objection lay to the word "Trinity," which he remarked to be unauthorised by scripture, and a foundation of much unnecessary disputation. But he said, that the leaving out of the fourth petition only, in which only the word occurred, would leave the other petitions liable to the charge of acknowledging three Gods; and therefore, he moved to strike out the whole. The Rev. Dr. West of Baltimore answered Mr. Page, in a speech in which the Doctor appeared to be in great agitation; partly because, as he said, he was unused to unprepared speaking; but evidently the more so, from his apprehensions arising from what he supposed to be the signal for aiming at very hazardous and essential alterations. Perhaps much more would have been said: but during Dr. West's speech, it was whispered about, that there was really no use in going into such a controversy; that Mr. Page had made the motion, merely to preserve consistency of conduct, that he had attempted the same thing in the subcommittee, and well knew from what had passed, that there was no prospect of success; but that he could not dispense with the bringing of the question before the body. Accordingly, as soon as Dr. West had finished, it was put and lost without a division. (')

The next material question, to the best of the recollection retained, was on a motion for framing a service for the 4th of July. This was the most injudicious step taken by the convention. Might they not have foreseen, that every clergyman, whose political principles interfered with the appointment, would be under a strong temptation to cry down the intended book, if it were only to get rid of the offensive holiday? Besides this point of prudence, was it not the dictate of moderation, to avoid the introducing of extraneous matter of difference of opinion, in a church that was to be built up? Especially, when there was in contemplation the moderating of religious tests, was it consistent to introduce a

1 In a controversy since moved in Boston, Bishop Provost has been named, as having endeavoured to accomplish the omission of the acknowledgment of the Trinity. It is not true: and the error may be supposed to have arisen from what has been related of the effort of Mr. Page. There have been various misrepresentations of the matter; which have made it the more necessary to state the fact.

political one? It was said, that the revolution being now accomplished, all the clergy ought, as good citizens, to conform to it; and to uphold, as far as their influence extended, the civil system which had been established. Had the question been concerning the praying for the prosperity of the commonwealths, and for the persons of those who rule in them, the argument would have been conclusive: and indeed, this had been done by all the remaining clergy; however disaffected they might have been, throughout the war. But, the argument did not apply to a retrospective approbation of the origin of the civil constitutions; or rather, to a profession of such approbation, contrary to known fact.

This was one of the few occasions, on which the author used the privilege reserved by him on his acceptance of the presidency, to deliver his opinion. To his great surprize, there was but one gentleman-and he a professed friend to American independence-who spoke on the same side of the question; and there were very few, if any, who voted with the two speakers against the measure. Bodies of men are more apt than individuals, to calculate on an implicit submission to their determinations. The present was a striking instance of the remark. The members of the convention, seem to have thought themselves so established in their station of ecclesiastical legislators, that they might expect of the many clergy who had been averse to the American revolution, the adoption of this service; although, by the use of it, they must make an implied acknowledgment of their error, in an address to Almighty God. What must further seem not a little extraordinary, the service was principally arranged and the prayer alluded to was composed, by a reverend gentleman, (Dr. Smith) who had written and acted against the declaration of independence; and was unfavourably looked on by the supporters of it, during the whole revolutionary war. His conduct, in the present particular, was different from what might have been expected from his usual discernment: but he doubtless calculated on what the good of the church seemed to him to require, in consequence of a change of circumstances; and he was not aware of the effect which would be produced by the retrospective property of the appointment. The greater stress is laid on this matter, because of the notorious fact,

that the majority of the clergy could not have used the service, without subjecting themselves to ridicule and censure. For the author's part, having no hindrance of this sort, he contented himself with having opposed the measure; and kept the day, from respect to the requisition of the convention; but could never hear of its being kept, in above two or three places besides Philadelphia. He is thus particular, in recording the incidents attached to the matter stated, with the hope of rendering it a caution to ecclesiastical bodies, to avoid that danger into which human nature is so apt to fall, of governing too much.

On the subject of the articles, a dispute arose in regard to the article on justification: not as it was at last agreed on, but as it was proposed by the sub-committee. The objection was urged principally by the secretary of the convention the Rev. Dr. Griffith-and by the author. The proposed article was at last withdrawn; and the words of the thirty-nine articles, on that subject, were restored. In this, there is certainly no superaddition to what is held generally by divines of the church of England. As to the substitute proposed, the objection made to it, was its being liable to a construction contrary to the great evangelical truth, that salvation is of grace. It would have been a forced construction, but not to be disregarded. Some wished to get rid of the new article introduced concerning predestination, without stating any thing in its place. This, it is probable, would have been better than the proposed article; which professes to say something on the subject, yet in reality says nothing. But many gentlemen were of opinion, that the subject was not to be passed over in silence altogether; and therefore consented to the article on predestination, as it stands on the proposed book. The opinion of the author was, that the article should be accommodated, not to individual condition, and to everlasting reward and punishment; but to national designation, and to a state of covenant with God in the present life. Although this is a view of the subject still entertained by him; yet he has been since convinced, that the introducing of it as an article would have endangered needless controversy, on the meanings of the terms predestination and election, as used in the New Testament. If we cannot do away

the ground of controversy heretofore laid; it at least becomes us, to avoid the furnishing of new matter for the excitement of it. As to the article in the proposed book; although no one professed scruples against what is there affirmed, yet there seemed a difficulty in discovering for what purpose it was introduced. The author never met with any who were satisfied with it.

On the subject of original sin, an incident occurred, strongly marking the propensity already noticed, unwarily to make private opinion the standard of public faith. The sub-committee had introduced into this article the much controverted passage, in the 7th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, beginning at the 9th verse; and they had applied it as descriptive of the Christian state. The construction is exacted by a theory, than which nothing was further from that of the gentleman (Dr. Smith) who would have bound this sense of the passage on the church. The interpretation generally given by divines of the church of England, makes the words descriptive of man's unregenerate state; in which there is a struggle between nature and grace, to the extent of the terms made use of in Scripture. This seems necessary to a conformity with the Christian character, as drawn in innumerable places. It was on a proposal of the author, that the article was altered in this particular; although the gentleman who had drafted it not only earnestly contended for his construction of the text, but could not be made sensible of the danger which would have resulted from the establishing of that construction, as a test to every candidate for orders.

Less prominent debates on the subject of the articles, are not here noticed. Whatever is novel in them, was taken from a book in the possession of the Rev. Dr. Smith. The book was anonymous; and was one of the publications which have abounded in England, projecting changes in the established articles.

On this business of the review of the Book of Common Prayer and of the Articles, the convention seem to have fallen into two capital errors, independently on the merits of the alterations themselves. The first error, was the ordering of the printing of a large edition of the book; which did not well consist with the principle of mere proposal. Perhaps much of the opposition to it

arose from this very thing; which seemed a stretch of power, designed to effect the introduction of the book to actual use, in order to prevent a discussion of its merits. The other error, was the ordering of the use of it in Christ church, Philadelphia; on the occasion of Dr. Smith's sermon, at the conclusion of the session of the convention. This helped to confirm the opinion, of its being to be introduced with an high hand, and subjected the clergy of Philadelphia to extraordinary difficulty: for they continued the use of the liturgy, agreeably to the alterations, on assurances given by many gentlemen, that they would begin it in their respective churches, immediately on their return. This the greater number of them never did: and there are known instances, in each of which the stipulation was shrunk back from, because some influential member of a congregation was dissatisfied with some one of the alterations. This is a fact which shows very strongly, how much weight of character is necessary to such changes as may be thought questionable.(')

To these remarks of the Bishop, with reference to the book itself, it seems proper to add his own account of the publication of the "proposed" Liturgy. Giving in brief the results of long and after consideration of the whole subject, it forms an indispensable appendix to the correspondence we have already given:

Under the foregoing head, there has been noticed what is here thought a great error in the convention-the printing of the book, without waiting for the reception of the alterations, and their being in use. A subordinate error, accompanying the other, was the endeavouring to raise a profit from the book, although for a charitable purpose. It had two bad consequences; that of exciting the supposition, that the books were made the dearer although, in reality, this was not the fact; and that of inducing the committee to send them to the clergy, in the different parts of the continent; confiding in their exertions, for the benevolent purpose declared. Several

1 From Bishop White's Memoirs, pp. 102-107.