will think we have appointed too many Lay Gent'n to ye Convention. This was owing to an Opinion advanced by ye Clergy from ye Country, that it would expedite ye removing of any Prejudices that may be remaining. As it is preparatory to ye framing a Const'n, it will not be a Precedent under it. I am, dear Sir, Your Friend and Brother, W. WHITE. The following, from the Bp. White MSS., was Mr. Parker's reply: REV'RD AND DEAR SIR, BOSTON, Septem'r 14, 1785. I have to acknowledge the Receipt of a Letter re ceived from you about 6 weeks since inclosing the Act of Association of the Churches in the State of Pensylvania, but the letter being without Date I cannot say how long it was on its Journey. I am with you equally sensible that the fifth of the fundamental Principles in the paper printed at N. York has operated much to the Disadvantage of that Convention. Had it stood as I proposed that a Bishop (if one in any State) sh'd be President of the Convention, I make no doubt there would have been one present. You will be at no loss to conclude that I mean Doct'r Seabury, who you must 'ere this have heard is arrived and entered upon the exercise of his Offices in Connecticutt. Being present in Convocation at Middletown the 4th of Aug'st last, I much urged his attending the Convention at Philadelphia this month, but that very Article discouraged him so much that no arguments I could use were sufficient to prevail with him. Had that Article stood as proposed, the Gentleman who moved the Amendment would not have suffered by it, nor [would] the Convention [have been] stigmatized as AntiEpiscopalian. It was at my Request that the Bishop with his clergy agreed to make some Alterations in the Liturgy and Offices of the Church, and a Com'tee from the body of the Clergy was chosen to attend him for that purpose, a report of which I was desired to lay before a Convention of Clergymen and Deputies from the churches in this State together with Rhode Island and New Hampshire, which was to meet the first Wednesday in this month. This Convention accordingly met, and have agreed to adopt the Alterations proposed at Middletown, (excepting two) and have agreed to a few others, which are to be proposed to the Churches in the other States. I am therefore directed by said Convention to forward to you, or to the President of the gen'l Convention to be held at Philadelphia the 27 of this month a copy of the Alterations proposed by our Convention, and to request a copy of the proceedings of that Body in order to compare notes and to see how near our Ideas agree. I accordingly enclose you now a copy of said proposed Alterations and if you are not President of said Convention yourself [beg you] to deliver them to him with a request of our Convention that they may be communicated to your Convention, and that we may be furnished with a copy of the proceedings of that Boly before the time to with our Convention stat is si oamed vilchis Octo'r 26th next As the Expence of sending one or more Delegates to the genl Convention world be ver considerable and must fa, mpon one or two canales, our Convention concluded not to send, as you will and by the vote 160 owing the proposed alterations. Whether you will find time to revise the Carons Articles, &c., of the Church, and the Liturgy dan or which you will enter upon first, is uncertain. I rather think that Canots and Articles, or an Ecclesiastical Constitution should be left to your Bishop when you have one) with his Clergy; the Laity seen to be more concerned with the Liturgy, and the revision of that will take more time than they will be willing to spend at eonvention. I find that the fourth Article in the proposals printed at New York is disgusting to many of our Communion who neither like the Doctrines held by the Church of England nor the Liturgy as it now stands, and if those are fundamental Principles how will you get rid of them? Some of the Doctrines held up in the 39 Articles I think are not founded in Scripture, and I could wish if they are taken into Consideration by the Convention, they may be amended. The Doct'r McMoffat whom you say the Papers mention as having been consecrated was formerly a Custom house Officer at Newport, very unpopular and hated by the People. The article in the paper was intended only as Hum or a Reflection upon the Church. I shall esteem it a favour if you will be so kind as to inform me what measures are adopted at your Convention and whether you make any alterations in the Liturgy as we are perfectly disposed here to preserve a Uniformity in divine Worship and to adopt any measures that will tend to that end. I am Dear Sir with respect and Esteem, Your most affect'te Friend and Brother These alterations referred to in the above letter as enclosed, and which we reprint in full from the Journal of the Convention in Boston, will also serve to put us in possession of the measures for revision entertained by the Connecticut Convocation at this time,-measures which their subsequent legislation failed to confirm, mainly from the reaction of feeling consequent upon the more radical changes introduced into the Liturgy at the South. At a Convention of Clergymen and Lay Deputies of the Episcopal Church of the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, held at Boston, Sept. 7 and 8, 1785. Present. Rev. Edward Bass, Rector of St. Paul's Church, Newburyport. Rev. Wm. Willard Wheeler, Rector of the united. Churches at Scituate, Marshfield, Braintree, and Bridge water. Rev. Nathaniel Fisher, Rector of St. Peter's Church, Salem. Rev. Samuel Parker, Rector of Trinity Church, Boston. Hon. Tristram Dalton, Esq., Deputy of St. Paul's Church, Newburyport. Stephen Greenleaf, Esq., and Mr. Benjamin Greene, Deputies of Trinity Church, Boston. Thomas Ivers, Esq., and Mr. James Sherman, Deputies of Christ Church, Boston. Dr. Charles Stockbridge, Deputy of Scituate, Marshfield, and Bridgewater. Rev. Wm. Willard Wheeler, Deputy of Braintree. Mr. John Bours, Deputy of Trinity Church, Newport, Rhode Island. Mr. John Usher, Deputy of Bristol, R. I. Dr. Francis Borland, Deputy of Queen's Chapel, Portsmouth, N. H. · Voted, Rev. Edward Bass, President of this Convention. Voted, Rev. Nathaniel Fisher, Secretary. Voted, That the Clergy and Laity now assembled shall |