This may otherwise be thought to have influenced the determination in the first instance, and to have prevented the consecration of Dr. Bass. But it would be a mistake. The objections referred to, were generally supposed to receive no weight from the characters of the two objecting clergymen. They were represented as being not at all attached to the ecclesiastical system of the Episcopal Church. Of this, or of the contrary, the bishops possessed no such evidence, as was sufficient to be a ground of their conduct at the time. There was no use in looking out for evidence, as there was other ground on which the consecration was declined-the want of the requisite number of bishops to be consecrated in England. When Bishop Bass was subsequently admitted to the Episcopacy, the bishops who consecrated him had made up their minds on the merits of the preceding objection to him.

There was also a paper, purporting to be the dissent of his own vestry, which was denied and found to be not true.

N. Page 33. Of the Convention in 1801.

Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops, and the Rev. Dr. Abraham Beach in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The secretaries, were the Rev. Henry Waddell, of the former house, and the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin, of the latter. The occasion was opened with a sermon by the presiding bishop.

No sooner were the convention organized, than there came from the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies a call for a letter which they understood to have been sent to the author by Bishop Provoost, on the subject of his resigning of the Episcopal jurisdiction. This measure raised a very serious question, made the more important by its being unexpected. The whole of the merits of it, so far as it was discussed at the time, is in the entry of the House of Bishops on their journal: which is therefore given in the Appendix, No. 24.

As the articles were at last established by this convention, the author thinks it may be of use, to give a narrative of some particulars in the management of that matter; in addition to what has been stated relative to the proceeding in 1792.

When the book was edited with the proposed alterations

of 1785; no sooner were they known in the different states, than the sentiment became general, that they were not to be received without alterations; while yet there was nothing like unanimity, in regard to what the alterations should be. The same may be said in regard to the thirtynine Articles. Some changes, independently on what was of a local and political nature, seemed desired by all: but of any considerable agreement in particulars, there was little prospect.

Accordingly, the Church was left in a situation very embarrassing, in regard to the standard of her doctrinal profession. On the one hand, the articles, with the exception of the political parts, the obligation of which had been abrogated by Divine Providence through the instrumentality of the revolution, were still the acknowledged faith of the Church; while, on the other hand, they could not be edited as such, without changes at least in the manner of exhibiting them, which no individual had a right to regulate. What rendered the situation of the Church the worse in this respect, was, that it suited the opinions of some, to declare in consequence of it, that she had no articles, and could have none, until they should be framed by a convention, and established by its authority. In support of this sentiment, they pleaded what has been stated as the very exceptionable manner of doing business, adopted by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in the year 1789. That house, in regard to every part of the Prayer Book on which they acted, brought the office forward as a matter originating with them, and not their alterations, as affecting an office already known and of obligation. It was answered, that this was an assumption of but one of the houses of a single convention; that the other house had even then adopted a contrary course; that the same had been done in all the preceding conventions, and that in the only subsequent convention in which there had been any alteration of a former standard-meaning of the ordinal, altered in 1792—it had been so acted on, as to acknowledge the obligation of the old forms, with the exception of the political parts, until altered. This seems conclusive reasoning: and yet the opposite doctrine was held by many; which threatened unhappy consequences.

During the convention of 1789, although nothing was done relatively to the articles, there was much serious conversation on the subject: when the author was surprised to find, that Bishop Seabury, the only bishop at the convention

besides himself, doubted of the need of articles; and was rather inclined to believe, that the object of them might be accomplished through the medium of the liturgy. This was so wide of what might have been expected from his usual turn of sentiment, that, to the author, there seemed at the time no way of accounting for it, otherwise than by the supposition, that the bishop couceived the articles to be nearer to the height of Calvinism, than they are found to be on due consideration of their history, and of cotemporary controversies. But it has since appeared, that there had never been the thirty-nine Articles or any such standard in the non-juring Church of Scotland, in which Bishop Seabury was consecrated, and to the ways of which he was very much attached. But the said Church, very soon after the time here referred to, and when her clergy took the oaths to the government, manifested their consent with the Church of England, by adopting her thirty-nine Articles. Indeed, there was never supposed to have existed a disagreement in regard to doctrine: but it was the result of the independency of each Church on the other.*

In the convention of 1792, the subject had been discussed among the bishops in friendly conversation, when the opinions of Bishops Provoost and Madison were directly against the having of articles, while Bishop Claggett and the author were in favour of them. The remarks of Bishop Seabury were general; rather in the way of doubt as to the necessity of articles; although, on the other side, he acknowledged his inability to answer an argument pressed on him -that without them, individual ministers would have to do by their respective will and authority, what had better be done by known law, for the preventing of the delivery of opposite doctrines to their flocks, by different preachers.

However moderate or uncertain Bishop Seabury was on the subject, the clergy and the laity of his diocese thought differently; as appeared in the convention of 1799, held not long after his decease. At the pressing instance of the

* In Mr. Belsham's Life of Mr. Theophilus Lindsey, Bishop Seabury is represented as a Calvinist. Nothing can be further from the truth. In the same work, there is an anecdote tending to lower his character, on account of an incident which took place at a commencement in New-Haven, in which the bishop had no more to say than Mr. Belsham himself; as the author has been informed on the best authority. It was equally unworthy of the biographer, to speak with contempt of the Scottish consecrators of the bishop, not only because their chara ters repel the charge of ignorance thrown on them, but, because their having been so long under the lash of the law, for adherence to the dictates of their consciences, ought to have produced a fellow-feeling in a man similarly situated.

deputies from that state, and in consequence of instructions to them, the business was then entered on; although probably with the presumption on the minds of the proposers, that it would be finished during the session. It however happened otherwise; the matter then ending with a proposed body of articles wholly new in form, edited with the journal. The opinion has been already intimated, that this was a very injudicious measure; but there may now be added, that it proved beneficial in its unexpected consequences. It appeared an injudicious measure, on the same ground on which the proposal of 1785 was found to be such: that is, as unsettling a present fixture, without any reasonable prospect of establishing a substitute. If it were beneficial in its consequences, this happened by its showing of the improbability of agreement in a new form, and its thus contributing to the recognizing of the old articles. Even the mistakes of readers contributed to this effect. For it is astonishing how many, even of the clergy, considered what was edited as proposed for the acceptance of a future convention; whereas it was only recorded by one of the houses to be matter of future discussion. As for the bishops, they never saw the contemplated articles, before they were printed with the journal; and they who read attentively must perceive, that it was merely a report of a committee of the other house, without any evidence of their approving of a single sentence of it. These remarks should be considered as having no reference to any question concerning the correctness of the report. Let it have been correct or not; and although the author thinks it substantially correct, yet he is confident, that the issue must have been the

same.

That issue is the adoption of the articles, as edited by the convention of the present year. Even during the session of the body, and when the sentiment had obtained generally, that no new set of articles should be attempted, the author was often assailed by members who had adopted the principle; urging, each of them, that there might be an exemption in regard to some one point, the most desired by him to be corrected. To all applications of this sort, his answer was, that he was content to accept the articles as they were, (the political parts being understood to be already altered, without any conventional act) as the ground of union; that if they should be thrown open to discussion, there were various particulars in which he thought they might be improved; that all those particulars he should think himself

bound in conscience to bring forwards; that no doubt many other members would do the like; and that then-What probability was there, of there being edited any articles?

The author having had so much occasion, in the relation of the proceedings of this business, to refer to his own conduct, he thinks that there will be propriety in his presenting of the grounds of it.

On the general question-Whether it be expedient to have a body of articles, it has always appeared, as already hinted, that to establish them, is merely to accomplish by a general regulation, what will otherwise be done by individual ministers at will, and this, sometimes, in intemperate and scandalous opposition to one another. For instance, in relation to the divinity of our blessed Saviour, and the atonement made by him for sin, it cannot be conceived, that an advocate for these doctrines will knowingly permit them to be contradicted in his pulpit, or, that a denier of them will permit them to be advocated or acted on in his. Accordingly, there will be articles, written or unwritten; and the inquiry should be confined to the point of the most judicious depositary of the power.

When the author was in England, being one day in company with a Unitarian minister-a gentleman of considerable note in the literary world-liberty was taken to inquire, in what way the societies of his faith held their places of worship, and whether, as in America, the property were vested in persons chosen by the congregations. He answered with a smile-Oh no; for then, in consequence of the ease with which respectable applicants are permitted to take pews among us, it might happen, that in the choice of a minister, an interest would be created in favour of a pastor, not entertaining the belief, for the maintenance of which a house had been erected. He said, that to guard against this, the meeting-houses were vested in persons who may be depended on; and who perpetuate the trust to others of the same faith. What is this, but an indirect way of accomplishing the object for which articles are designed? There was not omitted a remark to the effect in the conversation alluded to: a freedom, which grew out of a previous conversation on the subject.

The house of worship especially referred to, was that known by the name of "Essex-street Chapel." Within these few years there has been published the life of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, its first minister, by the Rev. Thomas Belsham, who is now its pastor. From the work it appears,