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.

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 settling 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.

I. 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 irregu larity in any future American bishop, who might have less concern for the peace and the order of the 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 de clared 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 Fpiscopal Church in the United States of America 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 succession in the English line."

came from the Church in Massachusetts, addressed to each of the three bishops, and received by the author a few days before the assembling of the convention, brought the matter forward in a very strong point of view. The object of the address, was the procuring of the consecration of the Rev. Edward Bass of the said state, as the concurrent act of the three bishops.

For the application from Massachusetts, and for the testimonial of the consecration of Bishop Seabury, see the Appendix, No. 18.

The author, had some time before written to Dr. Parker, of Boston, that he considered the clergy of Massachusetts as peculiarly situated; in consequence of their never having been concerned, either in the application to England, or in that to Scotland: so that they had it in their power to act the part of mediators, in bringing the clergy of Connecticut and those of the other states together. Dr. Parker has since repeatedly declared, and it is in a letter under his hand, that this hint was the origin, and that the promoting of the measure mentioned was the motive, of the application for the consecration of Mr. Bass. Dr. Parker, even after the favourable close of the subsequent session, which he had attended, intimated, that the object of the application having been accomplished, he and his brethren would be indifferent as to any thing further. A confirmation of this appeared soon afterwards, in the resignation of Mr. Bass.

The application was received but a few days before the meeting of the convention, and very soon engaged the notice of that body; who, from the beginning, manifested a strong desire of complying with it. This put their president in a very delicate situation; standing alone as he did in the business, and as president of the assembled body. Many speeches were made, which implied, that the result of the deliberation must involve the acquiescence of the two bishops of the English line; while it was thought by the only one of them present, that no determination of theirs would warrant the breach of his faith impliedly pledged, as he apprehended, in consequence of measures taken by a preceding convention. Accordingly, he took occasion to state to several of the members, in the intervals of the meetings, the difficulty under which he lay. They urged the necessity, which they thought the Church was under; and as to the implication involved in the first address to the English bishops; they said it was intended at the time, but prevented by unexpected occurrences in the case of

Dr. Griffith. On the opposite side, no such necessity was perceived; and as to the resignation of Dr. Griffith, another might be chosen. He had been himself chosen after the date of the letter to the English bishops. The issue of these conferences, were the resolves on the journal of this session, with a reference to the difficulty stated, and the directing of an address to the English prelates; which was accordingly drawn up, as it stands on the journal of the

next session.

For the resolves and the address to the archbishops, see the Appendix, No. 19.

The author, on being consulted in regard to this expedient, saw an objection to it in the call which it made on the said prelates, to declare an opinion on the subject of the Scotch Episcopacy. Perhaps they might not agree. Even if their opinion should be favourable, it must be in opposition to the positive provisions of acts of parliament, and therefore would not be officially given. For his part, the only way in which he was to be affected by the measure in contemplation, was the being relieved at the present time, from the pain of standing opposed to the wishes of the con

vention.

The measure was adopted; and this seems the proper place of mentioning the result of it. When Bishop Madison went to England, in the following summer, for consecration; the archbishop of Canterbury informed him, and desired him to inform the author, as president of the convention, that he (the archbishop) had drawn up an answer, the sending of which would be rendered unnecessary by his (Bishop Madison's) coming. The archbishop read the answer to him; remarking, that it was painful to him to be in such circumstances, as required him to speak or write in terms which were not an explicit declaration on the subject. In short, Bishop Madison said, that the archbishop, in the answer, left the matter as he found it: which was what might have been expected from the caution of his character, and from the circumstances of peculiar delicacy, attending this subject.*

In an interview with the archbishop, he expressed himself to Bishop Madison to the following effect, as appears from a communication of the latter to the author, dated December 19, 1790: from which the other particulars are also taken-“ A few days before I left London, the archbishop requested a particular interview with me. He said, he wished to express his hopes, and also to recommend it to our Church, that in such consecrations as might take place in America, the persons who had received their powers from the Church of England should be alone concerned. He spoke with great delicacy of Dr. Seabury; but thought it most