came exculpated from any Communications on that Subject & that it could not have been at my request that you so highly disapprove of their Conduct, Respecting the proceedings of your Convention give me leave to observe. that the whole proceeding almost, is in direct Violation of the fourth fundamental Principle agreed on by Convention at New-York, which is that the American Church shall maintain the Doctrines of the Gospel held by the Church of England & shall adhere to the Liturgy of said Church, as far as shall be consistent with the American Revolution & the Constitutions of the respective States. The State Prayers in the Liturgy I suppose are here excepted & them only, but how can you be said to adhere to the Liturgy of the Church of England, after adopting the alterations made in your new Prayer book Or had this Convention a right to alter amend & disannul the proceedings of that at New-York? I rather think not, because it was upon those fundamental Principles that Delegates were appointed for this Convention, & whose business it was not to supercede those principles but to act in Conformity to them. Had I been present at your Convention I must have protested ag'st. revising the Liturgy for this reason, as well as for another which appears to be to have great weight, viz. that the business of revising Liturgies & framing ecclesiastical Constitutions is the sole & proper duty of Bishops with advice of their Clergy, & that for the Clergy & Laity to undertake this is intrenching upon the Episcopal Authority in matters ecclesiastical. I foresee you will readily retort, how came then a Convention of clerical & lay deputies assembled at Boston to invade the Episcopal Province & revise the Liturgy? I answer they have not; Certain Alterations were proposed in the Liturgy of the Church, by the Bishop of Connecticut & at his request lay before the Convention at Boston for their Approbation, & those were made the basis of our proceedings, but when approved were not to be adopted till the other Churches had approved of them also, in order if possible to obtain a Uniformity. And accordingly we have not yet made any Alterations exccpt a Substitute for the State Prayers. With respect to your Address to the Archbishops & Bishops of England give me leave to suggest whether if you succeed in Consequence of said address in obtaining an Episcopate from England, we shall not inevitably have two Episcopal Churches in America which like Jews & Samaritans will have no Communication but be at continual Enmity? To the Succession thro' the Scotch Bishops I think no material Objection can be made, & the obtaining an Episcopate thro' that Line will not be so unpopular as from the English Line. The people of these Eastern States still retain a great jealousy of the English nation & will with Difficulty be brought to submit to any Authority civil or ecclesiastical from thence, insomuch that I imagine it next to impossible to obtain from our civil rulers such a Certificate as your Convention recommends. To a Bishop from the Scotch line there can be no Objection, for unconnected with civil power themselves, there can be no jealousy of a Bishop from thence introducing any into these States. Was it not for this reason & for our already having a Bishop in the Neighborhood from the Scotch Church, I frankly confess it would be more eligible to obtain the Succession from England as we always have been accustomed to look up to them as Children to their Parent. With respect to the Alterations in the Liturgy & offices of the Ch'h. I must suspend giving my Opinion till I see the whole; those in that part of the Prayer Book that is come to hand, are many of them the same that were proposed by us, & where they differ, I would as soon adopt one as the other. No Objection I think can be made to the Omission of the Nicene Creed but the time. Some passages in it are as ob

scure & unintelligable as many in the Creed of St. Athanasius, which I am very glad we are rid of. The Arian Doctrine is gaining ground very fast in these parts, & the throwing out two Creeds at once which were designed as a barrier ag'st. that Doctrine will be looked upon by many as acceding to the same Opinions.

Thus you see Sir that relying on your Candour I have given my Opinion of the proceedings of your Convention with as much freedom as you did yours to Mr. Miller. You will be kind eno' to put the most favourable Construction on my Expressions, & not imagine that I presume to find fault with doings of so learned & respectable a Body but only to inform you of such Difficulties as lay in my mind respecting our ecclesiastical Affairs. finally I sincerely wish we may settle down in an Uniformity of Doctrine & Worship, & still continue one Church cemented in the strictest bonds of Union. To the obtaining of which I shall exert my utmost Abilities. (1)

Even under the eye and influence of the able and determined Provoost there had grown up dissatisfaction with the work of the Convention of 1785; while at the southward, fears of doctrinal changes in the future led to the warning words of Dr. West we give below. It is clear from the words of the rector of Trinity, New-York, that the presence of Seabury, in the validity of whose consecration there was almost universal acquiescence, served most happily as a conserving element in the later measures attending the organization of the Church throughout the land. At the same time there can be little doubt that the objections to the Fourth of July service alluded to by Provoost, formed a grave obstacle to the acceptance of the Proposed Book. (2) That the service itself was the composition of one whose political course during the war for Independence had been far from consistent added to the general dislike with which its incorporation in the Prayer Book was regarded, so that this "most injudicious step taken by the Convention," as Bp. White styles it-resulted in the general disuse of the service and a wide-spread disposition "to cry down the intended book, if it were only to get rid of the offensive holiday."

We add the letters to which reference has been made.

(1) From a copy in the handwriting of Bp. Parker and preserved among his papers. (2) Vide ante, pp. 202, 204 for an extract from Bp. White's Memoirs (pp. 104, 105) giving a discussion of the whole subject.

Dr. Sir.

REV. MR. PROVOOST TO REV. DR. WHITE.

I was informed a few days ago by three different gentlemen that they had just seen a Box directed to me at the Elizabeth Town Ferry House in this City and, in consequence of this information, have at length got the first parcel of Prayer Books. I sincerely believe the threatening has been of avail in this case as well as the former.

Such a strong party has been raised against the alterations that I am afraid we should not be able to adopt the Book at present without danger of a Schism-the ostensible objection is that they were made without the sanction of a Bishop, but the Thanksgiving for the Fourth of July in all probability is one principal cause of the opposition. The sale of the Books has been very dull-only thirteen have been disposed of.

Mr. Ogden has given you an account of the Extraordinary proceedings at Perth Amboy. I flatter myself our Convention in this State will be influenced by a more liberal and Christian Spirit.

I am, Dr. Sir, with the most sincere regard
your affectionate Brother

and Hum'le. Serv't.

N. York, May 4th, 1786.

SAMUEL PROVOOST. (1)

REV. MR. WEST TO REV. DR. WHITE.

Reverend and dear Sir.

Baltimore Town, May 4th, 1786,

Inclosed you will receive by Capt.De Course, the Proceedings They would have been conveyed to detained from Home on the account

of the late Convention at Annapolis. you sooner, had I not been called and of my Brother's Sickness and Death.

Yesterday I received a Box per Stage, directed to me in this Place, and containing 10 Dozen Copies of the New Prayer Book: but no Directions either by Word or Writing attended; so that I know not in what manner or at what Price they are to be distributed.

I have been lately told that a Pamphlet (2) has censured the Proceedings of the General Convention; and, among other things thrown out that the Dispersion of the New Prayer Book has been delayed with artful Design. The Charge, I am convinced, is as false as it is unchristian; But I am sorry that the Neglect of the Printer or Binder has given such an Handle to those who, perhaps, wish evil to the Protestant Episcopal Church in these States. Should the next General Convention discover great Haste and

(1) From the Bp. White Correspondence.

(2) The Pamphlet to whih reference is made was the following. viz. "Remarks on the Proceedings of the Episcopal Convention for forming an American Constitution. Addressed to the Publick. With Proposals for them in Future Conventions. And an account of the Plan proposed for an American Church. By a Layman. Printed by S. Hall, in StateStreet. Boston, MDCCLXXXVI. 8vo. pp. 8."

The copy of this pamphlet preserved among the Archives of the General Convention bears the following autograph note by Bp. White, "A Pamphlet in Opposition to what was transacted in New-York, in ye Autumn of 1784 & presenting ye Proposal of a Church to be formed by Professors of all Denominations; probably with a View to ye Scheme of those who call themselves Unitarians. W. W."

Dr. West's sensitiveness as to doctrinal changes is noticed by Bp. White. Memoirs, pp. 103, 104. Vide ante, pp. 201, 202.

Eagerness to confirm and ratify authoritatively this newly revised Liturgy, &c., and before it has been well digested and approved by those who are concerned in it; I fear it will have a Tendency rather to separate than unite its members. And to prevent this Calamity, sufficient Warning seems to have been already thrown out, even by its Enemies, in the Pamphlet I have mentioned. This Pamphlet I have neither seen, nor heard the Particulars of. Dr. Andrews, who was lately in this Town, communicated to me all on which I have founded my Opinion. The very Title-Page of the Book itself supposes the envenomed Charge to be groundless; and indeed, it supposes also, That the Church shall have an Opportunity of weighing it deliberately, before it shall be finally ratified and adopted. For the Title-Page presents it as "the Book of Common Prayer, &c., as revised and proposed to the Use of the Protestant Episcopal Church." If then it is proposed only; certainly it ought to be considered by each particular State Church; and if so, a proper Consideration of so important a Matter, must in the Opinion of all, require sufficient time for mature Deliberation. These are Sentiments which you know prevailed at our late Convention at Annapolis; and tho' the Members have ratified the Book, according to their Powers; yet, I believe, they could have wished those Powers to have been more enlarged than they either felt or found them to be. However, it is to be hoped that a more general and satisfactory Representation of the Ch'h. in other States, will make up what has been wanting in our own: and happily remove all Doubts and Fears concerning the Introduction of a revised and improved Liturgy.

*

*

I am, reverend and dear Sir,
with hearty Good-Wishes

Dear Sir.

*

for your Happiness
and Prosperity

*

your affectionate Servant WM. WEST. (1)

Baltimore, Town, May 12th 1786.

I am sorry to understand that Censure has been thrown upon the Proceedings of the Episcopalians since their Convention in Philadelphia; But I trust that this and every other Aspersion will be done away by their Prudence, and the Spirit that will prevail and actuate them. Could Harmony but prevail among the Brethren throughout the States, how certain would be this desirable Event; Matters, involving Diversity of Sentiments concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, I am sure ought not to prevent it. And I will hope that nothing, touching the Doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been received by our Ch'h. will ever come on the Tapis, so as to introduce Controversy respecting the real and eternal Divinity or Godhead of the Three Persons. My Reason for this last Sentiment you, I presume, are no stranger to. I am sorry to observe, that some, who readily enough espouse the Doctrine in General are unwilling to acknowledge That Adoration is due to the Eternal Spirit, as very and Eternal God! Should any Expression, or Manner of Expression be adopted, Either in our Service or our Articles, favorable to such an Idea; I am too well convinced that the Harmony of our Ch'h. will assuredly cease! Philosophizing Conclusions, I trust, will never have weight sufficient to

(1) From the Bishop White Correspondence.

overthrow the plain Truths of Revelation; nor the refined and subtle Ideas of any professed Christian to bring in Question the Propriety of addressing the Eternal Trinity, as we now do in the Begnining of our Litany. How weak must be the Argument against the Address to say "No such Term as that of Trinity is to be found in Scripture"! Arguments similar to it may be used against this and that Expression throughout the Liturgy, so that, in the end, the mere Expression must be attended to, and the plain and certain Truth unattended to or at least not asserted! Should such Matters be proposed at the next Convention, I shall be sorry that my Absence from it should put it out of my Power to Dissent with my Tongue, and with my whole Soul from them!

It is on the Supposition that some such Matters may possibly be proposed, that I have given you the Trouble of reading the last Paragraph; and doing all in my Power to prevent what, in my Opinion, would be attended with Consequences fatal to the Peace and Harmony of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America.

It would give me Pleasure to hear the Success of the late Application to the Arch bishops and Bps of England: Pray when is an answer Expected; or has one arrived?

Rev'd. Dr. White.

I am, Dear Sir,
Your affect'e. serv't. and brother.
WM. WEST.(1)

On the whole, the letter from the English Prelates in reply to the address of the Philadelphia Convention of 1785 was favorable; and its reception gave fresh vigor to the efforts for securing the succession in the English line. Hurrying off, by the hands of a Presbyterian minister travelling southward, a transcript of this Communication to Dr. White who had in common with the Clergy of the Middle and Southern states been impatiently awaiting its arrival, Provoost writes as follows:

Dear Sir.

I send by the Reverend Dr. Rodgers the Copy of a very affectionate Letter received by yesterday's packet from the Prelates of England. It was thought proper to detain the Original till it had been produced to the Convention to be held a few days hence in this City-Pains have been taken to misrepresent our proceedings, yet I flatter nyself from the seeming Candour of the Bishops that these misrepresentations will do us no material Injury.

Your most affectionate Brother,
and very Humble Servant,

New York, May 13th, 1786.

(1) From the Bishop White Correspondence.

SAMUEL PROVOOST (1)