that it has an alliance with schism. But he meant no further, than as regarded chanting and the singing of anthems. Yet to have gratified him, would have been an high exercise of power. To set ecclesiastical authority at work on a subject, which heretofore, in the Church of England and in this Church, and probably in every other, has been left at large; would not forward, but hinder the carrying of more important discipline into effect.

This is not said, without the being aware of the great abuse abounding in the department of psalmody, partly, by leaving the portions to be sung to the choice of clerks destitute of judgment; and partly, by singing tunes either unsuitable to divine worship; or suitable to some of the sacred compositions, yet not to those with which they are unskilfully connected. It was designed to guard against both of these evils, by the rubric prefixed to the Book of Psalms in metre. That provision, if applied, is a sufficient remedy for both. If any thing further should be attempted, in a field open to so great a diversity of taste, it is probable, that no convention would assemble, without projected improvements prepared to be laid before them. The fault of the unnecessary extension of authority, would be felt in changes without end.

In consequence of a canon passed at the convention of 1804, there was drawn up by the House of Bishops, and sent to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, a Pastoral Letter, addressed to the members generally of this Church. It had been understood, that this was a transaction, over which the latter house were to have no control.

Philadelphia was fixed on as the next place of meeting: and, as in the last convention, the business was concluded with prayer by the presiding bishop, in presence of both houses.

POSTSCRIPT.

The consecration which took place in Trinity Church, in the city of New-York, May 29, 1811, soon after the rising of the convention, may be considered as in some sort the unfinished business of it. Accordingly, any important circumstance attending said act, may properly have a place in these statements.

Such a circumstance occurred during the service, and was the consequence of the inadvertence of the author; who, in the imposition of hands on each of the two bishops

elect, omitted the words-"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The officiating bishop was unconscious of the omission; and the first intimation of it to him, was by Bishop Jarvis in the way from church.

Although the author regretted what had happened, yet he had no expectation that any conclusion would be drawn from it, for the impeaching of the validity of the act. Neither would this have happened, if it had not fallen in with the passions which had been excited by the late election in New-York.

Not long after the consecration, it was published to the world, that the supposed act of consecration was essentially defective, because of the want of those solemn words. Lamentations were made concerning the consequences which may ensue, to affect the Episcopal succession through future ages; altogether owing to its invalidating of Bishop Hobart's Episcopal character; for not a word was said in the publications, of its having of the same effect on Bishop. Griswold's; although all the gentlemen who had noticed the omission, testified that it applied to both the cases.

The clamour thus raised, was of course met with the denial, that any precise form of words was essential to such an occasion. But this not producing silence, inquiry was made into the history of the form, as it stands in the ordinal; when it appeared, that the words in question were no part of the form of the Church of England, until the reign of Charles II.; were never in that of the primitive Church; and are not in the Roman pontifical, at this day. So that on the principle of the opposite argument, there is not at this time a Christian bishop in the world.*

Then the objection took a new turn, and was rested on the preface to the ordinal; which requires the consecration to be conducted agreeably to the form in that book. According to this, the accidental omission of a word or two, contained in the book, must invalidate any consecration or ordination in which it may happen. The absurdity being stated as a consequence, the answer was, that in this instance, the omitted words involve an important doctrine of our holy religion. It was replied, that the doctrine appears in many places in the service; and that it is manifestly inconsistent to yield, that the mention of the Trinity during the imposition of hands, is not essential on the mere ground

* See Bishop Sparrow's collection, and De Courayer's Defence of the English Ordinations.

of the importance of the doctrine; to yield further, that necessity is not created by positive institution only; and yet to contend that these united render the words indispensable.

The disposition manifested soon spent itself; owing, as is conceived, to the circumstance, that a few gentlemen of talents, who had interested themselves on the occasion, without having been in the habit of attending to the concerns of the Church, would not commit their characters by joining in a criticism so indefensible.

R. Page 39. Of the Convention in 1814.

Bishop White presided in the House of Bishops, and the Rev. Dr. Croes in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The secretaries of the two houses, were, of the former, the Rev. Jackson Kemper, and of the latter, the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin, assisted by James Milnor, Esq.

The opening sermon was by Bishop Hobart, of New-York. The object at present, as in relation to transactions of former conventions, is principally to bring into view some facts which might otherwise be forgotten, after having had an influence in the determination of the measures adopted.

The ninth canon, which dispenses with certain literary qualifications in some cases, had been misunderstood; and abused to the sustaining of the notion, that the qualification serving for a substitute, is mere fluency of speech; evidently found in some very ignorant men, and even in some whose understandings are naturally weak. It was thought, that a solemn declaration, guarding against the error, might be of

use.

The alteration of the twenty-ninth canon, was occasioned by a difference found in the diocesan constitutions; and by a wish not to interfere therewith, but to leave them to their respective operation. In some states, no minister, not provided with a parish, and no deacon, has a seat or vote in the convention. In others, a contrary provision had been made. What brought the subject into view at this time, was a change which had taken place in Connecticut; the old law, of excluding non-parochial ministers and deacons, having given way to the contrary regulation, much to the dissatisfaction of some of the clergy. The difference did not come under question in the General Convention. But it seemed reasonable in this body, while they avoided in

cluding the two descriptions of persons alluded to, in the provision for the office of institution, not to interfere with the economy of those dioceses wherein they were admitted.

The opinion is here avowed, that the latter course is the most proper, although not alleged to be necessary. Otherwise, the Church may be deprived of the counsel of some of the ablest of her ministers, who are prevented from the acceptance of parishes by allowable causes; for example, the filling of professorships in literary institutions. Besides, there may be aged clergymen, unfit for active service, and yet, not the less competent to the giving of advice. It is a very great injury to religion, what has occasionally happened, and will be especially apt to occur in every large city, that a man in holy orders may find it an eligible place of residence, for enjoyment or for the management of some secular business. His life may be a scandal to the Church: and yet, it would be thought unreasonable to subject him to religious discipline, under a constitution not acknowledging him, as having an interest in it.

What was done in relation to the fortieth canon, was at the instance of the clerical members from Connecticut. The canon provides, that every clergyman shall keep a list of his adult parishioners. In the said state, considerable difficulty was alleged to have arisen, as to what may be called a joint act, in the case of a person baptized in some other communion, but joining his or herself to this Church. In the case supposed, the joint act must have been of the person and of the minister recording his name. Under existing circumstances, it does not appear how the query could have been solved, except in the way suggested by the bishops; that is, by bringing the matter to the test of whatever was considered by both of the parties, as tending to the effect contemplated. It must be confessed, however, that this manifests an imperfect state of discipline. The subject is worthy of the provision of a religious form, with the view of establishing the certainty of the transaction. But to make such a provision consistent, none besides persons of fair characters should be admitted within the pale: others to be allowed as hearers, and even to occupy sittings within a church, but not to have votes in its concerns.

There was nothing further done in relation to the canons, except the making of a slight alteration in the forty-fifth; designed to dispense with the duty of reading, in the General Convention, the reports of the conventions in the different

states.

Perhaps some reason may be required for the delay stil occurring in regard to the review of the Homilies, recognized as they are in the articles. There had been some correspondence on the subject between two of the bishops, the author and Bishop Hobart. But it is involved in more difficulty than would easily be supposed by any person who has not attended to it particularly. That besides verbal alterations, some others are called for, is universally agreed. But to make the latter, without departing from the principle of avoiding the charge, and even of giving plausible ground to any to pretend, that we have deviated, in respect to doctrine, is scarcely to be expected. On this account the author is not sure, that it will not be best to leave the two books as they now stand: being referred to in the articles, as a larger explication of Christian doctrine; without its being understood, that assent to the article implies approbation of every sentiment in the Homilies, or of every series of reasoning whereby any doctrine of them is sustained. At the same time, if any minister incline to read a homily from his pulpit or from his desk, and will take the trouble of clearing it from its obsolete terms and local references, (if there be any) there is nothing to hinder his doing so. In another point of view, however, it appeared of the utmost consequence to take some measure in regard to those very instructive compositions. Their being sanctioned by the thirty-fifth article, which is assented to by all persons admitted to the ministry, renders it absolutely necessary that they should have the means of perusing them, and even of well weighing their contents. This is not always easily to be accomplished. Accordingly, it was judged expedient to encourage a publication of them; with a caution against its being understood, that this Church is concerned in what relates to the civil policy of Great-Britain Under these views of the subject, they have since been printed.

.

For the sense of the House of Bishops, delivered by them on this subject, see Appendix, No. 27.

The measure which appears on the minutes, designed to introduce the posture of standing during the act of singing portions of the psalms and of the hymns in metre, requires to be accounted for. It professes to have been adopted for the avoiding of diversity of custom. But there may be an interesting question, as to the cause of that diversity.

It is evident, that psalms in metre are not known in the rubrics of the Church of England. And yet, it was pro