taken which ever side of it was the most likely to be satisfactory.

It has been painful to the author, that he has found himself opposed in opinion to that of some of his brethren, whose views of the subject have the appearance of being opened to them by the sentiment of devotion. Yet, he cannot perceive the propriety of putting into the mouths of a whole congregation devotions expressive of peculiar states of mind, and such as are not likely to be applicable to many persons in an ordinary assembly; for instance, strains, expressive of the highest exultation, and other strains, expressive of the lowest depths of sorrow. He is aware of what is argued in favour of this, from the sentiment of Christian sympathy, by which every member of a Church may enter into feelings which are otherwise not his own, but which he may reasonably suppose to belong to some who are fellow-members of the body. The author respects the plea, but cannot bring it within the sphere of his own ideas of the precept, to "pray with the understanding." He has heard of another argument for the practice. It is the use of impressing the whole of those excellent compositions on the memories of all the members of the Church. But on this plan it would seem, that scripture would be honoured still more, if, from Genesis to Revelation, it were embodied with the service. This, however, could not have been the object of the introduction of the psalms. There have been urged testimonies from the fathers, demonstrative of the great use of these compositions in the early ages of the Church, and its not being recorded of any particular psalms, to the exclusion of the rest. No: the whole body of them may have been a fund of devotion, consistently with choice made, as subject and as circumstances might dictate. He has not yet found evidence, that in the primitive Church, as in the Church of England, the book was gone through in a routine of successive portions. Altbough these are his opinions, yet he laments the extent of the innovation, made at the period referred to, because he believes that the aiming at so much, prevented what might have been done more effectually, and brought into universal use, by allowance of the discretion which has been pleaded for.

Under the foregoing head, there has been noticed what is here thought a great error in the convention—the printing of the book, without waiting for the reception of the alterations, and their being in use. A subordinate error, accompanying the other, was the endeavouring to raise a

profit from the book, although for a charitable purpose. It had two bad consequences; that of exciting the supposition that the books were made the dearer-although, in reality, this was not the fact; and that of inducing the committee to send them to the clergy, in the different parts of the continent, confiding in their exertions for the benevolent purpose declared. Several of the clergy again intrusted them to persons from whom they got no returns. Hence it happened, that when the expenses of the edition were paid, there was not so much left for the charity, as to be an adequate consideration for such an undertaking. The committee were at last obliged to relinquish the design, of saving for the charity the usual profit of the booksellers, who, on that change of plan, made rapid sales of them.

Another bad effect of the publication was, that the English prelates were not furnished with an account of the alterations so soon as they should have been, considering the application that had come before them. For the committee, having had good reason to believe that the impression would go on rapidly, had not furnished a copy of the instrument containing the alterations. Their waiting first for paper from the mills, and then, for one interfering object and another occurring to the printer, brought it to spring before the edition was out. It is true, that the sheets were sent by parcels during the progress. None however arrived before the answer to the address was sent; and this inattention— or what seemed such-the bishops could not account for, as the archbishop afterward distantly intimated to those who received consecration in England. Hence arose the caution with which the convention were answered by the right reverend bench; a caution evidently to be discerned, in their letter of the 24th of February, 1786. For some of the clergy in the eastern states, from what is here supposed to have been mistaken zeal, had been very early in conveying to their clerical acquaintance in England, an unfavourable representation of the spirit of the proceedings; a fact which is glanced at in the same letter. Although the impression thus produced was so far done away on the arrival of the book, as that there remained no radical impediment to the gratification of the Church, in granting her request made, which must be evident to every one who reads their subsequent letter; yet it follows from this narrative, that their misapprehension would have been obviated, if the printing had been confined to the list of the proposed alterations.

For the letter of the English prelates, see Appendix, No. 6.

From the letter of their lordships it appears, that the omission of the article of Christ's descent into hell, in the Apostles' Creed, was the thing principally faulted. It was the objection made by Dr. Moss, bishop of Bath and Wells, that swayed in this matter. A gentleman who had been a member of the convention-Richard Peters, Esq.-happening to visit England a few months after, and having waited on the archbishop at the request of the committee, the said bishop expressed a wish to see him, and, in the consequent interview, declared very strongly his disapprobation of that alteration. It was learned afterward in England, from Dr. Watson, bishop of Landaff, that the objection camé principally from the quarter here noticed. Indeed he expressed himself in such a manner, as led to the conclusion, that the bishop of Bath and Wells only was the objector. No doubt the bishops generally must have approved of the objection, considering their concurring in the strong protest that came from them, on the subject of the omitted article. However, from the different particulars attending the transaction, the author is disposed to believe, that, had it not been for the above-mentioned circumstance, they would hardly have started their objection to the omission in such a manner as carries the appearance of their making of a restoration of the clause a condition of their compliance with the request. As to the bishop of Landaff, he plainly said, speaking on the merits of the subject, that he knew not of any scriptural authority of the article, unless it were the passage in St. Peter (meaning 1. iii. 19, 20.) And this he said must be acknowledged a passage considerably involved in obscurity. To the two bishops who went for consecration it was very evident, that the bishop of Landaff was far from being attached to the objection in which he had concurred. It is probable, that the same may have been true of many others of the bench. But when the matter was pressed by a very venerable bishop, eminent as well for his theological learning as for an exemplary life and conversation, and rested by him on the grouud of the contradiction of an ancient heresy, it must have been difficult in the body to waive the objection, considering the novel line in which they were acting; and their inability, in a corporate capacity, to act at all.

Section V. Of Proceedings of Conventions in the States subsequent to those of the General Convention.

For a while there was felt the evil of the mistake made in the beginning, of not forwarding copies of the alterations : a mistake, less to be imputed to the committee than to the convention, who had given no order on the subject; but who, perhaps, presumed on the editing of the book, before the other conventions could be held. They were held in the months of May and June, 1786; very soon after the arrival of the letter of the bishops. In New-York the question of ratifying the Book of Common Prayer was kept under consideration. In New-Jersey they rejected it, expressing at the same time their approbation of the other proceedings of the convention, except of the constitution. In Pennsylvania some amendments were proposed. The same was done in Maryland. No convention met in Delaware. In Virginia it was adopted, with the exception of one of the rubrics, and with some proposed amendments of the articles; many dissenting from such adoption; not, as the author was well informed, because of the alterations made, but because they were so few. It is strange to tell, that the rubric, held to be intolerable in Virginia, was that allowing the minister to repel an evil liver from the communion. The author, some time after, held serious argument on the point, with a gentleman who had been influential in the state convention. The offensive matter was not the precise provisions of the rubric, but that there should be any provision of the kind, or power exercised to the end contemplated. In South-Carolina the book was received without limitation. On the whole, it was evident that, in regard to the liturgy, the labours of the convention had not reached their object. It did not appear that the constitution was objected to in any state, except in that of New-Jersey. The propriety of the application to the English bishops was not contradicted any where, except in South-Carolina and even in this state there was carried an acquiescence in it. Under the circumstances stated, the convention to be held in June, 1786, was looked forward to, as what would either remedy the difficulty or increase it.

There has been given an account of the proceedings of sundry conventions in the different states, prior to the meeting in New-Brunswick, in May, 1784. At that period no convention had assembled in Virginia. But in May,

1785, there was one in the city of Richmond; of the proceedings of which there shall be here given a general account; for the same reason as in reference to the proceedings for the organization of the other churches comprehended within the union.

There had been previously passed, in the year 1784, an act of the legislature, incorporating the Episcopal Church in the respective parishes individually, and as existing throughout the state; that is, not only in each parish, the minister and vestrymen chosen by the members of the church were a body corporate for their own appropriate church and glebe; but the act recognized a convention consisting of the settled ministers and deputies from the different vestries, competent to self-government. In this act, there was no vestige of the former establishment: on the contrary, it contained provisos, guarding against all claims tending to that point. Nevertheless, the current set so strong against the Episcopal Church, from the enmity of numerous professors of religion, not a little aided by opinions inimical equally to the Church and to the societies dissenting from her, that in the year 1786, the law was repealed, with a proviso saving to all religious societies the estates belonging to them respectively. In the year 1798, this statute also was repealed, as inconsistent with religious freedom.*

In this convention, the recommendations passed in NewYork, in October of the preceding year, were adopted, with two exceptions. They refused the acceptance of the fourth, concerning the liturgy, until it should be revised at the expected meeting in Philadelphia; and in respect to the sixth article determining the manner of voting, they objected to it as a fundamental article of the constitution; but acquiesced in it as regarded the ensuing convention, reserving a right to approve or disapprove of its proceedings.

Their opinions, as to the principles which should govern in'the proceedings, were detailed in instruction to deputies appointed by them to the General Convention, and are as follows:

"Gentlemen, during your representation of the Protest

A law, substantially the same as that of 1784, so far as it incorporated the Church throughout the state, was passed by the legislature of Maryland in the year 1802, in favour of the Roman Catholics: which does not appear to have given offence, or to have been productive of bad effects; although the like favour has been refused to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the same state.