It  is  evident  that  at  the  time  of  the  assem-
bling of  the  Convention  of  1785,  "very  few,
or  rather,"  to  quote  Bishop  White,  "none"  of
the  members-elect  "entertained  thoughts  of
altering  the  liturgy  any  further  than  to  ac-
commodate it  to  the  Revolution."  Bishop
White  reminds  us  that  "there  being  no  ex-
press authority  to  the  purpose,  the  contrary
was  implied  in  the  sending  of  deputies,  on
the  ground  of  the  recommendation  and  pro-


Constitution  of  the  American  Church. 121

posal  from  New  York,  which  presumed  that
the  book,  with  the  above  exception,  should  re-
main entire."  Virginia  alone  had  authorized
its  deputies  to  join  in  a  review,  to  be  subject,
however,  when  done,  to  the  approval  of,  or
rejection  by,  the  State  Convention. While
every  one  may  have  desired  alterations  in
particular  offices  or  forms,  it  was  generally
conceded  that  such  a  revision  as  was  needed
should  not  be  taken  till  the  Church  was  con-
solidated and  completed  by  union  and  the
possession  of  the  Episcopate. There  was  a
hesitation  on  the  part  of  the  members  of  the
Convention  "at  making  the  book  so  perma-
nent as  it  would  have  been  by  the  fourth
article"  of  the  proposed  Constitution. To
have  agreed  to  this  article  without  further
action  would  have  practically  transferred  the
binding  authority  of  the  rubrics,  offices,  and
forms  as  found  in  the  English  Book,  save  so
far  as  the  political  situation  required  modifi-
cation, upon  the  American  Church. It  is
submitted  that  with  the  view  entertained  at
this  period  of  the  unbending  obligation  of  the
English  Book,  as  enforced  by  the  Act  of  Uni-


122  The  General  Ecclesiastical

formity,  the  adoption  of  the  fourth  article
of  the  proposed  Constitution  of  1785  would
simply  have  enjoined  that  obligation,  un-
changed and  unchangable,  on  the  American
Church  for  all  time  to  come. We  cannot
wonder,  then,  at  the  hesitancy  of  the  mem-
bers of  the  Convention  to  adopt  this  article
to  which  Bishop  White  alludes. 