University of Virginia Library

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.