1785] REV. WILLIAM SMITH, D. D. 205 



called "audacious" and which undoubtedly, so far as it conveyed 

 an assertion of exclusive authorship or compilation by that emi- 

 nent person, had no foundation in fact. 



It is not easy for me at this late day clearly to show to whom, 

 in its particular composition, we principally owe the Proposed 

 Book ; a volume having some deficiencies no doubt, having some 

 excellent points too, and entitled, under any circumstances, to the 

 admiration of the people of America, as the basis on which was 

 in part constructed the Book of Common Prayer set forth and 

 ratified in 1789; a work nearly perfect, and one v/hich, in view 

 of the difficulties under which the Church in America — after our 

 severance of obligation to the King of England, as the temporal 

 head of the Church ; to the Bishop of London as diocesan of our 

 colonies, and to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel as 

 the source. of support to many country churches — was placed by 

 the independency, in law, of every parish of every other, and of 

 every common superior, must be contemplated with gratitude and 

 praise. The journal of the Convention of 1785 shows nothing 

 particular of importance on the subject of the respective authors 

 or makers of the book. Bishop Perry* rightly says that "a more 

 guarded and incommunicative record could hardly be found," and 

 we can learn from it neither the reasons for the changes proposed 

 by the committee nor the reception that they met with from the 

 members of the Convention. I think, however, that to Dr. Smith 

 more than to any one else the formation of the book is due. 



It is sometimes popularly supposed from the fact that Dr. 

 White, Dr. Smith and Dr. Wharton were the persons by whom 

 the copy for the Proposed Book was fitted for the press and pub- 

 lished — that those three gentlemen were the persons who com- 

 posed or framed it. This is a great mistake. What we find in 



Another of these Reformed gentlemen — the Rev. Benjamin Johnson (Correspond- 

 ence with the Rt Rev. Dr. Beckwith, Bishop of Gcorgi.T, p. 21) — asks with similar 

 ignorance : 



" Would Bishop Wliite, whose recovered Prayer Book so clearly exposes, etc." 



The Rev. Mason Gallagher, in like style in " The Book of Common Prayer, Re- 

 vision a Duty and Necessity," p. 54, says: 



" The revision of Bishop White was in use but four years." 



The book referred to was not the revision of Bishop White, and it was never in any 

 general use at all. 



*"Half Century of Legislation," Vol. III., page 100. 



