they retain their own, and that the body of the creed should be altered accordingly, I proceed to state the bad consequences of their plan.

1st. As the article is acceptable to many, on the principle of its combating of a glaring error, I would not even seem to countenance that error, when the difficulty complained of might have been removed without any absurdity, or the contradicting of the principles of any members of our Church.

2dly. The referring of the alternative to the choice of the respective churches, whether it be meant to those in the different states collectively, or to the congregations separately, threatens in either case much dangerous litigation.

3dly. Without entering into the question, how far a convention are bound by the proceedings of their predecessors, so far as the same persons are concerned at this time, in reversing what they did in October, 1786, and considering the circumstances of the case, it does not square with my ideas of good faith; although in saying this, I only look at the effect of it on my own situation.

4thly. At a time when our Church is not in secure possession of the Episcopacy, it is highly imprudent to take any measures which may impede us in that business.

5thly. On the plan proposed, it will require a stronger exertion of ecclesiastical authority than hitherto, to prevent different ways in the same church, in the case of a stranger's officiating; whose departure from the usage of that particular church would tend to distract the minds of the people.

6thly. There are proofs on this very point, that gentlemen may resolve on such matters in convention, and yet, in their respective cures, may not have constancy to carry them into effect; which tends to throw on others the odious appearance, of being singularly forward in innovation.

7thly. We shall have the less to justify ourselves in the event of the inconveniences apprehended, because of the general acceptation of this article of the creed; it being retained by the Roman Catholics, by the Lutheran Churches, and by the Presbyterians of all descriptions, besides others.

And now, after all these difficulties, the question isWhat is to be done? I know not. But if the committee are so confident of the goodness of their construction, as to make it the foundation of their printing of the book, at the same time admitting-as they have done-a delcaration from me annexed to the record, that my signing of the morning prayer is not to be construed as involving an ac

knowledgment of the consent of the House of Bishops to that matter, I am very willing to promise, on the condition of being thus not answerable for the consequences, to throw no impediment in the way of the book on that account, but, on the contrary, to give it all the support in my power, making use, however, in common with others, of the latitude allowed in this instance by the book itself.

I must, however, my dear sir, with the freedom which I hope will subsist between us, confess to you, that I feel most sensibly a difficulty to which in this and in a very few other particulars, I am subjected by the late fixture of the constitution. So far as the making of the bishops a separate house tended to conciliate our eastern brethren, I rejoice in it, as for the good of the Church. And so far as it lately gave me much of your company and conversation, I remember it with peculiar personal satisfaction. I think further, that on this plan, matters are more likely to be matured, than on that of a single house. But it is a dictate of natural justice, that there should be no apparent, where there is no real responsibility. If any one should compare the constitution, with the known fact and general persuasion of our having before a liturgy, he will presume of a majority of the House of Bishops, that is, in the present case, of all of the order present, that they were in their judgments favourable to all the alterations made. This, you know, was not the fact. And although, in regard to the points given up, I shall think nothing of them, if, in the event, the great good should be accomplished, of having one service for the Church in these states; yet I wish that the thing had been otherwise contrived as to that same responsibility. And if the operation be an hard one, in relation to matters to which we gave our sanction, although we wished them otherwise, it will be more so, on a point to which we have given no sanction. Still I know of no expedient besides that suggested.

You will rejoice to find, that I have nothing to add on a subject on which I must have been at this time very tedious to you; and therefore I conclude myself,

Right Rev. Bishop Seabury.

Your affectionate brother,
WM. WHITE.

K. Page 30. Of the Convention in 1792.

The bishops present at this convention, were Bishops Seabury, White, Provoost, Madison, and, after consecration, Claggett.

Bishop Provoost presided in the House of Bishops, and Dr. William Smith, of Pennsylvania, in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The secretaries of the two houses were, of the former first the Rev. Samuel Keene, and afterwards the Rev. Leonard Cutting; and of the latter, the Rev. John Bisset.

The occasion was opened, by a sermon from Bishop Seabury; agreeably to the desire of the last convention.

An unpropitious circumstance attended the opening of this convention; but was happily removed, before proceeding to business. Bishop Seabury and Bishop Provoost had never, when the former had been in New-York at different times since his consecration, exchanged visits. Although the author knows of no personal offence, that had ever passed from either of them to the other, and indeed was assured of the contrary by them both; yet the notoriety, that Bishop Provoost had denied the validity of Bishop Seabury's consecration, accounted at least for the omission of the attentions of a visit, on either side. This very thing had not been without its consequences, on the proceeding of the conventions: which is here stated, as a caution against such partial considerations, acted on without due deliberation, and producing inconsistencies of conduct. For in the convention of June, 1786, on the question of denying the validity of Bishop Seabury's ordinations, the vote of New-York is "Aye," although it was well known, that two of the three clergymen from that state had paid attentions to Dr. Seabury, as a bishop; and that he stood high in their esteem. But they acted under instructions from the Church in their state; when the convention of it was of a complexion, corresponding with that vote. Afterward, in the General Convention of 1789, the convention of New-York having been, at its preceding meeting, composed principally of gentlemen of an opposite sentiment on this subject, the deputies from that state were among the foremost in producing the resolution then come into, of recognising Bishop Seabury's Episcopal character.

But to return to the narrative. The prejudices in the minds of the two bishops were such as threatened a distance.

between them; which would give an unfavourable appearance to themselves, and to the whole body, and might perhaps have an evil influence on their deliberations. But it happened otherwise. On a proposal being made to them by common friends, and through the medium of the present author, on the suggestion of Dr. Smith, they consented without the least hesitation, Bishop Seabury to pay, and Bishop Provoost to receive the visit, which etiquette enjoined on the former to the latter; and was as readily accepted by the one, as it had been proffered by the other. The author was present when it took place. Bishop Provoost asked his visitant to dine with him on the same day, in company of the author and others. The invitation was accepted; and from that time, nothing was perceived in either of them, which seemed to show, that the former distance was the result of any thing else, but difference in opinion.

There was another matter, which threatened the excitement of personal resentments; but it was got over, as happily as the preceding.

When the bishops met in the vestry-room of Trinity Church, on Wednesday, the 12th of September, it appeared, that Bishops Provoost and Madison were dissatisfied with the rule in regard to the presidency, as established in 1789. As the house were divided on the question of repealing the rule, it would have stood. But this might have been construed into an ungenerous advantage of the prior meeting; in which, those now in the negative had voices, and the others had none. The day passed over without any determination; which was not productive of inconvenience; the morning being principally occupied by the religious service, and the convention not meeting in the afternoon. The next morning, the author received a message from Bishop Seabury; requesting a meeting in private, before the hour of the convention. It took place at Dr. Moore's, where he lodged. He opened his mind to this effect-That from the course taken by the two other bishops on the preceding day, he was afraid they had in contemplation the debarring of him from any hand in the consecration, expected to take place during this convention-that he could not submit to this, without an implied renunciation of his consecration, and contempt cast on the source from which he had received it and that the apprehended measure, if proposed and persevered in, must be followed by an entire breach with him, and, as he supposed, with the Church under his superintendence.

The author expressed his persuasion, that no such design was entertained, either by Bishop Provoost or by Bishop Madison; and his determination, that if it were, it should not have his concurrence. He believed they wished, as he also did, to have three bishops present under the English consecration, whenever such an occasion, as that now expected, should occur. The being united in the act with a bishop who should consecrate through another line, would not weaken the English chain. In regard to the question of presidency, on which Bishop Seabury had intimated that he should not be tenacious; the author told him, that his opinion being the same as in 1789, he could not consistently vote for the reversing of the rule; which, if it were done, he thought had best be by the absence that morning of one of the two now conversing; and that should Bishop Seabury think it proper in this way to waive his right under the rule, the author pledged himself, that in no event would he have a hand in the ensuing consecration, if it were to be accompanied by the rejection of Bishop Seabury's assistance in it; although there was still entertained the persuasion, that no such measure would be thought of, as indeed proved to be the fact. Hands were given, in testimony of mutual consent in this design. He absented himself that morning, and the rule was altered, in the manner related on the journal; that is, for the presidency to go in rotation, beginning from the north; which made Bishop Provoost the president on the present occasion.

At the opening of this convention, it was no small satisfaction to many, to find lay-deputies from Connecticut. The aversion entertained by the clergy in that state, to this part of the institution in the more southern, had been one of the principal impediments to an union and when it was at last effected, it was with a latitude to them in this article. Some of the laity, at the time, were afraid that this would be the beginning of rejecting them entirely. But the event ought to be noticed, as a proof that forbearance and mutual toleration are at least sometimes a shorter way to unity, than severity and stiffness.

On the subject of the Prayer Book, there was nothing which could properly come before the convention without another review, and this was not intended, except the seeing that the book had been properly executed. In the correcting of any thing amiss touching this matter, there could be no ground of difference, except in the article of the descent into hell, which had been settled as already related, and the