1789] liEV. WILLIAM SMLTH, D. D. 275 



That it is highly necessary in the opinion of this Convention that 

 measures should be pursued to preserve the Episcopal succession in the 

 English line. 



That the union of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 

 States of America is of great importance and much to be desired, and 

 that the delegates of this State, in the next General Convention, be in- 

 structed to promote that union by every prudent measure, consistent 

 with the constitution of the Church and the continuance of the Epis- 

 copal succession in the English line. 



These resolutions it appears were worded at the particular request 

 of Bishop Provoost. Though a man of true Christian character, 

 Bishop Seabury was one also of high spirit and could not but feel 

 such resentments as were allowable to a Christian and a gentle- 

 man. He held himself off from any organization in which Bishop 

 Provoost was to be a leader or very potential person ; if any such 

 organization there was to be. He writes, June 20th, 1789, to 

 Bishop White, who had written to him to urge his coming to the 

 Convention: 



For my own part gladly would I contribute to the uniformity of all 

 our Churches; but while Bishop Provoost disputes the validity of my 

 consecration, I can take no steps towards the accomplishment of so 

 great and desirable an object. The point, I take it, is now in such a 

 state that it must be settled either by your Convention or by an appeal 

 to the Christian world. Bat as this is a subject in which I am per- 

 sonally concerned, I shall refrain from any remarks upon it; hoping that 

 the candor and good sense of the Convention will render the further 

 mention altogether unnecessary. 



The matter was the more important since as Bishop Seabury 

 went so would go not only Connecticut but other, perhaps, of the 

 New England States. The case required both vigor and circum- 

 spection. To counteract this dangerous conduct and motions of 

 Bishop Provoost, Dr. Smith wrote to Bishop Seabury just before 

 the Convention assembled urging him, as Bishop White had done, 

 to come to the Convention; Dr. Smith offering to him the hospi- 

 tality of his house. 



Bishop Seabury replies to Dr. Smith. 



New L(jndon', July 23, 1789. 

 .... The wish of my heart, and the wish of the clergy and of the 

 Church people of this State, would certainly have carried me, and some 



