and elsewhere throughout the New England States sympathised: and the contrary opinion, held, and prosecuted with So much determination by the Southern Conventions, served for a time to delay the union of the Churches. As we have already seen, the admission of the laity to the councils of the Church was another subject of disagreement; and the controversy with respect to this point ceased only at the ratification of the Ecclesiastical Constitution in October, 1789, by the Bishop of Connecticut and the deputies from that State, and Massachusetts and Rhode Island. To these matters the

following pages will again revert. In the mean time, with a brief glance at an abortive attempt at organization, still further to the North, we will pass to the consideration of the first Convention of the associated Churches.

In addition to these Conventions, there had been assembled in that portion of the present States of New Hampshire and Vermont, then known as "the Hampshire Grants," a meeting of Episcopalians from a number of neighboring towns, at which a delegate to the Convention in Philadelphia, in 1785, was duly appointed;(1) and the same gentleman, General Roger Enos, deputed to attend the State Convention of Massachusetts, with which body the more northern Churches seemed to feel most closely allied. General Enos failed to present himself either at Philadelphia or Boston, and we hear little more of the Episcopalians of the Hampshire Grants. Those of Vermont subsequently met in Convention, and under the guidance of a zealous but erratic Clergyman, the Rev. John Cousens Ogden, chose the Rev. Samuel Peters, LL.D., formerly Missionary in Hebron, Conn., as their Bishop, and applied in vain, as we shall subsequently see, both to the English and American Bishops, for his consecration. Those living in the valley of the Connecticut River, who were, upon the settlement of the disputed boundary line between New Hampshire and Vermont, declared to belong

(1) Vide unpublished records in the keeping of the Registrar of the Diocese of New Hampshire.

to the former State, united with a portion of their brethren in Vermont, and obtained for a time the consent of the General Convention to a conventional organization independent of the Clergy in the Eastern part of the State. These matters, however, will receive attention at a subsequent stage of our progress.

To this extended view of the Preliminary Conventions in various sections of the Church, we need add merely the remark, in recapitulation, that these proceedings, to quote the language of Bishop White, showed "an accommodation to the civil system" of our government, and asserted, perhaps for the first time since apostolic days, the right of the Laity to a vote and a voice in the general and particular councils of the Church.

THE CONVENTION OF 1785.

THE meeting of the first General Convention of the Church was awaited with great interest. Since the gathering in New York the preceding October, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Samuel Seabury had returned to Connecticut, having succeeded in his application for consecration at the hands of the Bishops of the Church in Scotland. Thus provided with a head, the clergy of Connecticut addressed an invitation to their Southern brethren to meet them in Convention at Middletown,(1) with a

Bp. White, in his Memoirs, says, at New Haven, (p. 100;) but the following letter, which we transcribe from his MSS., seems to sustain the statement we have made in the text:

DEAR SIR:

STRATFORD, July 14, 1785.

I am desired to acquaint you, that the Clergy of this State are to meet at Middletown in this State, on the third of August next, at which time and place, they would be much pleased to see you, and the rest of the Clergy of your State.

We must all wish for a Christian Union of all the Churches in the thirteen States, for which good purpose we must allow private Convenience to give way to public Utility.

We have no Views of usurping any Authority over our Brothers and Neighbours, but wish them to unite with us, in the same friendly manner, that we are ready and willing to do, with them. I must earnestly entreat you to come upon this occasion, for the sake of the peace of the Church,-for your own satisfaction, in what friendly manner the Clergy here would treat you,-not to mention what happiness the sight of you would give to your sincere friend and brother, JEREMIAH LEAMING.

In further confirmation of the above, we transcribe from the original, a letter issued by two of the members of a Clerical Committee of the first Convention of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, who were invested, as it appears from the Records of that meeting,

view to adopting measures for union and permanent organization. The reply of the Philadelphia clergy, as we are informed by Bp. White, was an invitation to those of Connecticut to come to the approaching General Convention in September-the appointment of which meeting was made the excuse for their non-acceptance of the Connecticut proposal.

This interchange of congratulatory and apologetic letters gave occasion for the following interesting correspondence, addressed by the newly consecrated Bishop and the venerable Dr. Thomas Bradbury Chandler, of New Jersey, to Drs. White and Smith. These letters, which we transcribe from the originals, and two of which are now for the first time made public, are of the greatest value, as illustrating the obstacles to union resulting from the radical movements of the Southern clergy, and, on the other hand, the sound conservatism of their brethren at the North:

MY DEAR SIR:

A day or two ago I received from Bp. Seabury, and was by him desired to forward, the enclosed letters, addressed to you and Dr. Smith. That to Dr. Smith was

"with power to summon this Convention to meet at such time and place as they shall judge most convenient, when the exigences of the Church make it necessary," apparently appointing the other member of their body to attend the Connecticut Convention as a Representative of the Churches of the two States.

REV'D SIR:

SALEM, July 28th, 1785.

We request you to attend the approaching Convention of the Episcopal Clergy, to be holden at the Town of Middletown, in Connecticutt; then and there to learn what measures they mean to adopt; in order to the maintaining uniformity of divine worship in the Episcopal Church, &c. &c. &c.

sent open for my inspection; and, instead of sealing it, I have taken the liberty to send it open to you, wishing that you also may have a sight of it. You will, therefore, after reading it, be so good as to seal and send it forward.

As the time of your continental Convention now ap proaches, I doubt not but you and the other friends of the Church in general, throughout the country, are beginning to grow very anxious about the event. For the fate of the Episcopal Church in America will, in a great measure, depend upon the deliberations and decisions of that general meeting. On this account I could wish to be present at a consultation of such capital importance; and, indeed, upon my late arrival from England, I found that I had been chosen as one of the Representatives of the Church in this State on the grand occasion; but such is my situation, with regard to a scorbutic, corrosive disorder, with which I have been long troubled, that I fear it will be impossible for me to accept the Commission by a personal attendance. Will you then permit me, in this way, to give you a sketch of my hopes and apprehensions, as well as my opinion on some matters relative to the case? From what I know of your character, I cannot doubt but you will; and not the less readily, on account of the freedom which I think it my duty to use, whenever I pretend to offer my opinion on the subject.

My hopes arise from the anxiety and concern, which have been so generally shown by the Episcopalians in the several States, for setting the Church upon a proper bottom-from the attachment they have discovered to the Episcopal mode of government-and from the veneration they have expressed for the Liturgy of the Church. of England, as the proper Basis of a Liturgy to be prepared for the general use of the churches in America. Now as such a disposition seems fortunately to prevail, I cannot but hope that, under the direction and blessing of Divine Providence, it will produce the happiest effects.

My apprehensions are owing to some measures that have been adopted by most of the particular Conventions, and some expedients that have been proposed, which are contrary to the established maxims of ecclesiastical polity, and the practice of the Church in all ages, a few modern instances excepted. In this I have reference to the ad