tained by him, that he had gone further in the separation than had been designed by Mr. Wesley, from whom he had received his commission. Mr. Wesley himself, he was sure, had gone further than he would have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. The doctor was certain, that the same gentleman was sorry for the separation, and would use his influence to the utmost, for the accomplishment of a re-union. Dr. Coke's letter was answered by the author, with the reserve which seemed incumbent on one, who was incompetent to decide with effect on the proposal made.

It happened that Dr. Coke, before he received the answer to his letter, hearing of the decease of Mr. Wesley, the news of which reached America during the short interval between the dates of the two letters, set off immediately from Baltimore for Philadelphia, to take his passage for England. On reaching this city and calling on Dr. Magaw, he was much disappointed on hearing of the carly answer, lest it should fall into the hands of his colleagueMr. Asbury. He visited the author, in company of Dr. Magaw; and in speaking of the above incident, said, that although he hoped Mr. Asbury would not open the letter; yet he might do so, on the supposition that it related to their joint concern. The conversation was general; and nothing passed, that gave any ground of expectation of a re-union, on the principle of consolidation; or any other principle, than that of the continuing of the Methodists a distinct body and self-governed. In short, there were held out only the terms of the letter; in which there does not seem to be contemplated any change in the relation of the Episcopal Church to that society, except the giving of them access to the Episcopal congregations, while there was sufficient security provided, to prevent the clergy of the latter from having access to congregations of the Methodists. At least it is here supposed, that these things would have been unavoidably the result.

The author saw Dr. Coke twice after this; once, by appointment at Dr. Magaw's, where nothing material passed; and again, alone at the author's house, where Dr. Coke read a letter which he had written to Bishop Seabury, similar to that which he had written to the author; but with the difference of his suggesting to Bishop Seabury as follows-That although the Methodists would have confidence in any engagements which should be made by the present bishops; yet there might in future be some, who,

on the arrival of their inferior grades of preachers to a competency to the ministry, would not admit them as proposed in the letter-that to guard against the danger of this, there would be use in consecrating Mr. Asbury to the Episcopacy-and that although there would not be the same reasons in his (Dr. Coke's) case, because he was a resident of England; yet, as he should probably, while he lived, occasionally visit America, it would not be fit, considering he was Mr. Asbury's senior, that he should appear in a lower character than this gentleman. These were, in substance, the sentiments expressed; and on reading this part of the letter, he desired the author to take notice, that he did not make a condition of what he had there written. There was no comment, and he proceeded.

In this conversation he said, that Mr. Asbury had opened his letter, but he had heard nothing from him on the subject. With this interview, all intercourse ended. Dr. Coke soon afterward embarked for England; and was reported to have had an interview with Mr. Asbury somewhere down the river, on his journey to the ship. The author avoided speaking on the subject, until the convention in 1792; and then mentioned it only to the bishops; towards whom there was understood to be a latitude. It was evident from some circumstances which passed in conversation with Dr. Coke, that there was a degree of jealousy, if not of misunderstanding, between him and Mr. Asbury. Whether this had any influence in the enterprise of the former; or he perceived advantage likely to arise to him, under the state of things which would take place in England on the decease of Mr. Wesley; are questions on which there is no judgment here formed. The determination was adopted, not to hinder any good which might possibly accrue hereafter; although it was perceived, that this could not be on the terms proposed.

For a copy of the letter of Dr. Coke, and the answer to it, see the Appendix, No. 21.

Perhaps it may not be foreign to the present subject to take notice, that the author, when in England, entertained a desire of seeing the late Mr. John Wesley, with the view of stating to him some circumstances, of which he might be uninformed, in reference to the design then lately adopted of withdrawing the Methodist societies in America from the communion of the Episcopal Church. Under this idea, there was obtained a letter to him from the Rev. Mr. Pilmore, which the author left at the house of Mr. Wesley,

when he was from home; but no notice was taken of it. Before the author's departure, intending to go on a certain day into the city, he sent to that gentleman a letter by the penny-post, expressing, that he would on the same day stop at his house, if convenient to him. An answer was received, and is still in possession, the purport of which is, that Mr. Wesley was then engaged in a periodical duty of an examination of his society, but that in the case of a stay of a week or two, he would derive pleasure from the interview proposed. As the stay was only ten days after, and the latter part of the time was taken up by the business of the consecration and in returning visits, there was no renewal of the proposal of an interview, especially as doubts were entertained of the delicacy of doing so; the resting of an hour's conversation on the event of a stay of a fortnight longer, having very much the appearance of a declining of the visit. This may have arisen from the supposition, that the object was to impugn a measure hastily adopted by Mr. Wesley, and not intended to be relinquished.

The author had also carried a letter from the Rev. Mr. Pilmore to the Rev. Charles Wesley, and had a conversation with him on the same subject. He expressed himself decidedly against the new course adopted, and gave the author a pamphlet published by his brother and himself, in the earlier part of their lives, against a secession from the Church of England; which, he said, was at that time proposed by some. And he remarked, that the whole of the pamphlet might be considered as a censure on what had been done recently in America.

L. Page 31. Of the Convention in 1795.

Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops, and the Rev. Dr. Smith, of Pennsylvania, in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The secretaries, were the Rev. Joseph Turner, of the former house, and the Rev. James Abercrombie, of the latter.

The preacher on this occasion was Bishop Provoost.

Before the assembling of this convention, there took place an incident, threatening to produce permanent dissatisfaction between Bishops Seabury and Provoost, which, however, was happily prevented. Although Bishop Seabury had been chosen bishop of the Church in Rhode-Island, the

congregation of Narraganset, in that state, had associated with the Church in Massachusetts, which had unwarily admitted the junction. In consequence, a clergyman had been ordained for the congregation by Bishop Provoost. The author, during the sitting of the convention, received a letter from Bishop Seabury, respectfully and affectionately complaining of the matter. Bishop Provoost, on the letter's being read to him, said, that on receiving the letter from the clergy of Massachusetts, he had doubted of the propriety of the proposal in it; but that on consulting the clergy of New-York, and especially those in the most intimacy with Bishop Seabury, he was advised by them to compliance; but that he perceived objections to such conduct in individual congregations, and would much approve of a canon to prevent it. Such a canon was accordingly prepared and passed. It is believed that no dissatisfaction remained.

The author was enabled to lay before this convention an application from a convention in North-Carolina, for the consecration of the Rev. Charles Pettigrew their bishop. This gentleman, as appears by a subsequent letter from him, set off to attend the convention, with a view to consecration, but was prevented by an interruption of his journey in consequence of an epidemic fever in Norfolk, which made him despair of arriving in time; there being some interruptions in the usual accommodations for travelling. Why nothing was done afterward, for the carrying of the design into effect, is not known, unless it be the decease of the reverend person in question, which must have happened not long after.

The Church in North-Carolina having organized itself, and sent deputies to the General Convention about three years ago, it may be an act of justice to perpetuate their former effort; rendering it probable, that the ensuing inactivity is resolveable into the want of some clergymen of sufficient zeal and influence, to take the lead in such busi

ness.

There had been, previously, an exertion to the same good effect. The Rev. James L. Wilson, ordained by the author in 1789, embarked as a deputy to the General Convention of 1792; but after an unusually long passage, arrived too late. At his special request, his arrival after the adjournment was noticed by the secretary, as it now stands, below the journal. Mr. Wilson returned to North-Carolina, and soon after died.

With the recommendation of Mr. Pettigrew, there came a letter to the author, expressive of solicitude because of what he considered, and his electors appear in the instrument to have considered a departure in his certificate from the appointed form. The letter was answered, and the answer communicated the information, that the supposition of defect was owing to their not having been made acquainted with a canon passed at the immediately preceding convention, providing for such a case as that now existing, in which some of the electors, because of the want of personal acquaintance, had rested their recommendation on the testimony of their brethren in the act.

For the instrument referred to, see the Appendix, No. 22. Some time before the convention, there was sent to the author, by a clergyman from South-Carolina, a copy of a printed circular letter, signed by two clergymen and a layman, and addressed to the different vestries. The signers called themselves a select committee, from a representation of seven churches, and proposed the choosing of a bishop; but gave such reasons for the measure, as indicated a design of separating from the union. The author conceived it to be his duty, to lay this paper before the bishops: who, in consequence, after the testimonials of Dr. Robert Smith had been presented to them with a view to his consecration, desired an interview with him. In that interview, the author, as president, being so instructed by the bishops, asked him, whether the convention, which had been held in consequence of the said printed paper, had adopted the sentiments of it. Dr. Smith then asked-Whether his consecration was to depend on his answer to that question? The president replied, that he was not instructed on the point. The doctor then immediately said, that the convention had not adopted the principles of the paper. So all difficulty on that score was done away. There existed no evidence to the contrary, nor has there been any subsequently received to that effect. It has never been learned, who was the penman of that wretched production. Probably, the offensive sentiments contained in it were a temporizing expedient, designed to obviate prejudices which were known to exist in South-Carolina, against the having of a bishop for that state. The tendency of the paper to a severance of the Church in South-Carolina from the union was unequivocal.

Although the principles of the paper were not adopted by the convention of South-Carolina, as appears from the tes