Imágenes de páginas

sent him information of a domestic calamity, which would excuse him from attendance; and the archbishop was then under the necessity of giving a short notice to one of his chaplains.

The consecration was performed in the chapel of the palace of the archbishop, in the presence of his family and his household, and very few others; among whom was my old friend, the Rev. Mr. Duché. I had asked the archbishop's leave to introduce him; and it was a great satisfaction to me that he was there; the recollection of the benefit which I had received from his instructions in early life, and a tender sense of the attentions which he had shown me almost from my infancy, together with the impressions left by the harmony which had subsisted between us in the discharge of our joint pastoral duty in Philadelphia, being no improper accompaniments to the feelings suited to the present very interesting transaction of my life. I hope, that I felt the weight of the occasion. May God bless the meditations and the recollections by which I had endeavoured to prepare myself for it; and give them their due effect on my temper and conduct, in the new character in which I am to appear !

The solemnity being over, we dined with the archbishop and the bishops; and spent with them the remainder of the day. I took occasion to mention to his grace my conviction, that the American Church would be sensible of the kindness now shown; and my trust, that the American bishops, besides the usual incentives to duty, would have this in addition; lest the Church of England should have cause to regret her act, performed on this day. He answered, that he fully believed there would be no such cause; that the prospect was very agreeable to bim; that he bore a great affection for our Church; and that he should be always glad to hear of her prosperity; and also of the safe arrival and the welfare of us individually.

After spending the remainder of the evening very agreeably, we took our leave, which was affectionate on both sides; and on our part, with hearts deeply sensible of the regard which had been shown to our Church, and of the personal civilities which we had received.

During dinner this day at Lambeth, we were surprised at a conversation introduced by the bishop of Peterborough. We had been accustomed to think it a sort of adjunct to the claim of churchmanship to consider the “ Einar Beginixx" or“ Royal Portraiture" as a true expression of the feelings of king Charles I. in some of the most trying circumstances of his life. The bishop remarked, and his

Monday, February 5th. As an evidence of his grace's delicacy, I deposit the account of fees, brought to us this morning by his secretary; and give the following narrative of the manner in which that business was conducted.

On the morning of our visit to court, I mentioned to the archbishop, agreeably to preconcert with Dr. Provoost, that there must necessarily have been some charges for the expenses of office, in carrying the business of our Church through the civil department; and requested to know the amount, that we might discharge it. The archbishop answered, that if he should inform us on that point, it must be on the principle, that in an affair of no great magnitude, it might scem disrespectful to us, to withhold the satisfaction demanded. He added, that on the occasion of the consecration of an English bishop, there were very considerable expenses to different persons of the archbishop's court and of his household; which expenses he thought improper on the present occasion, and should therefore prohibit them. After the consecration, he, within our hearing, informed a gentleman from Doctors' Commons, Robert Jenner, Esq. who had attended officially in his civil law robe, with a view to the local registry, that as we intended to leave London the next day, our papers must be ready in the morning. On the gentleman's answering, that he would wait on us with them, the archbishop replied-No; you are to bring them to my secretary, who will wait on them: evidently with the design, that the pecuniary part of the transaction should pass under bis own control. The fees paid by us jointly amounted to £14 3s. Id. being altogether in the line of public offices, and which the archbishop must have paid, but for the request made on our part.

For the instrument of consecration, recorded in the archiepiscopal registry, see Appendix, No. 14.

On the morning of the day of our leaving of the city, I received a note from the archbishop. Although it begins with a message of civility to a respectable divine in NewJersey, not long before in England, I take the prominent object to have been the conveying of information, guarding against an impression which might have been made by what had passed concerning consecration in the province of York. The note shall be given, because of its bearing on the question concerning the number required for consecration in the English Church. See the Appendix, No. 15.

brethren assented to the position, that the contrary was now clearly proved, by a Jate publication of some papers of Lord Clarendon. These papers, it was said, show the work to have been written by Bishop Gauden. The simplicity of the style of the work, and the contrary property said to be discernible in the writings of that bishop, are the circumstances which inclined Mr. Hume to give the credit of the composition to the king.

There being in possession some documents in the civil line, sustaining facts mentioned in the statements, the present opportunity is improved to the perpetuating of them. They are,

(1) A letter from his excellency Richard Henry Lee, Esq. president of Congress, to his excellency John Adams, Esq. minister plenipotentiary to the court of Great-Britain.

(2) A letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Lee, in answer.

(3) A letter from the archbishop of Canterbury to Mr. Adams, after an interview between them.

(4) A certificate of the supreme executive council of Pennsylvania.

(5) A certificate of his excellency Governor Patrick Henry, of Virginia.

In reference to the last two documents, and to a similar one in the case of Dr. Provoost, given by his excellency Governor Clinton, of New-York, but not in possession, it is to be recollected, that they were to be applied for in consequence of an instruction of the General Convention. They may reasonably be supposed to have had an effect in accomplishing the views of the Episcopal Church. See the Appendix, No. 16.

It was in the statements, that Richard Peters, Esq. having visited England on private business, was requested by the committee of the convention to wait on the archbishop of Canterbury on the business concerning which the English prelates had been addressed. The consequent letter of Mr. Peters to the committee has a tendency to throw light on the subject, and is therefore given in the Appendix, No. 17.*

* There being nothing more in the letters to the committee concerning the claim of the corporation of the Widows' Fund, the silence seems to require a reason. The abstract was sent to the archbishop, agreeably to his desire. In the next interview he remarked, that he perceived the evidence of the promise of the society in England, but wished to know to what period the society in America considered it as extending. The author had not been informed on that point by the committee, and made answer accordingly. The undertaking of the setting of this would have involved him in no less a difficulty, than that of determining at what period American allegiance ceased. If it were on the 4th of July, 1776, there could be no claim beyond that day, on a fund appropriated by charter to the dominions of the British crown. On the other hand, to have dated independence from the acknowledgment of it by Great-Britain, would have been inconsistent with American citizenship. Accordingly, nothing more passed on the subject. It should be noticed, that to the former period there was very little due,

We left London on the evening of the 5th of February, reached Falmouth on the 10th, were detained there by contrary winds until Sunday the 17th, when we embarked, and after a voyage of precisely seven weeks, landed at NewYork on the afternoon of Easter Sunday, April the 7th; sensible, I trust, of the goodness of God in our personal protection and safety, and in his having thus brought to a prosperous issue the measures adopted for the obtaining of that Episcopacy, the want of which had been the subject of the complaint of our Church from the earliest settlement of the colonies, and which, we hope, will be now improved to her increase, and to the glory of her divine Head.

1. Page 30. Of the Convention in 1789.

The business was to have been preceded by a sermon from Bishop Provoost; but the bishop being detained by indisposition, Dr. Smith preached. The only bishop present presided, and the secretary was Francis Hopkinson, Esq.

Previously to the meeting of the convention, it was foreseen that the unfinished business of the Episcopacy, and the relative situation of the Church in Connecticut, would be the principal objects of attention, and must be thought important, not only in themselves, but because of the influence which each of them had on the other. It may be proper to say something of these, before an entry on the narrative of what passed concerning them in the convention.

There is an implication—at least the author had always so understood it—in the address to the English prelates, that the American Episcopal Church was to obtain from them the beginning of the succession in the number of bishops competent, according to the English rule and practice, to perpetuate it. Doubtless this sentiment was much strengthened by the consideration of the antiquity and the expediency of the rule, which required the presence and the consent of three bishops in every consecration. Although it had been the clear sense on both sides, that the American Church was entirely independent of the Church of England; yet, on this point of procuring from England the canonical number of bishops, the promise seemed to have been voluntarily pledged, so that the English prelates might, in the event of non-compliance, have laid the charge of imposition. It is

true, the archbishop of Canterbury seems not to have been tenacious of the canonical number, as appears from what he said of a consecration for the Isle of Man, related in the author's letter from England. Yet his grace was careful to correct his mistake in regard to that measure, as is evident from the note written by him to the author, on the day on which he left London. If some of the archbishop's brethren, of the right reverend bench, should have been found stricter than himself on points of this nature, there was no responsibility on him, and the blame would have lain on those who had dispensed with the ancient number in America. There may be acknowledged another reason for being particular on this point; it is the guarding against the mischievous consequences of a disposition to irregularity in any future American bishop, who might have less concern for the peace and the order of thie Church, than for the sustaining of his consequence with a party,

In regard to the Church in Connecticut, it had been all along an object with the author, which he never endeavoured to conceal, to bring its Episcopacy within the union. But as the Scotch succession could not be officially recognized by the English bishops, he wished to complete the succession from England, before such a comprehension should take place. He knew, indeed, that Bishop Provoost, although he did not appear to be possessed of personal ill-will to Bishop Seabury, was opposed to having any thing to do with the Scotch succession, which he did not hesitate to pronounce irregular. Yet he was very little supported in this sentiment; and least of all, by the clergy of his own diocese. It was therefore natural to infer, that he would see the expediency of what was the general wish, or at least waive his objection for the sake of peace; as indeed happened.*

Although these subjects would of course have engaged the attention of the convention, yet an application which

* In the last preceding convention of the Church in New-York, they had declared their desire, as well in favour of the succession in the English line, as for a union of the Church throughout the United States, with an evident allusion to the Scotch Episcopacy. What is now referred to, are the two following resolves, passed unanimously on the 5th of November, 1788.

Resolved, That it is highly necessary in the opinion of this convention, that measures should be pursued to preserve the Episcopal succession in the English line-and

Resolved also, That the union of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Amerioa is of great importance and much to be desired; and that the delegates of this state, in the next General Convention, be instructed to promote that union by every prudent measure, consistent with the constitution of the Church, and the continuance of the Episcopal successiou in the Euglish line."

« AnteriorContinuar »