Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

officiate or settle in this state, shall, at the time of their ordination, or at any time afterward, take or subscribe any obligation of obedience, civil or canonical, to any foreign power or authority whatsoever, nor be admissible into the ministry of this Church, if such obligations have been taken for a settlement in any foreign country, without renouncing the same, by taking the oaths required by law, as a test of allegiance to this state.

2. According to what we conceive to be of true apostolic institution, the duty and office of a bishop differs in nothing from that of other priests, except in the power of ordination and confirmation, and in the right of precedency in ecclesiastical meetings or synods, and shall accordingly be so exercised in this Church, the duty and office of priests and deacons remaining as heretofore. And if any further distinctions and regulations, in the different orders of the ministry, should be found necessary for the good goverument of the Church, the same shall be made and established by the joint voice and authority of a representative body of the clergy and laity, at future ecclesiastical synods or conventions.

3. The third section is intended to define or discriminate some of the separate rights and powers of the clergy, and was proposed and agreed to as follows, viz. that the clergy shall be deemed adequate judges of the ministerial commission and authority, which is necessary to the due administration of the ordinances of religion in their own Church, and of the literary, moral, and religious qualifications and abilities of persons to be nominated and appointed to the different orders of the ministry; but the approving and receiving such persons to any particular cure, duty, or parish, when so nominated, appointed, set apart, consecrated, and ordained, is in the people, who are to support them, and to receive the benefit of their ministry.

4. The fourth section provides, that ecclesiastical conventions or synods of this Church shall consist of the clergy, and one lay-delegate or representative from each vestry or parish, or a majority of the same, and shall be held annually on the fourth Tuesday of October, unless some canon or rule should be made at some future convention for altering the time of meeting, or for meeting oftener than once a year, or not so often, or with a larger or smaller representation of the Church, as may be judged necessary. But fundamental rules, once duly made, shall not be altered, unless two-thirds of such majority, as aforesaid, duly assembled, shall agree therein.

The following heads of additional articles were set down for the consideration of the next convention.

1. That the power and authority necessary for reclaiming or excluding scandalous members, whether lay or clerical, and all jurisdiction with regard to offenders, be exercised only by a representative body of clergy and laity jointly.

2. That the power of suspending or dismissing clergymen from the exercise of their ministry, in any particular church, parish, or district, be by the like authority.

3. That all canons or laws for church-government, and all alterations, changes, and reforms, in the Church service and liturgy, or in points of doctrine to be professed and taught in the Church, shall also be by the like authority.

The proceedings of these conventions, besides the circumstance of their showing an accommodation to the civil system, by the introduction of the laity, gave great offence to some of the clergy, by the definition of the authority of a bishop, in the second of the articles established. It is, evidently, the much controverted position of St. Jerome. The author does not think it accurate and although his principles on the subject of Episcopacy allow of an accommodation of its powers to the circumstances of the Church, at different times, he was afraid of there arising some inconvenience from the asserting, as a fundamental principle, of what was in the opposite extreme to that of the overstrained authorities of the office, maintained by others.

In consequence of the recommendation and proposal of the meeting of 1784, in New-York, there was a convention of the clergy of South-Carolina, at Charleston, in the spring of 1785. This was the state in which there was the most to be apprehended, an opposition to the very principle of Episcopacy, from its being connected, in the minds of some people, with the idea of an attachment to the British government. The citizens of South-Carolina were the last visited by the British armies, and had suffered more than any others by their ravages. The truth is, there was real danger of an opposition in the convention, to a compliance with the invitation given. But the danger was warded off, by a proposal made by the Rev. Robert Smith, to accompany their compliance with the measure, by its being understood, that there was to be no bishop settled in that state. Such a proposal, from the gentleman who, it was presumed, would be the bishop, were there to be any chosen, had the effect intended. Some gentlemen, it is said,

declared in conversation, that they had contemplated an opposition, but were prevented by this caution.

Besides the conventions which have been mentioned, there were one in New-York, and another in New-Jersey, in the summer of 1785. But as their proceedings extended no further than to the appointing of deputies to the General Convention, it is not necessary to notice them any further, than is dictated by this circumstance.

F. Page 24. Of the General Convention, in Philadelphia, in September and October, 1785.

The president of this convention was Dr. White, and the secretary was the Rev. Dr. Griffith.

There being journals of this convention, and of the conventions following, the matter of those journals will not be repeated in this work, except so far as may be thought necessary to the sense of it, the design being principally the communicating of facts within the knowledge and the recollection of the narrator, tending to throw light on what has been recorded. The statements and the remarks to be now offered, will be arranged under the heads of sundry sections.

Section I. Of the General Ecclesiastical Constitution.

It has been seen, that in the preceding year, at NewYork, a few general principles, tending to the organizing of the Church, had been recommended to the churches represented, and proposed to those not represented. As all the articles except the fourth, which recognized the English liturgy, with the exception of the political parts of it, were adopted by the present convention, they became a bond of union, and indeed, the only one acted under, until the year 1789. For as to the general constitution, framed at the period now before us, it stood on recommendation only, and was of no use, except in helping to convince those who were attached to that mode of transacting business, that it was very idle to bring gentlemen together from different states, for the purpose of such inconclusive proceedings.

The fifth and the eighth articles of this proposed constitution deserve particular notice, because they have been subjects of considerable conversation and censure.

The former of these articles provided, that every bishop should be a member of the convention "ex officio." Accordingly, the article was loudly objected to by the clergy to the eastward; because of its not providing for Episcopal presidency.

The constitution was drafted by the author, in a subcommittee; a part of a general committee, consisting of a clergyman and a layman from each state; and originally provided, that a bishop, if any were present, should preside. In the sub-committee, a gentleman, without much consideration of the subject, and contrary to what his good sense, with such an advantage, would have dictated, objected to the clause; and insisted, that he had read, although he could not recollect in what book, that this had not been a prerogative of bishops in ancient ecclesiastical assemblies. The objection was over-ruled, by all the other members of the sub-committee. But when the instrument, after passing in the general committee, was brought into the convention, the same gentleman, not expecting to succeed, and merely, as he afterwards said, to be consistent, made a motion to strike out the clause. Contrary to expectation, he was supported by another lay-gentleman, who took an active part in all the measures; and who, in the sub-committee, had been of another mind. Thus a debate was brought on, which produced more heat than any thing else that happened during the session. As the voting was by orders, the clergy, who, with the exception of one gentleman, were for the clause, might have quashed the whole article. But this appeared to them to be wrong; because it contained nothing contrary to the principle of Episcopal presidency; and the general object was such as ought to have been provided for. Accordingly, the article passed, as it stands on the journal; that is, with silence as to the point in question. It was considered, that practice might settle what had better be provided for by law; and that even such provision might be the result of a more mature consideration of the subject. The latter expectation was justified by the event.

The other article provided, that every clergyman should be amenable to the convention of the state to which he should belong. This was objected to by the English bishops, as appears in the letter of the archbishops of Canterbury and York; who there complain, that it is "a degradation of the clerical, and much more of the Episcopal character." The foundation of this complaint, like that of the other,

was rather in omission, than in any thing positively deelared. For the bishop's being amenable to the convention in the state to which he belonged, does not necessarily involve any thing more, than that he should be triable by laws of their enacting, himself being a part of the body: and it did not follow, that he might be deposed or censured, either by laymen or by presbyters. This, however, ought to have been guarded against: but to have attempted it, while the convention were in the temper excited by the altercations concerning the fifth article, would have been to no purpose.

In this whole business, there was encountered a prejudice entertained by many of the clergy in other states; who thought, that nothing should have been done towards the organizing of the Church, until the obtaining of the Episcopacy. This had been much insisted on, in the preceding year, in New-York. Let us-it was said first have an head, and then let us proceed to regulate the body. It was answered, on that occasion-let us gather the scattered limbs, and then let the head be superadded. Certainly, the different Episcopalian congregations knew of no union before the revolution; except what was the result of the connexion which they in common had with the bishop of London. The authority of that bishop being withdrawn, what right had the Episcopalians in any state, or in any one part of it, to choose a bishop for those in any other? And until an union were effected, what is there in Christianity generally, or in the principles of this Church in particular, to hinder them from taking different courses in different places, as to all things not necessary to salvation? Which might have produced different liturgies, different articles, Episcopacy from different sources, and, in short, very many churches, instead of one extending over the United States; and that, without any ground for the charge of schism, or of the invasion of one another's rights. The course taken has embraced all the different congregations. It is far from being certain, that the same event would have been produced by any other plan that might have been devised. For instance, let it be supposed, that in any district of Connecticut, the clergy and the people, not satisfied with the choice made of Bishop Seabury, or with the contemplated plan of settlement, had acted for themselves, instead of joining with their brethren. It would be impossible to prove the unlawfulness of such a scheme; or, until an organization were made, that the minor part were bound to

« VorigeDoorgaan »