way but as I supposed you must be acquainted with the Sentiments of the English Bp's on those subjects, I ventured to mention them.

I have determined, notwithstanding the difficulties in the way, to go to England for Consecration, provided I can be furnished with the means. You mention my waiting for the Virginia Conven'n-this, I believe, would defeat the resolution I have taken, for I am persuaded there will either be no Convention or so thin a one that little could be expected from it. But should there be a full Convention and should their resolves be favourable, (which I really believe they would) yet I have no reason to suppose they will be more attended to than those already passed. The general scarcity of money is an additional reason for inducing me to believe they would be regarded with some inattention. To wait for our Conven tion would, in my opinion, be attended with the loss of another year, without accomplishing the business; I have resolved, therefore, if I am enabled to do so, to set off as early in the Spring as I can. And you will greatly oblige me by informing me, as soon as possible, whether I am to expect the proffered assistance, that I may be preparing for my departure. With respect to the necessary quantum you will be the best Judge who have made the trial. I can only say that, tho' I would not make a job of such business, it is only reasonable that every attendant expence should be allowed for, and that I should quit my home with great reluctance if I thought it would be in the power of accidents to reduce me to distresses in a Strange Country remote from my friends.

If your answer favours my determination I shall write you further on the subject, as I shall want information in many particulars, and your friendly assistance in procuring some introductory Letters.

With great esteem, I remain, D'r Sir
Your affectionate hu'ble Serv't
DAVID GRIFFITH (1)

The R't Rev. William White, D. D.

THE REV. DR. GRIFFITH TO BISHOP WHITE.

Dear Sir.

Fairfax Glebe, 30th April 1789.

I embrace this opportunity, the return of Mr. Foot, to inform you that I have received your two last Letters by the Post, on the contents of which I have only to observe, that had I known the motives of the Gentleman for making the proposal you was pleased to Communicate to me, I never should have given you so much trouble on that Score. The Object which appeared to me of importance, was the completion of our Ecclesiast'l System, and not the particular occasion in reserve. This great object, if I understood the matter right, was not likely to be effected, soon, in any other way than by my perseverance. This consideration, together with the necessity of a Superintending Officer, (for the want of which the Church in Virginia is not only manifestly but rapidly declining) induced me to bid defiance to difficulties, the many difficulties that stood in my way, and engage in the arduous work. It has pleased GOD, in his providence, to order it otherwise, and, I have no doubt, for some good purpose towards his Church. I acquiesce, cheerfully, in the dispensation,-having a double satisfaction therefrom; for I find myself relieved from a load of anxiety,

(1) From the Bp White Correspondence.

381

and I have also the satisfaction to know that the business is not impeded
The only Mortification I
through any neglect or backwardness in me.
feel on the occasion is that I did not receive an answer in time to alter the
arrangements I had made in my domestic affairs.

I am much pleased to hear of the restoration of the College Charterhave you restored the Provost to his office?

I remain, D'r Sir,

Your affec'e hu'ble Serv't

DAVID GRIFFITH (1)

In the meantime the proposal of Dr. Murray had not been lost sight of as the following letter shows.

BISHOP PROVOOST TO BISHOP WHITE.

Rignt Reverend and D'r Sir.

Before the receipt of your Letter I had sent an Answer to Dr. Murray in which without entering into the merits of his Scheme I mentioned to him the little encouragement I had to propose it to New Jersey, and that the suddenness of his intended departure from England would be a grand obstacle to its being embraced any where. Your Judicious observations will doubtless convince him not only of the impropriety of it, but' also of the impracticability of its Execution either here or in England. The Doctor took my conversation rather too seriously, but I have really a regard for him and shall be ready to meet his wishes whenever I can do it in a regular and consistent manner.

As to our Friend Dr. Griffith my opinion is, that as he has Delayed his Departure so long, it will now be a point of prudence and Delicacy to wait the result of the next Virginia Convention; should the difficulty of furnishing him with the necessary means for his Voyage to England be still urged as the only Reason for protracting the time of his Consecration, his Friends will then be enabled to assist him without any impropriety in the manner they proposed and he will also have an Opportunity of getting his Credentials renewed in Gen. Convention.

cut.

The Members of the Committee of Correspondence in this State will not be able to meet together till the adjournment of our Legislature which it is expected will take place in a few Days. There is no doubt but that Dr. Smith's proposal will be approved of by them except as to ConnectiAn Invitation to the Church in that State to meet us in General Convention I conceive to be neither necessary nor proper-not necessary, because I am Informed that they have already appointed two persons to attend the next gen. Conv; without any Invitation-not proper; because it is publickly known that they have adopted a Form of Church Government which renders them inadmissible as members of the Convention or Union. The following is the Resolve alluded to in your Letter

"Upon Motion of Mr. Harrison seconded by Mr. Rogers, it was unani"mously Resolved, That it is highly necessary in the opinion of this Con"vention that measures should be pursued to preserve the Episcopal Suc"cession in the English Line, and

"Resolved also That the union of the Prot: Episc: Ch: in the United "States is of great importance and much to be desired; and that the dele

(1) From the Bp White Correspondence

"gates of this State in the next general Convention be instructed to pro"mote that union by every prudent measure, consistent with the Constitu"tion of the Church and the continuance of the Episcopal Succession in the "English Line."

Delegates to the next General Convention

Reverend Messrs Beach, Moore, Ellison, Bloomer. Hon. James Duane, Col'l Giles, Messrs Harrison and Rogers.

As I am always happy to see your friends I can't conclude without expressing my obligation to you for your late Introduction of Mr. Harrison to my acquaintance. I find myself greatly prejudiced in his Favour and have only to regret that he has given us so little of his Company. With affectionate Compliments to Mrs. White and Family I remain with much esteem D'r Sir

N. York

Dear Sir:

February 24. 1789.

Your affectionate Brother
SAM'L PROVOOST. (1)

THE REV. DR. MURRAY TO BISHOP WHITE.

4th May, 1789.

As the proposal I made was only an expedient to hasten the organization of your Church in an easy way, as I conceived, it is as well it cannot be adopted, for by the time I can see you I trust it will be much better accomplished. It was hardly to be expected, at my time of life, that I could have resided in Maryland or Delaware but at the hazard of my health and usefulness. Indeed it inattered little where I resided at my own expense to answer a temporary purpose only. Your Constitution is so pure and primitive that it forbids Non-residence" in all cases whatsoever.' But does not the yet deranged state of the Church require a Supernumerary Itinerant Bishop for the convenience of confirmation and ordination to ye South of you? Will it be no prejudice to the Church that your Constitution also forbids any few districts or counties choosing a Bishop, without a majority of those in a State are agreed?

The more sound and zealous part of the people may remain destitute at this rate, of divine ordinances, because of the opposition or lukewarmness of the other. Pardon these remarks. You must know best who are on the post.(1)

A further letter from Dr. Murray expresses his philosophical acquiesence in the failure of his proposal of himself for an American Episcopate. It was certainly no discredit to this worthy and amiable man that he should thus suggest a solution for the vexed problem, and the fact that Bp. White ever regarded him as a deserving and estimable brother will free his memory from any suspicion of self-seeking in this expression of his willingness to return to his American home in the character of a Bishop of the Church of God.

(1) From the Bp. White Correspondence.

While these letters were passing and repassing the Churchmen at the north had not remitted their efforts for union, and at length, with prospects of success. But, even at this late day, Bishop Provoost was implacable. His own Convention, much to his annoyance, had taken measures looking to a union. He had himself declined acting on the absurd proposition of the Virginia Convention, that, in connection with Bishop White, he should proceed to the consecration of Dr. Griffith to the Episcopate of Virginia, without waiting the completion of the canonical number of Consecrators. But in his personal dislike of Bishop Seabury, even in the midst of the presages of the much desired union, which all his efforts could not prevent, he wrote to Bishop White as we have seen above.

Without waiting for the receipt of Mr. Parker's reply, Bishop White addressed a cordial invitation to Bishop Seabury and the Connecticut Church, to send representatives to the coming Convention in Philadelphia, on terms honorable to both parties. This overture was met in the kindly spirit which prompted it, and a hurried note from the good Bishop of Connecticut to Mr. Parker tells the result to one who, perhaps, more than any other, had been made the instrument of healing the divisions of the American Church. To this brief note we add a longer communication from the excellent Mr. Leaming, and then proceed to give, in full, Bishop Seabury's letters to Bishop White and Dr. William Smith.

BISHOP SEABURY TO THE REV. MR. PARker.

Rev'd and dear Sir:

April 10th, 1789.

I believe we shall send two Clergymen to the Philadelphia Convention, to see whether a union can be effected. If it

fail, the point will here be altogether given up.

I am, Rev. Sir, your affect. Bro'r and Serv't,
SAMUEL, BP. CONNECT.(1),

(1) From the Bishop Parker Correspondence.

THE REV. MR. LEAMING TO BISHOP WHITE.

Rev'd and dear Sir:

Stratford, June 9, 1789.

The circumstances of my family have prevented my attendance upon the two last Conventions in this state; but I hear Bishop Seabury had a letter from you, in which you observed that you had received a letter from me and had answered it; but as you heard nothing from me, supposed it had miscarried. You were right in that conclusion, for that letter hath not come to hand.

I am unacquainted with the subject of your letter to Bishop Seabury; but report says there was something in it concerning the union of the Churches- which thing I most reverently wish might take place upon that plan that we may worship God according to our consciences.

I have no doubt that such an event would be agreeable to Bishop Seabury; and to all the Clergy of this state, and to the Church Universal.

I cannot conceive the reason why you should apply to the Bishops of England to consecrate a Bishop for these States, when we have three Bishops in them already. It appears to me we ought to be united, in order that the line of succession of the English and Scotch Bishops might unite in America, as they were derived from the same line originally.

Bishop Seabury has twenty Clergymen in this state, and a very respectable body of people under their care, who are true sons of the Church; and if any state should send to the English Bishops to consecrate a Bishop, it would cast such a face upon affairs, as would exclude all possibility of a union for such a measure would not be adopted unless they de signed to keep up a separation from us. We shall do every thing in our power for a union, that is consistent with prudence, benevolence and religion. More than this no one can expect.

I am not able to see why there may not be a general union, although we did not agree in every little circumstance. I suppose you agree with us in all Articles of Faith. Although you have cast out two of our creeds, I imagine you do not mean to deny the Divinity of our blessed Lord for if we are ever justified, it must be by the merits of Christ, and no created being can do any thing by merit for another. All he can do is only to act up to the dignity of his nature; and God has a right to all this, because he gave all the ability.

I do not wish this letter to be laid before the General Convention; but if you think proper, I should have no objection to its being seen by some Gentlemen of candour, that wish a union of this Church with yours. I am your most obedient, humble Servant, JEREMIAH LEAMING.(1)

BISHOP SEABURY TO RIGHT REV. DR. WHITE.

Right Rev. and dear Sir:

New London, June 20th, 1789.

Your favour of December 9th, 1788, came safely to me, though not till the middle of February. I heartily thank you for it, and for the sen timents of candour and Christian unity it contains, and beg you to believe that nothing on my part shall be wanting to keep up a friendly inter

(1) From the Bishop White Correspondence.