The convention entered on the business of the Episcopacy, with the knowledge that there was now a bishop in Connecticut; consecrated, not in England, but by the non-juring bishops of Scotland. For Dr. Seabury, not meeting assurance of success with the bishops of the former country, had applied to the latter quarter for the succession, which had been there carefully maintained; notwithstanding their severance from the state, in the revolution of 1688. Bishop Seabury had returned to America; and had entered on the exercise of his new function, in the beginning of the preceding summer: and two or three gentlemen of the southern states had received ordination from his hands. Nevertheless, the members of this convention, although generally impressed with sentiments of respect towards the new bishop; and although, with the exception of a few, alleging nothing against the validity of his Episcopacy, thought it the most proper to direct their views in the first instance towards England. In this they were encouraged by information which they thought authentic, assigning for Dr. Seabury's failure these two reasons; that the administration had some apprehension of embroiling themselves with the American government, the sovereignty of which they had so recently acknowledged; and that the bishops were doubtful, how far the act of some clergymen, in their individual capacities, would be acquiesced in by their respective flocks. For the meeting of the former difficulty, it was thought easy to obtain, and there were afterwards obtained, from the executive authorities

of the states in which the new bishops were to reside, certificates, that what was sought did not interfere with any civil laws or constitutions. The latter difficulty was thought sufficiently obviated, by the powers under which the present convention was assembled.

Accordingly, they addressed the archbishops and bishops of England; stating, that the Episcopal church in the United States had been severed by a civil revolution, from the jurisdiction of the parent church in England; acknowledging the favours formerly received from the bishops of London in particular; and from the archbishops and bishops in general, through the medium of the society for propagating the gospel; declaring their desire to perpetuate among them the principles of the Church of England, in doctrine, discipline, and worship; and praying, that their lordships would consecrate to the Episcopacy, those persons who should be sent with that view, from the churches in any of the states respectively.

In order that the present convention might be succeeded by bodies of the like description, they framed an ecclesiastical constitution; the outlines of which were, that there should be a triennial convention, consisting of a deputation from the church in each state, of not more than four clergymen, and as many laymen; that they should vote statewise, each order to have a negative on the other; that when there should be a bishop in any state, he should be officially a member of the convention; that the different orders of clergy

should be accountable to the ecclesiastical authority, in the state only to which they should respectively belong; and that the engagement previous to ordination should be a declaration of belief in the holy Scriptures, and a promise of conformity to the doctrines and the worship of the church.

Further, the convention appointed a committee, with various powers; among which, was that of corresponding, during the recess, with the archbishops and bishops of England: and they adjourned, to meet again in Philadelphia, on the 20th of June, in the following year.

After the rising of the convention, their address to the English prelates was forwarded by the committee to his excellency John Adams, Esq., the American minister; with the request, that it might be delivered by him to his grace the archbishop of Canterbury. There were also forwarded certificates, from the executives of the states in which there was a probability of there being bishops chosen. The executives who gave these certificates were those of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. These evidences, agreeably to instructions of the convention, were applied for by the members of that body, from the said states respectively. Mr. Adams willingly performed the service solicited of him; and in a conversation which he held with the archbishop of Canterbury, on the subject of the address, gave such information, and expressed such sentiments, as were calculated to promote the object of it. F.

In the spring of the year 1786, the committee received an answer, signed by the two archbishops and eighteen of the twenty-four bishops of England; acknowledging the receipt of what they were pleased to call the christian and brotherly address of the convention; and declaring their wish to comply with the desire of it; but delaying measures to the effect, until there should be laid before them the alterations which had been made by the convention: it having been represented to the bishops, through private channels, that the alterations were essential deviations from the Church of England, either in doctrine or in discipline.

Not long after the receipt of this letter, the cominittee received another from the archbishops of Canterbury and York, to whom the management of the business had been left by their brethren, after a second meeting of the body; informing, that they had received the edited book of common prayer, in regard to which they declared, that besides their seeing of no occasion for some smaller alterations, which they do not specify; they are dissatisfied with the omission of the Nicene and the Athanasian creeds; and of the descent into hell in the Apostles' creed. And they further declare their disapprobation of an article in the proposed constitution, which seemed to them to subject the future bishops to a trial by the presbyters and the laymen, in the respective states. This, however, does not seem to have been the meaning of the article alluded to; which expresses no more, than that laws for the trial of bishops should be made, not by the general, but by each state ecclesiastical repre

sentative. The prelates went on to inform the committee, that they were likely to obtain an act of parliament, enabling them to consecrate for America. They, however, expected, that before they should proceed under the act, satisfaction should be given in regard to the matters stated. The same communication laid down what would be required, in regard to the characters individually, who should be sent for consecration. As to faith, they were to make the subscription, which the American church had prescribed, to future candidates for orders. On the subject of learning, it was thought disrespectful to the persons to be sent, to subject them to an examination; it being at the same time trusted, that the American church would be aware of the disparagement of the episcopacy, which would be the result of its being conferred on persons not sufficiently respectble, in point of literary qualification. In order to give satisfaction in regard to the religious and moral character of each person to be sent, the archbishops required, that it should be testified by the convention chusing him; and in addition, that there should be a certificate from the general convention, to the effect that they knew no reason, why the person should not be consecrated to the episcopal office. These determinations are given as the result of a consultation of the two archbishops and fifteen of the bishops; being all who were at the time in town. Soon after the letter from the two archbishops, there came one from the archbishop of Canterbury alone, inclosing the act of parliament.

C