occasion; and the most important and difficult affairs were regulated by the auguries, or rather the cheats of their Priests. Such was the barbarous and wicked religion which was reared upon the ruins of the Cross. The Britons forsook the God whom they had promised to obey; and their property was plundered, and their houses burned over their heads, their children driven into captivity or exile, their altars overthrown, and their faith proscribed.

In the wretched picture of desolation which this scene presents, there is one bright spot. Christianity was never entirely extinguished. A few sincere believers as we have seen in the case of Gildas, retired into the desert, and preserved the sacred flame. The preacher was still able to rebuke, to exhort, and to console; and to shew his small and trembling flock, that the calamities of their country had been brought on by sin. Heathen moralists or instructors must have been silent under such calamities. Christian teachers pointed to the Law which had been received and despised, and shewed that God was not unjust in taking vengeance of guilt.

It is probable also that the cruelty of the Saxon conquerors, and the novelty of their idolatrous rites must have prevented the Britons from becoming strongly attached to Paganism. The religion of the Druids was not easily to be de

stroyed, because it appeared to its followers to be coeval with the earth on which they trod. But a large proportion of the English must have looked upon the Saxon idolatry as an unjust usurpation, as well as a cruel falsehood and forgery; and this circumstance will explain the facility with which Austin afterwards proceeded in the conversion of the Saxon kingdoms.

The present Sketch would be imperfect, if no notice were taken of the Scotch and Irish Saints who flourished during the period under consideration. But the narrative would be disfigured by all the fables of Monkery, if it affected to furnish more than the names and countries of the respective worthies. There can be no doubt that Scotland and Ireland received the Gospel in this age, for it was found there shortly after in considerable prosperity and purity. And historians are agreed in admitting the claims of St. Patrick to the title of the Irish Apostle, and of Palladius to that of the Scotch. It is possible also that St. Columba may have lived before the arrival of Austin, and have founded the celebrated monastery of Iona or Columb-kill. The particular actions and merits of these and many other Saints have not yet ceased to furnish matter for national rivalry, and antiquarian skill; but they neither are, nor ever will be, the subjects of legitimate History.

the subject of his mission. This might be made to appear from sundry letters of his private correspon

GENTLEMEN,

THERE has lately reached this city, "Memoirs of the Life of Granville Sharpe, Esq." published in the present year, by a gentleman of the name of Prince Hoare. His book will draw the attention of the American public, on account of the estimation in which the character of Mr. Sharpe has been held among us. The veneration paid to his memory will be increased, by the hitherto unknown extent of his labours in the cause of suffering humanity. In short, the able work of Mr. Hoare will transmit the name of Mr. Sharpe to posterity, as one of the most efficient and meritorious characters of the present eventful age.

It is therefore lamented by your present correspondent, that on the 213th page of the said book, there should appear an unfavourable and erroneous representation of the character of the late Bishop Seabury, professed to be taken from the manuscripts of Mr. Sharpe. It is as follows:

"Dr. Seabury, on coming to England, called on the Archbishop of 'Canterbury for consecration, to the great surprize of the Archbishop, who was apprehensive that it might give great offence to the Americans, with whom we had just then made peace; and therefore, his Grace (the very worthy and learned Dr. Moore) wished to be allowed some time to consider of his request: upon which, Dr. Seabury very abruptly left the room, saying, if your Grace will not grant me consecration, I know where to obtain it; and immediately set off for Aberdeen."

Dr. Seabury arrived in London on the 7th of July, 1783, and did not set off for Aberdeen until a short time before his consecration, on the 14th of November, 1784. In the interval he had considerable intercourse with the English prelacy, on

conversations held by him after his return. But the view shall be limited to his letters to the clergy of Connecticut, published in the Churchman's Magazine, in the year 1806.

It appears, that soon after his arrival he first waited on the Bishop of London, Dr. Lowth; probably, because the Bishops of London had been diocesans of America. This Bishop " mentioned the state oaths in the ordination offices as impediments; but supposed, that the king's dispensation would be a sufficient warrant for the Archbishops to proceed on." Thus writes Dr. Seabury, and then adds-" But upon conversing with his Grace of Canterbury, I found his opinion rather different from the Bishop of London. He received me politely, approved of the measure, saw the necessity of it, and would do all he could to carry it into execution. But he must proceed openly, and with candour. His majesty's dispensation, he feared, would not be sufficient to justify the omission of oaths imposed by act of Parliament. He would consult the other Bishops; he would advise with those persons, on whose judgment he thought he could depend. He was glad to hear the opinion of the Bishop of London, and wished to know the sentiments of the Archbishop of York. He foresaw great difficulties, but hoped they were none of them insurmountable."

It was highly indecorous, if Dr. Seabury, after such a reception, abruptly left the room, first having threatened the Archbishop with an application to Scotland, and immediately proceeding to carry the threat into effect.

But, on recourse to his letter of the 16th of August, 1783, the following facts appear. Dr. Seabury repaired to York, on a visit to the

7

Archbishop of that province, to whom the application from Connecticut had been addressed, in consequence of the decease of Archbishop Cornwallis; the promotion of Dr. Moore to the primacy not being known in America. There ensued a correspondence between the two archbishops. Difficulties occurred: among which, as appears from Mr. Hoare's book, (p. 231), was the opposition of the Lord Chancellor, whose opinion, as he was Speaker of the House of Lords, would of course have great weight. Dr. Seabury, seeing no end of the negocia tion, after a stay of more than a year, repaired to Scotland.

The result of these facts is the conviction, that there must have been a misunderstanding in the mind of that excellent man, Mr. Sharpe. It does not appear, that the business of Dr. Seabury was known to him, until after it was over. He entertained sentiments unfavourable to the Scottish Episcopacy. Now, although there was no ground on which the Episcopal Church in America, severed as it had become from England, could reject a succession from this source; allowance should be made for the scruples of a loyal Englishman, in relation to a college of Bishops still dependent for the exercise of their function on a Pretender to the British crown: for this was considered by Mr. Sharpe* as their

It was erroneously conceived, by Mr. Granville Sharpe, that the Scottish Episcopal Clergy, after the revolution of 1688, were dependent, for the exercise of their function, on a pretender to the British Crown. This, however, was not the fact, for, as is accurately stated by Bishop John Skinner, in his NARRATIVE-The Bishops "continued to perform the spiritual functions of their episcopal character, to ordain ministers for the vacant congregations of their own persuasion, and, as they saw it necessary, to CONSECRATE such persons as they thought most proper for continuing the succession of their own order, without asking permission, either from the exiled, or from the reigning Prince." Attempts, indeed, had been made, for the

situation in the very case of Dr. Seabury, as appears on the 212th page of the biography. The mind of Mr. Sharpe being in this state, it is no injury to his memory to suppose, that he may have misapprehended the narrative of the interview in question, even if it came to him from his Grace of Canterbury. This, however, does not appear in the extract from the manuscript, but is added by Mr. Hoare.

It ought not to be deemed indelicate to the latter gentleman, to suppose that he may have misapprehended in this instance; it having certainly happened to him in another; where he says (page 230) concerning the two bishops, consecrated on the 4th of February, 1787, that they had been introduced to the Archbishop by Mr. Sharpe. It appears from a late work entitled "Memoirs of the Episcopal Church," and written by one of these bishops, that they were introduced by his excellency John Adams, Esq. then Minister at the Court of Great Britain.

On the opposite page to that the last referred to, there is an error, which ought to be here corrected. It seems to have been reported from this side of the Atlantic, and believ. ed on the other, that the Episcopal Convention, assembled in Philadelphia in 1785, consisted of " Presbyterians and other dissenters." There was not an individual of that body, who was any other than a member of the Episcopal Church.

The discharge of a debt to pri

introduction of FOREIGN influence, in the episcopal concerns of Scotland; but they were resisted and soon effectually overruled by the bishops and clergy. See Skinner's Eccles. Hist. of Scotland. Mr. Granville Sharpe was a keen WHIG, though of episcopal principles; and he was known to be hardly in charity with, or at least to have no affection for, the episcopal TORIES of Scotland, and he was hence led to believe of them what was not in fact true,

G. G.

vate character, sometimes seems due to historic truth.

So far as regards the operations of Mr. Sharpe in favour of American Episcopacy, the first fact within the knowledge of those who moved in the business in this country, was his letter to a Baptist minister (Dr. Manning,) handed about among the members of the Convention of 1785, but not submitted to that body. The next, was extracts of letters of Mr. Sharpe to the Archbishop of Canterbury, communicated to Dr. Franklin, and by him sent, in 1786, to the author of the "Memoirs of the Episcopal Church." The two Bishops, who were soon after consecrated in England, uniformly testified to the kind reception of them by Mr. Sharpe, and to his zeal in their business. These things fall short of what is contained in the biography: for there it is stated, that a book published by him in 1777, gave a beginning to designs in favour of Episcopacy, and this, with the aid of the people called Quakers; that the same book had convinced a large body of dissenters as well as churchmen in the United States, of the propriety of establishing Episcopacy among themselves; and that even during the war, a motion had been made in Congress for the purpose, and was postponed, merely because a time of peace would be the most proper. There must have been some such accounts transmitted, but the matters were unknown to those, who had an agency in organizing the Episcopal Church.

They were equally strangers to the alterations in the Liturgy projected in 1689, under a commission from the crown, by a body of eminent divines, one of whom was the excellent grandfather of Mr. Sharpe, soon after Archbishop of York. They could not but know of the commission, and of the disappointment of the object of it. But they had not access, as Mr. Sharpe supposed, (page 229) to the projected alterations.

REMEMBRANCER, No. 39.

To the Editor of the Remembrancer. Sir,

FROM the very first appearance of the Remembrancer, I have been a constant reader, and am now happy to join your correspondent "Clericus" in acknowledging "your readiness to admit any thing into your useful Miscellany that is of essential interest to the Clergy." Permit me to add also, that, under the terms "interests of the Clergy," I have no doubt but you comprehend the interests of Curates, as well as those of Incumbents.

Under this persuasion I venture to hope, you will allow me, through the medium of the Remembrancer to lay before Clericus, a Curate's views of that part of the act 57 Geo. III. "For consolidating and amending the laws relating to spiritual persons, &c." which appears so oppressive to an Incumbent.

I shall not dispute the accuracy, with which Clericus has painted the melancholy situation of incumbents, (though I think that if meant for a general representation, it is too highly coloured :) but I do contend, that if relief, and assistance is required, for those," who have borne the heat and burden of the day," it ought not to be procured by a deduction from the pittance of those, who are bearing "the heat and burden of the day," and are perhaps the most diligent, and efficient labourers" in the vineyard." I cannot see the equity or the humanity of that appeal to the Bishops for relief, which points to the hardearned stipend of a Curate, as the source from which it is to be drawn. Is Clericus prepared, to maintain, that £100, or £150, is too great a reward for the services of a Curate? or that it is too large a sum for his necessities?

Has not the Curate's education been as expensive as his Rector's? Has not he the same quantum of labour to perform while he is in health? Is he not under the same X

liability to be disabled by sickness without any provision for such an emergency, and without any means of laying by money to form a fund of his own? Has he not a certain appearance to keep up? Is he not actually performing the duties of the living? Is it then just, that the Rector, who does nothing, should call upon the legislature, to alleviate his distress by taking from his Curate that little which he so fairly earns ?

If the case of the Incumbent be so deplorable, where the abovementioned act is in operation, let Clericus consider the situation of the Curate where it is not in operation. Clericus brings forward his own case to illustrate his observations, permit me in like manner to state mine. Our cases are so far parallel, as I have another (though very scanty) source of income, for which I have equal reason to be thankful.

I am curate to a parish of which the Rector is non-resident, and of which the population amounts to between two and three thousand souls. I have served this curacy (and I trust zealously, and conscientiously,) during nine years, for a salary of 60l. per annum, and a house without surplice fees, or any other advantage whatsoever.

Now supposing I happened not to be possessed of any other source of income (as certainly is the case with numbers of my brother Curates,) I ask Clericus what would be my situation? I have a wife and four young children. Is 60l. a just remuneration for my services, or for the expences of my education? Is it sufficient to maintain a decent appearance? Is it more than sufficient for the bare sustenance of such a family? Does it afford a possibility of laying aside a single shilling for the day of sickness, or distress? When “ age," then, or infirmity," or "chronic disease," or any other of those necessary causes enumerated by Cle

ricus, have incapacitated the poor Curate from bearing any longer "the heat and burden of the day" where, alas, is he to take refuge? The Rector provides nothing for his retirement, when he is past his labour. He may pine, languish, and sicken in penury, contempt, and obscurity; may end a life of usefulness and toil, by a death rendered more bitter from a broken spirit, a heartrending struggle with miseries, for which poverty denies relief, and of which decent pride forbids disclosure!

Clericus must be sensible, that such must be the fate of a Curate in such a case as mine. He must be sensible, that mine is not an extreme case, that there are many Curates, whose salary is less than mine. Does he then seriously urge the legislature to provide for nonresident incumbents by diminishing the additional stipend, which they have so justly decreed to the suffering and laborious Curate? If they did withdraw that addition I again ask Clericus what would be the situation of the Curate. He will not surely contend, that the stipend I receive is adequate to either my services or my necessities? And what grounds has he to assume that the generality of incumbents, would, without the interference of the legislature, be more bountiful than mine? He has no character for illiberality in his general dealings, even this statement is not intended as a vent to feelings of anger, or discontent on my part. I have always served him cheerfully as a Curate, and been attached to him as a friend. Mine is the language, not of complaint, but of justification. I wish to vindicate the legislature, and the Bishops, from what appears to me, an unjust censure. I wish to shew, that they were called upon by every principle of equity, humanity, and sound policy, to make a better provision for the Curates, and not to leave the quantum of their reward to be determined by