tainly exceptionable, was universally acknowledged. Their conduct was the more agreeable on this account, that the offence had been done away, before the receipt of their letter. The silence of it in regard to the including of the laity, gave a great advantage over those of the clergy, who were representing the introduction of that order as in opposition to correct principles of ecclesiastical government

The moderation which governed in this convention, must be conspicuous. One principal reason, was the moderation of the English prelates. They who were thought the least devoted to the Episcopal regimen, acknowledged the great forbearance in their being no such high notions on the subject, as had been avowed by some of the clergy on our side of the Atlantic. Added to this, there was noticed the absence of the most distant intimation, of offence taken at the presumed independency of the American Church. For although the bishops could not have denied this, consistently with the known principles of their own Church; yet it had been reckoned on, as a source of difficulty.

Some gentlemen, who thought that the convention had gone too far as to some points of evangelical doctrine, were highly gratified at finding more zeal in that respect, than perhaps they had calculated on. The author had an opportunity of seeing the operation of this sentiment, within a few hours after his receipt of the letter. There happening to pass, near his door, a worthy lay-member of the convention of 1785, who had been in the habit of thinking the clergy of the Church of England not sufficiently evangelical, he accepted of an invitation to walk in, and hear the communication of the bishops. He was highly delighted; and it is not improbable, that this very circumstance contributed towards such a zeal for our ecclesiastical system, as induced the same gentleman, at his decease, which was a few years afterward, to bequeath a considerable legacy, which fell after the decease of two relatives then living; the income to be applied towards the support of the bishop of the Church in Pennsylvania.

There was another incident, which contributed to render the proceedings of the convention temperate; because it must have convinced them, that the result of considerable changes would have been the disunion of the Church. The incident alluded to, was the reading of a memorial from the convention in New-Jersey, approving of some of the proceedings of the late General Convention; but censuring others, and soliciting a change of counsels in those particu

lars. The memorial, as was conjectured at the time, and as the author afterward learned with certainty, was drawn up by the Rev. Dr. Chandler, of Elizabeth-Town. This learned and respectable gentleman, after having been in England during the war, had returned to his family and former residence; labouring under a cancerous or scorbutic complaint, which had consumed a considerable proportion of his face. He had been designed for the contemplated bishopric of Nova-Scotia, as the author was afterwards informed by the archbishop of Canterbury. His complaint became too bad, to admit of his undertaking the charge. The same cause, rendered it impossible for him to take an active part, in the organizing of the American Church. The author has no doubt, that his letter, written on the present occasion, was among the causes which prevented the disorganizing of it.

For this memorial, see the Appendix, No. 7.

The present state of things induced the convention, before their adjournment, to appoint a committee; with power to re-assemble them in Wilmington, in the state of Delaware. Previously to their adjournment, they determined on their second address, already noticed, to the English prelates: for which, see the Appendix, No. 8.

Soon after the rising of the convention, there came to the author's hands a letter of the archbishops of Canterbury and York: for which, see the Appendix, No. 9. .

Shortly afterward, there came a letter from the archbishop of Canterbury only, enclosing a recently obtained act of parliament, authorizing the solicited consecrations. See the Appendix, No. 10.

On the receipt of the letters, the committee exercised the power committed to them, of summoning the convention to meet at Wilmington on the 10th day of October.

On the said day, the convention re-assembled; and, Dr. Griffiths being absent, the Rev. Dr. Provoost presided. But, before a relation of what passed at this meeting, occasion is taken to record the comments generally made on the communications from England.

There was expressed general satisfaction with the testimonials to be required of those who might come for the Episcopacy; and especially with the testimonial to be signed by the members of the General Convention. This body had not been without their apprehensions, that some unsuitable character, as to morals, might be elected: and yet, for them to have assumed a control, might have been an

improper interference with the churches in the individual states. What was demanded by the archbishops, went to the point in the general wish; and yet, was not to be complained of or evaded by any individual.

The question to be determined on at the present session was-Whether the American Church would avail herself of the opportunity of obtaining the Episcopacy; which had been so earnestly desired, ever since the settlement of the colonies; the want of which had been so long complained of; and which was now held out in offer. When the author considers how much, besides the preference due to Episcopal government, the continuance or the restoration of divine worship in the almost deserted churches, their very existence as a society, and of course the interests of religion and virtue were concerned in the issue, he looks back with a remnant of uneasy sensation, at the hazard which this question run; and at the probability which then threatened, that the determination might be contrary to what took place.

On the meeting of the convention, a committee were appointed. Those who acted in the business were, from New-York, Rev. Dr. Provoost and James Duane, Esq.; from New-Jersey, Rev. Uzal Ogden and Henry Waddell, Esq.; from Pennsylvania, Rev. Dr. White and Samuel Powel, Esq.; from Delaware, Rev. Sydenham Thorne; from Maryland, Rev. Dr. Smith; and from South-Carolina, Rev. Robert Smith. We sat up the whole of the succeeding night, digesting the determinations in the form in which they appear on the journal. When they were brought into the convention, little difficulty occurred in regard to what was proposed concerning the retaining of the Nicene and the rejecting of the Athanasian Creed. But a warm debate arose on the subject of the descent into hell, in the Apostles' Creed. Although this was at last carried, agreeably to the proposal of the committee; yet whoever looks into the journal will see, that the result was not owing to the having of a majority of votes, but to the nullity of the votes of those churches in which the clergy and the laity were divided.

Had the issue been different, there could have been no proceeding to England for consecration at this time, because they who went had all along made up their minds not to go, until the way should be opened by previous negotiation. As the matter now stood, there was evidently no ground on which the English bishops could have rejected the persons sent, unless they had made the Athanasian Creed

an essential; which would not have been warranted by the feeble recommendation of their letter, not to say by the impossibility of justifying to the world the withholding of Episcopal succession, for no other reason than this, from a Church descended from their own, and once a part of it. It is here supposed, that the very awkward appearance on the journal of the preceding vote, must have attracted the attention of the archbishop of Canterbury, and of those whom he consulted; for he took occasion to remark, what he thought the exceptionable plan of making the records on the journal so particular. His cautious avoiding of minute discussion, especially in the way of censure, induced us to account for this remark in the way stated.

An address to the two archbishops was drawn up by this convention, to be forwarded by the two bishops elect present in it, who now declared their intention of embarking for England. See for it the Appendix, No. 11.

It would be a withholding of justice from a highly deserving gentleman, not to notice his zeal and probably his influence, in accomplishing the views of the American Church.

The hostility to the Scotch Episcopacy had derived some weight from scruples on the subject, which were communicated by Granville Sharp, Esq. the author of many learned publications, himself being of a religious and amiable character, and zealous for the system of the Church of England. In a letter to Dr. Manning, a Baptist minister, and president of Rhode-Island College, who had been recently in England, Mr. Sharp had expressed his doubts on the subject of the Scotch Episcopacy, grounded on documents in his hands, of his grand-father, Archbishop Sharp, who was so conspicuous for his opposition to the arbitrary measures of James II. Dr. Manning had communicated the information in such a line, as that it was privately circulated during the convention of 1785. On its being urged in conversation, advantage was taken on the other side of the singularity of the channel of communication. This, however, was accidental; it not appearing that the writer contemplated any public effect. He afterward watched the progress of the business, and gave his aid in every step of it.

Before the meeting on the adjournment, there had been sent to the author by Dr. Franklin, then president of the state, a letter to him from Mr. Sharp, manifesting Christian concern in the business pending, uneasiness at some reports which had reached England, of our declining towards Socinianism, and satisfaction from some discoveries which

contradicted the reports. In the letter to Dr. Franklin, there were extracts of letters written by Mr. Sharp to the archbishop of Canterbury, evincive of interest taken in our behalf. In some late publications in England, there have been erroneous statements of the agency of Mr. Sharp. For this reason, and to manifest the Christian zeal of that worthy person, his communications are given in the Appendix, No. 12.

Afterward, when Bishop Provoost and the author were in England, they became acquainted with the said worthy person, who continued to interest himself for the Church. On a certain day, he made us a visit, and expressed' much solicitude on the subject of our business, which he supposed, from its not having been accomplished immediately, to have met with some interruption. He was on his way to visit the archbishop of Canterbury, intending, he said, to remind his grace of some things by which he seemed to stand pledged, considering the shape in which the matter was now before him. Mr. Sharp was thanked for his benevolent zeal, but was requested not to offer to the archbishop any thing in the way of complaint, and was informed that there was no room for any; his grace having intimated that the short delay would be only until the ensuing meeting of parliament. There was also given to Mr. Sharp the reason of this short delay, which will appear in its proper place.

Before the declaration made by two of the bishops elect, of their intention to embark for England, there was perceived a difficulty likely to occur in the case of Dr. Provoost, on account of subscription to be made as proposed by the convention of 1785, and considered as satisfactory by the English bishops. The convention in New-York had held in suspense the proposed liturgy, including the articles. This was the faith and the worship recognized in the constitution, and not yet adopted by the Church in which Dr. Provoost was to preside.

To meet this difficulty, the convention adopted the expedient of a form to be subscribed by him, and by any other person in the same circumstances. The form bound the subscriber to the use of the English book of Common Prayer, except so far as it had been altered in consequence of the civil revolution, until the proposed book should be ratified by the convention of the state in which the party lived, and to the use of the latter book, when so ratified. A promise to this effect was signed by Dr. Provoost, and