after the succession had become complete, and even during the measures leading to it, in yielding personal priority to Bishop Seabury.

Accordingly, the author will conclude with the expression of a feeling, which from his very early years, has been attendant on his views of religion; and which he cannot clothe in more appropriate words than those of Father Paul, of Venice-" Esto perpetua:" that is, may the Church so constituted and continued, last for ever.

Because of the importance of the declaration of the convention on the preceding subject, it is given in the Appendix, No. 30.

S. Page 43. Of the Convention of 1817.

Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops. In the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, first Dr. Isaac Wilkins, of New-York, and afterward the Rev. William H. Wilmer, of Alexandria, presided. The secretaries were, of the former house, the Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk, and of the latter, the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin.

After divine service, and the sermon by Bishop Griswold; and in compliance with a resolve of the last convention, there was an administration of the holy communion.

There having appeared at this convention two bishops, in addition to those formerly mentioned, it falls within the design of this work to record, that the first of them, the Rev. Dr. James Kemp, of Maryland, was consecrated on the first of September, 1814, in Christ Church, in the city of NewBrunswick, New-Jersey, by the presiding bishop, assisted by Bishops Hobart and Moore; and that the other, the Rev. Dr. John Croes, of New-Jersey, was consecrated on the 19th day of November, 1815, in St. Peter's Church, in the city of Philadelphia, by the presiding bishop, assisted by Bishops Hobart and Kemp.

Opposition having been made to the consecration of Bishop Kemp, the three consecrating bishops weighed very seriously the objections presented to their notice; the more so, as among the signers of the protest sent, there appeared the names of persons known to have possessed respectability in the diocese. The detailing of the objections included in the protest, with the reasons of their adjudged irrelevancy, seems called for by regard to the future respectability of

the Church, and to the consistency of the consecrating bishops.

The first objection was, that the office of a suffragan bishop was unknown in the constitution of the Church of Maryland. On this point it was considered, that although neither the office of a suffragan nor that of a coadjutor or assistant bishop, was noticed in the constitution, either of them might be rendered expedient by existing circumstances, as a character often met with in the history of the Christian Church; that a coadjutor or assistant bishop had been introduced into another diocese, without being mentioned in its constitution, and yet without the charge of unconstitutionality; that as the bishop of the diocese now in question, in the year 1811, had proposed the electing of a bishop to aid him, he must have presumed the legality of the measure, and it did not since appear that he had altered his mind, or that the sentiment had been until now contradicted by any person; that in 1812, the convention had balloted on the question of having a suffragan, and although it was then carried in the negative, it does not appear that they were supposed by any of the members to be irregularly occupied. Even the signers of the protest must have thought it regular at the time.

The second objection denied that Dr. Kemp had been chosen by a constitutional majority: but the journal manifested the contrary; there appearing, to have been in his favour two-thirds of the members present. This objection was stated in such general terms, that it could not have been much relied on.

The third objection imported, that the general opinion concerning the measure of choosing a suffragan, had been expressed by the silence of the convention of 1813; the next after that which had negatived the measure. There may

have been some reason for this, which the consecrating bishops had no means of obtaining. The prospect of the returning health of the diocesan bishop, may have been the reason. The bishops however perceived, from inspection of the journals, that of nineteen clergymen and thirty-two laymen present in the convention of 1813, not a third of either order had been induced to sign the protest. Although there were in this convention two more of the clergy, and seven more of the laity than in that of 1814, when the choice was made; yet the members of the latter were precisely those of 1812; when no fault appears to have been alleged against the balloting for a suffragan, because of the

pancity of electors. It was further considered under this head, that the requisition of two-thirds for the electing of a bishop, as provided by the constitution of the Church of Maryland, and which was satisfied by the issue of the election in the present instance, was probably for the purpose of guarding against an advantage which might be taken of a thin convention. On any other principle, it would seem to have been unwise to make a provision, by which a sixth of the number and one more, would have it in their power to arrest, at pleasure, all Episcopal administration in the diocese.

The fourth objection rested on the charge of surprise and management. Nothing of these was apparent on the journal. They are not a ground on which an election may be set aside. In the collision of parties, they are commonly charged by each on the other. On the present occasion, no specific facts were alleged, and no evidence was offered.

On the whole subject of the objections, the bishops were of opinion, that if the substance of the protest was designed to arrest the consecration, it ought to have been communicated to the convention by which Dr. Kemp had been elected; and that after the neglect of this, the defect ought to have been in some measure supplied, by its being made known to the bishops called on to consecrate, that the instrument, which was put into print for the ease of multiplying copies, had been communicated individually to those who were so materially interested in its contents. These remarks were designed to have an especial bearing on the position of the protest, that the succession of the bishop elect to the diocesan Episcopacy was carried by acclamation. The bishops were possessed of evidence, that the question was put, and the vote taken, in the usual form of conventional business. They were the more induced to rely on the testimony to this effect by the circumstance, that among the affirmants of the contrary, there were some who were not present at the disgraceful transaction, if it happened.

In addition to the protest, there was exhibited by the presiding bishop, a letter to him from two clergymen of the diocese, charging the bishop elect with being unsound in the faith, and an enemy to vital godliness. If the signers of the letter had substantiated the first of the two charges, or the latter of them, in the sense understood in scripture under the term "godliness," essentially involving renovation of the affections manifested in the fruits of holiness, the bishops would have rejected the application before them,

from the respectable diocese of Maryland. But, the writers of the letter alleged no specific facts; they referred to no evidence; and the accused party declared, that they had not even notified to him the accusation.

The writers of the letter demanded a hearing by counsel. Setting aside the insufficiency of the applicants, the novelty of the proposal, and all question of the propriety of such a precedent to be set by any three bishops who might be assembled; it could not but occur to those now present, that the other party in the case would be the convention of Maryland, who had no opportunity of being heard by counsel. Had Dr. Kemp been considered as the other party, there would have been evident impropriety in subjecting him to a hearing, under a charge brought against him unexpectedly, and remote from his place of residence. Perhaps it was expected, that the consecration would be delayed, with a view to a future hearing. But neither ought the bishops to have acceded to this, when it would have been to subject to reproach the character of a clergyman, who had been greatly respected in the diocese during nearly twenty-five years, and this at the request of two clergymen, who do not appear to have hazarded the charges in the convention; and who, in bringing them forward at this time, must have thought differently from those who joined with them in the protest. For it would be injurious to the religious profession, and to the understandings of the latter, to suppose that they had withheld those charges, while they were urging objections of far less magnitude.*

These were the reasons on which the bishops rested their procedure, and they were detailed by them, in a letter to Bishop Claggett.

Soon after the consecration of Dr. Kemp, the object of the opposition to him, as it was cherished by some of his opponents, showed itself without disguise. Four or five clergymen, who had obtained the concurrence of some respectable persons in that preparatory measure, but not in what followed, applied first to Bishop Claggett, and, on his refusal, to Bishop Provoost, to consecrate singly the person who should be elected by the applicants. It is not necessary to prove, that the bishops so applied to were men of too

It was with a view to an influence on the question of the election of Dr. Kemp, that the story concerning the election of Dr. Griffith, noticed in this work (page 144.) was handed about; probably fabricated by some, but certainly bedie ved without intentional error by others.

much truth and honour, to have considered for a moment of so unprincipled a proposal. But the matter should be remembered, as pregnant with admonition. A bishop of this Church, during the service of consecration, after uttering the solemn words-" In the name of God, amen," promises conformity and obedience to the doctrine, the discipline, and the worship of this Church. According to the application, all the checks designed to govern in admission to the Episcopacy, were to be disregarded.

That small number of clergymen exhibited themselves as competent to an act, to which they had recently affirmed an incompetency, in two-thirds of the clergy and representatives of the laity, in convention. And all this was under the profession of serving the cause of vital godliness.

On the subject of a theological school, discussed in the General Convention, as set forth on the journal, a plan, different from that adopted, was recommended by the convention of Pennsylvania. It was as follows:

"1st. That there be a recommendation to the Church in the several states, to raise a fund, the income of which may be applied, as the general wisdom of the Church may direct.

"2dly. That wherever there is such a concentration of clergymen, as that they can assemble often, and at convenient times, they may be requested to bestow their endeavours gratuitously, for the accomplishing of the present object; and,

"3dly. That the income of the contemplated funds be applied to such local endeavours, if thought expedient, so as to secure the especial attention of one or more of the clergy, to be devoted altogether or in part, to the educating of young men for the ministry, until a general plan be adopted, if that should be considered hereafter as more eligible."

The reasons which weighed to the preference of this plan, were the time intervening between one convention and another-the expediency of limiting the views of that body, to what is essential to the keeping of us together as one Church-the danger of local jealousies, and—the easier maintenance of students, under their paternal roofs: which would not always apply according to either of the schemes, but would be much more frequent under that proposed than under the other. There was, however, such a latitude left by the suggestion from Pennsylvania, as that there might hereafter be a general seminary grafted on it, either to the