The Synod’s Relations with Other Churches in the Period from 1758-1788

A liberal and catholic spirit has been characteristic of our church from the beginning. It has ever been ready to maintain Christian fellowship with all other evangelical denominations. In accord­ance with this spirit, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, soon after its organization, sought fraternal intercourse with kindred churches both in Europe and America. At its first meeting in 1758, Messrs. Robert Cross, Gilbert Tennent, Francis Alison, and Richard Treat were appointed a committee to correspond in the name of the Synod with churches of our persuasion in Britain and Ireland, in these colonies and elsewhere. In the minutes for 1766, the churches mentioned as those with whom this correspond­ence was to be conducted, were those of Holland, Switzerland, the General Assembly and the Secession Synod in Scotland, the minis­ters in and about London, the General Synod of Ireland, the min­isters of Dublin, New England, and the churches in South Carolina. The references to this correspondence in the records are very frequent; but as the letters written and received are not in­serted, the minutes give no information on the subject, beyond the fact that a friendly intercourse with the several bodies above men­tioned was maintained, particularly with the Synod of North Hol­land, the General Assembly in Scotland, and the church of Geneva, from all of which letters were received.

In 1769, at the request of several seceding ministers, Dr. Witherspoon moved in Synod, that a committee be appointed to converse with them, with a view to bring about a union between them and this Synod. A petition was presented at the same time from seve­ral inhabitants about Marsh creek, praying that the Synod would use their endeavor to form a union with the Seceders. A com­mittee, of which Dr. Witherspoon was chairman, was accordingly appointed for this purpose. The following year they reported that by reason of several disappointments they had not been able to meet. In 1771 it is stated that this committee “brought in the minutes of their proceedings, and their conduct was highly approved.” Certain questions had been submitted to the Asso­ciate Presbytery, to which answers were reported to the Synod in 1772. For want of time, however, they were not read, but were referred to Dr. Witherspoon and others for consideration, who the next year reported that, as the Associate brethren had not given any answer to the proposal of the committee of Synod made the year before, they had not thought it proper to make any fur­ther reply to those brethren, than that if anything was to be done further towards a coalition between the Associate Presbytery and the Synod, the proposal must come from the former, which the committee would be ready to receive.

This negotiation does not appear to have been resumed until 1785, when the Synod was informed “that some of the brethren of the Dutch Synod, and one of the members of the Associate Re­formed Synod, had expressed a desire of some measures being taken to promote a friendly intercourse between the three Synods, or for laying a plan for some kind of union among them, whereby they might be enabled to unite their interests and combine their efforts for promoting the cause of truth and vital religion; and at the same time giving it as their judgment that such plan was prac­ticable.” “The Synod,” it is added, “were happy in finding such a disposition in the brethren of the above Synods; and cheerfully concur with them in thinking that such a measure is both desirable and practicable, and therefore appoint Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Jones, Dr. Rodgers, Dr. McWhorter, Dr. Smith, Mr. Duffield, Mr. Alexander Miller, Mr. Israel Reed, Mr. John Woodhull, and Mr. Nathan Ker a committee to meet such committees as may be appointed by the Low Dutch Synod now sitting in New York, and by Associate Synod, to meet in that city next week, at such time and place as may be agreed upon; to confer with the brethren of Synods, on this important subject; and to concert such measures with them for the accomplishment of these great ends as they judge expedient.”

It appears from the minutes of the following year that the committees of the three Synods met in New York the 5^th of October, 1785, and organized themselves as a convention. Their first measure was to appoint two members from each committee to digest several subjects to be laid before the convention. In this sub-committee the first inquiry was, what the formulas of doctrine and worship are to which each Synod respectively adheres. The answer given by the Dutch members is not recorded; that given by the members from the Synod of New York was quoted on previous page; that of the members of the Associate Synod is stated to have been, “in substance, very analogous to that made by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia.” It was then agreed “that the formulas and standards mentioned in the respective representations are mutually satisfactory, and lay a sufficient basis for the fraternal correspondence and concord of the several Synods.”

“The second inquiry was whether the corresponding Synods, in order to lay the foundation of entire confidence in each other, willing to give solemn and mutual assurances of their vigilance and fidelity, in requiring of their ecclesiastical officers an explicit and unequivocal assent to their present formulas or stands of discipline and faith; and will take such measures as to them respectively shall seem most reasonable and effectual to secure same fidelity and orthodoxy in all time to come. The answer was unanimously given in the affirmative. Resolved, that the nature of these assurances be left to be determined by the convention.

“The third inquiry was, whether they will agree mutually to watch over each other’s purity in doctrine and discipline; and whether they will agree mutually to receive complaints that may be made by either of the others against particular members of their respective bodies, who may be supposed to be departing from the faith, or from the exactness of their church discipline. Agreed in the affirmative; but that the mode shall be referred to the General Convention.

“The fourth inquiry was, whether they would mutually promise to introduce and maintain the most exact discipline that the circumstances of the country and spirit of the people will bear.

“Resolved, that this is an article of the utmost importance; and resolved, moreover, that it be recommended to the convention to consider of and adopt proper means for aiding the exercise of discipline by discouraging fugitives from it, out of any of the churches; and especially by not receiving any persons to church membership without sufficient credentials of their good moral character and orderly behaviour from the church to which they now immediately belong, or have lately belonged.

“The fifth inquiry related to grievances or causes of complaint that may have arisen between the ministers or congregations of the respective Synods. Resolved, that they ought to be candidly heard, and the most speedy and effectual measures taken to redress them.

“The sixth and last inquiry, or proposition, respected some mode of establishing a visible intercourse and permanent correspondence between the several Synods. Resolved, that this subject be referred to the consideration of the convention, but that it be recommended to the convention to establish an annual convention of the three Synods by their delegates, which may consist at least of three ministers and three elders from each; and that the general objects of this convention be to strengthen each other’s hands in the great work of the gospel ministry; to give and receive mutual information of the state of religion within their respective churches; to consider and adopt the most prudent means to prevent or remedy any causes of dissension that may happen to arise between our respective congregations, agreeably to the instructions that may be given by the respective Synods; and to concert measures for uniting our efforts to defend and promote the principles of the gospel, and oppose the progress of infidelity and error; and to adopt plans for effectually assisting the exercise of discipline in our churches, and encouraging each other in its execution; and for such other purposes as the convention may think proper. Resolved, to recommend that the first meeting of the above convention shall be held the second Tuesday of October, at New York, and afterwards at the time and place as shall be appointed at the preceding convention.”

When this sub‑committee of six made the above report to the general committee or convention, it was approved and adopted; the several points referred by the sub‑committee to the Convention were taken up and acted upon. “On the second inquiry it was resolved, that the manner in which the Synods shall give a solemn pledge to each other of the formula of their faith which they have openly professed, and of their strict attachment to the same, shall be by an act of each Synod, wherein an accurate recital of such formula shall be made, with a positive declaration that it is their sincere determination before God, always to abide the same, for which purpose they honestly pledge themselves to the two other Synods; which declaration and promise shall be signed by the president or moderator of the Synod, and at the first convention to be formed by delegates from the respective Synods, be read and entered upon the records of the convention, and copies of all the declarations be transmitted to each Synod and entered upon their respective records; which records shall remain a perpetual witness against either party that shall ever deviate therefrom. And also that each Synod shall communicate, by their respective delegates, the form of testimonials or credentials given to their candidates, and of those given to ordained ministers; which copies shall also be entered on the records of the respective Synods.

“Resolved, on the third inquiry, that we will mutually watch over each other’s purity in doctrine and discipline, and be ready to receive complaints against any of our ministers upon these subjects; and that the mode in which such complaints shall be preferred and prosecuted shall be, either by individuals, who shall prosecute in their own names, cum periculo; or by a classis, Presbytery, or Synod of a sister church; in which case it shall be taken up and prosecuted as a fama clamosa, by the classis, Presbytery, or Synod to which the offender or offenders may belong; and the whole proceedings shall be transmitted, properly authenticated by the moderator, the president, the scribe, or clerk, to the informing body for their satisfaction.

“On the fourth inquiry, resolved, that in order to aid the exercise of discipline, and discourage fugitives from it, every classis, Presbytery, or Synod, shall officially communicate to its neighbouring Presbytery, classis, or Synod, the name or names of every minister or candidate subject to censure, either of a lesser or higher nature; after which such Presbytery, classis, or Synod, shall be held to view and treat such minister or candidate as lying under ecclesiastical censure to all intents and purposes, as if they belonged to their own body, until such person or persons shall be regularly acquitted, or restored by the judicatory who had inflicted such censure.

“With reference to the fifth inquiry, relating to such grievances as may hereafter arise in congregations under the jurisdiction of the different corresponding Synods, it is determined that such differences shall be referred to the consideration of a future convention. But as it is possible that some contingencies may arise which will render a call of the convention before the stated time of meeting necessary, it is resolved, that a power be lodged in the moderator of the convention, with the consent of one member at least from each Synod, by circular letters to call an extraordinary convention, provided that such call be not more than once in one year.

“The convention thought proper to amend the resolution of their committee, by agreeing to a biennial instead of an annual convention.

“On motion to ascertain and limit the powers of the convention in all time to come, resolved, that those powers shall be merely of counsel and advice, and that it shall on no account possess judiciary executive authority, and every subject that shall come regularly before the convention, shall, after being properly digested, be referred to the respective Synods, together with the opinion of the convention, and the reasons on which it is founded, for their judicial and ultimate decision.

“Agreed, that the convention shall, when met, set apart a certain portion of their time for social prayer to Almighty God, for blessing on their counsels and the churches which they represent; and that said convention, whenever circumstances appear to them to require public and general humiliation or thanksgiving, shall recommend to the corresponding Synods to set apart the same day to be observed throughout all their churches.”

When this report was laid by the committee before the Synod, that body “approved of their diligence and fidelity in the matter, and agreed to appoint a committee to meet such delegates as may be appointed by the other Synods, on this business, in the city of New York, on the second Tuesday of October next,” the day appointed for the convention. The Synod prepared the following instructions for their delegation: “The delegates, on the part of this Synod, are to inform the convention that this body is about to divide itself into four Synods, subordinate to a General Assembly; they have under consideration a plan of church government and discipline, which it is hoped when completed, will be sufficient to answer every query of the convention upon that head; and that the mutual assurances mentioned in the minutes of the last convention may, as far as they respect this Synod, be made more properly after the intended system is finished than at present. They are to assure the convention of the readiness and desire of this body, in the mean time, to unite in a consistent manner their influence with that of the other Synods, in order to promote the mutual interests and best good of the whole. And the delegates from this Synod are to enter into a friendly conference with those of the other Synods, and in conjunction with them, concert such measures as shall be best calculated to diffuse harmony and brotherly love through the several churches, and promote the interest of the Redeemer’s kingdom, and to make report of the whole to this Synod at their next meeting. On motion, resolved, that the Rev. Doctors John Witherspoon, John Rodgers, Alexander McWhorter, Mr. Israel Read, Mr. John Woodhull, Mr. Nathan Ker, with the moderator (Mr. Alexander Miller), be appointed, and they are hereby appointed, delegates on behalf of this Synod for the purposes above mentioned.”

The next year it is simply recorded “that the committee appointed to meet committees from the Reformed Dutch Synod and the Associate Synod, made report and delivered the minutes of the convention of the committees of the three Synods, which met in New York last fall, which were read.” As the convention was to be biennial, no new appointment was made that year; but, in 1788, we find it stated that Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Smith, Mr. John Woodhull, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Monteith, were appointed delegates on behalf of this Synod to meet in convention with delegates from the Low Dutch Synod and the Associate Reformed Synod, on the first Thursday of next October.

The preceding account throws no little light upon the character of our church at this period. It is evident, not only from the known strictness of the Reformed Dutch and Associate Synods, but also from the character of the professions, pledges, and guaranties mutually exacted, that thorough orthodoxy and strict fidelity to the standards of doctrine and discipline were a necessary preliminary to the intercourse thus established, and that the preservation of that orthodoxy was one great object which the union was designed to answer. It must excite some surprise, even in the stricter sort of Presbyterians, to see the unanimity and readiness with which the delegates from our Synod acceded to all the demands made upon them, and even consented to place, to a certain extent, the orthodoxy of their own members under the surveillance of the other Synods. This was carrying the matter too far to last long, but it shows a state of feeling in our church which has long since departed. Could an intercourse, such as was here provided for, somewhat modified, have been preserved, it would probably have been of great service to all the corresponding bodies. We might have gained and might have imparted good, and the character of the three Synods been modified and improved by their reciprocal influence; and thus these three great bodies of Presbyterians been brought into a more cordial fellowship with each other, and each elevated to a higher point of ecclesiastical and Christian excellence.

In 1766 an overture was presented to the Synod, proposing that they should “endeavor to obtain some correspondence between the Synod and the consociated churches of Connecticut. A copy of a letter from the Synod to them was also read and approved; and the Rev. Messrs. John Ewing, and Patrick Alison, and the moderator, were desired to present that letter, and confer with our brethren on this affair.” “And in case it shall seem meet,” it is added, “to our Reverend brethren to attend to this our proposal, so far as to appoint commissioners from their body to meet with commissioners from ours: we appoint the Rev. Dr. Alison, and the Rev. Messrs. Timothy Jones, William Tennent, John Rodgers, Elisha Kent, John Smith, John Blair, and Samuel Buel, to meet with them at such time and place as the reverend brethren of Connecticut shall agree.”

In consequence of this overture, a convention of delegates was held at Elizabethtown, in November 1766, and a plan of union between the Congregational, Consociated, and Presbyterian Churches was drawn up and reported the next year to the Synod, and when amended was finally adopted by both parties. This plan was very simple, and provided:

1.      “That a general convention be formed of the Congregational, Consociated, and Presbyterian Churches in North America, consisting of delegates from each of their respective bodies, to meet annually, or as often as may be thought necessary, and that the first general convention be held at New Haven the day after their next annual commencement.

2.      “That this general convention shall not be invested with, nor shall it at any time hereafter assume any power, dominion, jurisdiction, or authority over the churches or pastors, or any church or pastor; nor shall any counsel or advice be asked or given in this general convention, relative to any internal debates subsisting, or that may subsist in any of these bodies thus united; and it is particularly agreed, that the Congregational, Consociated, and Presbyterian Churches, shall subsist entire and independent of each other, notwithstanding this union; retaining their peculiar usages and forms of government; nor shall ever any attempts be made, nor any authority, directly or indirectly be used by this general convention to change or assimilate the same.

3.      “That the general design of this convention be to gain information of this united cause and interest; to collect accounts  relating thereto; to unite our endeavors and counsels for spreading the gospel, and preserving the religious liberties of our churches; to diffuse harmony, and to keep up a correspondence throughout this united body, and with our friends abroad; to recommend, cultivate, and preserve loyalty towards the king’s majesty; and also address the king or the king’s ministers with assurances of the unshaken loyalty of the pastors comprehended in this union, and of the churches under their care; and to vindicate them, if unjustly aspersed.

4.      “That summary accounts of all the information and transactions in this general convention be, from time to time, duly transmitted to all the Associations, Presbyteries, or any other bodies that shall accede to or be included in this union.”

It was agreed that letters should be written to the ministers of the Congregational and Presbyterian Churches in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, and to the reverend brethren of the Reformed Dutch church, inviting them to send delegates to the convention. And accordingly the following year, the Rev. Messrs. Parsons and McGregore of the Presbytery of Boston did attend, but afterwards the convention was almost exclusively composed of delegates from the Synod and the churches of Connecticut.

It will be observed that in this wise plan, there was no attempt to amalgamate two different denominations, to give the one a voice in the government of the other. Every thing of this kind was carefully provided against. It was a union only in convention, and for objects in which the two churches had a common interest. This convention of delegates continued to be regularly held every year until the Revolutionary War. The great and almost the only subject which occupied their attention, was opposition to the estab­lishment of an American Episcopate. In 1768 a letter was writ­ten on this subject by the direction of the convention to the com­mittee in London, for managing the civil affairs of the dissenters, setting forth their reasons for believing that such a measure was in contemplation, and their strong objections to its being carried into effect. To this letter an answer was received, in which the com­mittee state that they were fully aware of the many civil and reli­gious inconveniences which would attend the introduction of dioce­san bishops into America, and were determined to do all they could to oppose the measure. They at the same time informed the con­vention that, from the best authority, they were assured the English government had, at that time, no such design. The correspondence thus commenced was continued, with some interruptions, from year to year, and was conducted principally through Dr. Alison of Philadelphia, Dr. Rodgers of New York, and the Rev. Mr. Whit­man of Hartford.

With the same general object in view, the con­vention appointed from time to time committees, to ascertain and report on the religious laws in force in the several colonies, on the acts of oppression to which non‑Episcopalians in any of the provinces were subject, and on the proportion which the different denominations bore to each other in different parts of the country. In consequence of these appointments, several valuable reports were presented to the convention, which unhappily have not been preserved. In 1774 it is stated that the Rev. Mr. Halsey of New Jersey “delivered in a valuable detail of the first settlement of North Carolina, and of the ecclesiastical circumstances of the pro­vince in its different periods to the present time.” Mr. Montgom­ery reported that he had made some progress in collecting mate­rials concerning the rise and progress of religious liberty, and in ascertaining the proportion of dissenters to the established church in Maryland; and Mr. Patrick Alison was requested to fix the proportion between these two classes on the western shore of that province. Dr. Rodgers stated that he expected to be ready to report on New York to the next convention. In 1775 a full and accurate account respecting Connecticut was received from the Rev. Mr. Goodrich, and also an account of the number of Epis­copalians and non‑Episcopalians in that colony, for which he re­ceived the thanks of the convention. The troubles of the times soon put a stop to these labors, and the convention never met after that year.

It does not lie within the scope of the present work to enter fully either into the history or the merits of the controversy re­specting an American Episcopate. It will be proper, however, to say enough on the subject to enable the reader to form a judgment of the propriety of the course taken by the Presbyterian church in so decidedly opposing the measure. After several unsuccessful attempts had been made, at an earlier period, to induce the English government to send one or more bishops to America, the effort was renewed by a voluntary convention of the Episcopal clergy of New York and New Jersey, who prepared a petition on the subject to be forwarded to Europe, and requested the Rev. Dr. Bradbury, Chandler of Elizabethtown, to write and publish an appeal to the public in behalf of the measure. This appeal was published in 1767 and presents the claims of the Episcopal church in this country to the enjoyment of a complete organization with great force and ingenuity. The appeal was answered by Dr. Charles Chauncey of Boston, and the matter soon became a subject of general controversy throughout the country; even the weekly papers were made the vehicles of vehement arguments on both sides.

According to Dr. Chandler, it was proposed “that the bishops to be sent to America shall have no authority but purely of a spi­ritual and ecclesiastical nature, such as is derived altogether from the church and not from the state. That this authority shall operate only upon the clergy of the church, and not upon the laity or upon dissenters of any denomination. That the bishops shall not interfere with the property or privileges, whether civil or religious, of churchmen or dissenters. That in particular, they shall have no concern with the probate of wills, letters of guardianship and administration, or marriage licenses, nor be judges of any cases relating thereto. But that they shall only exercise the original powers of their office, i.e., ordain and govern the clergy, and administer confirmation to those who shall desire it.” Against a plan so reasonable as this it is difficult to see what objection could be made. As diocesan bishops are an essential part of an Episcopal church, necessary to ordain, confirm, and exercise discipline, it would seem to be a hard case that the numerous churches already formed in this country should be deprived of this part of their system, that the clergy should be without supervision, and that candidates for orders should be obliged to make a long and expensive voyage to obtain ordination. The fact, therefore, that strenuous and united opposition was made to the introduction of American bishops, needs explanation. As far as the Presbyterian church is concerned, we should be sorry that it should lie under the imputation of having resisted the reasonable wishes of another denomination to the enjoyment of their own ecclesiastical system.

It should be stated then, that there would have been no opposition to the plan as above presented, had there been any reasonable prospect of its being adhered to. Against bishops who should derive their authority “altogether from the church and not from the state,” no voice was raised. The convention of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia and the churches of Connecticut, say, “We would by no means have it understood as if we would endeavor to prevent an American bishop, or archbishop, or patriarch, or whatever else they might see fit to send, provided other denominations could be safe from their severity and encroachments.” And Dr. Chauncey, in his reply to the Appeal, says, “We desire no other liberty than to be left unrestrained in the exercise of our religious principles, in so far as we are good members of society. And we are perfectly willing that Episcopalians should enjoy this liberty to the full. If they think bishops in their appropriated sense, were constituted by Christ or his apostles, we object not a word to their having as many of them as they please, if they will be content to have them with authority altogether derived from Christ. But they both claim and desire a great deal more. They want to be distinguished by having bishops on the footing of a state establishment.” And again, “Dr. Chandler quite mistakes the true ground of our dissatisfaction. It is not simply the exercise of any of their religious principles that would give us any uneasiness; nor yet the exercise of them under as many purely scriptural bishops as they could wish to have; but their having bishops under a state establishment, which would put them upon a different footing from the other denominations, and, without all doubt, sooner or later expose them to many difficulties and grievous hardships.” The same sentiment is expressed by Dr. Mayhew, in his Observations on the charter and conduct of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, and also by the American Whig.

The opposition, therefore, was not to bishops with purely spiritual authority, but to bishops sent by the state with powers ascertained and determined by act of parliament. The mere fact that this opposition was so general, and that it was as strong, though not as universal, among Episcopalians as among the members of other denominations, is a proof that it did not owe its origin to any ungenerous bigotry. If the Massachusetts legislature opposed it, so did the house of burgesses in Virginia. The former body, in a letter to their agent in London, dated January 12, 1768, say, “The establishment of a Protestant Episcopate in America, is also very zealously contended for; and it is very alarming to a people whose fathers, from the hardships which they suffered under such an establishment, were obliged to fly from their native country into a wilderness, in order peaceably to enjoy their privileges, civil and religious. Their being threatened with the loss of both at once must throw them into a very disagreeable situation. “We hope in God such an establishment will never take place in America, and we desire you would strenuously oppose it.” In Virginia, when a convention was called to consider the propriety of petitioning for a bishop, only twelve out of a hundred ministers in the province attended, and of those twelve, four protested against the decision to forward a petition. And soon after, the house of burgesses, by an unanimous vote, thanked the protestors “for the wise and well-timed opposition they had made to the pernicious project of a few mistaken clergymen for introducing an American bishop.” If anything more is necessary to show the character of this opposition, it may be found in the fact that, as soon as this country was separated from England, and thus all fear of the civil power of the bishops removed, all objection to their introduction was withdrawn.

This apprehension of danger to the religious liberty of the country was not a feverish dread of imaginary evils. It was even better founded than the apprehension of danger to our civil liberties from the claim of the British Parliament to a right to tax the country. As the Episcopal Church was established in England, and as those who had the control of the government were members of that church, the Episcopalians in America were naturally led to be constantly looking for state patronage and legal support. They claimed it as a right, that the support and extension of the Episcopal Church in this country should be made a national concern. Even Dr. Chandler, although his work was written to disarm prejudice and allay apprehensions, could not avoid letting this be distinctly seen. “It has been the practice of all Christian nations,” he tells us, “to provide for and maintain the national religion, and to render it as respectable as possible in the most distant colonies”; and, “as some religion has ever been thought, by the wisest legislators, to be necessary for the security of civil government, and accordingly has always been interwoven into the constitution of it, so in every nation that religion which is thus distinguished, must be looked upon as, in the opinion of the legislature, the best fitted for this great purpose. Wherever, therefore, the national religion is not made in some degree a national concern, it will commonly be considered as an evidence that those who have the direction of the national affairs do not esteem their religion; or that they are negligent of the duty they owe to God and the public, as guardians of its happiness.” He then proceeds to give the reasons why “the Church of England in America appears not hitherto to have been made a national concern,” reasons which, he says, may account for, although not altogether excuse this neglect. It was this very thing, which Dr. Chandler considered so much a matter of course, that other denominations deprecated and dreaded.

They denied the right of the British government thus to distinguish the Episcopal Church, especially in the northern provinces, where its members, even at this period, hardly constituted the thirtieth part of the population. They denied the fairness of its being made a national concern to the detriment and oppression of other denominations. The whole history of the country showed that the authorities in England acted constantly on the plan of giving the Church of England, in this country, all the ascendency that could with safety be secured for it. In those colonies where the thing was possible, that church was established by law; in others, the public were taxed for its support, or national property assigned for its maintenance.

In South Carolina., according to Dr. Ramsay, the Presbyterians were among the first settlers of the country; and, in connection with the Independents, they organized a church in 1690, and in the early part of the eighteenth century a Presbytery was formed agreeably to the principles and practice of the Church of Scotland. The Episcopalians had no minister until 1701, and, in 1710, formed less than a half of the population, though even then several of the French Presbyterian Churches had gone over to them. Yet in 1696, provision was made by law for an Episcopal clergyman, in Charleston, who was to be allowed £150 sterling a year, together with a house, glebe, and two servants. As nothing was yet said of an establishment, this law excited little dissatisfaction. Soon after, however, the Church of England was fully established; a salary of £100 out of the public treasury was allowed to each of its ministers, and all denominations were taxed for building its churches. In 1703 a law was passed which “required every man who should be chosen a member of the Assembly to take the oaths and subscribe the declaration appointed, to conform to the religion and worship of the Church of England; and to receive the Lord’s Supper according to the rites and usages of that church.” The proprietors inserted a clause into the constitution of the colony to the following effect: “As the country comes to be sufficiently planted, it shall belong to the Parliament to take care for the building of churches, and the public maintenance of divines to be employed in the exercise of religion according to the Church of England, which being the only true and orthodox, and the national church of all the king’s dominions, is so also of Carolina; and, therefore, it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance by act of Parliament.” The result, therefore, in Carolina, of making the Church of England a national concern, was that other denominations were not only taxed for its support, but were also debarred from a seat in the Legislature.

As Virginia was more of an Episcopal colony from the beginning, there was less ground of complaint for the mere establishment of the English Church. The severity of her ecclesiastical laws, however, admits of no justification. In 1618, it was enacted “that every person should go to church on Sundays and holydays, or lie neck and heels that night, and be a slave to the colony the following week. For a second offence, he should be a slave for a month; and, for a third, a year and a day.” In 1624, a law requiring strict conformity, as near as might be, in substance and circumstance, to the canons of the Church of England, was passed. And in 1642 it was enacted that no minister should officiate within the province who could not produce a certificate of his ordination by some English bishop, and promise to conform to the orders and constitution of the Church of England, and the governor and council were authorized to compel any one who transgressed this law to depart the country. Severe laws also were passed against the Quakers, and subsequently against the Baptists. Even the rights guaranteed by the Virginia act of toleration were repeatedly violated in the case of Presbyterians. Before the Revolutionary War, the Dissenters had increased so much that it is said the Episcopalians did not constitute more than one third of the inhabitants of the province.⁶ Yet even in those parishes in which there were very few members of the Established Church, the Dissenters were obliged to purchase glebes, build churches, and make provision for the support of the clergy. This was felt to be a great grievance in a new country, and among a poor people. It is prominently presented as an unreasonable burden in the memorial presented to the Legislature by the Presbytery of Hanover in 1776. The conduct of some of the New England provinces in reference to the Episcopal Dissenters within their bounds was very different. They were relieved from all payments in support of the “standing churches,” when they were an inconsiderable minority of the population.

⁶ This statement is given by Dr. Hawks (p. 140), who quotes as authorities, 4 Burk. p. 180; 1 Jefferson’s Works, p. 31. The Doctor, however, thinks there are circumstances which would seem to render the statement doubtful. All such estimates, in the absence of any regular census, must be more or less uncertain. There is nothing, however, in the above account that needs excite surprise. The number of Episcopalians had long ceased to be increased by new accessions from the mother country. The great influx of settlers was from Pennsylvania, and consisted of German and Scotch‑Irish. The Estab­lished Church had suffered a great diminution of numbers by the rise of the Presbyterians, even in the eastern counties, and subsequently, a still greater loss by the rise of the Baptists, who at the breaking out of the war were a large and influential party. Other denominations, therefore, had been for years increasing, while the Episcopalian, ware decreasing.

The early ecclesiastical history of Maryland is very much of a riddle. From all that appears, however, it may be fairly referred to as affording another example of the church of the minority being, by the force of the authorities in England, made the established religion of the province. Maryland, though originally settled by Roman Catholics, was soon furnished with a population of a very mixed religious character. When the proprietary government was overthrown in 1651, the first act of the legislature was to pass an intolerant law denying even protection to the Catholics, and granting liberty of conscience and worship to such as professed faith in God by Jesus Christ, provided this liberty was not extended to popery and prelacy. At this period, therefore, the Episcopalians must have been in the minority. Five and twenty years later they were still very inconsiderable in numbers. Under the date 1676, Dr. Hawks remarks, “Hitherto our narrative has been silent with respect to the Protestant Episcopal church in Maryland. The reason is obvious, for though there were members of that church living within the province, yet they were not numerous.” Notwithstanding their fewness, they complained that no provision was made by law for the support of their clergy. These complaints were referred by the Bishop of London to the committee of plantations, who called Lord Baltimore (who had before this been restored to his authority) to account on this subject. His lordship answered that all denominations were upon a level in Maryland, and that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get the Assembly to make a law obliging any denomination of Christians to support other ministers than their own. “This answer,” says Dr. Hawks, “did not seem to satisfy the committee, for they declared that, in their opinion, there should be some maintenance for the clergy of the church, and that his lordship should propose means for the support of a competent number.” The revolution of 1688, which placed William III upon the throne of England, led to a similar revolution in Maryland. In 1691 Maryland was made a royal government, and in 1692 the Church of England was established; the country was divided into thirty parishes, and provision made for building churches, and for the support of the clergy. It can hardly be supposed that such a sudden revolution had occurred in the religious sentiments of the people, that the Episcopalians, who were so few in 1676, had become the majority of the population in 1692. In 1694 the new governor “found but three clergymen on his arrival; and they,” it is added, “had been able to remain, only because they were possessed of property to support them; these three had to contend with double their number of priests belonging to the church of Rome. There was also a sort of wandering pretenders to preaching, that came from New England and other places, which deluded not only the protestant dissenters from our church, but many churchmen themselves, by their extemporary prayers and preachments, for which they were admired by the people, and got money of them.” There can be little doubt, therefore, that the Episcopalians, compared to the Catholics and Protestant dissenters, were a minority of the people. Their connection, however, with the government at home gave them an ascendency, and the whole province was taxed for the support of their worship.

However burdensome upon dissenters the laws for the support of the church of England may have been, there was less ground of complaint in reference to those colonies where that church was established by colonial legislation, on the part of those dissenters who entered them after those laws were enacted. They knew what they had to expect, and acted with their eyes open. We must look to those provinces where the Episcopal church was not established, and notice the claims of its members, and the conduct of the authorities of England in relation to it, if we would learn their true spirit and purpose at this period. In the provinces north of Maryland, the Episcopalians, even so late as 1767–8, when they had greatly increased, principally by the accession of proselytes, did not constitute the thirtieth of the population.⁷ In New York they were about the twentieth, or, towards the beginning of the century, the twenty‑fifth. Notwithstanding this great inferiority in numbers, and notwithstanding these provinces were settled by other denominations, and with the exception of New York, were either charter or proprietary governments, yet the conduct of the royal governors, the demands of the Episcopal clergy, and the action of the authorities in England, all showed a purpose to gain and secure, as far and as fast as possible, an ascendency for the church of England, and furnished abundant reason for the anxious apprehension of the people for their religious liberty.

⁷ In 1768 there were in Pennsylvania and New Jersey three Episcopal churches which supported themselves, and nineteen missionaries supported by the society in England. In New York there were three churches self­-supported, and eleven missionaries; in New England three churches which sustained themselves, and thirty missionaries. (Chauncey’s answer to Chand­ler’s Appeal, p. 113.) Dr. Chauncey concedes that, taking in vacant congre­gations and scattered families, the number of Episcopalians in the northern provinces might be estimated at equal to one hundred and four congregations. He allows fifty families to each congregation, which he says Episcopalians would admit to be a large allowance, and five members to a family, and thus brings out 26,000 as his estimate of Episcopalians in those pro­vinces, which he adds “is a mere handful compared with more than a million persons, which, without dispute, live within those bounds.”

As to the increase of the church principally by proselytes, the fact is fre­quently mentioned by Humphrey in his History of the Society for the Pro­pagation of the Gospel; and Dr. Chandler, in his Appeal Defended, published in 1768, says, “As to Connecticut, of which I can judge from my own obser­vation, the church has increased there most amazingly for twenty or thirty years past. I cannot at present recollect an example, in any age or country, wherein so great a proportion of proselytes has been made to any religion in so short a time, as has been made to the church of England in the western division of that populous colony; unless where the power of miracles or the arm of the magistrate was exerted to produce that effect.” (p. 217.) This agrees with what Edwards says in a letter written in 1750, viz. that the Epis­copal church had trebled itself in New England within seven years.

There is a great deal of information from an unexceptionable source, as to the state of the Episcopal church in this country, about the beginning of the last century, contained in the memorials of Governor Dudley, Colonel Morris, and Colonel Heathcote, presented to the Society for the propagation of the Gospel, and quoted by Humphrey, in his history of that society. “In South Carolina there were computed seven thousand souls, besides Negroes and Indians, living without any minister of the church of England, and but few dissenting teachers of any kind; above half living regardless of any religion. In North Carolina about five thousand souls without any minister, any reli­gious ministrations used, no public worship celebrated, neither the children baptized, nor the dead buried in any Christian form. Virginia contained about forty thousand souls divided into forty parishes, but wanting near half the number of clergymen requisite. Maryland contained about twenty‑five thousand, divided into twenty‑six parishes, but wanting also about half the number of ministers requisite. In Pennsylvania there are about twenty thousand souls, of whom about seven hundred frequent the church, and there are not more than two hundred and fifty communicants. The two Jerseys contain about fifteen thousand, of whom not above six hundred frequent the church, nor have they more than two hundred and fifty communicants. In New York government we have thirty thousand souls at least, of whom about twelve hundred frequent the church, and we have about four hundred and fifty communicants. In Connecticut colony in New England, there are about thirty thousand souls, of whom, when they have a minister among them, about one hundred and fifty frequent the church, and there are thirty-­five communicants. In Rhode Island and Narragansett, which is one government, there are about ten thousand souls, of which about one hundred and fifty frequent the church, and there are thirty communicants. In Boston and Piscataway government, there are about eighty thousand souls, of whom about six hundred frequent the church, and one hundred and twenty the sacrament. In Newfoundland there are five hundred families constantly living in the place, and many thousands of occasional inhabitants, and no sort of public Christian worship used. This is the true though melancholy state of our church in North America, and whosoever sends any other accounts more in her favor, are certainly under mistakes; nor can I take them (if they do it knowingly) to be friends to the church; for if the distemper be not rightly known and understood, proper remedies can never be applied.” (pp. 41–43.) According to this estimate there were 185,000 inhabitants in the northern provinces, of whom 3,400, or less than one in fifty‑four, were Episcopalians.

The fundamental assumption on which the conduct of the parties above mentioned rested, was that the Episcopal church was the na­tional established church in all the king’s dominions, Scotland only, and not the colonies, excepted; that other denominations were merely tolerated, and consequently were entitled to nothing more than the act of toleration allowed them, whereas the church of England was entitled to a legal provision, to national support, and the exclusive favor and patronage of the government. This ground was taken more or less openly, on different occasions and by different persons, according to their disposition or discretion; and it was the only ground on which the language of the most cautious could be either justified or explained. At times this position was assumed with perfect plainness. A writer who styles himself a member of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts undertakes to demonstrate first, that the churches in New England were not, and secondly, that the Episcopal church was, there established. With regard to this second point he says, “Though it is undeniably manifest that the church of England is established by the act of union (between England and Scotland), yet it may not be so clear that this establishment actually took place before that time.” To show, however, that it took place from the very settlement of the country, he quotes another Episcopal writer who says, “The Christian religion, as by its evidence and intrinsic excellence, it recommended itself to the English government, so it became by law the religion of the English nation; and the church of England likewise became by law their national church; and when any part of the English nation spread abroad into colonies, as they continued part of the nation, the law obliged them equally to the church of England and the Christian religion. And the statutes for the establishment of the service, ordination, and articles of this church, made and confirmed before and at the union of the two kingdoms, settle and establish it alike in the dominions of England, and in the realm itself.” This writer then quotes various acts of parliament made in the reigns of Edward VI, Elizabeth, and Charles II, in which repeated use is made of the phrase “his majesty’s dominions,” as fixing the limits of the established church. The great reliance, however, of these writers was upon the act of union. In the fifth year of Queen Anne, “It was enacted, that all acts of parliament then in force, for the establishment and preservation of the church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, should remain and be in full force for ever; and that every king and queen succeeding to the royal government of the kingdom of Great Bri­tain, at his or her coronation, should take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably, the said settlement of the church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick on Tweed, and the territories thereunto belonging.” As the North American colonies were territories belonging to the kingdom of Great Britain, it was confidently inferred that the church of England was established here by this act, if never before.

The Rev. Mr. Wetmore of Connecticut, took the same ground with equal decision and greater insolence. “Men,” he says, “not only consistently with their duty may, but to discharge their duty, must be of the communion of the church of England, if they are members of the nation of England.” In reference to the charge of schism, which had been brought against the Episcopal proselytes in Connecticut, he says, “If the congregations, the forsaking of which is called schism, be themselves founded in schism and unjustifiable separation from the communion of the church of England, or in their present constitution must necessarily be esteemed abettors and approvers of schism, disorders, usurpation, contempt of the chief authority Christ has left in his church, or any such like crimes, then such congregations, whatever they may call themselves and whatever show they may make, of piety and devotion in their own ways, ought to be esteemed in respect of the mystical body Christ, only as excrescences or tumours in the body natural, perhaps as fungosities in an ulcerated tumour, the eating away of which by whatever means tends not to the hurt, but to the soundness and health of the body.” In another place he says, on the assumption that the constitution of the national church is regular and good, “It may surely be urged on every man that is English, that belongs to this nation, and is properly a part of it, in whatever corner of it he may live, that his duty obliges him to be of the communion of the church of England.” And again, “Every one who makes a part of this nation, owes reverence and submission to them (the bishops) under Christ, and may esteem our Saviour’s words to his disciples applicable to such prelates: ‘He that despiseth you despiseth me.’” The awful crime of schism begun in England, he argues, could not be washed away by crossing the ocean, into “a new country dependent on, and a part of the nation of England.” The doctrine of this whole Tract is that the church of England is the established church of the nation of England; the colonies are a part of that nation, and therefore are bound not only morally but legally to be of the communion of that church, or to take the benefit of the act of toleration.

This was the doctrine not merely of heated partisans, but of men in high stations and authority. It has already been stated that the proprietors of South Carolina distinctly assumed this ground. “The Church of England being the only true, and orthodox, and National Church, of all the king’s dominions, is so also of Carolina.” And they drew from the principle the legitimate inference, when they added, “And therefore it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance by grant of Parliament,” i.e., the Provincial Parliament.

When Lord Cornbury was made Governor of New York and New Jersey in 1702, he was instructed and enjoined by the government to take special care that the Book of Common Prayer, as by law established, should be read every Sunday and holyday, and the blessed sacrament administered according to the rites of the Church of England, that churches should be repaired or built, that a competent maintenance be provided for the clergy, with a house and plebe in each parish, all at the common charge; and he was forbidden to prefer any man to any benefice who had not a certificate from the Bishop of London. These instructions related to colonies in one of which the Episcopalians, at that time, were six hundred to fifteen thousand; and in the other, twelve hundred to thirty thousand. Lord Cornbury acted up to these directions with a zeal which even his most determined friends must have thought indiscreet. Our limits forbid our entering upon details, which is less necessary, as the complaints and apprehensions of the non‑episcopal inhabitants of the colonies were not founded on mere specific acts of injustice or oppression, so much as upon the avowed or tacit adoption of the principle that the English ecclesiastical laws extended to this country. This assumption was openly made when the Rev. Mr. Makemie was imprisoned by the order of Lord Cornbury for preaching in New York. On his trial, he was charged by the attorney‑general with contemning the queen’s ecclesiastical supremacy; with using other rites and ceremonies than those contained in the Common Prayer Book; with preaching without proper qualification, at an illegal conventicle, all which was declared to be contrary to the English statutes.

The same principle was assumed in the case of the application of the Presbyterian Church in New York for a charter. Their petition was opposed by the vestry of Trinity Church, on the ground that it could not be granted consistently with the acts of uniformity, nor with the king’s coronation oath, by which he was bound to uphold the Church of England, not only in England and Ireland, but in all the territories thereunto belonging. The provincial authorities considered this too grave a question for them to decide, and therefore referred it to the government at home. The Bishop of London appeared repeatedly before the committee of the privy council in opposition to the petition, and it was finally decided that, without expressing an opinion as to these legal questions, it was on grounds of general policy inexpedient to grant the Presbyterians any greater privileges than they were entitled to by the act of toleration. This was virtually a decision of the whole case, for it assumed that act to be in force in New York, which, from its nature was impossible, unless the acts of uniformity, from whose penalties it provided exemption, were also in force. Hence Dr. Chauncey had good reason to say, “That decision was an alarm to all the colonies on the continent, giving them solemn notice what they might expect, should Episcopalians ever come to have the superiority in their influence.” And what does Dr. Chandler say to this case? “How far,” he says, “the grant would have interfered with the king’s coronation oath, it becomes me not to say; those to whom it was referred were the proper judges; and in their opinion the petition could not consistently be granted. It is the unquestionable duty of his Majesty’s most honorable privy council, to advise him against whatever is thought by them to imply a breach of the coronation oath; it is a duty more pecu­liarly incumbent upon any such bishops as his majesty thinks fit to call up to that high trust. If, therefore, the Bishop of London, upon the above principle, was more active than others in opposing the measure, it was because his station required it. If general policy, in the opinion of the lords of trade, was also against the grant, they were obliged to discountenance it; and the petitioners, I conceive, ought to rest satisfied, especially as it was a mere favor which was requested, and more than was thought to be allowed by the laws of toleration. I have been moreover told, that, besides the reasons assigned, a particular policy with regard to the Presby­terians in New York, concurred to defeat the petition. It was the belief at home, that the Church of England had been treated with peculiar malevolence by some of those very persons whose names were annexed to that petition. It was, therefore, not unnatural to suspect that any additional power put into the hands of such per­sons, would, as opportunity should offer, be exerted against the church.” This dread of power in the hands of Presbyterians is peculiarly edifying, when it is remembered that the power asked for was the right to hold their church and graveyard in their own name, instead of being obliged to vest them in the General Assem­bly of the Church of Scotland. If Episcopalians, who claimed all the power and privileges granted by the English laws to the Church of England, might dread such a power as that, surely Presbyterians may be excused for standing a little in awe of them.

We see, from the above extract, that Dr. Chandler yielded a very cordial assent to the decision that the king’s coronation oath bound him to consider the acts, by which the Church of England was established, as extending to the colonies, and that he took it for granted the act of toleration was the measure of the liberties and privileges of the non‑episcopal churches in America. The coro­nation oath was founded on the act of union between England and Scotland. At the time of the union, the Scotch stipulated that the united Parliament should have no power to disturb their eccle­siastical constitution, and the English stipulated that each suc­ceeding sovereign should swear to maintain the Church of England as by law established. The object, therefore, of the act in question was to protect the Church of England, and not to establish it where it did not then exist. Such being its design, it will be seen how monstrous was the assumption, that it upset all the charters of the New England colonies, rendered void all the contracts with the proprietary governments, nullified all the colonial laws relating to ecclesiastical matters, and established the Church of England even in Massachusetts and Connecticut, where, at the time of its passage, that church could hardly be said to have had an existence.

As another instance of the latitude of construction given by those in authority to the English ecclesiastical laws, may be mentioned the letter of the Lords Justices in England to the Lieutenant‑Governor of Massachusetts in 1725. A request had been made to the authorities of that province, by the pastors, to be allowed to hold Synod. When this request reached the ears of those in power in England, the justices wrote a severe letter to the governor for allowing the matter to be agitated. They say they can find no warrant for holding such a Synod, “but if such Synods might be holden, yet they take it to be clear in point of law, that his majesty’s supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, being a branch of the prerogative, does take place in the plantations; and Synods cannot be held, nor is it lawful for the clergy to assemble as in Synods, without authority from his majesty.” In case the Synod had actually met before these instructions came to hand, the lieutenant‑governor “was to cause their meeting to cease, acquainting them that their assembly is against law and a contempt of his majesty’s prerogative, and that they are forbid to meet any more.”

A still stronger illustration is afforded by the history of New Hampshire. When that province was erected into a separate government in 1679, it was ordered that all Protestants should be tolerated, “and that those especially as shall be conformable to the rites of the church of England shall be particularly countenanced and encouraged.” In 1684 an order was issued by the governor and council, requiring the ministers to admit all persons of suitable age, and not vicious, to the Lord’s Supper, and their children to baptism, and enjoining, in case anyone wished either of the sacraments to be administered according to the liturgy, it should be done, in pursuance to the king’s command, in the colony of Massachusetts; and any minister who refused obedience to this order was to suffer the penalties of the statutes of uniformity. This declaration was not an idle threat; the Rev. Mr. Moody, of Portsmouth, having refused to administer the Lord’s Supper in the form prescribed, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The same instructions given to Lord Cornbury as governor of East and West Jersey, were given to the governor of this province, with the addition that no one from England was to be allowed to act as schoolmaster, who was not furnished with a certificate from the bishop of London, and no other person without the governor’s license.

The non‑episcopal denominations, therefore, in this country, had abundant cause for alarm. From South Carolina to New Hampshire, they saw the power and influence of the government exerted to give ascendency to the Episcopal Church. This object was constantly though cautiously pursued. It was natural that it should be so. The arguments which were adduced to prove that the Church of England was entitled to this ascendency, were sufficiently plausible to command the assent of those who were anxious to be convinced. And the motives of policy in behalf of the measure were sufficiently obvious to make all see that the English government would pursue it as far as it could be done with safety. Here, as in the contest about taxation, it was not the pressure of the particular acts of injury or indignity that produced the dissatisfaction, but the power that was claimed. The assumption was the same in both cases, viz.: that America was part of the nation of England, that the power of the king and parliament was here what it was there. Hence, on the one hand, the inference that the British parliament could here levy what taxes they pleased, and on the other, that the king’s supremacy in ecclesiastical matters extended to the colonies; that every Englishman who came to America did but remove from one part of the nation to another; that he stood in the same relation to the national church in this country, as he had done in England. It is readily admitted that as there were some English statesmen who denied the authority of parliament to tax America, so there were many distinguished men who denied that the ecclesiastical laws of England were in force in this country. But in both cases the interest, and bent, and general course of the government, were against the liberties of the colonies.

Another cause of irritation and uneasiness was the conduct of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts. The principal complaints urged against it were, first, that instead of sending missionaries to the heathen, according to the primary object of its institution, it devoted its resources, in a great measure, to the American colonies. The society was successfully vindicated on this point by its various advocates. It was proved that its charter contemplated the colonies as a prominent if not the chief field of its labors. And when we consider the immense extent and crying destitution of this country, we shall be more disposed to wonder and complain that the society did so little, than that it did so much for its relief. A second ground of complaint was more plausible. It was urged that instead of sending their missionaries where they were really needed, they sent them to New England where they were not wanted. At this time there were at least five hundred and fifty educated ministers in New England, and not a town, unless just settled, without a pastor, unless it was in Rhode Island. That there was ground for this complaint against the Society, is admitted by its ablest and most dignified defender, who says, “In all that I have hitherto said, I am far from intending to affirm that the Society hath not laid out in Massachusetts and Con­necticut too large a proportion of the money put into their hands, considering the necessities of the other provinces.” It is not to be wondered at that the people of New England felt irritated by having the numerous missionaries of a powerful Society located among them, where their most ostensible object was not to supply the destitute, but to make proselytes from established congregations. The claims and conduct of these missionaries, in many cases, greatly increased this irritation. They spoke of all the inhabitants of the town in which they lived as their parishioners, as bound both by the law of God and the state to be in communion with the church of England, as having no authorized ministers or valid ordinances, as belonging to churches which were mere excrescences or fun­gosities.

It was principally from the missionaries of this Society that the demand for American bishops proceeded. It has already been stated how small a portion of the Virginia clergy concurred in the appli­cation. The origin of the plan, therefore, was not likely to recommend it to the public. For all the legitimate purposes of a bishop, such an officer was most needed where Episcopalians were the most numerous. That the request came from the provinces where they were a small minority, could not fail to produce the apprehension that the bishop’s influence was to be used to give that minority still greater ascendency.

If the source whence this application emanated excited appre­hension, the grounds on which it was urged did not tend to allay these fears. It is true the plan was exhibited with much plausi­bility in Dr. Chandler’s Appeal. He frequently asserts that the power of the proposed bishop was to be derived altogether from the church and not from the state, that he was not to be received on the ground of a state establishment. In this he was no doubt sincere, but he and his readers differed widely as to the meaning of the terms here employed. If the bishop was not to receive any power from the state, why was he to be sent by act of Parliament? Dr. Chandler says that when bishops were first proposed for this country, they were spoken of as suffragans, whose duty it was to discharge offices merely episcopal, according to the direction, and by virtue of a commission from the diocesan. And he gives his readers to understand that such bishops were still desired. Then why did not the Bishop of London consecrate and commission them, without troubling Parliament about the matter? There was no legislative act necessary to authorize the sending of deacons, priests, or commissaries to this country—why then was such an act required to authorize the sending a suffragan bishop? Dr. Chandler informs us, however, that when the Society for the Pro­pagation of the Gospel first undertook this business, they “began by making all proper representations of the case to the Queen (Anne); they proceeded to purchase a house in New Jersey for the residence of a bishop, and after duly preparing the way, obtained an order from the crown for a bill to be drawn and laid before Par­liament for establishing an American episcopate.” He confirms his representation by the following extract from the published proceed­ings of the Society: “A representation was humbly offered to her Majesty, importing what number of bishops was expedient to be sent, where they were to be fixed, and what revenues might be thought proper for their support. To which her Majesty was pleased to give a most gracious answer, highly satisfactory to the Society; and a draught of a bill was ordered proper to be offered to Parliament for establishing bishops and bishopricks in America.” Now, whatever Dr. Chandler might think on the subject, this was a plan for introducing bishops on the footing of a state establishment. They were to be sent by the state; their residence, revenues, and powers were to be ascertained by the state; all, or at least the last, were to be fixed by act of Parliament. No one at all acquainted with the temper of that period, or who knows the power which the authorities in England were accustomed to see in the hands of a bishop, can wonder that not only the non‑episcopal clergy, but also Episcopal laymen rose in opposition to this plan, that the House of Burgesses in Virginia unanimously protested against it. If Parliament was to determine the extent of these Episcopal powers, the country had good reason to be assured they would be made as large as was consistent with safety. It was a plan to let Episcopalians say how much power Episcopal bishops should have over other denominations.

Though Dr. Chandler says it was not intended to allow the American bishops to hold ecclesiastical courts, or to interfere with questions relating to wills, marriage, guardianship, &c., yet he clearly intimates that it would be nothing unreasonable if important civil powers were to be conferred upon them. “There is not,” he says, “the least prospect at present, that bishops in this country will ever acquire any influence or power, but what shall arise from a general opinion of their abilities and integrity, and a conviction of their usefulness; and of this no persons need dread the consequences. But should the government see fit hereafter to invest them with some degree of civil power worthy of their acceptance, which it is impossible to say they will not, although there is no appearance that they ever will; yet as no new powers will be created in favor of bishops, it is inconceivable that any would thereby be injured. All that the happiness and safety of the public require, is that the legislative and executive power be placed in the hands of such persons as are possessed of the greatest abilities, integrity, and prudence; and it is hoped that our bishops will always be thought to deserve this character.” If Episcopalians were afraid to allow Presbyterians an act of incorporation to enable them to hold their church and graveyard, lest they should use the power against the church, could Presbyterians be expected to regard with indifference legislative or executive power in the hands of an Episcopal bishop, especially when the nature and extent of that power were to be determined by the English government?

Another ground of apprehension related to the support of these bishops. The country had abundant reason to expect that this burden would, sooner or later, be thrown upon the public. Wherever the government were able to effect the object, they had already thrown the support of the Episcopal clergy upon the community. This had been done in South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. To a certain extent it had been done in New York, and the royal governors in other provinces had orders to accomplish the same object as far as possible. With regard to the bishops, Dr. Chandler says, indeed, that there was no intention to tax the country for their support; yet he distinctly recognizes both the right and reasonableness of such a tax. “Should,” says he, “a general tax be laid upon the country, and thereby a sum be raised sufficient for the purpose; and even supposing we should have three bishops on the continent, which are the most that have been mentioned, yet I believe such a tax would not amount to more than four pence in a hundred pounds. And this would be no mighty hardship to the country. He that could think much of giving the six thousandth part of his income to any use which the legislature of his country should assign, deserves not to be considered in the light of a good subject or member of society.” What mighty hardship to the country was a tax of three pence on a pound of tea? Yet how great a matter that little fire kindled! Dr. Chandler evidently assumed two things, which America never would quietly submit to. The one was that the English Parliament had a right to lay a general tax upon the country, and the other, that they had a right to tax the whole community for the support of the Episcopal Church. Here was the old error, viz.: that America, was part of the nation of England, and consequently that the Parliament had the same power here as there, and that the Episcopal Church was the national church in the one country as well as in the other.⁸

⁸ What Dr. Chandler says in the Defence of his Appeal, in reference to the passage cited above, does not remove its objectionable character. He repeats his denial that the imposition of a tax was either probable or intended, and “Further, to show that America had no need to be terrified on that account,” he adds, “I considered the matter under the most unfavorable supposition that could be made, namely, that the deficiency in the Episcopal fund should be answered by a tax upon the inhabitants, and declared it as my opinion, that such a tax would be inconsiderable, and amount to no more than four pence in a hundred pounds” (p. 219). The objection was not to the amount of the tax, but to a tax at all, and especially to a tax for such a purpose. His language in both passages clearly implies that he recognized the power to impose such a tax, and that it would be unreasonable to complain of it. This supremacy of the imperial Parliament, England never would give up. Had she been willing to adopt the theory which Franklin urged in vain upon her statesmen, and agreed to make the king and not the Parliament the bond of union between the countries, allowing every province important enough to have a legislature to govern itself as Scotland did before the union—had, in other words, the bonds of union been made so loose as not to be galling—the British monarch might have swayed a peaceful scepter over near half the world. God has ordered it otherwise, and therefore it is best it should be otherwise.

The political motives urged by Dr. Chandler in support of his plea for bishops were not suited to conciliate special favor to the plan. “Episcopacy and monarchy,” he says, “are, in their frame and constitution, best suited to each other. Episcopacy can never thrive in a republican government, nor republican principles in an Episcopal Church.” Experience has proved this opinion to be incorrect. The Episcopal Church never flourished in this country so much as since the establishment of the republic. Dr. Chandler goes on to say that as episcopacy and monarchy “are mutually adapted to each other, so they are mutually introductive of each other. He that prefers monarchy in the state, is more likely to approve of episcopacy in the church than a rigid republican. On the other hand, he that is for parity and a popular government in the church, will more easily be led to approve of a similar form of government in the state, how little soever he may suspect it himself. It is not then to be wondered, if our civil rulers have always considered episcopacy as the surest friend of monarchy; and it may reasonably be expected from those in authority, that they will support and assist the church in America, if from no other motives, yet from a regard to the state, with which it has so friendly and close an alliance.” As there was at this time a rapidly increasing dread of the power of the mother country, the consideration that the introduction of bishops would tend to increase that power and strengthen the government, was not suited to allay apprehension or to conciliate favor.

This long detail respecting a controversy now almost forgotten may be excused since it relates to an important chapter in the history, not only of our church, but of the country. This controversy had more to do with the Revolution than is generally supposed, and a knowledge of the leading facts in the case is necessary to free Presbyterians and other denominations from the charge of unreasonable and bigoted opposition to a church fully entitled to confidence and affection. Before the Revolution, the Episcopal Church, from its connection with the English government and from its claim to be regarded as a branch of a great national establishment, was justly an object of apprehension. And this apprehension was confirmed and deepened by a long series of encroachments on the rights of other denominations. After the Revolution, that church ceased to be the Church of England, and became the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. Since she has taken her stand on equal terms with sister churches, she is the object of no other feelings than respect and love, wherever she consents to acknowledge that equality.