timony of Bishop Smith; yet, as it was issued with a view to important consequences; and as the propriety of the conduct of the House of Bishops is implicated in its contents; it is given without the signatures, in the Appendix, No. 23.

There appear on the journals some entries requiring explanation, concerning the Rev. Dr. Samuel Peters. This gentleman had been a clergyman of Connecticut before the revolution. He had gone to England during the war; and sometime before the period now referred to, had endeavoured to procure consecration in England, with the view of being bishop in Vermont: having obtained a request to that effect, from a convention held in the said state. The archbishop of Canterbury had declined to consecrate any further for the United States, the Church here being already supplied with the succession. It is stated in the documents, that his reason was his not being authorized by the act of parliament, to consecrate any further; but this must have been a mistake of the framers of the documents. The convention of Vermont being thus disappointed, applied to the American bishops. There was but one clergyman in that state-The Rev. John Cosins Ogden-who had not been, and who did not stay there long. Probably his going there for a time, was with the view of effecting the object now treated of. The conduct of the bishops, in declining any agency in the business, is rested on the circumstance, that the Church in Vermont had not acceded to the constitution. There were besides some personal cireumstances, which prevented the paying of much respect to the solicitation. It was this transaction which produced an addition to one of the canons; requiring, that to entitle the Church in any state to a resident bishop, there shall be at least six presbyters residing and officiating therein.

There are on the journals of this convention some entries, in which it was thought expedient to leave a transaction unexplained, and so it might have continued, had not the very exceptionable conduct of an individual member, after the recess, rendered it questionable, whether they had not erred in not having expelled him from the body; the only punishment in their power, since there could have been no ecclesiastical trial, except before the authority of his proper diocess, where he would have been still liable to it. There also arose the question, whether the bishops had acted correctly, in rescuing him from expulsion.

It appears on the journal of the House of Clerical and

Lay Deputies, that on Friday, the 11th of September, “the attention of the house was called by the Rev. Dr. Andrews to the consideration of a pamphlet lately published, entitled -Strictures on the Love of Power in the Prelacy-By a Member of the Protestant Episcopal Association in SouthCarolina-which he declared to be a virulent attack upon the doctrines and discipline of our Church, and a libel against the House of Bishops; and which was alleged to be written by a member of this house." On Thursday, the 17th, it is recorded on the journal of the House of Bishops"This house requested the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, to appoint a committee of their house, to meet a committee of the House of Bishops. The committee of this house is Bishop White and Bishop Provoost. The House of Clerical und Lay Deputies agreed to the request of this house, and the joint committee met in the bishops' chamber." Further, the journal of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies for the same day states as follows"The committee," (meaning that of the whole house) "rose, and their chairman reported, that they had considered the paper referred to them yesterday, which was from the auther of the pamphlet entitled-Strictures on the Love of Power in the Prelacy, in which he professes sorrow for the publication, and that they were of opinion that the house should accept it as a satisfactory concession. Resolved, that the house adopt the above report."

This termination of the business, although pressed by the bishops, was not acquiesced in without considerable opposition; and to the last, three very respectable lay gentlemen, who were of a remarkably conciliatory character, pressed for permission to enter their protest. It was not granted and as this has been the only instance, in which the question of a right to protest has undergone discussion, the recording of a denial of the right, falls in with the design of the present work.

Whether the course of conduct adopted were right or otherwise, it happened as is here related. The author of the pamphlet, seeing expulsion full before him, thought fit to look to the House of Bishops for a shelter. After considerable negotiation, in which the author was the medium of communication between the house and him, he sent to the house an ample apology for his misconduct; which induced them to interfere, in order to put a stop to the proceedings: and hence their proposal of a joint committee. The offender gave subsequent evidence, that his professed

penitence was insincere, although it had been accompanied by a profusion of tears, when he discussed the subject with the author, in the presence of the Rev. Dr. Smith, of Pennsylvania. This was an issue which could not have been foreseen, and which it would have been uncharitable to have thought probable. The House of Bishops committed the apology to the keeping of the author, (where it now remains,) not to be made use of, unless in the case of future Inisconduct. When this happened, Bishops Provoost and Madison, who alone were present when the deposit was made, were written to for their permission to send a copy of the apology to the ecclesiastical authority of the diocess to which the offender belonged. Leave was given, and the document was sent.*

M. Page 31. Of the Convention in 1799.

Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops, and Dr. William Smith, of Pennsylvania, in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The secretaries were the Rev. John Henry Hobart, of the former, and the Rev. James Abercrombie, of the latter.

The consecration of Dr. Bass during the recess of the convention, and his appearing on this occasion induces the record, that on the 7th of May, 1797, he was consecrated in Christ Church, in the city of Philadelphia, by the pres siding bishop, assisted by Bishops Provoost and Claggett.

It is evident on an inspection of the journal, that the bishops had no opportunity of expressing their sense on the question of publishing the draft of articles which it contains. Such a publication was certainly very injudicious; if for no other reason, because it might have been expected to be easily mistaken for the sense of at least one of the houses of the convention. Indeed it was so misunderstood: whereas it was the sense of a committee only; not an individual besides having delivered in his place any opinion on any

The personal abuse in the licentious pamphlet, was principally levelled at Bishop Seabury; and the ground of it, was his supposed authorship of a printed defence of the Episcopal negative, written and acknowledged by another respectable divine of this Church. On the author of the present work, the pamphleteer bestowed a commendation, which impliedly exempted him from the general charge of "Love of Power in the Prelacy." Coming from such a pen, it could be no cause of self-gratulation; but it was encouragement to assist in the exposure which took place, and which is to be attributed principally to Dr. Andrews.

It tended to excite

article. But this was not the worst. religious acrimony, without any possible good effect at the present; and with the probable bad effect of the greater acrimony, on an opportunity of settlement in future.

In order to show the importance of the exercise of great care and much deliberation, in any measure which may effect Christian verity; the author will here notice, that an important doctrine of the Church of England was unwarily affected in the body of the articles, by the introduction of a single word. It was "priesthood," as applied in the ninth article, to denote all the orders of the Christian ministry; and not confined to the order of presbyters, as in the established ordinal, of the former of which there is no example in the institutions of the Church of England.

It is well known, that the English reformers took care to show, that they did not mean to identify the names of the Christian ministry with those of the Jewish priesthood. Although they retained the name of "priest," which is ПPEUTEROS (or "presbyter") with an English termination, and in the Roman Catholic Church had stood alike for that Greek word and for Ipeus; yet this Church having in Latin adopted the word "sacerdos," the last was carefully avoided by the reformers, and "presbyter" was put in its place. It would have been in harmony with this, if the article in question had applied" priesthood" to the single order of presbyters. But it is applied to the three orders collectively; which is another matter. To perceive the effect, it is only necessary to suppose the said ninth article translated into Latin: in which case, if the word "presbyteriatus" should be used, it would be wide of the intended sense. On the other hand, if "sacerdotium" should be taken, the innovation would stand confessed. This would have been agreeable to the theory of the individual clergyman who drafted the articles; but the rest of the committee are here believed to have been unaware of it. The above fact is recorded in order to show, that if ever the doctrinal system should be reviewed, it should be done under some other circumstances, than during the hurry of conventional business. In short, the review should be made by select persons, taking due time for so important a measure. After this, the only thing left for the convention, should be the adoption or the rejection of what had been so prepared. This would be as near as circumstances permit, to what was done in England at the reformation.

It is not here designed to charge any other fault on the

articles proposed. They are, in substance, what is contained in the thirty-nine Articles, without any superaddition, except in the particular stated. But the remarks may serve to show, that in the work of clearing that code of what may be thought unnecessary positions, there is the danger of admitting some novelty, more fruitful of controversy than what may be done away. In the present instance, the novelty introduced is susceptible of the construction, of obtruding on the Church the notions of "sacrifice," in the strict and proper sense; of "altar," as the place of it; and of "priest," as the sacrificer.

In this convention, considerable animosity was excited in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, on the subject of the election of a reverend gentleman to the Episcopacy in New-Jersey. Agreeably to the distinction taken by the author, of recording personal matters then only when necessary to illustrate ecclesiastical effects, and when something appears on the journal which may be thus elucidated; it may be proper to note in this place, that whatever ground was taken by the said house in the strict construction of the canon, fixing the number of clerical incumbents in a state in which a bishop might be chosen; there was a more important reason at the bottom of the objection made. The truth is, that the gentleman elected was considered by his brethren generally, as being more attached to the doctrines and the practices obtaining in some other churches, than to those of his own. What rendered the management of the case the more difficult, was his being brought forwards by some gentlemen, who had always professed the strongest disapprobation of the least deviation from the institutions of the Church. No doubt, they thought they perceived some advantages, counterbalancing the unquestionable fact, that the bishop elect had been not a little reprehensible in that line. The bishops kept themselves from taking any interest in the subject; no one of them expressing his opinion, so far as is here known. It is to be hoped, that their conduct will be the same on any similar occasions which may occur. Delicacy requires this; as, in the case of the requisite testimonials, the approbation of the consecrating bishops will still be necessary.

Bishop Bass having been consecrated between the dates of the last convention and the present; it may be proper in this place to guard against any false impressions which might be made, at the time of the former application; and a paper purporting to be the dissent of two clergymen.