Towards a Great Awakening:

The Anglican Bishop Controversy 1765 – 1773

Anatole W. Pang

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Studies in Modern History

Trinity Term 2005

Acknowledgements:

I am grateful for the academic guidance and inspiration provided by many during

the course of my studies, and in this year particularly to the faculty of American History

at the University of Oxford, as well as to my former tutors William G. Merkel at

Columbia Law School and C.S.L. Davies at Wadham College, Oxford.

My thanks also go to the library staff at the Vere Harmsworth and the Rhodes

House libraries in Oxford, and the rare manuscripts departments of the General

Theological Seminary in New York, the New York Historical Society and the Butler

Library at Columbia University.

Lastly, I wish to thank my family, particularly my mother and sister, and Eleanor.

An Attempt to Land a Bishop in America

Engraving from the Political Register

London: September, 1769

John Carter Brown Library at Brown University, Providence, RI

Abstract:

The controversy generated by demands for an episcopate in the British North

American colonies caused great turmoil in the decade after 1763, and precipitated one of

the most vicious pamphlet wars in the build-up to the American Revolution. However,

the historiography of the issue is generally confined only to its political consequences

rather than viewing it as a religious force, and has struggled to escape the shadow of

either the Revolution or the Great Awakening. This paper seeks to understand the

underlying questions of the controversy from within the colonial Anglican Church, and

examines the interpersonal and institutional dynamics at work through the letters and

correspondence between key figures on both sides of the Atlantic. In so doing, it tries to

bring a new perspective to the question of why the campaign for a North American

episcopate failed to gain the necessary momentum during the critical years of the 1760s,

and how the evident divisions anticipated the schism that would emerge with the

ordination of Samuel Seabury in 1784.

I

The controversy over an Anglican bishop, which brewed amongst several of

Britain’s North American colonies in the decade after her victory over France in the

Seven Years’ War1 has not, in retrospect, been accorded the same psychological

importance in the general scheme of events as other contemporary incidents. The

demands of the American elementary school syllabus and 4th of July celebrations has

highlighted such narrative-friendly but ultimately inconsequential undertakings as the

Boston Tea Party and the rallying cry of ‘no taxation without representation’, all the

while leaving untouched and unremembered in the public mind more important social,

political, economic and cultural unrest of the time. In Charles Beard’s 1913 work An

Economic Interpretation of the American Constitution, the author attempted to redress this by

looking at alternative motivations for the revolutionary generation, and by casting the

founding fathers in a less heroic light than had the great canon of 19th century historians.

Whilst Beard’s argument was to start a debate in American historiography of an entirely

different nature, it also helped stimulate new directions for the study of the Revolution

itself, particularly in uncovering dynamics that drove rebellious sentiment not previously

studied. Subsequent schools of thought began, for instance, to debate the cerebral

distinctions between the Lockean and Republican intellectual heritage of men such as

Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Madison; others began to consider the distinct natures

of urban and rural strife against colonial elites and imperial authority; and still others

were to begin looking at the whole period in the context of the British Empire not just in

the thirteen colonies but elsewhere too – Canada and the West Indies, for example. In

short, the platform for the historical legend of the Revolution was becoming diversified2.

Religion occupied an understated position amongst the pantheon of competing

theories, due in part to its less immediately obvious impact. The history of America in

the previous 17th century, when twelve of the thirteen colonies were founded, is more

intimately connected with it: the puritans of the Mayflower and John Winthrop’s

exhortation to build ‘a city upon a hill’ stand out as examples of the famed piety of early

1 1756 – 1763, known in the colonies as the French & Indian War 2 The historiography of the American Revolution is too vast to analyse further here, suffice to say that some prominent books remain: Bailyn, Bernard, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (New York 1967); Maier, Pauline, From Resistance to Revolution (New York 1974); Nash, Gary B., The Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political Consciousness and the Origins of the American Revolution (Harvard 1979); and Appelby, Joyce, Liberalism and Republicanism in the historical imagination (Harvard 1992)

1

settlers. However by the 18th century the more sophisticated character of the eastern

seaboard, particularly its vastly increased urbanization, led historians to comparatively

downplay the role of faith amongst the population. The major event in the religious

history of that period was the so-called ‘Great Awakening’ of the 1740s, where preachers

like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield galvanized an evangelical attitude among

the established churches and caused schism (most prominently within the

Congregationalists and Presbyterians). As for the Revolution itself, historical attention

was focussed primarily on the role of the ‘Great Awakening’ in creating a culture of

irreverence and anti-clericalism, the actions of preachers in shoring up support for the

revolution during the conflict itself. Although the question of an Episcopate figured, it

only did so as one amongst several issues, despite John Adams giving it prominence in a

letter to Dr. Jedidiah Morse in 1815:

Who will believe that the apprehension of Episcopacy contributed fifty years ago, as much as any other cause, to arouse the attention, not only of the inquiring mind, but of the common people, and urge them to close thinking on the constitutional authority of Parliament over the colonies? This, nevertheless, was a fact as certain as any in the history of North America. The objection was not merely to the office of a Bishop, though even that was dreaded, but to the authority of Parliament, on which it must be founded … all denominations in America became interested in it [the controversy] and began to think of the secret latent principle upon which all encroachments upon us must be founded, the power of Parliament. The nature and extent of authority of Parliament was discussed everywhere, till it was discovered it had none at all.3

Some two hundred years later, however, and notwithstanding Adams’ analysis, the

significance of this event in the eyes of writers is still only sandwiched somewhere

between the Sugar Act and the burning of the Gaspée.4

As a topic, the episcopate question struggled to emerge from the shadows of the

Great Awakening on the one hand and the Revolution on the other, thereby being

neglected in both religious and political history. In general it has, by default, been seen

reluctantly through the lens of the latter, and the lack of interest from this point of view

may be in part responsible for the limited recent historiography. Its course has largely

been dictated by the research of political historians looking at the pamphlet war which

was unleashed from 1767 onwards: since Arthur Lyon Cross’ seminal work in 19025,

only two other books and one journal article have been focussed on it. When post-

Awakening religion has been covered by historians at all, matters are further confused by

3 The Centinel, preface 4 See, for instance, the amount of space dedicated to the subject in Greene, Jack P. and Pole Jack R.(Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to the American Revolution (Blackwell: Oxford 2000) 5 Cross, Arthur Lyon, The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York 1902)

2

the plethora of protestant denominations alive in the colonies. The development of

Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, Dutch Calvinism, Methodism and

Baptism all compete for their attention, and although Anglicanism (the last of the so-

called ‘Seven Sisters’) formed one of the most numerically substantial groups, its inherent

connexion with Britain lent it a less ‘indigenous’ flavour. It is, after all, impossible to see

the organic evolution of the Church of England in America, without England. This

trans-Atlantic relationship, in turn, leads back full circle and makes it difficult to separate

church and crown, it being obvious that large numbers of revolutionaries did see the

sinister long arm of British authority lurking under the guise of mitre and sceptre. This

juxtaposition of the political and religious strands of conflict in the 1760s puts the call for

a bishop in its proper context.

**********

The pamphlets and newspaper produced in these years, arguing vociferously for

and against and the establishment of a bishopric in North America, form the basis of the

political history. Tensions had already been brewing in the early part of the decade, when

northern dissenters such as William Livingston and Jonathan Mayhew began to see

ominous signs in the undertakings of known Anglican supporters in the region, such as

the erection of a new Anglican chapel in full view of Harvard College, the symbol of

Congregationalism in Massachusetts. Additionally, acerbic criticism of the dissenters was

penned by Anglicans both in America, such as Rev’d East Apthorp, as well as those at

home, such as John Ewer, Bishop of Llandaff. The former published in 1763 a defence

of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (S.P.G.), the missionary

society which was the main source of funds for Anglican missionaries and priests in the

colonies (other than Virginia and Maryland where the church was already established), in

which he also ‘gratuitously’6 criticized the fanaticism of the early New England puritans.

Apthorp was to compound this blunder by building a palatial residence for himself next

to the new chapel in Cambridge, which many presumed to be the base for a new bishop.

Meanwhile the Bishop of Llandaff had, in 1767, preached his annual sermon to the

S.P.G., where he accused the colonial settlers of ‘dissolute wickedness’ and ‘brutal

profligacy’7. The words importantly gave the impression of an ultimate desire among the

Establishment to convert dissenters to the Church of England, which in America at this

time only operated under the auspices of the Bishop of London across the ocean. A new 6 Bonomi, Patricia U., Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, & Politics in Colonial America, 2nd Edition (Oxford University Press: New York 2003), p. 202 7 Ewer, John, Lord Bishop of Llandaff, A Sermon Preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts … on Friday, February 20, 1767 (New York, 1767)

3

bishop in America would strengthen the machinery of this faith. Furthermore, this

accorded in nonconformists’ minds with an ongoing (and disturbing) pattern of

‘Anglicization’. Alongside talk of introducing an American peerage for the purpose of

British-style royal patronage, some were seeking the ‘royalization’ of colonies such as

Connecticut and Rhode Island through the process of re-chartering. After a century of

neglect, Britain appeared to be belatedly trying to re-assert its cultural dominance, thus

feeding into the conspiracy theories rife in the aftermath of the Stamp Act and

Townshend Duties. The potential for an episcopate to be politically inflammatory is

clear, articulated by Francis Alison’s declaration that ‘what we dread is their political

power, and their courts’8.

However, the religious context was no less pertinent. It is clear that the

Congregationalists and Presbyterians were the one major denomination objecting to the

scheme: William Smith, the Provost of the College of Philadelphia wrote in 1766 that ‘we

have every Body on our side, the Presbyterians excepted’9. Smith was a staunch

supporter of the episcopate, and while the first sentiment may be over-optimistic, the

caveat is noteworthy. The Anglican church had, since the end of the Seven Years’ War,

made considerable progress in missionizing in the middle and northern colonies,

establishing new parishes and converting individuals and families from other

denominations. The number of licenses issued for Anglican clergymen rose from 156

between 1745 and 1760, to 253 issued between 1760 and 1775; in approximately the

same periods, the number of new Anglican churches consecrated rose from 21 to 9010.

This was partially due to filling the religious vacuum left by the tumult of the Great

Awakening, and had thus occurred primarily at the expense of the Congregationalists and

Presbyterians, as opposed to the newer Methodists or Baptists, or the Quakers. This was

essentially because, as the main churches in these colonies11, the Congregationalists and

Presbyterians had been most affected by the Great Awakening philosophy of anti-

establishmentism; subsequently both experienced major schisms and never really

recovered their lost momentum. The Church of England, whose own assured hierarchy

offered great stability in the face of the religious turmoil, was able to take advantage of

this discord to begin making headway in a region previously off limits. The hard-pushed 8 Bonomi, Under the Cope of Heaven, p. 200, Alison was the Presbyterian leader in Pennsylvania 9 William Smith to the Bishop of London, 22nd October 1768, Fulham Palace Papers: Lambeth Palace Library, London, Vol XIII, Nos. 27-28 10 Mills, Frederick V., Bishops by Ballot: An Eighteenth Century Ecclesiastical Revolution (Oxford University Press: New York 1978), pp. 7 – 16 11 The Congregationalists were in fact the established church in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and had historically been highly intolerant of outsiders

4

dissenters, therefore, were particularly suspicious of any move that could further

strengthen their traditional arch-nemesis. To many, the Anglican Church represented

precisely that institution which their ancestors had historically come to the colonies to

escape; and further, the structure of an episcopacy and the theology of apostolic

succession was the very appendage of that institution which was held most anathema.

So started the conflict which was to consume as much paper as the Stamp Act,

until that point most excitable political incident in colonial history. Thomas Bradbury

Chandler, the most voluminous author on the Anglican side, commenced with his 1767

work An Appeal to the Public on Behalf of the Church of England in America, a lengthy and

relatively measured piece setting forth the idea, supported by a number of northern

Anglicans, of a bishop for the colonies possessing spiritual but not temporal powers.

This was soon replied to in the style of the age through Dr. Charles Chauncy, a

Congregationalist cleric from Boston, who in early 1768 published his An Appeal to the

Public Answered. In this, Chauncy argued against episcopacy on theological, ecclesiastical

and political levels: that the apostolic succession through episcopacy only was unproved

in the bible; that Chandler’s unsolicited call for the bishop and his proposal for a

selection procedure, were both unconstitutional in the Church of England; and that it

was disingenuous to claim that any bishop could exist without some measure of temporal

power. He also alleged that the colonial Anglicans were themselves split over this move,

a charge Chandler failed to refute in his subsequent The Appeal Defended (1769) and The

Appeal Farther Defended (1771). Chauncy countered these with A Reply to Dr. Chandler’s

Appeal Defended (1770) and A Compleat Vew of Episcopacy (1771). This set of six documents

form the first part of the public controversy: the second part was conducted almost

simultaneously through the newspapers. In 1768 William Livingston, a leading

Presbyterian from New York, attacked the Bishop of Llandaff’s sermon through a

pamphlet12, and proceeded to launch a series of sixty four essays under the pseudonym

of The American Whig attacking the idea of an episcopacy, mostly from a political

perspective. Some notable Anglicans including Thomas Bradbury Chandler and Charles

Inglis responded with a sixty-four piece answer entitled A Whip for the American Whig.

These were to eventually reach their logical conclusion with a running print battle in

Philadelphia which produced The Centinel, The Anti-Centinel, The Anatomist and The

Remonstrant during the short period of 1767 – 1770.

12 Chauncy, Charles, A Letter to the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Llandaff, Occasioned by Some Passages in His Lordship’s Sermon … in which the American Colonies are Loaded with Great and Undeserved Reproach (Boston, 1767)

5

**********

It is principally with these publications that most of the historiography of

Episcopate Controversy is concerned. Cross’ The Anglican Episcopate and the American

Colonies, uses them as the main source for ascertaining the strands of public thought, and

sixty years later Carl Bridenbaugh’s Mitre & Sceptre did not stray far from that line. The

latter was an exceptionally partisan polemic attacking the episcopate movement as being

undoubtedly designed from the beginning as a plot to subvert religious freedoms in the

New World, and furthermore casts the question as central to the Revolution itself, finally

giving John Adams’ claims an airing in academic circles. However the work, liberally

filled with generalizations, failed to deal with either the political or religious context of

the episode, and was unable to respond to the fact that the controversy was based mainly

in the northern colonies while revolutionary unrest as a whole was not. It also made the

questionable assumption of unity throughout the whole of the Anglican communion, a

question which was tackled by Frederick Mills’ 1978 work Bishops by Ballot: An Eighteenth

Century Ecclesiastical Revolution. Mills identified the discontent of the southern Anglican

clergy, noting that Chandler had to publish not just the pamphlets above, but others such

as An Address to the Episcopalians of Virginia13, which sought to persuade reluctant southern

clergy to support his convention. Some reasons for this split were documented by both

Mills and Rhys Isaac’s The Transformation of Virginia, 1740 – 1790 which described a

tidewater oligarchy, traditionally defenders of the established church, searching for a new

raison d’etre in the face of social changes and the anti-clerical fallout from the Great

Awakening. Two further recent pieces have shed more light on the dynamics current in

the debate: Donald Gerardi’s essay The Episcopate Controversy Reconsidered14 and Peter Doll’s

Religion, Revolution & National Identity15. The former looks at the inspiration behind those

involved in what became known as the Jersey Conventions, and their ultimate objectives

and desires in pressing for a bishop; the latter looks at the religious element within

imperial politics as a whole, and sees how the British reacted to the episcopate

controversy and how this informed their eventual decision to send bishops to Canada

after the Revolutionary war.

13 Chandler, T.B., An address from the clergy of New-York and New-Jersey, to the Episcopalians in Virginia: occasioned by some late transactions in that colony relative to an American episcopate (New York 1771) 14 Gerardi, Donald F.M., “The Episcopate Controversy Reconsidered: Religious Vocation and Anglican Perceptions of Authority in Mid-Eighteenth-Century America”, in Perspectives in American History, New Series (Vol. 3, 1986) 15 Doll, Peter M., Revolution, Religion & National Identity: Imperial Anglicanism in British North America 1745 – 1795 (Associated University Presses: London 2000)

6

This thesis will attempt to carry on where the current position of the

historiography finishes16, in looking more carefully at those people who were behind the

campaign. The attendees of the Jersey Conventions are a natural starting point,

particularly as they offer the most material to work from, and the names are synonymous

with the period. However, others, such as William Smith and Samuel Seabury, either too

maverick or too young, are involved also, and their contributions examined. For the

problem is that even now, the cohesion of the campaign, already limited to northern

churchmen, is still overstated. This paper will argue that there were some significant

tensions between the new generation of younger, more evangelical17 advocates of the

episcopacy, such as Thomas Bradbury Chandler, and their superiors and elders both in

the colonies themselves as well as in Britain. Lambeth Palace and the Bishop of London

were increasingly concerned with the activities of the Convention and its members, and

likewise the Conventioneers were tiring of the inaction at home. Amongst the polite

correspondence between the institutions across the water, one can detect this strain; and

when one looks at more personal memos, this feeling becomes acute. The British failed

to be enthused by the zeal of their American counterparts because they feared where

their cousins were heading, and the imperfect contact between them led to erring on the

side of caution. Furthermore personality clashes were involved both across the Atlantic

as well as amongst the northern clergy at home – natural in a society so bound up with

hierarchy and constraints, and by the ambition of individuals. This toxic mixture of

strategic and human conflict will bring a new perspective to the question of why a bishop

was not ultimately established, or even seriously undertaken, during the decade when the

debate was at its height. The greatest irony, perhaps, is the extent to which the

controversy existed more in the minds of neurotic dissenters, than ever had cause to be

articulated at Westminster.

16 For further historiography see Bibliography 17 For the purposes of this dissertation, the term ‘evangelical’ will not refer to the concept of biblical interpretation and reliance, but rather to the concept of a driven, missionizing zealousness which has an end objective of increased conversion amongst both other denominations and non-Christians alike.

7

II

The key players during these years are fairly well documented, and revolve

around the members of the Convention which met almost annually from 1764 to 1771.

Originally the preserve of those in New Jersey, from 1766 onwards they became a joint

convocation of the clergy of New Jersey and New York, while also including some

activists from further south. This move was in itself important in establishing a precedent

for cross-colonial interaction, in contrast to almost all Anglican policy prior to this date

which had been undertaken on the level of individual colonies. The SPG, for instance,

dealt with its overseas administration in this manner, treating each American settlement

as discrete and on a par with, for instance, Barbados or Jamaica in the south, Quebec or

Nova Scotia in the north. The Church had little sense of America being a single province

for its purposes, just as Britain had been slow in reacting to the concept of America as a

coherent polity prior to the Revolution. Although the innovative trans-continental

cooperation of those in opposition to the episcopate, instigated by Ezra Stiles in the

1760s, have often been noted, the similarly ground-breaking step within the Anglican

church has been under-emphasized. The conventions are crucial to understanding how a

power vacuum in the colonial Church, due to the lack of a formal institutional

framework, was being filled spontaneously by men who had a vision of Anglicanism that

reached beyond the parochial towards the diocesan.

Donald Gerardi has highlighted the divers nature of several of those involved18.

Probably the most prominent was Dr. Samuel Johnson (1696 – 1772), a learned and

respected man who alone kept a direct personal correspondence across the Atlantic with

bishops and the men of government, not to mention his namesake the writer and

lexicographer. Johnson commenced his career in the parish of Stratford in Connecticut

and subsequently became the founder and first President of the King’s College, New

York (later Columbia University) in 1754. He retired from this position in 1763,

returning to Connecticut to devote his time to the great issues of his faith. He was

succeeded at the college in 1764 by another future participant of the Convention, Myles

Cooper (1737 – 1785), though their backgrounds were very different. Cooper was born

in England and educated and ordained at the Queen’s College, Oxford, before being sent

18 Gerardi identifies ten members who ‘developed a loose network on behalf of their common cause’, although the minutes from these meetings indicate that attendance at the conventions was fluid, and up to thirty clergymen went to at least one meeting; see Gerardi, Episcopate Controversy Reconsidered, p. 83

8

to the colonies as the nominated successor to Johnson in New York. These two provide

an immediate comparison in every aspect: Johnson was born in Connecticut and was

thus as indigenously American as could be, while Cooper was a product of not just

Georgian Britain, but of the great educational establishment of Oxford University.

Cooper was also a product of the Church of England from his childhood, and pursued

this through his youth, while Johnson was a convert from Congregationalism19 who had

only seen the light in his mid 20s. Perhaps most noteworthy of all was their difference in

age: Johnson was already 67 years old when he retired to be succeeded by a 26 year old

Cooper.

This curious dichotomy is evident through all these key members: their dates of

birth stretched from 1696 to 1738, with half born after 1730; four were converts to

Anglicanism of colonial extraction, while six were born into it in British and had arrived

as immigrants; six had a college education (including four who became presidents of their

institution) while four had none; and five had been SPG missionaries while the other five

had not. Geographically, the group was equally split between those from northern

colonies where the Church was a minority (Connecticut, New York and New Jersey) and

those where the Church was established (Maryland and Virginia). They were essentially

disparate men united mostly through their faith and, more particularly, through their

concern for the institutional neglect of the Church; the desire for a bishop was of great

import and served as a main plank of their cohesion. Apart from those mentioned above,

others included Thomas Bradbury Chandler, the rector of Elizabeth Town in New

Jersey, Samuel Auchmuty at Trinity Church in New York, and his assistant and successor

Charles Inglis. Also associated with the conventioneers, though in a more understated

capacity, were Samuel Seabury and Johnson’s son William, both of whom demonstrated

a certain adaptability that would see them survive the Revolution and emerge into the

new world in positions of significant authority.

The only real outlet for the discussions undertaken at these events were regular

petitions and letters to their superiors at home: the King, the Archbishops of Canterbury

and York, the Bishop of London and the Secretary of the SPG being the main recipients

of the Americans’ evermore voluminous missives during the 1760s. These were typically

a mixture of forced sycophancy and tempered pessimism, as the authors walked the thin

line of trying to convey their desperation for a bishop on the one hand, whilst at the 19 Johnson was one of a number of converts who caused scandal when they announced their intention in June 1722 to abandon Congregationalism in favour of a protestant Episcopalian church. They was led by Timothy Cutler, the rector of Yale College, and the rest of the group comprised four tutors from that institution (including Johnson himself)

9

same time not wanting to give the impression that the situation was so bad that it might

be a waste of time to do anything; and least of all did they want London to feel the overt

finger of blame pointing in their direction. The correspondents were traditional and by

and large loyalist, with a sense of British social hierarchy instilled through the church. A

good example of this is in Johnson’s letter to Dr. Terrick, the Bishop of London, dated

15th July 176520: May it please your Lordship,

I take this opportunity with the utmost gratitude to acknowledge your Lordship’s most kind and condescending letters of Feb. 22, both to the clergy, and me. Their I sent to them at their convention, which I could not attend by reason of the distance and badness of the road, and I hear they have also most gratefully acknowledged in a joint letter to your Lordship. I am glad your Lordship is pleased with the worthy Mr. Harison’s account of the clergy in this colony, which I hope they will be the more emulous to deserve. It is, my Lord, a kind condescension in your Lordship, that you are pleased to desire of me an account of the state of religion in these parts of the world …

The content of this extract is not of import, but its language is: for it is important to

understand psychological framework within which the American Anglicans were

working. Bishops and archbishops were, after all, members of the House of Lords and

notwithstanding a few who had climbed the ecclesiastical ladder from the bottom,

predominantly aristocratic. To Anglophiles in the colonies there were truly few greater

honours than to undertake a correspondence with such leading lights of British society.

Thus the linguistic and sentimental limitations imposed were not just derived from

ecclesiastical hierarchy but from a social one as well. In this atmosphere one can imagine

how difficult it was for such people to voice any criticism of policy emanating from over

the water, when that current of power constituted the very pinnacle of their world.

Yet even in the writings of the most polite and deferential men such as Samuel

Johnson, the frustration that was to mark their attitude towards the authorities was to

become apparent. In a letter to the Bishop of London dated 5th September 176521,

Johnson decries the state of politics in England:

… Alas! I doubt we are to expect nothing in favor of religion in any shape, especially the Church of England. For Mr. Harison tells me that Mr. Huske &c (I suppose actuated by Mayhew and his correspondents) have made such a violent clamor against sending us bishops, that it will probably intimidate our friends from attempting it again.

20 Schneider, Herbert & Carol (Eds.), Samuel Johnson, President of King’s College: His Career & Writings (Columbia University Press: New York 1929), p. 351 21 ibid p. 355

10

Although Johnson suggests that he understands the difficulties of the situation, it cannot

be hidden that he hides a certain contempt for these ‘friends’ being so easily swayed and

thinks them somewhat spineless. This is particularly true when he then condemns the

dissenters’ tactics, but with a hint of mockery that implies no respect for those who

could be taken in:

It seems they make gentlemen believe that 19 / 20ths of America are utterly against it themselves, and that it would make a more dangerous clamor and discontent than the Stamp Act itself, &c, than which nothing can be more false.

Finally, the author condescends to suggest what alternative path could have been taken,

noting that

Had it been done last spring (when the dissenters themselves expected nothing else) and the Stamp Act postponed till the next, it would have been a nine days wonder, nor do I believe one half of the people of America would have been much if at all uneasy at it, and now a million souls are really. suffering for want of it.

Parliament, in other words, had been incompetent in their execution of the whole

business, a fairly extraordinary assertion to a reader of so high a rank.

Johnson’s analysis of the situation undoubtedly shows a detachment from

political reality, as it took some presumption to put the creation of a new bishopric for

the colonies on the same level as the Stamp Act, a piece of legislation whose purpose was

the raising of desperately needed revenues. Evidently those in Westminster had no

inclination towards putting spiritual ahead of fiscal stability, and despite Johnson’s

attempts to overplay the Anglican hand by talking of one million members in the

colonies (the true figure being closer to around 400,00022), the SPG and Lambeth Palace

probably knew that it was too small a number overall to warrant provoking the dissenters

over. However, to the American Anglicans, the lack of action from London smacked of

the degeneration of morals associated with the Old World, particularly in Parliament:

… In truth I am afraid that both the Bible and the episcopate which the church at first received together from the Apostles, are both very fast sinking together in this apostatizing age, both at home and abroad …

This pointed comment made clear Johnson’s missionizing zeal, the lack of which he

criticizes others for:

22 Mills, Bishops by Ballot, p. 25

11

… unless the poor Church of England in all order of men so soon rouse up and exert a spirit of zeal, courage and activity, I fear there is a greater probability that the episcopate will in many years be demolished in England than established in America.

This is a favourite theme of his, reflecting a comment from the previous year that ‘the

episcopate is more likely to be abolished at home than established abroad’23. Although he

almost certainly did not believe this rhetoric, the desire for a more productive attitude it

clearly extant in his mind and he has no reservations about expressing this.

However, despite the dissatisfaction which was felt, there is no doubt that their

sense of place told them it was seemly to hold back. A few certainly felt that even the

largely ingratiating declarations from the conventions had gone too far in forcing their

views upon their seniors like some sort of medieval petition, as in this initial

memorandum to the SPG in 1766, commencing: Rev. Sir,

The Clergy of the Province of New York having agreed in conjunction with some of our brethren of Connecticut and New Jersey, to hold voluntary annual conventions … embrace with pleasure this opportunity, which our first meeting hath furnished us, to present our duty to the Venerable Society.

The tenor of this is significantly less deferential then might be supposed, although the

Secretary of the SPG would not have warranted the excessive awe that a bishop would.

Nevertheless this was setting a trend which reflected the escalating profile of the

conventions, and the increasing sense of importance that those attached to the meetings

felt. All this left some of the more traditional members of the group, such as Johnson’s

close friend Samuel Auchmuty (1725 – 1777), somewhat concerned over where this was

heading. In one letter to Johnson dated November 176624, he wrote that

The Jersey clergy are really too importunate, and I hear their late proceedings will hurt the cause rather than do it good. They have fired their whole artillery against commissaries25 in a letter to the Bishop of London. I doubt whether the Bishop will thank them for their remonstrance.

Auchmuty, although as young as Chandler, had a more circumspect manner and

sympathized with those such as William Smith and Richard Peters. This did not

23 Schneider, Samuel Johnson, p. 354 24 ibid., p. 382 25 The matter of commissaries is one which emerged during the 1760s, when William Smith and Richard Peters, amongst others, suggested that commissaries with the power to preside over conventions and act as a first level of canon law, be applied for by the Americans instead of a full bishop. This was thought to be more politically realistic and thus appropriate at the time of the Stamp Act. Chandler and the others angrily denounced this plan as failing to deal with the central issue of ordination and confirmation, and wrote so to the Bishop of London in 1766.

12

necessarily stop him from voicing his opinion, particularly later on in the development, as

he says to Johnson on 21st March 176926:

I have not you must suppose been idle. His Lordship has repeatedly had my Sentiments not only with regard to Church, but political Subjects. I flatter myself they have been of some service to him, and are acceptable to him.

However, regardless of his natural inclinations towards wanting a bishop, his conception

of courtesy and respect led him to refrain from the zeal which infected the others at this

crucial stage.

Nothing better revealed the sensitivity of the situation, or at least his perception

of it, than his letter to Johnson of 3rd January 176727, upon the occasion of having seen

off Johnson’s son William aboard a ship bound for England, for the latter’s ordination.

Samuel Auchmuty seemed to see threats to their credibility lurking behind every corner

and was particularly worried that those in London might think badly of the American

clergy for having proffered their opinion, desiring the younger Johnson to be more

respectful: I had the pleasure of some private Conversations with him, in which he opened his heart in relation to his future Conduct, concerning the pressing for, American Bishop [sic]. He was so condescending as to ask my advice in the Affair – I candidly gave it him. It was – that as he was employed by the Government of Connecticut, he must not appear to have any hand in the Affair at all: and to be very cautious how he even expressed his Sentiments, or Opinion, before even his Intimates. I further told him, that he might, I was convinced trust the Arch-bishop, but no one Else. He seemed to acquiesce with me, and I make no doubt but that he will behave in such a manner as to give no Offence; and will return with honor to his native Country.

He then proceeds to reiterate his thoughts on the previous exchange between the

convention and Lambeth Palace, saying that

I have desired him to make some Apology for the warm proceedings of the last Jersey Convention, especially in regard to Commissaries. They have carried matters with a high hand; and in my opinion have dictated to their Superiors too much. I have prevailed upon Chandler to leave out some Expressions in their Letters, and that is all I have been able to do – Subordination is as necessary in Church as it is in State.

This last sentence in particular is telling, and encapsulates the mindset that permeated the

more reserved clergy, despite other considerations. Auchmuty was undoubtedly in favour

of an Anglican episcopacy, as his other correspondence shows; but to join in convention

and then dictate to their superiors was a step too far.

26 Samuel Auchmuty to Samuel Johnson, 21st March 1769, Hawks Manuscripts, 13 Volumes (New York Historical Society), No. 15 27 Auchmuty to Johnson, 3rd January 1767, Hawks MSS, No. 10 (see Appendix II)

13

It would, of course, be wrong to read too much into the language of these letters,

and extrapolate from them an inherent conservatism which could not be overcome; and

the lack of honesty and articulation amongst the clergy of the northern colonies, while

contributing in some way to the sloth of the process, was not the be all and end all. After

all, there are two main influencing considerations when looking at the material from a

literary perspective. The first is that the gentility of the language is in no way uncommon

for the era, when even peers would have written to each other in such glowing terms of

civility – witness Chandler’s otherwise unremarkable letter of 20th August 176428 which

begins: Very Reverend Sir –

Your favor of the first instant I was so happy to receive but two days ago; and I am at a loss to determine which part afforded me the greatest pleasure – whether that which contains such proofs of the continuance of your kindness and friendship for me, or that which describes the happiness you enjoy in your Stratford retreat …

One should expect that, in dealing with British high society they would at least keep to

this, if not raise the level of obsequiousness. Secondly, it can be seen that the Americans

remained in an almost constant anxiety on news from their superiors in England

throughout this whole episode, which reinforces, if needed, the fact that they were

dependent on the bishops and archbishops, Parliament and the Society, for all their

spiritual needs – if a bishop were to come, it would (to most minds) have to come from

London. Hence, in such a delicate state of affairs, they hardly wanted to risk offending

their seniors if there was no need to. Evidently Auchmuty and Chandler had differing

views as to how pressing their needs were, with the latter calculating that the acceptance

of commissaries might risk marginalizing the subject of an episcopate proper for another

generation or more.

However adherence to flattery was not universal, as will be illustrated below.

Some felt that without a sharp word or two there would be no stimulus for action at

Lambeth Palace, and that in any case their real desires and rights had to be articulated;

indeed some did not even consider the British as absolutely necessary towards the

solving of the episcopate problem. However in both these cases, the true story can only

be seen by an examination of communication between the American clergy involved,

rather than through that between the colonies and London.

28 Schneider, Samuel Johnson, p. 354

14

III

Thomas Bradbury Chandler (1726 – 1790) was one of the ‘native’ clergymen of

the Jersey Conventions, being born in Woodstock, Connecticut. He graduated from Yale

in 1745 and was ordained by the Bishop of London in 1751, receiving his D.D. in 1766,

partially in recognition for his tireless zeal at the parish of Elizabeth Town in New Jersey.

Chandler was a thoroughly ‘high’ churchman, who revered the institutions as well as the

doctrines of the Church of England, and this played its part in his refusal to sanction the

celebrated George Whitefield when the latter came through his province in the winter of

1763; neither could he sanction the eventual Revolution, and departed for England in

1775. Although eventually offered the bishopric of Nova Scotia, Chandler cited ill-health

and pushed the position to his friend and compatriot, Charles Inglis. His contribution to

the Anglican Bishop Controversy was, as mentioned above, based first and foremost on

his authorship of the Appeal, the Appeal Defended and the Appeal Farther Defended. He was

also instrumental in the organization and convocation of New England clergymen from

the mid-1760s, being a good friend of Samuel Johnson and well connected throughout

the continent.

Chandler was, in short, well equipped to be a leading light in the struggle for an

episcopate. Both his zealousness and his ‘high’ church orientation may have been a

product of his conversion to Anglicanism, much like Johnson. Unlike his friend, though,

Chandler was far less connected directly with England, not having any personal or

professional acquaintances with the mother country. He spent less than one year there

for his ordination, a process for which candidates usually stayed longer due to the length

and hazardous nature of the crossing – as is pointed out, ‘one in five’29 ordinands died

making the journey. This disconnection with the formal superstructure of the Old World

would not necessarily lessen his loyalism either to the Church or to Britain, as

demonstrated by his conscious defence of the status quo in the build up to Revolution –

he wrote A Friendly Address to All Reasonable Americans on the Subject of Our Political

Confusions in 1774 and may have contributed to the pamphlet A View of the Controversy

Between Great Britain and her Colonies30. However it probably was enough, in conjunction

29 Clergy of New York to the Secretary, quoted in Perry, William Stevens, The History of the American Episcopal Church 1587 – 1883 (James R. Osgood & Co.: Boston 1885), Vol. I, p. 416 30 Harris, Reginald, Charles Inglis: Missionary, Loyalist, Bishop (General Board of Religious Education: Toronto 1937), p. 40

15

with his evangelical fervour, to cause his language and behaviour to reflect his passion

and to occasionally dispense with the niceties that those in authority might expect.

Chandler certainly did not hide his frustrations when talking to his close

confidants such as Johnson, and it is instructive to compare his correspondence with the

Connecticut cleric to that with London. In a letter to the former dated 5th September

176631, Chandler quotes a part of a letter from the Secretary of the SPG sent originally to

Myles Cooper, lamenting Parliament’s lack of decisiveness. Chandler hubristically

disapproves, it seems, of even consulting them, and attacks the Society’s lack of moral

fibre in so deferring:

The Parliament rising and would do nothing! I do not know that we ever desired them to do anything. What reasons can there be for consulting Parliament? How in the name of goodness does it concern them, whether such a bishop as we have requested be sent to us any more than whether an astronomer or a poet should come to America; for he is to receive no power nor perquisites from them. If they are disposed to countenance or declare in a public manner, their approbation for American bishops, we are so far obliged to them; but if not, all that we desire is that they will not oppose us, and we will never promise to molest them.

For Chandler, Parliament is an inconvenience, and a peripheral one at that, whose

politicking should not be allowed to infringe into his grand vision of ecclesiastical

establishment in America. Furthermore, the Society is doing a great disservice to the

colonists by not standing up for the Church more, or having the courage to act

unilaterally. And when it does, Chandler has words of criticism for the decisions made:

The Society desired a bishop might be appointed in Canada; I hope it was not the popish one who has lately been sent thither. But why in Canada, where there is but one protestant clergyman, and he a chaplain to one of the regiments (Brooks) and not a church even for him to make use of it? Why not in one of the islands of Canso, or Miquelon, or rather the coast of Labrador, which is more distant, and consequently more proper?

Clearly, like some contemporary army major-general talking about his logistical support,

the Society for him is incapable of making good decisions, and is instead representative

of deskmen and bureaucrats who have no sense of the battle on the ground.

Johnson, no doubt, took this all in good humour as the excesses of intemperate

youth, despite the warnings that were emerging from some quarters such as Samuel

Auchmuty. In the letter above concerning William Samuel Johnson’s departure, the

Trinity Church rector notes his increasing uneasiness with the Chandler-led meetings

I am very glad I was not present at their Convention; for I am Sure I could not have joined with them in many things. I fear I shall be plagued with them at our next, unless I get some letter from England before them, that may set some bounds, beyond which they are not to go.

31 Schneider, Samuel Johnson, p. 368

16

Johnson must have been aware of these dynamics himself, but probably chose not to

voice any moderation, partly due to Auchmuty’s stance on the bishops versus

commissaries issue, and partly due to the fact that Auchmuty had not been beyond such

language himself when he felt like it. In a letter two years earlier dated 7th October

176532, Auchmuty had been impassioned enough to speak very harshly of Dr. Burton,

the same Secretary of the Society:

What is the [reason] Dr. Burton chuses to be Silent, tho’ often [importured] to use his interest for a Bishop? Two letters I have received lately from him, no notice taken of those paragraphs of mine that mentioned Bishops, and unhappy situation – have again wrote to him by Giles, and I think in such a manner, as will force an Answer.

Indeed he went much further in actually targeting the Archbishop of Canterbury,

Thomas Secker, for being uncooperative:

I greatly fear the good A_h _ B_p intends to let us continue as we are; for surely was he to exert all his influence nothing could prevent his Succeeding. I wish I was at his Elbows – He should have no rest.

The idea that he would personally harass the Primate of All England, were he but to have

more direct access was probably stretching the truth, but for the members of the

convention it proved that even the most prudent of clergy could be excused for being

heated when it came to desiring a bishop. Interestingly, even at this early stage Auchmuty

reveals the close links between church and crown which was to worry dissenters and

revolutionaries:

I have plainly told him, and desired him to show my letter to our Superiors, that it is my real opinion (and I am far from being alone) that his Maj’y has very few subjects whose Loyalty he can depend upon on the Continent, besides the Members of the Chh of England. The rest are right down republicans, and - If so, hard, oh! very hard it is, that the most deserving shall be debarred of their just rights, in order to please a rebellious lot of people. Alas! Alas!

More importantly this extract shows Auchmuty presuming to lecture Dr. Burton on the

political troubles and demanding he take the matter higher – perhaps as disrespectful as

anything Chandler may have shown Johnson.

The problem lies in how these were ultimately conveyed. Johnson was willing to

tolerate the in-subordination of both of these writers, precisely because they were only

telling him. Were this to go any further, however, in any direct communication with their

superiors in London, he would most probably have been distinctly uncomfortable, just as 32 Auchmuty to Johnson, 3rd January 1767, Hawks MSS, No. 7

17

Auchmuty was to be in 1767. One is left to ponder, therefore, how much of a

contribution was made by these senior figures to the letter drafted by Chandler and

Cooper on 5th December 1767, to the Bishop of London33. In one of the most

extraordinary outbursts of its kind, the two conventioneers manage to express such a

sense of irreverence in sentiment, that the couching of the language in deferential

phraseology seems almost ironic. The letter is a reply by the convention to Bishop

Terrick, in response to his letter, evidently from earlier that year, which had obviously

contained several negative connotations about the convention which the latter felt

unjustly impugned them. We have some indication of this first petition, which would

have dated from 1766, from references to it such as that given by Auchmuty, the ‘warm

proceedings of the last Jersey Convention’ in his letter to Johnson. If it was worded in a

manner similar to their petition to the Secretary of the Society in 1765, it would no doubt

have caused some displeasure at Lambeth Palace. From the very first, it’s tone is laden

with indignation:

The Clergy of New Jersey and New York, lately convened in their annual voluntary Convention, at Elizabeth Town, have appointed us a Committee to return their very humble and sincere Thanks to your Lordship, for your letter of March 9th with which you have been pleased to honor them; and to explain some Things to your Lordship, relating to their Conduct, which they imagine must have been misrepresented, or misapprehended.

The very suggestion that it could have been ‘misapprehended’ suggests the course that

the letter will follow. After a suitably fawning preamble, stretching to two paragraphs

which acknowledging his ‘Zeal for procuring to the American Churches their compleat

Establishment’, and seeking to assure Terrick that they condescend to have ‘an intire

Confidence in these Declarations’, Chandler goes on to defend the conventions, to all

intents and purposes his personal creation.

To begin with, he quotes a part of the rules governing the SPG, in rather a

sparring manner:

“Friendly Associations of the Clergy for promoting Harmony amongst the Members, and assisting each with Advice and Counsel” Your lordship approves of; and the Venerable Society has publickly and expressly recommended them in their Collection of Papers published Anno 1741, Page 12.

Evidently they detect the accusation (with good reason) of church governance which

resembles that of the dissenters, particularly the Congregationalists and Presbyterians

which existed through the framework of synods. This charge they vehemently refute, of 33 Thomas Bradbury Chandler & Myles Cooper to Bishop Terrick, 5th December 1767, Fulham Papers, Vol. VI, No. 168-73 (see Appendix II)

18

course, and then proceed to talk in language reminiscent of the political pamphlet wars

occurring around them:

It was never entered into our Thoughts to determine Jointly in Convention upon the Behaviour of our Brethren, otherwise than each of us has an unquestionable Right to determine Severally, out of Convention … Upon such cases, we flatter ourselves that a Clergyman has exactly the same Right to give his Opinion, with every other Person. We cannot conceive that this Right is forfeited as soon as a Member of us are together; not more in Convention, than if assembled accidentally, or on any other Occasion.

This talk of ‘rights’, to discuss, to convene and to administrate, would have sounded to

any person of political sensibility in London from the same school as the seditious and

obdurate troublemakers behind the Stamp Act riots. It is a tremendous assertion of

moral authority, and is revolutionary in imbuing this licence upon the conventions which

had no official mandate from the Anglican establishment, on either side of the Atlantic.

No doubt the bishop’s initial reply had been written precisely with this in mind, and the

convention’s response would hardly be reassuring. Towards the end of the missive, the

conventioneers tack back towards wanting not to overstep the boundaries of decency:

If we studied our Ease and private Interest, we should pursue other Measures, or perhaps neglect to pursue any for advancing the general Interest of the American Church; for much Trouble, and a heavy Expence [sic] almost beyond our Abilities to bear, without any Prospect of Advantage, must necessarily attend the Prosecution of this. But as all Considerations of this Nature, in our Opinion, ought to give way to the Good of the Church and the general Interest of Religion, we think it our duty to continue these Conventions, until our Superiors shall think proper, after hearing what can be said for, as well as against, them, to signify to us their Disapprobation of their Continuance.

This concession to the clerical authorities must have been accepted as the very least they

could do. No further correspondence is recorded in the Fulham Papers after this date for

this colony, so we can only presume that, either the bishop chose not to reply, or that the

reply was lost. Regardless, however, we can probably make an educated guess as to how

Terrick may have felt at reading such letters, and they were almost certainly not helpful

to the cause of the an American episcopate, just as Auchmuty predicted.

Chandler’s tone was as much at fault a his sentiments, and this comes across in

all of his writings. Although the Appeal began a fairly moderately voiced debate,

subsequent publications showed his loss of patience with those in opposition to his own

views. This frustration reached its logical conclusion with his Address to the Episcopalians in

Virginia, where he lambastes his southern brethren for their noncommittal attitude

towards the cause of the bishop. Bradbury begins in bombastic form, giving the reasons

for supporting the cause before saying that:

19

we were surprised and concerned, to find that a Proposal to your Clergy to apply for an Episcopate, on the same Plan, met with an unfavorable Reception in Virginia, from some who call themselves Episcopalians; and, more especially, that any of your Clergy publickly and formally protested against such an Application34

He goes on to accuse the intellectual integrity of those mavericks amongst the Virginians

who defied the Convention: they have endeavored to vindicate this Proceeding in Terms, which plainly shew that they have little, if any, Reverence for the episcopal Order.

Furthermore, he says that notes in no uncertain terms that We had always thought it impossible, both from the Reason of Things, and from what we had seen and experienced, that any Episcopal Clergymen should be averse to the Presence of Bishops, excepting only such Delinquents ass have Reason to dread their Inspection.

To Chandler (and Cooper, who may have helped him draft this) it seemed totally illogical

that any real Anglicans could possibly not want a bishop, and he seems impervious to

some of the reasons why this may in fact have been the case. Instead of sensing the

political and social undertones to the actions of the Virginians highlighted by historians

such as Rhys Isaac35, Chandler can only condescendingly label them as errors of

judgement on their part, though he is willing, it seems, to forgive them:

We doubt not but you will see your Mistake, and endeavor to retrieve the Mischief that may have arisen from it36

Although what he sees as their unfortunate indiscretions has accorded the enemy

dissenters ammunition in the pamphlet wars:

we trust that the Advantage, which has been given them, proceeded from Inadvertency, from a Misunderstanding of the Case, or from any Thing, rather than from a Want of Fidelity to that Church of which you are Members. We cannot believe that any of you meant to betray its Cause, or to desert its Interests.

This scornful and patronizing timbre evidently did not endear the northern clergy to their

southern counterparts, and feeds into a more general backdrop of escalating tempers and

heated idiom.

As far as the language directed at the British was concerned, one can also imagine

how this rancorous flavour was aggravated by the impression held by episcopate

34 Chandler, T.B., An address from the clergy of New-York and New-Jersey, to the Episcopalians in Virginia: occasioned by some late transactions in that colony relative to an American episcopate (New York 1771), pp. 2-3 35 Isaac, Rhys, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740 – 1790 (W.W. Norton: New York 1988) 36 Chandler, Address to the Episcopalians in Virginia, pp. 55-56

20

supporters that they were being ignored. Their irritation was being exacerbated by the

sense of futility that was slowly dawning on them from the responses, or lack of

responses, they were receiving. The letter above from Auchmuty to Johnson is one

example37, and it seems to be a running theme for the New York cleric, for in another

letter dated 30th April 176638 he again writes:

I had almost forgot to tell you (for many are my avocations even as I am writing a single letter) that I have received a long Letter, dated 6th Jan’y 1766 from the Secretary of the Society, but not one single word about Bishops.

and again on 25th May 176739:

Pray does he give you any encouragement concerning American Bishops? Or any alteration in Church matters for the better? I hope the good Archbishop deals candidly and openly with him. I also have one hope more, which is, that he is like to succeed in the business he went Home upon. My private Letters are all discouraging – as to Bishops.

This longing for any word of encouragement, the hanging on in hope of some

momentum, seems to obsess them, and can be found in the writings of Charles Inglis,

Myles Cooper and Samuel Seabury besides. Chandler was no exception, and at one point

reveals why he has delayed publishing a further answer to Dr. Chauncy, in a letter to

Johnson dated 14th December 177040:

I have determined to wait thus long, in Hopes of hearing what Success the Publication of the Appeal and Defence in London may have met with, and of seeing what may have been written there in Answer to them, as I desired [Rivington?] to send me immediately whatever might be published there on the Occasion.

The late date of this letter shows quite how desperate and preoccupied, one might almost

say fixated, the North American clergy were with direction from home. Lack of word

gave them an increasing sense of isolation and detachment, one channel of which we

shall see later, but also stirred their antagonism.

Importantly, therefore, an increasingly strained dynamic existed between England

and New England as the bishop controversy developed, and not just because the more

astute politicians on the British side considered the leading advocates for an episcopate

‘politically insane’, as Bridenbaugh was to write. It was partly because the manner in

which the American clergy were expressing themselves appeared to be increasingly feisty,

in a period where the imperial machinery was becoming particularly sensitive to signs of 37 See pg. 14 38 Auchmuty to Johnson, 30th April 1766, Hawks MSS, No. 8 39 ibid, 25th May 1767, No. 12 40 Chandler to Johnson, 14th December 1770, Hawks MSS, No. 29

21

rebelliousness. Chandler was no doubt aware that he was treading a thin line with his

words, but probably did not ascribe it the importance that a more experienced figure,

such as Johnson or Auchmuty, might. Yet Chandler was essentially the leading advocate,

both in print in America as well as through the official correspondence of the

convention, and therefore cast the entire movement in his own light. His unyielding

superciliousness, to all those who he felt needed prodding both at home and abroad,

would not have won him many friends and supporters, and almost certainly aroused

some measure of resentment. Although not ‘politically insane’ from the colonial politics

standpoint, it was definitely insensitive from the perspective of Anglican institutional

politics. In this case, it played its part in failing to raise a broad coalition of backing, and

goes some way towards explaining why this project never gained the momentum which

he and the other conventioneers hoped would be automatic, once the opposition of the

dissenters was resolved. Had Johnson been younger, or some other less haughty man in

charge, results may have been quite different.

22

IV

The letter to Bishop Terrick from Chandler tells us that Terrick was unhappy

with the first missive from the convention in 1766, and we can guess, from Auchmuty’s

comments amongst others, that the tone was a major factor. However, the majority of

Chandler’s letter is devoted to his explanation and defence of the convention process

itself, and this tells of another strand of discontent for the Anglican establishment – a

disapproval of the convention system altogether. The Church of England is distinctly

hierarchical; the custom of apostolic succession imbues an unquestionable governance

structure which requires obedience and, as Auchmuty makes clear in his letter to

Johnson, subservience. In this sense, although one of the classic ‘reformed’

denominations of the 16th century, the Anglican communion is distinctly Catholic in

comparison to its Protestant brethren. The other two main products of the Reformation,

Lutheranism and Calvinism, were far removed from the Anglican movement, which was

regarded as being bizarrely crypto-Catholic by many. It did not have a renewed emphasis

on scriptural teachings or a drive against ecclesiastical rigidity. It did not acknowledge the

power of the pope, it was true, nor did it keep a Latin liturgy; but numerous contentious

incidents involving the Stuart monarchs, particularly Francophile Charles I and James II,

led critics to suspect popery to be just beyond the horizon. This was unfortunate because

for the common people, in the words of J.M. Roberts, ‘Protestantism was to become a

cornerstone of English national identity41 – a partial origin for religious migration to the

New World in the first place.

However, ever since the Levellers and the Scottish Presbyterians (a Calvinistic

sect which believed in pre-destination) in the English Civil War, the Anglican church had

been equally suspicious of protestant puritans. Although allowed to flourish in the

colonies, dissenters were not given a vaguely equal footing in Britain until the repeal of

the Test & Corporation Act in 1828. Importantly, the Anglican Church was established,

and was thoroughly intertwined with monarchical power. The egalitarian nature of

nonconformist church administration, through congregations and elders, therefore, was

much disliked for potentially undermining governmental authority. And any hint of it

developing amongst Anglicans would have been taken very seriously indeed, as this

41 Roberts, J.M., A History of Europe (Helicon: Oxford 1996), p. 243

23

correspondence shows. Chandler, having finished talking about the political

inconvenience of bishops, goes on:

As to our Conventions, the Clergy are much concerned to find Your Lordship appears to view them in an unfavourable Light. However as they think they have sufficient Reasons to believe that Your Lordship has heard them accused, they cannot entertain any Suspicion of your Willingness and Readiness to hear them defended; which, according to their Instructions, we are now to attempt, relying on your Impartiality and Goodness to excuse our being this troublesome.42

Although they believe that the bishop’s mind has been poisoned against them, they

evidently have great fear of the accusation and seek to clarify their position:

If we have been accused to your Lordship of erecting our selves into a Friend of Congregational Synod, the Accusation, in our humble Conception, ought to set forth, in what Instances and Respects we have done this; without which, all that can be expected from us is a general Denial of the Charge. Our Sentiments and Views, we can truly assert, are as far – and they are well known in this Country to be as far – from Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, or Independency, as those of our Accusor, whoever he may be; nor have we a better Opinion than he, of Synods that are formed upon such Principles.

Concepts such as ‘Synod’ and ‘Independency’ were perhaps the ultimate doctrinal taboo

for Anglicans, and Chandler’s confrontation of them demonstrates at once both his

concern that these terms not be linked to the conventions, as well as the gravity of

Terrick’s implications.

Where though did this come from? As Chandler points out, the gathering

together of “Friendly Associations of the Clergy for promoting Harmony” was accepted

and even encouraged, especially where the official channels of spiritual authority could

not reach. Conventions of the clergy of individual colonies had been commonplace

before 1766, and as previously stated it was the trans-colonial nature of the Conventions

since that time that had been novel. However, Bishop Terrick was obviously against it

from the very beginning, and for the clergy of New York and New Jersey it seemed

evident that someone had been briefing him against the whole business, as can be seen

from the same letter. After saying that they were no closer to synod than their ‘accusor’,

Chandler writes:

He would not have had the Hardiness to insinuate the contrary to your Lordship, had you been particularly acquainted with our respective Principles and Characters, nor does he publickly or openly charge us, with what he has been pleased clandestinely to intimate.

The letter then goes one to defend the open nature of the conventions, without a sitting

president, saying that ‘In our present Circumstances we know not how the Clergy can 42 Chandler & Cooper to Terrick, 5th December 1767, Fulham Papers

24

meet together in these voluntary Conventions, on any other Terms than those of a

perfect Equality’. Chandler then deals with the issue of authority and of members trying

to take the ‘Lead’ in these discussions, but sees it as no real problem, given that ‘If any

Man’s Abilities are judged to be superior to those of his Brethren, provided they be

exerted properly, the Lead will, in some Measure, be naturally given him’. However, the

final line of that paragraph shows the cynicism the conventioneers have of the origins of

the bishop’s criticism:

But if, from a Conceit of the Superiority of his own Abilities, in which Opinion a Man may happen to be singular, any one should assume the Lead – and claim it as his Right – and contend for the Lead – and be obstinate in the Contest; he then would become, and we think with sufficient Reason, the Object of Jealousy – especially if he should give Cause also to suspect, that he has endeavored by Misrepresentations of our Proceedings and Designs, to disaffect our Superiors towards us.

Clearly someone who the others did not like very much, had done exactly this early on in

the proceedings, incurred their wrath, and gone away to undermine the conventions

through whatever means necessary, in this case, by communicating his disapproval to

Lambeth Palace.

As to who it is, Chandler is naming no names in the text, as indeed it would have

been impolitic. However, in another letter to Samuel Johnson (undated, but probably

from 1767)43, Chandler relates the bishop’s criticism and appends the missive thus:

P.S. I forgot to tell you that I have received a long letter from the Bishop of London, in Answer to our last address, and relating to American Affairs; I cannot now send it to you, as Mr. McKean has it, but if he returns it I will transmit it by the next opportunity. Some of our Conduct he approves of, and some he disapproves of; & his Disapprobation is expressed in Language which I have only met with in y’r Latitude & Longtitude of Philadelphia.

There was one main character with whom a quarrel had indeed occurred early on, and

this cryptic comment about Philadelphia refers not to the language of The Anatomist or

The Remonstrant published in that city. It is referring to Dr. William Smith of Philadelphia,

a man renowned for his education, but also his arrogance and pomposity. Smith was a

known supporter of bishops in principle, and indeed published The Anatomist himself as a

means of fighting the episcopate battle in his own city, soon after the contention had

started in New York and Boston. In a letter to Dr. Terrick dated 22nd October 176844, he

writes of the a curious local incident whereby a priest ordained by the Greek Orthodox

church has begun leading the congregation of St. Paul’s, lamenting: 43 Chandler to Johnson, 1767, C.H. Vance Papers, Butler Library at Columbia University, New York, Box 10, Folder 1 44 William Smith to the Bishop of London, Fulham Papers, Vol. VIII, Nos. 25 - 26 (see Appendix II)

25

Alas! my Lord. The true manner & Decorum, seems too much departing from here; & to read the Liturgy, whatever else be added to it, or however little our Canons be regarded, is thought sufficient to denominate a Man a Churchman – Shall we never have a Bishop to regulate these Excesses?

However, Smith was also something of a realist when it came to political matters, due in

part to his life in a colony with full religious toleration and hence a strength of diversity.

In a letter to the Bishop of London in 176845, he analysed the situation as having ‘raised a

great flame. There is nothing but writing in the ever Newspaper’.

Smith, though behind The Anatomist, was only ever lukewarm about Chandler’s

publication of the Appeal, as is recorded in several pieces of correspondence. In the same

letter to the bishop, he writes that

I could not approve of any Appeals to the Public here about Bishops, as thinking such Appeals Coram non Judice and only provoking strife. However, the Church here is now very rudely treated by a malevolent set of Writers, and tho’ I could have wished our side had not given any cause, yet they must not be left unsupported, and I am determined to contribute my mite, for great openings are given to detect their shameful misrepresentations.

In a similar letter to the Secretary of the Society, dated 6th May 176846, he repeats the

message slightly more forcefully, saying that

I never liked appealing to the publick here about it … However, Dr. Chandler’s Pamphlet, tho’ too long and sometimes foreign to the purpose in it, is on the whole such as he can support, and tho’ I wish he had not published it, yet it is well defensible and he shall not be left to stand alone, for the virulence of his antagonists is now not to be borne.

One can detect the reluctance with which Smith wishes to offer any support, seeming to

be concerned more with towing the line, and being seen to support the side, than actually

wanting to. It is also notable that in this second letter, he is willing to criticize Chandler’s

writing style in a personal manner, rather than just the idea of appealing to the public, as

he does in the first. Herein lies a clue, for he goes on to talk about not liking ‘too great

zeal of our late Jersey conventions, for which they thought me too cold’.

It emerges that the conventioneers had every right to be suspicious about Smith’s

conduct in this affair. Samuel Auchmuty had warned them about this early on, in the

letter above dated 3rd January 176747 to Samuel Johnson, in which he says

45 Wemyss, Horace (Ed.), Life & Correspondence of the Rev. William Smith, D.D., 2 Vols. (Ferguson Bros. & Co: Philadelphia 1880), p. 414 46 ibid 47 Auchmuty to Johnson, 3rd January 1767, Hawks MSS, No. 10

26

Dr. Smith (who by the bye will not be the worse for a little mortification) has wrote me a long Letter, setting forth their Conduct and Ingratitude to him. He is very angry, and I fear will represent their conduct in an unfavourable light to our superiors.

We know that Smith, along with Richard Peters, were uncomfortable with the rebuffing

of commissaries noted above, but it seems that, having fallen out with the other clergy,

he then, whether or not in a fit of pique, sought to wreak some vengeance. Having not

got his way on the subject in 1764, Smith wrote to the Bishop of London on 13th

November 176648 strongly denouncing the whole business. He starts by relating a

different incident, involving the congregation of St. Paul’s being at that time without a

cleric, and being susceptible to the influences of George Whitefield. He states that

Those among them, who were true Church Men have generally fallen off. The Rest are a mixt sort, chiefly for an independent Church of England – a strange Sort of Church indeed! But the Notion gains too much Ground here, even among some of the Clergy.

This is all pedestrian enough, until he begins to make the link in the very next paragraph,

writing that

I believe your Lordship will perceive Something of this Kind, not altogether pleasing if the Resolves of a Majority of last Jersey Convention should come before you, against Commissaries; preferring thereto a kind of Presbyterian or Synodical Self-delegated Government by Conventions, which I fear will end in Quarrels by every one’s Striving to be upper most in their Turn, & never could have been thought of but as an Expedient for friendly Converse & vice, till Something better could be done.

This statement was, without doubt, designed to undermine both Chandler himself, and

the convention more broadly, in the eyes of the bishop under whose jurisdiction they fell,

and must have had a serious effect on how Lambeth Palace viewed these events.

Although we do not have Bishop Terrick’s reply to the convention, Chandler clearly

recognized the voice of Smith in it and it seems likely that Terrick took Smith’s words to

heart.

Exactly what Smith’s motivations were we do not know. Possibly he was

genuinely displeased with the ‘‘Presbyterian or Synodic Self-delegated Government’ of

which he complained. However, another line reveals more of Smith’s attitude: I attended & presided in the year 1764; when all was Harmony & the Design of Commissaries, Corresponding Societies approved of. Mr. Peters attended now, & bore his Testimony against these Resolves, as not becoming Missionaries especially & Servants of the Society … I think I should never have sat among them, if they had put one of their own Number in the Chair, while a Member of the Society & Clergyman of Respect was present.

48 William Smith to the Bishop of London, Fulham Papers, Vol. VIII, Nos. 25 - 26

27

Smith clearly did perceive his role as necessarily one of leading the group, rather than

being merely one among equals, and this is what partially led to his petulant disposition

regarding subsequent Conventions. When Chandler, in his defence of the Convention

talks about someone who is ‘singular’ in suffering ‘from a Conceit of the Superiority of

his own Abilities’, he must be referring to Smith. No doubt Chandler was something of

an objectionable character, overbearing and officious; but so, it appears, was

Pennsylvania academic. At least Chandler had the support of that whole group of men in

the North; the maverick Smith was left to his own devices, brooding at his exclusion and

writing in desultory manner to the Bishop of London denouncing the Jersey

Conventions. Smith, also a loyalist, probably thought he was being shrewd in maintaining

his relations across the sea, displaying the very worst sort of obsequiousness

I have mentioned this Matter fully to the Archbishop; but must mention it in such Confidence both to his Grace and your Lordship, as that it may not be so public as to interrupt our Harmony with our Brethren … especially if your Lordship from any Thing appearing on the Face [of] their own Papers, not communicated by us, should interpose your paternal Counsel & Advice.

However this all came back haunt him when, after the war, Seabury and others vetoed

his attempt to become ordained as Bishop of Maryland.

Either way, this altercation may have dramatically impacted the episcopate

campaign. The Anglican establishment, probably already unhappy with the manner of the

convention’s petitioning, now had a new angle on which to express their disapprobation.

It may well have struck the Bishop of London and the SPG that this group of zealots, far

from being the helpful and ‘instrumental’49 foot-soldiers needed ‘for procuring to the

American Churches their compleat Establishment’50, were actually a dangerous liability.

Politically, they were (again according to Smith) stirring up trouble by issuing pamphlets

which were not needed at the time, and which could have been interpreted as designed to

put pressure on British authorities to act. Religiously they seemed to be veering towards

nonconformist styles of church governance which, notwithstanding their requests for a

bishop, was based on objectionably demagogic values. With the rise of Methodism at

home and in the colonies, many churchmen in England probably wondered whether

there were not some nefarious influences from this quarter also. Whatever the Bishop of

London’s replies had been, one cannot underestimate the extent to which, regardless of

the episcopate controversy, these were not his favourite people. Smith, for a variety of

reasons, had opened up an internal schism which was probably detrimental to 49 Chandler to Terrick, 10th July 1766, Fulham Papers, Vol. VI, 162-163 50 Chandler to Terrick, 5th December 1767, Fulham Papers, Vol. VI, 168-173

28

establishment opinion on the subject, and his seemingly petty row with Chandler, the

result of two men with who both thought too highly of themselves, had made an

unforeseen impact on a goal they both ultimately wanted.

29

V

As to whether this scepticism from London was justified, the writings of the time

also shed some light. In 1784, when a bishop was eventually created in North America,

Samuel Seabury infuriated the Church of England by becoming ordained through the

non-juring Scottish Episcopal Church51, instead of waiting for the machinery of

ecclesiastical government to allow him to be ordained properly. Historians have cited this

as proof that the American Anglicans, or the Episcopalians as they were to become,

simply could not afford to wait any longer given the demographic trends within the

church. However, another interpretation is simply that this was the culmination of a

move which had begun with the controversy of the 1760s and which had its roots even

earlier, whereby Anglicans were forming the theology not of Anglicanism in the

traditional sense of the word, tied to Crown and Country, but of a genuine, purer

Protestant Episcopalian Church. In other words, they were thoroughly protestant, but

believed in the apostolic succession and the heritage of bishops from St. Peter. This

represented a migration away from the traditional model of a confessional church and

state, towards one which anticipated the post-Revolutionary world (albeit inadvertently)

of a separation of the two. This latter position, when it came to pass with the framing of

the Federal Constitution in 1789, brought precisely what some had desired: a platform

from which religion could be more evangelical due to a lack of establishment.

During this early period in the 1760s, there is little evidence of any desire for

such a conscious break. As seen above, most of the clergy involved were loyalists

through and through, and had more desire to establish the Church of England where it

was not present, than to disestablish it where it was. However Samuel Johnson’s jocular

comments to the Bishop of London concerning disestablishment might not have been as

far from the truth as was assumed. Religious disturbances were on the rise in England,

with nonconformists gaining much ground, particularly in the urban areas where the

Anglican church was failing to adapt to the seminal industrial revolution. We have

already seen the discontented remarks made by men such as Chandler about British

action, which would naturally have led them to question where else they could find a

51 Non-juring bishops were those who had remained loyal to the Tory cause and James II during the upheavals of the 1680s in England. They resisted William III’s authority and the Glorious Revolution, unwilling (and unable, theologically) to swear their loyalty to the new king. These clergy were naturally phased out, despite attempts by William to reach an agreement, but remained extant in Scotland in ever dwindling numbers. They believed they maintained the true apostolic succession of the Anglican church.

30

solution to their problems. In one intriguing letter, we can see the origins of what would

later motivate Seabury in his quest for ordination after the war. The younger Johnson,

Seabury’s contemporary, was an avid Churchman who spent most of the latter years of

the 1760s in England, being ordained and trying to make connections and gain influence

in the Anglican institution. We saw earlier his departure on this trip being related by

Auchmuty to his father, with instructions on how he should go about persuading the

British about bishops. William Samuel Johnson, upon his return in 1771, remained in the

country through the troubles and was later able to secure himself the presidency of his

father’s academic foundation, now renamed Columbia, a mark of his malleability in

politics. Clearly William Johnson was a man more concerned with the ends than with the

means, and this could be seen in an extreme form in his writings.

In this missive addressed to Chandler, dated as early as 12th February 176652,

William Johnson is writing on behalf of his father, who was ill. It commences in

discussing the Appeal which Samuel Johnson had suggested Chandler write, and then

goes on to give his own opinion of the political climate:

As to the success of these or any other Attempts which may be made for obtaining an Episcopate in America, I confess I am of late very dubious. We have very little to encourage our perseverance in requesting it, but the great fitness & Necessity of it on the one hand & the extreme Injustice of denying it on the other. But the Ministry seem to have no Concern at all about the Religious state of this Country.

He continues to disparage the abilities of the ministry, saying that ‘they will find

themselves really perplexed with the late Clamour occasioned by the Stamp Act’, and

that, ‘In truth it ought to have been done long ago … After all I fear (as it has hitherto

been) that the longer it is delayed the more difficult it will be to Effect it’. Johnson then

goes on to ponder the importance of the movement for procuring an episcopate,

labelling it a ‘Glorious Cause’ which the convention is tackling with ‘laudable Zeal’. In

the next paragraph, however, he becomes truly visionary:

I have sometimes tho’t that when we have tried all reasonable measures to obtain Bps from England & are denied, we ought to get a Bp where we can from Denmark Sweden or even Russia, & to form a Chh, an American Chh., in Amer’a upon the pure Principles indeed of the Chh, of England but unconnected with it & independent of it.

He hopes, probably despite strong doubts, that ‘this … would not be schism’, but it must

have been inconceivable for this not to be. He is essentially saying that any form of

apostolic succession, from the Lutheran or even the Russian Orthodox church, would be 52 William Samuel Johnson to Myles Cooper, 12th February 1766, Vance Papers, Box 9, Folder 3 (see Appendix II)

31

acceptable to him as long as the capacity to ordain priests in the colonies was obtained.

This is in marked contrast to Smith’s disparaging comments about the Greek Orthodox-

ordained priest at St. Paul’s, which he obviously considers deplorable. Johnson goes on

to justify this position, mainly by stressing the necessity of an episcopate for the survival

of the faith:

For what shall we do? We cannot be Chh. of England Men without an Episcopate, it is vain to think of it, we shall be nothing neither this nor that, & the whole affair will in a short time vanish away, and if they will not let us have it from England & under then, do they not cast us out & oblige us to take care of ourselves & reduce us to the necessity of forming an Ecclesiast’a Constitution for ourselves which may have some form consistence & firmness & secure our existence which can never be done in the precarious State we are now in.

This rings similar to Seabury and the Connecticut clergy’s rhetoric in 1784, when,

predicting a rebuff from the proper Anglican church, they began to seek ties with the

non-jurors. Given the animosity caused by that act twenty years later, when the situation

was at least understandable, the same thoughts in the 1760s would undoubtedly have

riled traditionalists in England.

We have no evidence that such sentiments ever reached the Anglican machinery

or the SPG in London but given the context, of the Bishop of London’s angry rejoinder

to the convention in 1767, and the Bishop of Llandaff’s sermon of the same year which

probably indicated a wider conception in England of religious depravity in the frontier

landscape of the colonies, one may wonder whether it was an influence. Actions such as

that of the St. Paul’s congregation no doubt fuelled this view in the eyes of

administrators at home. Ironically, Johnson goes on to say in the letter than such ideas

should be used as a stick with which to brow-beat Lambeth Palace into action:

However Visionary this Scheme may be perhaps it may not be amiss (Among other Argum’ts in Terrorem) to suggest to the great People in England that such things are tho’t of in this Country, & that their coldness & Indifference towards us may perhaps drive us into something of this kind, which at this Juncture while they are Trembling for our Independence may probably have some weight with them.

This not only reminds us of the aggressive nature of some of the younger adherents to

the cause, but also suggests that rumours may have found their way back home and

played their part. Any notion of upstart colonial clergymen trying to pressure their

superiors through such threats would have been detrimental to the British disposition.

**********

All these strands – the known disaffection of the American clergy, the occasional

and increasing impertinence in their correspondence, their own disunity and bickering

32

and rumours of ominous intellectual ideas – must have contributed towards the British

decision throughout the 1760s to delay imposing an episcopate. Donald Gerardi’s

assessment that:

The episcopate campaign is best understood as part of a wider movement to strengthen the corporate status and independence of the traditional Anglican priesthood in the face of increasing pressures from both secularism, pluralism and evangelical revivalism53

goes some way towards explaining the impending schism, but does not quite grasp the

very personal dynamics that informed political action in the period. The North American

Anglicans were moving away from being acquiescent colonial loyalists, and instead

becoming creative religious agents in their own right. The purely theological aspect of

episcopalianism had always been more important in America than in Britain, and the

new, younger generation of clergy which formed the basis on the conventions, native

converts and immigrants alike, were representative of this more vigorous mood.

Ironically, therefore, the ambition which led to the campaign for the bishop, led also to

the authorities recoiling.

This does not necessarily weaken the other reasons why the crusade failed. No

doubt many in Parliament were concerned about political events in America, and the

potential negative impact of establishing a new bishopric. After all, the pamphlet wars

which were going on were intense and left no-one in doubt that some dissenters would

be incensed, despite what the likes of William Smith were saying to the contrary:

I can with Pleasure say that in this Province, we have every Body on our side, the Presbyterians excepted. The Quakers & hole Body of Germans declare that we contend only for our natural Rights; that we ought to have a Bishop; & they express their Fear that if the Church has not a Bishop, & be enabled to grow as a Balance to Presbyterians, the latter will so far get the upper Hand, as to endanger the Religious Liberties of all other Societies in America, if not in England.54

Additionally, few could doubt the opposition that was coming from the Anglicans

themselves in southern colonies, particularly in Virginia, as Chandler’s 1772 appeal

proved. In all the ecclesiastical records from the time, there is barely a mention of

bishops from any southern clergy to Britain other than from the few that attended the

convention – and they were hardly representative. Typical was Charles Inglis’ comment

to Samuel Johnson, in a letter dated 4th July 1771:

P.S. Horrocks is extremely unpopular, & is now gone to England. Many suspect he aims at being appointed Bishop of America, & this is the Reason at Bottom of some opposing the general Measure, but this by no means will excuse them.

53 Gerardi, ‘The Episcopate Controversy Reconsidered’, p. 109 54 Smith to the Bishop of London, 22nd October 1768, Fulham Palace Papers, Nos. 27-28

33

There was, in short, no assurance from the colonies that the creation of an episcopate

would be a success. Furthermore, there is not necessarily the evidence to suggest that

London was as horrified at the ecclesiastical developments in the American church

through conventions as one might suppose, although the letters from Chandler show

that the opinion was nominally expressed. After all, the existence of congregational and

corporate decision-making, the involvement of laypeople through such crypto-

representational bodies, was an almost accepted part of the Americanization of every

aspect of life. The growth of conventions to some extent represents a trans-

denominational change that occurred throughout the colonies and in several faiths.

Anglicans in the South were particularly keen on preserving this power, which was one of

the reasons they were so against the imposition of a bishop, a new source of authority, as

it were, in their own backyard.

However what also has to be taken into account is that the decision-making

process, due to the social norms and the structural novelty of the colonies, rested on

highly personal nuances and opinions, and were not accountable in the way that even

British policy in the same period would have been. The bishops of London and

Canterbury, and the Venerable Society, were dealing with a scenario never before

encountered, the extension of an institution into an unconventional setting, lands whose

constitutional relationship with Britain was unclear and still in the midst of change. It was

difficult enough subject for lawyers of Parliament to engage with – as the bitter

arguments of the 1760s and 1770s showed – let alone the Church of England whose own

mechanisms for discussion were ill-defined, not applicable and under attack from other

forces such as nonconformism. In these circumstances it is unsurprising that other

factors influenced the decision of senior clerics, including their own relationship with

those petitioning. It is also unsurprising that those in charge in Britain would have been

disturbed by how these directions (particularly the conventions) were developing, given

the tenuous nature of communications between the two lands, and the reliance on

individuals to transmit the intentions of groups. With only one piece of correspondence

every few months, the establishment was probably particularly sensitive towards

perceived corruption of the true church structures, and would attempt to counteract any

such trends as early on as possible. Chandler no doubt thought the Bishop of London’s

castigations were excessive, but for Terrick there was really no telling what was

happening in the wild territories of North America. When one adds the petty personal

34

grievances such as those of Smith, which translated into official condemnation, there was

a potentially lethal concoction that would kill stone dead any moves to sanctify such

conventions.

Samuel Johnson, Thomas Bradbury Chandler and the others were united in their

desire to help bring their goals about. As Chandler wrote soon after the first convention

in176655, the clergy

submit to Divine Providence & the Wisdom of their Superiors, being prepared … at all Hazards both to do & suffer, as their Duty shall direct. In the mean Time, if it is judged that they can be any way instrumental in this Country in facilitating so great a work & in bringing about an Event of which this Church is in such a perishing Necessity … they will think themselves extremely happy in receiving Your Lordship’s Commands & Directions

Unfortunately, this ‘desire’ was developing into a zealousness for which the Church of

England was as yet unprepared for, and had no desire to encourage. In what could be

considered their own ‘Great Awakening’, the church was splitting into ‘high’ and ‘low’

variants, not just between north and south, but separated by the Atlantic. What the Jersey

Convention did not realize, but the British had begun to suspect, was that they were

becoming a truly American denomination, whose ultimate goal was to establish a church

that operated precisely as its name would suggest, a Protestant Episcopalian Church. It

may have been natural for the colonials, but the British establishment probably did not

need much persuasion to agree with William Smith’s cutting prognosis that the

protagonists were heading towards ‘an independent Church of England – a strange Sort

of Church indeed!’56

Fini Laus Deo

55 Chandler to Terrick, 10th July 1766, Fulham Papers, Vol. VI, 162-163 56 Smith to the Bishop of London, Fulham Papers, Vol. VIII, Nos. 25 - 26

35

Bibliography Archived Sources: C.H. Vance Papers: Butler Library at Columbia University, New York Fulham Palace Papers: Lambeth Palace Library, London Hawks Manuscripts: New York Historical Society, New York Samuel Johnson Papers: Butler Library at Columbia University, New York Samuel Seabury Papers: General Theological Seminary, New York The Papers of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts: Rhodes House Library, Oxford Printed Primary Sources: Chandler, T.B., An address from the clergy of New-York and New-Jersey, to the Episcopalians in Virginia: occasioned by some late transactions in that colony relative to an American episcopate (New York 1771) Chauncy, Charles, A Letter to the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Llandaff, Occasioned by Some Passages in His Lordship’s Sermon … in which the American Colonies are Loaded with Great and Undeserved Reproach (Boston, 1767) Ewer, John, Lord Bishop of Llandaff, A Sermon Preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts … on Friday, February 20, 1767 (New York, 1767) Printed Historical Collections: Hawks, Francis Lister, and Perry, William Stevens (Eds.), A Documentary History of the Protestant Episcopalian Church in the United States, 2 Vols. (New York 1863-4) Nybakken, Elizabeth I. (Ed.), The Centinel: Warnings of a Revolution (Associated University Presses: London 1980) Perry, William Stevens (Ed.), Historical collections relating to the American Colonial Church, 5 Vols. (Hartford 1870-78) Perry, William Stevens (Ed.), Historical notes and documents illustrating the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (Claremont 1874)

Schneider, Herbert & Carol (Eds.), Samuel Johnson, President of King’s College: His Career & Writings (Columbia University Press: New York 1929) Wemyss, Horace (Ed.), Life & Correspondence of the Rev. William Smith, D.D., 2 Vols. (Ferguson Bros. & Co: Philadelphia 1880) Secondary Sources: Bell, James B., The Imperial Origins of the King’s Church in Early America, 1607 – 1783 (Palgrave Macmillan: New York 2004) Bonomi, Patricia U., Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, & Politics in Colonial America, 2nd Edition (Oxford University Press: New York 2003) Bridenbaugh, Carl, Mitre & Sceptre: Transatlantic Faiths, Ideas, Personalities, and Politics 1689 – 1775 (Oxford University Press: New York 1962) Carroll, Bret E., The Routledge Historical Atlas of Religion in America (Routledge: New York 2000) Cross, Arthur Lyon, The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York 1902) Doll, Peter M., Revolution, Religion & National Identity: Imperial Anglicanism in British North America 1745 – 1795 (Associated University Presses: London 2000) Harris, Reginald, Charles Inglis: Missionary, Loyalist, Bishop (General Board of Religious Education: Toronto 1937) Isaac, Rhys, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740 – 1790 (W.W. Norton: New York 1988) Manross, William Wilson, The Fulham Papers in the Lambeth Palace Library: American Colonial Section Calendar & Indices (Clarendon Press: Oxford 1965) Mills, Frederick V., Bishops by Ballot: An Eighteenth Century Ecclesiastical Revolution (Oxford University Press: New York 1978) Perry, William Stevens, The History of the American Episcopal Church 1587 – 1883 (James R. Osgood & Co.: Boston 1885), 2 Vols. Rhoden, Nancy L., Revolutionary Anglicanism: The Colonial Church of England Clergy during the American Revolution (Macmillan: London 1999) Roberts, J.M., A History of Europe (Helicon: Oxford 1996) Woolverton, John Frederick, Colonial Anglicanism in North America (Wayne State University Press: Detroit 1984)

Articles: Gerardi, Donald F.M., “The Episcopate Controversy Reconsidered: Religious Vocation and Anglican Perceptions of Authority in Mid-Eighteenth-Century America”, in Perspectives in American History, New Series (Vol. 3, 1986) Sosin, Jack, “The Proposal in the Pre-Revolutionary Decade for Establishing Anglican Bishops in the Colonies” Journal of Ecclesiastical History (Vol. 13, April 1962) Taylor, Stephen, “Whigs, Bishops and America: The Politics of Church Reform in Mid-Eighteenth Century England” The Historical Journal (Vol. 36, Issue 2, 1993)

Appendix I Ten attendees of the Jersey Conventions examined in Gerardi, The Episcopate Controversy Reconsidered Name Colony Year of birth Convert American SPG missionary College educated

Samuel Johnson Connecticut 1696 Yes Yes Yes Yes (P) Thomas Bradbury Chandler New Jersey 1726 Yes Yes Yes Yes Robert McKean New Jersey 1732 Yes Yes Yes No Myles Cooper New York 1737 No No No Yes (P) Charles Inglis New York 1734 No No Yes No Hugh Neill Maryland in the 1720s Yes Yes Yes No Henry Addison Maryland 1717 No No No Yes Jonathan Boucher Maryland 1738 No No No No John Camm Virginia 1718 No No No Yes (P) James Horrocks Virginia 1730 No No No Yes (P) (P) represents having been President of Head of their respective academic institutions Other names associated with at least one convention include: Samuel Seabury (Secretary) Samuel William Johnson Samuel Auchmuty Richard Peters William Smith

William White John Ogilvie Richard Charlton Abraham Beach

Appendix II The following are several full transcripts of correspondence examined in depth in the body of the dissertation. This is not an exhaustive collection but contains those letters which are deemed to be particularly relevant to the arguments made. a) From William Samuel Johnson to Myles Cooper C.H. Vance Papers, Box 9, Folder 3

12th February 1766 Rev’d and D‘r S’r,

I have rec’d yrs of the 17th of January and so far as concerns myself readily accept y’r Apology for not answering sooner. The loss of my letter is of no Conseq’e only my Father Feared you had not mention’d the thing to Mr. C when he hoped if the design was approved the little piece he mentioned [proposed] was by this time nearly finished.

What he proposed was for Mr. C to write a small piece upon the subject of Episcopacy (which he imagined he would execute extremely well) to contain a summary View of the Arg’ts as ground’d upon the Script’s Facts & the Times immediately after in the 1st ages of the Ch’h, Togetherwith the Substance of y’r Address’s & such Arg’ts as might occur to shew the Expedience Reasonableness & Necessity of Establishing Bps in America. Such piece to be print’d & dispersed amongst our Brethren in the South’n Colonies especially, from whose Lukewarmness Ignorance & Prejudice it seems we have much to fear. This my Father tho’t would be of good use to awake their attention to the subject & engage them heartily to unite their [something] with you & all the true Sons of the Ch’h for the obtaining so great a blessing, but submitted the matter intirely to y’r consideration & determination. He is indeed now & thank God able to write you himself but as I had begun the thing & was very willing to write you again upon the subject as I shall always be most ready to do whenever I have anything to say that deserves y’r Notice.

As to the success of these or any other Attempts which may be made for obtaining an Episcopate in America, I confess I am of late very dubious. We have very little to encourage our perseverance in requesting it, but the great fitness & Necessity of it on the one hand & the extreme Injustice of denying it on the other. But the Ministry seem to have no Concern at all about the Religious state of this Country. And since they are made to believe it would be generally disagreeable here, & occasion much Clamour, and they will find themselves really perplexed with the late Clamour occasioned by the Stamp Act, I fancy they will not think it advisable to Run the venture of increasing the former Clamours or exciting a new one by a step which to them appears to be of no consequence. In truth it ought to have been done long ago, & it must be owned the present conjuncture is not the most favourable to the design. After all I fear (as it has hitherto been) that the longer it is delayed the more difficult it will be to Effect it, & therefore I take a sincere pleasure in observing the very laudable Zeal which you & some few others discover in the affair. It becomes you. It is as you say a glorious Cause. It is Essential to the Prosperity of the Chh. in America. Without Bps, it is most certain she can never flourish here & I fear will not long even Exist. In so import’t a Cause it is honorable even to have attempted, how glorious must it then be to succeed? How ravishing would reflections of having been Instrumental in effecting so beneficial a purpose. However gloomy therefore the present prospect may be, I hope you, & those who are united with you will steadfastly persevere in every prudent Measure to bring it about. And who knows the Event? Sometimes Good is nearest to us when we least

expect it, & in the deepest darkness & dispair Light & comfort may suddenly break in upon us. When things are at the worst (I think they can hardly grow worse) if they change at all it must be for the better. Nothing is to be absolutely despaired of and we must sew beside all waters – As long therefore as there is any probability of y’r being a Bp. in America I am not willing you sho’d be on in England, when all hopes of that first are at an End you have my consent for the last.

I have sometimes tho’t that when we have tried all reasonable measures to obtain Bps from England & are denied, we ought to get a Bp where we can from Denmark Sweden or even Russia, & to form a Chh, an American Chh., in Amer’a upon the pure Principles indeed of the Chh, of England but unconnected with it & independent of it. This I hope would not be Schism. For what shall we do? We cannot be Chh. of England Men without an Episcopate, it is vain to think of it, we shall be nothing neither this nor that, & the whole affair will in a short time vanish away, and if they will not let us have it from England & under then, do they not cast us out & oblige us to take care of ourselves & reduce us to the necessity of forming an Ecclesiast’a Constitution for ourselves which may have some form consistence & firmness & secure our existence which can never be done in the precarious State we are now in. However Visionary this Scheme may be perhaps it may not be amiss (Among other Argum’ts in Terrorem) to suggest to the great People in England that such things are tho’t of in this Country, & that their coldness & Indifference towards us may perhaps drive us into something of this kind, which at this Juncture while they are Trembling for our Independence may probably have some weight with them. But you know them better than I do, & I darest say will suggest everything that us proper or will probably have any influence.

I thank you for your kind wishes and trust I am in no danger of so great an Evil as that of being made a Gov’r in such sad Times as these. It will never I hope be my lot to govern till the People are in a proper Temper to be governed, & if it be defer’d till that is the Case I shall certainly never be troubled with it – Indeed however hard it is to gain Credit in such assertions (which are always tho’t to proceed from an affectation of Modesty) I assure you I have no Ambition that way, but sincerely think with you that a private station is most desirable and if you add to it Independence is infinitely to be prefer’d to all the pomp & figure & Power of place & Power which are but gilded vexations. I am very sorry to find our good Friend Mr S[tuyvesant?] has been Ill but hope as you say he was then better, he is by this time perfectly recovered. Mrs Nisoll I am told go’s abroad for which we rejoice. My Father is mending & is able to walk ab’t House but continues lame. He thanks you for the Port which we are sure must be excellent as it has y’r sanction, And presentes his very affect’e Comp’ts. He says he thinks you owe him a Letter, & if you write soon as I an going abroad for some time it may be best to write him rather than me. My wife joins me in best respects to you & all Friends and I remain with the highest Esteem

D’r S’r y’r most aff’e Friend & hum’e Serv’t. P.S. Send Daddy’s Logick by Mrs Hurd he wants to review it. a) William Smith to the Bishop of London (extract) Fulham Papers, Vol. VIII, Nos. 25 - 26

13th November 1766 My Lord, The last Time I did myself the Honor to write to your Lordship, was by Mr. Evans. I cannot now let the Bearers, Mr. Samuel Magaw & Mr. John Andrews, go

without a few lines. They were educated & graduated under me, & I hope, on Examination will do Credit to our College. Their Letters to Dr. Burton mention their [Deflination?], vrs Dover & Leives, on Delaware; and their Testimonials to your Lordship will certify their moral Character. Mr. Macclenachan’s, or St. Paul’s Congregation in this City, will now at last write to your Lordship. When we know that what they write has your Lordship’s approbation, then will be Time enough for us to take notice of them. I know they will make strong Professions of their Attachment to the Church, as they do to us here. They will complain that the Missionaries (who indeed are but thin here & have Business enough of their own) do not supply them. But while their Conduct contradicts their Professions, while the[y] look only to Mr. Whitefield to send them a Minister, & want our Clergy to be convenient Instruments to keep them together till they can have a Minister of this Stamp, to Divide & tear us to Pieces, I cannot think we owe them any Service. They will even profess to your Lordship that they will have no Minister without your Licence; but they will try their Minister first, & if they like him, then they will ask a Licence. If your Lordship gives it, all will be well. If you refuse it, for Reasons they do not think sufficient – what will they do then? I have asked them the Question, & they say they would not give their Man up, which was the Case with Mr. Macclenachan, whom they kept tho’ refused a Licence, till at last they Quarrell’d with him. This was their Conduct before. I hope they are now Coming to a better Sense, which we sincerely wish for, and strive to promote. Your Lordship will be able to judge from their Address, we shall be guided, as in duly bound, by your Advice, which we hope to have as soon as possible. I think, after all, they will not ask your Lordship to provide a Minister for them, but will still look to the old Quarter, tho’ I hope I may be deceived, & shall be glad to find myself so. They are now neither numerous nor of much Note, but are still worthy to be brought into the Bosom of our Church, if it can be done. Those among them, who were true Church Men have generally fallen off. The Rest are a mixt sort, chiefly for an independent Church of England – a strange Sort of Church indeed! But the Notion gains too much Ground here, even among some of the Clergy. I believe your Lordship will perceive Something of this Kind, not altogether pleasing if the Resolves of a Majority of last Jersey Convention should come before you, against Commissaries; preferring thereto a kind of Presbyterian or Synodical Self-delegated Government by Conventions, which I fear will end in Quarrels by every one’s Striving to be upper most in their Turn, & never could have been thought of but as an Expedient for friendly Converse & vice, till Something better could be done. I could not attend that Convention, being the Day our College met after Vacation, & the place at 80 Miles distance. I attended & presided in the year 1764; when all was Harmony & the Design of Commissaries, Corresponding Societies approved of. Mr. Peters attended now, & bore his Testimony against these Resolves, as not becoming Missionaries especially & Servants of the Society, & perhaps he may give some Account of the matters to your Lordship. He was milder I believe than I should have been for I think I should never have sat among them, if they had put one of their own Number in the Chair, while a Member of the Society & Clergyman of Respect was present. I have mentioned this Matter fully to the Archbishop; but must mention it in such Confidence both to his Grace and your Lordship, as that it may not be so public as to interrupt our Harmony with our Brethren, who have many good & prudent Men among them, by whose Help all Things may be brought to a Right Temper; especially if your Lordship from any Thing appearing on the Face [of] their own Papers, not communicated by us, should interpose your paternal Counsel & Advice.

Mr. Neill is gone to a Parish in Maryland, who was very instrumental in these warm Measures, & we shall not lose much by the want of him … c) 10. Samuel Auchmuty to Samuel Johnson (extract) Hawks Manuscripts, Vol. XII, No. 10

3rd January 1767 Rev’d Sir, I hope that ‘ere this reaches you, your worthy Son will be two thirds on his way to Great Britain. By all accounts he has had a very fine home. We did all in our power to divest his thoughts from dwelling constantly on his Family; which he frequently mentioned with great Affection. When he left us his Spirits were much better than when he came among us. We have loaded him with Letters and prayers – May they be useful. I had the pleasure of some private Conversations with him, in which he opened his heart in relation to his future Conduct, concerning the pressing for, American Bishop [sic]. He was so condescending as to ask my advice in the Affair – I candidly gave it him. It was – that as he was employed by the Government of Connecticut, he must not appear to have any hand in the Affair at all: and to be very cautious how he even expressed his Sentiments, or Opinion, before even his Intimates. I further told him, that he might, I was convinced trust the Arch-bishop, but no one Else. He seemed to acquiesce with me, and I make no doubt but that he will behave in such a manner as to give no Offence; and will return with honor to his native Country. I have desired him to make some Apology for the warm proceedings of the last Jersey Convention, especially in regard to Commissaries. They have carried matters with a high hand; and in my opinion have dictated to their Superiors too much. I have prevailed upon Chandler to leave out some Expressions in their Letters, and that is all I have been able to do – Subordination is as necessary in Church as it is in State. This they must know; & yet such is their Obstinacy, or rather [?], that unless they can have a bishop, they will own no other Superior; tho’ one or more may be legally appointed by the Bishop of London, and impowered by their Employer as their Agent, the venerable Society to preside over them; and keep them to their Duty, and their people to their engagements. Without Something of this kind is done [sic], I fear the intent of the Church will suffer. I am very glad I was not present at their Convention; for I am Sure I could not have joined with them in many things. I fear I shall be plagued with them at our next, unless I get some letter from England before them, that may set some bounds, beyond which they are not to go. Dr. Smith (who by the bye will not be the worse for a little mortification) has wrote me a long Letter, setting forth their Conduct and Ingratitude to him. He is very angry, and I fear will represent their conduct in an unfavourable light to our superiors. Upon the whole, tho’ I think then too warm and too hasty, yet I shall do, and indeed have done it, by your Son, all that in me lies, to represent the rectitude of their hearts, but not the wisdom of their Heads. No man under Heaven wishes more for an American Bishop than myself, but if we cannot obtain so great a Blessing are we to be deprived of all Church Government? We are at present, and if we continue so much longer it will be the worse for us. Let what I now write on this subject go no further than Stratford. d) From Thomas Bradbury Chandler & Myles Cooper to Bishop Terrick Fulham Papers, Vol. VI, No. 168-73

5th December 1767

May it please your lordship,

The Clergy of New Jersey and New York, lately convened in their annual voluntary Convention, at Elizabeth Town, have appointed us a Committee to return their very humble and sincere Thanks to your Lordship, for your letter of March 9th with which you have been pleased to honor them; and to explain some Things to your Lordship, relating to their Conduct, which they imagine must have been misrepresented , or misapprehended. This Offer we shall now endeavor to execute, with that Faithfulness which is due to the Convention, and under a strong sense of that Duty which we owe to your Lordship; Flattering ourselves that no evil Reports which any may have propagated with an evil Intention, will prevent your receiving what we shall offer, with your natural Kindness and Candour. The Clergy are extremely obliged to your Lordship, for the many Proofs of Affection contained in your Letter, and particularly for the kind Declarations You have thought fit to repeat to them, of your Zeal for procuring to the American Churches their compleat Establishment – of your Readiness to forward and take Advantage of every favourable Opportunity which may promise a more prosperous State to our Church and to Religion – and, with Regard to Commissaries should they hereafter be thought proper for this Country, of your Resolution to take all possible Care in the Appointment of them to remove every Objection. The Clergy beg your leave to assure Your Lordship, that they put an intire Confidence in these Declarations; and even without them, that they never did or could suspect Your Lordship to be indifferent, or to want Zeal for the Security and Improvement of the Church of England in America: and they think themselves very unfortunate, if any Thing in their late Address to Your Lordship has been construed to imply that they did. Upon reviewing that Address, and upon recollecting the Disposition with which it was ordered by the Convention and [pened?] by the Committee, they cannot avoid apprehending that it must have been owing to the Studied Misrepresentation of some ill-disposed Person, that any Passages therein have been interpreted in an unfavorable Sense, rather than to the Expressions themselves. Their Design in the Address, was to return Thanks to your Lordship for the Assurances you had condescended to give, of your attention to the Affairs of the American Church, and of your desire to relieve it – to apologize for having made a formal Application for an Episcopate, at a Time which turned out to be unseasonable – to renew their Application to Your Lordship, as they apprehended a very material Alteration in the State of Affairs had made it then to be more seasonable – and, to lay before Your Lordship, as you had been pleased to signify your willingness to know, their Sentiments upon a Subject, in which they believed the State o the Church and of Religion to be somewhat concerned, the Case of appointing Commissaries in America. If they acted improperly in troubling Your Lordship upon any or all of those several [things], they are sorry for it, and hope it may be forgiven them; as they then asserted, and do still avow the Integrity of their Intentions, in which Point they are not liable to be mistaken. As to our Conventions, the Clergy are much concerned to find Your Lordship appears to view them in an unfavourable Light. However as they think they have sufficient Reasons to believe that Your Lordship has heard them accused, they cannot entertain any Suspicion of your Willingness and Readiness to hear them defended; which, according to their Instructions, we are now to attempt, relying on your Impartiality and Goodness to excuse our being this troublesome. “Friendly Associations of the Clergy for promoting Harmony amongst the Members, and assisting each with Advice and Counsel” Your lordship approves of; and the Venerable Society has publickly and expressly recommended them in their Collection

of Papers published Anno 1741, Page 12. We need not say, that this was the very Plan upon which our Conventions were founded, and in Obedience to the above Directions, and as we have endeavored strictly to adhere to it in every Particular, we are not sensible of having departed from it in any. If we have been accused to your Lordship of erecting our selves into a Friend of Congregational Synod, the Accusation, in our humble Conception, ought to set forth, in what Instances and Respects we have done this; without which, all that can be expected from us is a general Denial of the Charge. Our Sentiments and Views, we can truly assert, are as far – and they are well known in this Country to be as far – from Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, or Independency, as those of our Accusor, whoever he may be; nor have we a better Opinion than he, of Synods that are formed upon such Principles. He would not have had the Hardiness to insinuate the contrary to your Lordship, had you been particularly acquainted with our respective Principles and Characters, nor does he publickly or openly charge us, with what he has been pleased clandestinely to intimate. We beg Leave, in the integrity of our Hearts, also to assure Your Lordship, that we are not conscious of having aimed at establishing or directing any Discipline and Government of the Church here. We have only, with the purest Intentions and to the best of our Judgement, endeavored to take what care we consistently could of its Interests, under its want of Discipline and Government. It was never entered into our Thoughts to determine Jointly in Convention upon the Behaviour of our Brethren, otherwise than each of us has an unquestionable Right to determine Severally, out of Convention. Nor do we conceive that what we said to Your Lordship in our Address, that the public Declaration of the Convention would amount to a Suspension, implies an Opinion of any conventional Power or Authority. In those Cases, to which we had then Reference, as in the present neglected and wretched State of the American Church we have no Ecclesiastical Superiors to whom Application can be made within the Distance of a Thousand Leagues, the Opinion of the Clergy, will be naturally sought. Upon such cases, we flatter ourselves that a Clergyman has exactly the same Right to give his Opinion, with every other Person. We cannot conceive that this Right is forfeited as soon as a Member of us are together; not more in Convention, than if assembled accidentally, or on any other Occasion. The general Opinion of the Convention is considered both by the Clergy and Laity, in no other Light, than as the Amount of the Separate Opinions of so many Members, with Regard the Measures proper to be taken; and the Declaration of it would neither be intended nor received as an authoritative Act. The general Opinion of the Clergy, whether in, or out of, Convention will have exactly the same Influence; the only Difference we are sensible of, is the greater Difficulty of obtaining it, in one Case, than in the other. Should it then, in any supposed Circumstances, prevent the Ministration of a Delinquent in regulor Congregations, untill the Judgement of our Superiors can be obtained it would produce the Effect by Virtue of its natural Weight, and not by the Force of an assumed Authority. In our present Circumstances we know not how the Clergy can meet together in these voluntary Conventions, on any other Terms than those of a perfect Equality. And, without any Attempts to extend the original Design of them, it must be confessed that Disputes may sometimes arise, specially if any Man should presume to take the Lead, and it is not to be considered, in that Case, if such a person should become the Object of Jealousy. For to assume the Direction of these friendly Associations, is an Usurpation of the Rights of the Members, and a Violation of the original Constitution. If any Man’s Abilities are judged to be superior to those of his Brethren, provided they be exerted properly, the Lead will, in some Measure, be naturally given him. But if, from a Conceit

of the Superiority of his own Abilities, in which Opinion a Man may happen to be singular, any one should assume the Lead – and claim it as his Right – and contend for the Lead – and be obstinate in the Contest; he then would become, and we think with sufficient Reason, the Object of Jealousy – especially if he should give Cause also to suspect, that he has endeavored by Misrepresentations of our Proceedings and Designs, to disaffect our Superiors towards us. That no Inconvenience of this Kind should ever happen is hardly to be expected. But hitherto we have taken and we will continue to take, all proper Care to prevent their happening, and to render these Conventions as useful and as unexceptionable as possible. And we have the Satisfaction to think that in the very Instances to which we have Reference, the Jealousy or Misunderstanding has not proceeded to so great an Heigth [sic], or been attended with such ill Effects, as would have been the Case, if we had not, by the Opportunities afforded by our Conventions, been able to advise with one another, and to guard and fortify each other, against the natural Impression of an overbearing Authority in one of our Equals founded altogether upon Usurpation. When we first resolved to try the Experiment of meeting together annually, or as much oftener as Occasions should require, in voluntary Conventions, it was from an Opinion that the Necessities of the Church rendered some such Measure highly expedient. The Trial has fully convinced us of their Usefulness to the Church, and we can think of no other Expedient that would equally answer their general Purpose. It is altogether on this account, that we are attached to Conventions. If we studied our Ease and private Interest, we should pursue other Measures, or perhaps neglect to pursue any for advancing the general Interest of the American Church; for much Trouble, and a heavy Expence [sic] almost beyond our Abilities to bear, without any Prospect of Advantage, must necessarily attend the Prosecution of this. But as all Considerations of this Nature, in our Opinion, ought to give way to the Good of the Church and the general Interest of Religion, we think it our duty to continue these Conventions, until our Superiors shall think proper, after hearing what can be said for, as well as against, them, to signify to us their Disapprobation of their Continuance. This general Defence we have thought it necessary to make, and we offer it to Your Lordship in full Confidence of your viewing it with an equal, impartial and candid Eye. We have not on this, or any other Occasion, entertained any undutiful or hard Thoughts of your Lordship; but on the other Hand, we are fully persuaded, that both your Connexion with the Colonies, and your amiable natural Disposition, abundantly secure to the American Clergy in general your Friendship and Patronage. We even consider ourselves as under Obligation to your lordship, for the Intimations you have been pleased to give us, of your Objections or Suspicions concerning our Proceedings, from what Quarter [fower?] they may have taken their Rise; as an Opportunity is thereby afforded us of accounting for some Things, which, at a Distance, we find have had a doubtful Appearance. And we humbly request the Favor of your Lordship, that whenever we are accused or suspected of any Impropriety of Behaviour, we may be called upon for an Explanation, trusting, that in Proportion as Circumstances shall be known, we shall obtain Your Lordship’s Approbation upon which our Happiness will, at all Times, greatly depend. We beg Leave to subscribe, in Behalf of our Brethren whom we have the Honor to represent, and very particularly for ourselves, with the greatest Reverence, Respect & Gratitude, &c …