ness II. A. A letter was received from the English CHAP. Archbishops and Bishops intimating their willingto consecrate Bishops for the American Churches; provided that the laws of England should be so altered, as to permit them so to do; an alteration which they hoped to obtain; and provided, that they were satisfied of the soundness in the faith of the American Churches; of which they had some doubts. A reply was returned to this letter, giving assurances of the general agreement of the American Churches in the doctrine of the Church of England. Copies of the Proposed Book, and of the proposed Constitution, were transmitted to the Prelates. A Committee was appointed to continue the correspondence, with the English Bishops, with power to call the Convention together again if necessary. Q. xxiv. Was any thing done under this authority? A. Yes; a meeting was held at Wilmington, Delaware, in October 1786. A second letter from the Archbishops and Bishops, was there produced, in which they announced that they had obtained the passage of an act of Parliament, permitting them to consecrate Bishops for foreign countries, without requiring the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, pointing out some objections to the Proposed Book, and suggesting the forms of the testimonials to be signed by the members of the State and General Conventions, in favour of the persons elected to the Episcopate. Q. xxv. What did the Convention do? A. It restored to its place in the Apostle's Creed, the article of the Descent into Hell, with an alternative clause, nearly as it now stands in the Prayer Book; it placed the Nicene Creed in the Prayer Book, as it now stands, it had previously been omitted altogether; it adopted the sug. III. PART gestions as to the testimonials. Copies of these testimonials were signed by the members in favour of Dr. William White, Bishop elect for Pennsylvania, and Dr. Samuel Provost, Bishop elect for New York. 1 JOURNAL. Bioren, 32, et seq. Q. xxvi. Were these Prelates consecrated? A. They were consecrated on the fourth of February 1787, at Lambeth Chapel, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York presenting, and the Bishops of Bath and Wells and Peterborough assisting.1 1 DOCUMENTS. Journal of July 1789. Appendix, Bioren, p. 65. Q. xxvii. Was there any other important step taken at the Convention of 1786? A. A Resolution was adopted in these words, "Resolved, that it be recommended to the Conventions of this Church in the several States represented in this Convention, that they authorize and empower their deputies to the next General Convention, after we shall have obtained a Bishop or Bishops in our Church, to confirm and ratify a general Constitution, respecting both the doctrine and discipline of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America." 1 JOURNAL. Bioren, page 26. Q. xxviii. In what did the importance of this resolution consist? A. In recognising the principle, that the assent of Bishops was necessary to Ecclesiastical action, and consequently the provisional and temporary character of all that had been done. Q. xxix. Was any thing done under the resolution? A. The members of the Convention of 1789 were furnished with such powers. Bishop White attended that Convention; which was thus assembled, not only as the second triennial Convention, called according to the proposed but unratified Constitution of 1785, but, also, as that which is sometimes called a constituent assembly; a meeting, that is, of delegates authorized to originate a government. Q. xxx. What was done under these powers? A. The Convention formed a Constitution; but, before it had completed that work, its attention was called to other matters not less important. Q. xxxi. What were they? A. An application had been made by sundry clergymen of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, to the three American Bishops, to consecrate the Reverend Edward Bass, a Bishop for those two States. Bishop White laid a copy of this document before the Convention, together with some correspondence with Bishop Seabury and other persons. This led to a unanimous resolution, recognising the validity of Bishop Seabury's consecration. Subsequently resolutions were passed, requesting the three Bishops to unite in the consecration of Mr. Bass. This was not done; because Bishops White and Provost thought themselves bound, by promise to the English Bishops, not to perform any consecrations until there were three Bishops of English consecration in America. Mr. Bass was never consecrated under that election. The movement, however, opened a way for a union between the Eastern Churches, on the one hand, and those of the Middle and Southern States, on the other. The Convention adjourned to meet on the 29th September in the same year, and invited Bishop Seabury, and the Eastern and other Churches to attend, "for the good purposes of union and general government." CHAP. II. PART Q. xxxii. Did the Bishop of Connecticut reply to this request? A. He came to the Convention at the appointed time, accompanied by clerical deputies from Connecticut and Massachusetts, the last named of which also represented New Hampshire. A negotiation was commenced between these gentlemen, and a Committee of the Convention, in consequence of which the newly adopted Constitution was declared to be still open to amendment. The Eastern Churches objected, that, by its provisions, the House of Bishops was not authorized to origi nate business, and had only a qualified negative, on the action of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. A compromise was, however, agreed upon; by this the House of Bishops was allowed the right of originating business, and a practical, if not theoretical, veto; since they could negative any measure, unless it was repassed by the House of Deputies, by the votes of four-fifths of the members, after having heard the reasons of the Bishops. This having been done, the Bishop of Connecticut and the deputies of the Eastern Churches, subscribed the Constitution; and the Convention resolved, that "there is now in this Convention a separate House of Bishops." The Bishops present then formed a separate house. Thus, the several little national Churches, of which I have spoken, were at last organized into one National American Church. This took place in the same year in which the Constitution of the United States, by which the States were formed into a real nation, went into operation. But, although the American Church was thus organized, it can scarcely be said to have been organized upon proper principles until 1808, when a full negative was given to the House of Bishops. Q. xxxiii. Did this organized Church extend to every part of the United States? A. No, the Church in Rhode Island did not become a party to the Constitution until 1792. That in North Carolina and Georgia, not for many years afterwards. Indeed, it may be doubted whether the Church existed in Georgia; neither there, nor in North Carolina, was there any diocesan organization. Q. xxxiv. What was done after the organization ? A. The two houses laying aside the character of a constituent assembly, proceeded to revise and adopt the Prayer Book under the tenth article of the newly adopted Constitution. They settled the Book very nearly as it now is; only the Thirtynine Articles, the Offices for the Consecrating and Ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and those for the Consecration of churches and Institution of ministers, have been since added.1 The facts in this chapter have been compiled from the Journals of the Conventions, and from Bishop White's "Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church." III. CHAPTER III. OF THE ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION OF Q. i. You said that Mr. Bass was not consecrated, because the Bishops who had been consecrated in England, held themselves bound by promise to the English Bishops, not to perform any consecration until there were three Bishops of Eng |