Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

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 Truth 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 valuablə 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' prehend 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.
WM. WEST. (1)

THE BISHOP OF CONNECTICUT TO REV. DR. WHITE,

Dear Sir.

New London, Jan 18th. 1786.

ap

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.

Boston Jan'ry. 24, 1786.

Rev'd. & Dear Sir.

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.

your

came exculpated from any Communications on that Subject & that it could not have been at my request that you so highly disapprove of their Conduct, Respecting the proceedings of your Convention give me leave to observe. that the whole proceeding almost, is in direct Violation of the fourth fundamental Principle agreed on by Convention at New-York, which is that the American Church shall maintain the Doctrines of the Gospel held by the Church of England & shall adhere to the Liturgy of said Church, as far as shall be consistent with the American Revolution & the Constitutions of the respective States. The State Prayers in the Liturgy I suppose are here excepted & them only, but how can you be said to adhere to the Liturgy of the Church of England, after adopting the alterations made in new Prayer book Or had this Convention a right to alter amend & disannul the proceedings of that at New-York? I rather think not, because it was upon those fundamental Principles that Delegates were appointed for this Convention, & whose business it was not to supercede those principles but to act in Conformity to them. Had I been present at your Convention I must have protested ag'st. revising the Liturgy for this reason, as well as for another which appears to be to have great weight, viz. that the business of revising Liturgies & framing ecclesiastical Constitutions is the sole & proper duty of Bishops with advice of their Clergy, & that for the Clergy & Laity to undertake this is intrenching upon the Episcopal Authority in matters ecclesiastical. I foresee you will readily retort, how came then a Convention of clerical & lay deputies assembled at Boston to invade the Episcopal Province & revise the Liturgy? I answer they have not; Certain Alterations were proposed in the Liturgy of the Church, by the Bishop of Connecticut & at his request lay before the Convention at Boston for their Approbation, & those were made the basis of our proceedings, but when approved were not to be adopted till the other Churches had approved of them also, in order if possible to obtain a Uniformity. And accordingly we have not yet made any Alterations except a Substitute for the State Prayers. With respect to your Address to the Archbishops & Bishops of England give me leave to suggest whether if you succeed in Consequence of said address in obtaining an Episcopate from England, we shall not inevitably have two Episcopal Churches in America which like Jews & Samaritans will have no Communication but be at continual Enmity? To the Succession thro' the Scotch Bishops I think no material Objection can be made, & the obtaining an Episcopate thro' that Line will not be so unpopular as from the English Line. The people of these Eastern States still retain a great jealousy of the English nation & will with Difficulty be brought to submit to any Authority civil or ecclesiastical from thence, insomuch that I imagine it next to impossible to obtain from our civil rulers such a Certificate as your Convention recommends. To a Eishop from the Scotch line there can be no Objection, for unconnected with civil power themselves, there can be no jealousy of a Bishop from thence introducing any into these States. Was it not for this reason & for our already having a Bishop in the Neighborhood from the Scotch Church, I frankly confess it would be more eligible to obtain the Succession from England as we always have been accustomed to look up to them as Children to their Parent. With respect to the Alterations in the Liturgy & offices of the Ch'h. I must suspend giving my Opinion till I see the whole; those in that part of the Prayer Book that is come to hand, are many of them the same that were proposed by us, & where they differ, I would as soon adopt one as the other. No Objection I think can be made to the Omission of the Nicene Creed but the time. Some passages in it are as ob

scure & unintelligable as many in the Creed of St. Athanasius, which I am very glad we are rid of. The Arian Doctrine is gaining ground very fast in these parts, & the throwing out two Creeds at once which were designed as a barrier ag'st. that Doctrine will be looked upon by many as acceding to the same Opinions.

Thus you see Sir that relying on your Candour I have given my Opinion of the proceedings of your Convention with as much freedom as you did yours to Mr. Miller. You will be kind eno' to put the most favourable Construction on my Expressions, & not imagine that I presume to find fault with doings of so learned & respectable a Body but only to inform you of such Difficulties as lay in my mind respecting our ecclesiastical Affairs. finally I sincerely wish we may settle down in an Uniformity of Doctrine & Worship, & still continue one Church cemented in the strictest bonds of Union. To the obtaining of which I shall exert my utmost Abilities. (1)

Even under the eye and influence of the able and determined Provoost there had grown up dissatisfaction with the work of the Convention of 1785; while at the southward, fears of doctrinal changes in the future led to the warning words of Dr. West we give below. It is clear from the words of the rector of Trinity, New-York, that the presence of Seabury, in the validity of whose consecration there was almost universal acquiescence, served most happily as a conserving element in the later measures attending the organization of the Church throughout the land. At the same time there can be little doubt that the objections to the Fourth of July service alluded to by Provoost, formed a grave obstacle to the acceptance of the Proposed Book. (2) That the service itself was the composition of one whose political course during the war for Independence had been far from consistent added to the general dislike with which its incorporation in the Prayer Book was regarded, so that this "most injudicious step taken by the Convention," as Bp. White styles it resulted in the general disuse of the service and a wide-spread disposition "to cry down the intended book, if it were only to get rid of the offensive holiday."

We add the letters to which reference has been made.

(1) From a copy in the handwriting of Bp. Parker and preserved among his papers. (2) Vide ante, pp. 202, 204 for an extract from Bp. White's Memoirs (pp. 104, 105) giving a discussion of the whole subject.

« AnteriorContinua »