Project Canterbury

Memoir of Bishop Seabury

By William Jones Seabury, D.D.

New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1908.
London: Rivingtons, 1908.

Chapter X. Political Experiences. 1774-1783.

IT is the counsel of St. Paul to Timothy that the servant of God must not strive: and it seems at first sight as if there were something contrary to the Christian character in controversy. But of course there is a distinction between mere disputation conducted with rancour and leading to injurious personalities, and a firm upholding of the right, coupled with a just resentment against wrong. St. Paul himself, with all reverence be it said, was by no means backward in strenuous assertion of his rights when he thought them unjustly assailed; as, for example, when his persecutors thought that he would be glad, after scourging and imprisonment, if he had opportunity, quietly and without scandal to take himself out of their way, they found that he indignantly spurned that offer. "They have beaten us openly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they seek to thrust us out privily? Nay, verily, but let them come themselves and fetch us out." And, on another occasion, outraged with the injustice of one before whom he had been arraigned, and who had commanded him to be smitten on the mouth, he cried out, "God shall smite thee thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" And although when he was reproached for thus reviling God's high priest, he said, "I wist not brethren that he was the high priest," yet (as that noted controversialist Dr. John Henry Hopkins once remarked to me with a twinkle in his eye), "he never took it back!"

The most quiet and even tempered man may in fact sometimes find himself in a position which involves either his abandonment of truth and justice, or his plain and forcible assertion of them against those who have betrayed or misrepresented them. The subject of the present memoir was naturally a man of cool and impartial judgment, and amiable disposition. But he had strong convictions, and remarkable capacity for the forcible expression of them. He was quick to see and to resent a wrong either to himself personally, or to the principles for which he stood; and he was so situated as to be involved in controversy, or personal argument with those who differed from him, almost throughout his life. The controversies through which we have hitherto followed him were largely of a personal character, though they seem to have involved defence of principles of more extended application than to his own case only; and his conduct of these controversies exhibits the force and independence of his character, and also a good deal of the vehemence of temper which was natural to the time of life in which he was involved in them. The argumentative papers of his later years show a marked difference in this latter respect, displaying a tone and manner more calm and judicial, and being wholly wanting in the satire and invective of earlier days. Between these two phases come the political controversies; in which the fire of his youth and the energy of his maturity combine, and seem to bring him to the climax of all of this sort of writing. It will be necessary to give some account of these as part of the experience which he passed through by reason of the political embroilments which drove him out of his Rectorate at St. Peters, and forced him to keep within the British lines in New York until the conclusion of the war to which they led. In fact these political controversies, and the incidents connected with them, form the chief part of what is known of his life from the period which we have now reached until the end of the Revolutionary War. They seem to have had their beginning in the very earliest days of his ministry, while he was still at New Brunswick: and to have been carried on through the newspapers of the day, and finally to have taken form in a series of pamphlets which he wrote under the signature of A. W. Farmer. These papers were highly valued by those who were interested to maintain the existing government in the Colonies; and excited a very bitter animosity among the Revolutionary party: and so far as he was suspected to be the author of them that animosity was personally vented upon him. His whole position has been severely condemned not only by those who were successful in the struggle against the existing government, but also by many of those who afterwards enjoyed the benefit of their success, and who have not been wanting in the endeavour to cover with obloquy the memory of those who had tried to hinder that success, and of him among the number. In the course of time a great deal of that feeling has passed away; and there has been evident the growth of a much fairer judgment, and a recognition of the fact that those who are classed under the general names of Loyalists or Royalists were not necessarily the treasonable enemies of their Country: but there is still a considerable prejudice, even if it take the form only of a tolerant pity for those who were so misguided as to have fought their battle on the losing side, which is assumed to have been of course the side which deserved to lose, as having been the exponent of injustice and tyranny. This attitude is perhaps natural enough as human nature is constituted, but it is hardly to be commended as an example of just judgment.

There are several considerations which ought to be taken into account on the other side in order to a better balance of judgment; and, without any apology for the position of the subject of this memoir, the statement of them may help to the juster estimate of it. The hostility which had been displayed toward the Episcopate by the advocates of the Colonial cause against the government, would naturally be regarded by the Churchman as putting him on the defensive, because his whole hope as a Churchman depended on obtaining the Episcopate. The extension of that hostility to the Society for propagating the Gospel, would greatly intensify his defensive feeling, since very large part of the support of the Church was derived from the Society. But apart from the feeling of the Churchman, there was the feeling also of the Citizen who considered himself safe both as to his person and liberties under a system of Government which was, in principle at least, firmly based upon the idea of protection to personal rights; although there was room for difference of opinion upon the question whether in practice that Government was consistently carrying out the ideas on which it was based. It has too often been overlooked that up to, and throughout the Revolution, men were simply differing as to the proper determination of open questions: and it has been in consequence too easily assumed that the success of one party not only determined those differences, but also proved that they always had been determined, and had been binding in right and conscience upon every member of the community, all the while. Hence these were traitors, and those were patriots. Always, however, there was difference of opinion; and it is more than doubtful whether the so-called patriotic opinions were ever held by the majority of all the Colonists. That such was the case in some places was no doubt true; but that it was so in all places would be difficult to prove, and I believe never has been proved. Certainly in the Province of New York there was very reasonable ground for the feeling of those who stood by the existing order, that the opposition was maintained by a faction which made up in noise what it lacked in numbers. And again it is not always considered that these differences of opinion related not merely to particular measures, but also to principles much deeper than those of mere expediency, and such as concerned not only the integrity of the British Empire, but even the preservation of any kind of government. And more than all it ought to be remembered by those who stand for liberty, that nothing can be more abhorrent to a free man than the meddlesome assumption of authority by those who are but fellow citizens under the same government, and thus have no more right over him and his actions, than he has over them and their actions.

I am not concerned to argue these positions, but desire only to aid the reader, so far as may be needed, to understand the point of view from which the subject of the present story regarded the state of affairs which confronted him; so that he may have that fair judgment which every man ought to have, and which recognizes the right of every man to take all lawful means to preserve and maintain the truth as he understands it. My purpose is to record as clearly as I can what my subject did, and why he did it; and to this end in the present matter to relate his course in the events which led to the Revolution, giving some account of the chief of his political papers, and making a few extracts from them in order to show what his views were in some particulars, and also something of the style and manner in which he presented those views; and thus to bring him into the better acquaintance of the reader, which I cannot but think will conduce to the benefit of both.

It seems to be somewhat in anticipation of the story, but it will be so much of an advantage to let the subject of it speak for himself, that I propose to refer here to a manuscript of his which is dated so late as 1783, and which gives in some detail certain events which belong to the present part of the narrative. It is only necessary to say in explanation of his paper, that in the early part of the War he was appointed by Sir Henry Clinton the Chaplain of the King's American Regiment commanded by Colonel Fanning, and that he served in that capacity until the conclusion of the War. Immediately upon the knowledge of this he was elected by the Clergy of Connecticut to the Episcopate, to secure which he set sail for England, and taking up his residence in London, was allowed by the authorities Civil and Ecclesiastical to continue that residence, in the illusory hope of obtaining consecration, for some sixteen months. These points will be taken up later. The point at present to be noted is that having no means of any consequence when he started, he found them much less, and reduced to the vanishing point during his residence in London; and in order to maintain himself he sought to secure from the British Government some pension or award in consideration of the services which he had notably rendered to the cause of that government in the effort to preserve the Colonies to it.

In order to that end he prepared for presentation "to the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury," a Memorial setting forth his services and his circumstances, and asking for such relief as might be deemed just. He seems to have heard nothing from this Memorial for nearly ten years afterward, and then to have received a small matter of thirty pounds; so that his effort in this direction was practically fruitless. The value of the Memorial to us, however, is in its historical statements; and as it has never before, so far as I am aware, been published, I now present it from the copy which he kept for himself in his own handwriting, and which has ever since been preserved among his papers.

"To D. P. Coke Esqr. J. Wilmot Esqe.
Commissioners &c.

The Memorial of Samuel Seabury Doctor in Divinity, late Rector of West Chester in New York, & Missionary &c: most respectfully showeth, [The degree of Doctor of Divinity was conferred upon him by the University of Oxford, December r5, 1777.]

That your Memorialist was born in Connecticut, in the year 1729, and was the son of a Clergyman of the first reputation in that Country: That in 1753 your Memorialist was ordained in England, admitted into the service of the Society, & sent to reside at New Brunswick in New Jersey: That about this time periodical papers & essays began to be published in New York, tending to corrupt the principles of the people with regard to Government, & to weaken their attachment to the constitution of this country both in Church and State: That a paper of this nature, making its appearance, stiled the Watch-Tower, supposed to be written by Mr. Livingston, the present Governor of New Jersey, & others, your Memorialist did, in conjunction with a number of his Brethren & friends, write several essays & papers in answer to the Watch-tower, with a view to prevent the ill effects it might have on the minds of the people.

That some years after, when it was evident, from continual publications in Newspapers, & from the uniting of all the jarring interests of the Independents and Presbyterians from Massachusetts bay to Georgia, under Grand Committees & Synods, that some mischievous Scheme was meditated against the Church of England & the British Government in America, your Memorialist did enter into an agreement with The Revd. Dr. T. B. Ch(andler) then of Eliz: Town, New Jersey & with the Revd. Dr. Inglis the present Rector of Trinity Church in the city of New York, to watch all publications either in newspapers or pamphlets, & to obviate the evil influence of such as appeared to have a bad tendency by the speediest answers: That your Memorialist faithfully & steadily acted in conjunction with the above named gentlemen to the time of his leaving New York: That he & his two associates bore the whole weight of the controversy with the American Whig, which continued near 2 years: That this paper was the immediate fore runner of the late Rebellion; and pointed out to the Americans a separation from G. B.--the rise of an Amer. Empire, & the fall of the British Empire & government. That none of these mischievous papers went unanswered; & your Memorialist & his friends had the satisfaction of seeing & knowing that their antagonists were silenced, &, in the estimation of the public, written down:

That when the late commotions in America began, your Memorialist lived at West Chester in the then Province of New York, & was, though not in wealthy, yet in easy circumstances, & supported a large family, viz: a wife & six children, comfortably & decently: That his income was at least 200 £ sterl. pr. ann. arising from his Parish, Glebe and from a grammar school in which he had more than 20 young Gentlemen, when the Rebellion began.

That perceiving matters were taking a most serious & alarming turn, your Memorialist thought it his duty to exert his utmost abilities & influence in support of that Government under which he had lived, to which he had sworn obedience & which he loved and revered: That he therefore from the beginning opposed the election of all Committees & Congresses--in pursuance of which object, he rode many days in the county of West Chester; That he assembled the friends of Government and at their head opposed the lawless meetings & measures of the disaffected. That at one time, in conjunction with his friend Isaac Wilkins Esqr. he assembled near 400 friends of Government at the White Plains, who openly opposed & protested against any Congress, Convention or Committee, & who were determined if possible to support the legal Government of their country: That their proceedings and protest were published in Mr. Rivington's Gazette, & there was no way of getting rid of such an opposition, but for the disaffected in New York to send for an armed force from Connecticut into the County of West Chester, which they did & under its power carried all their points.--That in confirmation of these facts, your Memorialist begs leave to refer in Particular to Col. Jas. De Lancey (No. 5 Edwd. Street,) who was present at several of these meetings, & to whom your Memorialist's conduct & situation at West Chester are well known.

That while your Memorialist was thus employing his personal influence in his own county, he was not inattentive to the engagement he had entered into with Drs. C. & I, nor to the obligations of duty which he owed to his King & Country--but published a pamphlet entitled Free thoughts on the proceedings of the Congress at Philadelphia, very soon after the first Congress broke up, & had shown by their adopting the Suffolk resolves that they had entered into a deep scheme of rebellion which pamphlet he addressed to the Fanners & Landowners, intending to point out, in a way accommodated to their comprehension, the destructive influence that the measures of the Congress, if pursued, would have on the farmers & the labouring part of the Community. That as no pamphlet at that period seems to have given the republicans more uneasiness than this, several answers to it were published; which obliged your Memorialist to write another pamphlet in support of it, called the Congress Canvassed, previous to which he had published An address to the Merchants of New York; In which he endeavoured to convince them of the evil tendency of the Non-importation & non-exportation agreements, & that their happiness & true interest depended on their connection with & subordination to G. B. That at the meeting of the next Assembly he published An Alarm to the Legislature of New York--in which he endeavoured to show that by adopting and establishing the proceedings of the Congress as most other Assemblies had done, they would betray the rights and liberties of their constituents, set up a new sovereign power in the province and plunge it into all the horrors of rebellion & civil war. [The Memorialist appears to have here fallen into an inadvertence which, considering the lapse of time, and the stress of intermediate experiences, and his residence in a foreign country away from his papers, was certainly not unnatural. In point of fact, the three pamphlets which he had printed were, (1) the "Free Thoughts," dated November 16, 1774, addressed to the farmers; (2) the "Congress Canvassed," addressed to the merchants of New York, dated November 28, 1774; and (3) "A View of the controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies," dated December 24, 1774. These titles are taken by me from the three pamphlets now before me; and a comparison of them with the Memorialist's statement, makes his incidental inadvertence obvious. It is curious to note, as showing how easily historical facts may, with the best possible intentions, be misrepresented, that Ch. J. Shea, in his valuable life of Hamilton (p. 198) refers to the Congress Canvassed and the Address to the Merchants of Nezv York, as if these were two pamphlets instead of one. I have been at a loss to account for this literary instance of "seeing double," until now I recall the fact (noted on the cover of this Memorial) that I had loaned the Memorial to Judge Shea; and it is thus apparent that he simply followed the original manuscript. If he had had before him the pamphlets themselves, as I now have, he would have discovered the Memorialist's natural inadvertence.--W. J. S.]

That your Memorialist had also personal interviews with at least one third of the members of that house, with whom he was well acquainted, just before their meeting. How far his writings or conversation had any influence he presumes not to say. The Assembly however rejected the proceedings of the Congress, & applied to the King & Parliament by Petition & Memorial; That several pamphlets were published under the signature of A. W. Farmer; & that they were written by your Memorialist, he refers to the certificate of Dr. M. Cooper, hereunto annexed, & to the testimony of Dr. Chandler.

That your Memorialist soon became suspected of writing in support of legal Government, & on that account, & on account of his having acted openly in its support in the county of West Chester, he became one of the first objects of revenge; & so early as April 1775, a friend sending his son to acquaint him that a body of New England troops then at Rye, 15 miles from his house, intended to seize him & Isaac Wilkins Esqr. member for West Chester that very night, they were obliged to retire for some time. Mr. Wilkins did not return home, but soon embarked for England: That after some time your Memorialist hearing of no further threat ventured home, & continued unmolested, though occasionally reviled by particular people for not paying obedience to the order of Congress enjoining fast days &c: until the 19th of Novr. 1775, when an armed force of 100 horsemen came from Connecticut to his House, & not finding him at home they beat his children to oblige them to tell where their father was--which not succeeding they searched the neighbourhood and took him from his school, & with much abusive language carried him in great triumph to New Haven, 70 miles distant, where he was paraded through most of the streets, & their success celebrated by firing of Cannon &c: That at New Haven he was confined under a military guard & keepers for six weeks, during which time they endeavoured to fix the publication of A. W. Farmers pamphlets on him; which failing, & some of the principal people in that country disapproving their conduct, your Memorialist was permitted to return home;c where he remained in tolerable quiet till the next Spring; [In referring to the retirement of the Memorialist to escape capture by the troops at Rye, Dr. Beardsley in his life of Bishop Seabury (p. 3T, n.) gives the following quotation from Bolton's History of the Church in West Chester County (p. 86, ed. 1855). "In the old Wilkins Mansion on Castle Hill Neck, West Chester, is still shown the place where Drs. Cooper, Chandler, and Seabury managed to secrete themselves for some time, notwithstanding the most minute and persevering search was made for them; so ingeniously contrived was the place of their concealment in and about the old-fashioned chimney. Food was conveyed to them through a trap-door in the floor."] That then he suffered much both from insults and the loss of property, by the parties of recruits who were almost daily passing through his Parish to New York, to form that Army which was afterwards defeated on Long Island. And though your Memorialist lived two miles out of their way, they would come and take up their quarters at his house every two or three nights & seldom quitted while they found anything to eat or drink: That on these occasions he has been often so threatened that afraid to go to bed, while they were in his house, he has walked his room all night after fastening his door & armed himself in the best manner he could: That matters at last became so bad that your Memorialist was obliged to leave his house whenever he heard of any parties being in the neighbourhood, & go to some friend's house till the dusk of the evening, and then go where he designed to lodge that night, without letting any person, not even his own family, know where he was; & scarce ever venturing to sleep two nights successively in the same place. This continued three months, when the victory obtained by the Royal army at Brooklyn on the 27th of August 1776 gave him an opportunity of taking refuge with them which he did on the first of Septr.:

That your Memorialist continued with the Army on Long Island & during the progress thro' W. C. County eight weeks, endeavouring to procure the best intelligence & guides he could, & flatters himself that his services were not altogether useless:

That your Memorialist begs leave further to observe that while he was with the Army on Long Island there were 20 American dragoons quartered at his house; That everything on the glebe was destroyed, Hay, Corn &c: & when they went away, his horses, cattle & swine were driven off, to the value of at least 50 £ sterling--

That in November, when the Royal Army left the county of West Chester, your Memorialist was obliged to remove his family to New York for safety; and he was then so reduced in his circumstances as to be obliged to subsist his family on credit, & on some charitable donations from this Country to the suffering Clergy in America:

Chandler, dated London, April 8, 1776, is of interest as showing the source and direction of the channel of henevolence here referred to, and also, incidentally, as throwing light upon the character and merits of the Memorialist to whom it had been addressed some time before the receipt of the benefaction which he mentions:

"I was much surprised to find that your true character was not better known. This must have been greatly owing to your own neglect; as I cannot find that you have any correspondent here but the Secretary of the Society, or that you have ever gone farther with him than to give, at proper periods, the necessary information concerning your Mission. You have suffered greatly by this neglect, as perhaps I may explain to you on some future occasion. It has been the unceasing endeavor of Dr. Cooper and myself, as well as of some others, to place your worth and importance in a proper light. 1 co-operated with Dr. Cooper, and was to the full as instrumental as he, in procuring for you the Chaplaincy of the Man of War, which I have over and over insisted upon as a reward far inadequate to your merit. In what follows I claim a far greater share than Cooper, not because he is less your friend, but because he has been chiefly at Oxford, or out of the way.

that your Memorialist has said so much of himself: but he hopes that candour will apologize for him, especially when it is considered that he is a stranger, unconnected & unsupported in this Country--having nobody to solicit or speak for him; and no certain support to depend upon; being now in the decline of life & having a family of six children, five of whom still look to him for subsistence, & with whom he has been obliged to leave almost all the money he could command for their support; until he could know what was to become of himself:

That therefore your Memorialist humbly prays that the above mentioned exertions, services, sufferings, and professional losses in the cause of government may be taken into consideration, and that such compensation may be allowed to him as his case shall be found to deserve.

No. 393 Oxford street Oct. 20. 1783."

With this copy of his Memorial which Dr. Seabury preserved for his own use, were preserved also copies in his own handwriting of the certificates given by Drs. Cooper and Chandler as to his authorship of the Farmer pamphlets to which he had referred in substantiation of his statements. Dr. Cooper certifies (September 29, 1783) that Dr. Seabury "did, from the beginning of the Rebellion, exert himself in favour of the British Government, in the most open and avowed manner, more particularly by writing several pamphlets under the signature of A. W. Farmer, calculated to do the most essential service to his King and this Country;" and Dr. Chandler certifies (October 31, 1783), "I have been intimately acquainted with the said Dr. Seabury, from the time of his first settling in New Brunswick in 1754, and that I know him to have always been, and to be, inflexibly attached to his Majesty's person & government, and to our excellent Constitution both in Church & State. I do also certify, that he wrote all the pieces and pamphlets of which in his Memorial he claims to have been the author--that he was associated with Dr. Inglis and me, for the purposes he mentions--and that he was an able and active assistant, always willing to take his full share in the combat with those dangerous & false principles, as well as assertions, which, for several years before the breaking out of the late rebellion, were zealously propagated in the colonies; on which account he was particularly obnoxious to those, who were disaffected to the British Government."

One can hardly fail, I think, from the consideration of the foregoing memorial to gain a good general knowledge of the experience which Dr. Seabury had undergone in the period before the War, and a sufficiently clear insight into his character and circumstances during that time. Very little further perhaps need be added as to this part of the story; and with a brief reference to certain particulars we may conclude the present chapter, and pass in the next to some consideration of the political papers which were so important a part of his life, and the results of which upon his career were so notable.

Among his letters to the Society about this period there is one dated December 29, 1776, cited by Dr. Bcardsley, which gives an account of some matters referred to in the Memorial of later years, and, as was natural, with somewhat greater particularity; and gives also the history of the termination of his active connection with St. Peter's Church, which I believe appears nowhere else, and for these reasons it may be useful to quote part of that letter here. [Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 45.]

Referring to the Farmer Pamphlets, he says: "These were attributed to me, and were the principal reason of my being carried into Connecticut last year. If I would have disavowed these publications I should have been set at liberty in a few days; but as I refused to declare whether I were, or were not, the author, they kept me till they sent to New York and New London, and wherever they could hear of a journeyman printer who had wrought for Mr. Rivington at the time when these pamphlets were published, and had them examined; but finding no sufficient proof, upon my putting in a Memorial to the General Assembly at Connecticut, the gang who took me prisoner thought proper to withdraw their guard and let me return. I continued tolerably quiet at home for a few weeks, till after the King's troops evacuated Boston, when, the rebel army passing from thence to New York, bodies of them, consisting of twenty or thirty men, would, every day or two, sometimes two or three times a day, come through West Chester, though five miles out of their way, and never failed to stop at my house, I believe only for the malicious pleasure of insulting me by reviling the King, the Parliament, Lord North, the Church, the bishops, the clergy, and the Society, and, above all, that vilest of all miscreants, A. W. Farmer. One would give one hundred dollars to know who he was, that he might plunge his bayonet into his heart; Another would crawl fifty miles to see him roasted; but, happily for the Farmer it was not in the power of any person in America to expose him. This continued about a month. Matters then became pretty quiet, till they got intelligence that General Howe was coming to New York. Independency was then declared by the grand Congress at Philadelphia; and the petty Congress at New York published an edict, making it death to aid, abet, support, assist, or comfort the king, or any of his forces, servants, or friends. Till this time I had kept the Church open. About fifty armed men were now sent into my neighbourhood.

I was now in a critical situation. If I prayed for the King the least I could expect was to be sent into New England; probably something worse, as no clergyman on the continent was so obnoxious to them. If I went to church and omitted praying for the king, it would not only be a breach of my duty, but in some degree countenancing their rebellion, and supporting that independency which they had declared. As the least culpable course I determined not to go to church, and ordered the sexton, on Sunday morning to tell any person who should inquire, that till I could pray for the king, and do my duty according to the rubric and canons, there would be neither prayers nor sermons. About half a dozen of my parishioners and a dozen rebel soldiers came to the church. The rest of the people in a general way, declared that they would not go to church till their minister was at liberty to pray for the king."

With regard to the nature of his influence among his own people and neighbours, and their respect for him, it is interesting to note what he says in another letter. "I must observe that but few of my congregation are engaged in the rebellion. The New England rebels used frequently to observe as an argument against me, that the nearer they came to West Chester the fewer friends they found to American liberty,--that is to rebellion; and, in justice to the rebels of East and West Chester, I must say that none of them ever offered me any insult or attempted to do me any injury that I know of." [Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 49.]

In the autumn of 1777, being then within the British lines in New York, and serving the Provincial Hospital as Chaplain under the appointment of Sir William Howe, he appears to have meditated a return to his Parish, but on visiting it found it unsafe to remain, and then petitioned the Society for leave to remove to Staten Island; and the Society consenting, promised the continuance of his stipend of £50 as missionary till the existing disturbances should cease. He did not, however, find it practicable to reside on Staten Island; though, residing in New York, he continued to serve the mission there until the conclusion of the War. We find him then during his settlement in New York, engaged in the discharge of his Ministry in three capacities; as Missionary at Staten Island, as Chaplain to the Provincial Hospital, and, after 1778, Chaplain to the King's American Regiment. What his income was from the Hospital Chaplaincy I do not know. From the other Chaplaincy and from the Society he derived £150 a year; and in order to the better support of his family he engaged also in the practice of medicine in New York, as he had done from time to time elsewhere ever since his study in Edinburgh, which has been noted.

His only publications during this period appear to have been a sermon preached in his capacity as Regimental Chaplain in 1779, from the text "Fear God, Honour the King," before Governor Tryon, at whose request it was published; and a sermon preached before the Grand and other Lodges of Free-Masons, of which Fraternity he was a member, at St. Paul's Chapel, New York, on the Anniversary of St. John the Evangelist 1782, printed in 1783.

Project Canterbury