tion of such a public, respectable Body of men would have had due weight, after it had been made apparent that your Assemblies could not, consistently with the Constitution of the States, interpose in the matter, so managing it in a public manner as to satisfy Parliament that it would give them no offence, which is carefully avoided here in every instance, that both Powers may live for the future on good terms, without officiously interfering in the administration of the affairs of one another either in Church or State, considering the Jealousies still entertained on your side of the water. It is injurious and unjust then to accuse the English Bps., when not a single public step has been taken on your part to enable them to bring your Episcopate forward in any but a most irregular and hurtful course too, as to its main end of rendering it useful and acceptable to ye Laity who are most interested in it, or it is nothing but a name, without sense or substance. Let not Dr. Seabury's failure here discourage you from applying to the English Church in a proper channel, and after you have done the utmost a prudent zeal directs, and you are forced to have recourse to Scotland, all the world will excuse you, and the whole Old College of Scotch bishops will take up your case, and not leave it to a few whose Ordinations and Consecrations are declared null and void. If you proceed not regularly you will at outsetting Create a Schism in your new Episcopal Church, much to the satisfaction of other Sects. God bless you all, and I wish you success. Yours affectionately, ALEXR. MURRAY.(1)

Dr. White

This communication was followed by another, much to the same purport, which as it is, from its brevity at least, a more creditable specimen of the writer's epistolary powers, and as besides, from the authoritative manner in which it is penned, we may infer to have been written at the prompting of others, we append from the same source.

London, 6 Augt. 1785.

My Dear Sir. In answer to your last I wrote you a letter of 16th ult. but have some suspicions it may be miscarried. The purport of it was not to discourage you or any other Clergyman, that is well recommended, from applying to our Church for consecration, because Dr. Seabury was rejected; since none of the respectable part of the Laity in America and but a few obscure Missionaries recommended him to an Episcopate. Besides you must have more Bishops than one in Ama., to continue a succession, unless you have constantly a recourse to foreign Churches to supply vacancies. If you should not succeed in England you can in Scotland, which I would not have you apply to first, if you can be recommended by the principal Members of your respective States, Laymen and Clergy.

men.

I expect to see you soon in company with another to make a Triumvirate to enable you to consecrate Fathers in God at home in all time to Yours affectionately, ALEXR. MURRAY.(2)

come.

(1) From the MSS. of the General Convention.

(2) From the Bishop White MSS.

VOL. I.-41

In the mean time Mr. Sharp had not been idle. Besides corresponding with the celebrated Franklin on the subject, he had written to a Baptist Minister in Rhode Island, the President of the College in Providence, furnishing him with information, derived from family papers, throwing doubt upon the validity of the Scottish consecrations. These documents had been shown to many persons at the North; and as it appears from a subsequent letter from Mr. Sharp, (1) copies were placed in the hands of the Rev. Samuel Provoost, rector of Trinity Church, in New York, for the purpose of laying them before the approaching Convention at Philadelphia. The strangeness, to say the least, of the channel of this communication with the American Church, though arousing the indignation of some, (2) did not prevent the Rector of Trinity Church, from heartily seconding Mr. Sharp's efforts to impair confidence in Bishop Seabury's orders; and this act was the first of a series of petty incivilities and more open hostilities, the record of which stains the character and Episcopate of the first Bishop of New York.

Learning from Mr. Manning of the partial success of his efforts, Mr. Sharp addressed himself to the task of removing the few remaining obstacles to American consecrations in England. We cannot better detail the story of his success than by transferring to our pages the following extracts from his Diary and Correspondence, as published in his "Memoirs."

"Sept 10, 1785.-Waited on the Archbishop, at Lambeth,

(1) Sharp's Memoirs, foot note to p. 218.

(2) We copy from the Bishop Parker Correspondence, an extract from a letter written April 27, 1785, by Mr. T. Fitch Oliver, a candidate for holy Orders, soon after ordained by Bishop Seabury.

"I have lately seen a letter from Granville Sharp, Esq., (London), on the subject of Dr. Seabury's being nominated by the Scottish Nonjuring Bishops, which I shall endeavour to show you when I see you in Boston, if I can obtain permission. Tis addressed to president Manning. Has Mr. Sharp no correspondence with any Clergyman of the Episcopal Church in this Country, that he writes on a subject of that Nature to a Baptist Minister? He seems to be dubious as to the Validity of Consecration obtained thro' that Channel, but if the Succession has been preerved, I cannot perceive why it should not be sufficient."

and communicated to him Mr. Manning's letter respecting the convention of the Episcopal Clergy this month at Philadelphia; also Dr. Franklin's letter on the subject of Episcopacy and the Liturgy. He assures me that the Administration would be inclined to give leave to the Bishops to consecrate proper persons. He desired copies of the letters."(1) Accompanying these letters was the following communication, addressed to the Archbishop.

66

My Lord,

"Old Jewry, 13th September, 1785.

"Enclosed I have the honour to send your Grace the copies of the letters which I promised. I think it right to add also an extract from a letter which I received last year from an eminent physician at Philadelphia (Dr. Rush, who was physician-general to the Continental army, and some time a member of Congress); for this affords a proof of such candour and moderation towards the Episcopal church, from a Presbyterian, as is seldom known, though I have reason to think it is not uncommon at present in America. The letter was partly in answer to my remonstrance on the subject of Episcopacy.

"Extract of a letter from Dr. Rush, dated 27th of April, 1784:-'I am happy in being able to inform you that at'tempts are now making to revive the Episcopal Church in 'the United States. Though a member of the Presbyterian church, yet I esteem very highly the Articles and the worship 'of the Church of England. There are but two ways of 'preserving visible religion, in any country; the first is, by 'establishments; the second is, by the competition of differ'ent religious societies. The revival of the Episcopal church in our country will produce zeal, and a regard to the ordi'nances of religion, in every other society.-Such is the lib'erality produced among the Dissenters by the war, that I 'do not think they will now object to a Bishop being fixed in 'each of our States, provided he has no civil revenue or ju'risdiction.'

"I had similar assurances from Dr. Witherspoon, (a member of Congress and Presbyterian clergyman) when in England last summer; and this inclination to promote Episcopacy is amply confirmed by Mr. Manning's late account of the in

(1) Sharp's Memoirs, pp. 218, 219.

tended convention of the Episcopal clergy of the provinces of Virginia and New York, at Philadelphia; as well as by Dr. Franklin's declaration of his opinion, that unless a 'Bishop is soon sent over with a power to consecrate others, 'so that we may have no more occasion of applying to En'gland for ordination, we may think it right to elect also.' All these circumstances prove, that the present time is very important and critical for the promotion of the interests and future extension of the Episcopal Church in America, and that no time should be lost in obtaining authority for the Archbishops and Bishops of England to dispense with the oaths of allegiance in the consecration of Bishops for foreign churches, that they may be restored to their unquestionable right, as Christian Bishops, to extend the Episcopal church of Christ all over the world.

"An immediate interference is also become the more necessary, not only on account of the pretensions of Dr. Seabury and the Nonjuring Bishops of Scotland, but also to guard against the presumption of Mr. W-y and other Methodists, who, it seems, have sent over some persons, under the name of superintendents, with an assumed authority to ordain Priests, as if they were really invested with Episcopal authority.

"Some accounts of this were read to the Society for propagating the Gospel, in May last, from the letters of their Missionaries; and I have since heard that some Methodistical clergymen have procured consecration from the Moravian churches, which the latter had received from the Bishops of Poland. . . These attempts of the sectaries prove that they perceive among the Americans an increasing inclination towards Episcopal government; and, consequently, they prove also, that the exertions of every sincere friend to the Church of England are peculiarly necessary at this Time, to facilitate the communication of a pure and irreprehensible Episcopacy to America, by removing the obstacles which at present restrain the Archbishops and Bishops of England from extending the Church of England beyond the bounds of the English Government.

"I should also inform your Grace that America is not the only part wherein Protestant Episcopacy is likely to be extended, when the rights of election are better understood; for had I been prepared in the year 1767 on this point, as I am at present, I have reason to believe that a Protestant

Episcopal Church would have been promoted in Holland, and in several parts of Germany and Switzerland, long before this time.

"How I happened to be concerned in so important an affair, if your Grace should have leisure and curiosity to be informed, I am ready to communicate on receiving your commands.

"I remain, with great respect and esteem,

"My Lord, &c., &c."(1)

In connection with this letter to the Archbishop, it may be well to add, from the same source, an extract from a communication addressed by Mr. Sharp to Dr. Franklin, with reference to the intimation he had made of the probability of an election of a Bishop by the Americans. The information contained in this note was doubtless new to the celebrated Philosopher, who, a little earlier, when he had been applied to by some young candidates for holy Orders, who had been refused ordination in England, in consequence of the inability of the Bishops to dispense with the oath required by the Act of Uniformity, had consulted first the Bishops of France, and then the Pope's Nuncio, and after referring them to the Bishops in Ireland, had finally advised them to act, in case of refusal, as they would be obliged to if England were swallowed up in the sea.(2)

(1) Sharp's Memoirs, pp. 219, 220.

(2) Vide Sharp's Memoirs, pp. 214, 215. We add, as a curiosity, from Dr. Franklin's private Correspondence, a copy of this remarkable letter. To Mess. Weems and Gant, Citizens of the United States, London.

Gentlemen,

Passy, near Paris, July 18, 1784.

On receipt of your letter, acquainting me that the Archbishop of Canterbury would not permit you to be ordained unless you took the oath of allegiance; I applied to a clergyman of my acquaintance for information on the subject of your obtaining ordination here. His opinion was, that it could not be done; and that if it were done, you would be required to Vow obedience to the Archbishop of Paris. I next enquired of the Pope's Nuncio, whether you might not be ordained by their Bishops in America, powers being sent him for that purpose, if he has them not already. The answer was, the thing is impossible, unless the gentlemen become Catholics. This is an affair of which I know very little, and therefore I may ask questions and propose means that are improper or impracticable. But what is the necessity of your being connected with the Church of England? Would it not be as well if you were of the Church of Ireland?