opinion, that there being retained, in profession, the essentials of Christian verity; and, in practice, the degree of submission to public will necessary to social worship; much of what is made the subject of ecclesiastical law, may be safely left to the diversity of sentiment which is the result of difference of intelligence, of education, and of constitutional character. But, as in an army, combination of force is found to excite their courage for an enterprise, more hazardous to every one engaged in it than a danger from which he would shrink in his individual character; so, in a representative body, a member of it is prone to calculate on a degree of submission, beyond what he would have imagined in the capacity of a sole legislator, although clothed with authority greater than that in the other case supposed.

In the estimation of discreet persons generally, ecclesiastical legislation is thought to have been carried too far. What the author sees cause to lament, is, that many who acknowledge this fact, and who are ready to lay unsparing hands on matters formerly established, would bind on the Church something new and needless, and likely to excite diversity of opinion. They will do this with good intentions, and without being aware of the inconsistency. In a Church having the secular arm for its support, what has been mentioned would be an evil; but it must be ruinous, if it should be dominant in a Church so much acted on as ours by opinion of persons of all degrees in life, under an organization as it were of yesterday, and therefore not having the support of habitual submission to its decisions. In these circumstances, independently on other considerations, there is a call to the acquiring of a weight of religious character, not only in the Episcopacy, but in the other clergy, and in the lay gentlemen, to whom may be committed the important work of making changes in ecclesiastical institutions. Even with the advantage of such a character, let them be aware of the truth of the maxim, that one property of the art of governing, is the taking of care not to govern too much.*

* During the convention of 1789, and while they were engaged in the review of the Book of Common Prayer, a lady of excellent understanding, being often in the way of hearing the subject discussed by some members of the body, addressed them to the following effect-" When I hear these things, I look back to the origin of the Prayer Book: and I represent to my mind the venerable compilers of it, ascending to heaven in the flames which consumed their bodies. I then look at the improvers of this book in"-(naming some gentlemen not wanting in respectability, but very little furnished with theological knowledge.) "The consequence is, gentlemen, that I am not sanguine in my expectations of

6th. The last contemplated improvement, is the suggesting of the hope, that the time which has been spent, and the cares and the labours which have been bestowed, by some who have gone to their rest from their labours, and by others who have still on their hands a part of their work to be performed, will be applied to the proper end-the promoting of truth and godliness. In every age of the world there is open a wide field for exertions to this effect; but the remark applies especially to the present period, in which there have occurred extraordinary and successful exertions, for the propagation of the gospel; partly produced by formidable combinations for the destruction of it, which have been overruled to events in contrariety to the licentious principles taught, and to the disorders which they were intended to perpetuate. Doubtless, we are to ascribe the issue to the good providence of God, who, in a variety of ways," makes the wrath of man to praise him." In America, which lays open immense countries to future population and culture, the incitement applies with extraordinary stress of argument; and while it should prompt all the members of this Church to put forth their best endeavours, each man in his sphere, and according to his ability, it admonishes him, to be himself in the consistent profession, in the practice of the duties, and in possession of the consolations of the gospel; without which, he is not likely to be influential over others; and if this should happen, his lamp will be without the oil, which is necessary to prepare him for the reception of the spiritual Bridegroom.

[The additional statements of the first edition here concluded.]

T. Page 47. Of the Convention in 1820.

The reception of Bishop Moore's sermon, appears on the journal in such a shape, as requires explanation. The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies passed a vote, requesting a copy for publication. The House of Bishops concurred in the vote, with the addition of their thanks,

respect to be paid to your meditated changes in the liturgy." Without raising any question concerning the logic of this speech, can there be a doubt with those who know human nature, that something like it is the language of many a heart in the religious world, on the introduction of any novelty of which the propriety may be doubtful?

which had been omitted by the other house. The reason, was the preacher's having made baptismal regeneration one of the points of his discourse. Some of the gentlemen, and especially those the most in habits of friendship with him, were displeased at this; and hence the resolve on the journal of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, that it will be inexpedient hereafter to pass votes of thanks for sermons delivered before General Conventions, and to request copies for publication. The author believes, that with the majority of the house, this resolve was owing not to their dissatisfaction with the doctrine of Bishop Moore, but to their general view of the subject of voting thanks; which may have suggested the apprehension, that dissatisfaction with any point in a conventional sermon, be it even in the minds of a few members of the body, may excite an angry controversy, not having any tendency to settle the matter in question. In the House of Bishops, the vote of thanks for the sermon was passed unanimously.

So far as the duty of a conventional preacher is concerned, the author is of opinion, that there should be carefully avoided all questions on which the sense of the Episcopal Church is doubtful; but it is to be lamented, that there should be brought under this head a doctrine, which we have been taught to lisp in the earliest repetitions of our catechism; which pervades sundry of our devotional services, especially the baptismal; which is affirmed in our articles also; which was confessedly held and taught during the ages of the martyrs; and the belief of which was universal in the Church, until it was perceived to be inconsistent with a religious theory, the beginning and the progress of which can be as distinctly traced, as those of any error of popery. This is not a place for a discussion of the subject, but the author has spoken fully to it in some of his publications.

The recorded rejection of an application concerning psalms and hymns, is another proof of the utility of the resolve referred to of the convention of 1814. It is to be hoped, that all future conventions will adhere to it. In the contrary event, conventions will have the weight of the examination of many books, brought before them by authors and by editors not destitute of respectability. Either the examination will take up more time than the members will be disposed to bestow, or, on that account, errors will occasionally be sanctioned through haste. And what they will sanction, may unreasonably be branded as error, which

will at least have the effect of unnecessarily exciting controversy. No objection was made to the selection presented; and it is certain, that any parochial minister is at liberty to make or to adopt such a selection from the metre book of psalms and hymns, as may be agreeable to his judgment and to his taste.

In regard to the title page, and the disregard of the due distinction of books, noticed in the Narrative, there have been some editions inaccurately set forth. A little reflection will show, that from want of precision in this matter, there may result much confusion in the public proceedings of the Church.

It was the misfortune of the author, when the scheme of a theological seminary was devised in the convention of 1817, to differ from the majority of both houses, as to the expediency of the measure; and he was supported by the convention of the diocese of Pennsylvania, in proposing to the General Convention a scheme, which would have left to local seminaries the whole concern of theological education. From the time that the contrary sentiment was adopted, he has done what laid in his power, for the carrying of the general wish into effect. It is probable, that time will decide between the two schemes, on the question of preference; bnt as it is a subject of increasing importance, and of increasing frequency of discussion, he will state his reasons, for the preference given by him to the plan which he unsuccessfully proposed.

1st. It has been all along his opinion, and there will be more and more ground for it, in proportion as our ecclesiastical organization shall be operative over the American territory, that the authority and the deliberations of the General Convention should be limited to matters essential to the keeping of us together as one body, and requiring agreement with a view to that end. All enlargement of the jurisdiction endangers controversy, and of course division. In control over a theological seminary, contemplated by the Church at large, as the nursery for her ministry, there is much room for difference of opinion, and for local jealousies. The complexion of the theology taught, in reference to subjects on which there may be considerable diversity of opinion among ourselves, the choice of professors, with accommodation to such difference; the sufficiency of the professors, in their respective branches; and other points which might be mentioned, may be sources of animosity pervading our communion. Even the branch of it from

which a vacant professorship should be filled, may sometimes occasion embarrassment. In the civil concerns of our country, the president of the United States, and the governor of every state, has to consider not merely who is the most proper man to fill a vacant office, but also what district is to be gratified at the time. To suppose that the same circumstance would have no bearing on our religious policy, is more than is warranted by our knowledge of human nature. 2dly. There will be required what would else be unnecessary calls for the assembling of the General Convention. For although there may be trustees, with considerable powers for the management of the seminary, it can hardly happen, but that exigencies will arise, in which they will hesitate to assume the responsibility of acting. It is a great injury to the essential duties of the ministry, to be unnecessarily calling the ministers from their respective spheres of action-setting aside the expense incurred. We esteem it an advantage in our Church, that judicial concerns, conducted in other societies by legislative bodies, are acted on by us in ways which do not require their being brought into assemblies of that description. Why should we surrender the resulting benefit, of there being very seldom need for the call of a special convention? Perhaps in time, and after an extension of territory within our connexion, it may be thought sufficient to assemble statedly once in every five years, instead of triennially, as at present.*

3dly. The jurisdiction over the seminary must be partial and unfair, in respect to the comparative influence of the different sections of our Church. It is not here proposed to lay the chief stress on the inequality of our representation, and its being out of all proportion to our respective population. When our Church was organized, it would have been hopeless to have proposed any other scheme;

*The frequency of ecclesiastical synods and councils, for purposes not touching the essentials of the Christian faith, was one of the causes which produced the domination of the Church of Rome. In the fourth century, such assemblies were multiplied: and often for the determining on questions which were more in the province of metaphysics than in that of religion. What added to the evil, was that the emperors defrayed the expenses of the travelling of the members. At last, the burden of the expense and of the waste of time became too great; and then, controversies were referred to the bishops of the four principal sees; and finally, it became still more convenient to bring all within the vortex of the papacy. This, or endless division, was necessarily the alternative. The former will not happen in our improved state of society, and with experience of the past. But the latter, if there should be very frequent conventions, extending their jurisdiction over concerns which may be left to local determination, will probably proceed endefinitely and without end.