University of Virginia Library

ARTICLE LXXX.

Recollections of the Episcopal Church in this Country during the
last Fifty Years.

Having thus disposed of the Church of Virginia, I purpose in
the present to record some things in relation to the General Church
which have come under my observation, and in which I have taken
some part. As I introduced the notices of the Virginia Church
with some preliminary remarks on its previous history, so would I
offer a few thoughts as to the earlier history and character of the
American Church generally, before entering on the particular narrative
to which this article is devoted. And, as I was forced by a
regard to historic truth to acknowledge that at no time from its
first establishment was the moral and religious condition of the
Church in Virginia even tolerably good, so am I also, by the same
consideration, obliged to admit much that was defective in relation
to other parts of the American Episcopal Church. More especially
was this the case in regard to Maryland, which bore a strong resemblance
to Virginia in more respects than one. The character
of her early population resembled that of Virginia, in having more
of the aristocracy than was to be found in some other parts of the
English territory in this country. Slavery also was introduced at an
early period, and served to strengthen that feature in her character.
She, like Virginia, was also put under a regular establishment,—
though not at so early a period. She had her Governors and Commissaries,
who acted as substitutes for the Bishop in ecclesiastical
matters. Neither Maryland nor Virginia were under the patronage
of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, as
other portions of America were. The history of those other portions,
by comparison with those of Virginia and Maryland, establishes the
fact beyond contradiction, that the selection of missionaries by that
Society was generally better than the supply coming to Virginia
and Maryland through the Bishop of London, or some other channel.
The reader is referred to Dr. Hawks's faithful and laborious
History of the Church in Maryland for proof of this in relation to
that diocese. I adduce only one testimony besides, and that from
the well-known Dr. Chandler, of our American Church. After a

visit to the Eastern Shore of Maryland, about the year 1753, he
addressed a letter to the Bishop of London, in which, after speaking
in high terms of the laity of that part of the State, he adds, "The
general character of the clergy, I am sorry to say, is wretchedly
bad. It is readily confessed, that there are some in the Province
whose behaviour is unexceptionable and exemplary; but their
number seems to be very small in comparison,—they appearing
here and there, like lights shining in a dark place. It would really,
my lord, make the ears of a sober heathen tingle to hear the stories
that were told me by many serious persons of several clergymen in
the neighbourhood of the parish where I visited; but I still hope that
some abatement may be fairly made on account of the prejudices
of those who related them." My own recollection of statements
made by faithful witnesses forty-five years ago, as to a number of
the old clergy of Maryland, accords with the above. I have but
little knowledge from any source of the few Episcopal clergy north
of Maryland. They were not more than eighty in number when
the War of the Revolution began. As to foreign importation of
clergymen, Bishop White (who was once the only Episcopal minister
in Pennsylvania) justly remarks, "It could not be the channel
of a respectable and permanent supply." Nevertheless, as they
nearly all of them depended chiefly for their support on the aid of
the above-mentioned Society, it is to be believed that pains were
taken to select the best which could be obtained from the English
Church at that time, and to require the best recommendations in
behalf of those who were natives of America. That there were
mistakes none can doubt.[53]

The history of the missionaries of that Society in South Carolina,
as given by one of her sons, (the Rev. Mr. Dalcho,) informs us of
some who, on account of their evil character, were soon complained

of, and either recalled or dismissed from the service. The congregations,
indeed, became very cautious how they received the
missionaries. They delayed institutions, as in Virginia, until satisfied
of their good character by sufficient trial. The Society sometimes
complained that too long a trial was required. Still, I doubt
not that their general character for morals and piety was much
superior to that of the imported clergy of Maryland and Virginia.
But now a most important inquiry must be made, in order to form a
correct estimate of the religion of the Colonial Churches. It is
this:—What was the type of the theology—the substance and style
of the preaching—of the ministers of that day? What doctrines
were insisted on with emphasis from the pulpit? How did the
preaching of that day accord with the doctrines of the apostles and
the reformers on the subject of human depravity, and of Christ
as the sinner's "all in all"? How did the sermons compare with
our homilies on the misery or sinfulness of man, on justification,
on the new birth, &c.? It will surely be admitted to be a fair way
of deciding this question to ascertain what was the theology and
preaching in England during the time when our supply was greatest
from the Mother-Church. The clergy coming over to us must have
borne a strong resemblance in their theology and style of sermonizing,
and in other respects, to the great body of those left behind;
only that we are obliged to admit the probability of what was
so generally declared in all the documents and histories of the
times,—namely, that, with some honourable exceptions, they were
inferior in character. In making this inquiry, we shall not go back
to the few who came out during the reign of James I. We will
pass over those few who came to America in the days of Laud, who,
intent on establishing high Episcopal and Sacramentarian views and
on putting down all dissent, neglected (as some of his own admirers
admit) most shamefully the religious condition of the Colonies.[54]
We pass over also the times of the Commonwealth and of the two
succeeding reigns, and come down to that of William and Mary,—
the time of the greatest influx of ministers to America,—the time
of Tillotson and Burnet, and the formation of the two great societies
for extending the Church,—the Christian Knowledge Society and
the Propagation Society, which began their work within two years
of each other under the direction of kindred spirits,—the one in
1698, the other in 1700. The history of those times shows that
Romanism and Calvinism were equally eschewed. Let the sermons
and tracts of that day be compared with those of the Calvinistic
preaching in the time of Elizabeth and the semi-Romanistic ones
in the days of Laud, and a marked difference will be seen. But
there may also be seen as marked a difference between the sermons
of Tillotson and others of his stamp, and those of the earlier Reformers,
as well as those of a later period, which have been denominated
Evangelical. The age of Tillotson and Burnet may be called
the age of reasoning, of liberalism, of comprehension. Tillotson
and Burnet were great and good and pious men,—practical and
useful men. Their views of the Church, ministry, and Sacraments
were conservative. Their charity was truly Christian. And yet it
must be admitted that they stood at the beginning of a new school,
differing from any going before, and destined soon to degenerate
into something which they did not design. The sermons of Tillotson
are masterpieces of reasoning on all theological subjects,—are a
body of divinity to students; but then they are not addressed to
the hearts and consciences of sinners so as to awaken them to cry,
"What must we do to be saved?" They do not present Christ in
all his fulness to the soul with that earnest application which the
true evangelical preacher does. Burnet also admitted that he
wished to lower the doctrine of the article "On Justification by
Faith" somewhat,—though by no means to make it approach the
Sacramental view, but rather the contrary. The followers of such
men soon began to substitute reasoning, natural religion, and morality
for the Gospel. They did not deny the evangelical system,
but they did not preach it as they ought to have done, and the pulpit,
of course, lost its power. There were but few sermons published
in that day. At any rate, Tillotson's so far exceeded all others in
many respects, that they were the sermons of the Church. In the
Church of Virginia none appear to have been used by the lay readers
but Tillotson's. In many old vestry-books I have met with, a sufficient
number of his sermons were ordered to supply the lay readers;
and there were probably two lay readers to each clergyman in the
diocese. They were indeed better and longer than the brief and
most unimpressive sermons of the clergy, (judging from a number
of the latter which I have read,) but still they are not calculated to
rouse lost sinners to a sense of their condition and lead them to a
Saviour, notwithstanding all that is so excellent in them. Tillotson's
sermons, abridged into moral essays and dry reasonings on
the doctrines of religion, were, I fear, the general type of sermonizing
among the clergy who came over to America for the last
seventy or eighty years before the War of the Revolution.

I fear that many of the publications of the Christian Knowledge
Society were somewhat wanting in that pressing of evangelical
principles upon the hearts and consciences of men in the way that
has been found so effective to their conversion since the days of
Venn, Newton, Simeon, and others. Soon after entering the ministry,
I was desirous to publish a volume of sermons and tracts
for servants, and, being unable to find any such in this country, I
addressed a letter to Mr. Wilberforce, the warm friend of the negro
race, and made known to him my wishes,—not without acknowledging
my indebtedness to his book, under God, for much of that which
I considered a true view of our holy religion. In reply, he sent
me all the tracts of the Christian Knowledge Society,—perhaps all
that then had been published in England for the poor. I confess
I was disappointed in them; not that they had any of that false
doctrine which, at a later period, was surreptitiously introduced into
some of them by altering certain words, but that they did not press
with sufficient force and earnestness certain truths upon the minds
of the poor.

About this time my attention was called to some sermons of the
Rev. Mr. Bacon, a minister of our Church in Maryland, addressed
expressly to masters and servants. They were preached and published
in 1743. Their style is plain and forcible, and all that is
said is well said; but still there is the deficiency of the age in them.
They do not present Christ to men as poor lost sinners, in the way
they ought to do. They recognise the doctrine and declare it in
few words, but do not emphasize and press it. They were the best
I could get, however, and I published them. In an abridgment of

two of them afterward, I sought to supply this deficiency. Let
me add, that I think there may seem this same error in one of the
directions for the conduct and preaching of the first missionaries
of this Society when sent to South Carolina. The directions, with
this one exception, are most wise and pious. Nothing could be
better. The defective passage, as I think, is this:—"That, in instructing
heathens and infidels, they begin with the principles of
natural religion, appealing to their reason and conscience, and
thence proceed to show the necessity of revelation," &c. Now,
this is precisely the method attempted at first by the Moravian
missionaries in the North, and which they found so fruitless, and
therefore abandoned, choosing the more evangelical one with success.[55] (See Dalcho's History of the Episcopal Church in South
Carolina, p. 46.) The fault of the Tillotson school was too much
reasoning,—too much appeal to natural religion, which, though,
like Butler's Analogy, it might be very effective with some for a
certain purpose, could not answer for the multitudes. Had our
Lord preached thus, the common people would not have heard him
gladly. Nor would the wise and mighty have been converted by
the Apostles, if such had been their preaching. In what I have
said of the successors of the Tillotson school, there has been of late
a general agreement of our divines, whether called High or Low
Churchmen, all admitting that the moralizing system will not avail,
though differing much as to other things. I would not be misunderstood
on this subject. I do not deny to Tillotson most admirable
method and valuable matter in his sermons; for I have
read many of them with great pleasure, and not, I hope, without
profit. But I must regard him and his imitators as false models
of preaching, as comparatively ignoring the deep corruption of
human nature, so that God in his good providence saw fit to raise
up not only the Whitefields and Wesleys, who took an erratic course,
but the Venns, the Newtons, and the Simeons in the bosom of the
Church, to preach a simpler and fuller Gospel to the millions of
lost ones in our mother-country. This failing to set forth the
desperate wickedness of the human heart, calling for a Saviour,
a new birth, has, from my first entrance on the ministry, seemed to
me the great defect of our old clergy. I remember to have preached
before one of the oldest, most venerable and eminent of them, on
the text, "The carnal mind is enmity toward God," and in the
sermon to have quoted many of those Scriptures which represent
us as "hating God," "being his enemies in our minds," "being
children of the devil," and having quite grieved him by it. He
said that he did not like such a mode of preaching. It was in vain
that I adduced Scripture as my warrant and example. He did not
like it. And yet I was not wont to speak the doctrine harshly,
but tenderly and in pity.

Having presented this general view of the American Church,
let me proceed to mention some things which will show that I have,
from an early period, had opportunity of forming a correct estimate
of some things occurring within it during the last forty or fifty
years. At the age of seventeen I went to Princeton College. In
going from and returning to Virginia during my collegiate course,
I became a temporary inmate in the hospitable house of Dr. Abercrombie,
the associate minister with Bishop White in the churches
under his care. Several of the sisters of Mrs. Abercrombie, having
lived for a long time in the family of one of my uncles of Virginia
and received much kindness from him, became the means of my
introduction to this very kind and agreeable household. The
daughters were most interesting young women. On Good Friday,
1807, I heard Dr. Abercrombie, who was regarded as one of the
pulpit orators of the day, preach on the Passion of Christ. A
strong impression was made on my mind and memory by his action
in the pulpit, as well as by his language. After describing some
of the sufferings of Christ, he came to the crucifixion, and, erecting
his tall form to the highest point, he stretched out his arms in
a horizontal direction, and, standing motionless for a time, presented
the figure of a cross. I have never entered St. Peter's since,
without having the scene renewed. Nor has the impression made
by the kindness of himself and family ever been effaced. At the
close of my collegiate course, I formed some acquaintance with the
Rev. Dr. Beasley, associate minister with Dr. Hobart in Trinity
Church, New York; and with Dr. Montgomery, of Grace Church,
New York. That acquaintance was increased into considerable
intimacy afterward with Dr. Beasley, while he lived both in Baltimore
and Philadelphia, and with Dr. Montgomery in the latter
place, whom I often saw, for many years, at my home in the family
of old Commodore Dale, that good man and true Christian, who

married Dr. Montgomery's aunt. From these two ministers I
necessarily learned many things about the Church of that day. In
the year 1811, I was ordained, and soon after received from Bishop
Hobart, by the hand of his old college friend, Charles Fenton
Mercer, of Virginia, a large assortment of books, tracts, and pamphlets,
most of them written by himself, on points of controversy
with other denominations, and on some matters of internal trouble
in the diocese of New York, and also some Episcopal devotional
works. I read them all, and remember to have sympathized with
him in his personal difficulties. I admired the ability displayed by
him in his contest with Dr. Mason, and entirely agreed with him
in his argument for the Apostolic origin of Episcopacy, though
unable to follow when he proceeded to claim exclusive divine right
for it. By means of these publications, I became tolerably well
acquainted with the politics of the Church, and under circumstances
quite favourable to an impartial judgment. About six years after
this, (and before I attended any General Convention, though twice
elected, being prevented by unavoidable circumstances,) I went on
a painful errand to the South, bearing to its milder climate a sick
and, as the result proved, a dying wife. During my stay in Charleston,
South Carolina, myself and wife received every kind attention
which brother ministers and Christian ladies could have shown us.
It was during the last year of good Bishop Dehon's life, whose
praise was on every tongue. Dr. Gadsden was then in the laborious
discharge of his duties to bond and free. I saw him in
the place of his greatest honour,—in the Sunday-school, teaching
the coloured ones, both old and young. I preached in several of
the churches in Charleston. In one of them—either St. Philip's or
St. Michael's—I witnessed what surely would have gladdened the
heart of the most prejudiced opponent of slavery. I saw what I
was told were the last fruits of the labours of the old missionaries
of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts,—old
negro men and women with some of their children sitting on benches
along the side-aisles, and around the chancel and near the pulpit,
which was advanced some distance into the middle aisle.[56] Spectacles
aided their aged vision, and, with Prayer-Books in their hands,
they read the responses aloud in the midst of their owners. The
missionaries were not prevented from teaching them to read, but
rather encouraged so to do. Nor have masters and mistresses ever
been prevented from doing it themselves, or having it done at
home; though public schools are forbidden. On the contrary,
there have, I believe, always been more well-instructed and intelligent
coloured persons, bond and free, in Charleston than in
any other city in the Union. I had occasion, two years after this,
to take the gauge and dimensions of the condition of the coloured
people in all the Atlantic States, and think that I am qualified to
judge on the subject.

It was at this time that I became acquainted with Dr. Percy, and
his excellent son-in-law, the Rev. Mr. Campbell, of South Carolina;
both of whom agreed in their views of experimental piety, and that
mode of presenting the Gospel to men for which we are pleading.
Dr. Percy was a bold, impressive, and faithful preacher of the doctrines
of grace. He was one of those who, under the auspices of
Lady Huntington, felt called on to preach an almost-forgotten
Gospel in England, though in a somewhat irregular way. He was
a graduate of Oxford, and was ordained by an English Bishop in
1767. He came over to America as one of Lady Huntington's
preachers. Here he took part with the Revolutionists, and preached
to the American troops. At the fall of Charleston, he was ordered
by Colonel Balfour to desist from preaching, on pain of confinement.
When Lady Huntington in her old age proposed to secede
from the Church of England, and wished Dr. Percy to ordain some
preachers for her, he positively and indignantly refused, and then
connected himself more closely with the Episcopal Church. In
1805, he became assistant minister in St. Philip's and St. Michael's
Churches, Charleston, South Carolina. A few years after this, St.
Paul's Church in that city was built for him. He died in the year
1817. Dr. Gadsden preached his funeral-sermon in St. Philip's
Church, at the request of the Bible Society, of which he had been

President. Although Dr. Percy was honoured by the Church in
Carolina, and was President of the Standing Committee, yet I
could perceive there was a marked difference in his views on some
points and those of the other clergy with whom I associated. His
views are presented in two pamphlets which he published while
officiating in St. Philip's and St. Michael's, and which he presented
to me. One, on the Episcopal Church, sets forth her claims in
such a manner that no sound Churchman could question his attachment
to her, and yet no reasonable Non-Episcopalian complain.
In the other we have a portrait at large of the true evangelical
preacher in life and doctrine. One or two extracts from the latter
of these will serve to confirm my views of the state of the Church
at that time. He says, in his Introduction, "That real religion at
the present period is at the lowest possible ebb, in most of our
Churches, will hardly be denied by any serious and reflecting mind,
who understands what the religion of Christ is, and what Christianity
was intended to do for mankind." He declares that all
great and general declensions of religion, whether in principle or
practice, begin at the Sanctuary or Church of God; and therefore
he calls upon all the clergy to examine themselves, both as to their
lives and preaching, and see whether they are not much in fault.
He quotes Bishop Horsley as condemning the preaching of that
day, saying to his clergy "that too many have continued so long
preaching in the smooth and fashionable strain of dry ethics and
mere moral suasion, instead of preaching the pure doctrines of the
Reformation, that they had wellnigh preached pure Christian
morality out of the world." Dr. Percy speaks very impressively
of the duty of ministers "having their own hearts savingly converted
unto God," as they hoped to be instruments of saving others.
The whole pamphlet is worthy of perusal. I cannot, however,
leave this topic without adverting to and correcting an error into
which many have fallen in tracing the evangelical movement of
the Church of England to the school of Whitefield and Wesley,
with which Dr. Percy was for a time connected. Although God
made much use for good of these zealous and fearless men, as all
acknowledge, yet the great work of evangelical reformation in the
English Church commenced in a different line, and at an earlier
period, at Cambridge and London, and elsewhere, and has ever continued
distinct. We begin our line with the Venns, Newtons, Romaines,
Legh Richmonds, and bring it down through the Simeons,
Cecils, Pratts, Gisbornes, Wilberforces, the Thorntons, Hannah
Mores, and others. These were never associated with the Huntington
school, but ever continued most true and faithful members
of the English Church. There have been those both in England
and in America who have sought to disparage the evangelical cause
by identifying it with those who left the English Church; and many
have been deceived by the misrepresentation. I remember that
Mr. John Randolph could hardly be convinced by me that Mr.
Wilberforce, Mr. Perceval, and Miss Hannah More were not regular
members of the Methodist Church in England. His prejudices were
quite strong against them on this account. In my earlier days
there were many such persons. We in this country also were
esteemed or spoken of little otherwise. By many we were considered
as in no sense Churchmen, but rather intruders into the
ministry of the Episcopal Church, having some sinister end in view.
The wish has been often expressed that such would go to their place,
—that is, to some other denomination with which they sympathized,
—just as some of us have wished that Tractarians would go to their
place, the Church of Rome. Which of us had the better right so
to speak, let history declare. Hundreds of Tractarians have gone
from the Church of England and America to Rome. Who of us
have gone to Geneva? I doubt not but many were very sincere in
their hard thoughts and hard speeches of us; but so was Paul in his
denunciation of Christians. Even Bishop White has been declared
(and it has often and recently been in print) to have denounced us
in very strong and offensive language; which I shall believe when
affirmed on sufficient authority. But if true, it only proves the
justice of our complaint as to the manner in which we have been
dealt with; for if the amiable Bishop White, with his moderate
Church views, could thus speak, what might not others have said?
Bishop Hobart issued a Pastoral entitled "The High-Churchman
Vindicated," in which he not only boasts of the name and principles
of High-Churchmen, predicting that they will one day prevail and
be honoured universally, but makes some comparisons between
them and Low-Churchmen which are not only invidious, but such
as only party feelings (of which we did not profess to be free) could
have induced him to make. I should not have adverted to this,
but that this Pastoral and another on the Principles of a Churchman
have been republished by the Protestant Episcopal Society
of New York, bound up in its volumes, and transmitted to posterity.
In one of them, those who rank the distinctive principles of the
Church, for which he pleads, among the non-essentials of religion,
are declared to be guilty of treachery to their Church and to their
Master. It is well known that Low-Churchmen do not consider
those things in which the Episcopal Church differs from orthodox
denominations as among the essentials of religion, though they do
regard them as important,—some of them very important. Of course
they are among the non-essentials, nothing being essential in religion
but what is necessary to salvation.

I now proceed to show how, in the providence of God, I was
further led into circumstances very favourable to an accurate acquaintance
with the General Church in this country, and to a just
estimate of persons and things on both sides. Having taken an
early and lively interest in the American Colonization Society, and
written something in its behalf, I was induced, in the year 1819, to
devote myself for some time to the formation of auxiliary societies
throughout the United States, the collection of funds, and the selection
of the first colonists. This led me to visit all the principal
towns, from Milledgeville, in Georgia, to Portland, in Maine. As
in duty bound, and by choice led, I invoked the aid of the ministers
of all denominations, and especially of my own, without distinction
of party. For visiting the former I was honoured with a printed
pamphlet by one "Sopater of Berea," addressed to Bishop Moore,
advising him to recall me to Virginia and to my duties at home.
While I received much kindness from ministers of all denominations,
I experienced still more from those of the Episcopal Church.
Let me mention some of them:—The clergy of Savannah, Georgia;
Bishop Bowen and the clergy of Charleston; the Rev. Mr. Lance,
of Georgetown, South Carolina; the Rev. Mr. Bedell, then living
in Fayetteville, North Carolina; Bishop Kemp, Dr. Beasley, and
Dr. Henshaw, of Baltimore; Bishop White, (at whose house I was
kindly entertained for three weeks while engaged in selecting colonists,)
and Drs. Muhlenberg, Boyd, and Montgomery, of Philadelphia;
Drs. Milnor, Lyell, and B. T. Onderdonk, of New York; Dr.
Croswell, of New Haven; Dr. Wainwright, of Hartford; Dr. Crocker,
of Providence; Drs. Eaton and Gardiner,[57] of Boston; Mr. Carlisle,
of Salem; Dr. Morse, of Newburyport; Dr. Burroughs, of Portsmouth,
New Hampshire; and Mr. Tenbroeck, of Portland, in Maine.
One of the most pleasing impressions made on my mind by that
visit, and which I have ever delighted to recall and speak of, resulted
from the uniform hospitality and kindness experienced from
one end of our land to the other. Whenever, since that time, I

have heard any thing like a comparison instituted between different
portions of our country in this respect, I have entered my protest
against it. Circumstances render hospitality more easy to the rich
in the South, by reason of their numerous servants and large estates;
but, according to the means possessed, the hospitality is the same
everywhere. It is, indeed, the most universal good feature in the
character of man. When Mr. Pickering, at Salem, (my father's old
friend and comrade in the Revolution,) cleaned my boots at daylight
in the morning, and at a later period Bishop Griswold, in Boston,
did the same, I felt that no greater hospitality could be shown me
by the richest layman or Bishop of the South. All sectional prejudices
I have ever endeavoured to discourage. Although I am
aware of the advantage of having natives of the soil to be ministers
in Virginia, yet do I always condemn any disposition to object to
worthy ministers, come from whence they may. Virginia has reaped
much advantage from ministers coming from most distant parts.
Taking warning from the unhappy dissensions of other denominations
on one painful subject, may our Church be at peace and prove
one bond of union to the land! In advocating the claims of the
Colonization Society from Northern pulpits, I always commended it
for this, that, however we might differ as to the subject of slavery,
we might all agree touching this mode of benefiting the African
race; and there has been a very general and happy agreement.

It being evident that I must have gained some considerable share
of information concerning the Church from the places thus visited
and the persons seen and conversed with, I proceed to mention a
few things which resulted from this visit.

INTRODUCTION OF MORE HYMNS INTO THE PRAYER-BOOK.

To my surprise, I found that there was a liberty taken in regard
to hymns in public worship to which I had not been accustomed.
Not only were there voluntaries before and after service, with words
chosen by the choir or minister at pleasure, but there were several
hymn-books in use not known to the Church, as, for instance, in
Savannah, Georgia, and in Trinity Church, Boston. I saw also a
few printed hymns for some special occasion at Dr. Moore's Church
in Newburyport, Massachusetts. This struck me very forcibly,
having been from a child accustomed only to those in the Prayer-Book;
nor did it strike me very favourably.[58] I was not aware at

that time that a variety of hymn-books was allowed in the English
Church, and I knew that each denomination in this country deemed
it best to have its own selection. Being conscious, however, that
we were stinted in hymns, whether for public, social, or private use,
and that many psalms were badly versified or unsuited for Christian
worship, I introduced a motion at the General Convention of 1823,
for additional hymns and a revision and selection of the metrical
psalms, and had the honour of being placed at the head of the
Committee of the Lower House. I urged the measure by stating
the diversity which I had witnessed a few years before, and plead
for such an increase of hymns and selection of psalms as would
answer all the purposes of private, social, and public worship. Dr.
Jarvis supported the resolution, and, I think, seconded it, though
maintaining that there was a perfect liberty here, as in England,
to have a variety of selections, as the hymns and psalms formed
no integral part of the Prayer-Book, but were only an appendage,
not subject to rubrics. The joint committee of both Houses, being
appointed, met during the interval between that and the next General
Convention. Dr. Muhlenberg, one of the Committee, selected,
prepared, and published a volume of hymns for the use of the Committee,
many of which were adopted. Dr. Onderdonk, afterward
Bishop of Pennsylvania, also prepared a number of paraphrases of
Scripture, some of which were also introduced into our collection.
Severe strictures having from time to time been passed upon our
work, I beg leave to offer a few remarks upon them. In the first
place, I affirm that none but those who engage in the work of selecting
hymns have any idea of the difficulty of the work. Dr.
Muhlenberg had collected hymn-books from all over England and
America, and brought a large basketful of them to the meeting.
They covered the table around which the Committee sat. I recollect
the remark with which he introduced them,—that he had no idea,
when he undertook the work, what a mass of bad poetry and false
sentiment was to be found in the hymn-books of the different denominations
of England and America, and how difficult it was to
get a good selection. The Committee found it so in the progress
of their examination. The various and strange tastes which sought
to be gratified in the selection formed another difficulty. I remember
that one of the first classical scholars of the Church, and
an excellent divine, proposed a great favourite to the Committee,
expressing a most earnest desire for its admission, and there was
every disposition to gratify him; but the hymn was so entirely unsuitable
that no one could think of adopting it. Another instance
may be mentioned. At this time the delegation from South Carolina
came around to the General Convention by sea, and it was
thought desirable, by one, at least, of their delegation, to have a
hymn suited to their case while on the ocean. Accordingly, one
had been prepared, and was put into my hands. The first line of
it read thus:—

I need not say that it found no support in the Committee, being
even more objectionable than one which may be found in some hymnbooks,
and which it was wished to have in ours, namely, "The Star
of the East." Each partook too much of the character of pagan
worship. The selection which has been made, we think, does not
deserve the criticisms which have been unsparingly passed upon it.
When we read the names of such men as White, Hobart, Professor
Turner, Dr. Muhlenberg, and Mr. Francis Key, as members
of the Committee, we might surely expect something more deserving
of praise than censure. The selection has been highly esteemed
by many good judges. When in England, at the house of Mr.
Bickersteth, who had them, I was pleased to hear him say that it
was either the very best, or among the best, he had ever seen; and
he lived in the midst of hundreds, and had himself selected one for
his own parish. Among the objections made to some of the hymns
of our selection, I have been amused to hear the following,—namely,
that we had altered the poetry of the authors of them. Now, it
happens that one of the rules adopted by the Committee was, to
give the preference to the original when it could be ascertained,
except when there was some very sufficient reason. When a hymn
was proposed, the original was called for. Certain changes complained
of were actual returns to the originals from the versions in
common use, whose compiler had altered them.

As to the desire expressed by some for an increase of hymns, I
confess I cannot feel the force of it, being convinced that a smaller
number frequently used, whether in private or public, is likely to
produce the greater effect. I do not mean to condemn selections
for Sunday-schools, and perhaps for some social meetings, but am
still decidedly in favour of one book of hymns and psalms, as in the
American Church, rather than the unbounded liberty of the English
Church, where so many hundreds, I believe, are in use.

PUBLIC BAPTISM AND PIOUS SPONSORS ADVOCATED.

In my intercourse with many ministers and churches I discovered
that there were very low notions and practices as to the administration
of baptism and the qualification of sponsors, little or no
regard being paid to the rubric, though so express as to the public
performance of it, and sponsors being admitted without any reference
to their pious qualities. My friend, Mr. Francis S. Key, and
myself had often mourned over the profanation of this sacrament
in Virginia and Maryland, where, in its private performance, even
ungodly boys and girls had been sometimes admitted as sponsors.
We were both of us on the Committee on the State of the Church,
and there introduced, after a proper preamble, the following resolution
to be acted on by the House:—"Resolved, That it is the
opinion of this General Convention that the ordinance of baptism
ought, in all possible cases, to be administered in public, and that
when necessity requires it to be administered in private, then the
office for private baptism should be used, and the infant and sponsors
should be afterward required to appear in Church and to conform
to the rubric in that respect, and that the Right Reverend
the Bishops be respectfully requested to call the attention of the
clergy to this subject, and to enjoin upon them a particular care in
requiring proper qualifications in those who are admitted as sponsors."
We were surprised to find ourselves opposed by those who
held the highest views of the efficiency of baptism, and who ought
on that account to have desired to see it most highly honoured in
the performance. After considerable discussion, the following substitute
was adopted:—"The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies,
reverting to the notices of private baptism in some of the preceding
statements, (the report from Virginia called special attention to it,)
respectfully request the House of Bishops to insert in the pastoral
letter, solicited by this House, their opinion and advice on the subject
of the existing custom of administering private baptism without
a great and reasonable cause, and of using in private the public
office; and also on the proper qualification of sponsors." The
difference between our resolution and its substitute is obvious and
great. The resolution expressed a positive and strong opinion on
the part of the clergy and laity that certain evils existed, and ought
to be corrected, requesting the Bishops to warn against them in
their pastoral letter. The substitute expressed no opinion on the
part of the House, but placed it all in the hands of the Bishops,
merely requesting their opinion and advice on the subject. It was

then (for certain reasons) more customary for those in the majority
to throw every thing into the hands of the Bishops, and those who
doubted the propriety of such a course were regarded as wanting
in respect for Bishops, and no Churchmen.[59] As some of us feared,
the opinion of the House of Bishops was not such as we desired.
It was regarded as rather apologizing for than condemning the
violation of rubrics in relation to baptism, though admitting the
duty and importance of public baptism and of pious sponsors. It
is due to Bishop White, the supposed author of the pastoral, to say,
that not very long after this he became satisfied that more decisive
measures ought to be adopted, and gave notice in all the three
churches under his care, that henceforth there should be no more
private baptisms in those churches, except for such cases as the
rubric justified. In speaking to me on the subject soon after this
order, he made this significant remark:—that if the parents had so
little respect for the ordinance that they would not bring their children
to the church, it only proved that the baptism would be of
very little service to them, thereby showing that he regarded the
chief efficacy thereof to depend on the view the parents took of it,
and the use they made of it in the education of their children. One
remark I beg leave to make as to the qualification of sponsors.
Some ministers question their right to interfere as to the qualification
of sponsors, in the absence of a positive statute. Are they
then forbidden to exclude infidels, blasphemers, and most abandoned
persons? If permitted and bound to require proper qualifications
in adults coming to baptism, in candidates desiring Confirmation
and the Communion, does not consistency require that
they avert from the Church the shame of such an abuse of the sacred
office of sponsors as sometimes occurs? The circumstance which
determined my mind more resolutely than ever against private
baptism and improper sponsors was the fact, that not long before
this effort in the General Convention I consented to baptize a child
in private, and during the ceremony discovered, to my deep concern,
that the father, who had the child in his arms, and was acting as
sponsor, was in a state of intoxication. I have during my ministry
found it a comparatively easy task to prevent any but communicants
presenting themselves as sponsors. By preaching on the subject,
and showing its great inconsistency, I have generally prevented
such applications, and when they have been made, I have never
failed to convince the persons thus applying of the impropriety of
the step proposed, by going over with them the baptismal service,
and appealing to their own consciences and judgments. Rarely,
if ever, has it happened that I was unable to receive into the visible
Church any child, where parents desired it, no matter how unsuitable
they were to become sponsors, as there could, by a short delay
and a little trouble, be found some one communicant who would
perform the part. I have on some few occasions acted as sponsor
myself, making of course some changes in the service.

PROPOSED ALTERATION IN THE THIRTY-FIFTH CANON.

Another subject came up in this Convention worthy of some
notice. It was the meaning and design of the thirty-fifth canon,
which relates to the officiating of those not ministers of our Church
in the houses of worship belonging to our communion. On my
visit to Newburyport the preceding year, I spent several days in
the hospitable family of the Rev. Dr. Morse, Episcopal minister in
that place. So far from condemning me for preaching in the pulpits
of other denominations on the subject I had in hand, as "Sopater
of Berea," and perhaps some others, had done, he informed me
that only on the preceding Sabbath he had a most respectable
minister of the Presbyterian denomination in his pulpit, and justified
the act. At the succeeding General Convention, in the year 1820,
to my surprise, he brought forward a proposition to repeal the
thirty-fifth canon, which seemed to forbid what he had done, and
which he also alleged might be construed so as to forbid lay reading
in our churches. His proposition was referred to a committee,
which reported unfavourably. It was nevertheless carried. Being
sent to the House of Bishops for concurrence, it was there negatived.
A committee of conference was proposed and agreed to,
and I was one of the committee. On a meeting of the joint committee,
it was urged, by those who were in favour of its being rescinded,
that our Bishops and ministers, in seeking to build up our
Church in many places where we had no houses of worship, were
often allowed the use of those of other denominations, and it would
be unbecoming in us to seek or accept such favours without being
willing to grant similar ones. The meeting, however, broke up
without any agreement. On that or the following day I dined with
Bishop Hobart at a Mr. Smith's, of Philadelphia, and just before
dinner the Bishop took me aside and read me something which he
thought would satisfy all parties. It is the same which may be
seen on page 58 of the Journal of the Convention of 1820. It is
as follows:—

It will be seen that in the foregoing exposition of the Bishops
there is no exclusive offensive reason assigned for their non-concurrence,
but one which all candid persons must admit to be good,
—which indeed all denominations act upon, according to circumstances.
It is not said that no other ministers but ours have a
right to preach, and that none but ours must enter Episcopal pulpits,
but that, to promote charity, to prevent collision, it is best
that they be opened only to our own, except when justifying causes
exist. That we have suffered at times in the way complained of,
in permitting the too free use of our churches, is a fact too well
known to us in Virginia, as elsewhere. I have on more than one
occasion advised the refusal of our churches, when there was no reasonable
cause for the loan of them. Against the uniting in free and
common churches I have protested from my first entrance on the
ministry, and have on various occasions been instrumental in substituting
Episcopal churches for such. Of course, it is for the
ministers and vestries to apply the reasoning and advice of the
Bishops, and decide when it is proper to open our churches to
others. There is not much cause to fear the excessive hospitality
of our own or other denominations in this respect; for all are so
multiplying houses of worship through the land that there is little
need of it. The jealousy of sects is also a sufficient safeguard
against excess. Let me add, in conclusion, that this was an old
canon of the English Church, adopted, like many others, into our
code. Its title in England, and for many years in our own land,
was, "Concerning the officiating of strangers, &c." It was designed
to prevent strolling impostors from getting into our pulpits,
and therefore their regular credentials were required to be shown
to the vestries and ministers. Had it been originally framed to
prevent all non-Episcopalian ministers from being admitted into
Episcopal pulpits, it would surely have been declared in some plain,
honest way, and the word "strangers" not have been used, for that
would have been most inapplicable to some worthy ministers of
other denominations living in the same town or parish, and well
known. For many years the same title was used in the American
Church. In the Convention of 1808, a committee was appointed
(of which Dr. Hobart was one) to revise the canons. The title of
the old canon, and nothing else, was altered, and perhaps without

discussion or observation. Bishop Hobart was a good expositor of
the design of the change, and of the construction to be put upon it.
It is to be regretted that any alteration took place in the title.
The Church has sustained injury by it in the increased prejudice
produced by the construction put upon it by some too zealous friends
and some too bitter foes,—namely, that the Episcopal Church hereby
denies the right of any other minister to preach the Gospel, which
is inconsistent with the exposition given of it by the House of
Bishops. Without any such canon, all the ministers and trustees
of other denominations guard their churches against intruders, and
lend them out when it is deemed expedient. For various reasons,
ours will always be yet more particular, even without law.

THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

The General Theological Seminary was first established in New
York in the year 1817, then removed to New Haven, as a more
suitable place. Jacob Sherred, of New York, bequeathed a large
sum to a seminary within the State. A question arose as to the
construction of the will. Bishop Hobart maintained that the bequest
properly belonged to New York, and that he had established
a seminary there to inherit and apply it. Others thought somewhat
differently. A General Convention was called in October, 1821, to
settle the question. After much discussion, it was resolved that
the seminary should be restored to New York on certain terms, and
with a new constitution,—placing it, as many thought, too much in
the power of the Bishop and diocese of New York. In Bishop
White's Memoirs of the Episcopal Church in America, the following
account is given of this transaction. Speaking of the committee
to whom the subject was referred, he says, "All the members of
the committee concurred in giving praise to Judge Cameron, of North
Carolina, for the ability and good-temper manifested by him in the
progress of the business; and the same were again displayed by
him when it came before the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies.
However, it did not pass without opposition, which was almost
entirely confined to the clerical and lay gentlemen of Virginia, with
whom it is a favourite idea to establish a theological professorship
in the College of William and Mary." I endorse all that is here
said of Judge Cameron. I knew his venerable father,—one of the
best of our old Virginia clergymen. I think I knew the son well.
I heard him, during the time of his first love, tell what God had
done for his soul, under the ministry of Dr. Bedell, while in North
Carolina. He said, "If I have experienced a change in my soul,

I know that it was done by God's Spirit. That Spirit began the
work, not I." He had no sympathy with certain views of religion,
even then too prevalent. He did not desire the seminary to be
placed at New York. He thought the terms forced upon the Church
were hard; but they were the best that could be obtained, and
the good-temper displayed by him was in submitting to them and
counselling others to do so. I remember his speech well, and
conversed freely with him in private. The question he believed to
be between a General Seminary in New York, under the partial
influence of the whole Church besides, or a Diocesan Seminary in
New York, with Sherred's legacy and all the wealth and power
and numbers of that State,—able to overwhelm a General Seminary
elsewhere without funds. He believed, or at least hoped, that the
evil of the undue influence of New York in the General Seminary,
under the constitution as agreed upon by the committee, would be
chiefly at the beginning, and would be decreasing every year. In
glowing prophetic vision, he saw the Church extending itself over
the land; new dioceses rising up in every part and rapidly filling
themselves with ministers and churches,—sending their funds to
the treasury of the General Seminary, and, on their account, as
well as on account of the ministers, having the right to regulate
the seminary; by which means the power of the General Church
would be increasing, and that of New York proportionally decreasing.
This he said to comfort those of us who feared the overwhelming
influence of New York. I remember well how he applied
the prophetic words of the patriarch Jacob, that "the sceptre should
not depart from Judah until Shiloh come; and unto him should be
the gathering of the nations." I do not say that the scriptural application
was correct, but his meaning was plain. The dioceses
were to be the gathering together of the nations to take the sceptre
from New York in the management of the General Seminary.
Bishop White also intimates that the opposition from Virginia proceeded
from "a favourite idea with us to establish a theological
professorship in William and Mary College." We ought to have
been better acquainted with our views, motives, and reasons than any
one else. We were then struggling on with our effort at Williamsburg,
faint, yet pursuing, with Dr. Keith and one student, and scarce
any funds. We knew not but Virginia might have to depend on some
General Seminary. It was not a selfish attachment to Virginia alone
—a desire for the aggrandizement of ourselves or the destruction
of others—which prompted what we said and did. Not knowing
how soon we might have to rely on a general institution, we wished
it placed under more favourable auspices for the promotion of what
we believed to be sound views of the Gospel and the Church, than
it would be in New York. The writer of these lines recollects his
thoughts, and almost his very words, when he dared to lift up his
voice even in opposition to Judge Cameron. Whether Judge
Cameron, with all his purity of motive and strength of mind and
practical wisdom, was in this instance right, or those so greatly his
inferiors in all respects, let subsequent events and the present controlling
influence of New York in the conduct of the General Seminary
declare. The sceptre has not yet departed from Judah;
Shiloh has not yet come. The gathering together of the nations
(dioceses) has not yet been, and never will be. It was even formally
proposed, some years since, by the Bishop of Western New
York, to give it up entirely into the hands of New York, and let the
several sums contributed from other dioceses be returned to them.

PROPOSAL BY THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS, IN THE YEAR 1826, TO
MAKE SOME CHANGES IN THE SERVICE.

In my second article it was stated that Bishop Hobart acknowledged
that there were some delinquents as to the use of the ante-Communion
service in New York, as well as in Virginia, Maryland,
or elsewhere, and that the discovery of this fact had something to
do with his proposed changes.. I had a few years before—perhaps
at the General Convention, 1823—told him that some of his clergy,
chiefly in Western New York, were not more regular than some
others in the Church. This, at the time, he could not assent to;
but, at the opening of the Convention of 1826, he took me aside
and said that, on inquiry, he had found that I was correct, and
that he meant to propose something which he thought would satisfy
all parties and produce a happy uniformity throughout the Church.
His plan was soon proposed to and adopted by the other Bishops,
and, being sent down to the Lower House, was, after some discussion,
adopted by it, and spread before the Church for rejection or
ratification by the ensuing General Convention. By this proposal,
the Litany might be omitted, except on special occasions.[60] One or
more of the Psalms might be selected and read by the minister in
place of the morning or evening portions. The lesson might be

abridged by the minister, only so that not less than fourteen verses
be retained. The ante-Communion service was to be read on every
Sabbath. A change was to be made in the preface to the Confirmation
service and in one of the prayers of the same. By the latter,
the vexed question of baptismal regeneration was to be settled, and
settled at the lowest point,—namely, that of a mere change of
state or conditional title to salvation,—in opposition to certain
views which the Bishops said were imputed to the Church and injurious
to it. This proposal was unanimously adopted by all the
Bishops present. Bishop Moore, being absent, was much dissatisfied
with it, and, at the next Convention in Virginia, most earnestly
invoked a protest of the diocese against it. But for this appeal and
a tender regard for the feelings of the Bishop, I believe that the
Church in Virginia would, by its silence at least, have consented to
the action of the General Convention,—although none of us were
satisfied with some things in it. I took occasion at another Convention,
where the delegates to the General Convention were directed
to vote against the proposed changes, to declare my continued conviction
that the action of the General Convention had been, on the
whole, calculated to do good, though I meant not to oppose what had
been determined on in the Convention of Virginia. The adoption
of the changes would have effected much of what seems now so
generally desired. Had the change proposed, whereby the meaning
of baptismal regeneration was fixed at its lowest point, been adopted,
there would have been, by anticipation, a protest of the whole Church
against all that flood of error in relation to the effects of baptism
of infants which has been since brought in by the Tractarian heresy.
I would not, however, be understood as endorsing Bishop Hobart's
mode of explaining our baptismal service, as I believe another is
more consistent with the whole tenor of our services, of which the
hypothetical theory, or the judgment of charity, is the way for their
true understanding. The lead which Virginia took in opposition to the
measure was followed by some other Conventions; and, as it failed
to give general satisfaction, Bishop Hobart proposed its withdrawal,
and it was accordingly withdrawn, and the obligation to use the
ante-Communion service on every Sabbath was left to rest on its
former doubtful foundation. The Bishops had indeed expressed
their opinion that it was obligatory, but it was of course only an
opinion, wanting the force of law, as the General Convention had
never adopted it. Nor did the Bishops claim more for it.

THE EPISCOPAL SUNDAY-SCHOOL UNION.

This was established at the General Convention of 1826. Nothing
of its formation appears on the journal, for it was not even
proposed to the House. It was the wish of some to make it an
institution of the Convention, and such a proposition was talked of;
but the whole history of the action of the General Convention was
against it. On more than one occasion, individuals had applied to
the Convention or to the House of Bishops to adopt or recommend
certain Church-books, but were refused on the ground that the
General Convention was formed for other purposes, and that the
precedent would be bad. In that very year,—1826,—the Rev. Mr.
Barlow brought forward a scheme for a Church book-establishment,
and was permitted to occupy many hours in the explanation and
advocacy of it. The following resolution was adopted in regard to
it:—"Resolved, As the opinion of this House, that, without entering
at all into the merits of the plan noticed in the report of the
committee, it is inexpedient to legislate on the subject." On another
occasion an effort was made to form a General Education
Society under the patronage of the General Convention. This also,
after being considered for some time, was postponed, and never
resumed. In truth, the only institutions which have been brought
under the General Convention are the General Seminary and the
Missionary Society; and whether they give any encouragement for
the trial of others, all may judge for themselves. The Episcopal
Sunday-School Union was therefore, as has since been publicly
and formally admitted by itself, a voluntary institution. Several
attempts were made, at different General Conventions, to have it
enrolled and recognised among the general institutions of the
Church; but they failed,—the Convention being reminded that it
was only a voluntary society. The determination of the Church
not to embarrass itself and produce discord, by adopting any such
institution, was further manifested by the failure of an effort made
in 1847 by Bishop Henshaw, who proposed to have a committee
of both Houses to prepare a few catechetical books for the children
of the Church, with a view to uniformity and harmony. It was
opposed by Bishops Delancy, Whittingham, Hopkins, and myself.
After a discussion during a part of several days, the question being
taken, the mover of the resolution was the only one who voted for it.

There was, however, from the time of its formation a general
disposition to encourage the Episcopal Sunday-School Union as a

voluntary society. The American Sunday-School Union and the
American Tract Societies were noble institutions, and furnished
many excellent and suitable works for individuals, families, and
Sunday-schools; but they could not supply certain books setting
forth the peculiarities of the different denominations in connection
with the Gospel. It was therefore desirable that Episcopalians as
well as others should have some organization for supplying such.
It was distinctly understood, at the establishment of ours in 1826,
that it should assume no party character, but be conducted on liberal
comprehensive principles, setting forth only those common truths
about which Episcopalians are agreed,—which platform has been
repeatedly declared since then. Accordingly, the diocese of Virginia,
at the first Convention after its organization, earnestly recommended
it to the patronage of the Episcopalians of the State.
A few months only, however, had elapsed, when some of its publications
contained sentiments very different from what was expected,
and which were calculated to dissatisfy many of us. I immediately
wrote to the chief manager of it,—the present Bishop of Maryland,
—making complaints. In reply, I was assured that the greatest
pains should be taken in the future to avoid giving offence; that
the book most objected to should be withdrawn from circulation;
and that henceforth books favouring both parties in the Church
should be published. I did not question the sincerity of the promise
and intention, but saw the impracticability of the plan proposed.
Thus disappointed, I did not take any particular concern in the
operation of the Society after that. I only saw that from time to
time some things came out which were criticized, and which I could
not approve, though there were many good little books published
for children, chiefly from the pens of pious writers in England. At
length, when Tractarian publications began to multiply in our own
and Mother-Church, the character of the issues of this Society became
more and more tinctured with the false doctrines of that
school. Complaints became so numerous and heavy, that in the
summer of 1846, when a number of Bishops were in New York at
the annual meeting of the General Missionary Society, the Executive
Committee of the Union was convened, and the complaints
stated. An order was then passed that a set of all the books of
the Society should be sent to each Bishop for examination. On
receiving and examining those sent to myself, I found so much to
object to, that the duty was felt to spread the same before the
Church. This was done in an octavo pamphlet of more than sixty
pages. For so doing I received much severe censure from the press
and elsewhere. My charges were pronounced to be false. The
books were declared to be worthy of all praise, and to have no unsound
doctrine in them. The Church was solemnly and repeatedly
called on to sustain it just as it was. Seeing that there was no
promise or hope of amendment, a number of those who believed
that better books and tracts might be procured determined to form
another voluntary Society, in which those who agreed in sentiment
might with more harmony and efficiency benefit the Church by the
press, and resist that torrent of evil which was pouring itself over
our own and Mother-Church. Wherefore a number of Bishops,
clergy, and laity, who met together at the Convention of 1847,
in New York, united in forming what is called the Evangelical
Knowledge Society. For so doing they have been stigmatized by
many of the friends of the other Society as the promoters of division,
schism, and discord, and as slandering that Society, whose publications
were still defended as sound and useful. God has nevertheless
been pleased to bless our efforts and to extend the sphere of
our operations beyond our first hopes. Under these circumstances,
at the last General Convention, a most unexpected and extraordinary
call was made upon us to cease from our work and unite with
the elder Society under a somewhat new organization, which disavowed
all former claims by its friends of being other than a voluntary
society, and made fresh pledges of the avoidance of all which
could offend any sincere and pious Episcopalian. Had the regular
officers and members of this Society, after due consideration, formally
proposed to those of the Evangelical Knowledge Society a
conference for the purpose of inquiring whether there might not be
a union of effort on some liberal basis, and, having agreed on the
same, called upon the Church generally to sustain such a union,
there would have been something worthy the name of compromise,
though I do not believe such union practicable or likely to satisfy
long. Or had the managers of the elder Society been content to
discard such of their books as were at length found to be unworthy,
and made, even on the ground of expediency, certain changes in
others, and resolved on the most comprehensive and conciliatory
mode of action for the future, and left the other Society to do its
own work in its own way, there would have been nothing to complain
of. All must have desired to see the work of reformation go
on. But instead of this, as though it were the only Society having
a right to exist, having resolved on certain changes and certain
promises, and forgetful of past failures, it calls upon all the clergy
and congregations of the Church to rally around its banner, and it
only, under pain of being regarded as wanting in true attachment
to the Church and devoid of Christian charity. If such is not the
position which the old Society (under an altered name) has assumed
toward the Evangelical Knowledge Society, consisting of a large
number of Bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church, I have mistaken
the movement. So have I understood the language of its managers,
its committees, and its active friends, as spoken throughout the land.
As to the probability of success in making it answer all the wants
of the whole Church, it is not in place to discuss the question. It
is sufficient to say that the Evangelical Knowledge Society has seen
no cause to relinquish its work. That work is not the division of
the Church, (as has been falsely charged upon it,) either as designed
or as the natural or probable consequence. On the contrary, the
best method of preventing division is to allow a reasonable liberty
of thought and action. By attempting hermetically to seal the
minds and lips of men, there may be a swelling and an explosion.
In our Mother-Church, different societies, having the same great
object in view, but using somewhat different means, are not considered
as interfering with the unity and welfare of the Church.
Many there are, among both clergy and laity, who actively co-operate
with different societies. I sincerely hope that both of our
Societies may be worthy of such general patronage.

THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE CHURCH.

Our Church was too tardy in this noble enterprise, especially as
to the foreign department. The first impulse given to us was the
tender of some pecuniary help from the Church Missionary Society
of our mother-country, if we would enter upon the work. The
missionary character and tendency of the Colonization Society did
much to excite our Church to action. The plea for Africa was a
pathetic one, addressing itself to all hearts. But it was not heard
at once by all. Even after our first efforts in behalf of that unhappy
land, I heard an old and respectable clergyman of our Church,
preaching at one of our General Conventions, designate the foreign
missionary effort as a wild crusade, and another of high standing
express the opinion that the foreign missionary work was for other
denominations, and the domestic for Episcopalians. In three years
after, however, I heard the latter plead zealously for the foreign
missionary cause. An effort for preparing coloured missionaries
for Africa was made at Hartford under the patronage of Bishop
Brownell and Dr. Wainwright, but, from various causes, it proved
of but little avail. The efforts of our Virginia Seminary commenced

with preparing Mr. and Mrs. Hill for the Greek mission, and have
ever since been successfully continued. The missionary work went
on gradually increasing on its first platform until the year 1835.
Some of its friends then thought that its labours and funds might
more rapidly increase if some changes in its organization were
effected. It was proposed to place it more entirely under the
patronage and direction of the General Convention; to constitute
the whole Church, consisting of every baptized person and child, the
Society; to declare the whole world to be but one field, forbidding
the distinction of foreign and domestic, or so arranging it that no
dissensions should arise in the management of them. I was not at
the opening of this General Convention, being detained several
days in Virginia. All things were agreed upon before my arrival
between some of those who, from their location and other circumstances,
took a more active part in the conduct of the Society. On
reaching Philadelphia, a number of those brethren whose lead I was
always ready to follow in regard to such matters, and some of whom
are yet alive, informed me that a most happy agreement had taken
place among the active friends of missions, that all party distinctions
were to be done away, and that, in proof of the liberal feeling toward
those of our way of thinking—that one Bishop should be chosen for
China and two for the domestic field—one of the latter, together
with the former, should be such as we would designate. Of course
this was very acceptable to one who had never professed to be indifferent
to the distinctions which prevailed in the Church. It
seemed to promise well. On conversing with that wise and good
man, Bishop Griswold, I found that he was not at all carried away
with the new plan; that he would rather it should assume more
than less of the voluntary system, referring to the two successful
Societies in England,—the Church Missionary Society and the Society
for Propagating the Gospel,—which had always acted on the
voluntary principle. When the proposed changes came before the
whole Society for discussion, there was, I thought, a disposition on
the part of some to underrate the character and success of the old
organization, and I took the liberty to object to such strictures,
and to refer to what it had done, and especially to the great increase
of its funds for the last year or two, at the same time declaring my
intention to act with those who understood the operation of the
Society better than myself. All things were settled on the new
platform, and some of us continued until the last night of the Convention
under the pleasing expectation of having two missionary
Bishops of our own choice; but it so happened that two of the other
side were chosen for the domestic field, and the election of one for
the foreign field was indefinitely postponed. This, among other
things, may help to account for the fact that some of us are rather
fearful of what are called compromises.

Though thus disappointed, we determined to support the new
organization. In many addresses throughout Virginia, I advocated
the peculiarities of it,—even as though it had commended itself
entirely to my own choice and judgment. The Society under the
new organization has certainly not succeeded as well as was expected
by some. An impulse was given to it by the first extraordinary
efforts made in its behalf, and its funds increased for a time; but, as
they were already on the increase, it is impossible to say whether,
with the same exertions, the increase under the old system might
not have been even greater. Certain it is, that the annual increase
soon began to decline, and that the advocates for the new arrangement
were disappointed. The friends of missions have long mourned
the want of zeal and liberality of the Church toward them. The
domestic department especially has languished. The Constantinople
mission dragged heavily for some years, then stopped altogether
for want of men, means, and success. The Greek mission,
being in a measure self-supporting, has sustained itself well. Those
of China and Africa alone seemed to draw forth missionaries and
support, and even these have done it in a degree most disproportioned
to the importance of the object and the wealth of the Church.
At the last General Convention, the causes of failure were inquired
into, especially with a view to some change in the management of
the domestic department, which was in a very languishing condition.
A night was appointed for the consideration of the subject. Through
some mistake on my part as to the place of meeting, I was not
present. I had intended, if present and opportunity offered, to
have stated my own candid convictions as to the main causes of the
deficiencies complained of. I should have referred to the notorious
fact, that the domestic department was unpopular with a large portion
of those entitled Low-Churchmen, whose funds were given reluctantly,
while many on the other side were far from being liberal to
either department. I heard it said by at least two of the Bishops,
ranging on the other side, that it would be necessary to place both
departments in the hands of Low-Churchmen, in order to draw forth
funds from the people. That confidence was wanting in the other
portion was evident from the fact, that a voluntary society had been
formed in Philadelphia for the disposal of its funds on such missionaries
as it might select. The committee of the General Society was

also changed, and some of well-known Low-Church views were put
on it, in the hope of inspiring confidence and raising funds. Some
effect has certainly been produced by this measure, though, unless
other causes of failure be removed, the effect may be only temporary.
Had a similar course been pursued in the election of Missionary
Bishops at the reorganization in 1835, according to the supposed
understanding of some, and as was most reasonable, that liberal
policy might have attached a larger number of one portion of the
Church to it, have received more funds, and have had some effect as
to the kind of missionaries employed. But, in connection with this,
there had been other causes in operation. I had never been disposed
to ascribe to the domestic committee a desire or willingness
to send unsuitable persons or men of extravagant views to the
domestic field, in preference to others. It was not their province,
indeed, to select where there were Bishops. The Bishops received
certain sums of money, and nominated the missionaries on whom it
was to be expended. The committee must, indeed, approve; but
all must see that when a Bishop makes his selection the committee
can scarce object, except in some most notorious case. Whatever
be the cause, the fact is not to be questioned, that the reputation
of the Society has suffered from the reported character of many of
her missionaries. Their very reports, in the "Spirit of Missions,"
were often very unsatisfactory on several accounts. To hearts
imbued with evangelic feeling there was nothing to interest,—
the mere externals of religion being dwelt upon, and even those
not prospering. Their evil report came back to the Eastern
States through various channels. Although there were doubtless
a considerable number of worthy men among them, yet I have
from time to time met with clergymen and laymen who were to
be relied on, who, from their own observation, have declared that, as
to very many of them, we must have different men and of different
views in the Western field, or our Church could never prosper.
From Virginia many individuals and families have gone to various
parts of the West, and from these, through their friends and relatives
at home, I have heard much that was unfavourable. The great
want of the Church, therefore, is not merely more missionaries, but
more of the best kind,—evangelists in the truest sense of the
word,—men of sense to eschew all follies and novelties, and men of
self-denial and toil and with as much experience as possible. For
such men must the Church pray and labour as she hopes for success.
Many have withheld their funds from this Society, because not
knowing unto whose support they might be given, and what false
views of the Gospel and the Church they might be made to promote.
I confess that such has been my case for many years. At first, and
for some time, I gave my annual contributions to domestic missions,
hoping the best; but such were the accounts received in various
ways, and such the most unsatisfactory reports of some of the
missionaries, that I could not continue them with a good conscience.

Still, I avoided all public declaration of my difficulties, and never
attempted to interfere with the conduct of others in regard to it.
Though hoping that the time would come when, under favourable
auspices, some voluntary society might by general consent be
formed, I have hitherto discouraged all suggestions or proposals,
either public or private, which looked toward a new society antagonistic
to that already established. In the Episcopal Missionary
Society for the West, established a few years since in Philadelphia,
I was pleased to see an organization which, while paying all due
respect to the General Society, came as near as circumstances would
allow to such an institution as will afford a channel for the conveyance
of funds to those missionaries, and those only, who are believed
by the donors to be calculated to disseminate the true doctrines
of the Gospel and the Church. While it continues to fulfil the end
and design of its formation, I shall gladly contribute to its support.
I shall also rejoice to know that, by the blessing of God in turning
the hearts of many right-minded and zealous young men to the
ministry, our General Society may have such numbers of suitable
ones at its command that no just cause for complaint may hereafter
arise.

THE MEMORIAL AND COMMISSION OF BISHOPS.

At the last General Convention, a memorial from sundry presbyters,
of all shades of opinion and from various parts of our land,
on the subject of bettering the condition and extending the operations
of the Church, was sent into the House of Bishops, which,
together with the action thereon, has excited so much attention
and called forth so much discussion that it deserves some notice in
connection with the topics referred to in this article. As some of
my brother-Bishops have, in addresses to their Conventions, declared
their sentiments in relation to it, and Conventions also have
had it under consideration, I shall be excused for a brief expression
of my own views, especially as they have been misunderstood. Most
suddenly and unexpectedly was this document introduced into the
House of Bishops. I had never heard of it until it was read to the
House. There were passages in it which seemed either unintelligible,

or most likely to be misunderstood to the injury of the cause
sought to be promoted by it. I asked for a second reading of it,
but my difficulties were not removed. I asked for an explanation
of the difficult passages, but none could be given. I suggested a
reference of the paper to its authors and signers for explanation or
modification, as I foresaw and predicted that such would be called
for, and the Bishops expected to give an account of themselves if
they accepted it and complied with its prayer. Not seeing my
way clear in favour of the motion, after speaking freely concerning
it, sometimes playfully, sometimes seriously, I united with a
few others in voting against its being submitted to a commission.
That I was not wrong in my apprehension as to the construction
which might be put on some very undefined and latitudinarian expressions
in the memorial, has been proved by the views since
presented in an exposition of the same by the chief mover of it.
Notwithstanding all the excellent things in that exposition, I have
no hesitation in saying, as to its main feature, that, had such been
the understanding of the plan, the Bishops would not have committed
themselves to the consideration of the memorial without some
modification of its language. Although voting against it, and
wondering much at some things said in its behalf, I have never
questioned the sincerity and purity of the motives of those presenting
it or of those encouraging it, and have ever taken pains to
declare my belief that no evil, and some good, would result from the
movement. In proof of my favourable disposition toward it, when
the questions of the commission, addressed to all the Bishops and
clergy, came out, I made a response and offered some suggestions.
I did not dream that the communication would ever see the light;
but, inasmuch as some of my brethren in the Episcopacy have presented
their views to the public, I here subjoin my own brief and
imperfect one. I may also add, that the favourable notice of
the memorial and commission by the last Virginia Convention met
my entire approbation,—having been previously consulted on the
subject.

It will be perceived that in the above nothing like a complete
scheme was attempted. That was not even thought of. I only
offered a few unconnected suggestions for those who were appointed
to draw up some regular plan for the consideration of the Church.
As to the substance of them, they are less in amount than the
changes proposed by the Bishops in 1826, and therefore, as an
individual, I may shelter myself behind them from any charge of
presumption or desire of change. I voted for those proposed by
the Bishops and House of Delegates in 1826, believing it to be
better to settle by law any thing which might be regarded as a serious
departure from the order of our service, rather than leave it
to individual discretion, though always maintaining that, as to
smaller matters, there must ever be room left for the exercise of a
sound discretion, and that even as to greater ones occasions must
arise justifying a departure from them, on the principle that God
loves mercy more than sacrifice, and that laws were made for men
and not men for laws. I believe that some wholesome change may
be made in the arrangements of the services, which, so far from
interfering with their original use and design, will be conformable
with the same. I trust that in a wise and conservative spirit such
arrangements will be made. It was not for the purpose of encouraging
an unlimited license in the use of the service that I opposed
the Commission, nor do I believe that it is for such a purpose that
some still contend against it, as has been sometimes intimated. I
believe that there is now a disposition on the part of many who
have hitherto been most strenuous for rubrical exactness and
lengthened services to make more changes and relaxations than I
ever practised, countenanced, or now desire. The omission of the
ante-Communion service, except on Communion-days, was in truth
almost all that distinguished some who were deemed irregular from
the most strictly rubrical according to their understanding of rubrics.
I am, however, willing for other arrangements more in accordance

with the original plan and use of our varied services. In relation
to the suggestion in my letter as to the omission of certain parts
of our baptismal service after the rite is performed, I do not know
that any others have made the same to the Committee, but I know
full well that there are many, and they not of one party only, who
feel the desirableness of it. It ought to be much less objectionable
than that of Bishop Hobart, which was agreed to by the whole
House of Bishops and by a large majority of the other House in
the year 1826. That proposed to repudiate all high views of baptismal
regeneration, as doing injustice and injury to the Church,
and to establish the lowest theory—namely, a mere change of state
and conditional title to salvation—as the doctrine of the Church.
This only proposes to omit the use of certain parts following after
the baptism, and not at all essential to its completeness, and about
whose meaning there ever have been disputes in the Church, from
the times of the fathers to the present moment, and will be perhaps
to the end of the world. It leaves every one to form his own
opinion as to the efficiency of the rite, drawing it of course from
Scripture,—the only authoritative source, if, indeed, he believes
that Scripture speaks on the subject,—or else to be content to remain
in ignorance and only perform the duties enjoined by the
ordinance. It only forbears to define and to render thanks for
something of which we can have no certain knowledge. It will
leave the service a purely devotional and scriptural one, to which
none can object, which will not perplex or distress the consciences
of either parents, sponsors, congregation, or minister, and will relieve
the Church from much misunderstanding and censure on the
part of many who hear it. I am well aware that in some of the
confessions of other Reformed Churches there may be found expressions
of the same kind, which of course are liable to a similar
objection; but there is this difference, that in their case the expressions
are locked up in books that are seldom seen. They are
not used in the public administration of baptism; not put in the
form of positive thanksgivings for a spiritual regeneration certainly
received at a given moment and through a certain act, and are
therefore not the occasion of such unhappy disputation. It is the
great shame and reproach of Christendom that so much strife and
bitterness have ever been about those things which lie beyond the
reach and above the range of the human mind, and that the clergy
especially should be the most curious and anxious to be wise above
what is written and should puzzle their poor people with such
questions. The disputes about the Divine decrees and the effects
of baptism on the condition and the souls of unconscious infants
are of this kind. How numerous and how contradictory and extravagant
the theories as to the latter! How intolerant the feelings
and speeches and conduct of some toward those who differ from
them! Is it not time that these should cease? Could there be a
better way of beginning it than by cutting off the continually-recurring
occasions of bringing it before the minds and consciences
of men? The Church has adopted this plan in relation to a clause
in the Apostles' Creed and in the service for the ordination of
priests, and has left some other things optional with the minister.
Might not the same method be adopted with happy effect in relation
to the interminable dispute about baptismal regeneration? None
of the various expositions would then be either affirmed or condemned
in the service. I am persuaded that though there always
might be differences,—great differences, requiring to be discussed,
false doctrines concerning it requiring to be exposed,—yet the
omission of any thing like defining or seeming to render thanks
for an effect certainly produced would greatly diminish controversy
and be a solemn testimony on the part of the Church against the
attempt to be wise above what is written. I confess I shall have
little confidence in the existence or strength of a spirit of compromise
in the Church for the sake of unity and peace, if there be not
a willingness merely to omit a few words, about whose meaning
there are such various opinions, and which no one can hold to be
essential to the ordinance. To be baptized with water in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is commanded and required.
That the word should accompany it, and prayer be offered up for
God's blessing, is manifestly proper; but that we should undertake
to define the effect produced, and render thanks for it, is nowhere
enjoined. The addition is the work of man, and has been a great
unhappiness to the Church. Should any be disposed to think or
say that some of us are desirous to dispose of some words in the
service which interfere with our views of regeneration, I can most
conscientiously say that such is not my case. As I understand the
service, and believe it ought to be understood, after having examined
all that has been written on the subject, it expresses my own
convictions on the subject of baptism; but there are peculiarities
and difficulties in the mode of presenting the subject, and in the
terms used, which require continual explanations and defences, that
perplex and injure the cause. It is therefore maintained that the
omission of these words, which are the causes of almost all the controversy,
would promote the peace and welfare of the Church; which
words, it is again affirmed, are not at all necessary to the right
performance of baptism. It is complete without them.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

If I may be allowed to express an opinion as to the present state
and prospects of our Church, I should say that some are now as
much disposed to undervalue her efficacy for good, even without the
proposed changes, as many were formerly to overrate it. Very
soon after my entrance on the ministry, I read a sermon by one of
our most distinguished Bishops on those words of the Psalmist,—
"Walk about Zion; mark well her bulwarks; consider her palaces,"
&c. They were applied to our Church in this country, and her
praises highly spoken. It was confidently affirmed that she must
greatly prevail over others by reason of her divine organization
and many excellencies. The same glorious things were continually
spoken of her by such as claimed to be her true sons; and those who
did not firmly believe that she must outstrip, or perhaps overwhelm,
all others, were considered as wanting faith in the promises of God
to his Church, and a hearty zeal in her behalf. Just at this time I
met with a sermon, on the same text and in the very same style, by
one of the oldest and most respectable Baptist ministers in Virginia,
showing that the Baptist Church was so clearly the true Apostolic
Church—of course after God's own heart—that it must carry every
thing before it; that the signs of the times could not be mistaken.
Shortly after this I went to the West, and heard of an eminent
Presbyterian minister who was preaching from place to place a sermon,
or series of sermons, if not from the same text, yet on the
same subject, in which he declared his firm conviction that his Church
was, as to her constitution, doctrine, and discipline, so scriptural
and so suited to the genius of our government that in twenty years
the whole land would embrace it. At this time also a favourite song
with many Methodists was,—

Doubtless all these were most sincere in their belief that what
they earnestly desired would surely come to pass. Forty years
have since elapsed, and no one of them has taken the place of the
other. On the contrary, all of them have, by God's blessing, done
much good on the different theatres assigned them, are still doing
good, and will do more good. Moreover, they have sustained very

much the same relation to each other as to numbers and success.
All of them have had their trials, their declensions, their reverses,
which should make them humble, and cause them to refrain from
taunts and reproaches, rather remembering the admonition that

I believe that there are very few now to be found who would venture
the prophecy that their own denomination must soon swallow up
all others. Our own Church has not been favoured with the same
abundant opportunities of preaching the Gospel to the poor, (except
on Southern plantations,) while she has enjoyed greater opportunities
of presenting it with acceptableness to the wealthy and educated.
Nor have her evangelical Liturgy and the faithful preaching of
many of her ministers been unblessed in the behalf of such. Sadly
has she been afflicted for the last fifteen years with the hankerings
of some of her ministers and people after Rome. Their apostasy
has indeed been most mortifying, and is well calculated to punish
her for much vain boasting, and to lead to a more chastened estimate
of her character and mission. She has certainly lost much in the
confidence of the community, and given to her enemies, both in
the Church and the world, occasion for increased opposition and
condemnation. It is needless to close our eyes on this most notorious
fact. It will be wisdom, honesty, and good policy to acknowledge
it freely. Sins must be confessed as well as forsaken, in
order to be fully forgiven and their evil consequences prevented.

We must also adopt the most effectual means for recovering what
has been lost. It is most encouraging to know that all of God's
favour has not been lost. On the contrary, never has the Gospel
been more faithfully and earnestly preached by greater numbers of
our ministers in England and America than during our recent fiery
trial. Though the enemy came in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord,
speaking from thousands of pulpits, has lifted up the standard of
truth against him. The heretical movement has been arrested, and
now stands, covered with shame and confusion, seeking to find out
some object on which to lay the blame of its own mischievous proceedings.

Together with many who are guiltless of the evil sought to be
removed, some of those who have contributed to it are now proposing
certain changes in the mode of the Church's worship, in
order to regain what is lost and press forward in the duty assigned
us by God. It is believed that an abridgment of the usual worship,
[OMITTED] a partial separation of services once distinct, will remove one

stumbling-block out of the way of the Church's popularity, and I
hope that it may be found practicable to do so. But whether the
service be longer or shorter, if ministers preach the Gospel faithfully
and perform all other duties piously and zealously, great will
be the effect. Numbers will be added to the Lord of such as shall
be saved. Too many instances of a true conversion and most exalted
piety are to be found in our own and Mother-Church to allow
of a doubt on this point. The great want of the Church is more
pious and zealous ministers, who understand and preach the Gospel.
Let them be sons of the Church,—not converts, except they be
young,—not proselytes from other ministries. It is not reasonable
to expect many useful and acceptable ones from the pulpits of other
denominations. All experience is against it. If respectable, influential,
and happy in the places of their birth, training, and ministry,
it will not often happen that either conscience, choice, or
judgment will induce them to leave their old associations. Most
honourable exceptions there are. I have known such,—have laid
my hands on such, and highly esteem them. But, at the same time,
I have ever made it my boast, that if in any thing I have done good
service to the Church, it has been in dissuading from our ministry
those who would have gladly entered it, but who, like too many
others, might have done us evil instead of good,—might either have
been drones in our hive, or else have taken our ministry on the way
to Rome. When I have heard it boasted that hundreds have left
other ministries, drawn by the superior and exclusive claims of
ours, and have known who and what too many of these were, I have
mourned over the fact instead of rejoicing at it, and regarded it as
the judgment of Heaven upon us for urging, to an extreme which
neither Scripture nor our Protestant fathers nor our standards
justify, the exclusive claims of the Episcopal ordination. At the
same time, when I have heard some of other denominations declare
that none but the unworthy ever leave them, I could not forbear
the hint that there must be something most defective in the training
of their ministers, when they have so many unworthy ones to spare.

The great complaint of those who desire some change is, that
our Church does not, as at present administered, operate on the
masses,—especially that we have so few of the very poor in our
congregations, although some have laboured very faithfully to this
end. It ought certainly to be regarded as a great unhappiness and
defect to be without a due admixture of such. Ministers ought to
covet the poor for their congregations, and seek them by all proper
means. They should do it for their own sakes, and for that of the

rich of their flock, as well as for the benefit of the poor. The presence
of the poor will help them to preach the Gospel in a plainer
and more effective way,—will exercise all their ministerial graces,—
will call forth the alms of their parishioners the more abundantly.
Our services, rightly understood and used, are admirably adapted
to the poor and ignorant. It is deeply to be lamented that so much
prejudice exists in the minds of the great mass of the American
people against our Church and her peculiarities, so that thus far but
little success has attended even the most zealous efforts of some who
have devoted themselves to the work. Various circumstances connected
with our political and religious history have contributed to
this. With all the republicanism of our country, there is as much
of social and religious prejudice, caste, and division among us as
in any nation of Christendom, although it differs considerably in
some of its modes. Political and religious demagogues are continually
fostering it in order to promote their ends. Religious
associations are hard to be broken. "Can a people forsake their
gods?" may be asked now in relation to the religious sects of our
country, as formerly concerning the sects in pagan lands. Two or
three denominations among us have absorbed almost all of the
poorer classes, and claim them as their birthright. To induce even
a few of such to unite with us is attended with great difficulty, for
against no denomination of Christians are their prejudices so strong
as against our own. Still, let us endeavour to allure as many as
possible of the more neglected ones into our fold, and tend them
well. If any modifications of our system can adapt it the better
for this purpose, most assuredly let it be done. In ordaining men
for the purpose, however, let us beware of lowering our standard
too much. Our Lord and the Apostles, who preached so well to the
poor, were filled with all knowledge by the Spirit. All other denominations
are raising their standard of ministerial qualification.
Some expressions have been used among us which have excited fears
that we were about to err in this respect. I have no such fears
myself. At any rate, I am confident that a few mistakes in ordaining
ignorant and unsuitable men would soon correct the error.

I have thus in a most imperfect manner completed my recollection
of such things in the diocese of Virginia and in the General Church
as seemed most worthy of being recorded. I had thought, in view

of death, to leave behind me some such notices; but it may be
better to have been surprised into this earlier statement, so that if
I have fallen into any mistakes I may have the opportunity of correcting
them, as I should be grieved to misrepresent even in the
slightest degree the Church of my affections, or any member
of it.